The Jurist
A Newsletter for Pennsylvania Judges about Domestic Violence
FALL 2009
Firearms
Background
Checks for State
and Federal
Prohibitions
……….…Page 1
U.S. Supreme
Court Rules on
Individual
Firearms Rights:
District of
Columbia v.
Heller …...Page 7
Firearms: A
Critical Factor in
Lethal Domestic
Violence
………… Page 9
Firearms Background Checks for
State and Federal Prohibitions
Firearms continue to play a large role in violent crimes and fatalities involving
domestic violence in Pennsylvania. Having a gun in the home significantly
increases the risk that an incident of domestic violence will result in
homicide.1 Family and intimate assaults involving firearms are 12 times more
likely to result in death than non-firearm-related assaults.2 In 2008, 144 deaths
in Pennsylvania resulted from domestic violence; nearly half involved a
firearm.3 As described recently by Casey Gwinn of the Family Justice Center
Alliance, the U.S. as a whole is experiencing a pandemic of “domestic
violence flu” facilitated by the use of guns:
Lead Story Headline
There have been 12 mass killings in the last 52 days in
the United States [between March 10 – April 25, 2009].
In 10 of the 12, the killer had a history of violence
against women. 11 of the 12 were directly related to or
defined as domestic violence. 68 people have been
killed in those mass killings including 20 children and 7
police officers.4
State and federal firearms laws preclude firearms ownership/possession by
certain persons deemed too dangerous to possess guns. Persons who are
prohibited include, for example, certain convicted felons, persons with
multiple drug or alcohol convictions, certain persons who have been
involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and fugitives from justice.5
1
BLOOMBERG SCH. OF PUB. H EALTH, CTR FOR GUN POLICY RESEARCH, FACTSHEET:
FIREARMS AND INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE (Oct. 2003),
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/IPV_firearms2.pdf (citing Jacqueline C. Campbell et al.,
Risk Factors for Femicide Within Physically Abusive Intimate Relationships: Results from a
Multi-site Case Control Study, 93 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH, 1089-97 (2003)).
2
Id.
3
PA. COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, 2008 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FATALITY
REPORT, http://www.pcadv.org/Resources/2008_Fatality_Statistics.pdf.
4
Casey Gwinn, 52 Days of Domestic Violence Flu in America, FAMILY JUSTICE CTR.
ALLIANCE, May 3, 2009, http://www.familyjusticecenter.org/blog/index.php?/archives/13-52Days-of-Domestic-Violence-Flu-in-America.html (last visited July 8, 2009).
5
See 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6105 (state prohibitions); see also 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), (g) (federal
prohibitions).
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 1 of 10
Firearms Background Checks (con’t.)
Because firearms present a danger to domestic violence victims, state and federal laws
preclude certain perpetrators from possessing firearms: those convicted of misdemeanor
crimes of domestic violence and those who are subject to Protection From Abuse (PFA)
orders. Between 1994 and 2007, domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and
protection orders resulted in denials to 236,000 domestic violence offenders, an average
of 47 per day. 6 Domestic violence offenses are the second most common reason that gun
purchase applications have been blocked by background checks.7
In Pennsylvania, there are systems intended to ensure that domestic violence perpetrators
and others with firearms disabilities cannot purchase firearms. The Pennsylvania State
Police (PSP) are responsible for conducting instantaneous records checks (background
checks) to determine whether an applicant has state or federal firearm prohibitions that
preclude him or her from obtaining a firearm or a license to carry. PSP searches the
Pennsylvania Protection From Abuse Database (PFAD), the Commonwealth Law
Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN), the federal protection order file, and other
federal and state databases for information, including criminal history.8
The risk of intimate
partner homicide
increases nearly
five times when
there is access to
firearms. In
addition, abusers
who possess guns
tend to inflict the
most severe abuse
on their partners.
STATE FIREARMS PROHIBITIONS
State firearms prohibitions for certain domestic violence perpetrators are found in
Pennsylvania’s PFA Act and the Pennsylvania Uniform Firearms Act of 1995 (Firearms
Act).9
The trial court has the authority to order a PFA defendant to relinquish firearms, other
weapons or ammunition at the temporary or final PFA order stage.10 A PFA defendant
who is ordered to relinquish weapons is also prohibited from acquiring or possessing any
firearms for the duration of the order.11 A PFA defendant who intentionally or knowingly
fails to relinquish firearms, other weapons or ammunition to the sheriff as required
commits a misdemeanor of the first degree.12
Pennsylvania’s Firearms Act directs that when the court orders a PFA defendant to
surrender his/her firearms, that PFA defendant shall not possess, use, control, sell,
transfer or manufacture or obtain a license to possess, use, control, sell, transfer or
manufacture a firearm in this Commonwealth.13 There are other state gun prohibitions
that apply to domestic violence perpetrators. A person who is prohibited from acquiring
or possessing a firearm because he or she was convicted of a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence under the Federal Gun Control Act14 also becomes subject to the
firearm prohibitions under Pennsylvania’s Firearms Act.15 (continued on next page)
Jacquelyn C. Campbell
et al., Risk Factors for
Femicide in Abusive
Relationships: Results
from a Multisite Case
Control Study, 93 AM. J.
PUB. H EALTH 1089
(2003), available at
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/r
eprint/93/7/1089 (follow
“begin manual
download” hyperlink).
6
BRADY CTR. TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS: 15 YEARS OF SAVING LIVES 6 (2008),
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/brady-law-15years.pdf (internal citations omitted).
7
Id.
8
Id. at 2-3.
9
See 23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6101-22; 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6101-21.
10
23 PA. CONS. STAT. §§ 6107(b)(3), 6108(a)(7).
11
23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6108(a)(7).
12
18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6105(A.1)(2).
13
18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6105(c)(6).
14
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
15
18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6105(c)(9).
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 2 of 10
Firearms Background Checks (con’t.)
FEDERAL FIREARMS PROHIBITIONS
Special domestic violence-focused gun prohibitions are found in the Federal Gun Control Act. A domestic
violence perpetrator becomes prohibited under federal firearms law in one of two ways:
(1) the defendant is subject to a qualifying protection order, or
(2) the domestic violence perpetrator is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.16
Under the Federal Gun Control Act, it is unlawful for such a person:
[T]o ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce,
any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped
or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.17
As stated earlier, information about PFA orders is maintained in the federal protection order file.
Not all Pennsylvania PFA orders lead to a federal gun prohibition. If they do not, they would not be included
in the federal protection order file.18 For a PFA order to federally disqualify a PFA defendant from gun
possession, the order must be one:
(1) which was issued after a hearing;
(2) for which the defendant received notice;
(3) in which the defendant had the opportunity to participate;
(4) where the order restrains the defendant from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or
child, or other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the
partner or child; and
(5) where the order includes a finding that such person presents a credible threat to the physical safety of
such intimate partner or child; or
(6) where the order by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical
force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily
injury.19
Under federal law, the definition of intimate partner is limited; intimate partner includes spouses, former
spouses, persons who share a child in common, or persons who cohabit or have cohabited.20 Some
relationships covered under the PFA Act are not covered under the federal firearms law’s intimate partner
definition. For example, dating relationships are covered under the PFA Act,21 but not under federal firearms
law.
Also, the PFA Act covers brother/sister relationships whereas the federal intimate partner definition does not
cover this relationship.22 Therefore PFA orders covering sibling relationships, or non-cohabiting dating
relationships, would not subject the defendant to a federal firearms disability. The trial judge, however, still
could order gun surrender and that defendant would be subject to a state prohibition.
(continued on next page)
16
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)-(9).
Id.
18
PA. STATE POLICE, 2007 FIREARMS ANNOTATED REPORT 2 (2008).
19
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8).
20
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32).
21
See e.g., Varner v. Holley, 854 A.2d 520 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004).
22
See Custer v. Cochran, 933 A.2d 1050 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
17
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 3 of 10
Firearms Background Checks (con’t.)
In addition to prohibiting gun possession for a defendant in a qualifying protection order, the Federal Gun
Control Act prohibits gun possession by a person who is convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence.23 A misdemeanor crime of domestic violence involves the use or attempted use of physical force, or
the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed against a spouse or former spouse, parent, guardian, fellow
parent or a person who is or had cohabited with the defendant or is similarly situated to one of these
relationships.24
Pennsylvania law does not designate specific crimes as domestic violence crimes. Until recently, it was not
settled whether a crime had to be specifically designated as a “domestic violence” crime to disqualify the
convicted individual under federal law. A recent decision from the United States Supreme Court’s, United
States v. Hayes,25 held that a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’ does not require a domestic
relationship as an element of the underlying crime.
FIREARMS PROHIBITION CASES
What types of crimes are considered misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence?
In Hayes, the police responded to a domestic violence call at Randy Edward Hayes’ home.26 With Hayes’
consent, the police searched the home and discovered a rifle. Upon further investigation, the police found that
Hayes possessed several other firearms. Hayes was charged with three counts of possessing firearms after
being convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.” Hayes’ underlying offense was a 1994
conviction for battery, against Hayes’ then wife, in violation of West Virginia law. Hayes argued that the
battery conviction did not qualify as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence because the offense did not
contain the element of a domestic relationship. The case then made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. In its
decision, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
The text, context, purpose, and what little there is of drafting history all point in the same
direction: Congress defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to include an offense
“committed by” a person who had a specified domestic relationship with the victim, whether or
not the misdemeanor statute itself designates the domestic relationship as an element of the
crime.27
The U.S. Supreme Court held that although the domestic relationship must be established beyond a reasonable
doubt in a 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) firearms possession prosecution, the domestic relationship need not be a
defining element of the underlying offense.
The Pennsylvania Superior Court previously held that a conviction for disorderly conduct involving the
discharge of a firearm in the direction of the defendant’s wife constitutes a misdemeanor crime of domestic
violence in Wolak v. Pennsylvania State Police.28 The defendant was convicted of disorderly conduct and was
ineligible for a license to carry a firearm.
(continued on next page)
23
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33).
25
United States v. Hayes, 129 S. Ct. 1079 (2009).
26
Id.
27
Hayes, 129 S. Ct. at 1089.
28
Wolak v. Pa. State Police, 898 A.2d 1176 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006); see also Pa. State Police v. McPherson, 831 A.2d 800 (Pa. Commw.
Ct. 2003) (upholding disorderly conduct conviction for pushing wife to ground, leading to federal disability).
24
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 4 of 10
Firearms Background Checks (con’t.)
What evidence is sufficient to prove an intimate partner relationship in a misdemeanor crime of
domestic violence under the Federal Gun Control Act?
In D’Alessandro v. Pennsylvania State Police,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided the following provided sufficient evidence: the police report’s
description of the victim as defendant’s “live in girlfriend”; the report’s listing of the victim and defendant
having the same address; and the admission at trial by the defendant of a sexual relationship.29 Because it was
determined that the intimate relationship existed in this case, the defendant’s simple assault conviction was
considered a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, making the defendant ineligible for a license to carry a
firearm.30
What happens if an individual provides false statements on an application to purchase a firearm?
In Commonwealth v. Baxter, the defendant attempted to purchase a firearm.31 Baxter lied on the federal form
in response to questions about previous convictions and mental health commitments.32 Baxter was convicted
of unsworn falsification to authorities and for violating Pennsylvania’s Firearms Act. Baxter sought a new
trial, claiming that his prosecution under the Firearms Act was unconstitutional because he was not given
notice that false statements on the federal form could subject him to state prosecution. After the trial court
granted Baxter a new trial, the prosecution appealed. The Superior Court found that the Firearms Act places a
prospective gun purchaser on notice that making any materially false statement on either the state or federal
form subjects that person to prosecution. The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s award of a new trial,
reinstated Baxter’s guilty verdict, and remanded the case for sentencing.33
Does removal of a state firearms prohibition/disability automatically lead to removal of the federal
prohibition/disability? In Pennsylvania State Police v. Paulshock, and the companion case Pennsylvania
State Police v. Reed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that relief from a Pennsylvania firearms disability
does not relieve a federal disability.34 Paulshock and Reed had criminal records and filed actions in their
respective courts seeking removal of firearms disabilities. In both cases, the courts of common pleas restored
their state firearms privileges by court order.35 Subsequently, each individual attempted to purchase a firearm
but was denied because of the federal firearms prohibition. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that a
common pleas court could not remove a federal firearms prohibition pursuant to section 6105 of the
Pennsylvania Firearms Act.36 Under this statute, the only relief that can be given is from the state firearms
prohibition.37
Pennsylvania state courts are generally without authority to remove federal firearms prohibitions for convicted
individuals. Federal law states that only when a convicted individual obtains a governor’s pardon or
expungement may the federal disability be lifted.38 Under Pennsylvania law, a convicted individual may seek
expungement when that person is 70 years old or older, is not incarcerated and has been free of arrest or
prosecution for ten years.39
(continued on next page)
29
D’Alessandro v. Pa. State Police, 937 A.2d 404 (Pa. 2007).
Id.
31
Commonwealth v. Baxter, 956 A.2d 465 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2008).
32
Id. at 467.
33
Id. at 474.
34
Pa. State Police v. Paulshock, 836 A.2d 110 (Pa. 2003) (companion for Pa. State Police v. Reed).
35
Id.
36
Id. at 115.
37
Id. at 115.
38
18 U.S.C. § 921(33)(B)(ii).
39
18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 9122.
30
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 5 of 10
Firearms Background Checks (con’t.)
If a convicted person requests that his/her record be expunged, who has standing to challenge the
decision?
In In re Expungements, the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that the PSP has standing to
challenge an attempt to remove a firearms disability.40 The court reasoned that the PSP has an interest in the
proceedings because of its responsibility to perform administrative functions under the Firearms Act and to
ensure public safety and welfare by keeping firearms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.41
Is an individual entitled to a court appointed attorney to seek return of confiscated firearms? Can a
state court judge return firearms if federal law prohibits it? In Boniella v. Commonwealth, Boniella, a
convicted individual, filed a motion seeking the return of a handgun that had been confiscated by police twelve
years earlier. The firearm was confiscated when police arrested Boniella for manufacture and possession of
counterfeit U.S. currency.42 Although the state charges were dropped, Boniella was convicted of federal felony
counterfeiting charges.
After serving his federal sentence, Boniella sought to have his firearm returned and filed a motion to have an
attorney appointed to represent him in retrieving his firearm. The trial court denied the motion to appoint an
attorney because the firearms return request is a civil matter. The district attorney opposed Boniella’s request
for gun return because Boniella was prohibited from firearm possession under state and federal law.
The trial court found that Boniella was not prohibited from firearm possession under state law, but was
prohibited under federal law. The trial court also found that the police were prohibited from transferring
possession of the gun to Boniella because of his conviction. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court affirmed the
trial court, finding there is no right to an attorney for an individual seeking return of confiscated firearms. More
importantly, the Commonwealth Court found that Boniella was federally prohibited from firearms possession
and could not lawfully possess firearms. The Commonwealth Court noted that because of the U.S.
Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, the trial court could not ignore federal law in considering the gun return
request.43

40
In re Expungements, 938 A.2d 1075 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
Id. at 1080-81.
42
Boniella v. Commonwealth, 958 A.2d 1069 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2008).
43
Id. at 1074.
41
Nationally, between 1994 and 2007, domestic violence misdemeanor convictions and protection orders
resulted in denials to 236,000 domestic violence offenders, an average of 47 per day. Domestic
violence offenses are the second most common reason that gun purchase applications have been
blocked by background checks.
BRADY CTR. TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE, BRADY BACKGROUND CHECKS: 15 YEARS OF SAVING LIVES 6 (2008),
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/brady-law-15years.pdf (internal citations omitted).
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 6 of 10
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Individual Firearms
Rights: District of Columbia v. Heller
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In
District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme
Court decided that under the Second Amendment,
there is an individual right to possess a firearm and
to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes,
such as self-defense within the home.44
This case commenced because Mr. Heller, a D.C.
special police officer authorized to carry a handgun
on duty at the Federal Judicial Center, was denied a
registration certificate for a handgun he wished to
keep at home. At the time, District of Columbia law
effectively banned handgun possession by
prohibiting the registration of handguns; making it a
crime to carry an unregistered firearm; forbidding
persons to carry an unlicensed handgun; and
authorizing only the police chief to issue licenses.
Residents possessing lawfully owned firearms were
required to keep them unloaded and disassembled or
bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Mr.
Heller filed a claim seeking, on Second Amendment
grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing: (1) the
ban on handgun registration; (2) the licensing
requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an
unlicensed firearm in the home; and (3) the triggerlock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of
functional firearms in the home. The District Court
dismissed the suit, but the D.C. Circuit Court
reversed. The District of Columbia appealed to the
U. S. Supreme Court (Supreme Court).
The Supreme Court Ruling: Individual, but not
unlimited right.
In determining that the right to keep and bear arms
was an individual, rather than a collective right, the
Court also confirmed that the individual right was
not unlimited. The Supreme Court found that the
right was “[n]ot a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose.”45 The Court gave as
examples the historical decisions of various courts
upholding prohibitions against carrying concealed
weapons, even when Second Amendment
challenges were raised. The Supreme Court
advised that other limitations would be lawful as
well. As stated by the Court:
Nothing in our opinion should be taken to
cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on
the possession of firearms by felons and
the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the
carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings,
or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms.46
The Court noted that this list of “presumptively
valid regulatory measures” was given as example
only; the list was not meant to be exhaustive.47
Finally, the Court suggested, based on historical
review, that the banning of “dangerous and
unusual weapons” like assault weapons, is lawful
under the Second Amendment.48
While the Court found that gun possession and
ownership are a personal right and emphasized
that the government could place limits on this
right, the Court did not provide a full list of
restrictions that are lawful. Nor did the Court
identify the standard of scrutiny to be applied in
evaluating restrictions on the right to bear arms
(continued on next page).
44
District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783 (2008).
Id. at 2816.
46
Id. at 2816-17.
47
Id. at 2817.
48
Id.
45
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 7 of 10
Heller decision (con’t.)
for lawful, personal use. In other words, the
Supreme Court did not tell lower courts how to
evaluate restrictions on the individual right to
possess and bear arms.
Will the Heller decision affect Pennsylvania PFA
cases?
Unlike the U.S. Constitution, Pennsylvania's
Constitution has always explicitly recognized the
right of an individual to possess a firearm for
personal defense. Article 1, Section 21 of the
Pennsylvania Constitution provides: "The right of
citizens to bear arms in defen[s]e of themselves and
the State shall not be questioned." This right is not
unlimited, however. Pennsylvania's appellate courts
have made it clear that although the right to bear
arms is a constitutional right, it may be restricted in
Pennsylvania's exercise of police power for the good
order of society and for the protections of its
citizens.
Both the U.S. Supreme Court and Pennsylvania
appellate courts have articulated that the right to
personal gun possession is not unlimited and can be
restricted. However, neither Pennsylvania appellate
courts nor the Third Circuit have ever evaluated the
constitutionality of firearms restrictions placed on a
PFA defendant during the pendency of a PFA order.
PFA defendants may question whether the firearms
restrictions imposed by the PFA Act would survive
constitutional scrutiny. Some direction may be found
in Pennsylvania’s 2005 PFA Act amendments. The
legislative history of the 2005 amendments and the
PFA Act contains a careful balancing of
constitutional claims regarding gun possession rights
and safety concerns for domestic violence victims.
In passing the amendments, the legislature made
findings and declarations regarding the necessity for
the firearms provisions and their constitutionality.
Specifically, the General Assembly found and
declared:
(1) The provisions of 23 Pa. C.S. Ch. 61
(relating to protection from abuse) are
necessary and proper in that they further
the Commonwealth’s compelling State
interest to protect victims of domestic
violence from abuse.
(2) The Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States and
section 21 of Article I of the Constitution
of Pennsylvania recognize a fundamental
right to keep and bear arms.
(3) The limitation of firearm rights for the
duration of a protection from abuse order
as authorized by 23 Pa. C.S. Ch. 61 is a
reasonable regulation, a valid exercise of
the police power of the Commonwealth
and furthers the compelling State interest
to protect victims from abuse.
(4) As provided in 23 Pa. C.S. Ch. 61, a court
may impose limitations on firearm rights
prohibiting someone who has engaged in
domestic violence from possessing
firearms when the court deems it
appropriate to do so in order to protect a
victim.49
What does the Heller decision mean for
limitations on firearms under the PFA Act?
There is a possibility that this decision may be
used to claim that ANY restriction on an
individual right to possess a gun, including those
restrictions available under the PFA Act,
constitutes a Second Amendment violation. Until
there is additional guidance from the U.S.
Supreme Court and Pennsylvania appellate courts,
the answer is not certain; however, Pennsylvania's
legislative intent is clear that the legislature
believes that the PFA Act’s firearm restrictions
are constitutional.

49
These legislative declarations may be found at PA. CONST., art. 1, § 21, and 23 PA. CONS. STAT. § 6101 (historical and
statutory notes). An electronic copy of the General Assembly’s findings may be found at:
http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/Legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2005&sessInd=0&billBody=H&bi
llTyp=B&billNbr=1717&pn=2918
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 8 of 10
Firearms: A Critical Factor
in Lethal Domestic Violence
In an April 2008 report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Andrew R. Klein Ph.D.,
reviews the most current research on domestic violence. Dr. Klein is a nationally recognized
expert on domestic violence and criminal justice. He has served as a principal investigator on
numerous research and evaluation grants involving family and domestic violence. In Practical
Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research Part III: Judges, Klein asserts that
firearms are a key factor that increases the likelihood of homicide and/or significant injuries.
The section below is an excerpt from the report.
How critical are firearms?
According to a Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC)
study, more female intimate partners are killed by firearms than all
other means combined. Firearms in the household increase the
odds of lethal as opposed to nonlethal violence 6.1 to 1. Women
who were previously threatened or assaulted with a firearm or other
weapon are 20 times more likely to be murdered by their abuser
than other women. Prior firearm use includes threats to shoot
victim; cleaning, holding, or loading a gun during an argument;
threatening to shoot a pet or a person the victim cares about; and
shooting a gun during an argument.
A significant Massachusetts study of 31 men imprisoned for
murdering their female partners willing to talk to researchers found
that almost two-thirds of the guns used by men who shot their
partners were illegal because the suspect had a prior abuse assault
conviction or contemporary protective orders.
Implications: One of the most crucial steps to prevent lethal
violence is to disarm abusers and keep them disarmed. Judges
should take all steps possible to have firearms prohibitions
enforced and refuse to approve alternative sanctions that preclude
federal firearm prohibitions (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)). Victims in
criminal cases should be advised to obtain protective orders if
firearms cannot be removed through the criminal process (18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(8)) and vice versa.
ANDREW KLEIN, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, PUB. NO . 222321, PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH, PART III: JUDGES 35 (2008),
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/222321.pdf.
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 9 of 10
JUDICIAL PROJECT
PCADV’s Judicial Project Staff provide technical assistance and training to judges
and court personnel regarding the following:
◆
◆
◆
◆
◆
the PFA Act and procedures
case law and updates
state and federal firearms laws and cases
domestic violence resources
statistics and other information
A grant awarded by the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency, using
funds originating from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against
Women, provides funding in support of this project. Our services are free and
confidential.
Please contact us or have your law clerk contact us if you have any questions
regarding the PFA Act, procedure, forms, enforcement, firearms, coordinated
community response, statistics, lethality report, or domestic violence resources.
Jill M. Swiontek, PA Projects Staff Attorney, email: [email protected]
Kathy W. Morrison, PA Senior Attorney, email: [email protected]
(888) 235-3425
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence
6400 Flank Dr., Suite 1300, Harrisburg, PA 17112
Legal Office
Phone: (888) 235-3425 or (717) 671-4767
Fax: (717) 671-5542 ◆ Web site: www.pcadv.org
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence – Fall 2009
Page 10 of 10