Ann Arbor Times

State and federal laws across the United States prohibiting firearm possession in cases of domestic violence often lack enforcement mechanisms, which may lead to continued possession of firearms despite court orders, according to a University of Michigan study.

The lack of specificity in firearm relinquishment laws—which authorize a court to order individuals to give up firearms they already possess—and uneven requirements and enforcement of those laws may lessen their protective intent and increase the number of people illegally possessing firearms, U-M researchers say.

“Evaluating specific components of relinquishment laws is key to understanding how they might influence firearm dispossession, and ultimately impact firearm violence,” said study co-author Stephen Oliphant, postdoctoral research fellow at U-M’s Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention.

The study specifically focused on relinquishment laws related to civil Domestic Violence Protection Orders and Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence. Extreme Risk Protection Orders, also known as red flag laws, were not a part of the study as they explicitly require the relinquishment of firearms.

Prior research from co-author April Zeoli, director of policy core for the institute and associate professor of health management and policy at U-M’s School of Public Health, revealed that relinquishment provisions related to DVPOs were associated with reduced rates of intimate partner homicide.

“Without clear protocols in place surrounding relinquishment, it’s likely that many people who are not legally allowed to possess firearms will continue to do so,” Oliphant said. “At a minimum, these provisions provide a mechanism to better enforce the law and guard against illegal firearm possession.”

The study, published in Criminology & Public Policy, outlines in detail the variation in statutes state by state. It also builds on prior studies and calls for deeper analysis of the issue and makes recommendations to learn more about the effectiveness and outcomes of firearm relinquishment, not only in domestic violence cases but in gun violence in general.

Noting that “limited research has assessed the statutory characteristics of firearm relinquishment laws related to protection orders,” the researchers analyzed legislative changes in all 50 states over the period from 1980-2022.

Although relinquishment policies have generally become more restrictive, most state laws have gaps that could limit how effective they are at disarming prohibited possessors, according to the study.

Some states, the study says, have robust laws requiring immediate and verifiable relinquishment while others have more discretionary and less enforceable provisions. States with comprehensive relinquishment laws, including short deadlines for turning over firearms and mandatory proof of compliance are theoretically better positioned to ensure that prohibited persons do not illegally possess firearms.

“Many states have not implemented statutory elements that are expected to increase the likelihood of firearm relinquishment for domestic violence protection orders and misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. These include mandatory court orders for firearm relinquishment, strict standards for providing proof of firearm transfer, and authorizations for law enforcement to remove unrelinquished firearms,” Oliphant said.

States like Colorado and Washington are noted for having strong laws in this regard whereas states like Alaska and Indiana have weaker provisions, the study authors say.

The state-by-state comparisons provided in the study include these statistics from year-end 2022:

The researchers call on states to reevaluate their policies and encourage further research on the topic.

“States might consider strengthening their laws by requiring that the court order relinquishment in all cases in which an individual is newly prohibited from possessing firearms adopting strict standards for proof of compliance and authorizing law enforcement to recover unrelinquished firearms if there is evidence of noncompliance,” Oliphant said.