From July 2020 through June 2022, there were 281 emergency and 173 final risk orders issued in Virginia. What we see in the first two years of implementation in Virginia is consistent with what we see in many other states with similar legislation – most risk order respondents were white men (though, in Virginia, Black respondents may be slightly overrepresented in the data relative to the population), there were more emergency orders issued than final orders, and use of the law varied significantly throughout the state.
It is perhaps not surprising that males make up the majority of risk order respondents. Males are more likely to both own guns and to live in homes with guns.26 Both nationally and in Virginia, males make up the vast majority of people killed by firearms. In Virginia, 85% of gun death decedents are males.27 White people are also more likely to own guns and live in homes with guns28, though research shows that those who bought guns for the first time during the pandemic were more likely to be people of color.29
Another trend we see in the risk order data that is consistent with data from other states, both in their ERPO and domestic violence protection order data, is that there are more emergency orders issued than final orders. This trend cannot be further evaluated using the current data set, however there are many potential explanations for this trend. First, risk orders are intended to address acute risk of violence. It is possible that an emergency order was issued, and the risk of harm subsided to the point where a final order was not necessary. Another potential explanation is that, in pursuing a risk order, the court or law enforcement officer found that the respondent was already prohibited from purchasing and possessing firearms. Alternatively, it is possible that a court did not find clear and convincing evidence that the respondent posed a substantial risk of personal injury to self or others in the near future by such person's possession or acquisition of a firearm.
Though there was an increase in the number of risk orders issued, the law may be underutilized in certain jurisdictions in the Commonwealth. The first two years of data show us that use varies significantly between localities, with some issuing several orders per month and many localities never using the law. Incidence rates add to our understanding of use, demonstrating that, though overall counts may be low, localities that are seemingly interested in using the law are doing so many times a year. This, too, is consistent with extreme risk law data from many states.30 31
There are several reasons why risk order use might be both lower than expected and vary significantly between localities. Larger counties and cities with sizeable police departments may have more capacity to dedicate staff to educating and implementing officers about risk orders, whereas sparsely populated areas may have fewer officers and fewer resources to dedicate to implementation efforts. Further, some localities with second amendment sanctuary resolutions may not implement risk orders or may infrequently utilize the law.32 An additional hurdle that may have affected risk order implementation is staffing issues.33 Despite these varied challenges, risk orders have been used in a varied array of jurisdictions across the Commonwealth.
Further, data on extreme risk laws indicate that having a strong champion on the ground in a particular jurisdiction often makes the difference between successful use of the law and lack of use. Fairfax County, for example, has a detective dedicated to the implementation of risk orders, and the county was among the frequent users of risk orders. Fairfax County also has a webpage dedicated to risk orders, which includes information about how this law works, how to request an order, and what happens when you request an order.34 Finally, though extreme risk laws are modeled on domestic violence protection orders, which exist in every state, they are still new laws. Like any law, it takes time to raise awareness and initiate comprehensive implementation. Many people are unfamiliar with these laws, and even those who are familiar with the law could benefit from more education and training about how to utilize risk orders in an effective and equitable way. Specifically, individuals tasked with implementing risk orders – including law enforcement officers, Commonwealth’s Attorneys, judges, and magistrates – should participate in regular risk order training.
Fortunately, thanks to the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022, the federal government allocated $750 million in federal funding over five years for states to implement crisis intervention orders, including extreme risk laws.35 The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), the state administering agency, has applied for and can receive $5.1 million in the first fiscal year.36 However, as of June 2023, DCJS has not accepted the award. This funding can, and should, be used to support extreme risk law implementation in the Commonwealth and in the other 20 states and DC with extreme risk laws.
Further, as a result of BSCA, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, wherein three of this papers’ authors work, in partnership with the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, established the National ERPO Resource Center in 2023.37 The National ERPO Resource Center will provide training and technical assistance to extreme risk law implementers across the country and support states and localities as they establish and implement their extreme risk law programs.38 Both of these awards mark significant progress in supporting extreme risk law implementation.
Limitations
This study has several limitations. Virginia State Police (VSP) only provides data from counties that sought, and were granted, a risk order, not counties where the risk order was sought and not granted. VSP collects data at the risk-order-level and an individual may be counted more than once if they received more than one emergency or final risk order. The data collected do not include the reason for the petition (i.e., threats of suicide, threats of interpersonal violence, both) and reasons for denial. As such, more detailed data is necessary to better understand risk order implementation in the Commonwealth. Finally, data analyzed in this paper covered the first two years in which the U.S. experienced the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of COVID on risk order use is not clear, but it should be noted that there was an increase in gun violence during the pandemic.