In simple terms, intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetrators who are able to access firearms can use them against a partner. More specifically, when firearms are introduced into a violent relationship, it produces a uniquely dangerous context, placing women at increased risk for intimate partner homicide: In violent relationships where an abusive man has access to a firearm, there is a 400 percent increased risk of him killing his female intimate partner. Over half of intimate partner homicides are committed with firearms.

Intimate partner homicide affects communities disproportionately: Over three-quarters of victims are women, and Black and American Indian/Alaska Native women experience the highest rates of victimization. It is important to further contextualize factors contributing to the disproportionate serious injury or lethality among marginalized populations related to IPV. For example, structural and historical realities impact why some survivors delay seeking help (e.g., not wanting to involve authorities due to concerns about over-policing in Black communities and the disproportionate arrest and incarceration of Black men). Such instances of Black women in high-risk IPV relationships not seeking resources or assistance because of the lack of trust in the criminal justice system or financial inequities impacts the choices survivors can make about leaving an abusive relationship and, in turn, leaves survivors at risk of harm and continued abuse.

In intimate partner homicide events, firearm use is also related to the likelihood of additional homicide victims. Perpetrators who use a firearm to kill their intimate partner are twice as likely to kill additional victims (e.g., their intimate partner’s children) compared to perpetrators who use other weapons. If the perpetrator shoots and kills four or more people in one of these intimate partner homicide incidents (e.g., an intimate partner and their three children), this is considered a mass shooting; an analysis of 73 mass shootings from 2014-2017 found that 23, or nearly one-third, included an intimate partner homicide victim.

Still, firearm use in intimate relationships does not always result in death. New findings show that nearly 25 million US adults have experienced nonfatal firearm abuse by an intimate partner. Survivors have reported that their current or ex-partners have threatened to shoot them, their pets, and others, shot at or near them, hit them with the firearm, or displayed the firearm. As we continue to learn about the nonfatal use of firearms against an intimate partner, we recognize that during the course of the relationship, abusers can use firearms to exert power over their partners contributing to high levels of intimidation, fear, and coercive control. IPV survivors report feeling fearful and concerned for their safety as partners use a combination of tactics, such as displaying the firearm or shooting at a victim.

Given the nonfatal and fatal outcomes of an offender having access to a firearm, it is clear that intimate partners in violent relationships need options to protect themselves from a violent partner with access to a firearm. Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium member Lisa Geller’s blog post last year described civil and criminal justice system responses to IPV (e.g., restraining orders, extreme risk protection orders, and criminal convictions) that can prohibit a perpetrator from possessing a firearm in order to prevent firearm IPV. However, the federal firearm prohibition for those under a final civil restraining order will be examined by the Supreme Court in the upcoming case of United States v. Rahimi. Due to the critical role that restraining orders and firearm restrictions play in preventing intimate partner homicide, we discuss restraining orders in detail.

Civil Restraining Orders

Depending on the state, these restraining orders can also be called protective orders, injunctions, no contact orders, or stay-away orders—all of these refer to the same general process. To obtain a final restraining order, a survivor must go through a multiple-step process. First, a survivor must file a petition with the court, which can be a barrier for some IPV survivors (e.g., those not sure of the process or what forms to use). After petitioning, the survivor often has a temporary restraining order hearing; this hearing is held ex parte, meaning that it is held without the IPV perpetrator present. If this temporary restraining order is granted, the perpetrator must follow the requirements and prohibitions set by the temporary order until the final hearing is held. The survivor then must attend the final hearing, where the perpetrator can call witnesses or present evidence. If the final restraining order is granted, the perpetrator must follow the requirements and prohibitions set by the final restraining order. There is no guarantee that a restraining order petition will be granted: In one study of restraining order petitions in which petitioners specifically requested a firearm prohibition, half were granted.

IPV survivors can use restraining orders to respond to immediate risks of violence, including firearm violence. In a study of restraining order petitions, a quarter of petitions included descriptions of firearm abuse. For example, in one petition, an IPV survivor described that her partner had told her that there was a bullet with her name on it, and another survivor reported that her abuser threatened that they would shoot her, her kids, and her pets. Some survivors reported in the petitions that their partners had pointed a gun at them, held a gun to them, or shot at them. IPV survivors who petition for a restraining order are more likely to have experienced firearm threats or high rates of firearm abuse than IPV survivors who do not petition for a restraining order.

In one study of restraining order petitions in which petitioners specifically requested a firearm prohibition, half were granted.

Recognizing the risk of firearms in violent relationships, especially when violence has escalated to the point where the court has issued a restraining order, Congress passed a federal law in 1994 that prohibits those who are under a final restraining order and who have a specific relationship status with the victim from possessing firearms. (This relationship can be a current or former spouse, currently or formerly living with each other, or having a child together. Current or former dating partners who never lived with each other are not covered under this federal firearm prohibition, sometimes called the dating partner loophole.) Some states have a similar law, and some also include temporary restraining orders and current and former dating partners in their firearm prohibitions.

These restraining order firearm prohibitions save lives. State firearm restrictions for domestic violence restraining orders are associated with a 10 percent decrease in intimate partner homicides, as well as significant reductions in intimate partner homicide when these state laws include temporary orders, dating partners, and order the respondent to relinquish any firearms they already have.

Upcoming Supreme Court Case

IPV survivors who have experienced abuse, gone through the restraining order process, and were granted a final restraining order have been protected by the federal law that prohibits their abusive partners from possessing firearms while the order is in effect. However, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month determining if this firearm prohibition is constitutional. Members of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium will continue to monitor this upcoming case and assess its potential impacts.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Jennifer Paruk is a post-doctoral fellow at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center and a member of the Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium (RGVRC).
Esprene Liddell-Quintyn is a community psychologist and a post-doctoral fellow at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University and a member of the RGVRC.