This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center 

for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the Bureau of 

Justice Statistics (BJS). 

Document Title:	 State Progress in Record Reporting 

for Firearm-Related Background 

Checks: Protection Order 

Submissions 

Author(s):	 Becki Goggins; Anne Gallegos 

Document No.: 249864 

Publication Date:	 April 2016 

Award No.:	 2009-NS-BX-K050 

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

firearm-related background checks. This report provides 

background information and examples related to how States are 

facilitating firearm-related background checks that identify 

persons named in protection orders who are prohibited from 

owning a firearm. 

Opinions 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. 
Protection Order Submissions 

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

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

Introduction 

A protection order – also known as a restraining order, 

order of protection, protective order, or an injunction – 

is an order issued by a civil or criminal court for the 

purpose of preventing violence or threatening acts 

or harassment against, sexual violence, or contact or 

communication with or physical proximity to another person.1 

This order may also contain other provisions 

such as requiring the abuser to relinquish firearms 

and/or refrain from all contact with the victim of abuse. 

When the subject of the protection order violates the 

terms established by the court, the victim can ask law 

enforcement (or the court) to enforce the order. 

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

1,100,000 

1,650,000 

2,200,000 

Total Protection Orders 

At the end of 2014, 

there were over 

2.1 million protection 

orders entered in 

State Repositories 

and more than 1.4 

550,000 million entered in 

Federal Databases. 

0 

2008 2010 2012 2014 

P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, was mandated by the Brady Act and launched by 

the FBI on November 30, 1998. NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a 

prospective transferee is eligible to receive firearms or explosives. 

State Repositories Federal Databases (NCIC POF/NICS Index) 

1 18 U.S.C. § 2265(5)(A) 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 | 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

 

 

 

In 1994, Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act 

(VAWA), which requires all U.S. states and territories to give 

“full faith and credit” to all valid orders of protection issued by 

other jurisdictions including tribal lands, the District of Columbia, 

and U.S. territories.2 The intent of this provision is to ensure 

that victims of abuse can call upon law enforcement for 

protection no matter where they are in the country. While 

persons who have been granted protection orders are 

encouraged to keep a copy of the order with them at all times, 

sometimes this is simply not practical or even possible. 

Since many jurisdictions require validation of a protection 

order if it cannot be visually inspected, it is important that 

protection orders be entered into the Protection Order File 

of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) as this is 

the best way to ensure that a record of its existence can be 

confirmed by law enforcement across the nation. 

For firearm- and explosive-related background checks the 

federal law contains provisions that narrow the circumstances 

when a protection order serves as a bar to receiving a firearm.3 

The protection order must restrain the person who is the subject 

of the protection order from harassing, stalking, or threatening 

an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner, or prevent 

the subject of the order from engaging in other conduct that 

would place the partner or child in reasonable fear of bodily 

injury. An intimate partner is defined as the spouse of the person, 

a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent 

of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabits or 

has cohabited with the person.4 In addition, the protection 

order must arise from a hearing in which the subject of 

the order had both notice and opportunity to participate. 

Some states have enacted laws expanding the nature of the 

relationship or types of conduct underlying the issuance of 

a protection order; these expanded-parameter protection 

orders serve as state disqualifiers for receiving a firearm. 

Background 

In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Handgun Violence 

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

created the 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, 

locate missing persons, recover stolen property, identify 

terrorists, and verify persons subject to 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. 

Additional information that may be available via III include 

persons that 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 firearmrelated background check, 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 queried for non-U.S. citizens attempting 

to receive firearms in the United States. 

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. 

2 18 U.S.C., § 2265-66 

3 18 U.S.C., § 922(g)(8) 

4 18 U.S.C., § 921(a)(32) 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

NICS Participation Map
	

American Samoa 

Guam 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

Other U.S. Territories 

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 

OR 

NM 

OK 

CO 

SD 

MN 

MO 

FL 

WI 

IL IN 

OH 

NJ 

NY 

CT RI 

MA 

NH 

ME 

PA 

VA 

MD DE

VT 

TN 

Point of Contact (POC) 

25 

13 

4 

3 

36 

At Least One ATF-Qualified Alternate Permit — The permits are issued by local or state agencies. 

Full POC State — Contact state/territory for all firearm background checks including permits 

Partial POC — Contact state for handgun and FBI for long gun background checks 

Partial POC — Contact state for handgun permit and FBI for long gun background checks 

Non-POC — Contact FBI for all firearm background checks 

Please refer to the latest Permanent Brady Permit Chart for specific permit details at 

www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/permanent-brady-chart 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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.
 

 

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. 

4 | State Progress in Record Reporting for Firearm-Related Background Checks: Protection Order Submissions

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 

(focus of this report) 

NCIC: Should most appropriately be 

placed here so they are available for 

other criminal justice purposes. 

NICS Index: Should be placed here 

if qualified for, but not available in, 

NCIC or if not qualified for NCIC, 

but still prohibited by state law. 

Misdemeanor Crimes of 

Domestic Violence Convictions 

lll: Should be placed here so they are 

available for the purpose of sharing 

criminal justice information. 

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 under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

 

Challenges to placing protection orders in NCIC 

Despite the importance of making protection orders 

available through NCIC, there are many challenges that 

prevent them from being entered. At the end of 2014, 

there were 2,143,002 records in state protection order 

databases and 1,404,205 records in the NCIC Protection 

Order File.5 This means 738,797 records were present 

in state databases, but missing from NCIC. While some 

difference in the number of records in state versus federal 

databases is expected due to the fact that protection 

orders are continuously entered, recalled, or expire, the 

size of the disparity is a concern. The reasons for this gap 

and solutions for bridging it are discussed below. 

As mentioned earlier, if a victim cannot produce a hard 

copy of a protection order, then many jurisdictions 

require law enforcement to verify the protection order 

through NCIC. In order to do this, the officer or dispatcher 

must verify the validity of the record by contacting the 

originating agency that entered the record. Once a record 

is entered into NCIC, the originating agency is required to 

provide “hit confirmations” 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.6 

This presents a problem if a court is the custodian of 

record for the protection order, as most courts are not 

staffed 24/7. Additionally, many courts do not have direct 

access to NCIC. To overcome this obstacle, some courts 

have developed formal agreements with local sheriff’s 

offices to enter and support, or confirm, protection orders 

on their behalf while others have issued standing orders 

to the same effect.7 Another option is for state courts 

to partner with their court of last resort, which may be 

staffed by marshals 24/7 who can support after-hours 

hit confirmations. However, there are many courts (for 

example, those in states where the court of last resort 

is not staffed 24/7) that are unable to enter into such 

agreements and, thus, are unable to enter protection 

orders into NCIC since they cannot meet the NCIC 

requirements for 24/7 hit confirmation capabilities. 

Two additional NCIC requirements for originating agencies 

– those that enter records into NCIC – are to “pack” the 

record and to provide for periodic validation of records.8 

Packing the record means that the person entering the 

record consults source documents – e.g., driver’s license 

file, criminal history file, vehicle registration database, 

etc. – to ensure that as much descriptive information 

as possible about the subject of the protective order 

is included. To confirm the validity of the record, the 

originating agency must inspect each entry to ensure that 

it is accurate, complete, and still outstanding or active. 

This must be done within 60-90 days from initial entry and 

yearly thereafter, as well as any time an entry is modified. 

Both of these activities are time consuming and create 

another reason that some courts and law enforcement 

agencies do not routinely enter protection orders into 

NCIC. If they do not have the staffing to meet all of the 

responsibilities of supporting records in NCIC, they may 

elect to simply not enter them. 

In some instances, protection orders may not be entered 

because the order from the court does not contain all of 

the necessary information to meet the requirements for 

inclusion in NCIC. In addition to administrative data about 

the originating agency, the following data elements are 

required for subjects of protection orders: 

•	 name 

•		 sex 

•	 race 

•		 protection order conditions 

•		 date of expiration 

•	 date of issue 

•		 originating case number/protection order number 

•		 at least one of the following: date of birth, FBI number, 

social security number, operator (driver’s) license number, 

vehicle identification number, or miscellaneous number 

(other government issued identification document 

such as a state identification card or passport) 

5		 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 

(http://www.search.org/resources/surveys/).

6 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ncic 

7 For example, in Pennsylvania: 

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType

=HTM&ttl=23&div=0&chpt=61&sctn=5&subsctn=0 

8		 FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC) 2000 Operating 

Manual: Protection Order File 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

If any of these are missing from the court’s order, then the 

record cannot be entered into the NCIC Protection Order File. 

Some courts have developed coversheets or templates to help 

ensure that judges include all of the required information.9 

Finally, it is important to note that, unlike warrants, protection 

orders may not be entered until they are served and the 

subject has a chance to address the court. (In emergency 

situations, a temporary protection order may be granted. 

However, these typically expire within 3 to 7 days.10) 

In some cases, the law enforcement agency responsible for 

entering the protection order may not be advised that the 

order has been served. In other cases, they may enter the 

temporary protection order in NCIC, but the final order is 

not forwarded, resulting in the absence of the final order 

from the NCIC Protection Order File. In short, any breakdown 

in communication between the court and law enforcement 

can result in failure to properly enter a protection order. 

Availability of Protection Order Records 

Largely due to the challenges stated above, most states have 

created state Protection Order Files (POFs) to allow courts and 

other authorized agencies to enter protection orders into a 

state-administered database. As of yearend 2014, 42 states, 

the District of Columbia and Guam reported having their 

own centralized POF.11 These files may house records that 

would not qualify for entry into NCIC, but they are still 

accessible to in-state law enforcement. Additionally, states 

may have more relaxed requirements for hit confirmations 

and validation requirements. For instance, in some states 

that maintain a POF, a POF “hit” with a scanned copy of the 

protection order attached may be acceptable confirmation, 

thus eliminating the need for courts to support records 24/7. 

In states where the state or local agency conducts the NICS check 

for the FFL, state POF files can also be queried before issuing 

a firearm permit or allowing a firearm transfer to proceed. 

9 http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/domviol/

publications/187815_ABA_Checklist_FINAL.authcheckdam.pdf 

10 http://family.findlaw.com/domestic-violence/domestic-violenceorders-of-protection-and-restraining-orders.html 

11 Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2014 

(http://www.search.org/resources/surveys/).

12 See: “CJIS Spring 2008 Assessment of NCIC Policies at Agencies 

Using Electronic Records Management Systems”, “CJIS Spring 2012 

Proposal to Modify the NCIC Validation Policy and Second-Party 

Check Requirement”, and “CJIS Spring 2013 proposal to modify the 

NCIC Second-Party Check requirement for and Electronic Records 

Management System (ERMS)”. 

NCIC Policy Provides Guidance for Electronic Records 

as the Source Documentation for NCIC Records. 

As many states continue to move toward automating 

data exchanges, modifications are also being made to 

requirements for NCIC submission. Over a decade ago 

the NCIC’s Advisory Policy Board (APB), began work 

to update outdated NCIC policies so they would align 

with agencies using Electronic Records Management 

Systems (ERMS). The first policy was approved by the 

FBI in 2003 and in 2008, 2012, and 2013 the NCIC 

policies regarding information transmitted via ERMS 

were updated substantially. The current guidance 

specifies that second party checks and validation can 

be performed either manually or by synchronization 

of databases, and hit confirmation requests may be 

confirmed using the ERMS because it is considered 

to be the "source document." These changes were 

intended to accommodate the use of scanned 

documents and electronic databases (including court 

databases), encourage the reporting of information 

to NCIC, and still preserve the quality and accuracy of 

NCIC records.12 Allowing for database synchronization 

and electronic documentation for hit confirmations is 

particularly helpful for submitting protection orders to 

NCIC, since protection orders are often difficult to 

manually track and validate given their dynamic nature. 

Protection Orders in the NICS Index 

Protection orders that do not qualify for entry into NCIC 

may be placed in the NICS Index – for example, orders 

from states with expanded parameters that disqualify 

persons under protection orders from obtaining gun 

permits and/or receiving firearms. Unlike NCIC entries, 

protection orders in the NICS Index do not require 24/7 

hit confirmations, and they are not subject to the same 

rigorous validation rules. While placing protection orders 

in the NICS Index does not make them available for routine 

law enforcement purposes, it does make them available 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

for firearms background checks. Importantly, the NICS 

Index is accessible for all firearms permitting and transfers 

throughout the country as opposed to those records that 

only exist within a state POF. 

Once again, the challenge for courts is that they may 

lack access to their state’s Criminal Justice Information 

Services Agency, which is the primary mechanism 

for placing records in the NICS Index. However, batch 

submissions may be submitted via the internet through 

the Law Enforcement Enterprise Portal (LEEP).13 While 

this requires a court to create a LEEP account, there is 

no cost as long as there is an existing computer with 

internet access. Alternatively, courts may partner with a 

local law enforcement entity to enter protection orders 

into the NICS Index, requiring far less support in terms of 

maintaining the records. 

Recent improvements in including protection orders 

in NCIC and the NICS Index 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) has encouraged 

states to increase the number of protection orders 

submitted to NCIC and the NICS Index by making grant 

funding available to states seeking to improve the 

quality of firearms background checks. Specifically, the 

National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) 

and the NICS Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP) 

provide funding to states to enhance the availability 

of protection orders through NCIC and the NICS Index. 

Since 1995, NCHIP has made over $632 million dollars 

available to states and territories to support criminal 

history record improvement. The NARIP program – which 

began more recently in 2009 – has awarded over $95 

million to states specifically for NICS-related efforts. 

Since 2006, when BJS first started tracking the number 

of protection orders in state POFs versus NCIC, the 

percentage of records available at the national level has 

remained steady at 60%. Since the inception of NARIP, 

the number of protection orders in the NICS Index has 

increased from 1,058 to 61,039 as of December 31, 2015. 

Protection Orders in State Repositories v. NCIC 

858,800 2006 

576,000

966,027 2008
 

784,131

1,570,151 2010
 1,395,438

1,868,125

1,499,098

2012
 

2,143,002

1,404,205

2014
 

2015
 1,638,712

State Repositories 

NCIC Protection Order File 

State Submitted Protection Orders in NICS Index
	

0 

17,500 

35,000 

52,500 

70,000 

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
 

13 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/general-information/nics-index-brochure 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

 

State Success Stories
	

As outlined earlier in this report, the nature of 

protection orders and the requirements of NCIC 

together can make it challenging for states to 

make these records available at the national level. 

Several states have focused efforts on improving 

protection order reporting over the past few years, 

and federal grant funds, such as NARIP and NCHIP, have 

provided states with resources to develop strategies for 

overcoming the barriers to reporting protection orders 

to NCIC. 

West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals 

Typically, the state police or criminal justice agency in 

a state has the responsibility of reporting protection 

orders to NCIC. However, in some cases, the courts have 

taken on that role and they are the entity that manages 

the protection order reporting process. 

West Virginia is an example of a state that has 

successfully created a court-led system to maintain 

and report protection orders. By making the 

protection order itself accessible by law enforcement 

electronically, the 24/7 hit confirmation barrier 

was overcome. Employing court staff to conduct 

validation of NCIC records against court records 

provides a dedicated resource for this activity, 

allowing protection orders to be sent to NCIC. 

The West Virginia Domestic Violence Registry (DV Registry) 

was established in 2009 as a tool to communicate domestic 

violence protective orders to law enforcement. The protection 

orders are made available to law enforcement statewide and 

are submitted to NCIC. 

The DV Registry provides: 

•		 Access to all active DV records in the state 

•		 Access to services recorded by law enforcement and 

court staff throughout the state 

•		 24-hour support via phone and email 

•		 Inclusion of out-of-state orders 

•	 Technical assistance and training 

•		 GEO mapping for service and law enforcement protection 

•		 Firearm seizure and 3rd party transfer records 

The database that supports the DV Registry includes a 

scanned copy of the protective order and petition. Staff in 

both magistrate court and family court scan DV protective 

orders into the database within minutes of when they are 

issued by a court. Throughout the day, the computer system 

pulls those new orders, formats them, and submits them 

through the West Virginia State Police to NCIC. 

When an officer in the field runs a name through the NCIC 

and there is a "hit" for a protective order, the officer is 

required to confirm the data from the original source within 

ten minutes. Because West Virginia courthouses are 

not open 24/7, it was not previously possible to confirm a 

"hit" for a protective order. Now officers in West Virginia 

State Police detachments and 911 centers are able to access 

the scanned image of the protective order and confirm its 

existence and effective date. Because these centers are 

open around the clock, they can provide hit 

confirmations at any time. NCIC and state policies and 

procedures allow the website to be used for hit confirmation, 

service, and as an arrest tool without having to confirm 

whether the record is still active with the courthouse first. 

The orders in the DV registry are passed through the state police to 

the NCIC Protection Order File (POF), and the State Police 

receive verification from the FBI that the records were accepted. 

As of February 1, 2016, West Virginia had 2,615 active protection 

orders in the NCIC POF and there was a 98% acceptance rate 

from the DV registry to NCIC. This is due to quality control 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

procedures that find and correct errors before the record is 

submitted to NCIC. Any updates to the DV Registry trigger an 

NCIC message to update in their file, so NCIC has the most 

up-to-date information that the courts produce. 

Since the registry system is maintained by the West Virginia 

Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), 

staff do not “pack” the records with information from other 

criminal justice sources. When they periodically validate the 

records, court staff ensure that the information in NCIC is 

synchronous to the court records. 

Several factors led to the creation and success of the DV 

Registry. One of those factors is an ongoing partnership 

with the state police. Establishing the process, roles, and 

responsibilities were key in getting the DV Registry from an 

idea to implementation, particularly since the courts are 

a non-traditional entity for handling and storing criminal 

justice information. Another necessary factor was policy and 

statute change. State statute changes allowed the courts to 

house the DV registry, and court rules mandated that judges 

and magistrates scan protection orders and protection order 

updates into the registry immediately after they are issued. 

The DV Registry has two dedicated staff. Initially, these staff 

were funded by a VAWA grant, but the court now funds 

these positions. The staff provide quality control on orders 

entered into NCIC by conducting second-party checks to 

assure data quality and completeness, as well as checking 

against court activity to make sure no orders are missed. 

They also do the validation of records, as required by NCIC. 

Training is a critical piece of making the DV Registry successful. 

The West Virginia Supreme Court AOC provides ongoing training 

in several venues for judges and court staff on DV and the 

DV registry. They also provide training to law enforcement officers 

on using the registry, including training at the police academy. 

Reinforcing the importance of entering protection orders into 

NCIC and making them available is key to continued support 

and use of the registry. 

New York Office of Court Administration 

New York is an example of a court system that has partnered with 

the state police to submit protection orders to NCIC. New York’s 

strategy employs an automated central searchable repository. 

They have also been successful in sending state disqualifying 

protection orders to the NICS Index, which is a unique strategy. 

Since 1996, New York has ensured that protection orders are 

registered in the court system’s statewide domestic violence 

registry database. These orders are transmitted in real-time to 

the State Police repository which then transmits to the NCIC 

Protection Order File (POF), thus providing all law enforcement 

nationally with access to New York protection orders. This was 

primarily accomplished through the implementation of a 

statewide portal—known as WebDVS—that allows all court 

clerks to generate protection orders and simultaneously register 

them into a single, searchable repository. Prior to the 

implementation of the portal, the New York Office of Court 

Administration (OCA) employed a team of approximately 

20 data entry specialists to process the registration of 300,000+ 

protection orders issued annually. Today, with statewide 

implementation of WebDVS, only a single data entry person 

is needed to keep up with the remaining paper submissions 

in the state. Local police agencies are provided access to 

all orders entered into NCIC, and they assist the courts by 

providing the majority of hit confirmations. 

Along with the NCIC POF transmissions, New York contributed 

nearly 174,000 firearms-disqualifying orders to the NICS Index 

in 2014, the highest of any state. Of these, approximately 39%, 

or 68,000, were federally disqualifying protection orders and the 

remaining 61%, or 106,000 orders, were state disqualifying. 

This effort was supported by NARIP grant funding which 

allowed OCA to automate the federal and state eligibility 

calculation for protection orders issued in family and 

criminal courts statewide. This required modifications to 

WebDVS to capture relationship information as a required 

field for any protection order entered into the system, as 

well as careful analysis of the state terms, conditions, and 

service requirements of orders to match up with the federal 

definitions for protection order firearms prohibitions. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

 

 

 

 

Those that are determined to be federal disqualifiers under 

Section 922(g) (8) of the Brady Act as well as those that 

meet the state disqualifiers are transmitted to the NICS 

Index in real-time. Based on review of the transmission data, 

approximately one-third are issued out of family courts and 

the remaining two-thirds are issued out of criminal courts. 

The total number of transmissions averages 650 per day. 

It is worth noting the increase in the number of state 

disqualifying records New York has submitted to the NICS Index. 

For the past several years, the FBI has encouraged states to 

place state-specific disqualifiers into the NICS Index to allow 

them to be enforced on a national basis. It is quite common 

for judges in New York to restrict subjects of protection orders 

from obtaining firearms and firearms permits, to order subjects 

to surrender weapons, and to suspend/revoke an existing 

firearms permit. When such restrictions are placed on subjects 

who are not “intimate partners” with the victim, the protection 

order cannot be entered into the protection order category 

of the NICS Index, but can, instead, be entered into the state 

disqualifying category. As noted above, the majority of the 

protection orders transmitted to the NICS Index from New York 

fall under this state-disqualifying category. 

The OCA also used NARIP funds to analyze, design, develop, 

and deploy direct inquiry functionality for non-court agency 

staff (e.g. FBI NICS staff) in the WebDVS protection order 

registry system. This involved working closely with external 

staff to ensure that their functional requirements were 

met and providing training to enable them to use the new 

features. This access allows the NICS Examiners to directly 

view PDF images of orders in WebDVS, cutting back the time 

otherwise required to contact the issuing courts directly 

for copies of the order forms. This is crucial given the 72-

hour window for background checks. A Memorandum of 

Understanding between the FBI NICS unit and the New York 

Unified Court System was signed by all parties in January, 

2014, formalizing the security requirements and conditions 

of use of the WebDVS Registry application by NICS 

Investigators. Since this time, over 60 NICS Investigators 

have been trained and are able to use the WebDVS system 

to directly look up orders issued by the New York courts. 

In addition to the NARIP funding, New York has the 

underlying benefits of a unified court system, a statewide 

high-speed private computer network for all of the courts, 

and a single domestic violence registry database managed 

and supported by the court system. All of these combined 

factors supported the ability to automate the immediate 

calculation and transmission of statewide firearmsprohibiting data to the NCIC and NICS Index data files. 

Nebraska State Patrol 

Nebraska is an example of a state that is using a centrally 

managed database that pulls data directly from court and other 

case management systems. Nebraska’s system is managed 

not by the courts, but by the Nebraska State Patrol. Their 

strategy leverages an existing data repository, NCJIS, which 

connects to court and other state databases, to create a 

mechanism for entering qualifying protection orders into NCIC. 

Nebraska’s Protection Order Portal has improved information 

sharing of protection order records by creating an online portal, 

connecting Nebraska’s court record system (JUSTICE) and 

NCIC. Previously, only about 30% of Nebraska’s protection 

orders were being sent to NCIC, primarily due to the lack of 

time and resources necessary in local sheriff’s offices for the 

NCIC process. The Protection Order Portal (hereafter, Portal) 

leverages an existing data repository, the Nebraska Criminal 

Justice Information System (NCJIS), to enable electronic 

protection order sharing that is effective and manageable 

for both small and large counties. 

In July 2014, the Portal went live in Adams County, 

connecting JUSTICE via the Portal to NCJIS. The Portal 

enables users to enter, modify, clear, cancel and submit 

records to the NCIC POF without having to manually re-enter 

data. The Portal allows agencies to “pack” their NCIC records 

with data from other Nebraska criminal justice sources (such 

as DMV, criminal history, and jail records) and local data 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

sources, through NCJIS. The Portal also improves records by 

incorporating data quality measures within the system. NCIC 

compliance checks are performed prior to submission to 

NCIC POF to minimize errors. 

The system provides users resources in matching the terms 

and conditions of a Nebraska-issued protection order to the 

federally standardized NCIC Protection Order Conditions 

(PCO) codes. These codes may include judge ordered 

firearms prohibitions. The Portal requires users to provide 

the information to properly complete the Brady Indicator14 

based on the circumstances. When possible, criteria for the 

Brady Indicator is automatically populated. In the event the 

Brady Indicator fields cannot be automatically populated, 

the Portal user provides the necessary information to 

complete the Brady Indicator criteria. The Portal has also 

automated the parsing of records required by NCIC, which 

saves the entering dispatcher time and effort. 

Documentation of the restricted party’s right to due 

process having been met is necessary for protection order 

enforcement (both for firearms enforcement as well 

as violation enforcement). As such, the Portal enables 

agencies to maintain real-time protection order service 

records by allowing users to submit Return of Service 

(ROS) documentation. ROS documentation is captured and 

electronically submitted to the courts, enabling 24/7 record 

updates and minimizing the possibility of errant protection 

order enforcement – or the lack of legitimate enforcement. 

As of September 30, 2015, 88 of the 93 Nebraska counties 

have committed to implementing the Portal. Included in 

those 88 are four of the five largest populated counties in 

Nebraska, which issue the highest numbers of protection 

orders each year. These four counties have historically 

not entered records into NCIC POF: before the Portal, 

30% of protection orders were going into NCIC POF; since 

implementation of the Portal, 44% of protection orders are 

being submitted. Nebraska’s largest county, which issues 

about one-third of the state’s protection orders, is currently 

engaged in discussion with the working group on how to meet 

their unique volume needs in order to implement the Portal. 

A NARIP grant funds two crime analyst positions, which 

are key to the Portal implementation and success. The 

analysts’ duties include assisting with the development of 

the Protection Order Portal by researching the structure and 

use of the criminal justice data systems, as well as working 

with the NICS legal team to determine how to apply the 

Brady criteria to Nebraska protection orders. Clear and 

simple reference documents and checklists were created by 

analysts to assist Portal users in making quick and accurate 

decisions when necessary. Analysts coordinate with the 

application developer to ensure proper coding, functionality, 

etc. Furthermore, analysts solicit voluntary implementation, 

work to secure a formal inter-agency agreement, provide 

training, and monitor the use of the Portal and NCIC 

POF entry rates by local agencies. Proactive monitoring 

addresses usage barriers, audits submission timeliness, and 

augments development of user reference materials to aid 

in the entry process. The analysts provide ongoing technical 

assistance by addressing questions on a case-by-case basis 

and researching individuals that local agency staff are not 

able to identify for entry. 

Training and education are critical pieces of the Portal 

implementation. One of the reasons for low entry rates prior 

to the Portal was lack of clarity about whose responsibility 

it was to submit protection orders to NCIC (sheriffs versus 

courts). The two crime analysts conduct regional training 

for dispatchers – who enter the protection orders into 

the Portal – on several topics including background on 

the process to obtain a Protection Order (PO), the roles 

of criminal justice personnel in the handling of a PO, the 

nuances of service of POs, and understanding the Brady 

disqualifiers. The analysts conducted 47 system introduction 

and user training sessions for over 335 attendees representing 

law enforcement and district courts during this project. 

14		 To qualify under the Brady Act, and thus include information to complete the Brady Indicator, a protection

order must 1) have been issued after a hearing of which the respondent/defendant received actual 

notice and had an opportunity to participate; 2) restrain respondent from harassing, stalking, or 

threatening an intimate partner or a child of the intimate partner or engaging in conduct that would 

place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or the partner’s child; 

and 3) include a finding that respondent/defendant represents a credible threat to the physical 

safety of the intimate partner or child or by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or 

threatened use of physical force against the intimate partner or child. Title 18, U.S.C., § 922[ [g] [8]. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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 : P r o t e c t i o n O r d e r S u b m i s s i o n s 

Hawaii Criminal Justice Data Center 

Hawaii employs a more traditional model of protection 

order reporting in that the process is managed by the 

criminal justice entity in the state. The courts send the 

scanned protection order and basic information needed 

for NCIC entry to the entering criminal justice agency, 

and the maintenance and validation of the records all 

happen at the repository. Hawaii employs dedicated staff 

to conduct the second-party checks and validation. 

Hawaii’s impetus for entering protection orders came 

with provisions of the VAWA Act, which required “full 

faith and credit” be given to valid protection orders 

from other jurisdictions. A joint work group’s efforts, 

with representatives from the judiciary, criminal history 

repository, and service providers, resulted in a process 

for transferring protection orders from the courts to the 

criminal justice data center and to NCIC. 

In Hawaii, the courts enter the minimum fields required 

by NCIC on the case, petitioner, and respondent and scan 

the protection order document. This information is held 

in the repository and the criminal justice data center 

maintains and validates the data. The protection order 

data is sent in real time to NCIC. 

A validation clerk position was created in 2009 in the 

criminal justice data center. This position is funded by 

NCHIP grants. This clerk is solely responsible for doing 

daily second party checks and monthly validation of 

the protection orders. The validation is done against 

the electronic data fields provided by the courts as 

well as the scanned court order. Initially, a computer 

program completes an automatic comparison with the 

information in the electronic file. If necessary, the clerk 

then checks on the scanned documents. 

In order to provide 24/7 hit confirmations, the local police 

department information is entered in the miscellaneous field. 

Hawaii began transmitting protection orders to NCIC in 2011 

on a day-forward basis and currently has 51% of active 

protection orders in NCIC. 

Conclusion 

Successful strategies in reporting protection orders to 

the Federal databases include some key components: 

•		 Dedicated staff 

•		 Comprehensive training 

•		 Automation 

•		 Collaboration between courts, the criminal history 

repository agency, and state and local law enforcement. 

Focusing on these components has allowed many states 

to overcome common barriers to reporting protection 

orders and resulted in improvements of the number 

and quality of protection orders made available at a 

national level. 

This report was prepared by SEARCH and the National Center for State Courts under cooperative agreement with the 

Bureau of Justice Statistics. Opinions 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.