Firearm: Legal Liability
Firearm Safety
in Oregon - Injury and Violence The Oregon Health Authority (OHA), through its Injury and Violence Prevention section in the Public Health Division, works to prevent firearm-related deaths and injuries, including suicide. The Public Health Division does this through data collection and tracking, and by collaborating with community, tribal, local, state, and federal partners.
Crisis Lines
Source: www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/safeliving/pages/firearm-safety.aspx Firearm Deaths
in Oregon - 2019
For more up to date information, please visit our Center for Health Statistics data dashboard?. Fact Sheets
Firearms and Suicide Many people in the U.S. believe that most firearm deaths are homicides, however the data show otherwise.
The high percent of firearms deaths that are suicides is also seen in other Western states, including Alaska, Colorado, Utah, and Washington, and our neighbors in Canada. Risk Factors for Firearm Suicide Oregon tracks violent deaths through the Oregon Violent Death Reporting System (OR-VDRS). The data include deaths by age, sex, and county, and trends over time. Common risk factors for firearms suicide identified in OR-VDRS include:
Source: https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/preventionwellness/safeliving/pages/firearm-safety.aspx Firearm
Prohibitions in Oregon 1/5/23 Oregon law generally prohibits possession of a firearm by any person who:
Other provisions in Oregon law prohibit the possession of a firearm by a person:
Another provision in Oregon law penalizes a person who “carries or bears” a firearm if the person has committed, with any type of firearm, murder in any degree or manslaughter, either voluntary or involuntary, or who in a careless or reckless manner killed or injured another with a firearm.6 Unusually, Oregon law also has separate restrictions that restrict a person from selling or transferring a firearm to individuals with certain criminal or other records without actually prohibiting those individuals from keeping or possessing firearms. More specifically, Oregon law prohibits any person from intentionally selling, delivering, or otherwise transferring a firearm when the transferor knows or reasonably should know that the recipient:
This provision does not apply if the recipient was granted relief from the disability under federal or state law or has had his or her record expunged.9 In Oregon, if a court finds that there is a reasonable likelihood that a mentally ill person would constitute a danger to himself or herself or others or to the community at large as a result of the person’s mental or psychological state, the court must order that the person be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.10 In 2022, Oregon voters also enacted a gun safety ballot initiative titled Measure 114 (“The Reduction of Gun Violence Act”) that, among other things, requires people to obtain a permit to be qualified to purchase or acquire firearms. Local law enforcement permitting agents must generally approve qualified and complete applications for a permit if the fingerprint background check determines that the applicant is not prohibited from purchasing or acquiring a firearm under state or federal law, unless the agency finds reasonable grounds to conclude that “the applicant has been or is reasonably likely to be a danger to self or others, or to the community at large, as a result of the applicant’s mental or psychological state or as demonstrated by the applicant’s past pattern of behavior involving unlawful violence or threats of unlawful violence.”11 Resources 1. Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 166.250(1)(c); 166.255(1). Individuals subject to domestic violence protective orders or convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors are also prohibited from possessing ammunition in addition to firearms. 2. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.255(1)(c); Effective January 1, 2019. 4.. Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.540(1)(l). 7. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.470(1)(g). 9. Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.470(1). 10. Or. Rev. Stat. § 426.130(1)(b)(D). 11. See Measure 114,
Section 4, subd. (1)(b), (e). Legal
Liability for Returning Firearms to Suicidal Persons Who
Voluntarily Surrender Them in 50 US States Temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal persons is a strategy to reduce the incidence of suicide deaths. We discuss a barrier to the effective operation of voluntary temporary firearm transfer laws: the dearth of guidance on the liability for returning firearms to persons who voluntarily surrender them. We examine the laws of all 50 US states that regulate temporary surrenders of firearms and evaluate whether any provisions govern liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms. Although 14 states create background check exceptions to permit temporary transfers of firearms from an owner to family, friends, retailers, or law enforcement, no states prescribe procedures for returning those firearms.ability for returning the firearms to people who voluntarily surrendered them. We recommend amending state laws to clarify the process and liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms to the original owner. Such amendments would be intended to mitigate the potential chilling effect that lack of clarity and presumption of liability may impose on efficiently reducing firearm access to protect firearm owners at risk for suicide. Suicide, often by firearm, is a major public health problem. Suicides claimed 47 173 lives in the United States in 2017, and 50% used a firearm.1 When comparing people in firearm-owning households to people not in firearm-owning households, there was no difference in terms of rates of mental illness or suicidal ideations.2,3 The risk of completed suicide is especially high for people in firearm-owning households because such individuals have immediate access to lethal means.2 Numerous medical and injury-prevention organizations have highlighted lethal means restriction as an effective intervention to reduce suicides by firearms.4 Barber and Miller noted that a lethal means–restriction strategy to reduce suicides rests on four observations.5 First, suicidal crises tend to be short lived and quickly contemplated. Second, the means generally depend on availability and access. Third, the lethality of the method available during an attempt plays a pivotal role in whether the person survives. Fourth, a large percentage of those who survive a nonfatal suicide attempt generally do not proceed to die by suicide. Thus, “helping people survive periods of acute suicidal risk by reducing their access to highly lethal methods is likely to help many people survive in both the short and long term.”5(S265) What is not included in this statement is the level of intent to die (serious intent, primarily men from cultural training and judgement about what it is to be a man: stoic, not a victim, handle it, contian emotions (except anger and joy) Firearms are a means of suicide requiring minimal preparation and planning. Because of the lethality of firearms, there is no chance to turn back once someone pulls the trigger.5 When a lethal method of suicide is unavailable, a person may delay or abandon their attempt.5, 6 Reducing access to lethal means, such as firearms, during periods of suicidal ideation can save lives.5 Laws facilitating temporary transfer of firearms from persons at risk for harming themselves is one policy approach for saving lives. McCourt et al. focused on temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal individuals to family and friends, law enforcement, and firearm retailers as a risk mitigation tool and the barriers that state laws requiring background checks may pose to temporary transfers.7 We focus on another important source of possible concern for key players implementing temporary transfer strategies: the rules and risks surrounding the return of firearms that were temporarily surrendered by individuals at risk for suicide death (i.e., transfer-back). We examine the key questions regarding liability for returning firearms to persons who temporarily surrender them, discuss the few existing relevant laws, and propose key areas to address in legislation. TEMPORARY TRANSFER-RELATED LAWS Temporary transfer laws are an increasingly prevalent strategy to limit the availability of firearms to persons at risk for suicide, as are extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). ERPOs involve involuntary relinquishment of firearms through a court order, whereas temporary transfer laws facilitate voluntary firearm transfers. Both strategies attempt to temporarily keep firearms away from an at-risk person. The advantage of temporary transfers is that the removal can be accomplished voluntarily and informally without the more onerous burden of a concerned family member or other petitioner having to go to court to obtain an order. We focus on barriers to the effective operation of temporary transfer laws. McCourt et al. noted how background check requirements can pose obstacles to the temporary transfer of firearms for suicidal individuals..7 Background checks are used to identify persons potentially prohibited from owning a firearm.8 Appendix A (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org) summarizes all 50 states’ background check requirements and temporary transfer-related laws as of July 2019. Currently 20 states and the District of Columbia require background checks for a transfer between private parties. 8 Twelve states and the District of Columbia require background checks at the time of transfer. 8 The other eight states require the transferee to have a permit, meaning a background check was conducted before transfer.8 In these laws and throughout this commentary, “transferor” refers to the person transferring the firearm, and “transferee” refers to the individual or organization receiving the firearm. Of the jurisdictions that currently require background checks or permits, 14 states have exceptions that allow firearm owners to voluntarily transfer their firearm to another during a crisis. Persons who may temporarily hold the firearm for the at-risk person range from immediate family members to anyone at all. Some states allow transfers only to prevent “imminent death or serious physical injury.” 9 Maximum transfer times for temporary transfers vary from 1 to 30 days.10, 11 There is a lack of evidence directly analyzing the use and effectiveness of temporary transfer laws in reducing suicides. Data on the effectiveness of having suicidal individuals relinquish their firearms in periods of crisis do exist. Swanson et al. undertook a study to determine the effectiveness of Connecticut’s ERPO laws in preventing suicides.12 They determined that 21 individuals who had their firearms seized by an ERPO had later died from suicide, with 6 dying by gunshot. Based on fatality rates for different suicide methods, they extrapolated that these 21 deaths represented 142 suicide attempts. They determined that if firearms had been available to these individuals and used in more of the attempts, more ERPO individuals would have died by suicide. Their model estimated that approximately one suicide was averted for every 10 to 11 gun seizures.12 TEMPORARY TRANSFER CONCERNS AND CONFUSIONS A large issue with most temporary transfer laws is that they do not clearly define what, if any, liability attaches to the transferee for transfer-back of firearms after the at-risk individual’s crisis is over. This lack of clarity and the confusion surrounding liability is a potentially large obstacle to the willingness of key persons and entities to store firearms or aid in temporary transfers of firearms to prevent suicides. Although Congress has limited the liability of firearms manufacturers and dealers for harms committed with their products under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, there is no law limiting the liability of good Samaritans and key entities that temporarily hold firearms for at-risk persons to reduce the risk of suicide. Law enforcement and firearm retailers can be effective allies in reducing suicides by storing at-risk owners’ firearms outside their home. Runyan et al. surveyed law enforcement officers and firearm retailers in eight Western states about their willingness to offer voluntary, temporary storage for suicidal individuals. They found that 77% of law enforcement officers and 67% of firearm retailers were willing to provide storage for firearm owners concerned about their own mental health.13 Pierpoint et al. investigated the barriers firearm retailers, in the same eight states, faced in providing firearm storage for suicidal individuals.14 They found that 58% of the firearm retailers surveyed cited federal laws as an obstacle to storing firearms for others, and 25% cited state laws. Around half of the retailers surveyed were not currently providing temporary storage, of whom 73% cited concerns of liability in returning the firearm, 78% cited liability in storing the firearm, and 81% cited concerns about determining the safety of returning firearms.14 Another study, by Brooks-Russell et al., surveyed law enforcement agencies in the same states about barriers to providing firearm storage.15 State or federal laws were not cited by most agencies as a barrier to storage.15 However, approximately one quarter of the agencies did not provide temporary storage: 71% cited legal liability concerns in storing the firearms, 74% cited concerns of legal liability in returning the firearms, and 69% cited concerns about determining the safety of returning the firearms..15 State laws facilitating temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal individuals omit procedures for returning these firearms —and whether the person or entity temporarily holding the firearm incurs liability for returning the firearm to the person who surrendered it. State statutes are silent regarding liability for returning firearms to persons who temporarily surrendered them. Clarifying the process and legal liability surrounding the return of temporarily surrendered firearms is an essential step to addressing a potentially major impediment to temporary transfers as a tool to prevent suicide.: LAWS AND CASES ABOUT TRANSFER-BACK LIABILITY To identify potentially relevant sources on the process of and potential liability for the return of temporarily transferred firearms to persons at risk for suicide, we conducted searches on the legal database Westlaw in July 2019 (see the box on page 687). Search terms are given in Appendix B (available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org). Type of Temporary Transfer
Law States With the Legal
Provision Background check requirement
for private transfer CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IA,
IL, MA, MD, MI, NC, NE, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT,
WA Temporary transfer exception CA, CO, DE, HI, IA, IL, MD, NE, NM, NY, OR, PA,
VT, WA Specific provision on liability of firearm owner
for temporary transfer CO Law addressing liability for returning firearm
to a person who temporarily surrenders it None Statutory Law Many states’ temporary transfer laws specify that the transfer can only be for a set amount of time. For example, Colorado’s temporary transfer law allows loans of firearms for 72 hours or less.16 As McCourt et al. noted, it is not clear what occurs at the end of this 72-hour period, whether the period can be repeated, or whether the firearm must be returned automatically.7 Suicide attempts may occur anywhere from less than 10 minutes to weeks or months from the initial suicidal ideation.17 Thus, Colorado’s statute may be problematic because a crisis may not resolve within the 72-hour period, and returning the firearm could pose a risk. Of the temporary transfer laws that exist, only Colorado specifically addresses liability during the temporary transfer period. CRS 18-12-112(6)(h) allows temporary transfers of firearms to any person for less than 72 hours.16 The provision further warns that “a person who transfers a firearm pursuant to paragraph (h) may be liable for damages proximately caused by the transferee’s subsequent unlawful use of the firearm.”16This language refers to the liability of the person who decides to voluntarily surrender the firearm, rather than the person who receives and temporarily holds the firearm. The provision is silent on the process for returning the firearm and what liability attaches to the person providing temporary storage upon return of the firearm. Among the states with temporary transfer laws, no state has legal provisions explaining the liability of persons who temporarily store the firearm and who subsequently return the firearm. The laws focus on criteria for who may receive the firearms, rather than procedures and liability for their return. For example, Oregon law defines a “transferor” as someone who intends to deliver a firearm to a transferee and says that during a temporary transfer, the transferor must have “no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to use the firearm in the commission of a crime.”9 In Washington State, the temporary transfer law requires that the firearm not be transferred to a prohibited person and requires the temporary storage provider to return the firearms once the suicidal crisis passes.18 Case Law Case law also generally does not address transfer-back liability for temporarily transferred firearms. Most case law involves issues involving confiscated firearms pursuant to court orders or arrests and petitions for the return of those seized firearms. A few cases involve negligence lawsuits against persons or entities for insecurely storing their firearms or against a law enforcement employer for returning a service firearm following psychological evaluations. Although no case specifically addressed transfer-back liability, there are interesting examples of situations involving return or transfer of weapons. For example, in Cygan v. City of New York, the wife of a police officer who died by suicide sued his employer for negligence in returning his service revolver to him following a psychological evaluation.19 The court determined that the employer was not liable: the suicide occurred 18 months after the evaluation, the evaluation was prompted by paranoia rather than suicidal behavior, the surrendered weapon was returned after the employee was cleared, and the returned firearm was not the cause of the officer’s suicide.19 In Com. v. Morelli the court determined that a firearm owner seeking return of confiscated firearms must produce evidence of lawful entitlement to possess the firearms and no disqualifying factors such as a felony conviction.20 In Chow v. State the court addressed a charge of illegally transferring a regulated firearm between two privateparties.21 The court determined that temporary transfers were exempt from general transfer requirements. Further, the court interpreted the relevant law to mean that parties involved in a transfer could be convicted under the provision only if they knew that the person they were transferring the firearm to was prohibited from owning the firearm or that they were directly violating the transfer procedures. 21 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLARIFYING LIABILITY For temporary transfer laws to work as intended, legislatures should address uncertainties about the procedures for the return of temporarily surrendered firearms and the potential liability faced by persons or entities who temporarily store firearms and then return them. No state temporary transfer law specifically defines the liability faced by persons for returning firearms to the at-risk individual after the crisis is over or after the statutory period has expired. Many states’ temporary transfer laws appear to hold transferors liable, and in violation of state law, if they transfer firearms to a prohibited person. But it is unclear whether the person or entity who temporarily holds the firearm for a suicidal person falls under the definition of “transferor” upon return of the firearm to the owner. A model law for temporary transfers must explicitly state whether a person or entity who temporarily stores a firearm for a person at risk for suicide faces liability for returning the firearm and under what circumstances. Legal clarifications should specifically define the procedures governing the return of a temporarily surrendered firearm and provide a release of liability for the individual or entity temporarily holding the firearm if procedures are followed. Requiring a mental health evaluation or interview with law enforcement before returning a firearm may aid in decreasing suicide risk but could also discourage individuals from transferring their firearms for fear of not having them returned. Model legislation should also address extensions of the temporary transfer period if the person temporarily providing storage determines that owners are still a threat to themselves or have become prohibited persons. The law could provide that such a determination requires surrendering the firearm to the nearest law enforcement for a more extensive hearing process to address the risks and rights at stake. CONCLUSIONS There are widespread gaps and silences in laws regarding the liability associated with the return of firearms that were temporarily surrendered to reduce access to lethal means for persons at risk for suicide. Although nearly all would agree that temporarily holding a firearm for a potentially suicidal person should occur, regardless of specific legislation, the more difficult issue is if and when that firearm should be returned to the owner and the liability concerns surrounding that return. Surveys indicate that legal liability is a chilling factor for firearm retailers and law enforcement—key potential partners for temporarily holding firearms for persons at risk for suicide.14,15 Amending state laws to clarify the procedure and liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms can help address a barrier to the effective operation of this legal strategy for saving lives. We call attention to a potentially important barrier to effective operation of temporary transfer laws. We note that substantially more empirical work is needed on other unanswered questions, such as how often temporary transfers occur, their effect on reducing suicides, and whether firearm owners would be more likely to turn to law enforcement or retailers for storage than family and friends. REFERENCES 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS) Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars. Accessed June 1, 2019. [PMC free article] [PubMed] 2. Miller M, Barber C, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Molnar BE. Recent psychopathology, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in households with and without firearms: findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication. Inj Prev. 2009;15(3):183–187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 3. Ilgen MA, Zivin K, McCammon RJ, Valenstein M. Mental illness, previous suicidality, and access to guns in the United States. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(2):198–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4. Bulger EM, Kuhls DA, Campbell BT et al. Proceedings from the Medical Summit on Firearm Injury Prevention: a public health approach to reduce death and disability in the US. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(4):415–430.e12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5. Barber CW, Miller MJ. Reducing a suicidal person’s access to lethal means of suicide: a research agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(3 suppl 2):S264–S272. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 6. Yip PS, Caine E, Yousuf S, Chang SS, Wu KC, Chen YY. Means restriction for suicide prevention. Lancet. 2012;379(9834):2393–2399. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 7. McCourt AD, Vernick JS, Betz ME, Brandspigel S, Runyan CW. Temporary transfer of firearms from the home to prevent suicide. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(1):96–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 8. Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Universal background checks. Available at: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/#state. Accessed June 1, 2019. 9. Firearm transfers by unlicensed persons. ORS §166.435(a) (2017). 11. Possession and purchase of deadly weapons by persons prohibited; penalties. 11 Del. C. §1448B. 12. Swanson JW, Norko MA, Lin H-J et al. Implementation and effectiveness of Connecticut’s risk-based gun removal law: does it prevent suicides? Law Contemp Probl. 2017;80:179–208. [Google Scholar] 13. Runyan CW, Brooks-Russell A, Brandspigel S et al. Law enforcement and gun retailers as partners for safely storing guns to prevent suicide: a study in 8 Mountain West States. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(11):1789–1794. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 14. Pierpoint LA, Tung GJ, Brooks-Russell A, Brandspigel S, Betz M, Runyan CW. Gun retailers as storage partners for suicide prevention: what barriers need to be overcome? Inj Prev. 2019;25(suppl 1):i5–i8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 15. Brooks-Russell A, Runyan C, Betz ME, Tung G, Brandspigel S, Novins DK. Law enforcement agencies’ perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to temporary firearm storage to prevent suicide. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(2):285–288. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 16. Col Rev Stat §§18-12-112(1), (6)(b)–(h). 17. Deisenhammer EA, Ing CM, Strauss R, Kemmler G, Hinterhuber H, Weiss EM. The duration of the suicidal process: how much time is left for intervention between consideration and accomplishment of a suicide attempt? J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;70(1):19–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 18. Firearm sales or transfers—background checks—requirements—exceptions. RCW. §9.41.113(4). 19. Cygan v. City of New York, 165 A.D.2d 58, 60, 566 N.Y.S.2d 232, 233 (1991). 20. Com. v. Morelli, 55 A.3d 177, 180 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012). 21. Chow v. State, 393
Md. 431, 463, 903 A.2d 388, 407 (2006). First,
Prevent Harm: Eliminate Firearm Transfer Liability as a
Lethal Means Reduction Strategy In the United States, firearms are used in less than 6% of suicide attempts but are the mechanism of death in more than 50% of completed suicides.3 State suicide rates vary more than threefold, with the majority of the difference accounted for by firearm suicides. Although the preponderance of suicide attempts involve intentional overdoses, firearms have a 55-fold higher lethality rate,4 making it imperative to understand mechanisms for preventing firearm suicide attempts. The commentary by Gibbons et al. (p. 685), in this issue of AJPH, speaks to the challenges of one key mechanism of firearm suicide reduction, namely the temporary surrender of firearms. Extreme risk protective order legislation has become the de jour mechanism, with 18 states enacting such laws as of February 2020. These laws remove firearms from owners via an involuntary mechanism and necessitate families’ engagement with a complicated court system. The use of these laws has been highly variable. In a period of a year and a half, Florida had more than 2000 “red-flag” orders, whereas over a similar period California had less than 200—but each state has roughly 2.5 million firearm-owning households.5, 6 An option for suicide prevention is voluntary temporary surrender of firearms. These weapons are typically entrusted to family, friends, gun retailers, or law enforcement. On the surface, this appears to be a simple solution if gun owners are willing to relinquish their firearms. However, as Gibbons et al. point out, profound legal and liability issues must be considered. For example, among the 20 states that require universal background checks (along with the District of Columbia), only 14 provide exemptions during times of crisis such as suicidal ideation. But what happens when the crisis has passed and it is time to return the firearm? Under current law, it would be extremely difficult to hold any party who accepts a firearm during a suicide crisis—whether family, friends, gun retailers, or law enforcement organizations—liable for negligently transferring the weapon back to the individual who relinquished it. Thus, it is both ironic and unfortunate that gun retailers and law enforcement organizations report fearing potential liability for storing and then returning firearms under federal and state law. Such fears likely stem from popular assumptions that one can sue anyone successfully for anything in America. In fact, the law places the legal responsibility on the person who attempts or commits suicide and thus makes it difficult to hold anyone liable for helping to cause that behavior. This framework protects family or friends who temporarily hold a firearm and then return it, so long as these individuals act as reasonable stewards who ensure that firearms are appropriately stored and do not return them in the midst of a clear suicide crisis. In addition, it is particularly difficult to sue both gun retailers and law enforcement organizations, the very entities we hope will become community partners in suicide prevention. Although responsibility is placed upon the individual who makes the suicide attempt, there are a few exceptions to this rule. For example, if someone undertakes a legal duty to watch over another to prevent self-harm and breaches this duty through unreasonable conduct, that caretaker can be held liable. If an act of suicide is the product of an “irresistible impulse” associated with brain trauma from a prior injury (such as a car accident), the person responsible for that injury can be held liable for the suicide as well. Neither of these exceptions nor any others neatly fit with transfer-back liability for family, friends, gun retailers, or law enforcement organizations. It also matters whom one seeks to sue. Under common law, a gun retailer could face liability for breaching a legal duty to keep a firearm safe and, in theory, for transferring the firearm back to the owner when the owner is manifesting suicidal behaviors. The vast majority of liability for negligence, however, could be eliminated through a release. Moreover, gun retailers enjoy substantial legal protections; Congress and several state legislatures have passed laws immunizing gun retailers from liability related to criminal acts by third parties that use their products. Law enforcement organizations are even more difficult to sue. They enjoy immunity for discretionary acts, such as when the police release potentially dangerous individuals after assessing them and determining that they are not a danger to themselves or others. Law enforcement can, however, be held liable for not following mandatory protocols (e.g., state laws establishing particular transfer-back time frames for holding a firearm for an individual). Educating gun retailers and law enforcement organizations about these limitations on liability might correct misconceptions about transfer-back liability. Congress and state legislatures could offer further protections by establishing clear protocols for firearm storage and transfer-back, together with model releases that individuals, retailers, and law enforcement could use to eliminate liability. Thus, sound policies that provide detailed guidance on transfer-back protocols are the most urgent need to facilitate voluntary surrender. Ideally, such policies should incorporate guidance created by mental health professional associations or developed by legislatively appointed committees that include mental health practitioners, judges, law enforcement representatives, and gun retailers, among others. A release protecting family, friends, gun retailers, and law enforcement organizations that comply with the transfer-back protocol could certainly be part of that statutory scheme and should explicitly disclaim liability for determining whether individuals are a danger to themselves or others. Any such protocol should prioritize ease of compliance. For example, a protocol that requires owners to provide a letter from a mental health professional before retrieving firearms would function as a deterrent to voluntary relinquishment of firearms during a psychiatric crisis. Another sticking point is how to navigate state laws requiring background checks for temporary transfers between private parties. It is ironic that the state laws most conducive to reducing firearm fatalities are the same state laws that erect barriers to temporary transfers in moments of suicide crisis. One solution is that universal background check laws should be paired with exclusions around temporary transfers related to suicidality. To maximize efficacy, comprehensive public education campaigns should describe the details and implications of any legal reforms to both gun owners and potential transfer-back recipients. Existing partnerships, such as that between the American Shooting Sports Foundation and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, may heighten the credibility and perceived efficacy of transfer-back reforms. These efforts could incorporate health care providers offering lethal means counseling, who could refer gun owners to “partner organizations” that have agreed to receive and store firearms for owners in crisis. Suicide is not inevitable. Beyond the clear value of therapy and emotional support, one of the best ways to prevent suicidal individuals from taking their own lives is to provide a mechanism for efficient and protected lethal means reduction. It is far better for our society to proactively enact such protections now than to look back and say “I wish we had done more” after the fact. REFERENCES 1. Ducharme J. US suicide rates are the highest they’ve been since World War II. Available at: https://time.com/5609124/us-suicide-rate-increase. Accessed March 7, 2020. 2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Death rates and life expectancy at birth. Available at: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NCHS-Death-rates-and-life-expectancy-at-birth/w9j2-ggv5/data. Accessed March 7, 2020. 3. Miller M, Azrael D, Barber C. Suicide mortality in the United States: the importance of attending to method in understanding population-level disparities in the burden of suicide. Annu Rev Public Health. 2012;33:393–408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 4. Spicer RS, Miller TR. Suicide acts in 8 states: incidence and case fatality rates by demographics and method. Am J Public Health. 2000;90(12):1885–1891. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 5. Olmeda R. Thousands of guns taken under red flag law, but South Florida lags in applying it. Available at: https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/crime/fl-ne-red-flag-law-review-20190921-ygedayoyybaczmpzrrsy7kssdu-story.html. Accessed March 7, 2020. 6. Gutierrez M. Jerry
Brown vetoes California bill to expand gun restraining
orders. Available at:
https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Jerry-Brown-vetoes-California-bill-to-expand-gun-13261282.php.
Accessed March 7, 2020.
|
||||||||||||||
