1776 Will Commence Again if You Attempt to Take Away Our Firearms
Am J Public Wellness. 2020 May; 110(five): 685–688.
Legal Liability for Returning Firearms to Suicidal Persons Who Voluntarily Surrender Them in 50 U.s. States
Molly J. Gibbons, BS, 
Mary D. Fan, JD, MPhil, Ali Rowhani-Rahbar, MD, PhD, MPH, and Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH
Accepted December 22, 2019.
Abstract
Temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal persons is a strategy to reduce the incidence of suicide deaths. We hash out a barrier to the constructive operation of voluntary temporary firearm transfer laws: the dearth of guidance on the liability for returning firearms to persons who voluntarily surrender them. We examine the laws of all 50 US states that regulate temporary surrenders of firearms and evaluate whether any provisions govern liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms.
Although 14 states create background bank check exceptions to let temporary transfers of firearms from an owner to family, friends, retailers, or law enforcement, no states prescribe procedures for returning those firearms.power for returning the firearms to people who voluntarily surrendered them.
We recommend amending land laws to clarify the process and liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms to the original owner. Such amendments would be intended to mitigate the potential spooky effect that lack of clarity and presumption of liability may impose on efficiently reducing firearm access to protect firearm owners at gamble for suicide.
Suicide, ofttimes by firearm, is a major public health problem. Suicides claimed 47 173 lives in the United States in 2017, and l% used a firearm.1 When comparison people in firearm-owning households to people not in firearm-owning households, there was no difference in terms of rates of mental illness or suicidal ideations.2,3 The risk of completed suicide is specially loftier for people in firearm-owning households because such individuals accept immediate admission to lethal means.ii Numerous medical and injury-prevention organizations have highlighted lethal means restriction as an effective intervention to reduce suicides past firearms.iv
Barber and Miller noted that a lethal means–brake strategy to reduce suicides rests on four observations.5 First, suicidal crises tend to be brusk lived and speedily contemplated. Second, the means generally depend on availability and access. Third, the lethality of the method bachelor during an attempt plays a pivotal role in whether the person survives. 4th, a large per centum of those who survive a nonfatal suicide attempt generally do not proceed to die by suicide. Thus, "helping people survive periods of acute suicidal adventure by reducing their access to highly lethal methods is probable to help many people survive in both the curt and long term."5(S265)
Firearms are a ways of suicide requiring minimal preparation and planning. Considering of the lethality of firearms, there is no chance to turn back once someone pulls the trigger.5 When a lethal method of suicide is unavailable, a person may delay or abandon their attempt.5,6 Reducing access to lethal means, such as firearms, during periods of suicidal ideation can save lives.5 Laws facilitating temporary transfer of firearms from persons at risk for harming themselves is one policy approach for saving lives. McCourt et al. focused on temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal individuals to family and friends, law enforcement, and firearm retailers equally a risk mitigation tool and the barriers that land laws requiring background checks may pose to temporary transfers.7
Nosotros focus on some other important source of possible business concern for key players implementing temporary transfer strategies: the rules and risks surrounding the return of firearms that were temporarily surrendered by individuals at adventure for suicide death (i.e., transfer-back). We examine the key questions regarding liability for returning firearms to persons who temporarily surrender them, hash out the few existing relevant laws, and suggest central areas to address in legislation.
TEMPORARY TRANSFER-RELATED LAWS
Temporary transfer laws are an increasingly prevalent strategy to limit the availability of firearms to persons at hazard for suicide, as are extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs). ERPOs involve involuntary relinquishment of firearms through a court order, whereas temporary transfer laws facilitate voluntary firearm transfers. Both strategies attempt to temporarily go on firearms away from an at-run a risk person. The advantage of temporary transfers is that the removal can exist accomplished voluntarily and informally without the more than onerous burden of a concerned family member or other petitioner having to go to court to obtain an gild. Nosotros focus on barriers to the effective operation of temporary transfer laws.
McCourt et al. noted how background check requirements can pose obstacles to the temporary transfer of firearms for suicidal individuals.7 Background checks are used to identify persons potentially prohibited from owning a firearm.viii Appendix A (available equally a supplement to the online version of this article at http://world wide web.ajph.org) summarizes all 50 states' background check requirements and temporary transfer-related laws equally of July 2019. Currently xx states and the Commune of Columbia crave background checks for a transfer between private parties.eight Twelve states and the District of Columbia require background checks at the time of transfer.eight The other eight states crave the transferee to have a permit, meaning a background cheque was conducted before transfer.8 In these laws and throughout this commentary, "transferor" refers to the person transferring the firearm, and "transferee" refers to the individual or arrangement receiving the firearm.
Of the jurisdictions that currently require background checks or permits, fourteen states have exceptions that let firearm owners to voluntarily transfer their firearm to another during a crisis. Persons who may temporarily hold the firearm for the at-risk person range from immediate family members to anyone at all. Some states allow transfers merely to preclude "imminent expiry or serious physical injury."9 Maximum transfer times for temporary transfers vary from 1 to 30 days.10,11
In that location is a lack of testify direct analyzing the use and effectiveness of temporary transfer laws in reducing suicides. Data on the effectiveness of having suicidal individuals relinquish their firearms in periods of crisis do exist. Swanson et al. undertook a study to determine the effectiveness of Connecticut's ERPO laws in preventing suicides.12 They determined that 21 individuals who had their firearms seized past an ERPO had later died from suicide, with 6 dying by gunshot. Based on fatality rates for unlike suicide methods, they extrapolated that these 21 deaths represented 142 suicide attempts. They determined that if firearms had been available to these individuals and used in more of the attempts, more ERPO individuals would take died by suicide. Their model estimated that approximately one suicide was averted for every x to 11 gun seizures.12
TEMPORARY TRANSFER CONCERNS AND CONFUSIONS
A large result with most temporary transfer laws is that they practice not clearly define what, if any, liability attaches to the transferee for transfer-dorsum of firearms after the at-risk private's crisis is over. This lack of clarity and the confusion surrounding liability is a potentially big obstacle to the willingness of key persons and entities to store firearms or help in temporary transfers of firearms to prevent suicides. Although Congress has express the liability of firearms manufacturers and dealers for harms committed with their products under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Human action of 2005, at that place is no police limiting the liability of good Samaritans and primal entities that temporarily agree firearms for at-risk persons to reduce the hazard of suicide.
Law enforcement and firearm retailers tin be effective allies in reducing suicides by storing at-risk owners' firearms outside their home. Runyan et al. surveyed law enforcement officers and firearm retailers in eight Western states about their willingness to offer voluntary, temporary storage for suicidal individuals. They institute that 77% of constabulary enforcement officers and 67% of firearm retailers were willing to provide storage for firearm owners concerned about their own mental health.13
Pierpoint et al. investigated the barriers firearm retailers, in the same eight states, faced in providing firearm storage for suicidal individuals.14 They found that 58% of the firearm retailers surveyed cited federal laws as an obstacle to storing firearms for others, and 25% cited state laws. Around one-half of the retailers surveyed were not currently providing temporary storage, of whom 73% cited concerns of liability in returning the firearm, 78% cited liability in storing the firearm, and 81% cited concerns about determining the safety of returning firearms.14
Another study, by Brooks-Russell et al., surveyed law enforcement agencies in the same states about barriers to providing firearm storage.fifteen State or federal laws were non cited by most agencies as a barrier to storage.15 Still, approximately one quarter of the agencies did not provide temporary storage: 71% cited legal liability concerns in storing the firearms, 74% cited concerns of legal liability in returning the firearms, and 69% cited concerns nigh determining the rubber of returning the firearms.15
Land laws facilitating temporary transfers of firearms from suicidal individuals omit procedures for returning these firearms —and whether the person or entity temporarily holding the firearm incurs liability for returning the firearm to the person who surrendered it. Country statutes are silent regarding liability for returning firearms to persons who temporarily surrendered them. Clarifying the process and legal liability surrounding the render of temporarily surrendered firearms is an essential step to addressing a potentially major impediment to temporary transfers equally a tool to prevent suicide.
LAWS AND CASES ABOUT TRANSFER-Back LIABILITY
To identify potentially relevant sources on the procedure of and potential liability for the render of temporarily transferred firearms to persons at risk for suicide, we conducted searches on the legal database Westlaw in July 2019 (see the box on page 687). Search terms are given in Appendix B (available equally a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org).
Statutory Law
Many states' temporary transfer laws specify that the transfer tin can only be for a set corporeality of time. For example, Colorado's temporary transfer law allows loans of firearms for 72 hours or less.sixteen As McCourt et al. noted, it is not clear what occurs at the end of this 72-hour menses, whether the menstruation can be repeated, or whether the firearm must be returned automatically.7 Suicide attempts may occur anywhere from less than x minutes to weeks or months from the initial suicidal ideation.17 Thus, Colorado's statute may exist problematic because a crisis may non resolve inside the 72-hour flow, and returning the firearm could pose a risk.
Of the temporary transfer laws that exist, only Colorado specifically addresses liability during the temporary transfer flow. CRS xviii-12-112(six)(h) allows temporary transfers of firearms to any person for less than 72 hours.16 The provision further warns that "a person who transfers a firearm pursuant to paragraph (h) may be liable for damages proximately caused past the transferee's subsequent unlawful utilise of the firearm."sixteen This language refers to the liability of the person who decides to voluntarily surrender the firearm, rather than the person who receives and temporarily holds the firearm. The provision is silent on the procedure for returning the firearm and what liability attaches to the person providing temporary storage upon return of the firearm.
Among the states with temporary transfer laws, no country has legal provisions explaining the liability of persons who temporarily store the firearm and who afterward return the firearm. The laws focus on criteria for who may receive the firearms, rather than procedures and liability for their return. For instance, Oregon law defines a "transferor" as someone who intends to deliver a firearm to a transferee and says that during a temporary transfer, the transferor must have "no reason to believe the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm or intends to apply the firearm in the committee of a offense."9 In Washington Land, the temporary transfer law requires that the firearm non be transferred to a prohibited person and requires the temporary storage provider to return the firearms once the suicidal crisis passes.18
Case Law
Instance police as well generally does non address transfer-back liability for temporarily transferred firearms. Most instance police involves issues involving confiscated firearms pursuant to courtroom orders or arrests and petitions for the return of those seized firearms. A few cases involve negligence lawsuits against persons or entities for insecurely storing their firearms or confronting a constabulary enforcement employer for returning a service firearm following psychological evaluations.
Although no case specifically addressed transfer-dorsum liability, there are interesting examples of situations involving return or transfer of weapons. For example, in Cygan five. Metropolis of New York, the wife of a police officer who died by suicide sued his employer for negligence in returning his service revolver to him following a psychological evaluation.19 The court adamant that the employer was not liable: the suicide occurred 18 months after the evaluation, the evaluation was prompted by paranoia rather than suicidal behavior, the surrendered weapon was returned after the employee was cleared, and the returned firearm was not the crusade of the officer's suicide.19
In Com. v. Morelli the court determined that a firearm owner seeking render of confiscated firearms must produce prove of lawful entitlement to possess the firearms and no disqualifying factors such as a felony conviction.20
In Chow v. Land the court addressed a charge of illegally transferring a regulated firearm between two privateparties.21 The court adamant that temporary transfers were exempt from full general transfer requirements. Further, the court interpreted the relevant law to mean that parties involved in a transfer could be convicted under the provision just if they knew that the person they were transferring the firearm to was prohibited from owning the firearm or that they were straight violating the transfer procedures.21
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLARIFYING LIABILITY
For temporary transfer laws to piece of work every bit intended, legislatures should address uncertainties about the procedures for the return of temporarily surrendered firearms and the potential liability faced past persons or entities who temporarily store firearms and so return them.
No state temporary transfer constabulary specifically defines the liability faced by persons for returning firearms to the at-take a chance individual later the crisis is over or after the statutory period has expired. Many states' temporary transfer laws appear to hold transferors liable, and in violation of state law, if they transfer firearms to a prohibited person. Only it is unclear whether the person or entity who temporarily holds the firearm for a suicidal person falls under the definition of "transferor" upon return of the firearm to the owner.
A model law for temporary transfers must explicitly land whether a person or entity who temporarily stores a firearm for a person at chance for suicide faces liability for returning the firearm and under what circumstances. Legal clarifications should specifically define the procedures governing the return of a temporarily surrendered firearm and provide a release of liability for the private or entity temporarily holding the firearm if procedures are followed. Requiring a mental health evaluation or interview with police force enforcement before returning a firearm may aid in decreasing suicide take a chance but could also discourage individuals from transferring their firearms for fear of non having them returned.
Model legislation should also address extensions of the temporary transfer menses if the person temporarily providing storage determines that owners are still a threat to themselves or have become prohibited persons. The constabulary could provide that such a determination requires surrendering the firearm to the nearest law enforcement for a more extensive hearing process to accost the risks and rights at pale.
CONCLUSIONS
At that place are widespread gaps and silences in laws regarding the liability associated with the return of firearms that were temporarily surrendered to reduce access to lethal means for persons at risk for suicide. Although nearly all would agree that temporarily holding a firearm for a potentially suicidal person should occur, regardless of specific legislation, the more difficult event is if and when that firearm should be returned to the owner and the liability concerns surrounding that return. Surveys point that legal liability is a chilling factor for firearm retailers and law enforcement—cardinal potential partners for temporarily belongings firearms for persons at chance for suicide.14,15 Alteration country laws to clarify the process and liability for returning temporarily surrendered firearms tin can assistance address a barrier to the effective performance of this legal strategy for saving lives. We call attention to a potentially of import barrier to effective operation of temporary transfer laws. We notation that substantially more empirical work is needed on other unanswered questions, such as how often temporary transfers occur, their effect on reducing suicides, and whether firearm owners would be more likely to turn to law enforcement or retailers for storage than family and friends.
CONFLICTS OF Interest
A. Rowhani-Rahbar and F. P. Rivara accept received grants from the National Institutes of Health, the US Section of Justice, and Arnold Ventures and contracts from the City of Seattle and the State of Washington for firearm research. M. J. Gibbons and K. D. Fan have no disclosures to study.
Footnotes
See likewise Fleegler and Madeira, p. 619.
REFERENCES
ii. Miller Thou, Barber C, Azrael D, Hemenway D, Molnar Exist. Contempo psychopathology, suicidal thoughts and suicide attempts in households with and without firearms: findings from the National Comorbidity Study Replication. Inj Prev. 2009;15(3):183–187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
iii. Ilgen MA, Zivin K, McCammon RJ, Valenstein Grand. Mental illness, previous suicidality, and admission to guns in the U.s.a.. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(two):198–200. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
four. Bulger EM, Kuhls DA, Campbell BT et al. Proceedings from the Medical Tiptop on Firearm Injury Prevention: a public health approach to reduce decease and disability in the The states. J Am Coll Surg. 2019;229(4):415–430.e12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Barber CW, Miller MJ. Reducing a suicidal person's access to lethal means of suicide: a inquiry agenda. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(3 suppl 2):S264–S272. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
half-dozen. Yip PS, Caine E, Yousuf Due south, Chang SS, Wu KC, Chen YY. Means restriction for suicide prevention. Lancet. 2012;379(9834):2393–2399. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. McCourt AD, Vernick JS, Betz ME, Brandspigel Due south, Runyan CW. Temporary transfer of firearms from the abode to prevent suicide. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(1):96–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Firearm transfers past unlicensed persons. ORS §166.435(a) (2017).
10. Cal. Penal Code §27880.
eleven. Possession and purchase of mortiferous weapons by persons prohibited; penalties. 11 Del. C. §1448B.
12. Swanson JW, Norko MA, Lin H-J et al. Implementation and effectiveness of Connecticut's risk-based gun removal police force: does it prevent suicides? Constabulary Contemp Probl. 2017;80:179–208. [Google Scholar]
13. Runyan CW, Brooks-Russell A, Brandspigel Southward et al. Constabulary enforcement and gun retailers as partners for safely storing guns to prevent suicide: a study in viii Mountain Westward States. Am J Public Health. 2017;107(11):1789–1794. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fourteen. Pierpoint LA, Tung GJ, Brooks-Russell A, Brandspigel S, Betz M, Runyan CW. Gun retailers as storage partners for suicide prevention: what barriers demand to be overcome? Inj Prev. 2019;25(suppl 1):i5–i8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
fifteen. Brooks-Russell A, Runyan C, Betz ME, Tung G, Brandspigel S, Novins DK. Law enforcement agencies' perceptions of the benefits of and barriers to temporary firearm storage to prevent suicide. Am J Public Health. 2019;109(2):285–288. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
sixteen. Col Rev Stat §§18-12-112(1), (6)(b)–(h).
17. Deisenhammer EA, Ing CM, Strauss R, Kemmler One thousand, Hinterhuber H, Weiss EM. The duration of the suicidal process: how much time is left for intervention between consideration and accomplishment of a suicide try? J Clin Psychiatry. 2009;lxx(1):19–24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18. Firearm sales or transfers—background checks—requirements—exceptions. RCW. §9.41.113(4).
19. Cygan v. City of New York, 165 A.D.2d 58, sixty, 566 Northward.Y.S.second 232, 233 (1991).
20. Com. v. Morelli, 55 A.3d 177, 180 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012).
21. Grub v. Country, 393 Md. 431, 463, 903 A.2nd 388, 407 (2006).
Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Wellness Clan
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144456/
0 Response to "1776 Will Commence Again if You Attempt to Take Away Our Firearms"
Post a Comment