As Suicide Prevention Month brings renewed attention to ways to reduce suicide risk, new research from CU Anschutz examines how extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), civil court orders that can temporarily restrict firearm access, are being used among service members and veterans in Colorado.
The study, published in JAMA Network Open , analyzed all 692 ERPO petitions filed in Colorado from 2020 through 2024. Researchers found that 68 petitions, or 9.8%, involved service members or veterans, compared with 7.8% of Colorado’s adult population represented by active-duty service members and veterans.
Temporary ERPOs were granted in 47 of the 68 service member and veteran cases (69.1%). Of those, 36 (76.6%) were subsequently extended to full 365-day orders. This showed that ERPOs are being used as a meaningful tool for a population presenting with complex, overlapping risk (post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, substance misuse, suicide threats with firearm access).
The study found few significant differences between service member and veteran cases and civilian cases in reasons for petitions, documented firearm access or court outcomes. However, court narratives revealed recurring circumstances including suicide threats, threats of violence, PTSD, mental health concerns, substance or alcohol use, homelessness and threats of mass violence.
“The findings give us a better understanding of what’s happening on the ground and raise important questions about how we can respond when someone is at acute risk.” said Leslie M. Barnard, MPH, DrPH , research assistant professor of epidemiology at the Colorado School of Public Health and an investigator with the Injury & Violence Prevention Center and Firearm Injury Prevention Initiative at CU Anschutz.
What did the Colorado study find about suicide risk and firearm access?
Firearm access was documented in 56 of the 68-service member and veteran cases. More than half involved threats against other people, while others involved threats to the individual or both the individual and others.
Two cases involved veteran-specific crisis resources before law enforcement filed an ERPO. In one, a veteran experiencing a mental health crisis contacted the Veterans Crisis Line and reported being suicidal and threatening to shoot police. In another, a veteran threatened suicide while holding a firearm during a virtual veterans’ support group. Both cases resulted in ERPOs being granted.
“When someone is in crisis, the goal is to keep them safe long enough for that crisis to pass and for help to reach them. If there’s a firearm immediately available, creating some time and distance from that firearm can be one part of that response. An ERPO is just one tool but understanding when and how it is being used is an important part of the suicide-prevention conversation,” said Barnard.
What does the study show about ERPOs and active-duty service members?
Five ERPO petitions were filed by military supervising officers and all five were denied because the supervisors did not have legal standing to petition for an ERPO under Colorado law. In each case, other measures had already been taken to restrict firearm access, including prohibiting firearm use at work or removing firearms from the home. The researchers suggest military supervisors may benefit from greater education about available options and referral pathways, including who is legally able to petition for an ERPO.
“A supervisor may be the person who first notices warning signs or heightened risk with a service member. We want those people to know what they can do when they’re worried about someone’s safety. Our findings suggest there’s an opportunity to make those options and referral pathways clearer, particularly when firearms are part of the concern,” said Barnard.
Do ERPOs prevent suicide or violence?
This study was not designed to determine whether ERPOs prevent suicide or violence . Instead, it describes how these orders were used among service members and veterans and identifies questions for future research. Future studies will examine whether ERPOs reduce firearm-related harm in military and veteran populations, how they interact with military policies and VA care and whether concerns about firearm removal affect people’s willingness to seek mental health or crisis services.
“There’s no single intervention that’s going to prevent every suicide or act of violence. However, research consistently supports the law's effectiveness in preventing suicide deaths, specifically studies estimate that for every 10 - 20 ERPOs granted, one suicide death is prevented. What we don't know yet is how that holds up for service members and veterans specifically, given their unique relationship with firearms, the military system and mental health care,” said Barnard. “This study is a first step toward answering that by describing how ERPOs have actually been used in this population, so we know where to look next. What we need now are multiple, coordinated ways to respond when someone in this community is in crisis, and research that shows us how ERPOs fit into that picture."
The research was supported by the National Collaborative on Gun Violence Research and the National Institute of Justice.
If you or someone you know is a veteran, active military member, or loved one in crisis, confidential support is available 24/7 by calling 988 (Press 1) , texting 838255 , or chatting online at VeteransCrisisLine.net.
JAMA