While federal law prohibits firearm possession by individuals who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense and those who are subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), it does not explicitly require prohibited persons to surrender firearms they already own. Some states have adopted relinquishment laws to enforce firearm possession restrictions among prohibited persons following a disqualifying status or conviction. Research on these laws includes a legal analysis that detailed state DVRO relinquishment laws and longitudinal regression analyses that have estimated protective effects of these provisions on intimate partner homicide (IPH). The present study sought to build on this work in two ways: (1) by assessing DVRO and conviction-based relinquishment statutes, including legislative changes over time; and (2) quantitatively analyzing the effects of relinquishment provisions on suicide, homicide, and IPH using negative binomial regression models and augmented synthetic controls. Legal research revealed that many states still lack statutory elements that are expected to increase the likelihood of firearm surrender, such as requiring the court to order relinquishment, strict standards for providing proof of firearm transfer or some form of compliance verification, and provisions that authorize law enforcement to recover unrelinquished firearms. Results from the two quantitative approaches did not collectively provide strong evidence that relinquishment laws reduce firearm-specific and overall violent death. The study did find support for firearm policies more broadly—and purchaser licensing and extreme risk protection order laws in particular—as potential tools to reduce firearm violence. Future research that examines the implementation of relinquishment laws among multiple jurisdictions is needed to better understand potential barriers that may limit the effectiveness of relinquishment policies.
Read
