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

A commentary on domestic firearm violence against women (2018-2021)

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed some of our best and worst qualities as a country. This commentary on "Domestic Firearm Violence Against Women (2018-2021)" discusses weaknesses in federal legislation and proposes ways for states to fill these gaps.

Consensus-Driven Priorities for Firearm Injury Education Among Medical Professionals

PURPOSE

Firearm injury is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. However, many medical professionals currently receive minimal or no education on firearm injury or its prevention. The authors sought to convene a diverse group of national experts in firearm injury epidemiology, injury prevention, and medical education to develop consensus on priorities to inform the creation of learning objectives and curricula for firearm injury education for medical professionals.

METHOD

In 2019, the authors convened an advisory group that was geographically, demographically, and professionally diverse, composed of 33 clinicians, researchers, and educators from across the United States. They used the nominal group technique to achieve consensus on priorities for health professions education on firearm injury. The process involved an initial idea-generating phase, followed by a round-robin sharing of ideas and further idea generation, facilitated discussion and clarification, and the ranking of ideas to generate a prioritized list.

RESULTS

This report provides the first national consensus guidelines on firearm injury education for medical professionals. These priorities include a set of crosscutting, basic, and advanced learning objectives applicable to all contexts of firearm injury and all medical disciplines, specialties, and levels of training. They focus on 7 contextual categories that had previously been identified in the literature: 1 category of general priorities applicable to all contexts and 6 categories of specific contexts, including intimate partner violence, mass violence, officer-involved shootings, peer (nonpartner) violence, suicide, and unintentional injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Robust, data- and consensus-driven priorities for health professions education on firearm injury create a pathway to clinician competence and self-efficacy. With an improved foundation for curriculum development and educational program-building, clinicians will be better informed to engage in a host of firearm injury prevention initiatives both at the bedside and in their communities.

Firearms and protective orders in intimate partner homicides

PURPOSE

To determine differences among intimate partner homicides (IPH) by whether or not a firearm was used in and whether a protective order (PO) was filed prior to IPH.

METHOD

We identified all incidents of IPH recorded in the National Violent Death Reporting System from 2003-2018, based on the relationship between victim and perpetrator. We characterized incidents, perpetrators and victims in IPH cases by whether or not a firearm was used, and whether a PO had been sought or issued prior to the IPH.

RESULTS

We identified 8,375 IPH incidents with a total of 9,130 victims. Overall 306 (3.3%) victims were killed in a firearm IPH with PO, 4,519 (53.9%) in a firearm IPH without PO, 176 (2.1%) in a non-firearm IPH with PO and 3,416 (40.7%) in a non-firearm IPH without PO. Based on review of incident narratives, 5.4% (n=451) of incidents involved a previously-granted or sought PO, and none of which had explicitly mentioned firearm removal as a part of the PO.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of victims were killed with a firearm. Prior literature suggests that POs with firearm removal may be effective strategies for reducing risk of IPH, but we found no documentation in the narratives that firearm removal was a condition in the POs identified. As very few IPH narratives included documentation of a PO, it is likely that ascertainment of PO status is incomplete and could be an area for improvement in NVDRS data collection efforts.

Daily patterns of substance use and violence among a high-risk urban emerging adult sample: Results from the Flint Youth Injury Study

OBJECTIVE

Interpersonal violence is a significant public health problem, with substance use a key risk factor. Intensive longitudinal methods (ILMs) provide data on daily patterns/relationships between substance use and violence, informing prevention. Prior daily research has not focused on these relationships among urban minority samples.

METHODS

Within an RCT comparing ILM assessment/schedule methods, 162-participants completed daily IVR (n = 81) or SMS (n = 81) assessments measuring 19 substance use and violence (partner/non-partner) behaviors daily for 90-days. GLMMs characterized between- and within-person predictors of daily violence.

RESULTS

Participants [48.7%-female; age = 24.4; 62.3%-African-American; 66.7%-public assistance] completed an average of 46.5 daily reports [SD = 26.7]. Across 90-days, alcohol was characterized by episodic weekend use (average = 10 days-of-use, 34.4% drinking-days involved binge-drinking), while marijuana use was continuous (average = 27 days-of-use; 1.7 times/day), with no weekend differences. Among 118-violent conflicts, 52.5% occurred on weekends; 57.6% were with non-partners/peers; 61.0% involved perpetration/57.6% victimization; and 52.5% involved severe violence. For violence conflicts, 27.1% were preceded by alcohol/22.9% preceded by drug use. Between-person predictors of daily violence included retaliatory attitudes (AOR = 3.2) and anxiety (AOR = 1.1). Within-person predictors included weekends (AOR = 1.6), binge drinking (AOR = 1.9), non-medical prescription opioid use (AOR = 3.5) and illicit drug use (AOR = 8.1).

CONCLUSION

Among a high-risk urban minority sample, we found that higher baseline retaliatory attitudes and anxiety, as well as same-day binge drinking, non-medical prescription opioid use, and illicit drug use were associated with daily violence, likely reflecting both pharmacological and socio-contextual factors. Addressing substance use and retaliatory violence with tailored prevention efforts may aid in decreasing negative interpersonal violence outcomes.

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.

Nonfatal Gun Use in Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Guns figure prominently in the homicide of women by an intimate partner. Less is known, however, about their nonfatal use against an intimate partner. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched eight electronic databases and identified 10 original research articles that reported the prevalence of the nonfatal use of firearms against an intimate partner. Results indicate that (1) there is relatively little research on the subject of intimate partners' nonfatal gun use against women. (2) The number of U.S. women alive today who have had an intimate partner use a gun against them is substantial: About 4.5 million have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun and nearly 1 million have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner. Whether nonfatal gun use is limited to the extreme form of abuse (battering) or whether it occurs in the context of situational violence remains to be seen. Regardless, when it comes to the likely psychological impact, it may be a distinction without a difference; because guns can be lethal quickly and with relatively little effort, displaying or threatening with a gun can create a context known as coercive control, which facilitates chronic and escalating abuse. Implications for policy, practice, and research are discussed, all of which include expanding an implicit focus on homicide to include an intimate partner's nonfatal use of a gun.

Firearm Ownership in High-Conflict Families: Differences According to State Laws Restricting Firearms to Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence Offenders

This study examines the association between state laws that prohibit firearm ownership for offenders convicted of misdemeanour crimes of domestic violence (MCDV) and firearm ownership in two-parent families with high-conflict male partners with arrest histories. Mixed effects logistic regression models applied to data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth cohort (n = 5,350) determined that living in a state with laws that prohibited firearm ownership for convicted MCDV offenders decreased the likelihood of firearm ownership among families with high-conflict males by 62%. The length of the time limit length on firearm prohibition was correlated with incremental decreases in firearm ownership in such families, with the probability of firearm ownership among families with high-conflict males decreasing from 30% in states with no MCDV laws restricting access from firearms to 12% in states with permanent prohibition on firearm ownership. These findings have significance for public health policy aimed at decreasing intimate-partner homicide.

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.

Preparing for Disaster: a Cross-Sectional Study of Social Connection and Gun Violence

Living in communities with persistent gun violence is associated with negative social, behavioral, and health outcomes, analogous to those of a natural disaster. Taking a disaster-preparedness approach may identify targets for community-based action to respond to on-going gun violence. We assessed the relevance of adapting a disaster-preparedness approach to gun violence and, specifically, the relationship between perceived collective efficacy, its subscales of social cohesion and informal social control, and exposure to gun violence. In 2014, we conducted a cross-sectional study using a community-based participatory research approach in two neighborhoods in New Haven, CT, with high violent crime rates. Participants were ≥18 years of age and English speaking. We measured exposure to gun violence by adapting the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods Exposure to Violence Scale. We examined the association between perceived collective efficacy, measured by the Sampson Collective Efficacy Scale, and exposure to gun violence using multivariate modeling. We obtained 153 surveys (51% response rate, 14% refusal rate, and 35% non-response rate). Ninety-five percent reported hearing gunfire, 58% had friend or family member killed by gun violence, and 33% were physically present during a shooting. In the fully adjusted model, one standard deviation higher perceived collective efficacy was associated with lower reported exposure to gun violence (β = -0.91, p < 0.001). We demonstrated that it is possible to activate community members and local officials to engage in gun violence research. A novel, community-based approach adapted from disaster-preparedness literature may be an effective framework for mitigating exposure to gun violence in communities with persistent gun violence.

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.

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.

California Firearms Law and Mental Illness

California provides numerous pathways by which people with mental illness can qualify for a state-level firearm prohibition. The state's involuntary detention for psychiatric treatment, or "5150" (CA W&I Code 5150) process, is often cited as one potential mechanism for reducing violence by dangerous people, though its use is limited to people whose dangerousness is due to a mental illness. Additionally, California has taken legislative steps to prohibit firearm ownership among other people who have an increased risk of violence, regardless of whether or not mental illness is a factor. This article compares the California firearm ownership disqualification system for mental illness with the federal system and those of other states, examines the strengths and weaknesses of this system, and reviews alternatives.

Identifying armed respondents to domestic violence restraining orders and recovering their firearms: process evaluation of an initiative in California

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated a law enforcement initiative to screen respondents to domestic violence restraining orders for firearm ownership or possession and recover their firearms.

METHODS

The initiative was implemented in San Mateo and Butte counties in California from 2007 through 2010. We used descriptive methods to evaluate the screening process and recovery effort in each county, relying on records for individual cases.

RESULTS

Screening relied on an archive of firearm transactions, court records, and petitioner interviews; no single source was adequate. Screening linked 525 respondents (17.7%) in San Mateo County to firearms; 405 firearms were recovered from 119 (22.7%) of them. In Butte County, 88 (31.1%) respondents were linked to firearms; 260 firearms were recovered from 45 (51.1%) of them. Nonrecovery occurred most often when orders were never served or respondents denied having firearms. There were no reports of serious violence or injury.

CONCLUSIONS

Recovering firearms from persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders is possible. We have identified design and implementation changes that may improve the screening process and the yield from recovery efforts. Larger implementation trials are needed.