This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State 

Courts using Federal funding provided by the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS). 

Document Title:	 State Progress in Record Reporting for 

Firearm-Related Background Checks: 

Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence 

Author(s): Anne Gallegos; Becki Goggins
 

Document Number: 250392
 

Date Received: December 2016
 

Award Number: 2009-NS-BX-K050
 

This resource is part of a series of BJS grant-funded reports on 

firearm-related background checks. This report provides an overview 

of legislation (National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System Improvement Amendments Act) and reporting mechanisms 

for misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, the challenges states 

face in reporting, strategies implemented to overcome the challenges, 

and data that illustrate the improvements accomplished over the past 

20 years in this area. 

Opinions and/or points of view expressed in this report are those of 

the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or 

policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
 

Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence 

State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks:

by Anne Gallegos, National Center for State Courts and Becki Goggins, SEARCH December, 2016 

Introduction

A conviction for a qualifying misdemeanor crime of 

domestic violence (MCDV) prohibits a person from 

possessing a firearm. There is a wide universe of state 

offenses that could potentially be MCDV related; however, 

the conviction must meet several specific criteria in order 

for the Federal prohibition to apply. Federal law1 defines 

an MCDV as “an offense” that: 

•		 Is a misdemeanor under federal, state, or tribal law 

or, in jurisdictions which do not classify offenses as 

misdemeanors, is an offense which is punishable 

by imprisonment for a term of one year or less, and 

includes offenses that are punishable only by a fine; 

•		 Has as an element of the use or attempted use of physical 

force or the threatened use of a deadly weapon; and 

•		 At the time the offense was committed, the defendant was: 

o		 A current or former spouse, parent, 

or guardian of the victim; 

o		 A person with whom the victim 

shares a child in common;
	

o		 A person who is cohabiting with or 

has cohabitated with the victim as a 

spouse, parent, or guardian; or 

o		 A person who was or is similarly 

situated to a spouse, parent, or 

guardian of the victim. 

MCDV Entries in the NICS Index 

2008 

2016 131,101 

46,286 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics 

Note: NIAA was signed into law on January 8, 2008 

(see page 8 for details). 

Disqualifying convictions that meet the physical force 

element and qualifying relationship requirements listed 

above are reported to the appropriate federal databases 

to be available for conducting background checks. 

When fingerprints are required for misdemeanor 

offenses, the MCDV record will be available through 

the Interstate Identification Index (III). It is, however, 

difficult to recognize MCDV records in III because they 

are often not labeled as such. For instance, a state may 

list offenses as assaults or simple assaults, making it 

unclear which ones were crimes of domestic violence, 

something that can only be established by looking at 

the relationship information in the police report or 

charging document on a case-by-case basis. Twelve 

states currently use flagging within their state criminal 

history record systems to indicate domestic violence 

convictions.2 While this is helpful in identifying potential 

disqualifying records, it does not necessarily mean that 

the record meets the complete federal MCDV definition. 

For this and other reasons (e.g., if fingerprints are 

not required for misdemeanor offenses, the specific 

relationship and/or physical force elements are not 

included in the record available to III) MCDV records 

are often reported to the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS) Index. 

1 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence 

1 Title 18, United States Code (U.S.C.), Section 922(g)(9); see also 18 U.S.C. § 925(a)(1).
	

2 Survey of State Criminal History Systems, 2014, https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/bjs/grants/249799.pdf
	

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
2 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence 

States that “Flag” MCDV Records in Criminal History Repositories, 2014 

•		 The number of MCDV entries in the NICS Index • Over 80,000 additional candidate MCDV disqualifier 

has nearly tripled since 2008 due to ongoing state records can be searched when making firearm 

efforts to improve this category of records. eligibility determinations. 

American Samoa 

Guam 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Other U.S. Territories 

State Flags MCDV Records 

OR 

NM 

OK 

CO 

SD 

MN 

MO 

FL 

WI 

IL IN 

NJ 

NY 

CT 

RI 

MA 

NH 

ME 

PA 

VA 

DE 

DC 

MD 

VT 

TN 

WA 

AZ 

TX 

KS 

UT 

NV 

CA 

ID 

MT ND 

NE 

IA 

AR 

MS AL 

LA 

GA 

MI

WY 

WV 

NC 

SC 

AK 

HI 

KY 

OH 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
3 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

Background 

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence 

Prevention Act (Brady Act) that, among other things, 

created the National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (NICS). The NICS is the national system that 

enables Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL) to initiate a 

background check through the FBI or a State Point of 

Contact (POC). The FBI or POC will check all available 

records to identify persons who may be prohibited from 

receiving or possessing firearms. The records may be 

included in the following databases. 

• National Crime Information Center (NCIC) – 

An electronic database consisting of 21 files, 10 of 

which are queried for a NICS-related background 

check. These files help criminal justice professionals 

apprehend fugitives from justice, identify terrorists, 

and verify persons subject to domestic violence 

protection orders. 

• Interstate Identification Index (III) – Administered 

by the FBI, and participated in by all states, the III is 

a fingerprint-supported automated criminal records 

exchange system that includes arrest and disposition 

information for individuals charged with felonies or 

misdemeanors. Information that may be available via 

III includes persons who are fugitives from justice, 

persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or 

adjudicated to be incompetent to stand trial, persons 

found guilty of misdemeanor crimes of domestic 

violence, and persons under indictment. 

• NICS Index – A database, separate from NCIC and III, 

created specifically for the purpose of conducting a 

background check for a firearms-related purpose. 

The NICS Index contains information contributed by 

local, state, tribal, and federal agencies pertaining 

to persons prohibited from receiving or possessing a 

firearm pursuant to state and/or federal law. While 

any disqualifying record may be entered into the 

NICS Index, it is not intended to duplicate information 

entered in NCIC or III. Instead, the database was 

designed to house disqualifying information not 

otherwise available at the national level. 

• Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Relevant databases of 

the ICE are routinely queried by the FBI NICS section, 

and can be queried by POC states, for non-U.S. citizens 

attempting to receive firearms in the United States. 

Additionally, states acting as a POC also search additional 

databases containing large volumes of state and local 

court and law enforcement records. Such records may 

render prospective gun purchasers disqualified under 

federal and/or state laws. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
4 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence

Where are NICS Prohibiting Records Reported? 

The following lists the firearm purchase-prohibiting categories identified in the Brady Act and shows the federal database 

in which those records are appropriately stored. 

Prohibiting Record Type Federal Database(s) 

Felony/Serious Misdemeanor 

Convictions 

lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III. 

Fugitives from Justice NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in NCIC. 

Unlawful Drug Use lll: Arrests and convictions for drug 

offenses should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Information such as 

admission of use and failed drug tests 

should be placed here. 

Mental Health III: Persons found not guilty by reason of 

insanity or adjudicated to be incompetent 

to stand trial should most appropriately 

be placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Involuntary commitments 

to mental institutions for the purpose 

of treatment should be placed here as 

they would be otherwise unavailable for 

firearms background check searches. 

Persons found not guilty by reason of 

insanity or adjudicated to be mentally 

defective should most appropriately 

be placed here if they are otherwise 

unavailable through III. 

Subjects of Domestic Violence 

Protection Orders 

NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here if 

not available in NCIC. (as well as orders 

prohibited under state law). 

Misdemeanor Crimes of 

Domestic Violence Convictions 

lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here if not 

available in III or, if conviction is available 

in III, should also be placed here if 

qualifying relationship and/or force 

element is not available in III. 

Indictments lll: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III. 

Dishonorable Discharges III: Should most appropriately be placed 

here so they are available for other 

criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if not available in III. 

Illegal or Unlawful Aliens NICS Index: Should be placed here as 

they would otherwise be unavailable 

for firearms background check searches. 

Renounced United States 

Citizenship 

NICS Index: Should be placed here as 

they would otherwise be unavailable 

for firearms background check searches. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
5 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

Importance of placing MCDV records in III or NICS Index 

The III and the NICS Index are two federal databases 

included in a NICS firearm eligibility background check 

that contain MCDV records. Ideally, MCDV records will be 

placed in III. This means that there is a criminal history 

record associated with an individual, which includes 

fingerprint data. When an MCDV conviction is available in 

III, it is accessible by law enforcement nationwide. 

MCDV records that do not qualify for entry into III may 

be placed in the NICS Index. Unlike III entries, records 

in the NICS Index do not require a fingerprint-supported 

criminal history record. Since not all states require 

fingerprinting for misdemeanors, the only way to report 

MCDV convictions for those states is through the NICS 

Index. Additionally, many states have adopted laws 

broader than the distinct federal definition of MCDV. 

Records from states with expanded parameters that 

disqualify persons convicted of an MCDV from obtaining 

gun permits and/or receiving firearms can be placed in the 

NICS Index as a state disqualifier. These state laws include 

components such as expanded relationship categories, 

firearms surrender, and firearm removal provisions.3 

While placing records in the NICS Index does not make 

them available for routine law enforcement purposes, 

it does make them available for a timely determination 

on whether an individual is eligible for a firearm. 

For MCDV records, there is some duplication between 

databases. States may have potential MCDV records in 

their criminal history record repository that do not include 

the information necessary for a federal MCDV determination 

through III. If it is not an option to update the criminal history 

record to include these fields, the FBI encourages states to enter 

and maintain the disqualifying information in the NICS Index. 

While the NICS background check is mostly successful 

in determining eligibility through the database check 

alone,4 there are times when additional information is 

necessary to make a decision. This is particularly true of 

MCDV records. Given the specific criteria of the federal 

definition of an MCDV and the fact that many types of 

offenses can fall under the MCDV umbrella, it is common 

for additional research to be conducted during the 

background check. Many offenses that could qualify as 

an MCDV have multiple subsections under the applicable 

offense’s statute. Some of the subsections contain the 

element of physical force, and some may not. The NICS 

Section or state agency processing a NICS background 

check must determine the existence of a requisite 

qualifying relationship as well as must obtain information 

to determine whether the individual was convicted of an 

offense or subsection of an offense which has an element 

of use or attempted use of physical force, or threatened 

use of a deadly weapon. 

Because the MCDV physical force element may not be 

readily apparent in an automated record found during the 

NICS background check process, a transaction frequently 

must be delayed for further research to determine 

the existence and location of the required information. 

If the information is obtained during the research process 

but cannot be updated to a criminal history record, 

the information should be submitted to the NICS Index 

for retention and accessibility. 

It is very difficult to make disqualifying domestic violence 

determinations within 3 business days, the length of time 

before a firearm transfer is allowed under federal law. 

In fact, according to a recent Government Accountability 

Office (GAO) report on domestic violence records, 

2015 FBI data show that approximately 30 percent of 

firearm transfer denials that occur as a result of a MCDV 

occur after three days.5 Subsequently, it is critical for 

documentation at the local law enforcement and court 

level to be comprehensive and complete, indicating 

the relationship between victim and offender as well as 

demonstration of the use or attempted use of physical 

force or deadly weapon (state statute/subsection). 

3	 http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-firearms-policy-summary/ 

4		 The FBI NICS section reported an “Immediate Determination Rate” of 91% in 2014.

See: https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2014-operations-report 

5		 United States Government Accountability Office, Gun Control: Analyzing Available Data 

Could Help Improve Background Checks Involving Domestic Violence Records, GAO-16-483 

(Washington, D. C., July 2016). http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-483 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
6 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

Challenges to placing MCDV records in III or NICS Index 

There are unique challenges that states face in reporting 

MCDV records to federal databases. For instance, 

definitional issues plague the MCDV category of records. 

Determining whether an offense meets the criteria 

established by the federal law can be challenging. 

Historically, it has been uncommon for a state’s criminal 

code to include the relationship in the definition of the 

offense. Thus, any offense that includes the element of 

physical force (use or attempted use of physical force or 

threats of use of a deadly weapon), such as an assault or 

disorderly conduct offense, could potentially be an MCDV, 

depending on the relationship of the two parties. 

Establishing the relationship component can be difficult, 

as the information is not always available in records such 

as charging documents, records of court proceedings, or 

police reports. If it is able to be determined, an additional 

challenge is determining and implementing the best way 

to add the relationship information to the record. 

The physical force element of an MCDV can also prove 

problematic for states when disjunctive elements exist in 

their statutes. The FBI NICS section provides the following 

explanation of disjunctive elements: 

“...a conviction may be obtained under the applicable 

provision either with or without the use or attempted 

use of physical force or the threatened use of a deadly 

weapon. For example, a state generic assault statute 

may provide that a person commits an assault either by 

using physical force against another person or by verbally 

threatening another person. Assuming the requisite 

domestic relationship is present, a conviction under 

the first prong of the statute would satisfy the MCDV 

definition, while a conviction under the second prong of 

the statute would not.”6 

When the element of conviction in a disjunctive statute 

is not included in the automated record, an immediate 

determination is not made. The transaction is delayed and 

further research is conducted to determine whether the 

conviction was under the part of the statute that meets 

the federal physical force requirement. 

Including the qualifying element of a disjunctive statute in 

the electronic record in III or the NICS Index is ideal. Yet, 

when criminal codes are two-pronged, this is problematic 

for programming these automated records. If there is not 

a subsection of the code to be applied, the record must be 

coded as either meeting or not meeting the criteria of the 

entire statute. 

Even when states are able to establish specific violation 

codes, subsections of law, or tailored processes to identify 

domestic violence cases, they are not always consistently 

or correctly used. If court clerks or law enforcement 

officers are not trained in the methods their jurisdiction 

is using to identify these cases, the effectiveness of such 

strategies is significantly reduced. 

Another challenge is record availability. In some states, 

crimes that would qualify under the MCDV criteria are 

designated as fingerprintable offenses. Thus, barring 

occasional oversights, these records should have the 

fingerprint data necessary to include in the state criminal 

records repository and made available through III 

(although they may not include the necessary information 

to make an MCDV determination). However, this is not the 

case in jurisdictions where misdemeanors arrests are not 

supported by fingerprints. Since a state criminal history 

record repository, which holds records that are made 

available through III, cannot create a criminal record for 

an event that is not biometrically based, misdemeanors 

without fingerprint data will remain at the local court 

and law enforcement level. For the reasons noted above, 

the only way these records are available for a NICS 

background check is if they are included in the NICS 

Index. Establishing a process for including these records 

in the NICS Index can be costly and complicated, both 

procedurally and technologically. 

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii); Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 478.11, 478.32. 

(See: https://www2.fbi.gov/hq/cjisd/nics/mcdvbrochure.htm) 

6 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
7 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

 

Improvements in Available Records and State Strategies 

Due to their complex nature, MCDV records are difficult to Misdemeanor Crimes of Domestic Violence 

identify and make available for background searches. Yet, Reported to the NICS Index 

these types of convictions are critical to the background 

check process. As seen in the chart below, an MCDV conviction in Thousands 

is the third most common reason for a federal firearm 150 

purchase denial, behind only felony conviction and 125 

fugitive from justice prohibitors.7 100 

Improvements in the availability of MCDV records are evident 75 

in the steady increase of these records in the NICS Index. 50 

By mid-2016, over 131,000 MCDV records were available 25 

for background checks, nearly triple the 46,000 in 2008. 

NCHIP and NARIP grants have been significant funding 0

2008 2010 2012 2014 5/31/16 sources for states working to improve their MCDV reporting. 

Source: https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/nics 

Note: NIAA was signed into law on January 8, 2008 

(see page 8 for details). 

Number of Federal NICS Denials, 1998-2016 

Convicted of crime punishable by >1 yr., 714,386 or misdemeanor punishable by > 2 yrs. 

Fugitive from Justice 154,359 

This chart does 

123,179 Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence Conviction not include state 

and local Point of 

Contact denials. Unlawful Drug User 113,262 

State Prohibitor 66,707 

Protection/Restraining Order for Domestic Violence 51,792 

Under Indictment/Information 36,586 

Adjudicated Mental Health 22,725 

Illegal/Unlawful Alien 17,091 

Federally Denied Persons File 5,899 

Dishonorable Discharge 989 

Renounced U.S. Citizenship 69 

7 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/federal_denials.pdf 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
8 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

 

 

 

 

Through the National Criminal History Improvement

Program (NCHIP), BJS provides direct awards and 

technical assistance to states and localities to 

improve the quality, timeliness, and immediate 

accessibility of criminal history records and related 

information. Complete records require that data 

from all components of the criminal justice system, 

including law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and 

corrections be integrated and linked. NCHIP assists 

states to establish the integrated infrastructure that 

meets the needs of all components. 

The National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System (NICS) Act Record Improvement Program 

(NARIP)8 was created pursuant to the NICS 

Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. 

L. 110-180 (NIAA or the Act) which was signed 

into law on January 8, 2008, in the wake of the 

April 2007 shooting tragedy at Virginia Tech. The 

Virginia Tech shooter was able to purchase firearms 

from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) because 

information about his prohibiting mental health 

history was not available to the NICS, and the 

system was therefore unable to deny the transfer 

of the firearms used in the shootings. The NIAA 

through the NARIP program seeks to address 

the gap in information available to NICS about 

such prohibiting mental health adjudications and 

commitments, and other prohibiting factors. 

Filling these information gaps will better enable 

the system to operate as intended to keep guns out 

of the hands of persons prohibited by federal or 

state law from receiving or possessing firearms. 

Not all states qualify for NARIP funding due to eligibility 

requirements. The NIAA legislation includes two specific 

conditions for eligibility for NARIP grants: 1) provision of 

reasonable estimates of records and 2) implement a relief 

from disabilities program. (see 18 U.S.C. § 922 note) 

NARIP Funding Awarded by Year 

2016 $14,835,795 

2015 $22,695,054 

2014 $11,442,613 

2013 $10,205,436 

2012 $11,123,112 

2011 $20,123,472 

2010 $16,906,134 

2009 $2,506,731 

Using these and other funding streams, states have been 

working to overcome the challenges of making nuanced 

MCDV records available for background checks, mainly: 

•		 Definitional issues—aligning state misdemeanors 

with federal MCDV criteria 

•		 Disjunctive statutes 

•		 Lack of biometric (e.g., fingerprint) data 

for potential MCDV convictions 

•	 Absence of a process to transmit MCDV records 

to the NICS Index 

The majority of state improvement strategies fall 

under the following categories: 

•		 Enacting new or revised state legislation 

•		 Including MCDV information in court and 

criminal history records 

•		 Automating the determination of a record 

as a disqualifying MCDV 

•		 Automating the submission of a MCDV record 

to the NICS Index 

8 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
9 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

State Legislation
	

The most comprehensive way that states have dealt with 

the definitional challenges inherent to identifying MCDV 

records is to create a state statute that establishes a 

misdemeanor crime of domestic violence that conforms 

to the federal standards. New York is one example where 

this was successfully passed. Historically, MCDV offenses 

were not flagged in a way that indicated they met the 

specific federal requirements for relationship and physical 

force, so these records were not able to be reported 

to the NICS Index. New York’s NICS Task Force played a 

pivotal role in recommending legislation that established 

a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (MCDV) in 

2011.9 The new law conforms to federal MCDV standards. 

New York’s MCDV conviction data is now being collected and 

made available for background checks. Illinois (in 2011) 

and Minnesota (in 2013) enacted similar legislation.10 

Including MCDV information in court 

and criminal history records 

Absent comprehensive legislation that mirrors the federal 

MCDV law, states have developed other strategies to 

parse qualifying MCDV records from the universe of state 

misdemeanor convictions. A common approach that state 

courts and law enforcement agencies have taken is to indicate 

whether a conviction has elements of domestic violence 

present. Arkansas has implemented such a strategy. The 

fingerprint cards, sentencing report, and final disposition of 

charge reports used statewide have a place to indicate whether 

the conviction and/or charge was domestic violence-related. 

They also have a field for the specific relationship between the 

victim and offender. The relationship information is included 

in the miscellaneous field in the criminal history record, which 

is available to III. Including this information on the fingerprint 

card and in the criminal history record eliminates the need 

for searching for the relationship data and indicates that the 

conviction should be further investigated for the elements of 

physical force necessary for an MCDV. 

9 N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §§ 370.15, 380.97.
	

10 725 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/112A-11.1, 5/112A-11.2. & Minn. Stat. § 624.713, subd. 5.

(See http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-firearms-policy-summary/) 

Nebraska is implementing a system where their county 

attorneys include information on the relationship to victim 

on their criminal complaint form. The relationship codes 

that are used align with the federal MCDV categories 

and become part of the court record. This creates 

documentation that can be used to determine whether 

a conviction meets the federal MCDV criteria. 

Delaware’s Criminal Justice Information Center (DELJIS) 

used NCHIP funds to make programming changes to their 

criminal history record information system. Previously, 

data that flagged a case as domestic violence-related were 

not passed to the other criminal justice entities. Through 

their grant, all appropriate cases were flagged with the 

domestic incident (DV) indicator. DELJIS modified the 

criminal history view of a record to show the DV cases 

that are flagged. These flags make it easier for the police, 

courts, NICS, as well as all interested agencies to see any 

individual that is technically prohibited from the purchase 

of a firearm due to a misdemeanor domestic violence case. 

Another approach that takes the identification of MCDV 

records further is developing a process that aligns state 

criminal codes and subsections to the federal MCDV 

requirements. States have implemented processes like 

this to identify the records that have the necessary federal 

MCDV relationship and physical force components. This 

key information is then added to the electronic record 

sent to the NICS Index. Connecticut has a paper form 

that does this, which is completed by the court clerk. 

The form is filled out in any case with one or more of 

the misdemeanor convictions determined to fall into the 

potential MCDV universe. The information in the form is 

validated and the record is sent to the NICS Index as an 

MCDV and is available for background checks. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 0 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

Automation 

There are two main automation strategies for MCDV 

records. First, automating the determination of whether 

a misdemeanor is a MCDV. Second, automating the 

transmittal of records to the NICS Index. 

Nebraska has automated both stages of the process. 

First, the court case management system runs a code to 

electronically parse out the misdemeanor convictions 

under state statutes and subsections that qualify as 

MCDV. These records are then passed through the state 

patrol and submitted to the NICS Index. 

New Mexico implemented an automated process in 

2010 to transfer MCDV data from the courts to the 

NICS Index. A monthly query runs against the court 

case management system based on case type rules. 

The data are compiled into flat files that are emailed 

to the FBI for entry into the NICS Index. At the end of 

2015, New Mexico had more active MCDV records in 

the NICS Index than any other state, with over 27,000. 

Alabama is currently developing and piloting an 

automated transfer of court data with MCDV indicators 

to the NICS Index. Using NARIP and NCHIP funds, the 

Alabama Law Enforcement Agency is partnering with the 

University of Alabama’s Center for Advanced Public Safety 

to develop their MCDV solution. Previously, most MCDV 

conviction records existed only at Alabama’s municipal 

court level, and they did not have a mechanism to get 

those records to the state repository. Their solution is 

to build a centralized repository to collect the MCDV 

dispositions, map them with the arrests that exist in 

their ULTRA (incident case management) system, make 

determinations as to whether they meet the MCDV 

criteria, and send those that do to the NICS Index. They 

are working with multiple court vendors to develop XML 

schema that extracts court data, including the relationship 

and force elements necessary for an MCDV indicator. They 

are currently testing the system; as it is fully implemented 

and rolled out statewide, this solution will provide an 

automated mechanism for submitting records to the NICS 

Index when previously no records were submitted. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 1 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

Connecticut’s MCDV Reporting Program
 

In 2008 the Connecticut Judicial Branch began collaborating 

with state and national partners to develop an MCDV 

reporting program. The statewide, court-led program 

developed both a court form for use in all criminal courts 

to assist with identifying conviction records that may meet 

the MCDV criteria and a central computer system that 

transmitted MCDV records validated by the Judicial Branch 

to the NICS Index through the Department of Emergency 

Services and Public Protection (DESPP), the state’s Point of 

Contact for NICS. In 2011, the Judicial Branch and DESPP 

collaborated to replace the previous record transfer process 

with a unique solution to enter and maintain records in the 

NICS Index through the NCIC front-end interface. Through 

this solution, Connecticut has automated the transfer and 

receives a confirmation for each entry from NCIC, which 

allows the Judicial Branch to directly confirm, validate, and 

automatically maintain records in NICS without third party 

interventions. Most potential MCDV convictions in the 

state are not fingerprint supported. Records that do include 

fingerprints are included in the NCIC front-end interface 

to the NICS Index since the criminal history records do not 

contain the necessary indicators for an MCDV determination. 

Connecticut’s court form is the key to sorting out the 

definitional components for misdemeanor convictions. 

Research was conducted to align ten state misdemeanors 

to the federal requirements for MCDV; these are the 

misdemeanors included on the form. The form is set 

up as a three-step process—clerks must 1) indicate the 

misdemeanor conviction code, 2) indicate whether there was 

an element of physical force in the judicial determination, 

and 3) select the relationship between the victim and 

offender based on existing court records. 

The second step—indicating whether or not there was 

an element of physical force—addresses the issue of 

disjunctive statutes. Four of the state misdemeanors or 

subsections do not require the clerk to complete the 

second step of indicating an element of physical force, 

since the required physical force element is included 

in the definition of the offense. The clerk is, however, 

required to confirm this conviction with other court records. 

The process is currently based on the use of a 

paper form due to the limitations of the court case 

management system. The court clerk completes the 

form and faxes or emails it to the judicial branch 

central office, where the information is manually 

validated and entered into the database. There are 

plans to eliminate the paper form and upgrade this 

process to an electronic system once the new court 

case management system comes online. The data 

will then be part of the electronic case record and 

can be transmitted to the NICS Index without 

additional data entry. 

Connecticut has automated transferring MCDV 

records to the NICS Index. The information that 

is manually entered from their MCDV court form 

is passed from the central database to the NICS 

Index through the NCIC front-end interface. Before 

this process was implemented, court records were 

created and then sent to the DESPP, for manual 

checks and entry into NICS. 

NCHIP funding has been critical for this project since 

2008. Grants have been used to develop strategies, 

build computer systems, automate processes, and 

fund dedicated staff positions. As of Dec. 31, 2015, 

Connecticut has entered over 21,000 MCDV records 

into the NICS Index, which is the second-highest 

contribution by a single state. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
1 2 | S t a t e P r o g r e s s i n R e c o r d R e p o r t i n g f o r F i r e a r m - R e l a t e d B a c k g r o u n d C h e c k s : M i s d e m e a n o r C r i m e s o f D o m e s t i c V i o l e n c e 

Nebraska’s MCDV Automation Project

Nebraska is implementing an automation project to extract 

MCDV information from the courts and send it to the NICS 

Index. The Nebraska State Patrol (NSP) contracted with 

the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) to program a 

data extraction from the court computer system (JUSTICE) 

identified with statutes specific to MCDV. Further 

programming consolidates all of the files extracted in 

JUSTICE from each of the 186 county and district courts 

into one file. The consolidated file is sent to the Office of 

the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), which is the state 

agency that holds the data. The OCIO reformats the data 

into the format acceptable for data transfer through 

the NSP to the NICS Index. Nebraska used BJS Stalking 

and Domestic Violence Records Improvement Program 

(SDVRIP) and NARIP funds to conduct these projects. 

In order to create the computer programming that runs 

in JUSTICE and pulls qualifying MCDV convictions, NSP 

created a working group focused on this project. The 

group worked with NSP’s legal department and the FBI’s 

legal department to determine which state statutes and 

subsections qualified for the element of force. Conducting 

this research and information gathering was challenging 

but it was critical to creating a high quality data pull. 

The working group also created a set of relationship 

codes that are aligned with the federal codes, with the 

additional codes of “Other/Unknown” and “Is dating or 

has dated the victim,” which is a state prohibitor. 

Since Nebraska is not required to fingerprint those 

convicted of all misdemeanors that would qualify for an 

MCDV, many of these records would not be included in 

the state repository and III. Even those that are in III are 

not flagged to indicate that they are a potential MCDV. 

Conclusion 

Misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence records are 

critical components to making firearms background checks 

as effective as possible. Despite the challenges, states 

have nearly tripled the number of MCDV records available 

Thus, Nebraska developed this separate solution, 

which makes the records available in the NICS Index. 

In addition to programming, statewide training 

for county prosecutors is a critical piece of this 

project. Prosecutors are educated on the need 

to provide key information on their complaint 

documentation to facilitate accurate and complete 

reporting. Specifically, the Relationship to Victim 

(RTV) and the statute and subsection are critical 

in determining if a crime meets the criteria for the 

MCDV prohibitor. The NSP Domestic Violence/Sexual 

Assault Program Manager has coordinated with the 

county prosecutors in the pilot counties to facilitate 

implementation. Development of additional training 

and reference materials is ongoing and outreach with 

additional county prosecutors is planned. 

The limitations of this project as it currently works 

is that it is a day-forward solution only. There is no 

way to use this strategy to capture historical records 

because it relies on the prosecutor including the 

relationship element. Also, it does not solve the issue 

of a disjunctive statute, since the programming is 

designed to pull all of the convictions under certain 

statutes and subsections. However, since Nebraska’s 

state prohibitors do not require the element of force 

to be established, convictions under a disjunctive 

statute can be included as a state prohibitor. 

Nebraska’s project went live in February of 2016 in 

two pilot counties. Prior to this, Nebraska was not 

submitting any MCDV records to the NICS Index. 

in the NICS Index since 2008 and continue to work on 

legislative, procedural, and technical solutions to 

improve reporting. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts using Federal funding provided by 

the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). Opinions and/or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do 

not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.