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

Fleury‐Steiner, Ruth E.; Miller, Susan L.; Carcirieri, Ava T.

doi:10.1177/1077801216656828

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike Vittes and Sorenson's (2006) assessment of PO granting overall, when it comes to firearm removal clauses severity of abuse and gun ownership were significant predictors of granting removal. Prior qualitative studies have found that firearm removal is irregularly implemented ) and inconsistently communicated to petitioners (Fleury-Steiner et al 2017;Webster et al 2010), and this quantitative study finds similar rates of issuance.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

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: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 58%

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

“…Nevertheless, a strong gun culture is also pervasive in rural communities outside Appalachia. Further, the consistency of firearm confiscation in domestic violence cases is inconsistent and problematic even in states that possess domestic violence firearm laws (Fleury‐Steiner et al ). Therefore, the results may be used to guide both research and policy implementation in other states across the United States.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, not all states possess statutes that prohibit protective order respondents from possessing a firearm. In fact, little is known regarding the implementation and consistency of the enforcement of mandated gun‐confiscation procedures (Fleury‐Steiner, Miller, and Carcirieri )—particularly at the community level in states that lack uniform statewide gun laws.…”

Section: Domestic Violence Gun Control Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“People Will Bury Their Guns before They Surrender Them”: Implementing Domestic Violence Gun Control in Rural, Appalachian versus Urban Communities

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Though gun violence is a global issue, the risk of firearm death is substantially higher in the United States than in other high-income nations. Guns are deeply rooted within American culture; however, different subcultures exist along the urban-rural divide. Such differences between urban and rural communities related to gun culture have been dubbed "firearm localism." We investigated firearm localism in a state that has the highest proportion of firearm-related domestic violence homicide and a large rural area representing a subgroup of rural culture: Appalachia. Specifically, key professionals reported issues related to domestic violence gun control in their communities. We conducted phone and in-person surveys with a sample of community professionals (N 5 133) working in victim services and the justice system in urban and Appalachian communities. Despite evidence of a strong gun culture in the rural communities, both urban and rural professionals estimated that about two-thirds of their community would support restricting abusers' firearm access. Additionally, rural professionals were more likely to show concern for abusers' Second Amendment rights when discussing unintended negative consequences of gun confiscation; urban professionals were more likely to point out that gun confiscation can provide a false sense of security for victims. Policy implications are discussed.

show abstract

“…Fleury-Steiner, Miller, and Carcirieri (2017) found that judges do not always let domestic violence victims know of their rights to have firearms removed during a protection order (Fleury-Steiner et al, 2017). In the Delaware court she and her colleagues observed, over a quarter of judges did not mention to the victim of the firearm dispossession laws (Fleury-Steiner et al, 2017). They argue that this negligence in failing to inform of a firearm dispossession law can put many women in harm's way (Fleury-Steiner et al, 2017).…”

Section: Judicial and Law Enforcement Discretion On Firearm Dispossesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the Delaware court she and her colleagues observed, over a quarter of judges did not mention to the victim of the firearm dispossession laws (Fleury-Steiner et al, 2017). They argue that this negligence in failing to inform of a firearm dispossession law can put many women in harm's way (Fleury-Steiner et al, 2017). Knowing about firearm dispossession laws, such as ERPOs, is dependent upon law enforcement and judges to inform individuals of their choices.…”

Section: Judicial and Law Enforcement Discretion On Firearm Dispossesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A policy analysis of the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act : a multiple streams approach to Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Grim¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

Cited by 16 publications

References 18 publications

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

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

“People Will Bury Their Guns before They Surrender Them”: Implementing Domestic Violence Gun Control in Rural, Appalachian versus Urban Communities

A policy analysis of the Illinois Firearms Restraining Order Act : a multiple streams approach to Extreme Risk Protection Orders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About