Study: Colorado Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties Less Likely to Use ‘Red Flag’ Law

The speed of “pink flag” petitions and approvals is way decrease in Colorado counties which have declared themselves “Second Modification Sanctuaries” than in the remainder of the state.

These are the findings of a brand new examine launched Monday in JAMA Community Open from a crew of researchers with the College of Colorado Faculty of Medication Firearm Harm Prevention Initiative. It examined civil courtroom paperwork for every occasion Colorado’s Excessive Danger Safety Order (ERPO) regulation was used from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. It discovered that throughout the state, ERPO petitions had been much less prone to be filed, much less prone to be initiated by regulation enforcement, and fewer prone to be accepted by a decide in self-declared sanctuary counties than in non-sanctuary counties.

“On this cross-sectional evaluation of all 338 ERPO petitions filed in Colorado from 2020 to 2022, 37.3 p.c had been filed in 2A sanctuaries, with 31.7 p.c of those petitions had been made by regulation enforcement,” the examine’s authors wrote. “Compared with ERPO petitions filed in non-2A sanctuary counties, these from sanctuaries had been much less prone to have been petitioned for by regulation enforcement and fewer prone to be granted.”

The examine’s findings supply a combined bag for proponents and opponents of emergency gun confiscation insurance policies alike. They recommend that native resistance to the coverage, spearheaded by considerations over gun rights and due course of, does have some sensible influence on its use. On the similar time, the findings verify that such resistance shouldn’t be absolute and that even localities in declared opposition to the regulation have discovered event to reap the benefits of it.

ERPO statutes, additionally referred to as “pink flag” legal guidelines, enable cops to confiscate firearms from an individual deemed by a decide to be a reputable menace to themselves or others. Whereas such legal guidelines have existed in some states for many years, their prominence exploded in 2018 following the Marjory Stoneman Douglas taking pictures in Parkland, Florida. In a profitable push from gun-control advocates that started shortly after that assault, the variety of states with “pink flag” legal guidelines grew from two to 21, plus the District of Columbia. Colorado adopted its regulation in 2019, and it took impact starting in 2020.

The unfold of ERPO legal guidelines rapidly grew to become controversial with gun-rights advocates and a few civil libertarians. Widespread critiques embrace prices that they infringe on the best to maintain and bear arms and not using a legal conviction or perhaps a civil continuing with enough due course of. That’s as a result of most iterations at the moment enable a decide to situation a confiscation order with out the accused celebration with the ability to defend themselves and even be current in courtroom in some instances.

The expansion of those critiques coincided with a burgeoning Second Modification sanctuary motion sweeping conservative-leaning counties and municipalities in opposition to state and federal gun-control efforts. The 2 actions met in earnest in Colorado with the passage of the ERPO regulation in 2019. That 12 months, 37 of the state’s 64 counties declared themselves Second Modification sanctuaries.

Over the three years analyzed by the researchers, 126 ERPOs had been initiated within the self-declared Second Modification sanctuaries. Regulation enforcement officers initiated the petition in simply 40 situations, and a decide accepted an emergency order authorizing momentary gun confiscation in 61 instances–roughly 48 p.c of the time.

In contrast, 227 petitions had been initiated in all different counties and had been filed by regulation enforcement 138 occasions, a charge of roughly 65 p.c. These petitions had been additionally accepted by a decide 78 p.c of the time.

The researchers acknowledged that political opposition to ERPOs was seemingly behind the decrease charge of petitions in sanctuary counties however referred to as the speed of regulation enforcement submitting “notably low” even in comparison with different states which have seen comparable resistance actions.

“Prospects embrace that 2A sanctuary declarations give regulation enforcement officers a misunderstanding that submitting for ERPOs shouldn’t be legally doable of their jurisdictions, company insurance policies that discourage submitting in mild of declarations, and compensatory petitioning amongst different eligible petitioners (eg, members of the family who file beneath the impression that regulation enforcement are usually not in a position or keen to take action),” they wrote.

Additionally they hypothesized that involved officers in Second Modification sanctuaries could also be counting on extra thorough civil safety order legal guidelines for dangerous people relatively than controversial ERPOs.

“A number of instances had been recognized during which momentary orders had been granted, however year-long ERPOs weren’t pursued in favor of different civil safety orders, which may be extra restrictive than ERPOs by prohibiting all types of contact, final a minimum of 2 years, and might turn out to be everlasting in sure circumstances,” they wrote. “It could be doable that comparable programs of motion are pursued in non-2A sanctuary jurisdictions, however it might even be doable that extra basic restraining orders are most well-liked in areas the place ERPOs are extra politically controversial.”

Nonetheless, the researchers highlighted the handfuls of situations the place ERPOs had been utilized in sanctuary counties. They recommended that was proof of the regulation’s constructive impacts on violence prevention regardless of their politically charged fame.

“Critical psychological sickness, substance misuse, and prior interactions with regulation enforcement featured prominently in 2A sanctuary petitions,” the authors wrote. “These case circumstances spotlight harmful conditions during which ERPOs are a suitable risk-prevention instrument, even in areas politically predisposed to opposing them.”

The authors acknowledged that the examine was restricted by the recency of Colorado’s regulation change. They stated additional examine is required as a result of the variety of petitions and jurisdictions during which they’ve been filed is rising over time. They stated that’s partly as a result of Colorado expanded the listing of accepted ERPO petitioners in 2023 to incorporate medical professionals, district attorneys, and lecturers.