Women with protective orders report failure to remove firearms from their abusive partners: results from an exploratory study

Suicide-related behavior and firearm access among perpetrators of domestic violence subject to domestic violence protection orders

Perpetrators of domestic violence (DV) may be a population at elevated risk of suicide. Domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) can include the removal of firearms from the individual subjected to the order (i.e., the respondent) to protect the victim-survivor. While removal of firearms in a DVPO is designed to protect the victim-survivor; it may also prevent suicide of the respondent by reducing access to lethal means. Therefore, we examined the association of respondent suicide-related behaviors with firearm possession and weapon use in DV among a sample of granted DVPO petitions in King County, Washington (WA), United States from 2014 to 2020 (n = 2,537). We compared prevalence ratios (PR) of respondent firearm possession and use of firearms or weapons to threaten or harm by suicide-related behavior. Overall, respondent suicide-related behavior was commonly reported by petitioners (46 %). Approximately 30 % of respondents possessed firearms. This was similar between respondents with and without a history of suicide-related behavior (PR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.91-1.17). Respondents with a history of suicide-related behavior were 1.33 times more likely to have used firearms or weapons to threaten/harm in DV compared to those without a history of suicide-related behavior (44.1 % vs. 33.8 %; 95 % CI: 1.20-1.47). In conclusion, both firearm possession and suicide-related behaviors were common among DVPO respondents. History of suicide-related behavior may be a marker for firearm-related harm to the victim-survivor. Evaluations of DVPO firearm dispossession should consider both firearm-related injury of the victim-survivor and suicide of the respondent.

Disarming Intimate Partner Violence Offenders: An In-Depth Descriptive Analysis of Federal and State Firearm Prohibitor Laws in the United States, 1991-2016

Intimate partner violence is a preventable public health problem affecting more than 12 million people in the United States annually. The immense burden of victimization is most often borne by women. Nearly one in two female homicide victims are killed by current or former partners (more than 50% of which involve firearms). Firearm-related morbidity and mortality are concentrated where firearm ownership is most prevalent and firearm laws are least restrictive, indicating the potential for law to serve as an intervention. Understanding intricacies within laws and how they vary is critical to studying their influence on health. This study is the first to use the scientific legal mapping technique of policy surveillance to create legal data by systematically collecting and coding laws that authorize or require courts to prohibit offenders subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) and temporary restraining orders (TROs) from purchasing and possessing firearms ("firearm prohibitor" laws). These data measure key provisions of federal and state laws from 1991 to 2016, including whether the law includes a firearm prohibition, who qualifies as an intimate partner, notice and hearing requirements, whether the prohibition occurs automatically or through judicial discretion, and if the law permits or requires the relinquishment or removal of firearms. The federal law, enacted in 1994 (and reauthorized in 2022), only protects qualifying victims that obtain final DVROs. States can mirror or go beyond federal measures. From 1991 to 2016, 38 states enacted a firearm prohibitor law through DVROs (37 states), TROs (20 states), or both (19 states). Today, survivors suffer from a sluggish and fragmented legal system leading to the unequal protection of victims based on where they happen to live. This research provides an in-depth descriptive analysis of this complex and nuanced legal system, recommendations to spur policy reform, and longitudinal data for future research.

Fears of disclosure and misconceptions regarding domestic violence reporting amongst patients in two US emergency departments

Patients often do not disclose domestic violence (DV) to healthcare providers in emergency departments and other healthcare settings. Barriers to disclosure may include fears and misconceptions about whether, and under what circumstances, healthcare providers report DV to law enforcement and immigration authorities. We sought to assess undocumented Latino immigrants (UDLI), Latino legal residents/citizens (LLRC) and non-Latino legal residents/citizens (NLRC) beliefs about disclosure of DV victimization to healthcare providers and healthcare provider reporting of DV to law enforcement and immigration authorities. From 10/2018-2/2020, we conducted this survey study at two urban emergency departments (EDs) in California. Participants, enrolled by convenience sampling, responded to survey questions adapted from a previously published survey instrument that was developed to assess undocumented immigrant fears of accessing ED care. Our primary outcomes were the proportions of UDLI, LLRC and NLRC who knew of someone who had experienced DV in the past year, whether these DV victims were afraid to access ED care, reasons DV victims were afraid to access ED care, and rates of misconceptions (defined according to current California law) about the consequences of disclosing DV to healthcare providers. Of 667 patients approached, 531 (80%) agreed to participate: 32% UDLI, 33% LLRC, and 35% NLRC. Of the 27.5% of respondents who knew someone who experienced DV in the past year, 46% stated that the DV victim was afraid to seek ED care; there was no significant difference in this rate between groups. The most common fears reported as barriers to disclosure were fear the doctor would report DV to police (31%) and fear that the person perpetrating DV would find out about the disclosure (30.3%). Contrary to our hypothesis, UDLI had lower rates of misconceptions about healthcare provider and law enforcement responses to DV disclosure than LLRC and NLRC. Fear of disclosing DV and misconceptions about the consequences of disclosure of DV to healthcare providers were common, indicating a need for provider, patient, and community education and changes that lower barriers to help-seeking.

What is the role of firearms in nonfatal intimate partner violence? Findings from civil protective order case data

BACKGROUND

Perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) use firearms to injure, scare, and manipulate their partners. Abusers who have a firearm in their homes are more likely to threaten and/or kill their partner. To date, however, limited research documents the nature of IPV perpetrator firearm access or the prevalence of nonfatal firearm abuse behaviors.

METHODS

Federal law restricts firearm access for IPV perpetrators in qualifying domestic violence protective order (DVPO) cases and information about firearms should be disclosed during the DVPO process. We used secondary data from civil DVPO cases (n = 406) in North Carolina that were collected using a representative sampling strategy. Data were from DVPO case files and structured DVPO hearing observations. We conducted a content analysis to record IPV perpetrator access to guns and reported firearm abuse behaviors. We used a linear regression analysis to determine whether IPV perpetrator gun access was associated with higher levels of reported abuse. We also examined factors associated with perpetration of nonfatal firearm abuse.

RESULTS

We found evidence of perpetrator firearm access in nearly half of all cases (46%, n = 108). Controlling for covariates, gun access was significantly associated with higher levels of reported IPV (b = 0.5, p < .001). Firearm abuse was reported in nearly one out of four cases (23.1%, n = 101), and often entailed spoken threats, displaying a gun, or holding a partner at gun point. The only factors associated with firearm abuse in the multivariate models were related to English language speaking/fluency.

CONCLUSIONS

Gun access should be considered an indicator for severe IPV. We must ensure that existing legal mechanisms to identify and restrict abuser access to firearms are fully implemented and enforced. Firearm abuse often manifests as non-physical coercive control which is traumatic and has the potential to escalate to homicide, even in the absence of past physical violence.

Public guns, private violence: The association of city-level firearm availability and intimate partner homicide in the United States

This city-level study examines the association of federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) and measures of illegal firearm availability with the risk of intimate partner homicide. Annual data for a sample of 286 large cities in the United States were collected for the years 2010-2019, incorporating city-level information on the number of gun-perpetrated homicides, the rate of licensed firearm dealers, and guns reported lost or stolen. All data were compiled and analyzed in 2020. Negative binomial models were used to assess the relation of firearm availability and gun homicide by intimate partners, in comparison to gun homicide between non-intimates. Results indicate that a higher rate of licensed firearm dealers was associated with a higher risk of intimate partner homicide, although more pronounced in states with lower-than-average existing gun ownership. This association was robust to different analytical methods and alternate ways of capturing illegal guns. A supplementary analysis using unique data from The Trace further supports the argument that FFL presence is a risk factor for intimate partner firearm homicide specifically, but not necessarily firearm homicide characterized by other motives.

The Use of Structural Intersectionality as a Method to Analyze How the Domestic Violence Civil Protective Order Process Replicates Inequality

While protective orders remain a commonly used resource, multiply marginalized survivors are often unable to file for, obtain, serve, and enforce orders. I argue that using structural intersectionality as a method is the best way to reveal how the protective order process replicates broader social inequalities. I advocate for an alternative way of using structural intersectionality. I first identify the mechanisms by which inequalities exist and then describe how these can be traced back to intersecting social identities. In doing so, I highlight the importance of historical context and the blurring of the civil and criminal legal systems.

An Integrated Public Health Approach to Interpersonal Violence and Suicide Prevention and Response

Violence is a leading source of morbidity and mortality in the United States. In this article, we suggest a public health framework for preventing community violence, intimate partner violence and sexual violence, and suicide as key forms of interpersonal and self-directed violence. These types of violence often co-occur and share common risk and protective factors. The gender, racial/ethnic, and age-related disparities in violence risk can be understood through an intersectionality framework that considers the multiple simultaneous identities of people at risk. Important opportunities for cross-cutting interventions exist, and intervention strategies should be examined for potential effectiveness on multiple forms of violence through rigorous evaluation. Existing evidence-based approaches should be taken to scale for maximum impact. By seeking to influence the policy and normative context of violence as much as individual behavior, public health can work with the education system, criminal justice system, and other sectors to address the public health burden of interpersonal violence and suicide.

Removing Firearms From Those Prohibited From Possession by Domestic Violence Restraining Orders: A Survey and Analysis of State Laws

Under federal and many state laws, persons under domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) are prohibited from possession of firearms. Using multiple sources and a Lexis Nexis search, we developed a list of state laws pertaining to the relinquishment or removal of firearms from persons prohibited from possession by DVROs. After downloading the text of each law, we conducted a legal analysis to enumerate provisions of the laws specifying implementation. We found 49 laws in 29 states and Washington, DC. The laws were conceptualized as instructions to the court, the respondent, and law enforcement. We detail the content of each state's law, including such elements as whether it applies to ex parte DVROs; whether certain criteria must be met, such as previous use of a firearm in domestic violence or lack of an employment exemption, before the law can be applied; and whether the application of the law is mandatory. We also detail instructions to the respondent regarding to whom firearms may be relinquished, whether the respondent must seek permission to transfer the firearm to a third party, and the time by which dispossession must occur. Finally, whether law enforcement bears the responsibility for removing the firearm or whether the law gives the court the authority to order a search and seizure for the firearms is discussed. The purpose of the research is to provide an overview of these state laws that can be used by key stakeholders in legislative, judicial, advocacy, or research roles. Implications are discussed.

Analysis of the Strength of Legal Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their Associations With Intimate Partner Homicide

In this research, we estimate the association of firearm restrictions for domestic violence offenders with intimate partner homicides (IPHs) on the basis of the strength of the policies. We posit that the association of firearm laws with IPHs depends on the following characteristics of the laws: 1) breadth of coverage of high-risk individuals and situations restricted; 2) power to compel firearm surrender or removal from persons prohibited from having firearms; and 3) systems of accountability that prevent those prohibited from doing so from obtaining guns. We conducted a quantitative policy evaluation using annual state-level data from 1980 through 2013 for 45 US states. Based on the results of a series of robust, negative binomial regression models with state fixed effects, domestic violence restraining order firearm-prohibition laws are associated with 10% reductions in IPH. Statistically significant protective associations were evident only when restraining order prohibitions covered dating partners (-13%) and ex parte orders (-13%) and included relinquishment provisions (-12%). Laws prohibiting access to those convicted of nonspecific violent misdemeanors were associated with a 23% reduction in IPH rates; there was no association when prohibitions were limited to domestic violence. These findings should inform policymakers considering laws to maximize protections against IPH.

Analysis of the Strength of Legal Firearms Restrictions for Perpetrators of Domestic Violence and Their Associations With Intimate Partner Homicide

In this research, we estimate the association of firearm restrictions for domestic violence offenders with intimate partner homicides (IPHs) on the basis of the strength of the policies. We posit that the association of firearm laws with IPHs depends on the following characteristics of the laws: 1) breadth of coverage of high-risk individuals and situations restricted; 2) power to compel firearm surrender or removal from persons prohibited from having firearms; and 3) systems of accountability that prevent those prohibited from doing so from obtaining guns. We conducted a quantitative policy evaluation using annual state-level data from 1980 through 2013 for 45 US states. Based on the results of a series of robust, negative binomial regression models with state fixed effects, domestic violence restraining order firearm-prohibition laws are associated with 10% reductions in IPH. Statistically significant protective associations were evident only when restraining order prohibitions covered dating partners (-11%) and ex parte orders (-12%). Laws prohibiting access to those convicted of nonspecific violent misdemeanors were associated with a 24% reduction in IPH rates; there was no association when prohibitions were limited to domestic violence. Permit-to-purchase laws were associated with 10% reductions in IPHs. These findings should inform policymakers considering laws to maximize protections against IPH.

"You Better Say Your Prayers and Get Ready": Guns Within the Context of Partner Abuse

The present study used focus groups to collect qualitative data to better understand the complexity of how women with domestic violence experiences feel about gun violence and protections from gun violence within the context of partner violence. Participants consisted of 42 women who were recruited through domestic violence shelters and programs in a single U.S. state. Three main themes were examined in the focus group discussions: (a) guns used within the context of partner abuse, (b) victims using guns as protection from an abuser, and (c) mandated gun restrictions as protection in partner abuse. A total of nine subthemes were organized under the three general themes. Within the first main theme, participants discussed that although abuse occurs with and without guns, guns are uniquely dangerous. In the second main theme, participants expressed concern regarding the dangers of using a gun for self-defense as well as the individual right to own a gun for self-defense. In the third main theme, participants expressed their frustrations that victims are not taken seriously by the justice system and the difficulties of enforcing mandated gun restrictions. The findings have implications for developing protective strategies against gun violence for victims of partner violence.

An Evaluation of the Impacts of Changing Firearms Legislation on Australian Female Firearm Homicide Victimization Rates

Reducing lethal violence against women requires comprehensive measures addressing individual, social, economic, cultural, and situational factors. Regarding situational factors, access to weapons-and firearm access in particular-has received notable research attention. However, most study comes from the United States of America, and findings may not apply elsewhere. The current study examines whether changing gun laws in Australia affected female firearm homicide victimization. Female firearm homicide victimization may have been affected; however, no significant impacts were found for male firearm homicide victimization. Findings suggest there may be value in preventing legal access to firearms by persons who have a history of intimate partner violence, although considerable further study is required.

An Updated Assessment of Personal Protective Order Statutes in the United States: Have Statutes Become More Progressive in the Past Decade?

The Personal Protection Order (PPO) is one civil intervention all states provide to victims of domestic violence; however, each state varies widely in who can access PPOs, what protections are included in PPOs, and how they are enforced. Given the many changes to state PPO statutes over the last decade, this research replicates and updates DeJong and Burgess-Proctor’s research on PPOs’ victim-friendliness (using states’ 2003 PPO statutes) by examining states’ 2014 PPO statutes. Findings suggest that states have become more victim-friendly with most states ranking in the highest category of victim-friendliness. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.

Firearms and the incidence of arrest among respondents to domestic violence restraining orders

BACKGROUND

Persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs), known as respondents, are generally prohibited from possessing firearms. Efforts to enforce that prohibition have not been evaluated. The study objective was to determine whether associations exist between risk of incident arrest among DVRO respondents and 1) respondents' access to firearms, and 2) law enforcement recovery of firearms from respondents with access to them.

METHODS

This was an observational study of 2,972 DVRO respondents in San Mateo County, California, 525 of whom were linked to firearms by standardized screening procedures. Enrollment occurred from May 2007 to June 2010 and follow-up through September 2010. Follow-up began when DVROs were served (or when issued if no date of service was available); median duration was 689 days. Principal exposures were access to firearms and, for subjects with access to firearms whose DVROs were served, contact by law enforcement personnel to recover those firearms. Main outcome measures were 1) incidence of arrest; 2) relative risk for arrest, adjusted for age, sex, prior criminal history, and duration of follow-up, assessed using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Respondents linked to firearms were older than others and were more likely to have a history of prior arrest (49.7 % and 37.3 %, p < 0.0001). The incidence of arrest was 20.6 % for respondents linked to firearms and 21.1 % for others (p = 0.78). In multivariate models, access to firearms was associated with a modest, generally not statistically significant, decrease in risk for incident arrest. Among respondents who were linked to firearms and whose restraining orders were served, no statistically significant association existed between firearm recovery and risk for incident arrest.

CONCLUSIONS

In this small study of DVRO respondents, findings are inconclusive for an association between access to firearms or firearm recovery and risk of incident arrest. Controlled trials on larger populations are indicated.

Lethal intimate partner violence in later life: Understanding measurements, strengths, and limitations of research

The aim of this article is to conduct a critical analysis of existing family violence literature related to elder abuse homicide, also known as "eldercide." The focus relates to fatal violence perpetrated by current or former intimates. Men are the most likely victims of homicide but are rarely murdered by partners. Older women are most often killed in the home by a spouse or other family, consistent with the notion of "femicide." The Federal Bureau of Investigation Supplemental Homicide Reports and the Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey are utilized to illustrate trends by sex over time. Intimate partner homicide-suicide is examined via news surveillance. Strengths and limitations of data and methods are addressed. Homicide trends among the members of the baby boom cohort are predicted based on current and future patterns as they age. To facilitate prevention, researchers are encouraged to move beyond simple prevalence estimates toward greater understanding of complex trends, distinctions, and motivations of these violent deaths.

Calling the Shots: How Family Courts Address the Firearms Ban in Protection Orders

Access to firearms increases the risk of a batterer killing his partner. Moreover, firearms may be more common in homes where intimate partner abuse has occurred. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 banned possession of firearms by individuals subject to civil protection orders. Yet little research has focused on how this ban is communicated to survivors and batterers. Drawing on systematic observations of protection order hearings, the current study explores factors related to judicial discussion of the ban in court. Implications for improving protection orders and for increasing battered women’s safety are discussed.

Risks and Targeted Interventions: Firearms in Intimate Partner Violence

The use of firearms in intimate partner violence (IPV) is widely recognized as an important public health threat. However, what we know about the risks of firearm access on IPV outcomes is limited. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to determine the state of knowledge on 1) the risks of firearm access and use in IPV and 2) the effectiveness of interventions designed specifically to reduce firearm violence in intimate relationships. Only studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals from 1990 through 2014 were included. Results of the review suggest that, when violent intimates have access to firearms, IPV increases in severity and deadliness; however, increases in severity may not be due to firearm use. Additionally, statutes prohibiting persons under domestic violence restraining orders from accessing firearms are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide, but certain provisions of these laws and their enforcement may impact their effectiveness. Future research should focus on elucidating the link between firearm access and increased IPV severity and on investigating whether and which specific provisions of domestic violence restraining order laws impact the laws' effectiveness. Additionally, more evaluations of initiatives designed to improve the enforcement of domestic violence restraining order firearm prohibitions are needed.

Removing guns from batterers: findings from a pilot survey of domestic violence restraining order recipients in California

Persons under certain domestic violence restraining orders in California are required to surrender any firearms in their possession within 24 hours of service. The California Department of Justice funded a pilot program in which Sheriff's Offices in two counties developed a system for better enforcing the firearm surrender requirement. As part of a larger process evaluation, 17 restraining order recipients were interviewed about their experiences with and feelings about the removal of firearms from their abusers. Most women surveyed wanted firearms removed and felt safer as a result of their removal. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Homicides of law enforcement officers responding to domestic disturbance calls

OBJECTIVE

To describe the law enforcement officer (LEO), encounter, perpetrator and victim characteristics of domestic disturbance-related LEO homicides in the USA from 1996 to 2010.

METHODS

Narrative text analysis was conducted on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's annual report 'Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted'. Potential cases were confirmed if the narrative included the term 'domestic disturbance' or a domestic disturbance situation was described.

RESULTS

116 LEOs were killed while responding to domestic disturbance calls. Ninety-five per cent of these homicides were committed with a firearm. Sixty-seven per cent of LEOs were wearing body armour when killed; however, 52% received the fatal wound to the head/neck. Sixty-one per cent of suspects had a criminal history mentioned within the narratives and perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) were more likely to be killed by LEOs than suspects involved in other forms of domestic violence. Victims of the domestic disturbance were killed in 21% of the IPV-related LEO homicide cases as opposed to only 5% of other domestic disturbance calls. A firearm was the most common weapon used in the murder of a domestic disturbance victim (86%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study describes domestic disturbance-related LEO homicides. Future research in this area should further examine the dangers unique to domestic disturbance calls. A longitudinal analysis could provide greater understanding of the injury and mortality risks faced by LEOs, in order to inform homicide prevention among law enforcement.