The Impact of Extreme Risk Protection Orders on Homicide and Suicide: Are There Any Red Flags?

Twenty-two states have instituted Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws, also known as red flag laws. These laws allow law enforcement, family members, and others to petition courts to temporarily seize firearms from an individual believed to be a danger to themselves or others. These laws have been passed with the goal of reducing firearm-related homicide and suicide. This Article tests whether these laws save lives by using a generalized synthetic control model, improving upon the previously used difference-in-difference and standard synthetic control models.

This preliminary study suggests ERPOs, as currently written, fail to statistically significantly reduce total homicide, total suicide, firearm homicide, and firearm suicide, suggesting that the key benefits policymakers intend to produce from these laws have not materialized. These empirical findings collapse the public safety justification for ERPOs, compelling a fundamental policy shift. This Article argues that courts must limit the application of existing ERPOs by imposing heightened, quasi-criminal judicial scrutiny. This Article proposes that state legislatures should repeal these ineffective laws—following examples set by states like Oklahoma, Wyoming, and others—in favor of implementing more effective policies.

Specifically, states should redirect resources toward focused deterrence strategies for homicide reduction and public health models, emphasizing non-coercive lethal means safety counseling and mental health parity laws for suicide prevention. These alternative policy regimes would avoid the legal pitfalls of ERPOs and, unlike ERPOs, have a proven track record of saving lives.