Evidence suggests dedicated units are one way to improve firearm relinquishment by individuals restrained by a civil domestic violence protection order.
As a mother of two young children, Jade thought she could manage her partner’s occasional physical abuse and controlling behavior, but when those behaviors happened more frequently and extended to her children, she knew she needed help. Jade was living through intimate partner violence, often referred to as domestic violence, a type of violence that occurs in relationships and can include emotional and psychological abuse, physical violence, sexual abuse and/or other harmful behaviors like stalking and coercive control. Jade is not a real person, but the elements of her story are both real and common among domestic violence survivors, who are disproportionately women. More than 1 in 3 women in the United States have experienced sexual abuse, physical abuse or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime, compared to 17% of men. About 78% of intimate partner homicides are perpetrated by men against women.
For Jade, the last straw was finding a loaded and unsecured firearm stored where the children had access. When Jade asked her partner to secure it for the children’s safety, her abuser pointed it at her and defiantly said, “Make me.” In homes with domestic violence, firearms are commonly used to coerce, control, intimidate, demean and injure another person. Jade knew things were escalating and was worried about her own and the children’s safety. Research shows that the risk of homicide increases fivefold when an abusive intimate partner has access to a firearm.
Many survivors turn to the civil legal system for help. Domestic violence protection orders (DVPOs) are a civil legal tool available in all U.S. states; they are initiated by someone experiencing abuse (survivor) who hopes that taking this formal step in court will stop the abuse.
Judicial officers issue over 1 million DVPOs across the United States each year. To obtain a DVPO, a survivor files a petition with a local court describing the violence and abuse they have experienced. Each case is reviewed by a judge to determine legal sufficiency and served on the other party to ensure due process. If a DVPO is issued, the court orders the restrained person to stop harming and assaulting the survivor. A DVPO can also restrict the restrained person from coming near, monitoring or contacting a protected person, among other protections. Addressing firearms in concert with issuing protection orders is critical for two key reasons: First, leaving a relationship is one of the most dangerous times for a survivor, and second, firearms are highly lethal and used in nearly 7 in 10 intimate partner homicides.
Because of the pressing danger of firearms in these situations, federal law has long prohibited, and the U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed, that individuals subject to a DVPO cannot purchase or possess firearms. Under federal law, someone subject to an order who tries to purchase a gun will be denied when a background check is conducted. But many abusers hold on to guns they already have, because federal law has no formal mechanism to remove them, and only about half of states have specific laws seeking to address these guns. In addition, many states have struggled to implement these laws effectively, even after they are enacted.
The problem has at least a partial solution: Dedicated units have been used to enhance compliance with firearm restrictions and reduce harm. Importantly, causal research evidence establishes that these units drive improvements in firearm relinquishment by individuals at high risk of using them to harm others.
For some abusers, a DVPO can be an important wake-up call, warning that this continued behavior can result in arrest or other legal sanctions. This is the hope for cases like Jade’s: that once served (that is, legally made aware of this order), her abuser will be deterred from abusive behavior. Overall, research shows that protection orders reduce unwanted contact, sexual and physical abuse, injuries, and abuse-related medical care. However, in some cases, a DVPO can escalate the risk of homicide. Contrary to stereotypes of domestic violence as a “crime of passion,” domestic violence is purposeful behavior. It is not perpetrated by someone who is out of control. In fact, abusers are very much in control. They are often expert at finding and exploiting perceived weak points in people, systems and responses, necessitating vigilant enforcement, especially for orders requiring firearm relinquishment. This makes some elements of DVPOs, like firearm relinquishment orders, vitally important in preventing fatal harm — by removing the most lethal means of violence in the event an abuser escalates after a DVPO is filed. For example, research suggests that state laws requiring firearm relinquishment reduce intimate partner homicide by over 10%.
Despite this evidence, many states with firearm-relinquishment laws, and even jurisdictions in these states, do not implement them fully or effectively. Enacting these laws is just the first step in the implementation process. Across the country, there is a patchwork ranging from weak to stronger implementation and enforcement.
There has been a longstanding tradition of relying on the “honor system” for compliance after a DVPO is issued, even though there is a well-known risk of continued or escalated abuse. Time and again, survivors have warned that abusive partners lie or partially comply. Sometimes, courts fail to order relinquishment despite having the authority or mandate to do so. In 2024, a woman holding her son was shot to death by her former fiancé after a court issued a DVPO but didn’t require firearm surrender. Weaknesses in implementation also occur when officers serve an order but do not take steps to recover firearms, or when courts don’t hold compliance review hearings or take action on evidence of noncompliance. In 2015, a law enforcement officer permitted a man to keep a handgun after being restrained by a DVPO even though it was illegal for him to retain it. He then used the handgun to murder his wife, shoot her friend and then kill himself. These tragedies highlight the paramount need for jurisdictions to prioritize enforcement of firearm relinquishment laws to keep everyone safe. If Jade lived in a jurisdiction with weak implementation, her abusive partner could easily retain the gun he pointed at her, continue to threaten her with it, or use it to hurt her, her children, himself or others.
The problem has at least a partial solution: Dedicated units have been used to enhance compliance with firearm restrictions and reduce harm. Importantly, causal research evidence establishes that these units drive improvements in firearm relinquishment by individuals at high risk of using them to harm others.
The way forward
The good news is that perfect implementation is not required to reduce significant harm. Jurisdictions can incrementally move toward stronger implementation of firearm relinquishment laws. For instance, assigning an officer to serve DVPOs requiring relinquishment, investigating an abuser’s firearm access or holding mandatory compliance hearings can each alone contribute to better implementation.
Dedicated units, including a few in Washington State, are a prime example of enhanced implementation. Generally, these units have dedicated personnel including at least one full-time person, and efforts can include reviewing documents, interviewing individuals, assessing firearm access by querying available purchase history and attempts, sharing that information with the court and/or law enforcement, and helping facilitate the recovery of the firearms. These units work across agencies and jurisdictions to close gaps in the legal system. Importantly, they also monitor and follow up on compliance, providing evidence to courts to reduce the chances that something will slip through the cracks. There is no one-size-fits-all approach; these units vary in their composition and workload but share common features that help make them successful. If Jade lived in a jurisdiction with a dedicated unit, they could talk with her about the gun he pointed at her, make sure that the court was aware he had it and follow through to make sure it was relinquished as ordered.
Preliminary rigorous research evidence demonstrates the impact of dedicated units on judicial decision-making and compliance with relinquishment orders. Using data from over 11,000 DVPOs in Washington State, we compared DVPOs issued in two counties with a dedicated unit to DVPOs issued in two counties without a dedicated unit (using data before and after dedicated units were established). This research design allows us to precisely track changes over time and draw valid cause-and-effect conclusions about the unit’s impact.
We found that dedicated units increased the likelihood that a restrained person relinquished at least one firearm, or another dangerous weapon like a knife or explosives, by more than 10 percentage points. These changes were likely achieved at least in part because dedicated units increased the probability that judicial officers ordered firearm relinquishment. Positive effects on judicial decision-making started right away, within a year of when the unit was fully operational, but improvements in relinquishment shifted more slowly, taking two to three years to have a strong effect on compliance. Overall, the findings show clear and durable effects on both relinquishment orders and compliance that would not have occurred without the work of these dedicated units.
Importantly, research also suggests that, in addition to preventing homicide, the benefits of disarming domestic abusers may also extend into the communities in which they live. A dedicated unit in King County, Washington, was associated with at least a 27% reduction in arrests of restrained individuals for committing a crime after a DVPO was issued. Moreover, when a crime was committed, research evidence suggests those crimes were less severe.
For policymakers and practitioners seeking to reduce the constellation of risks posed by armed domestic violence abusers and crime in their communities, we offer three recommendations from years of experience and research on dedicated units:
1. Integrate domestic violence-specific risk research into practice
Domestic violence abusers’ risks are not confined to the four walls of the home but spill over into schools, workplaces and communities, with research showing domestic violence offending is related to both general offending and mass shootings. Domestic violence abusers are the most likely to violently recidivate compared with all other offenders. Knowing these risks, specifically identifying those with a domestic violence history and committing to investigating and recovering prohibited firearms will save lives. Dedicated units or individual system actors (e.g., court and law enforcement personnel) should incorporate relevant information from all sources (e.g., other police reports, prior protection order petitions or interviews with survivors and family members) to inform specific risks for each family.
2. Start small and build out as resources become available
In reality, there are many ways to create new opportunities to decrease harm that do not require new resources or significant funding. For instance, court systems should design DVPO forms that explicitly ask survivors about firearms the abuser may own or possess, where they are located, when last seen, what they are used for and their level of importance to the restrained person. Courts should create and deliver consistent messaging that compliance will be investigated and/or monitored for judicial officers and law enforcement to deliver when issuing or serving an order to a restrained person when firearm relinquishment is required. Shifting the priorities of one individual (e.g., court staff like a clerk or community staff like a confidential advocate) to manage a compliance calendar or do outreach to protected parties and focusing law enforcement efforts on the service of orders and recovery of firearms are both low-cost changes that can make a significant difference.
3. Shape policy so requirements are feasible for all jurisdictions, not just well-resourced ones
It’s important to design policies that can be implemented based on existing funding and resources. Instead of adding additional steps into law enforcement workflows, policymakers should pursue streamlined practices (e.g., recovering firearms at the same time orders are served) to enhance firearm recovery. Starting with policies that can be accomplished with lower resources, utilizing existing infrastructure and workflows, can help make sure relinquishment is achievable across more jurisdictions while guaranteeing due process.
For communities relying on an “honor system,” undertaking these changes alone or in concert with others can help shift both implementation and enforcement along the continuum from weak to strong. Survivors who choose to pursue a DVPO, like Jade, deserve effective systems that can give them the best chance to lead safer lives in both the acute stages of abuse and beyond.
