Disarming abusers: Domestic violence protective order (DVPO) firearm restriction processes and dispositions

Abstract

Research summary: We investigated the degree to which legislatively mandated firearm restrictions for domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) have been implemented in North Carolina. We used a representative sample of n = 406 DVPO hearings (2016-17) and found that defendant access to firearms was seldom discussed (23.81%). Among granted orders (n = 303), 69.5% prohibited defendant firearm possession (n = 238) but only 38.61% ordered firearm surrender (n = 143). There were higher odds of restrictions when the defendant had threatened to kill the plaintiff (OR for prohibited possession: 2.25, CI: 1.02, 4.97; OR for firearm surrender: 1.93, CI: 1.09, 3.40); no other lethality indicators were significant. Judges verbally announced firearm restrictions only in one out of three cases (30.87% of DVPOs granted with prohibited possession; 33.02% of firearm surrender cases). Policy implications: Protocol to assess firearm access, implement firearm restrictions, and communicate these provisions to litigants must be more clearly and consistently applied in the courtroom.

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

“…Research should evaluate if reducing access to firearms among DVPO respondents with a history of suicide-related behavior reduces firearm-related injury to both the victim-survivor and the respondent. Though there are legislative mechanisms in place for orders to surrender firearms in DVPO cases, implementation varies by jurisdiction and improvements in enforcement would be needed to realize potential reductions in harm ( Kafka et al, 2022 , Webster et al, 2010 ).…”