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

• Published in: Criminology & public policy Vol. 21; no. 2; pp. 379 - 404
• Main Authors: Kafka, Julie M., Moracco, Kathryn E., Williams, Deanna S., Hoffman, Claire G.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Hoboken American Society of Criminology 01-05-2022
• Subjects: courts; Domestic violence; domestic violence protective orders; Firearm laws & regulations; Firearms; intimate partner violence; protection orders; Restraining orders; Restrictions
• ISSN: 1538-6473; 1745-9133
• DOI: 10.1111/1745-9133.12581

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.