Red-flag laws can be more effective

So many warning signs were dismissed by law enforcement and others ahead of the mass shooting at the Fourth of July parade in Highland Park, Ill. The gunman was able to legally purchase a military-style rifle and four other firearms after attempting suicide, threatening his family and declaring he wanted to “kill everyone.”

Some may see this as a failure of Illinois’s red-flag law, which allows courts to issue extreme risk protection orders that temporarily bar access to firearms from those who are at high risk of harming themselves or others. But as a firearm violence researcher, I see it somewhat differently: This was a failure of implementation, not of the law itself.

This is a particularly important distinction, given that Congress recently allocated $750 million for states to develop and implement red-flag laws. Nineteen states and D.C. already have enacted these laws. The success of newly adopting states will largely depend on learning from these early experiences.

Let me first make something clear: There is compelling evidence that red-flag laws can help prevent mass shootings. My research in California found 58 cases over three years in which extreme-risk protection orders were used in response to a mass shooting threat. None of these threats were subsequently carried out.

Another study of red-flag laws (on which I am a co-investigator) found more than 600 people who made mass shooting threats and were temporarily disarmed by extreme-risk protection orders across six states from 2013-20. Many of these had the potential to be another Highland Park. But they weren’t. No doubt this is at least partly due to the fact these individuals lost access to the firearms with which they would have carried out their attacks.

Importantly, red-flag laws can help reduce firearm violence beyond mass shootings. They are primarily used in response to threats of self-harm or interpersonal violence. This “everyday” violence constitutes 99 percent of firearm deaths each year. We have strong evidence that ERPOs are preventive of firearm suicide, with an estimated one suicide prevented for every 10 to 20 orders removing firearms.

As we saw in Highland Park, having a red-flag law on the books is not good enough. The most common barrier to red-flag use appears to be awareness. People simply don’t know about these laws, including those responsible for their implementation, such as police officers and civil court judges. As a result, in my state of California, fewer than 100 orders were issued in each of the first two years the law was in effect. Without a doubt, deaths occurred in those years — not just from mass shootings, but also from suicides, domestic violence and workplace violence — that could have been prevented had the law been used.

Robust implementation also depends on the early delineation of roles and responsibilities, the creation of clear procedures and the training of law enforcement and civil court judges. It also helps immensely to have a local champion of the law who can promote its use and jump-start implementation efforts. These steps may seem obvious, but state after state have faced the same problems as they try to implement red-flag laws of their own.

Such laws vary across states with regard to who is allowed to petition for an order and how long the orders remain in place. It’s too early to know whether these variations impact their effectiveness. But to promote equitable implementation, a more expansive range of people should be permitted to petition — including family members, co-workers and school personnel — since not everyone will be comfortable involving law enforcement. Legal assistance should also be provided to petitioners and respondents, and orders should be co-served by law enforcement and a social worker, to connect those at risk with needed resources.

Even with perfect implementation, red-flag laws can’t eradicate firearm violence alone. They will work best in conjunction with other laws that prevent high-risk individuals from obtaining firearms, such as waiting periods, firearm licensing laws and universal background checks.

Take a case from California: A man who was fired purchased a shotgun shortly after threatening to gun down his former co-workers. California has a waiting period, so he couldn’t pick up his new firearm for 10 days. Meanwhile, a concerned citizen reported the threat to law enforcement, and eight days into the waiting period, an extremerisk protection order stopped the transaction. In this case, the waiting period and the red-flag law worked together to prevent the shooting. Likely, neither would have been successful alone.

One of the best things about red-flag laws is that they empower individuals to help prevent firearm violence. Imagine your loved one — a sibling, spouse, child — telling you they’ve thought about killing themselves. Imagine seeing a video online of a classmate firing an AR-15, captioned by a screed praising school shooters. Red-flag laws can help defuse these desperate situations. Don’t we all deserve access to these lifesaving tools?