Evaluation Review

Readers of this volume are likely to have specific interests in domestic violence or in firearms policy. It is not assumed, however, that the typical reader will know about the interface of the two fields. Thus, the volume begins with a synopsis of the epidemiology of weapon use in intimate partner violence. The purpose of this article is to help readers better understand the nature of the problem, obtain knowledge that will provide a context for the policy, and under-stand practice implications of the articles that follow.

Laws that prohibit persons under a domestic violence restraining order from purchasing or possessing a firearm are a primary way to keep guns out of the hands of batterers. In July 2005, the California Attorney General's Task Force on the Local Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence issued a report called Keeping the Promise: Victim Safety and Batterer Accountability. The report focused, in part, on the extent to which California's domestic violence restraining order system succeeds in disarming batterers. Restraining orders are the principal means by which the criminal justice system can accomplish this objective. The Task Force found that criminal justice agencies and the courts performed poorly in this area. The report strongly recommended that a more strategic, collaborative use of laws already on the books could significantly improve performance, without much additional expense. What follows is a summary of those finding and recommendations.

Restraining orders, an important legal intervention for victims of domestic violence, have broad potential for injury prevention. Using data from one of the busiest restraining order clinics in the nation, the authors examined 1,354 applicants' descriptions of abuse. Most (89.2%) applicants were issued a restraining order. A total of 16.0% of applicants mentioned a firearm in their descriptions of abuse; doing so was not associated with restraining order issuance. About 1 in 20 applicants, even if issued a restraining order, would not be protected by the federal firearm purchase and possession prohibitions because they had not lived with or had a child with the defendant. However, the proportion of these individuals who report threatened or actual use of firearms against them is similar to that of other applicants. Federal and, when relevant, state law should be modified to include these persons.

Batterers with access to firearms present a serious lethal threat to their partners. The purpose of this exploratory study is to estimate the prevalence of and risk markers for gun possession among Massachusetts men enrolled in batterer intervention programs. The authors found that 1.8% of the men reported having a gun in or around their home. Those most likely to report having a gun were White, earned $25,000 or more per year, had served in the military, engaged in problem gambling, and had attempted homicide or threatened their partner with a firearm. Recommendations for strengthening relevant gun laws both within and outside of Massachusetts are discussed.

Firearms play an important role in lethal domestic violence incidents. The authors review state laws regarding two policies to separate batterers from firearms: laws authorizing police to remove firearms when responding to a domestic violence complaint (“police gun removal laws”) and laws authorizing courts to order guns removed from batterers through a protective order (“court-ordered removal laws”). As of April 2004, 18 states had police gun removal laws; 16 states had court-ordered removal laws. The authors examine relevant characteristics of the laws and recommend that these laws be mandatory, apply to all guns and ammunition possessed by an abuser, and include clear procedures to enhance implementation.

Domestic violence imposes a large cost on society. The authors exploit state variation in timing to examine the impact of three types of law on intimate partner homicides. These laws restrict access to firearms by individuals who are subject to a restraining order or have been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor or allow law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms at a domestic violence scene. The authors find that female intimate partner homicide rates decline 7% after a state passes a restraining order law. They find no effect from the domestic violence misdemeanor or confiscation laws.

The Maryland Gun Violence Act, enacted into law in 1996, explicitly authorized courts to order batterers to surrender their firearms through civil protective orders. It also vested law enforcement with the explicit authority to remove guns when responding to a domestic violence complaint. In order to assess how these laws were implemented, we designed a case study and collected data from in-depth, key informant interviews, court observations, and relevant documents. We present findings from this study and recommend how to increase the likelihood that policies designed to separate batterers and guns are implemented in a way that will result in greater protections for victims of domestic violence.

Federal law prohibits the purchase or possession of a firearm by persons convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and those under certain domestic violence restraining orders. The purpose of this investigation is to examine public sentiment about the removal of firearms in the absence of a restraining order or misdemeanor conviction following domestic violence. An experimental vignette design was used in a telephone survey of a cross-sectional statewide sample of 522 community-residing adults in California. Study design and population weights were applied; the findings, thus, are a reasonable approximation for the population of California. In more than 3,500 vignettes, the abusive behavior was judged to be wrong, illegal, or should be illegal (98.7%, 73.1%, and 77.7%, respectively). Although only about one half (56.5%) of the scenarios were thought to merit the issuance of a restraining order, three fourths (77.4%) were thought to merit the removal of firearms. Multivariate analyses indicated greater support for firearms removal when the abuse involved sexual or physical abuse (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] ranged from 2.65 to 5.64) or a gun (AOR = 6.54). Men were the sole population group with significantly lower support for firearm removal following domestic violence (AOR = 0.39). The men who wanted firearms to remain did not differ from other men on any of the measured variables. In sum, there is substantial support, especially when a gun is displayed in a domestic violence incident, for policies requiring the removal of firearms from abusers.