Data suggests ‘red flag’ laws are linked to sustained reductions in arrests

Individuals subject to extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), or "red flag" laws, were significantly less likely to be arrested - including for violent and firearm-related offenses - while the orders were in effect compared to the six months prior.

Strikingly, the drop in arrests did not end when the orders expired and continued for months afterward.

Those are the results of a new study published in PNAS Nexus.

"These findings suggest ERPOs may interrupt acute-risk behavior while also contributing to longer-term reductions in criminal activity," said Veronica Pear, first author of the paper. Pear is an epidemiologist and assistant professor at the UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention (CVP).

ERPOs aim to reduce firearm violence in U.S.

America's ongoing firearm violence epidemic resulted in 43,593 deaths in 2024. About 40,000 people were shot in 2025, excluding suicides - more than 110 people a day nationwide

ERPOs are designed to address gun violence by temporarily restricting firearm access for individuals deemed by a court to pose a significant danger of harming themselves or others.

Currently, 22 states, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the District of Columbia have some form of ERPO law. In California, ERPOs are called Gun Violence Restraining Orders and have been in effect since January 1, 2016.

Data looked at first four years of California's ERPO law

In the new retrospective study, researchers examined data for 679 individuals who were issued ERPOs in California from 2016 through 2019.

The individuals in the study were 91.9% male, aged 14 to 89, with an average age of 40.7 years. The respondents were 59.9% white, 19% Hispanic and 10.3% Black.

For individuals issued an ERPO, researchers compared arrest rates in the six months prior to the order, during the order and the six months after it expired. They examined arrests for any cause and specifically for violence, firearm offenses and firearm violence.

Findings

Researchers found significant declines in arrest rates while the ERPO was in effect compared to six months prior:

• Any arrest declined 55% (IRR 0.45)
• Violent crime arrests declined 71% (IRR 0.29)
• Firearm-related arrests declined 76% (IRR 0.24)
• Firearm violence arrests declined 80% (IRR 0.20)

These reductions persisted in the six months after ERPOs expired:

• Any arrest declined 63% (IRR 0.37)
• Violent crime arrests declined 75% (IRR 0.25)
• Firearm-related arrests declined 70% (IRR 0.30)
• Firearm violence arrests declined 63% (IRR 0.37)

Researchers noted limitations, including reliance on arrest records, which they stated are an imperfect and potentially biased measure of criminal activity. Also, because the study examined individuals issued ERPOs in California from 2016 to 2019, the results may differ in other states or with more recent data.

But the researchers note these findings, together with established evidence of ERPOs' effectiveness at suicide prevention, reinforce their potential role in broader firearm violence and crime reduction strategies.

"Extreme risk protection orders are often talked about as a way to prevent suicide, but our findings suggest they have a meaningful role to play in preventing interpersonal violence as well," said Pear. "ERPOs provide a practical, evidence-based tool to prevent harm and reduce risk both during periods of crisis and in the months that follow."

Funding

This work was funded with support from the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, Fund for a Safer Future, and the California Firearm Violence Research Center.

Resources

• Read the study
• UC Davis Centers for Violence Prevention
• Extreme Risk Protection Orders to Prevent Mass Shootings: What do Researchers Know?