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

Zeoli, April M.; McCourt, Alexander D.; Buggs, Shani; Frattaroli, Shannon; Lilley, David; Webster, Daniel

doi:10.1093/aje/kwy174

Cited by 77 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Diez et al (2017) found a reduction in state-specific rates of IPH and firearm IPH in states with laws on IPV restraining orders prohibiting the possession of firearms and specifying surrender details. Consistent with these prior findings, Zeoli et al (2018) found that states prohibiting individuals subject to DV POs from possessing firearms had a subsequent reduction in IPH rates.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

“…Firearm removal provisions have the ability to afford protection for particular individuals and reduce overall rates of IPH and firearm IPH overall (Diez et al 2017;Mercy 2003, 2006;Zeoli and Webster 2010;Zeoli et al 2018). Findings reveal that only 50% of those who requested this potentially life-saving provision received this relief.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, 28% of judges in Fleury-Steiner et al's (2017) study failed to explain or mention the firearm prohibition to petitioners, limiting petitioner awareness of this provision as an available safety measure . Despite differential justice system implementation, robust evidence that state-level firearm removal laws are associated with a reduction in both overall and firearm-related IPH rates exists (Diez et al 2017;Mercy 2003, 2006;Zeoli and Webster 2010;Zeoli et al 2018). Mercy (2003, 2006) found that the introduction of PO laws led to a 7% decline in female IPHs, and Zeoli and Webster (2010) found a 25% decrease in firearm IPH risk in states allowing warrantless arrest for PO violations and prohibiting firearm possession through POs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Firearm Removal, Judicial Decision-Making, and Domestic Violence Protection Orders

Wallin

Durfee

2020

Violence and Gender

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Firearms in situations of domestic violence (DV) are particularly lethal. Although firearms present a public health concern nationally, some states, such as Arizona, have especially high rates of intimate partner homicide (IPH). Despite empirical findings that state-level firearm removal policies significantly reduce rates of IPH, little is known about the factors shaping judicial decisions to implement these provisions at the local level. This study analyzes petitioner and judicial decision-making about firearm removal in cases of civil DV protection orders (POs). We use a sample of 580 PO filings from the DV protection order database (Durfee 2019). Petitioners request firearm removal in 49.6% of PO petitions, and judges include state-level firearm removal as a provision in 31.0% of POs that are granted. Of the 580 petitioners who request firearm removal and receive an issued PO, judges grant firearm removal 50.1% of the time. Findings reveal that judges are more likely to grant firearm removal when PO petitions contain mentions of physical violence, threats to kill the petitioner, and allegations that the respondent owns a gun, controlling for all demographics, incidence characteristics, and allegations about the respondent. Furthermore, judges are less likely to grant firearm removal when petitioners allege that the respondent has mental health issues. The results are discussed within the context of judicial discretion and U.S. firearm legislation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 77%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Firearm Removal, Judicial Decision-Making, and Domestic Violence Protection Orders

Wallin

Durfee

2020

Violence and Gender

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These restrictions exist at the federal level, and many states have enacted their own versions of these laws. Researchers have found that state‐level DVRO firearm restrictions are associated with reductions in intimate partner homicide (Vigdor & Mercy, ; Zeoli & Webster, ; Zeoli et al., ), particularly when these restrictions are extended to dating partners (who are not covered under the federal law or in some states), ex parte DVROs (which are temporary or emergency orders put in place before a full hearing and are also not covered under federal law), and when a state has legislated that a judge can or must order that prohibited DVRO respondents relinquish any firearms in their possession (Diez et al., ; Zeoli et al., ). Additionally, the federal MCDV firearm restriction has been associated with reductions in intimate partner homicides committed with firearms (Raissian, ; Zeoli et al., ).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential to prevent mass shootings through domestic violence firearm restrictions

Zeoli

Paruk

2019

Criminology & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We lagged the state laws by 1 year so that the impact of these laws was assessed starting in the first full year they were in effect, not when the law was enacted, following the approach of Lott and Mustard. 36 Based on previous research, we selected 6 laws for analysis: (1) universal background checks for all guns at point-of-sale 37,38 ; (2) permits required to purchase or possess any firearm 12,39,40 ; (3) ban on firearm possession by people convicted of a violent misdemeanor 41,42 ; (4) stringent "may issue" laws ("may issue" laws that require the concealed carry permit applicant to make a heightened showing of having a need to carry a concealed firearm) 12,41,43,44 ; (5) "stand your ground" laws 45,46 ; and (6) ban on gun trafficking 47 (Table 2).…”

Section: Main Predictor Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates in Suburban and Rural Areas Compared to Large Cities in the United States, 1991‐2016

Siegel

Solomon

Knopov

et al. 2019

The Journal of Rural Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This article aims to examine whether state firearm laws impact homicide rates differently in suburban and rural areas compared to large cities in the United States. Methods We analyzed serial, cross‐sectional data for the 26‐year period 1991‐2016 using a panel design. We examined the relationship between 6 specific state firearm laws and homicide rates in large cities (those with greater than 100,000 people in 1990) and in all geographic areas outside of these cities. Using a city‐level fixed effects negative binomial regression, we modeled the number of homicides as a function of state firearm laws, while controlling for time fixed effects and time‐varying state‐ and city‐level sociodemographic factors. Findings Two policies—universal background checks and “may issue” laws that required a heightened showing of suitability for concealed carry—were associated with lower firearm homicide rates in large cities but were not associated with firearm homicide rates in suburban and rural areas. In contrast, laws that prohibited gun possession by people convicted of a violent misdemeanor were associated with lower firearm homicide rates in suburban and rural areas, but were not associated with firearm homicide rates in large cities. Permit requirements were associated with lower firearm homicide rates in both large cities and suburban and rural areas. Conclusions This article provides the first evidence that state firearm laws may have a differential impact on firearm homicide rates in suburban and rural areas compared to urban areas in the United States.

show abstract

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

Cited by 77 publications

References 19 publications

Firearm Removal, Judicial Decision-Making, and Domestic Violence Protection Orders

Firearm Removal, Judicial Decision-Making, and Domestic Violence Protection Orders

Potential to prevent mass shootings through domestic violence firearm restrictions

The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates in Suburban and Rural Areas Compared to Large Cities in the United States, 1991‐2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About