> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Queens Without Castles
- URL: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/domestic-violence-victims-second-amendment-rights-blocked/
- Published: 2026-09-30T16:00:30.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-30T16:00:30.000Z
- Description: Why women victimized by domestic violence are unable to exercise Second Amendment rights
- Author: Michael R. Ulrich
- Tags: #women-and-guns, Gun Violence, When Women Wield Guns

According to [Rachel Louise Snyder](https://www.globalgrit.com/?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) — journalist and award-winning author of [“No Visible Bruises,”](https://bookshop.org/p/books/no-visible-bruises-what-we-don-t-know-about-domestic-violence-can-kill-us-rachel-louise-snyder/cee9fe2ca7f52935?utm%5Fsource=google&utm%5Fmedium=cpc&utm%5Fcampaign=dsa%5Fnonbrand&utm%5Fcontent=%7badgroupname%7d&utm%5Fterm=aud-1885352274224:dsa-19959388920&gad%5Fsource=1&gad%5Fcampaignid=12440232635&gbraid=0AAAAACfld41lnyhDTGtXUwgPxUpW2Rboq&gclid=CjwKCAiA3L%5FJBhAlEiwAlcWO58jkeGxS964S3zyHQVX5laI53v-ei-ve5eXRFT%5FLsnJewLn7w91gchoC9v0QAvD%5FBwE) a book on domestic violence — the abuse suffered by Nicole Addimando, who shot and killed her domestic partner in her apartment in Poughkeepsie, N.Y., in 2017, was “[among the most extreme violence I have ever come across in a decade of reporting on domestic violence](https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/when-can-a-woman-who-kills-her-abuser-claim-self-defense?ref=vitalcitynyc.org).” For at least five yers, Addimando was repeatedly raped, strangled, bitten, beaten, and burned on various parts of her body. The sexual assaults, which included using homemade sex toys and a handgun, were frequently recorded and even posted online.

After shooting her abuser, Addimando was convicted of second-degree murder. As the judge contemplated her sentencing, a relatively new law in New York called the Domestic Violence Survivors Justice Act allowed him to consider the link between the criminal act and the abuse. If the abuse was a significant contributing factor to the criminal behavior, the judge had the discretion to impose a reduced sentence to avoid punishments for abuse victims that would be “unduly harsh.” Nevertheless, after a three-day hearing, the judge determined the law was not applicable to Addimando’s circumstances — and he sentenced her to 19 years to life. The judge’s determination was primarily based on his assessment that Addimando had “a tremendous amount of advice, assistance, support, and opportunities to escape her alleged abusive situation,” including the “uncontroverted ability to withdraw from her apartment” at the time of the shooting.

What is particularly perplexing about the emphasis that Addimando should have left *her* apartment to escape abuse is that this conflicts directly with the longstanding Castle Doctrine defense, which allows someone to use lethal force when faced with a criminal threat inside their home without first attempting to flee. Second Amendment rights advocates have frequently used the historical Castle Doctrine or the more contemporary Stand Your Ground principle to champion the argument that an individual should be allowed to defend themselves with lethal force if they are legally in a location and have reasonable fear for their safety. 

Self-defense has been successfully used to justify fatal shootings in response to a range of actions, including being hit with popcorn in a movie theater. Self-defense has even been found a valid defense in circumstances where the shooter asserting self-defense created the conflict, for example, shootings by George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse. Yet in contrast, examples abound of women convicted for exercising Second Amendment rights against abusers, including in their own homes. This suggests that the creation and development of a Second Amendment right to use firearms for self-defense has done little to expand the ability of women to defend themselves against their most common threat: the men they know.

### The Supreme Court’s stranger-danger Second Amendment

What makes this irony especially rich is that women are frequently deployed to illustrate the importance and utility of firearms for self-defense. For example, Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence in [*New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843%5F7j80.pdf?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) — where the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment protected a right to carry firearms in public — mentioned a woman assaulted in a parking lot that was saved by an armed bystander. Yet, this “stranger-danger self-defense” has done nothing to combat the more common threat posed to women by known assailants. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States, and they are [six times more likely than men to have their death preceded by intimate partner violence](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2813%2961030-2/fulltext?ref=vitalcitynyc.org). Firearms exacerbate the risk of lethality, [with a woman eleven times more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1524838018781101?ref=vitalcitynyc.org). As a result, women’s right to armed self-defense should be at its strongest in the home — where a majority of women’s homicides occur — and in use against known abusers. 

The Castle Doctrine was an exception to the general duty to retreat when in the home, or castle, but since Florida passed the first Stand Your Ground statute in 2005 laws began to extend that exception to areas outside the home when an individual is lawfully present. Still, the home is arguably where self-defense rights should be strongest. As the Supreme Court first held the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear a firearm for self-defense in *District of Columbia v. Heller,* it made clear that whatever the Amendment protected “it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” All of these coalesce around a common theme: that an individual in their home *may* seek alternatives to armed self-defense — but that they are not legally required to do so.

This logic has conveniently been forgotten when applied to women harmed by their partners. In 2018, Brittany Smith shot and killed a man she said had sexually assaulted, raped, and threatened to kill her as well as her brother, all in her own home. A rape kit documented bruises, bite marks, and signs of strangulation that a judge agreed were consistent with physical assault. That same judge, however, did not find the injuries were consistent with *sexual* assault despite the secretions found on Smith’s body and inside her vagina. While the judge in Addimando’s case noted that the shooting victim “did not fit the profile” of an abuser and lacked “the characteristics of a typical domestic violence abuser” — in Smith’s case there was a long history of violent behavior from her abuser confirmed through testimony of his ex-wife, long-time friend, and members of law enforcement. Yet the laundry list of domestic violence charges and arrests — approximately 80 — was insufficient to find a valid self-defense claim.

Though data is limited by states refusing to share criminal statistics, research indicates these examples are more than anecdotal evidence. [One study](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ssqu.12402?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) examining Stand Your Ground cases in Florida found that women were more likely to be convicted when using force than men, while [another](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ssqu.12402?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) found women had longer sentences when compared to men that were convicted. Another analysis found women in Alabama were convicted 25% more often than men in these types of cases. 

> Despite the presentation of Second Amendment rights as applying to all, it is men who have primarily had the right to lethal self-defense.

### Male monopoly on lethal self-defense

Given the difficulty women have in bringing charges of domestic violence, sexual assault, and rape, it is hardly surprising that they would find another uphill battle in asserting their right to use firearms for self-defense. When bringing charges against men, women are often questioned on their choices related to clothing, conduct, past behavior, and substance use, as well as their failure to avoid the circumstances altogether. Even Alito — always ready to adopt the fragile female narrative to bolster beneficial claims of expansive Second Amendment interpretation — has also invoked the “he said/she said” scenarios as a concern when presented with the prospect of disarming men who are alleged to have committed domestic violence.

This is all to illustrate that despite the presentation of Second Amendment rights as applying to all, it is men who have primarily had the right to lethal self-defense. The Supreme Court’s declaration that Second Amendment constitutionality be determined by looking for historically analogous laws only poses greater risk to women. This analysis places considerable weight on the legislative approach taken in an era of male monopoly on violence where women were considered property. 

Women’s inequitable access to armed self-defense reflects how human perception influences what qualifies as “proper” exercise of Second Amendment rights. Biases and stereotypes are inherently baked into evaluating any alleged contention that self-defense was required. This means characteristics such as race and gender can significantly impact – whether conscious or not – whether behaviors and decisions are viewed as justified. For example, Marissa Alexander fired a warning shot into the ceiling of her home because her estranged husband, who had previously beaten her into hospitalization, refused to leave. Alexander – a Black woman – was in her own home, with an abuser who had threatened to kill her, and the use of her lawfully owned firearm left the man unharmed. She was still convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

### A castle of one’s own?

Women accounted for nearly half of new gun purchasers in 2025, as compared to [approximately a third of first-time gun buyers](https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304412?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) pre-pandemic. [Self-protection is a central reason](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0749379724002265?ref=pdf%5Fdownload&fr=RR-2&rr=9a88091dced08f6c), if not the leading reason, for these women wanting firearms. Devastating domestic violence statistics combined with the difficulty in obtaining relief from law enforcement arguably provides strong justification for pursuing self-defensive measures. Along with the growth of the [incel movement](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00111287241310820?ref=vitalcitynyc.org), the [manosphere](https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/asap.12308?ref=vitalcitynyc.org), and [misogynistic extremism](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-05161-8?ref=vitalcitynyc.org), the FBI reported increasing domestic violence against women [between 2020 and 2024](https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-domestic-violence-special-report?ref=vitalcitynyc.org#:~:text=Over%20the%20five%2Dyear%20period,of%20the%20victims%20were%20female). The [ease at which social media](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/28/opinion/manosphere-online-boys-parents.html?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) [algorithms](https://theconversation.com/how-the-manosphere-spreads-through-online-gaming-influencers-and-algorithms-253275?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) [feed young men](https://www.dcu.ie/antibullyingcentre/recommending-toxicity-role-algorithmic-recommender-functions-youtube-shorts-and?ref=vitalcitynyc.org) content explicitly calling for the subjugation and subordination of women isn’t helping either. 

But the stories and data recited above undermine the contention that firearms offer women a viable, legally defensible method of self-defense. If society, law enforcement, juries, and jurists are going to continue to insist that women must seek alternatives beyond armed self-defense — even when they use firearms in their own residences and against abusers — those options must be realistically available. 

The reasons any victim of intimate partner violence does not escape are often numerous and complex. Some, however, should be fairly easy to grasp. Safety is perhaps the most obvious, given how common charges of domestic violence amount to little more than an inconvenience that leaves alleged abusers free to perpetrate more violence against the victim. Financial independence is another common limitation, with women still earning significantly less than men on average. Most parts of this country lack free childcare, universal health care coverage, and accessible public transportation, all of which can leave women in situations where they may rely on the aid of an abuser. The threat presented by an abusive partner is a deterrent for leaving, but that danger becomes exponentially worse if laws and policies do not afford victims the resources and means to protect themselves, especially if they have children. Under those laws, it very well may be more dangerous to attempt to leave than to stay. 

In *Bruen*, the Supreme Court’s most capacious Second Amendment ruling, Justice Alito emphasized that “police cannot disarm every person” with criminal intent, “nor can they provide bodyguard protection” for all citizens. Alito thus concluded that “many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves. And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.” The theoretical universality of the right of self-defense is a lie when seen up close and in person. As Simone de Beauvoir aptly observed in regard to women’s rights: “Even when her rights are recognized abstractly, long-standing habit keeps them from being concretely manifested in customs.”