Statement of Purpose Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) laws are a firearm violence prevention strategy which restricts individuals from purchasing or possessing firearms for the duration of the order. Our knowledge on characteristics of ERPO cases by final order status (i.e., granted or non-granted) is limited.

Methods/Approach We reviewed all Washington ERPO cases filed from December 1, 2016 through May 10, 2019, and characterized them by final order status.

Results Of 241 ERPO cases for 237 respondents, 197 (81.7%) were granted. Of non-granted cases, 21 (47.7%) were denied and 23 (52.3%) were dismissed. A greater proportion of respondents in non-granted than granted cases had a history of use/threatened use of violence (32.6% vs. 23.2%; difference= 9.3%; 95%CI: -5.9%, 24.6%), involuntary hospital commitment (44.2% vs. 37.6%; difference=6.6%; 95%CI: -9.8%, 22.9%), and prior felony/violent crime conviction (23.3% vs. 18.0%; difference= 5.3%; 95%CI: -8.5%, 19.0%). A greater proportion of non-granted (20.5%) cases than granted (1.5%) cases were petitioned by an intimate partner (difference= 19%; 95%CI: 5.5%, 32.4%).

Conclusion These findings suggest that there are important differences between characteristics of ERPO cases that are granted and those that are non-granted in Washington. Similar investigations in other states are warranted.

Significance Understanding the difference in respondent and petitioner characteristics for ERPO cases that were granted vs. non-granted may help petitioners understand what aspects of a respondent’s history and the precipitating event are useful for the petition narrative. For instance, that ERPO cases are more likely to be non-granted when petitioned by an intimate partner could indicate that intimate partners may not have the same knowledge of ERPOs compared to law enforcement petitioners, who often have ERPOs granted. Additionally, petitioners could use this information to determine if an ERPO is the appropriate legal action.