Application of a Firearm Seizure Law Aimed at Dangerous Persons: Outcomes From the First Two Years

GVPedia Study Database

Application of a Firearm Seizure Law Aimed at Dangerous Persons: Outcomes From the First Two Years

Category: Domestic Violence, Firearm Availability, Firearm Policies, Homicide, Suicide|Journal: Psychiatric Services (full text)|Author: G Parker|Year: 2010

Objectives

In 2005, in response to the shooting death of a police officer by a paranoid man, Indiana passed a law authorizing police to seize firearms without a warrant if they believe the person owning the firearm is dangerous because the person has a mental illness and is noncompliant with psychiatric medication or if the person has a propensity for violent or unstable conduct. This study sought to determine the use of this law in Indianapolis.

Methods

All Indianapolis firearm seizure cases that had a final hearing in 2006 and 2007 were identified; demographic information, seizure circumstances, and hearing outcome were recorded.

Results

A total of 55 cases were heard in 2006, and 78 were heard in 2007. The defendants were predominantly white (83%) and male (81%). Risk of suicide was the leading reason for confiscation (56% in 2006 and 71% in 2007), followed by substance abuse (29% and 27%, respectively), risk of violence (22% and 13%, respectively), and domestic disturbance (24% and 8%, respectively). Psychosis was a factor in only 11% and 9% of cases, respectively. A large majority of cases resulted in immediate detention (69% and 78%, respectively). In 2006, 95% of cases resulted in involuntary or voluntary surrender of the seized weapons to the court, but in 2007, only 22% of cases resulted in involuntary or voluntary surrender. However, in 2007 68% of cases resulted in court-ordered retention because of failure to appear (26%) or inability to be served (42%).

Conclusions

Firearm seizure by police was rarely a result of psychosis; instead, risk of suicide was the leading reason. The application of the law by both police and the court changed over the first two years of its use.

Share
Verified by MonsterInsights