ArticleInjury epidemiology2025
Firearm rights restoration after prohibiting criminal convictions: a statewide descriptive study.
Article in Injury epidemiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the US, federal law prohibits firearm possession and purchasing for individuals with convictions for a felony or domestic violence misdemeanor. If a prohibiting conviction occurred in a state court, then state law dictates how/when a prohibited person can later have their firearm rights reinstated. To our knowledge, there is limited empirical research documenting the frequency and characteristics of individuals who receive firearm rights restoration (FRR). Research is needed to guide policy, balancing the need to prioritize public safety while also fairly re-instating rights for formerly convicted individuals. We sought to address this research gap by examining FRR data from Washington state (2017-2022). During this time period, FRR granting was largely procedural (i.e., non-discretionary).
methodsWe used data from Washington State Patrol to identify who received FRR statewide. We linked these data to prior criminal convictions, arrests, and protection orders to understand the person's characteristics and violent behaviors prior to FRR.
resultsWe identified n = 11,516 individuals in the state of Washington who received FRR over the six-year study period (~ 1,900 people annually). FRR recipients were mostly male (88.4%, n = 10,182) and majority White (84.2%, n = 9697). Half (51.4%, n = 5921) had a prior conviction for a violent crime. On average, 15.3 years (sd: 6.1, median: 15.0) had elapsed between the last prohibiting conviction and FRR. In the 5 years prior to FRR, 710 individuals had been arrested, and 200 had been restrained in a protection order.
conclusionsBy understanding who receives FRR and how often, this research helps lay the foundation to improve our understanding of FRR legal practices. Our findings suggest that variability within the population of prohibited individuals could help inform FRR eligibility considerations to meet the goals of both preventing firearm violence and equitably re-instating rights to formerly convicted individuals.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.