Most of the criticism of "red flag" laws has focused on a lack of due process protections and the fact that even supporters say just one suicide is prevented for every 13 to 17 Extreme Risk Protection Orders that are issued.
A new study from UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention, though, reveals that "red flag" laws are harmful in many other ways far beyond confiscating someone's firearms because a judge is convinced they pose a danger to themselves or others.
Researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 24 people who had been issued ERPOs in California between 2016 and 2020. The interviews, conducted from March through November 2024, were transcribed and analyzed by two researchers to identify common themes and important differences in participants' experiences.
Participants reported a wide range of consequences after being issued an ERPO:
- Some perceived little impact, while others described benefits and harms related to violence risk, legal and economic outcomes, opinions and attitudes, and social and emotional well-being.
- Two participants believed their orders prevented violence, and one was unsure. Most participants believed they would not have committed violence regardless of the order. A few described perceived increases in suicidal or violent thoughts, while others said the experience prompted self-reflection and positive behavioral changes.
- Some participants reported employment or housing difficulties when the order appeared on background checks. They also noted stigmatization, damaged relationships and reduced trust in the legal system.
- None of the participants said the ERPO process itself connected them with mental health care, substance use treatment or other supportive services.
It's worth noting that these researchers were able to seek out participants using court records and internet searches, since in California ERPOs are not generally sealed court records. That's an issue in and of itself, especially since some of those who were interviewed talked about the impact these orders have had on their ability to find work or housing.
Those negative impacts can occur even when a final ERPO order is denied. The study found that just 48 percent of participants were subject to a final order, but many participants still faced issues as a result of a temporary order being issued.
As one participant told researchers:
When I’ve applied for rentals, it’s come up when people have done backgrounds. And I’ve had people refuse to rent to me because of it. […] I applied for a victim advocate job. It was for children because I thought okay, I can make a difference for kids. […] I thought that I could make a difference and then once [the ERPO] comes up they’re like, no, you can’t be around kids. And it’s like, no, but it didn’t even go through. The judge threw it out. So […] I can’t even do what I care about because I’m looked at as this bad person or scary person or unsafe person.”
And as you might expect, being looked at as a bad or unsafe person can have a negative impact on someone's mental health. Another participant said they thought about ending their life because the "red flag" order didn’t make sense to them.
It absolutely did not make sense to me why this would happen in this manner. […] So, it was a very depressing, very difficult, very troubling time for me, and I’m glad, obviously, I didn’t commit suicide. I’m glad I didn’t. But I’d be lying to you today if I said I did not think about committing suicide as a result of that experience.
California's "red flag" law doesn't offer any kind of mental health services for those who've been deemed to be a danger to themselves or others. Once guns have been taken away and the person has been disqualified from purchasing a firearm, the state considers the problem solved.
Interestingly, while the researchers asked participants if their views towards law enforcement had changed, they apparently didn't ask if the "red flag" subjects would be more or less likely to seek mental health treatment in the future if they felt like they needed it. Several participants did say, however, that they would be far less likely to exercise their Second Amendment rights going forward, and that fear extended in some cases to friends and family members of the person who was red-flagged.
“No one in my family wanted to get [a firearm], especially after this whole incident. They were especially, like, doubly not going to get one. No one around me that was still friends with me at the time wanted to get one either.”
Of the 24 people interviewed, just two believe that the issuance of an ERPO prevented an act of violence. I can't help but wonder what those individuals would have said if they were asked about any other potential interventions having the same benefit. In any case, we're still talking about less than 10 percent of survey respondents believing the ERPO was of any use at all, and far more detailing the negative impacts the state's "red flag" law has had on their lives.
Despite that finding, Dr. Garen Wintemute, the director of UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention, says his takeaway is that "listening to respondents can help policymakers identify practical improvements in implementation while maintaining the goal of preventing violence."
The best practical improvement would be repealing the state's Extreme Risk Protection Order law altogether. Physicians are supposed to follow the adage, "first, do no harm," but it's clear that "red flag" laws do a lot of damage to people who pose no legitimate threat to themselves or others.