Study: State and County Trends in Florida's Extreme Risk Protection Order Implementation: A Descriptive Policy Analysis (DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2026.108285)
A Florida law designed to prevent gun violence by temporarily removing firearms from people at risk of harming themselves or others is used unevenly across the state, according to a new study.
The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, examined nearly four years of data to assess trends in use and variation across counties in the state. A collaboration between the University of Michigan, Vanderbilt University and Johns Hopkins University, the study analyzed more than 8,600 Extreme Risk Protection Order, or ERPO, petitions filed between March 2018 and December 2021 across 65 Florida counties.
"Understanding how these orders are used in practice is essential to evaluating their effectiveness as a public health tool," said April Zeoli, associate professor of health management and policy at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.
Florida passed its Extreme Risk Protection Order law in 2018 in response to the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland. Florida, which permits only law enforcement to request temporary removal of firearms under its ERPO law, has the greatest number of requests granted among the 22 states with such policies.
Researchers found that while use of these orders, commonly known as "red flag" laws, has increased since the policy took effect in 2018, the rate at which the law is applied differs substantially by county and across demographic groups.
"These laws are meant to protect people in moments of crisis," said Julie Ward, assistant professor of medicine, health and society at Vanderbilt University and lead author of the study. "But, where a person lives powerfully shapes how accessible these protective tools may actually be."
Researchers found stark geographic differences in how frequently ERPOs were used, with some counties making extensive use of the policy, while others filed relatively few petitions over the same time period.
This uneven adoption suggests that local factors such as resources, training or law enforcement practices may play a significant role in determining whether and how often the law is implemented.
The study also identified demographic disparities:
- Overall, the study found that ERPOs were more often issued for white individuals.
- However, in counties with moderate to high use of the policy, Black individuals experienced similar or higher rates of petitioning in more recent years.
- Women and older adults were consistently underrepresented among those subject to ERPO petitions.
"These patterns raise important questions about equity and access, and highlight the need for further investigation into how such laws are applied," said Zeoli, who also serves as the policy core director at the U-M Institute for Firearm Injury Prevention and director of the Michigan Firearm Law Implementation Program (M-FLIP), which is housed within the institute.
ERPOs are intended to reduce firearm-related harms, including suicide and person on person violence. However, as the findings note, inconsistent use across jurisdictions may limit their overall impact, suggesting a need for more standardized implementation and additional guidance for consistent application.
This research was supported by grants from the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research, with additional support from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Vanderbilt Center for Research on Inequality and Health Small Grants Program. Further support was provided by the Vanderbilt University Summer Research Program.
Written by Kate Barnes, Office for the Vice President for Research
