Universal Background Checks, Permit Requirements, and Firearm Homicide Rates.

Importance: A loophole in US gun policy is that people can purchase guns from private sellers without going through any background check. Some states have addressed this loophole by requiring universal background checks for all gun sales, either at the point of sale or through a permit system; however, most studies on the effectiveness of universal background checks have not analyzed these 2 policy mechanisms separately. Objective: To assess the association of point-of-sale background check law and gun permit law, separately, with firearm homicide rates from 1976 through 2022 using the same methods and model specification. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used a difference-in-differences, fixed-effects regression model to evaluate firearm laws and firearm homicide rates in 48 states from 1976 through 2022. Data were obtained for 48 states except New Hampshire and Vermont and were analyzed in January 2024. Exposures: Implementation of either the law requiring a universal background check at point of sale for all firearms without a permit or the laws combining universal background checks and a state permit requirement for all gun purchasers. Main Outcomes and Measures: Annual, state-specific rates of firearm homicide per 100 000 people. Results: From 1976 through 2022, 12 states adopted the universal background check laws without permitting requirements and 7 states implemented gun permit laws covering all firearms. The mean (SD) firearm homicide rate was 4.3 (0.1) per 100 000 people. Universal background checks for all firearms alone (without a state permitting system) were not associated with overall homicide rates (percentage change, 1.3%; 95% CI, -6.9% to 10.4%) or firearm homicide rates (percentage change, 3.7%; 95% CI, -5.3% to 13.6%). A law requiring a permit for the purchase of all firearms was associated with significantly lower overall homicide rates (percentage change, -15.4%; 95% CI, -28.5% to -0.01%) and firearm homicide rates (percentage change, -18.3%; 95% CI, -32.0% to -1.9%). Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that universal background checks alone were not associated with firearm homicide rates, but a permit requirement for the purchase and possession of firearms was associated with substantially reduced rates of firearm homicide. The findings suggest that combining universal background checks and permit-to-purchase requirements is an effective strategy for firearm-related fatality reduction.

Challenging Pennsylvania's Firearm Preemption Law as a Public Health Danger: The Case of Philadelphia.

Firearm violence has soared in American cities, but most states statutorily preempt municipal firearm regulation. This article describes a unique collaboration in Philadelphia among elected officials, public health researchers, and attorneys that has led to litigation based on original quantitative analyses and grounded in innovative constitutional theories and statutory interpretation.

State Policies Regulating Firearms and Changes in Firearm Mortality.

Importance: Despite high social and public health costs of firearm violence in the United States, the effects of many policies designed to reduce firearm mortality remain uncertain. Objective: To estimate the individual and joint effect sizes of state firearm policies on firearm-related mortality. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this comparative effectiveness study, bayesian methods were used to model panel data of annual, state-level mortality rates (1979-2019) for all US firearm decedents, with analyses conducted in October 2023. Exposures: Six classes of firearms policies: background checks, minimum age, waiting periods, child access, concealed carry, and stand-your-ground laws. Main Outcome and Measures: Primary outcomes (total firearm deaths, firearm homicide deaths, and firearm suicide deaths) were assessed using the National Vital Statistics System. Bayesian estimation was used to estimate the partial association of changes in firearms policies with subsequent changes in firearm mortality. Results: The estimated effect sizes of individual policies 5 or more years after implementation were generally small in magnitude and had considerable uncertainty. The policy class with the highest probability of reducing firearm deaths was child-access prevention laws, estimated to reduce overall firearm mortality by 6% (80% credible interval [CrI], -2% to -9%). The policy class with the highest probability of increasing firearm deaths was stand-your-ground laws, estimated to increase firearm homicides by 6% (80% CrI, 0% to 13% increase). Estimates of association of implementing multiple firearm restrictions with subsequent changes in firearm mortality yielded larger effect sizes. Moving from the most permissive to most restrictive set of firearm policies was associated with an estimated 20% reduction in firearm deaths (80% CrI, 10% to 28% reduction), with a 0.99 probability of any reductions in firearm death rates. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness study of state firearm policies, the joint effect estimates of combinations of firearm laws were calculated, showing that restrictive firearm policies were associated with substantial reductions in firearm mortality. Although policymakers would benefit from knowing the effects of individual policies, the estimated changes in firearm mortality following implementation of individual policies were often small and uncertain.

US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy: Firearm Violence Is a Public Health Crisis.

This Medical News article is an interview with US Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, and JAMA Editor in Chief Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo, PhD, MD, MAS, about a new advisory that declares gun violence a public health crisis.

The Supreme Court Decision on Firearm Ownership for People Subject to Restraining Orders.

This Viewpoint explicates the complex reasoning the US Supreme Court has used in rulings on gun control and raises concerns that the recent Rahimi decision poses more questions than it settled on the future of the Second Amendment.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders in Connecticut, 2013-2020.

Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have enacted Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) statutes, which allow temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Connecticut was the first state to enact such a law in 1999. The law's implementation and use between 1999 and 2013 were previously described, finding that ERPOs were pursued rarely for the first decade and that most orders were issued in response to concerns about suicide or self-harm rather than about interpersonal violence. The current study analyzes over 1,400 ERPOs in Connecticut between 2013 and 2020 in several domains: respondent demographics, circumstances leading to ERPO filing, type of threat (suicide, violence to others, or both), number and type of firearms removed, prevalence of mental illness and drug and alcohol use, and legal outcomes. Results are similar to the earlier study, indicating that ERPO respondents in Connecticut are primarily White, male, middle-aged residents of small towns and suburbs who pose a risk of harm to themselves (67.9%) more often than to others (42.8%). Significant gender differences between ERPO respondents are discussed, as are state-specific trends over time and differences between Connecticut and other states with published ERPO data.

A Trigger Warning: Red Flag Laws are Still Constitutionally Permissible and Could Reduce the Suicide Rates in the Country's Most Vulnerable States.

Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming lead the United States in a category coveted by no one: the suicide rate. Firearm ownership drives the rate to the disproportionate level it reaches year after year and the states are left with little recourse. This article argues the usefulness and constitutionality of narrowly tailored red-flag laws aimed exclusively at reducing the rate of suicide in these mountain states. The article follows Supreme Court jurisprudence leading up to New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen and offers an analysis that complies with the hyper textualist history and tradition test laid out by Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. The analysis demonstrates that narrowly tailored red flag laws are a constitutional means of reducing the suicide rate in these at-risk states and references statutory and cultural avenues for the implementation of the legislation.

Examining the Impact of Minimum Handgun Purchase Age and Background Check Legislation on Young Adult Suicide in the United States, 1991-2020.

Objectives. To examine the independent and joint effects of state legislation on minimum age for purchasing handguns and background checks on the suicide of young adults aged 18 to 20 years. Methods. We used negative binomial regressions with fixed effects for year and generalized estimating equations for state to estimate the effects of state legislation on annual counts of firearm, nonfirearm, and total young adult suicides in all 50 US states from 1991 to 2020. Results. Minimum age laws decreased the incidence rate of firearm suicide among young adults, an effect that was amplified in states with permit to purchase laws; there was no effect on the nonfirearm or total suicide rate. Permit to purchase laws significantly decreased the young adult firearm suicide incidence rate by 39% (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51, 0.74) and the overall suicide incidence rate by 14% (IRR = 0.86; 95% CI = 0.75, 0.99), with no effect on the nonfirearm suicide rate. Conclusions. Permit to purchase laws are a more promising avenue for reducing young adult suicides than are age-based restrictions. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(8):805-813. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307689).

Firearm Policy in the Hospital Setting-Recognizing Health Care as a "Sensitive Place".

Importance: Hospitals are hot zones of the US gun injury epidemic. To shelter these facilities from the dangers of gun violence, state legislatures have enacted laws to reduce the carrying of firearms on hospital premises. However, these efforts currently face serious Second Amendment challenges in federal courts. The ongoing legal battles, which have wide-ranging implications for patient and clinician safety as well as public health generally, are setting the stage for a Supreme Court case that may decide the fate of firearm regulations in US hospitals. A permissible pathway for advancing sensible gun regulation in hospitals is urgently needed. Observations: Since the Supreme Court established a new constitutional test for firearm laws in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen (2022), states now face unprecedentedly high barriers to enacting health-protecting legislation regarding firearms. Post-Bruen, the Supreme Court requires that laws be consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation." This means that states hoping to enact laws barring public carry of firearms in hospitals must demonstrate that hospitals are a "sensitive place" as a historical matter (ie, analogous to a location where firearms were traditionally restricted). By reasoning from analogy, it is clear several historical comparators exist for regulating firearms in hospitals. Although the hospital (as understood today) did not exist in the 1700s, it is sufficiently analogous to asylums and schools, to name a few examples. These settings all share a common denominator with the modern-day hospital: serving vulnerable populations or individuals who may be at heightened risk of misusing firearms. Conclusions and Relevance: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the Second Amendment right to bear arms is threatening democratically enacted laws seeking to shelter hospitals from firearm violence. However, it is clear that hospitals and other health care settings are a sensitive place with compelling historical analogies. Policymakers' strategic deployment of the sensitive places designation, along with its rightful judicial recognition in the hospital setting, are critical to upholding laws that protect health care facilities, patients, and professionals from firearm violence-a conclusion consistent with the US Constitution, history, medical ethics, and common sense.

Updated Estimate of the Number of Extreme Risk Protection Orders Needed to Prevent 1 Suicide.

Importance: Extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs)-also known as red flag, risk warrant, and gun violence restraining orders-authorize law enforcement, family members, and sometimes others to petition a court to remove firearms from and prevent the acquisition of new firearms by a person judged to pose an immediate danger to themselves or others. Previous estimates suggest that 1 suicide is prevented for every 10 ERPOs issued, a number needed to treat that depends critically on the counterfactual estimate of the proportion of suicidal acts by ERPO respondents that would have involved firearms in the absence of ERPOs. Objective: To empirically inform updated estimates of the number of ERPOs needed to prevent 1 suicide. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from California for method-specific suicides by handgun ownership (October 18, 2004, to December 31, 2015). Handgun-owning suicide decedents in California were identified using individual-level registry data about lawful handgun ownership linked to cause-specific mortality for a cohort of more than 25 million adults. The study also used data from Connecticut for method-specific suicides among ERPO respondents who died by suicide, extracted from published data (October 1999 to June 2013). Data analysis was performed in December 2023. Exposure: Handgun ownership. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the number and distribution of suicidal acts by handgun owners in California, estimated using method-specific suicide mortality data and published case fatality ratios, and the counterfactual number and distribution of suicidal acts and deaths among ERPO respondents in Connecticut had no ERPOs been issued. Results: A total of 1216 handgun owners (mean [SD] age, 50 [18] years; 1019 male [83.8%]) died by suicide during the study period. Among male handgun owners in California, 28% of suicidal acts involved firearms, 54% involved drug poisoning, 9% involved cutting or piercing, 3% involved hanging or suffocation, 2% involved poisoning with solids and/or liquids, and the remaining 4% involved other methods. Assuming this distribution approximates the counterfactual distribution among ERPO respondents in Connecticut in the absence of ERPOs, 1 suicide death was prevented for every 22 ERPOs issued. Conclusions and Relevance: The estimates produced by this cohort study of California handgun owners suggest that ERPOs can play an important role in averting deaths among high-risk individuals.

Firearm-Related Juvenile Death Rates Correlate With Gun Ownership Rates, Measures of Guns in Circulation, and Leniency of Existing Firearm Laws Among U.S. States.

INTRODUCTION: Firearms now represent the leading cause of death in U.S. children. Therefore, this study aimed to determine if state-level rates of gun ownership, guns in circulation, and strictness of firearm-related laws are related to firearm-related mortality among both juveniles and overall populations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: State firearm mortality rates among the juvenile and overall populations were obtained from 2010 to 2020. The number of weapons registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and federal firearms licensees for each state were also recorded. Giffords Law Center Scorecard Rankings, a relative measure of the restrictiveness of each state's gun laws, were also collected. Unadjusted linear regressions modeled the relationships between firearm-associated mortality and ATF-registered weapons, federal firearm licensees, Giffords Center rankings, and gun ownership rates. Multivariable (adjusted) analyses were performed to control for poverty, unemployment, and poor mental health. RESULTS: Unadjusted analyses demonstrated that higher gun ownership rates and more lenient gun laws were associated with increased firearm-associated mortality among juveniles. Similarly, these measures as well as increased ATF-registered weapons and ATF federal firearm licensees were associated with increased firearm mortality in the overall population. In the adjusted analyses, more ATF-registered weapons, more ATF federal firearm licensees, higher gun ownership rates, and more lenient firearm laws were associated with increased firearm-related mortality in the overall population, while increased gun ownership and higher Giffords Center rankings were associated with increased firearm-associated mortality in the pediatric population. CONCLUSIONS: To reduce the toll of gun violence in the United States, policymakers should focus on implementing more restrictive firearm laws and reducing the prevalence of guns in their communities.

Nearly 20 Years Since the Federal Ban: Can State-Level Assault Weapon Prohibitions Fill the Void? Comparative Analysis of Case Fatality and Assault Weapon Recovery in States With and Without an Assault Weapon Ban.

INTRODUCTION: Few states established assault weapon bans (AWBs) after the federal AWB expired. The effectiveness of state AWBs as well as neighboring state legislation, in reducing the local prevalence of assault weapons (AWs) or in reducing overall shooting lethality is unknown. METHODS: We queried the Gun Violence Archive (2014-2021) to identify US firearm injuries and fatalities. Shooting case fatality rates were compared among states with and without AWBs, as reported in the State Firearm Laws Database. Data on recovered firearms was obtained from the ATF Firearms Trace Database and used to estimate weapon prevalence. Recovered firearms were classified as AWs based on caliber (7.62 mm, 5.56 mm, 0.223 cal). We performed spatially weighted linear regression models, with fixed effects for state and year to assess the association between geographically clustered state legislation and firearm outcomes. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2021, the US shooting victim case fatality rate was 8.06% and did not differ among states with and without AWBs. The proportion of AWs to total firearms was 5.0% in states without an AWB and 6.0% in states with an AWB (mean difference [95% CI] = -0.8% [-1.6% to -0.2%], P = 0.03). Most recovered firearms in AWB states originated from non-AWB states. On adjusted models, there was no association between state-level AWB and firearm case fatality; however, adjacency to states with an AWB was associated with lower case fatality (P < 0.001). Clustered AWB states with shared borders had lower AW prevalence and fatality rates than the rest of the US. CONCLUSIONS: Isolated state AWBs are not inversely associated with shooting case fatality rates nor the prevalence of AWs, but AWBs among multiple neighboring states may be associated with both outcomes.