Women with Protective Orders Report Failure to Remove Firearms from Their Abusive Partners: Results from an Exploratory Study

Webster, Daniel; Frattaroli, Shannon; Vernick, Jon S.; O’Sullivan, Chris; Roehl, Janice; Campbell, Jacquelyn C.

doi:10.1089/jwh.2007.0530

Cited by 32 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 8 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: 55%

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: 55%

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

“…Monitoring and implementation science are also necessary, as exemplified by the compliance and enforcement issues that have hampered the implementation of firearm policy. [181][182][183][184] Strategies that show promise for cross-cutting impact should be priorities for rigorous evaluation of effectiveness for multiple forms of violence.…”

Section: Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Integrated Public Health Approach to Interpersonal Violence and Suicide Prevention and Response

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Violence is a leading source of morbidity and mortality in the United States. In this article, we suggest a public health framework for preventing community violence, intimate partner violence and sexual violence, and suicide as key forms of interpersonal and self-directed violence. These types of violence often co-occur and share common risk and protective factors. The gender, racial/ethnic, and age-related disparities in violence risk can be understood through an intersectionality framework that considers the multiple simultaneous identities of people at risk. Important opportunities for cross-cutting interventions exist, and intervention strategies should be examined for potential effectiveness on multiple forms of violence through rigorous evaluation. Existing evidence-based approaches should be taken to scale for maximum impact. By seeking to influence the policy and normative context of violence as much as individual behavior, public health can work with the education system, criminal justice system, and other sectors to address the public health burden of interpersonal violence and suicide.

show abstract

“…Few scholars have examined the process of or extent to which firearm relinquishment occurs in cases of DVRO restrictions, and no study, to our knowledge, has been focused on firearm relinquishment for criminal convictions. In one study, conducted in 2002 and 2003, researchers found that judges often failed to order individuals under DVROs to relinquish firearms, and few DVRO petitioners reported that the respondent's firearms were relinquished or removed (Webster et al., ). In a second study, researchers focused on the implementation of an initiative to remove firearms from prohibited DVRO respondents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

Women with Protective Orders Report Failure to Remove Firearms from Their Abusive Partners: Results from an Exploratory Study

Cited by 32 publications

References 8 publications

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

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

An Integrated Public Health Approach to Interpersonal Violence and Suicide Prevention and Response

Potential to prevent mass shootings through domestic violence firearm restrictions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About