The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Preventing Firearms Violence Among Victims of 

Intimate Partner Violence: An Evaluation of a 

New North Carolina Law 

Author(s): Kathryn E. Moracco ; Kathryn Anderson Clark ; 

Christina Espersen ; J. Michael Bowling 

Document No.: 215773 

Date Received: September 2006 

Award Number: 2004-IJ-CX-0025 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

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. 
FINAL REPORT: 

Preventing Firearm Violence Among Victims of 

Intimate Partner Violence: 

An Evaluation of a New North Carolina Law 

CH2004-IJ-CX-00025 

Kathryn E. Moracco 

Kathryn Andersen Clark 

Christina Espersen 

J. Michael Bowling 

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation 

August 18, 2006 

This project was supported by Grant No. CH2004-IJ-CX-00025 awarded by the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this 

document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or 

policies of the US Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

Executive Summary

Overview 

On December 1, 2003, North Carolina enacted S.L. 2003-410 (S919) which prohibits 

persons subject to a qualifying domestic violence protective order (DVPO) from owning or 

possessing any firearms or ammunition, and requires them to surrender to the county sheriff 

within 24 hours any firearms, ammunition, and permits to purchase firearms. 

The study described in this report examined: 1) the scope and nature of firearm

possession by DVPO defendants; 2) pre- and post-legislation experiences of firearm-related 

intimate partner violence (IPV) among women applying for domestic violence protective orders; 

3) judges’ behaviors specifying firearm-related conditions in DVPOs prior to and following the 

legislation; and 4) the proportion of and manner in which male DVPO defendants’ surrendered 

firearms subsequent to the enactment of the new legislation. We also include suggestions for 

research, policy, and practice. 

Background 

It is now well-established that physical, sexual, and psychological domestic or intimate 

partner violence against women is both widespread and a serious threat to women’s well-being.

Abusers’ access to firearms may amplify the potential for fatal and non-fatal injuries. Every 

year, 700-800 women are shot and killed by their current or former intimate partners,1 and the 

presence of a firearm in the home increases a woman’s risk of intimate partner homicide, 

particularly in homes where there have been previous incidents of IPV.

 Domestic violence protective orders (DVPOs) are the most widely-used legal 

intervention for IPV, and there is emerging evidence that DVPO’s are effective as an 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

intervention for secondary prevention of IPV. It also appears that DVPO conditions and 

enforcement play a critical role in their effectiveness. 

In recognition of the potentially lethal danger posed by IPV perpetrators, several federal 

laws have been enacted that are designed to restrict abusers’ access to firearms in the past 

decade. The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) added persons subject to civil restraining 

orders to the list of people who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Despite 

federal mandates, states exercise a great deal of discretion regarding the qualifying criteria for 

both for domestic violence protective orders and the conditions contained in those orders. 

The North Carolina Homicide Prevention Act/Domestic Violence (S 919) (SL 2003-

410), became effective on December 1, 2003. It states that if the court finds any of the 

legislation’s enumerated factors at the ex parte or DVPO hearings, the defendant must surrender 

his or her firearms, machine guns, ammunition, permits to purchase firearms and permits to carry 

concealed weapons to the sheriff’s department within 24 hours of service of the order, or provide 

verification that s/he has disposed of the firearms. The legislation further states that the court 

should inquire of the plaintiff at the ex parte hearing and the defendant at the DVPO hearing, 

about the defendant’s access to firearms. Failure to surrender the firearms and violating 

conditions restricting access to firearms are considered a Class H Felony. 

Scope and Methodology

The project’s research objectives were addressed though analysis of data from several 

existing data sources: the DVPO case files in the study county; a subset of eligible cases that 

contained longitudinal interview data gathered as part of the Court Ordered Protection 

Evaluation (COPE) study; and criminal record background checks of all the defendants named in 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

the Durham ex parte orders filed by the study plaintiffs. In addition, we had COPE interview 

and DVPO case file information from 221 eligible women filing for protective orders in an 

adjacent county. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the 

Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE). 

Data were described with various univariate procedures, and we tested bivariate 

associations among variables of interest. We computed an adjusted logistic regression model 

predicting judges’ restrictions regarding access to firearms at the ex parte hearing and a second 

adjusted logistic regression model to predict judges’ restrictions of firearms at the DVPO 

hearing. 

Detailed Findings 

There were 731 domestic violence protection order case files housed in the Durham

County Courthouse that met study inclusion criteria; 460 (63%) were filed pre-legislation and 

271 (37%) post-legislation . Of these 731 Durham women, 129 were included in the COPE 

study, 83 (64%) pre legislation and 46 (36%) post-legislation. In addition, there were 221 COPE 

study participants from Wake county; 190 (86%) who filed pre-legislation and 31 (14%) who 

filed post-legislation. 

There was evidence, gleaned from the various data sources, that over one third (38%) of

the defendants in the Durham DVPO cases had access to firearms prior to or at the time that their 

partners filed for domestic violence protective orders. Further, we were able to establish that 

nearly one quarter (23%) of these Durham plaintiffs had experienced firearm-related IPV in the 

12 months prior to filing for the DVPO.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
4

We compared plaintiffs’ experiences with firearm-related IPV subsequent to receiving 

the ex parte order pre- and post-legislation for the 350 COPE participants in Durham and Wake 

counties. The proportion of COPE women with ex parte orders in Durham County who reported 

experiencing firearm-related IPV increased from 4.8% to 6.5% post legislation, but this change 

was not statistically significant (Fisher’s Exact p=..699). In Wake County, the proportion of 

COPE participants who experienced firearm-related IPV after receiving an ex parte decreased 

from 6.8% to 6.5%, but that this change also was not statistically significant (Fisher’s Exact 

p=.300). 

Just over half (51%) of defendants had recorded criminal charges that could be matched 

to them as part of a statewide criminal background check prior to the date of the DVPO filing 

(Table 7). Half of all the defendants had prior IPV-related criminal charges on record prior to 

the plaintiff filing for a DVPO, and nearly all (98%) of the defendants who had criminal records 

had previous IPV-related criminal charges that predated the DVPO filing. In addition, 25% of the 

defendants had IPV-related charges incurred on a date later than the date on which the ex parte 

order was issued, and half of these subsequent charges were DVPO violations, in all likelihood 

of that particular order. 

We were able to determine whether the judge inquired about defendants’ access to 

firearms during the ex parte hearing only for the COPE participants in Durham and Wake 

counties (n=350), of whom 78% filed for DVPOs pre-legislation and 22% filed post-legislation. 

Specifically, 42% of the women interviewed reported that the judge had asked them about the 

defendants’ access to firearms pre-legislation compared to 45% post-legislation. This modest 

increase in judges’ inquiry about firearms was not statistically significant (χ

2

 = 0.2720; p = .602).

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

Women who filed for domestic violence protective orders after passage of the Homicide 

Prevention Act were significantly more likely to receive an ex parte order that included firearmsrelated restrictions (94%) than women who filed before enactment of the Homicide Prevention 

Act (90%; p=.036). Although there was a trend toward slightly increased inclusion of 

prohibitions on owning or receiving firearms (88% to 93%), and purchasing firearms (88% to 

91%) pre- versus post-legislation, the only statistically significant increase was in the percentage 

of forms that included the condition that revoked the defendant’s concealed handgun permit (8% 

to 28%; p=<.001).

Interestingly, we observed no such changes among the 366 permanent DVPOs issued 

during the study period. The percentage of DVPOs with any noted firearm restrictions remained 

virtually the same (90% versus 91%; p=.636) after the legislation took effect, and none of the 

specific firearms prohibitions checked on the form varied significantly by pre- versus postlegislation status. 

After adjusting for plaintiffs’ and defendants’ age and race, whether or not they have 

children in common, marital status between plaintiff and defendant, prior IPV-related criminal 

charges, and evidence of firearm access before the ex parte was filed, women who received ex 

parte domestic violence protective orders before the legislation went into effect were more than 

twice as likely for a judge to choose not to restrict the defendant’s access to firearms, as 

compared to women who filed after the legislation (OR = 2.44; 95% CI = 1.12 – 1.91) (Table 

10). No other variables were statistically significantly associated with a judge choosing not to 

restrict the defendant’s access to firearms. 

After adjusting for plaintiffs’ and defendants’ age and race, whether or not they have 

children in common, marital status between plaintiff and defendant, prior IPV-related criminal 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

charges, and evidence of firearm access before the ex parte was filed, women for whom the 

judge did not restrict access to firearms on the permanent DVPO had over eight times the odds of 

having ex parte orders in which defendants received no restrictions on access to firearms, as 

compared to women for whom the judge did restrict access to firearms on the permanent DVPO 

(OR = 8.71; 95% CI = 2.74, 27.67). No statistically significant associations with the judge not 

restricting access to firearms on the permanent DVPO were found for any of the other variables, 

including filing pre-legislation versus post-legislation. 

We found that there was no systematic method to document the status of defendants’ 

firearms, ammunition, or permits contained in the hard copy DVPO files. Further, there was no 

electronic or paper trail for firearms confiscated or surrendered as a condition of a DVPO. Thus, 

we were only able to obtain information about the disposition of firearms in DVPO cases for the 

350 COPE participants. Among the 43 women (13% of COPE participants) who reported that 

their partners had firearms and that the judge had indicated gun-related restrictions on the ex 

parte order, over one third (37%) either did not know (what the defendant did with his gun(s)) or 

did not respond to this question); in 37% of these cases the plaintiff said that the defendant had 

kept his gun(s); 14% said that sheriff’s deputies had confiscated the gun(s); and 5% each said 

that he (the plaintiff) had turned the gun(s) in to the Sheriff’s Department or gave it away. The 

proportion of respondents that noted that their partners kept their guns did not vary pre- versus 

post-legislation. 

Discussion and Implications 

Our findings revealed characteristics of the DVPO defendants, administrative process,

case files, and judicial behaviors that have implications for policy, practice, and research 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

pertaining to firearms and DVPOs, both within North Carolina and in other states. To this end, 

we suggest the following list of strategies to advance the research agenda on DVPOs and 

firearms and increase implementation fidelity of the HPA and similar statutes, in the hope that 

improved implementation will lead to increased safety for women who apply for DVPOs. 

Suggestions for Research

Funders should support, and researchers should conduct, research that includes: 

• collection of primary data about judges’ inquiries about firearm access, as well as the 

plaintiffs and defendants’ responses; 

• comparison of the experiences of states that require automatic firearms restrictions to those 

whose restrictions are conditional and/or discretionary; 

• assessments of implementation fidelity; and 

• evaluation of strategies to enhance compliance. 

Suggestions for Policies

Legislation restricting DVPO defendant’s access to firearms should include: 

• prohibitions on firearm purchase and possession and the requirement of firearm removal as 

mandatory conditions for all DVPOs; 

• resources to establish and/or maintain a statewide protective order database that includes 

current information on the status and conditions of the orders; 

• requirements to proactively enforce DVPO firearms restrictions, and specification of who is 

responsible for enforcement; 

• mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and feedback by courts; and 

• appropriations of resources to train court personnel and others involved in the DVPO 

process. 

Suggestions for Practice

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

Agencies involved in the DVPO process should: 

• ensure that applicants understand the DVPO forms and process; 

• develop clear operating procedures to ensuring that firearm-related restrictions are 

consistently applied and enforced; 

• secure the support of agency leadership for full enforcement of firearms restrictions in DVPO 

cases; and 

• monitor implementation of procedures and provide timely feedback. 

There is strong public and legislative support for limiting batterers’ access to firearms, as 

demonstrated by the large number of state statutes that enhance federal provisions, including the 

Homicide Prevention Act in North Carolina. Difficulty in assessing the true effectiveness of

DVPO gun restrictions resulting from sporadic implementation of the law is a consistent theme 

among researchers. As Frattaroli and Teret lament, “if implementation goes awry, an evaluation 

of the law may conclude that the law is ineffective, when the law have been well designed, but 

was underfunded, mismanaged, or not enforced (p.358).” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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

TECHNICAL REPORT 

Project Description 

Overview 

On December 1, 2003, North Carolina enacted S.L. 2003-410 (S919) which prohibits 

persons subject to a qualifying domestic violence protective order (DVPO) from owning or 

possessing any firearms or ammunition, and requires them to surrender to the county sheriff 

within 24 hours any firearms, ammunition, and permits to purchase firearms.2

 In doing so, North 

Carolina joined the growing ranks of states that have passed similar legislation complementing 

federal laws restricting access to firearms for perpetrators of domestic violence as a means of 

preventing and reducing intimate partner violence (IPV) - related firearm violence.3, 4

The study described in this report examined: 1) the scope and nature of firearm

possession by DVPO defendants; 2) pre- and post-legislation experiences of IPV-related firearm

violence among women applying for domestic violence protective orders; 3) judges’ behaviors 

specifying firearm-related conditions in DVPOs prior to and following the legislation; and 4) the 

proportion of and manner in which male DVPO defendants’ surrendered firearms subsequent to 

the enactment of the new legislation. 

Our project addressed one of the National Institute of Justice’s priority topics, the role of

firearms in contributing to violent crime, serious injury, and death, and is consistent with NIJ’s 

focus on demand-side studies assessing gun violence reduction strategies, particularly those 

intended to prevent firearm access to high-risk groups of offenders, such as domestic abusers. 

To date, however, there has been a dearth of information regarding how and the extent to which 

such strategies have been implemented, and whether they are effective in reducing firearmrelated violence. In the case of firearms and intimate partner violence, little is known about the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
10

impact of laws on the firearm-related conditions set forth in domestic violence protective orders, 

or of victims’ subsequent experiences with firearm violence at the hands of their abusers. These 

gaps in our knowledge limit the ability of criminal justice programs and policy makers to 

develop and refine appropriate interventions and policies aimed at reducing and preventing 

firearm violence among victims of intimate partner violence.

Our study addressed these gaps by examining a legislative initiative similar to those that 

many states have enacted or are considering enacting. We abstracted data from the hardcopy 

DVPO case (or court) files for all women (n=731) 18 and older who received ex parte 

(temporary or emergency) domestic violence protective orders against a male partner in Durham

county, North Carolina, during a 17-month period that spanned pre- and post-legislation (n=460; 

64% pre-legislation; n=271; 36% post-legislation). We also examined the criminal histories of 

the 731 defendants in these cases. In addition, we had complementary interview data from a 

subset (n=129) of the Durham plaintiffs, as well as interview and DVPO file data from 229 

additional women who received ex parte orders in Wake County, North Carolina, during the 

same 17-month time period. 

Background 

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV)

It is now well-established that physical, sexual, and psychological domestic or intimate 

partner violence against women is both widespread and a serious threat to women’s health.

Intimate partners are the perpetrators of over one third of the homicides of women every year, 

making intimate partner homicide the most common form of homicide for women.5-7

 The 

National Crime Victimization Survey reports an annual violent victimization rate by intimate 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
11

partners of 5 per 1,000 women aged 12 and older in 2001, and the National Violence Against 

Women survey estimates that 25% of women are physically or sexually assaulted by intimate 

partners in their lifetimes.7, 8

Intimate partner violence has serious long and short-term physical and mental health 

sequelae. Physical and sexual assaults may result in fatal and non-fatal injuries, trauma-specific

and generalized pain, unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted infections, and a variety of

mental health problems, including depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).8-

16 Victimized women also perceive themselves as being less healthy, and report lower levels of

physical and mental well-being than women who have not been victimized.9, 13, 14, 16

Intimate partner violence also exacts a tremendous societal cost. Miller, Cohen, and 

Wiersema (1996) estimated that “adult domestic violence” resulted in $67 billion in annual losses, 

measured in 1993 dollars.

17 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used data from the 

National Violence Against Women survey and estimated that the direct medical and mental health 

care services related to IPV exceeded $4.1 billion annually.18

Abusers’ access to firearms may amplify the potential for fatal and non-fatal injuries. 

Every year, 700-800 women are shot and killed by their current or former intimate partners. 

Nationwide, firearms are used in 60% of intimate partner homicides of women, and a statewide 

study of intimate partner homicides in North Carolina found that two thirds of female victims of 

intimate partner homicide were killed with firearms, 72% of which were handguns.5-7

 The 

presence of a firearm in the home increases a woman’s risk of intimate partner homicide, 

particularly in homes where there have been previous incidents of IPV.19 Not surprisingly, 

assaults by intimate partners involving firearms are 12 times more likely to result in fatal injury 

than assaults that do not involve firearms.

20 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
12

There is far less information on non-fatal firearm-related injuries and the use of firearms 

that does not result in physical injury (e.g., threats or minor injuries that do not require 

immediate medical attention), particularly incidents that occur within the context of intimate 

partner violence. In 2000, there were nearly 76,000 nonfatal firearm-related injuries in the 

United States, yielding a rate of 27.5 firearm-related injuries per 100,000 people.21 The medical 

costs of gunshot injuries are substantial, with a mean medical cost per injury of approximately 

$17,000 (in 1994 dollars). The lifetime medical costs of treating all nonfatal gunshot injuries in 

the U.S. in 1994 was $2.3 billon, nearly half of which (49%) was paid by the government.22

The National Violence Against Women survey found that 3.5% of all female respondents 

in that population-based sample had been threatened with a gun by their intimate partners in their 

adult lifetimes. For the subset of respondents who had been physically assaulted by their 

partners, the proportion rose to 16%.8 

Most other prevalence estimates of firearm possession and IPV utilize specialized or

clinical samples; for example, 24% of the battered women sampled in a Kansas study and 41% 

of battered women from samples in Texas and Virginia reported that a gun(s) was present in the 

home.

23, 24 In Los Angeles, 16.6 % of female applicants for temporary restraining orders noted 

that they had been threatened or harmed with a firearm in their applications.25 A Massachusetts 

study examining the records of 8,529 male clients of state-certified court mandated batterer 

intervention programs (BIPs), found that 7% of those clients reported owning a gun in the 

previous three years. In the multivariate model, BIP clients who reported gun ownership were 

nearly eight times more likely (adjusted OR 7.9; 95% CI=5.6-11.0) to have threatened their 

partners with guns than non-gun owners. Clients whose partners had obtained DVPOs at the 

time of the client’s enrollment in the BIP were 60% more likely (adjusted OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.1-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
13

2.2) to have threatened their partners with guns than were clients whose partners had not 

obtained DVPOs. Finally, the study noted that clients with a history of substance abuse 

(adjusted OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.2-2.1) or self-reported homicidal behavior (adjusted OR 4.4; 95% CI 

2.7-7.0) were more likely to have used a gun to threaten their partners than those who did not 

report such histories.26

In interviews with 417 women residing in battered women’s shelters in California, 

Sorenson and Wiebe (2004) found that 37% of respondents reported that their partners had ever 

used a firearm to “hurt, scare, or intimidate” them. Having been victimized with a firearm was 

positively associated with the number of other weapons (e.g. fists, knife, tools) used; specifically, 

women who had been victimized with firearms reported 8.1 types of weapons used against them

by their current partner, compared to 4.6 types for women who had not been victimized with 

firearms.27 Guns were often present and easily accessible in homes where IPV occurred; 38% of 

the respondents reported that there was at least one gun in the home during their relationship 

with their most recent partner (i.e. the one they were seeking refuge from at the shelter), and in 

71% of these cases, the gun(s) was kept unlocked. Further, nearly two thirds (64.5%) of 

respondents who lived in a home where guns were kept reported that their partners had used a 

gun against them.

27

DVPOs as a Preventive Intervention for Intimate Partner Violence

In the past 25 years, all 50 states and the District of Columbia have enacted legislation 

that mandates civil protection orders specifically for victims of intimate partner violence.3, 4 

Although states use a variety of monikers, including civil protective orders, no contact orders, 

restraining orders, personal protective orders, domestic violence protective orders, and stay away 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
14

orders, all such orders limit accused abuser’s contact with the plaintiff, and most states treat 

violation of a protective order as a criminal (though most often misdemeanor) offense.4

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), enacted in 1994 as part of the National 

Crime Control and Law Enforcement Bill, included specific provisions regarding domestic 

violence protective orders, including eliminating filing and service fees, restricting access to 

firearms, stipulating that DVPOs are enforceable across state lines (“full faith and credit”), 

establishing penalties for crossing state lines to commit IPV, adding cyberstalking to interstate 

stalking offenses, and making interstate IPV and stalking a federal crime.3, 4, 28 

All states allow plaintiffs to file ex parte DVPOs, or orders filed without the defendant 

present. However, most states differentiate between temporary and permanent DVPOS, issuing 

emergency or temporary orders to plaintiffs without a hearing or following a brief court hearing 

conducted in the absence of the defendant (ex parte).3, 4, 28 These temporary orders (often called 

ex parte orders) are designed to protect the plaintiff during the interim period between the 

issuance of the temporary order and the “permanent” DVPO hearing date; however temporary 

orders are not enforceable until they have been served to the defendant. At the permanent 

DVPO hearing, both the plaintiff and defendant have the opportunity to speak with the judge 

who, in turn, decides whether to extend the temporary order, with or without modifications, for a 

specified period of time.3, 4, 29

There is substantial heterogeneity among state DVPO legislation in terms of the: 

definition of domestic violence; persons eligible to file for a DVPO (e.g. current or former 

spouses, dating partners, same sex partners); ability to file pro se (without legal counsel); criteria 

for waiving filing fees; custody and child support provisions; and other conditions included in 

DVPOs. 3, 4, 29-32 Further, many states have different provisions for temporary versus permanent 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
15

protective orders. DeJong and Burgess-Proctor developed four indicators to measure how 

“victim friendly” DVPO statues were, including compliance with VAWA, qualifying 

relationship between petitioner and respondent, ease of administrative process, and severity of 

punishment for violations, and reviewed DVPO statutes in the 50 states and District of Columbia 

that were in force through June 2003. They found that, in general, statutes complied with 

VAWA provisions: for example, 43 states and the District of Columbia were consistent with 

VAWA’s ‘full faith and credit’ provision. However the investigators also noted that states 

“differed dramatically in their language regarding PPOs, organization of statutes, and degree to 

which the statutes were “victim-friendly,” and that regional differences were quite pronounced, 

with states in the southeastern region of the United states receiving lowest overall “victim

friendliness” score, and Midwestern states receiving the highest.4

The degree to which DVPO statutes are supportive of victims is important, because 

domestic violence protective orders are the most widely-used IPV-related legal intervention in 

the United States.4, 8, 31 Over a million DVPOs are issued every year, and the National Violence 

Against Women survey reported that 17% of physical assault and 17% of stalking victims 

obtained protective orders after their most recent victimizations.8 Data from the Massachusetts 

Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) indicate that of the women 18-59 who 

reported experiencing IPV during the preceding five years, 39% had police contact, and 34% had 

obtained a protective order. 14 

Women who seek protective orders often do so after being subjected to severe and 

frequent violence. Fifty-five to 77% have been beaten, choked, sexually assaulted or injured 

with a weapon, and most (89-98%) report intimidation through threats and/or stalking.23, 24, 31, 33-

39 Researchers in Seattle found that 96% of the women who had obtained protection orders had 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
16

experienced psychological abuse in the past year, 79% had experienced physical and 48% sexual 

violence.40 Similarly, a Kentucky study of women filing for protective orders in three rural and 

one urban county found that 96% of them had experienced physical violence, 76% reported 

physical injuries resulting from IPV, and about a quarter (24%) had been sexually assaulted by 

their partners.23 In California, a review of 1,354 restraining order applications revealed that 87% 

of the applicants mentioned being physically and/or sexually assaulted, and 45% noted having 

been injured by the defendant. Firearms were mentioned in 16% of these applications.25 Further, 

research on DVPOs indicates that an acute incident of serious physical and/or sexual violence 

precedes filing for a DVPO in the majority of cases.23-25, 33, 35-39, 41, 42

There is emerging evidence that DVPO’s are effective as an intervention for secondary 

prevention of IPV, and that DVPO conditions and enforcement play a critical role in their 

effectiveness. Using individual-level survey data, Dugan (2003) found that families living in 

states with more “aggressive” statutes regarding the issuance and enforcement of DVPOs had 

lower probabilities of experiencing IPV.43 Results from a prospective cohort study of 448 

Seattle women, 240 of whom had obtained civil protective orders (CPOs) and 157 of whom had 

had an “IPV incident” reported to the police but no CPO, found that women with CPOs had a 

significantly decreased risk of contact with the abuser, threats with weapons, and injury when 

compared to women who did not have CPOs. Further, there appeared to be a “dose-response” 

effect of the CPOs, with longer duration of the CPO associated with larger decreases in risk. 36, 41

Similarly, several earlier studies indicated that the majority (72-100%) of women receiving 

protective orders reported either no further violence or a reduction in violence subsequent to 

receiving the order.33, 37, 38 However, several earlier studies had dissimilar results, finding high 

rates of recidivism by protective order defendants within a year of the order.35, 44

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
17

There is also evidence that the two-step process for applying for a DVPO is cumbersome 

and confusing, and poses barriers to many applicants. A study of 150 women applying for

protective orders in an urban district in Texas found that 24% of the 42 women who dropped their 

orders noted that the process of obtaining a DVPO, which included a 2-3 hours of filling out forms, 

meeting with a caseworker, and taking photographs, was “too much of a hassle.”24 Urban and 

rural battered women in Kentucky who participated in focus groups and individual interviews cited 

bureaucratic obstacles (excessive paperwork, long waits and inconvenient hours at the courthouse), 

costs, nonservice of orders by law enforcement to the defendant, and lack of confidentiality as 

barriers to obtaining protective orders.

23 In California, applicants must complete a 25-page form,

and face long waits to appear before the judicial official who issues temporary orders.

25, 31

Legislation Regarding Domestic Violence Protective Orders and Firearms 

In recognition of the potentially lethal danger posed by IPV perpetrators, VAWA added 

persons subject to qualifying domestic violence-related civil restraining orders to the list of

people who are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

28 However, ex parte and 

other temporary orders are not included under this federal legislation.3, 28

The Lautenberg Amendment, enacted by the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act 

of 1997, (Pub. L. No. 104-208), and effective September 30, 1996, prohibited from purchasing or 

possessing firearms individuals with a conviction status related to domestic violence of criminal 

misdemeanor or greater.3, 4 In addition, the National Stalker and Domestic Violence Reduction 

Act of 2001 authorized the inclusion of civil protection orders into the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) database in order to assist in state-to-state tracking and enforcement 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
18

of Protective Orders. The NCIC Protection Order File (POF) presently includes 23 states that 

enter protection orders into the NCIC POF.3, 4, 29

Recent research indicates that there is a high degree of public support for separating 

batterers from their firearms. A statewide telephone survey in California found high 

endorsement for removing firearms from assailants in domestic violence incidents vignettes, 

even when they (the respondents) did not think that the incident defined in the vignettes merited a

protective order.45 This widespread support is also evinced in the wide margins with which 

legislation requiring firearms restrictions in qualifying DVPO cases has passed in various state 

legislatures.

Despite Federal mandates, states exercise a great deal of discretion regarding the 

qualifying criteria for firearm-related restrictions in domestic violence protective orders, and the 

types of restrictions contained in those orders. Most states have enacted or are considering 

enacting legislation that complements federal laws restricting access to firearms for perpetrators 

of domestic violence.3 As with state-level DVPO statutes in general, there is substantial 

heterogeneity among states’ legislation concerning the provisions to restrict access to firearms, 

the amount of discretion exercised by judges, the nature of the firearm restrictions included, and 

the level of involvement of the court and law enforcement in removing firearms or ensuring their 

removal. For example, some states empower civil courts to order plaintiffs to surrender their 

firearms upon issuance of a qualifying domestic violence protective order, and others have 

enacted legislation that contains specific language requiring or authorizing the removal of 

firearms from alleged batterers by law enforcement officers. In other cases, the legislation 

simply indicates that defendants are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms.3, 4 A 

review of state statutes pertaining to IPV and firearm removal published in 2006 found that: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
19

• 18 states have laws that allow law enforcement officers to confiscate firearms from 

the scene of an alleged IPV incident. Eleven of these states require law enforcement 

officers to seize guns that were used in an assault or threatened assault; 3 of these 11 

also allow the confiscation of other guns that are present. The remaining 7 states 

leave firearm seizure to the officers’ discretion;

• 24 states have laws restricting access to firearms for individuals subject to domestic 

violence protective orders. Of these, 9 prohibit firearm possession only, 1 prohibits 

firearm purchase only, 10 prohibit possession and purchase, and the remaining 4 

states prohibit a variety of other types of firearm access (e.g. carrying, transfer); 

• 4 states limit their DVPO firearm restrictions to handguns; 

• 13 states include temporary protective orders in their firearm restrictions; and 

• 7 states authorize civil courts to order firearms removed upon issuance of a permanent 

protective orders; nine also include temporary protective orders.3

Despite the fact that a growing number of states have enacted or are considering enacting 

legislation restricting access to firearms for perpetrators of domestic violence, it has been 

difficult to determine whether that these laws are an effective means of preventing and reducing 

firearm violence among victims of intimate partner violence. A systematic review of existing 

literature conducted by the Task Force for Community Preventive Services reported that, overall, 

evaluations of the effects of firearm acquisition restrictions on violent outcomes have produced 

inconsistent findings.46 A California study examining the effect of prohibiting felons from

purchasing handguns found that arrest rates for violent crimes by felons were reduced by 19%,47

and a similar study on a state law prohibiting handgun purchase by those convicted of violent 

misdemeanors found a 22% decrease in violent arrest rates.48, 49

In terms of firearm restrictions and IPV, Vigdor and Mercy (2006) compared rates of

intimate partner homicide across states between 1982 and 2002, based on the states’ enactment 

and provisions of laws prohibiting gun possession by abusers.30 They found that, overall, 

compared to states with no such legislation, states that had passed laws prohibiting gun 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
20

possession or purchase by defendants in DVPOs had an 8% reduction in intimate partner 

homicide (IPH) rates; 9% for IPHs committed with a firearm30 The decrease is slightly larger for 

female victims, with an 8% reduction in female IPH rates, and largest for IPH of women 

committed with a firearm (10%).30 However, only the states that included restrictions on 

purchasing firearms (versus possession only) and had the capacity to check a statewide 

restraining order database during gun purchases had statistically significant reductions in IPH 

rates. In those states, there was an overall reduction of 10% in IPH rates, and a 12% reduction 

for firearm IPH rates. Again the effect for females was somewhat greater, with a 10% reduction 

in female IPH rates and 13% for female firearm IPH rates. 

There is also a dearth of information regarding how and the extent to which these laws 

are implemented, the impact of these laws on the firearm-related conditions set forth in domestic 

violence protective orders, and the barriers and facilitating factors to implementation. An 

important component of evaluation research is documenting the extent to which a program or 

policy is fully implemented as intended, and thus avoiding a Type III evaluation error, attributing 

the lack of observable effect of an intervention or policy to the intervention itself, rather than to a 

failure of implementation.50, 51

A case study of the implementation process of the domestic violence provisions of the 

Maryland Gun Violence Act identified a number of challenges to implementation, which the 

investigators grouped into two thematic categories: (1) characteristics of the policies themselves, 

and (2) characteristics of the people responsible for implementation.51 Problematic policy 

attributes included the lack of: specificity in the provisions (e.g. what agency is responsible for 

enforcement); important implementation details (e.g. process of securing court-ordered 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
21

surrendered guns); and appropriated funding for training and education for those responsible for 

implementation. In terms of attributes of the policy “implementers,” the investigators noted that 

the values and expertise of leadership figures within implementing organizations was an 

important factor in determining how resources are allocated and policies implemented within 

their organizations. The investigators also identified specific implementation challenges. Victim

advocates interviewed as part of the study noted that their clients sometimes misunderstood the 

gun provisions, believing, for example, that they did not apply to illegal firearms. Law 

enforcement officers interviewed as part of the study noted that DVPO defendants often resisted 

complying with firearms surrender by denying that they owned guns or simply refusing to turn 

them over to the officers serving the orders. Without the authority to search for guns, officers 

must either convince the defendant to comply with the order, or return to court to obtain a search 

warrant. 51

Similarly, the California Attorney General’s Task Force on the Local Criminal Justice 

Response to Domestic Violence also identified challenges and “problematic practices” related to 

implementation of firearms restrictions in DVPOs.52 The Task Force found that there was 

tremendous variation among counties in terms of the extent and quality of implementation. They 

also found that firearms prohibitions were not always entered into the statewide protective order 

database, and that data entry compliance varied by county. Finally, the Task Force noted that 

very few law enforcement agencies had policies of proactively enforcing firearms provisions in 

protective orders.52

Another important area of ambiguity in the implementation process is how and whether 

judges determine that the defendant has access to firearms, which presumably would lead the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
22

judge to invoke firearms restrictions in qualifying DVPO cases. In their observations in a civil 

domestic violence court as part of the Maryland gun provision implementation case study, the 

investigators noted a variety of approaches in presiding over DVPO hearings and reviewing 

relief options with the plaintiffs. In the more proactive approach, the judges would ask the 

plaintiffs and/or defendants whether the defendant possessed a firearm, read aloud to those 

present at the hearing every relief option available, and then inform the defendant that he was 

prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm (and that he must surrender guns in his 

possession, if applicable). On the other end of the spectrum, some judges merely asked the 

plaintiff which provisions she wanted to have included in the order. 51

DVPOs and DVPO legislation in North Carolina 

Figure 1 illustrates the two-stage North Carolina DVPO process. In North Carolina, a woman 

may file for a domestic violence protective order without an attorney (pro se) by requesting the

necessary forms from the Clerk of Court at the District Courthouse. If she or her children are 

clearly in danger of harm or threat of harm, an emergency order will be granted by a district court 

judge or authorized magistrate, without the presence of the defendant (ex parte). When issuing an 

ex parte order, the judge specifies the conditions of the order, which may include surrender of all 

firearms, ammunition, permits to purchase firearms, and concealed carry permits. A full hearing 

before the authorized court, generally the District Court or a specialized domestic violence court, is 

then scheduled for 10-14 days from the date of issuance of the ex parte order, or seven days from 

the date when the defendant is served with the summons, whichever comes later. These 

proceedings, usually called the “10-day” or “DVPO” hearing, are attended by the plaintiff and the 

defendant (as well as their attorneys, if any), and the presiding judge decides whether to: grant a

permanent DVPO; deny the order; or dismiss the order (either voluntarily or involuntarily). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
23

“Permanent” DVPOs are granted for specified time periods, not to exceed one year. In almost all 

cases, if a permanent DVPO is granted, it is in effect for 12 months. Defendants in DVPO cases 

are subject to arrest and criminal prosecution if they violate the conditions of the order. Violating a 

DVPO is a Class A1 misdemeanor criminal offense in North Carolina and requires mandatory 

arrest under state law (See North Carolina Domestic Violence statues [Chapter 50-B] in the 

Appendix). 

The North Carolina Homicide Prevention Act/Domestic Violence (S 919) (SL 2003-410), 

enacted in July 2003, became effective on December 1, 2003. This bill amends Chapter 50B of the 

N.C. General Statutes to require the surrender of firearms in certain protective order cases (See

copy of legislation and NC Domestic Violence Statutes in the Appendix). If the court finds any of 

the legislation’s enumerated factors at the ex parte or permanent DVPO hearings, the defendant 

must surrender his or her firearms, machine guns, ammunition, permits to purchase firearms, and 

permits to carry concealed weapons, to the sheriff’s department within 24 hours of service of the 

order, or provide verification that s/he has disposed of the firearms. The enumerated criteria for 

invoking firearm restrictions include: 1) use or threatened use of a deadly weapon or pattern of 

prior conduct involving use or threatened use of violence with a firearm; 2) threats to seriously 

injure or kill the aggrieved party or minor child; 3) threats to commit suicide; and/or 4) serious 

injuries inflicted upon aggrieved party or minor child. The legislation further states that the court 

should inquire of the plaintiff at the ex parte hearing and the defendant at the DVPO hearing about 

the defendant’s access to firearms, and also requires a court hearing for the return of firearms to the 

defendant or a third party following the expiration of a protective order or the eventual disposal of 

the firearms by the sheriff if a request for hearing is not made within 90 days following the DVPO 

expiration date. Hence, the HPA falls on the more comprehensive end of the spectrum of state 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
24

legislation designed to protect IPV from firearm violence by their abuses.3 Any violations of the 

firearms provisions contained in ex parte and permanent DVPOs are a Class H Felony under North 

Carolina law, provided the orders have been served. 

Summary and Project Goals 

There is strong political and public support for limiting access to firearms in cases of 

intimate partner violence, as evinced by the fact that a growing number of states have enacted or 

are considering enacting legislation that complements or expands upon similar federal laws. 

However, there is still little empirical evidence demonstrating whether these laws are effective in 

preventing and reducing firearm violence among victims of intimate partner violence. Further, 

there is also a lack of information regarding how and the extent to which these laws are 

implemented, the impact of these laws on the firearm-related conditions set forth in domestic 

violence protective orders, and the barriers and facilitating factors to implementation. 

Our project sought to address these gaps by documenting the implementation process of 

legislation designed to restrict firearm access to abusers, including the barriers and facilitating 

factors to achieving full implementation. By examining judicial behavior and plaintiffs’ 

experiences pre- and post-legislation, we assessed the short-term impact of the legislation in 

these domains. Our hope is that the findings of our study will contribute useful information for 

criminal justice policy makers and practitioners to guide policy development, training initiatives, 

and future applied research in this important arena. 

Scope and Methodology

This evaluation study used a pretest-posttest design to examine: the scope of firearm

possession by male defendants in domestic violence protective order cases; experiences of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
25

firearm-related intimate partner violence by female plaintiffs in domestic violence protective 

order cases, pre- and post-enactment of S.L. 2003-410; changes in judges’ behavior regarding 

inquiring about firearm possession and including firearm-related prohibitions in ex parte and 

permanent domestic violence protective orders pre- and post-enactment of S.L. 2003-410; and 

changes in firearm surrender and confiscation among defendants in domestic violence protective 

order cases pre- and post-enactment of S.L. 2003-410. Specific questions for each of the study 

aims are described in Table 1. 

The study’s primary target population was all adult women (age 18 and older) seeking relief 

from a male intimate partner through filing a civil action under NC Statute Chapter 50B in 

Durham county, North Carolina from February 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004. Durham is an urban 

county located in north-central North Carolina with a population of 242,582 in 2004, of whom

38% are African American, and 56% are white.53 In addition, 10% percent of the population was 

described as being of “Hispanic or Latino” descent in the 2004 Census Bureau estimate, and 14% 

speak a language other than English at home. The median household income was $43,095 in 

2004, and 14% of households live below the poverty level. 53

The project’s research objectives were addressed though analysis of data from several 

secondary data sources: the DVPO case files in the study county; a subset of eligible cases that 

contained longitudinal interview data gathered as part of the Court Ordered Protection 

Evaluation (COPE) study; and criminal record background checks of all the defendants named in 

the Durham ex parte orders filed by the study plaintiffs. In addition, we had COPE interview 

and DVPO case file information from 221 eligible women filing for protective orders in adjacent 

Wake County. Wake is also an urban county with an estimated population of 748,815 in 2005, of 

whom 20.5% are African-American, 73.5% are white, and 7% are described as being of Hispanic 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
26

or Latino descent. The median household income in Wake county 2004 was $56,945, and 9% of 

households live below the poverty level.53

The study data sources are described in greater detail in the following section. In addition, 

Table 2 outlines the various data sources, and Table 3 depicts the operationalization and data 

source for each principal study variable. This study was reviewed and approved by the 

Institutional Review Board of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE). A copy 

of the IRB application and approval letter are included in the Appendix. 

Data Sources 

DVPO Files: 

All DVPO case files are copied and maintained in the office of the Domestic Violence 

Services Coordinator in the Durham County Sheriff’s Department. The case files contain a 

variety of forms, including: Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order 

(AOC-CV-303, Rev. 11/02, Rev. 12/03); Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protective Order and 

Notice to Parties (AOC-CV-304, New 06/00, Rev. 6/01, 11/02, 12/03, 3/04); Identifying 

Information About Defendant Domestic Violence Action (AOC-CV-312, Rev. 6/2000); Notice 

of Hearing on Domestic Violence Protective Order (AOC-CV-305, Rev. 6/2000); Domestic 

Violence Protective Order and Notice to Parties/Consent Order (AOC-CV-306, Rev. 07/99, New 

06/00, Rev. 06/01, Rev. 11/02, Rev.12/03, Rev. 03/04, Rev. 12/04). Some files contained the 

following additional forms: Motion to Renew/Set Aside Domestic Violence Protective Order 

Notice of Hearing (AOC-CV-313, Rev. 11/02); Order Setting Aside Domestic Violence 

Protective Order (AOC-CV-314 Rev. 11/03); Civil Summons Domestic Violence (AOC-CV317, Rev. 10/01); Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (AOC-CV-405, Rev. 11/02), Memorandum of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
27

Judgment/Order (AOC-CV-220, New 04/97), Order Continuing Domestic Violence Hearing and 

Ex Parte Order (AOC-CV-316, Rev. 09/02), Application and Order to Appoint Guardian Ad 

Litem in Action for Domestic Violence Protection Order (AOC-CV-318, New 06/00), Motion to 

Return Weapons Surrendered Under Protection Order (AOC-CV-320 TEST, New 12/03). The 

initial forms are available in English and Spanish, although they have to be filled out in English. 

Several forms were revised by the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts 

(AOC) during the study period. The 12/03 revision of the “Complaint and Motion for Domestic 

Violence Protective Order” (i.e. the form the plaintiff fills out to start the DVPO process) 

included the addition of the following checkboxes: "The defendant has: firearms and 

ammunition as described below; has a permit to purchase a firearm; and has a permit to carry a 

concealed weapon." Also added were checkboxes for: "the defendant has used or threatened to 

use a deadly weapon against me or a minor child in my custody or has a pattern of prior conduct 

involving the use or threatened use of violence with a firearm against any persons in that..." and 

here the plaintiff is asked to "give specific dates and describe in detail what happened." An 

additional checkbox in the request section states: "I want the Court to order the defendant to 

surrender to the sheriff his/her firearms, ammunition, and gun permits to purchase a firearm and 

carry a concealed weapon." 

As a result of the legislation, the ex parte order form was revised in 12/03 to include two 

checkboxes: "the defendant is in possession of, owns or has access to firearms, ammunition, and 

gun permits describe below" and "State any additional facts that support ordering the defendant 

to surrender firearms, ammunition, and gun permits to sheriff." Also, in the conclusions section, 

an additional checkbox was added detailing conclusions regarding the defendant's use of 

firearms, threats of homicide and/or suicide, and infliction of serious injury. Finally, a checkbox 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
28

was added in the Order section indicating that the defendant is to surrender any firearms, 

ammunition, and gun permits that he possesses. The 03/04 revision kept these additional items, 

but changed the layout of the form and added a box labeled "Caution: Weapon Involved,” as a 

red flag for sheriff’s deputies serving the order. There were similar revisions to the DVPO form 

(i.e., the protective order that results from the DVPO hearing). Copies of the forms that contain 

variables used in the study analyses are included in the appendix. 

We created a data entry template in Epi Info to capture the information of interest to the 

study that was contained on the forms, including: demographic information about the plaintiff 

and defendant; the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant; number of children under 18 

in common; incident prompting the DVPO motion, DVPO conditions requested by the plaintiff; 

ex parte conditions granted, including firearm-related restrictions; details of DVPO hearing (e.g. 

date, presence of attorneys), disposition of the permanent DVPO; and conditions of the DVPO, if 

granted. Each case was assigned a unique identifier, which corresponded to the Civil District 

(CVD) number for that case. We created codes for the many of the variables, and these coded 

data were entered into the Epi Info database. We also photocopied and stored the entire case file, 

so as to have access to the raw data for verification or re-coding. 

COPE Study

This research project, funded by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the North 

Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission (GCC), is a longitudinal panel study of 350 women 

who obtained ex parte domestic violence protective orders in Durham (n=129) and Wake 

(n=221) counties, North Carolina from February 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004, the same time period 

covered by the current study. Details about the COPE study are included in the Appendix. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
29

There are four distinct waves of data collection in the COPE study corresponding with: 1) 

the initial filing for a DVPO, resulting in an ex parte order (Time 1); 2) the scheduled date of the 

DVPO hearing, usually 7-14 days after the ex parte order was issued (Time 2); 3) six months 

after the DVPO filing (Time 3); and 4) 12 months post DVPO filing (Time 4). These interviews 

provided in-depth contextual information about the DVPO process and outcomes, as well as an 

“emic,” or insider’s perspective for a subset of our study population. We used data from all four 

COPE interviews in the current study. Specifically, we included COPE interview information 

regarding women’s IPV experiences prior to filing for the DVPO (including firearm-related 

IPV); whether the judge inquired about firearms during the ex parte or DVPO hearings; whether 

the defendant possessed firearm(s) and whether he surrendered them; and women’s IPV 

experiences post-ex parte (including firearm-related IPV). We created a COPE dataset that

contained variables of interest to our study, and then matched the COPE participant data to 

abstracted DVPO files data by CVD number in order to add COPE data to a subset of our study 

cases. 

Criminal background check data: 

We contracted with an employment screening agency to conduct statewide (NC) criminal 

records checks of all defendants named the Ex Parte Notice to Parties filed by the women in our 

Durham county study population. Criminal records and case files are maintained by the clerks of 

court in all 100 North Carolina counties. As arrests are made or as warrants are sworn out, a 

case file is started by a clerk of court in that particular county. They keep track of these cases by 

assigning a unique number to that case and by making an electronic entry about that case. This 

electronic record replaced the handwritten index cards used in the courthouses up until the mid 

1980's. The electronic record contains information about a given case such as the original charge, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
30

the final charge, the trial date and the disposition of the case. The record is a snapshot of what is 

contained in the actual case file housed in the courthouse, and contains information about 

criminal misdemeanors dating back seven years and felonies dating back indefinitely. For the 

purposes of this study, the criminal background check covered the time period from the earliest 

electronic records through June 30, 2005 (i.e. one year from the latest study DVPO filing). 

The criminal background check yielded a report for each defendant. For those defendants 

without criminal charges on file, “no” was indicated under the “records found” heading. In 

situations where a criminal record existed, but could not be verified as an exact match to the 

defendant (due to missing birthdate, etc.), we noted the record as a probable match. We 

abstracted pertinent information from each report, including applicable charges (assault on 

female, communicating threats, violation of Domestic Violence Protection Order, stalking, other 

domestic violence related charges, firearm charges, and concealed weapon charges), the 

associated offense dates, and the existence and scope of other types of charges (i.e. one or more 

than one additional charges), and included the CVD number for that case. We then merged the 

data into the study datafile by CVD number. 

At the conclusion of these data entry and validation processes, our final study dataset 

contained information from the DVPO case files and criminal background checks (for all 

Durham participants), and the COPE study (for a subset of participants). Once the study dataset 

had been created, we proceeded to create the study variables, described in the next section and in 

Table 3.

Study variables 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
31

Plaintiff and defendant characteristics

We obtained information about the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ ages (collapsed into 10-year 

age groups) and race (within the categories listed on the DVPO forms, i.e., Black/African 

American, White, American Indian Asian/Pacific Islander, or Other), from information in the 

DVPO case files. Although there was no place on the forms to indicate plaintiff or defendant 

ethnicity (i.e. Latino versus non-Latino) we coded whether the Spanish version of the 

“Complaint and Motion” form was completed. The DVPO files also contained information 

about the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant (checkboxes for married, divorced, 

cohabitating, current or former dating relationship), and the number of children the plaintiff and 

defendant had in common, which we categorized into 0,1, 2, and 3 or more. 

Time variables

We created several time-related variables, in order to delineate behavior and events that 

occurred pre- and post-legislation, as well as prior and subsequent to plaintiff filing for a DVPO. 

We used the date noted on the “Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order 

(AOC-CV-303, Rev. 11/02, 12/03)” to create these variables. “Pre-legislation” events occurred 

on any date prior to December 1, 2003, and “Post-legislation included any event occurring on or 

subsequent to December 1, 2003. Similarly, “Prior to DVPO filing” included any date prior to 

the date that the women filed for a domestic violence protective order up until one week before 

filing. “Concurrent with the Ex parte Order” included the six days prior to filing for the DVPO 

and the day the ex parte order was issued. Our reasoning was that events that occurred within a 

week of the woman filing for a DVPO, particularly those that resulted in criminal domestic 

violence charges, were likely violence incidents that precipitated the woman’s decision to seek a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
32

protective order. “Subsequent to the Ex parte Order” referred to any date after the date that the 

ex parte order went into effect. 

Defendant firearm possession or access prior to DVPO

In order to determine whether the male partners of women filing for DVPOs possessed or 

had access to firearms prior to the DVPO filing, we complied information from all three data 

sources, and created a dichotomous variable that indicated that the defendant had access to 

firearms during the time period before the plaintiff filed for the DVPO. From the DVPO files, 

we read through the incident descriptions provided by the plaintiffs in the “Complaint and 

Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order (AOC-CV-303, Rev. 11/02, 12/03)” and coded 

(yes/no) for any mention of firearm use (including waving and threatening with a firearm) or 

information that indicated access to firearms. DVPO case file information also included 

information from checkboxes on the “Identifying Information about the Defendant Domestic 

Violence Action” form that indicate whether or not the defendant has a permit to: “purchase a 

handgun” and/or “carry a concealed handgun.” If either of these boxes were checked “yes,” we 

coded that case a “yes” for defendant access to firearms. Similarly, on the same form, if the 

plaintiff indicated that the defendant had a firearm under the item which inquired whether law 

enforcement should consider the defendant a potential threat, we coded that case as “yes.” If a 

12-month DVPO was granted in the case, we abstracted similar information from the “Complaint 

and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective Order form, i.e., we considered the item that 

included the incident description and the item which suspended the defendant’s concealed 

handgun permit. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
33

Several of the revised forms included in the DVPO files also contained information about 

defendants’ firearm possession or access. The Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence 

Protective Order (AOC-CV-303, Rev. 12/03) has checkboxes for the plaintiff to indicate whether 

the defendant: “has firearms and ammunition,” “has a permit to purchase a firearm,” and/or “has 

a permit to carry a concealed weapon,” as well as an item with a checkbox for the plaintiff to 

indicate whether the “defendant has used or threatened to use a deadly weapon against me or a 

minor child in my custody or has a pattern or prior conduct involving the use or threatened use 

of violence with a firearm against any persons.” If the plaintiff’s response indicated prior use or 

threatened use of a firearm, we coded the case “yes.” Similarly, the revised “Ex Parte Domestic 

Violence Protective Order and Notice to Parties form (AOC-CV-304, Rev. 12/03 and 3/04) and 

the revised Domestic Violence Notice and Order to Parties (if a DVPO was granted) (AOC-CV306, 12/03, 3/04) have items indicating prior pattern of conduct regarding use or threats of use 

of firearms as well as checkboxes to indicate that the defendant has “possession or access to 

deadly weapons,” with a subsequent space to describe the weapon. Any mention of the 

defendant having access to firearms on these forms was categorized as “yes.” 

We also used data from the COPE Time 1 and Time 2 and Time 3 interviews. From the 

COPE Time 1, we searched the participants’ account of the incident that led them to file for a 

DVPO, and coded any specific mention of firearm-related IPV as an indication that the 

defendant had access to a firearm. In the Time 2 interview, participants were asked how the 

defendant “got rid of any guns that he had” with one option being that the defendant did not have 

any guns. If the plaintiff responded that the defendant had gotten rid of his gun(s) or that he had 

a gun(s) but did not surrender it, we coded the case positive for defendant access to firearms. In 

the Time 3 COPE interview, respondents were asked specifically about firearm related IPV prior 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
34

to filing for the DVPO; we coded a positive response to this query as “yes” for defendant access 

to firearms. 

Finally, we coded any firearms-related criminal charge that occurred prior to the date of the 

DVPO filing from the criminal record background check as “yes” for defendant access to 

firearms. 

Experience with firearm-related IPV

In order to determine the female plaintiffs’ experiences with firearm-related intimate 

partner violence by the defendant prior to filing for the DVPO, we again combined information 

from all three data sources to create a single dichotomous variable indicating prior gun-related 

IPV. As described previously, from the DVPO case files, we abstracted information from the 

Complaint and Motion for Domestic Violence Protective order (AOC-CV-303, Rev. 11/02, 

12/03) regarding the incident leading to filing for the DVPO, and information from the revised 

forms that indicated prior conduct involving firearm use or threatened use against the plaintiff by 

the defendant. 

We also used data from the COPE Time 3 and Time 4 interviews, specifically the questions 

that inquired about the defendants’ use or threatened use of firearms against the plaintiffs prior to 

filing for the DVPO. Any positive response to these inquiries was coded as “yes” for this 

variable. 

Judges’ behavior regarding defendants’ access to firearms

We were interested in whether the judges inquired about defendants’ access to firearms 

during the ex parte and DVPO hearings. The COPE Time 1 survey asks participants whether ex 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
35

parte hearing judge asked them about: “weapons he [the defendant] might have access to” and to 

specify the type of weapon. A similar question is asked about the one-year DVPO hearing (if the 

woman attended it) in the COPE Time 2 interview. We created dichotomous variables to 

indicate whether the judge asked the plaintiff about the defendant’s access to firearms for each of 

these hearings. This information was only available for COPE participants. 

Additionally, we used the revised version (Rev. 12/03) of the “Complaint and Motion for 

Domestic Violence Protective Order,” which provides judges with a space for writing

descriptions of each gun in the defendant’s possession, and indicates that the judge asked the 

plaintiff for this information. 210 cases used the revised form, and this information was added to 

the dichotomous variable described above. 

We also created a dichotomous variable that noted whether there were restrictive conditions 

prohibiting the defendant from having access to firearms as part of the ex parte domestic 

violence protective order. We used the Ex parte Domestic Violence Protective Order form

(AOC-CV-304), which contains a list of conditions that apply to the ex parte order, including 

three items that state that the defendant is prohibited from: 1) possessing or 2) purchasing a 

firearm for the effective period of the order, and/or that 3) the defendant’s concealed handgun 

permit is suspended for the effective period of the order. If any of the three above items were 

checked, we considered the item a “yes” for firearm-related restrictions. 

We used a similar process with the Domestic Violence Protective Order and Notice to

Parties (CV-306, Rev 11/02 and 12/03) to determine whether boxes were checked forbidding 

defendants from possessing and/or owning firearms on the one year Domestic Violence 

Protective Order, if a DVPO was granted. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
36

Disposition of Domestic Violence Protective Order

As noted earlier, we abstracted information from the DVPO case files to determine the 

disposition of the DVPO, in other words, the outcome of the permanent DVPO hearing, usually 

held within two weeks of the ex parte order being issued. We grouped the outcomes into five 

categories that correspond to the “issue order codes” used by the Clerks of Court when reporting 

information about DVPOs to the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC); 

granted, denied, involuntarily dismissed, voluntarily dismissed, and other/not enough 

information. “Permanent “ DVPOs were considered granted if an order (form AOC-CV-306) 

was contained in the case file that indicated that the case had been heard in District Court, and 

that the judicial official (usually a District Court judge) had checked the box indicating that “this 

domestic violence protective order is necessary to bring about a cessation of acts of domestic 

violence.” DVPOs were considered denied if an order (form AOC-CV-306) was contained in 

the case file that indicated that the case had been heard in District Court, and that the judicial 

official had checked the box indicating that, “the plaintiff has failed to prove grounds for a 

domestic violence protective order.” We counted a DVPO as involuntarily dismissed if an order 

(form AOC-CV-306) was contained in the case file that indicated that the case had been heard in 

District Court, the plaintiff was not present, and the judicial official checked the box noting that 

“This action is dismissed and as of this date any ex parte order issued in this case is null and 

void.” We should note that in the majority of these cases there was also the notation somewhere 

in the file that action was dismissed because the plaintiff was not present in court. Cases that we 

categorized as voluntarily dismissed contained some notation in the file that the DVPO was 

dismissed at the request of the plaintiff and the judicial official checked the box noting that “This 

action is dismissed and as of this date any ex parte order issued in this case is null and void.” We

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
37

were conservative in our coding, and did not classify a case as voluntarily or involuntarily 

dismissed unless there were clear evidence in the file as to the nature of the dismissal. 

Disposition of defendants’ firearms

We were also interested in whether and how defendants’ access to firearms was limited 

subsequent to the granting of ex parte and permanent DVPOs. At the Time 2 Interviews, COPE 

respondents were asked: “How did [defendant] get rid of the gun(s) he already had, or did he not 

have any?” For this study, the open-ended responses were coded to indicate that the defendant: 

1) didn’t have any gun(s); 2) didn’t give up his gun(s); 3) gave his gun(s) to someone (other than 

the sheriff) for safekeeping; 4) voluntarily surrendered his gun to the sheriff’s department; and/or 

5) had gun(s) confiscated by sheriff’s deputies. These data were only available for COPE 

participants. We also attempted to enumerate the firearms confiscated and stored in evidence 

room the Durham county sheriff’s departments. 

Data Analysis 

Once the data from the various data sets were checked for valid responses and 

appropriate adherence to skip patterns, all data sets were converted into SAS data sets and 

matched by their unique CVD numbers. Some additional data coding was also performed at this 

point, for example we converted two of the demographic variables into dichotomous variables, 

namely number of children in common (none versus any) and marital status (married versus not 

married. Data were described using frequencies and associated percentages for categorical 

variables, and medians and associated interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Although 

our study collected information on populations rather than random samples, we tested bivariate 

assumptions in a manner consistent with other such study designs by computing bivariate ChiThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
38

Square tests for dichotomous variables and Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel Nonzero Correlation ChiSquare statistics when one of the categorical variables had more than two non-ordered groups.54

In several instances, the sample sizes were too small to allow for a typical Chi-Square statistic so

the Fisher’s Exact Test was computed. In addition, we used Wilcoxon Rank Sum statistics to 

compare medians for continuous variables that were not normally distributed and Spearman rank 

correlations to describe the association between continuous variables that were not normally 

distributed.54

In order to explore the protective effect of the Homicide Prevention Act, we compared 

plaintiffs’ experiences with firearm related IPV subsequent to receiving the ex parte order preand post-legislation. All information concerning women’s firearm-related IPV subsequent to the 

ex parte order came from the COPE interviews; therefore we limited this analysis to the 350 

COPE participants in Durham and Wake counties. 

Finally, after checking for collinearity among potential correlates, we computed an 

adjusted logistic regression model predicting judges’ restrictions regarding access to firearms at 

the ex parte hearing based on sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, whether or 

not the defendant had access to firearms during the 12 months before the ex parte hearing, 

whether the defendant had a criminal record that included IPV-related charges, and whether or 

not the ex parte order was filed before or after the HPA legislation went into effect. Including all 

of these variables resulted in a reduced sample size of 593 cases with complete data. Missing 

data from the remaining 138 cases (18% of total sample) were primarily variables related to the 

defendants’ demographic characteristics, namely age and race, and the marital status between the 

defendant and plaintiff. We explored the effects of removing the defendant age and race 

variables, which reduced the number of cases with missing information to 79, and of creating a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
39

“data missing” nominal variable for marital status. None of these actions resulted in changes in 

the results of our multivariate models, in terms of coefficients for the variables of interest. Given 

the lack of impact resulting from removing those variables, our belief that the complete models 

(i.e. the ones containing the defendant characteristics) were more aligned with our conceptual 

model, and the fact that the number of cases with missing information represented less than 20% 

of our total cases, we elected to present the multivariate models that included all the variables of

interest, deleting cases with missing information. 

We then computed a second adjusted logistic regression model to predict judges’ 

restrictions of firearms at the DVPO hearing as a function of the judge’s decision at the ex parte 

hearing, sociodemographic characteristics of the participants, whether or not the defendant had 

access to firearms during the 12 months before the ex parte hearing, and whether or not the ex 

parte was filed before or after the legislation went into effect. For both models, we used the 

Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit Test.

54 All statistics were considered statistically 

significant at the alpha = 0.05 level. 

Detailed Findings 

Description of Study Population 

There were 731 domestic violence protection order case files housed in the Durham

County Courthouse that met study inclusion criteria; 460 (63%) were filed pre-legislation and 

271 (37%) post-legislation . In most cases (91%), the originating paperwork, the “Complaint 

and Motion for a Domestic Violence Protection Order” was signed by a District Court judge 

(n=13 different judges, with a single judge signing about 80% of the forms). Of these 731 

Durham women, 129 were included in the COPE study, 83 (64%) pre legislation and 46 (36%) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
40

post-legislation. In addition, there were 221 COPE study participants from Wake county; 190

(86%) who filed pre-legislation and 31 (14%) who filed post-legislation. As in Durham County, 

the originating paperwork, the “Complaint and Motion for a Domestic Violence Protection 

Order” for the Wake county COPE participants was signed by a District Court judge in most 

(n=207; 94%) cases (n=18 different judges, with no single judge signing more than 22% of the 

forms).

Demographic characteristics of all 731 Durham county DVPO plaintiffs and defendants 

are described in Table 4, and similar characteristics are describe for Durham and Wake County 

COPE study participants in Table 5. In Durham county, plaintiffs were slightly younger than 

the defendants, with a median age of 31.8 years (IQR = 13.87) compared to 34.5 years (IQR = 

13.85) for the defendants (Table 4). Six percent of the plaintiffs completed the Spanish version 

of the “Complaint and Motion for a Domestic Violence Protection Order” forms. The majority 

(59%) of the plaintiffs and defendants were not married to each other at the time of the filing, 

and nearly half (48%) had at least one child under the age of 18 in common. As shown in Table 

5, we compared the demographic characteristics of the subgroup of Durham plaintiffs who 

participated in the COPE study to Durham plaintiffs who did not participate in the COPE study, 

and found that they were not significantly different from the overall study population, except that 

the COPE plaintiffs and defendants were slightly more likely to be African-American (70% of 

Durham COPE versus 66% of Durham Non-COPE for plaintiffs (χ

2

 = 7.66; p=.022), and 78% of 

Durham COPE versus 68% of Durham Non-COPEfor defendants (χ

2

 = 8.71; p=.013). Wake 

County COPE participants were more likely to be white than Durham County COPE participants 

(44% versus 28%; [χ

2

 = 10.14; p=.006]) as were the defendants (37% versus 20%; [χ

2

 = 11.86; 

p=.003]), a finding consistent with the demographic composition of the two counties.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
41

Firearm Access, IPV, and Firearm -Related Intimate Partner Violence 

There was evidence, gleaned from the various data sources described in the previous 

section, that over one third (38%) of the defendants in the Durham DVPO cases had access to 

firearms prior to or at the time that their partners filed for domestic violence protective orders.

Further, we were able to establish that nearly one quarter (23%) of these Durham plaintiffs had 

experienced firearm-related IPV in the 12 months prior to filing for the DVPO.

As noted in the previous section, we compared plaintiffs’ experiences with firearmrelated IPV subsequent to receiving the ex parte order pre- and post-legislation for the 350 COPE 

participants in Durham and Wake counties. We found that the proportion of COPE women with 

ex parte orders in Durham County who reported experiencing firearm-related IPV increased 

from 4.8% to 6.5% post legislation, but this change was not statistically significant (Fisher’s 

Exact p=..699). In Wake County, the proportion of COPE participants who experienced firearmrelated IPV after receiving an ex parte decreased from 6.8% to 6.5%, but that this change also 

was not statistically significant (Fisher’s Exact p=.300). 

On nearly three quarters of the Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protective Orders filed in 

Durham County during the study period (n=731), the judicial official (usually a District Court 

Judge) found that the defendant “committed acts of domestic violence against the plaintiff” 

(73%), and in 80% s/he found that that there appeared to be a “danger of acts of domestic 

violence against the plaintiff (Table 6). The judicial officials found that acts of domestic 

violence had been committed against minor children residing with the plaintiff in 8% of the ex 

parte forms (13% of the cases where the plaintiff and defendant had children in common), and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
42

noted substantial risk of future harm to minor children in 14% of the cases (24% of cases with 

children in common). 

The revised Ex Parte DVPO forms (n=209) had specific checkboxes where the findings 

regarding defendants’ prior use of firearms could be noted, as well as checkboxes for specific 

types of violent behavior (Table 6). In 25% of these cases, the defendant threatened to injure or 

kill the plaintiff, and in 12% the defendant had threatened to use a deadly weapon against the 

plaintiff. In terms of prior use of a firearm, 4% of the forms were checked; and in 3% of the 

forms, prior threatened use of a firearm was checked. 

We also examined the criminal histories of the defendants in all 731 Durham county 

cases, in part to determine whether they had a history of gun-related violence and/or intimate 

partner violence charges, and also to determine whether they had been charged with any gunrelated offenses during the period when the ex parte and 12-month DVPOs (if granted), were in 

effect. The results of the criminal background checks revealed that just over half (51%) of 

defendants had recorded criminal charges that could be matched to them as part of a statewide 

criminal background check prior to the date of the DVPO filing (Table 7). Half of all the 

defendants had prior IPV-related criminal charges on record prior to the plaintiff filing for a 

DVPO, though we could not ascertain whether these offenses were committed against the 

plaintiffs for the DVPOs included in this study or against a different partner. Virtually all (98%) 

of the defendants who had criminal records had previous IPV-related criminal charges that 

predated the DVPO filing. In addition, 12% of all defendants had been charged with criminal 

IPV charges that were concurrent with the ex parte order, indicating that those criminal charges 

may be related to the same incident that prompted the plaintiff to file for a DVPO. Finally, 25% 

of the defendants had IPV-related charges incurred on a date later than the date that the ex parte 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
43

order was issued. Given that half of these domestic violence related charges occurring 

subsequent to the ex parte filing were DVPO violations, in all likelihood these charges were 

violations of that particular order. 

A smaller percentage (16%) of the defendants had firearm-related criminal charges that 

predated the study DVPO filing. Interestingly, defendants with previous IPV-related charges 

were significantly more likely to have previous gun-related charges than defendants who did not 

have previous IPV-related charges. Over a quarter (27%; n=98) of defendants with IPV-related 

charges prior to the ex parte order also had at least one gun-related charge before the ex parte, 

compared to 19% (n=68) of defendants without IPV charges prior to the ex parte (χ

2

 = 7.49; p = 

.006; data not shown). 

Not surprisingly, the prevalence of firearms-related charges among defendants occurred 

much less frequently concurrent with (<1%) or subsequent to (4%) the plaintiffs receiving the ex 

parte orders as compared to prior to the ex parte. Given how infrequently these charges 

occurred, the number of cases was too small to allow us to compare the prevalence of firearmsrelated charges pre- versus post-legislation. 

Judges’ Behavior Restricting Access to Firearms 

Of the 731 ex parte orders issued in Durham County during the study period, 366 (50%) 

were subsequently granted as 12-month DVPOs, 11% were denied; 31% were involuntarily 

dismissed, usually because the plaintiff did not show up for the DVPO hearing; 7% were 

voluntarily dismissed (i.e. at the request of the plaintiff), and 1% did not have sufficient 

information to allow us to ascertain the case disposition (Table 8). Among Durham County 

COPE participants (n=129), the disposition proportions were similar; however among Wake 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
44

County COPE participants, a higher percentage of DVPOs were granted (60%), and a lower 

proportion were denied (4%), although overall, the dispositions did vary significantly (χ

2

=6.62; 

df=3; p=.084). 

We were able to determine whether the judge inquired about defendants’ access to 

firearms during the ex parte hearing only for the COPE participants in Durham and Wake 

counties (n=350), of whom 78% filed for DVPOs pre-legislation and 22% filed post-legislation. 

Specifically, 42% of the women interviewed reported that the judge had asked them about the 

defendants’ access to firearms pre-legislation compared to 45% post-legislation (data not 

shown). This modest increase in judges’ inquiry about firearms was not statistically significant 

(χ

2

 = 0.2720; p = .602).

Overall, women who filed for domestic violence protective orders after the Homicide 

Prevention Act was passed were significantly more likely to receive an ex parte order that 

included firearms-related restrictions (94%) than women who filed before enactment of the 

Homicide Prevention Act (90%; p=.036) (Table 9). In terms of specific prohibitions, although 

there was a trend toward slightly increased inclusion of prohibitions on owning or receiving 

firearms (88% to 93%), and purchasing firearms (88% to 91%) pre- versus post-legislation, 

although the only statistically significant increase was in the percentage of forms that included 

the condition that revoked the defendant’s concealed handgun permit (8% to 28%; p=<.001).

Interestingly, we observed no such changes among the 366 permanent DVPOs issued 

during the study period. The percentage of DVPOs with any firearm restrictions noted remained 

virtually the same (90% versus 91%; p=.636) after the legislation took effect, and none of the 

specific firearms prohibitions checked on the form varied significantly by pre- versus postlegislation status. In fact, the percentage of DVPOs that included the condition that revoked the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
45

defendant’s concealed handgun permit, which increased significantly post-legislation on the ex 

parte forms, actually decreased slightly on the DVPO forms post-legislation, though this 

difference was not statistically significant. 

As noted in the previous section, as a result of the passage of the Homicide Prevention 

Act, both the Ex Parte Notice to Parties and Domestic Violence Protective Order and Notice to 

Parties forms were revised, and the new versions of these forms were introduced during the study 

period. One addition to both of the forms was a checkbox for the condition that the defendant 

must “surrender to the Sheriff serving this order, the firearms, ammunition, gun permits 

described in block No. 4 of the Findings on page 2 of this Order, and any other firearms and 

ammunition in the defendant’s care, custody, possession, ownership and control.” Post 

legislation, 40% of the ex parte orders and 35% of the 12-month DVPOs had those conditions 

checked (Table 9).

Tables 10 and 11 present the findings of the multivariate analyses. After adjusting for

plaintiffs’ and defendants’ age and race, whether or not they have children in common, marital 

status between plaintiff and defendant, prior IPV-related criminal charges, and evidence of 

firearm access before the ex parte was filed, women who received ex parte domestic violence 

protective orders before the legislation went into effect were more than twice as likely for a 

judge to choose not to restrict the defendant’s access to firearms, as compared to women who 

filed after the legislation (OR = 2.44; 95% CI = 1.12 – 1.91) (Table 10). No other variables were 

statistically significantly associated with a judge choosing not to restrict the defendant’s access 

to firearms. 

As described in Table 11, after adjusting for plaintiffs’ and defendants’ age and race, 

whether or not they have children in common, marital status between plaintiff and defendant, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
46

prior IPV-related criminal charges, and evidence of firearm access before the ex parte was filed, 

women for whom the judge did not restrict access to firearms on the permanent DVPO had over 

eight times the odds of having ex parte orders in which defendants received no restrictions on 

access to firearms, as compared to women for whom the judge did restrict access to firearms on 

the permanent DVPO (OR = 8.71; 95% CI = 2.74, 27.67). No statistically significant 

associations with the judge not restricting access to firearms on the permanent DVPO were found 

for any of the other variables, including filing pre-legislation versus post-legislation. 

Disposition of Firearms 

One of the goals of this study was to ascertain what happened to DVPO defendants’ 

existing firearms when the defendants were restricted from owning or possessing firearms as a 

condition of a Domestic Violence Protective Order, and whether there were any differences 

between defendants’ disposition of firearms pre- and post-legislation. We found that there was 

no systematic method to document the status of defendants’ firearms, ammunition, or permits 

contained in the hard copy DVPO files. Further, our inquiries to the Sheriff’s Department 

revealed that there was no electronic or paper trail for firearms confiscated or surrendered as a 

condition of a DVPO. Thus, we were only able to obtain information about the disposition of 

firearms in DVPO cases for the 350 COPE participants, who were asked specifically what 

happened to their partners’ guns during the Time 2 interview (subsequent to the date of the 

DVPO hearing). Among the 43 women (13% of COPE participants) who reported that their 

partners had firearms and that the judge had indicated gun-related restrictions on the ex parte, 

over one third (37%) either did not know (what the defendant did with his gun(s)) or did not 

respond to this question; in 37% of these cases the plaintiff said that the defendant had kept his 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
47

gun(s); 14% said that sheriff’s deputies had confiscated the gun(s); and 5% each said that he (the 

plaintiff) had turned the gun(s) in to the Sheriff’s Department or gave it away. The small number 

of responses to this interview item precluded bivariate or multivariate analyses, however, the 

proportion of respondents that noted that their partners kept their guns did not vary pre- versus 

post-legislation. 

Discussion and Implications 

Discussion 

The goals of this study were to describe the scope of firearm possession by DVPO 

defendants, and pre- and post-legislation differences in: experiences of firearm-related intimate 

partner violence, and judges’ behaviors specifying firearm-related conditions in DVPOs. As is 

always the case, the findings should be viewed within the context of the study’s limitations. 

First, we conducted analyses of data from three different secondary sources, thus we had no 

control over the quantity and quality of the available data. For instance, in the DVPO case files 

there was minimal information about judges’ inquiries about the defendants’ access to firearms 

or whether guns that were noted to be in the defendants’ possession were confiscated or 

surrendered as ordered. We were able to determine this information to some extent using the 

COPE interview data, albeit for only a subset of the study sample, and could infer judges’ 

behavior based on checkboxes on the revised (i.e., post-legislation) forms in some cases. 

However, these sources give us only partial information. Ideally we would have primary data 

about judges’ inquiries, as well as the plaintiffs and defendants’ responses via court 

observation—a recommendation for future research. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
48

Another limitation was the fact that the DVPO forms, which served as our data collection 

instruments for some variables, were revised several times during the study period. While it 

appears that these changes affected court officials’ behavior in the desired manner, it also made it 

difficult to differentiate the independent effects of the legislation from related changes in the 

forms. Finally our study involved DVPO cases in two counties from one state, and the majority 

of cases in Durham County were presided over by a single judge, both of which limit the 

generalizability of our findings. However, as we will note in the following section, many of our 

findings were consistent with previous research, providing some indication that the associated 

implications may be relevant to other states and communities.

 Despite these limitations, our findings revealed characteristics of the DVPO defendants, 

administrative process, case files, and judicial behaviors that have implications for policy, 

practice, and research pertaining to domestic violence protective orders and firearms. We discuss 

these implications and suggest directions for future research, policy and practice efforts in the 

following text. 

There was evidence that over one third of the defendants had access to firearms at the 

time of the DVPO filing, and that over one quarter of them had used firearms against the 

plaintiffs within 12 months of the filing. We should note that these are probably considerable 

underestimates of the prevalence of firearm access and firearm-related IPV, as we were 

conservative in our coding; only information that specifically indicated firearm access or use was 

used to identify positive cases. In all other instances (e.g., a lack of information, mention of 

“weapon”, but not firearm) we coded “no.” 

We also found that over half of the defendants named in DVPO cases had criminal 

histories documented in public records accessed via a statewide criminal record search, and that 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
49

nearly half of the defendants had documented IPV criminal charges predating the index DVPO. 

These findings are consistent with other research involving defendants in DVPO cases, which 

consistently find high levels of defendant involvement in the criminal justice system, particularly 

previous domestic violence-related criminal charges.23, 31, 35, 38, 44, 45 For example, a case review 

of 500 Civil Protective Order in a Washington, DC Domestic Violence Court found that 53% of 

defendants had previous non-domestic violence criminal charges;55 and a review of DVPO 

applications in California indicated that 32% of the defendants cases had previously been 

arrested on domestic violence-related charges for violence committed against the defendant.25

Finally, there was evidence in the public record that 12% of the defendants violated the 

DVPO within months of its issue. Again, this is likely an underestimate of DVPO violations, as 

there is ample research indicating that DVPO violations are rarely enforced, and that offenders 

are frequently not charged.8, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33-35, 38, 39, 44, 52, 55 For example, a Kentucky study found 

that 29% of DVPOs issued during the study period were violated within 40 days.8, 23, 25, 29, 31, 33-35,

38, 39, 44, 52, 55

However, we found discordance between women’s experiences of firearm-related 

violence and firearms restrictions marked on ex parte and permanent DVPOs. Our multivariate 

analyses indicated that judges’ behaviors restricting firearm access as conditions of ex parte and 

permanent DVPOs were not associated with evidence of prior IPV-related charges or with the 

defendants’ access to firearms . These findings echo those of the Maryland case study court 

observations where, in the five cases where victims mentioned firearms as part of their abuse, 

none resulted in DVPOs that required defendants to surrender firearms.

51 In a similar vein, an 

examination of protective orders filed in Los Angeles revealed that the mention of gun violence 

on the DVPO application not associated with a judicial decision to grant the order. 25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
50

Most state statues regarding firearms and IPV function as (at best) mechanisms for 

secondary prevention of firearm violence. Currently there is a great deal of disparity in the 

extent to which these statutes restrict those subject to DVPOs from owning, possessing, and 

purchasing firearms, with only eight states having statutory language prohibiting firearm

possession as a mandatory condition of DVPOs, and most other states, including North Carolina, 

either prohibiting firearm possession only if certain conditions (e.g. previous use or threatened 

uses of a firearm) are met, or leaving the decision to the discretion of the judicial official.30

Further, firearms are routinely confiscated only after a DVPO violation occurs, and it is 

generally left to the defendant to voluntarily surrender the guns(s) or dispose of them in some 

other way. 3, 52

Previous research consistently demonstrates that: women file for protective orders after 

being subjected to severe and frequent abuse; the majority of DVPO defendants have previous 

IPV-related and other criminal charges; a substantial proportion of defendants have access to 

firearms and have used guns against their partners in the recent past; and that DVPOs are 

frequently violated. Given the potential lethal threat posed by DVPO defendants with access to 

firearms, and the demonstrated discrepancy between women’s experiences and DVPO 

conditions received, statutory language prohibiting firearm possession and ordering firearm

removal as mandatory conditions for all DVPOs appears warranted. Such language would 

increase the likelihood that firearm restrictions would be applied consistently across judicial 

districts, and decrease the dependence on individual judicial officials’ discretion. It may also 

increase the potential of these statutes to serve as primary prevention strategies, i.e. preventing 

the first occurrence of firearm-related IPV, by eliminating defendants’ access to guns. Mandatory 

restrictions and removal of firearms may also increase the effectiveness of these statutes as 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
51

mechanisms for secondary prevention of firearm-related IPV by reducing the risk of additional 

incidents among plaintiffs who have already experienced firearm-related IPV. Further research 

examining the experience of states that require automatic firearms restrictions compared to those 

states where restrictions are conditional and/or discretionary could reveal the relative advantages 

of the various approaches, as well as suggest evidence-based parameters for conditional 

restrictions. 

Our study also revealed several areas where the Homicide Prevention Act was not fully 

implemented. Frattaroli and Teret (2006) describe policy implementation as “all activities 

involved in the process of translating a law into action.”51 To this definition we add the concept 

of implementation fidelity, or the extent to which an intervention or policy was delivered as 

planned by its developers, i.e. the quality of implementation.50 Translating the Homicide 

Prevention Act (and similar legislation) into action involves success at multiple levels (e.g. 

legislature, District Court, sheriffs department), and requires cooperation from numerous players 

in various roles at every level. Consequently there are a variety of potential barriers to and 

opportunities for implementation fidelity. 

Less than half of the plaintiffs in our study reported being asked about defendants’ access 

to firearms as part of the ex parte hearings, and that this proportion did not change subsequent to 

the enactment of the Homicide Prevention Act. Our data sources could not provide us with a 

complete assessment because we did not have similar information for the DVPO hearing. 

However these findings do suggest that judges were not routinely asking plaintiffs about the 

defendants’ access to firearms, either before or after the enactment of the Homicide Prevention 

Act, despite the fact that the legislation requires that: “the court shall inquire of the plaintiff, at 

the ex parte or emergency hearing, the presence of, ownership of, or otherwise access to firearms 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
52

by the defendant, as well as ammunition, permits to purchase firearms, and permits to carry 

concealed firearms, and include, whenever possible, identifying information regarding the 

description, number, and location of firearms, ammunition, and permits in the order.” This is an 

important omission, because by specifically inquiring about guns, the judge both identifies 

firearms that should be surrendered when the ex parte order is served by the sheriff’s department, 

thereby alerting them to the type(s) and quantity of guns they should be able to account for, and 

sends a message to the plaintiff that these firearms pose a serious threat to her and her family and 

that the court is taking this danger seriously. An encouraging development is that the revised 

forms for the ex parte and permanent DVPOs include prompts and spaces for including

information about the defendant’s access to “firearms, ammunition, and gun permits,” although it 

is unclear how accurately these items are completed, or whether the information used to 

complete the item originates from the written DVPO application forms, judges’ inquiries, or 

other sources. 

An associated concern is that these firearm-related prohibitions should be enacted as part 

of the ex parte process, not just for permanent DVPOs. The North Carolina Homicide 

Prevention Act is considered to be “victim friendly” because it goes beyond the provisions 

specified in the VAWA in that the stipulations of the legislation apply to both the ex parte and 

permanent (usually 12 months) protective orders and court processes, and is not limited to 

protective orders that have been issued after a hearing attended by both parties. Limiting firearm

prohibitions to these permanent DVPOs misses the important potential protective opportunity 

offered by the ex parte process. Consistent with previous research,4, 23, 24, 31, 38 we found that only 

half of the ex parte orders filed were later granted as permanent DVPOs, either because they 

were denied by the District Court judge at the DVPO hearing or, as was more frequently the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
53

case, because they were voluntarily or involuntarily dismissed. Further, the time period between 

the issuance of the ex parte order and the DVPO hearing can vary greatly, particularly if the 

DVPO hearing is postponed because the defendant has not been served or does not show up in 

court, which usually results in continuance of the ex parte order. Including restrictions on access 

to firearms in the ex parte orders will extend the added protection afforded by those restrictions 

to the period that the ex parte is in effect, at least in the cases where the ex parte order is served. 

Given the importance of the ex parte hearing as the “portal of entry” into the DVPO 

process, thorough and consistent inquiry regarding the defendants’ possession of and access to 

firearms should be ensured. Potential mechanisms for increasing inquiry include education and 

training for court personnel, continued revisions to ex parte and DVPO forms that will prompt 

judges to ask about defendants’ access to firearms and mark appropriate restrictions, monitoring 

implementation fidelity and providing timely feedback in cases of noncompliance. The 

California Task Force found that “publicly monitoring counties [regarding compliance with 

entering firearm restrictions into a statewide DVPO database], and providing data directly to 

them can significantly affect their performance.”52

Ultimately new legislation and forms are only effective insofar as they are catalysts for 

the desired change. We were encouraged by the findings that in a large majority of cases judges 

were including firearms-related restrictions in ex parte and permanent DVPOs, and that judges 

were significantly more likely to check firearm-related conditions on the ex parte orders postlegislation, and that whether the ex parte order was granted pre or post legislation was a 

significant predictor of firearm restrictions having been included as conditions of the ex parte 

order. Both of these findings indicate that the legislation positively influenced judges’ behavior. 

That no such changes were found for judges’ noting restrictions on the DVPO forms is consistent 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
54

with this interpretation; the VAWA (which predates the HPA by a decade) stipulations 

concerning firearm restrictions apply only to permanent DVPOs. 

We were also encouraged to note that modifications to the ex parte and DVPO forms 

resulted in judges including many more specific notations regarding firearm-related restrictions 

on both the ex parte and DVPO forms. Nearly half of the judges checked the item noting that the 

defendant must surrender to the sheriff the firearms noted in the order on the revised ex parte 

form; more than one third did so on the revised DVPO form. This item did not exist on previous 

versions of the form. Presumably the new checkboxes on the forms both prompted the judges to 

inquire about firearms (in order to be able to list them) and cued the sheriff’s deputies serving the 

orders to inquire into the whereabouts and disposition of the named firearms—both desired 

effects. This finding indicates that changing the content and format of a strategic form in 

conjunction with new policies or procedures may be a useful strategy for prompting the desired 

(and necessary) changes in behavior. However, we should note that these items were checked in 

less than half the cases, indicating a great deal of room for improvement—another situation for 

which additional training for judicial officials could be helpful. 

On a less positive note, our investigation yielded very little evidence that there was a

system of follow-up and documentation that would ensure restricting batterers’ access to 

firearms, even if inquiries were made and appropriate restrictions were imposed as conditions of 

the DVPO. Only a small fraction of the women in the COPE study reported that their abusers 

gave up their guns, or that their guns were confiscated. Alarmingly, over one third of the COPE 

participants reported that their abusers “kept their guns.” We also saw little documentation of 

gun surrender or confiscation in the DVPO files, and there was no apparent method to identify 

DVPO-related firearms stored in the Sheriff’s Departments’ evidence area. We recognize that a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
55

lack of documentation does not preclude the existence of widespread gun surrender and 

confiscation; however without a paper or electronic trail, we were limited in our ability to assess 

the extent to which this aspect of the HPA implementation was occurring. Perhaps more 

importantly, without systematic record-keeping, law enforcement officers cannot easily 

determine whether defendants have complied with the firearm-related conditions of their 

DVPOs. This finding of “nonenforcement” of firearm restrictions is similar to the case studies in 

Maryland and California.51, 52 In both cases, investigators cited a lack of specificity regarding the 

process by which court-ordered surround guns are obtained. Key Informant interviews in 

Maryland revealed consensus in the belief that the presence of a specialized domestic violence 

unit vested with the responsibility to confiscate firearms when serving a DVPO and/or following 

up with defendants to make certain that they have surrendered or disposed pf the guns would 

result in increased compliance.51 The California Task Force identified a promising proactive 

enforcement tactic in place in one county, which required defendants to call the Firearms 

Division within 24 hours to arrange for firearms surrender. During the call, the defendants’ were 

required to identify all firearms in their possession and were informed that the information they 

furnished would be compared to the data in the state’s Automated Firearms System. This 

practice resulted in one firearm surrendered for every eight defendants.52

A related concern is the lack of a centralized, current, and easily accessible data base for 

DVPOs. Approximately 37 states have statewide protective order data bases, of varying levels 

of accessibility and comprehensiveness. Efforts to create a national Protective Order File (POF) 

file housed in the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) have been met with limited 

success; currently, only 23 states submit DVPO data to the NCIC POF. In fact NCIC 

publications warn that the “The NCIC system may not capture 100% of valid, enforceable orders 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
56

even for those states that are entering orders into it. If a query does not result in a positive “hit,” 

the order may still be a valid and enforceable protection order.” 

Suggestions for Future Research Policy and Practice 

Our findings revealed characteristics of the DVPO defendants, administrative process, 

case files, and judicial behaviors that have implications for policy, practice, and research 

pertaining to firearms and DVPOs, both within North Carolina and in other states. To this end, 

we suggest the following list of strategies to advance the research agenda on DVPOs and 

firearms and increase implementation fidelity of the HPA and similar statutes, in the hope that 

improved implementation will lead to increased safety for women who apply for DVPOs. 

Suggestions for Research

Funders should support, and researchers should conduct, research that includes: 

• collection of primary data about judges’ inquiries about firearm access, as well as the 

plaintiffs and defendants’ responses; 

• comparison of the experiences of states that require automatic firearms restrictions to those 

whose restrictions are conditional and/or discretionary; 

• assessments of implementation fidelity; and 

• evaluation of strategies to enhance compliance. 

Suggestions for Policies

Legislation restricting DVPO defendant’s access to firearms should include: 

• prohibitions on firearm purchase and possession and the requirement of firearm removal as 

mandatory conditions for all DVPOs; 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
57

• resources to establish and/or maintain a statewide protective order database that includes 

current information on the status and conditions of the orders; 

• requirements to proactively enforce DVPO firearms restrictions, and specification of who is 

responsible for enforcement; 

• mechanisms for reporting, monitoring and feedback by courts; and 

• appropriations of resources to train court personnel and others involved in the DVPO 

process. 

Suggestions for Practice

Agencies involved in the DVPO process should: 

• ensure that applicants understand the DVPO forms and process; 

• develop clear operating procedures to ensuring that firearm-related restrictions are 

consistently applied and enforced; 

• secure the support of agency leadership for full enforcement of firearms restrictions in DVPO 

cases; and 

• monitor implementation of procedures and provide timely feedback. 

There is strong public and legislative support for limiting batterers’ access to firearms, as 

demonstrated by the large number of state statutes that enhance federal provisions, including the 

Homicide Prevention Act in North Carolina. Difficulty in assessing the true effectiveness of

DVPO gun restrictions resulting from sporadic implementation of the law is a consistent theme 

among researchers. As Frattaroli and Teret lament, “if implementation goes awry, an evaluation 

of the law may conclude that the law is ineffective, when the law have been well designed, but 

was underfunded, mismanaged, or not enforced (p.358).”51

Our study examined the process and impact of new legislation limiting access to firearms 

by defendants in DVPO cases. Although the findings indicate that such restrictions are 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
58

warranted, and that judges’ were more likely to note firearm-related restrictions on the ex parte 

form after the passage of the legislation, it is less clear whether there is systematic follow-up and 

documentation regarding guns in DVPO cases, or whether defendants’ risk of firearm-related 

IPV has been reduced. Future research, policy initiatives, and enhanced practices are clearly 

needed to increase the safety of IPV victims and their families. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
59

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
60

1

”Permanent DVPOs are usually in effect for 12 months, and the issuing judicial official must specify conditions of the 

DVPO (e.g. firearms restrictions) at the DVPO hearing. 

Figure 1. DVPO Process in North Carolina.

Plaintiff files for domestic violence protective order (DVPO) in District Courthouse

Ex parte order 

denied

Ex parte

order 

Defendant served 

with order

Defendant not

served with order

Hearing 

Postponed

Defendant 

served with 

order 

Defendant not served 

with order

“Permanent” Domestic Violence 

Protective Order Hearing in District Court

DVPO

granted1

DVPO

voluntarily

dismissed

DVPO

involuntarily

dismissed 

DVPO 

denied 

24 hours 

(max.)

10-14 days

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
61

Table 1. Research Objectives and Corresponding Research Questions

Objective 1: Describe the scope and nature of firearm possession by male defendants in 

domestic violence protective order cases. 

RQ1 

What percentage of male defendants in domestic violence protective order cases own or 

possess firearms?

RQ2 

What percentage of male domestic violence protective order defendants have been 

charged with firearm-related offenses: 

4.1 Prior to their partner filing for an ex parte protective order?

4.2 Subsequent to their partner filing for an ex parte protective order? 

Objective 2: Describe the experiences of firearm-related violence by female plaintiffs in 

domestic violence protective order cases, pre- and post-enactment of S.L. 2003-410. 

RQ3 

What proportion of female domestic violence protective order plaintiffs have experienced 

firearm-related violence by the defendants: 

4.1 Prior to filing for the ex parte order?

4.2 Subsequent to filing for the ex parte order ?

RQ4 

Does the likelihood of experiencing firearm-related violence after obtaining an ex parte

order decline subsequent to the enactment of S.L. 2003-410, as compared to before 

enactment? 

RQ5 

Does the likelihood of experiencing firearm-related violence after obtaining a permanent 

domestic violence protective order decline subsequent to the enactment of S.L. 2003-

410, as compared to before enactment?

Objective 3: Assess changes in judges’ behavior regarding inquiring about firearm 

possession and including firearm-related prohibitions in domestic violence protective 

orders pre- and post-enactment of S.L. 2003-410. 

RQ6 

As part of the ex parte process, what percentage of plaintiffs are asked by the judge 

about their partners’ firearm ownership and possession?

RQ7 

As part of the e xparte process, are judges more likely to ask plaintiffs about 

their partners’ firearm possession and ownership subsequent to the enactment of S.L. 

2003-410, as compared to before enactment?

RQ8 

What percentage of the ex parte forms are checked to include conditions that 

prohibit the defendant from: 

9.1 possessing a firearm; and 

9.2 purchasing a firearm?

RQ- Are judges more likely to check firearm-related conditions on the ex parte form

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
62

9 subsequent to the enactment of S.L. 2003-410, as compared to before enactment?

RQ10 

At the 10-day hearing, what percentage of defendants are asked by a judge about their 

firearm ownership and possession? 

RQ11 

What percentage of the permanent DVPO forms are checked to include conditions that 

prohibit the defendant from: 

14.1 possessing a firearm; and 

14.2 purchasing a firearm?

RQ12 

Are judges more likely to check firearm-related conditions on the 

permanent DVPO form subsequent to the enactment of S.L. 2003-410, as compared to 

before enactment. 

Objective 4: Assess changes in firearm surrender and confiscation among defendants in 

domestic violence protective order cases pre- and post-enactment of S.L. 2003-410. 

RQ13 

What proportion of male domestic violence protective order defendants 

who have been identified by plaintiffs as owning or possessing firearms

surrender their firearms? 

RQ14 

Does the proportion of male domestic violence protective order defendants 

who surrender their firearms increase subsequent to the enactment of S.L. 2003-410, as 

compared to before enactment? 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
63

Table 2: Study Data by Sources and County 

Durham County Wake County 

Data 

Source 

Sample N Sample N 

DVPO 

files 

All eligible women 18+ who filed 

for and received exparte orders 

between February 2003 and June 

2004 

731 All eligible women 18+ who filed 

for and received exparte orders 

between February 2003 and June 

2004 and participated in COPE 

Time 1 and Time 2 interviews

221

Criminal 

History 

All eligible women 18+ who filed 

for and received exparte orders 

between February 2003 and June 

2004 

730 None 0 

COPE 

Interview 

All eligible women 18+ who filed 

for and received exparte orders 

between February 2003 and June 

2004 and participated in COPE 

Time 1 and Time 2 interviews

129 All eligible women 18+ who filed 

for and received exparte orders 

between February 2003 and June 

2004 and participated in COPE 

Time 1 and Time 2 interviews

221

Note that the criminal history number includes some folks “without” a criminal history; 

only 1 was “unsearchable” so we don’t know if it is a “no” or “no criminal history” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
64

Table 3. Variable names, operationalization, response options, and data sources.

Variable Operationalization Response 

Options 

Data Source 

County County in which plaintiff filed for 

DVPO 

1=Durham

2=Wake 

DVPO files 

Plaintiff’s Age Age (in years) of the plaintiff at 

the time she filed for the DVPO 

18-24 

25-34 

35-44 

46-54 

55-64 

65+ 

DVPO files 

Plaintiff’s Race Self-ascribed race of plaintiff AfricanAmerican 

White 

Other 

DVPO files 

Spanish Form Spanish version of DVPO Filing 

Form used 

Yes 

No 

DVPO files 

Defendant’s Age Age (in years) of the defendant at 

the time she filed for the DVPO 

18-24 

25-34 

35-44 

46-54 

55-64 

65+ 

DVPO files 

Defendant’s Race Self-ascribed race of defendant AfricanAmerican 

White 

Other 

DVPO files 

Number of Children in 

Common 

Number of children under the age 

of 18 the plaintiff and defendant 

have in common 

0 

1 

2 

3 or more 

DVPO files 

Defendant’s Criminal 

Record 

Any criminal charges against 

defendant prior to date of DVPO 

filing 

Yes 

No 

Criminal 

Background 

Check 

Any Domestic Violence 

Charges 

Any domestic violence criminal 

charges against defendant 

Yes 

No 

Criminal 

Background 

Check 

Any Firearm/Concealed 

Weapon Charge 

Any firearms-related or 

concealed weapons charges 

against defendant 

Yes 

No 

Criminal 

Background 

Check 

Prior to Filing for DVPO Any date prior to the date that the Yes DVPO files 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
65

Variable Operationalization Response 

Options 

Data Source 

women filed for a domestic 

violence protective order up until 

one week before filing 

No 

Concurrent with DVPO Six days prior to filing for the 

DVPO and the day the ex order 

parte was issued 

Yes 

No 

DVPO files 

Subsequent to Receiving

Ex Parte order 

Any date after the date that the ex 

parte order went into effect 

Yes 

No 

DVPO Files 

Pre or Post legislation Whether event took place before 

or after the Homicide Prevention 

Act went into effect 

Pre-legislation 

(before 

12/01/03) 

Postlegislation (on 

or after 

12/03/03) 

DVPO files 

Any defendant gun 

possession or access prior 

to DVPO 

Evidence of defendant possessing 

or having access to firearms prior 

to filing for the ex parte

Yes 

No 

DVPO files 

COPE Time 1 

Interview 

COPE Time 2 

Interview 

Cope Time 3 

Interview 

Criminal 

Records check 

Any gun-related IPV prior 

to DVPO 

Any gun-related violence prior to 

filing for DVPO 

Yes 

No 

DVPO files 

COPE Time 3 

Interview 

Cope Time 4 

Interview 

Criminal 

Records check 

Judge asked about 

defendant’s access to 

Any mention of the judge asking 

about defendant’s access to 

Yes 

No 

COPE Time 1 

Interview 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
66

Variable Operationalization Response 

Options 

Data Source 

firearms firearms in the during the ex parte 

process DVPO files 

(revised form 

only) 

Judge prohibited 

defendant’s access to 

firearms on ex parte 

protective order 

Judge checked any firearms

prohibitions on the ex parte order 

form

Yes DVPO files 

Judge prohibited 

defendant’s access to 

firearms on DVPO 

Judge checked any firearms

prohibitions on the 12-month 

protective order 

No DVPO files 

COPE Time 2 

COPE Time 3 

Defendant’s firearm

related charges: prior 

filing 

Indication from background 

check that defendant arrested or 

convicted of crime involving 

firearm in preceding ex parte

 Background 

check 

DVPO files 

for date 

Defendant’s firearm

related charges: after filing 

Indication from background 

check that defendant arrested or 

convicted of crime involving 

firearm in year after ex parte 

 Background 

check 

DVPO files 

for date 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
67

Table 4. Characteristics of Plaintiffs and Defendants in Ex Parte Domestic Violence 

Protective Orders, Durham County, NC, n=731 

Characteristic n (%)

Plaintiff Age1

18 – 24 167 (23) 

25 – 34 283 (39) 

35 – 44 192 (26) 

45 – 54 69 (9) 

55 – 64 19 (3) 

65+ 1 (<1) 

Missing 0

Defendant Age2

 < 18 2 (<1) 

18 – 24 109 (16) 

25 – 34 233 (35) 

35 – 44 222 (33) 

45 – 54 82 (12) 

55 – 64 13 (2) 

65+ 4 (1) 

Missing 66

Plaintiff Race, n=718

White 180 (25) 

Black 476 (66) 

Other 62 (9) 

Missing 13

Defendant Race, n=727

White 156 (21) 

Black 508 (70) 

Other 63 (9) 

Missing 4

Spanish Form

Yes 45 (6) 

No 686 (94) 

Missing 0

Relationship Status, n=58 

Married 278 (41) 

Divorced 31 (5) 

Dating 151 (22) 

Cohabitating 213 (32) 

Missing 58

Number of Children < 18 in Common, n=722

0 379 (53) 

1 213 (30) 

2 87 (12 

3+ 43 (6) 

Missing 9 1

All DVPO plaintiffs in this study are female. 2

All DVPO defendants in this study are male. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
68

Table 5. Characteristics of Plaintiffs and Defendants in Court Ordered Protection (COPE) 

Study Orders, by County, n=350 

Durham County COPE Study 

Participants 

n=129 

Wake County COPE Study 

Participants 

n=221

Characteristic n (%) n (%) 

Plaintiff Age

1

18 – 24 24 (18) 42 (19) 

25 – 34 45 (35) 87 (39) 

35 – 44 42 (33) 66 (30) 

45 – 54 12 (9) 24 (11) 

55 – 64 6 (5) 2 (1) 

65+ 0 (0) 0 (0) 

Defendant Age2

 < 18 0 (0) 0 (0) 

18 – 24 16 (14) 27 (13) 

25 – 34 35 (30) 75 (37) 

35 – 44 39 (34) 72 (36) 

45 – 54 20 (17) 25 (12) 

55 – 64 4 (3) 3 (1) 

65+ 1 (1) 0 (0) 

Plaintiff Race3 

White 35 (28) 96 (44) 

Black 88 (70) 114 (52) 

Other 3 (2) 8 (4) 

Defendant Race4 

White 26 (20) 83 (37) 

Black 100 (78) 132 (60) 

Other 3 (2) 6 (3) 

Spanish Form 

 Yes 0 (0) 0 (0) 

 No 129 (100) 221 (100) 

Relationship Status 

Married 40 (36) 81 (40) 

Divorced 8 (7) 13 (6) 

Dating 26 (23) 40 (20) 

Cohabitating 38 (34) 70 (34) 

Number of Common 

Children < 18

0 68 (53) 92 (49) 

1 34 (27) 56 (30) 

2 17 (13) 26 (14) 

3+ 9 (7) 13 (7) 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
69

Table 6. “Conclusions of Law”1 noted on Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protective Orders 

Issued, Durham County, NC, n=731

IPV Experience Checked on Ex Parte Orders2 n (%)

All Ex Parte Forms (N=731)

Defendant committed DV acts against plaintiff 535 (73)

Danger of DV (future) acts of domestic violence against plaintiff 584 (80)

Defendant DV acts against minor children residing with plaintiff 58 (8) 

Any risk of DV acts against minor children3 98 (13)

Revised Ex parte (12/03) Forms (N=209)

Threats to injure or kill plaintiff 53 (25)

Defendant threatened to use deadly weapon against plaintiff 26 (12)

Defendant threatened to use deadly weapon against minor children residing with 

plaintiff 

4 (2) 

Threats to injure or kill minor children living with plaintiff 5 (2) 

Pattern of prior conduct – use of firearm 8 (4) 

Pattern of prior conduct – threatened to use firearm 7 (3) 

Threats to commit suicide 22 (11)

1 Checked on Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protective Order and Notice to Parties (AOC-CV-04, Rev. 11/02, 12/03). 2 Experiences not mutually exclusive. 3 Any risk of DV acts against minor children combines: risk to children of bodily injury, risk to children of sexual 

abuse, and danger of DV acts against minor children 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
70

Table 7. Criminal Charges of Defendants in Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protective 

Orders, n=731 

Type of Criminal Charges 

Noted 

Prior to Filing 

for DVPO1 

Concurrent with 

Filing for DVPO2

Subsequent to Ex 

Parte Order3 

n (%) n(%) n (%)

None 359 (49) 642 (88) 532 (73) 

Any Domestic Violence 

Charges4

363 (50) 86 (12) 185 (25) 

Assault on Female 330 (45) 78 (11) 121 (17) 

DVPO Violation 120 (16) 1 (<1) 89 (12) 

Stalking 2 (<1) 2 (<1) 6 (1) 

Other 42 (6) 5 (1) 27 (4) 

Any Firearm-Related / 

Concealed Weapon Charge 

117 (16) 2 (<1) 30 (4) 

1

Charge occurred any time within seven days prior to DVPO filing. 2

Six days preceding DVPO filing and day of DVPO filing. 3

Any time subsequent to DVPO filing. 4

 Domestic violence charges are not mutually exclusive. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
71

Table 8. Domestic Violence Protective Order Dispositions by Data Source and County 

DVPO Disposition 

Durham County

All Participants 

(n=731) 

Durham County 

COPE Participants1

(n=129)

Wake County 

COPE Participants

(n=221) 

 n (%) n % n % 

Granted 366 (50) 67 (52) 132 (60) 

Denied 82 (11) 14 (11) 9 (4) 

Involuntarily Dismissed2 223 (31) 39 (30) 62 (29) 

Voluntarily Dismissed3 52 (7) 8 (6) 15 (7) 

Not Enough Information 8 (1) 1 (1) 1 (<1) 1

 ‘Durham County COPE Participants’ are a subset of ‘All Durham County” cases. 2

 DVPO was dismissed, but not at the request of plaintiff (usually because plaintiff was not present at hearing). 3

 DVPO dismissed at request of the plaintiff. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
Table 9. Judges’ Behavior Restricting Access to Firearms by DVPO Defendants, Pre and Post-S.L. 2003-4

Noted in Ex Parte Order 

n=731 

Noted in 12

n

 PreLegislation

n=460 

PostLegislation

n=271 

 PreLegislation

n=227 

L

Restriction Noted n (%) n (%) p-value3 n(%) Any notation that restricts access to firearms marked as condition of order 

412 (90) 255 (94) .0363 204 (90) 1

 Restriction on owning or receiving firearms noted in order 

406 (88) 251 (93) .0591 202 (89) 1

 Restriction on purchasing firearm noted in order 403 (88) 247 (91) .1414 199 (88) 1 Defendant’s concealed handgun permit revoked noted in order 

38 (8) 77 (28) <.0001 183 (81) 1

 Defendant must surrender firearms to sheriff noted in order1

na na 84 (40) na na na 

1Data on surrendering firearm to sheriff was not collected on DVPO forms prior to 12/03. 2 Includes only the cases in which the plaintiff was granted a permanent DVPO at the DVPO hearing (n=366).3Statistical significance at the .05 level indicated in bold font. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
73

Table 10. Adjusted Model for Predicting the Judge NOT restricting access to firearms on 

Ex Parte Domestic Violence Protective Order, n = 593. 1

Variable Adjusted Odds 

Ratio2 

95% CI PValue 

Filed Pre Legislation 2.44 (1.12-

5.34) 

.0251

Plaintiff Age, in 10 years 1.19 (.73-1.91) .479

Plaintiff Race 

White Referent

Black .70 (.18-2.77) .615

Other .46 (.08-2.75) .395

Defendant Age, in 10 years 1.28 (.80-2.06) .307

Defendant Race 

White Referent

Black 1.11 (.26-4.65) .887

Other 2.18 (.41-

11.76) 

.364

Kids in Common .99 (.50-1.99) .987

Married .65 (.32-1.30) .221

Evidence that Defendant had Access to 

Firearms 

1.08 (.55-2.13) .815

Defendant had Previous IPV Criminal 

Charges 

.82 .43-1.55 .532

1

138 deleted observations due to missing values for one or more variable in the model. 2

Statistical significance at the .05 level indicated in bold font. 3

Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of fit test X2=8.26 df=8 p=.408

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
74

Table 11. Adjusted Model for Predicting the Judge NOT restricting access to firearms on 

DVPO, n = 304.1

Variable 

Adjusted Odds 

Ratio2 

95% CI PValue 

Filed Pre Legislation 1.05 (.46-2.40) .905

Plaintiff Age, in 10 years 1.11 (.60-2.05) .749 

Plaintiff Race 

White Referent

Black .94 (.14-6.13) .947

Other 1.15 (.16-8.23) .889

Defendant Age, in 10 years 1.33 (.72-2.44) .360

Defendant Race 

White Referent

Black .52 (.08-3.54) .505

Other .48 (.05-4.33) .509

Kids 2.41 (.99-5.85) .052

Married .83 (.35-1.96) .676

Evidence that Defendant had Access to 

Firearms 

.77 (.34-1.77) .542

No Restrictions on Firearms Noted on Ex 

Parte Order 

8.71 (2.74-

27.67) 

.0002

1.50 .66-3.41 .335 1

64 deleted observations due to missing values for one or more variable in the model 2

Statistical significance at the .05 level indicated in bold font. 3

Hosmer and Lemeshow Goodness of Fit test X2=8.25; df=8 p=.4071

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
75

References

1. Pastore ALaKM, eds. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics [Online]. Available at: 

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/. Accessed January 13, 2006, 2006. 

2. General Assembly NC. North Carolina Session Law 2003-410. Available at: 

http://www.ncleg.net/html2003/bills/AllVersions/Senate. Accessed November 23, 2003. 

3. Frattaroli S, Vernick, John S. Separating Batterers and Guns: A Review and Analysis of 

Gun Laws in 50 States. Evaluation Review. 2006;30(3):296-312. 

4. DeJong C, Burgess-Proctor A. A Summary of Personal Protection Order Statutes in the 

United States. Violence Against Women. 2006 2006;12(1):68-88. 

5. Fox JA, Zawitz MW. Homicide trends in the United States.: National Institute of Justice; 

2004. NCJ204885. 

6. Moracco KE, Runyan CW, Butts JD. Intimate Partner Homicide: A Population-Based 

Study. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. 2003 2003;58(1):20-25. 

7. Pastore ALaKM, eds. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics [Online]. Available at: 

http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/. Accessed January 13, 2006. 

8. Tjaden P, Thoennes N. Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence: 

Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, DC: National 

Institute of Justice; July 2000 2000. NCJ 181867. 

9. Brokaw J, Fullerton-Gleason L, Olson LM, Crandall CS, McLaughlin SA, Sklar D. 

Health status and intimate partner violence: a cross-sectional study. Annals of Internal 

Medicine. January 2002 2002;39(1):31-38. 

10. Campbell J, Jones AS, Dienemann J, et al. Intimate partner violence and physical health 

consequences. Arch Intern Med. May 27 2002;162(10):1157-1163. 

11. Coker AL, Smith PH, Bethea L, King MR, McKeown RE. Physical Health Consequences 

of Physical and Psychological Intimate Partner Violence. Archives of Family Medicine. 

May 2000 2000;9(5):451-457. 

12. Drossman DA, Talley NJ, Leserman J, Olden KW, Barreiro MA. Sexual and Physical 

Abuse and Gastrointestinal Illness: Review and Recommendations. Annals of Internal 

Medicine. November 15, 1995 1995;123(10):782-794. 

13. Frank J, Rodowski, MF. Review of psychological issues in victims of domestic violence 

seen in emergency setting. Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America. 1999; 

17(3):657-677. 

14. Hathaway JE, Mucci LA, Silverman JG, Brooks DR, Mathews R, Pavlos CA. Health 

status and health care use of Massachusetts women reporting partner abuse. Am J Prev 

Med. Nov 2000;19(4):302-307. 

15. Kilpatrick DG, Acierno R, Resnick HS, Saunders BE, Best CL. A 2-year longitudinal 

analysis of the relationships between violent assault and substance use in women. J 

Consult Clin Psychol. Oct 1997;65(5):834-847. 

16. Sutherland CA, Bybee D, Sullivan CM. Beyond bruises and broken bones: the joint 

effects of stress and injuries on battered women's health. Am J Community Psychol. Oct 

2002;30(5):609-636. 

17. Miller TR, Cohen MA, Wiersema B. Victim costs and consequences: a new look.

Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; 1996. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
76

18. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Costs of intimate partner violence 

against women in the United States. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention; 2003. 

19. Campbell J, Webster D, Koziol-McLain J, et al. Risk factors for femicide in abusive 

relationships: Results from a multi-site case-control study. American Journal of Public 

Health. 2003;93(1089-1097). 

20. Saltzman LE, Mercy, James A., O'CArroll, Patrick A., Rosenberg, Mark L., Rhodes, P.H. 

Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and Intimate Assaults. Journal of 

the American Medical Association. 1992;267(22):3043-3047. 

21. Wellford CF, John V. Pepper, and Carol V. Petrie, Editors, Committee on Law and 

Justice, National Research Council., ed. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review.

Washington, DC.: National Academies Press; 2004. 

22. Cook PJ, Lawrence BA, Ludwig J, Miller TR. The Medical costs of gunshot injuries in 

the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association. August 4, 

1999;282(5):447-454. 

23. Logan T, Shannon L, Walker R. Protective Orders in Rural and Urban Areas A Multiple 

Perspective Study. Violence Against Women. 2005;11(7):876-911. 

24. Malecha A, McFarlane J, Julia G, et al. Applying for and Dropping a Protection Order: A 

Study with 150 Women. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2003;14(4):486-504. 

25. Vittes KA, Sorenson, Susan B. Are temporary restraining orders more likely to be issued 

when applications mention firearms? Evaluation Review. 2006;30(3):266-282. 

26. Rothman EF, Hemenway D, Miller M, Azrael D. Batterers’ Use of Guns to Threaten 

Intimate Partners. Journal of the American Medical Women's Association. Winter 2005 

2005;60(1):62-68. 

27. Sorenson SB, Wiebe, Douglas J. Weapons in the lives of batterered women. American 

Journal of Public Health. 2004;94:1412-1417. 

28. Violence Against Women Act. Violence Against Women Act. Vol 18 USCS 2261; 1994. 

29. Trostle LC, Barnes, Allan R., Atwell, Cassie L. Including Domestic Violence Restraining 

Orders in Bradu Bill Background Checks: The Alaska Experience. Criminal Justice 

Policy Review. 2000;11(4):329-340. 

30. Vigdor E, Mercy JA. Do laws restricting access to firearms by domestic violence 

offenders prevent intimate partner homicide? Evaluation review. 2006;30(3):313-346. 

31. Sorenson SB, Shen H. Restraining Orders in California: A Look at Statewide Data. 

Violence Against Women. 2005 2005;11(7):912-933. 

32. North Carolina GAo. North Carolina General Statutes, Chapter 50B: Domestic Violence. 

Accessed G.S. 50B, § 50B. 

33. Gist JH, McFarlane J, Malecha A, Fredland N, Schultz P, Wilson P. Women in danger: 

Intimate partner violence experienced by women who qualify and do not qualify for a 

protective order. Behavioral Science and the Law. 2001 2001;19((5-6)):637-647. 

34. Grau J, Fagan J, Wexler S. Restraining orders for battered women: Issues in access and 

efficacy. Women and Politics. 1985 1985;4:13-28. 

35. Harrell AV, Smith BE. Effects of restraining orders on domestic violence victims. In: 

Buzawa ES BC, ed. Do Arrests and Restraining Orders Work? Thousand Oaks, 

California: Sage Publications; 1996:214-242. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
77

36. Holt VL, Kernic MA, Wolf ME, Rivara FP. Do protection orders affect the likelihood of 

future partner violence and injury? American Journal of Preventative Medicine. January 

2003 2003;24(1):16-21. 

37. Kaci JH. Aftermath of seeking domestic violence protective orders: The victim's 

perspective. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. 1994;10(3):201-219. 

38. Keilitz SL, Hannaford PL, Efkeman HS. The effectiveness of civil protection orders in 

deterring domestic violence. Washington DC: US Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice; 1996. 

39. Meloy JR, Cowett PY, Parker SB, Hofland B, Friedland A. Domestic protective orders 

and the prediction of subsequent criminality and violence toward protectees. 

Psychotherapy. 1997;34:447-452. 

40. Wolf ME, Holt VL, Kernic MA, Rivara FP. Who gets protection orders for intimate 

partner violence? American Journal of Preventative Medicine. November 2000 

2000;19(4):286-291. 

41. Holt VL, Kernic MA, Lumley T, Wolf ME, Rivara FP. Civil Protection Orders and Risk 

of Subsequent Police-Reported Violence. Journal of the American Medical Association. 

August 7, 2000 2002;288(5):589-594. 

42. Ptacek J. Battered Women in the Courtroom. Washington DC: Northeastern University 

Press.; 1999. 

43. Dugan L. Domestic violence legislation: Exploring its impact on the likelihood of 

domestic violence, police involvement, and arrest. Criminology and Public Policy. 

2003;2(2):283-311. 

44. Klein AR. Re-abuse in a population of court-restrained male batterers: Why restraining 

orders don't work. In: Buzawa ES, Buzawa CG, eds. Do Arrests and Restraining Orders 

Work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1996:192-213. 

45. Sorenson SB. Taking Guns from Batterers: Public Support and Policy Implications. 

Evaluation Review. 2006;30(3):361-373. 

46. Prevention CfDCa. Findings from the Task Force on Community Preventive Services: 

First reports evaluation the effectiveness of strategies for preventing violence: early 

childhood home visitation and firearm laws. MMWR. 2003;52(No. RR-14):11-20. 

47. Wright MA, Wintemute, G.J., Rivara, F.P. Effectiveness of denial of handgun purchase 

to persons believed to be at high risk for firearm violence. American Journal of Public 

Health. 1999;89(1):88-90. 

48. Wright MA, Wintemute GJ, Rivara FP. Effectiveness of denial of handgun purchase to 

persons believed to be at high risk for firearm violence. American Journal of Public 

Health. 1999;89(1):88-90. 

49. Wintemute GA, Wright MA, Drake CM, Beaumont JJ. Subsequent criminal activity 

among violent misdemeanants who seek to purchase handguns. Journal of the American 

Medical Association. 2001;285(8):1019-1026. 

50. Steckler A, Linnan Laura. Process Evaluation for Public Health Interventions and 

Research: An Overview. In: Steckler A, Linnan, Laura, ed. Process Evaluation for Public 

Health Interventions and Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2002:1-23. 

51. Frattaroli S, Teret, Stephen B. Understanding and Informing Policy Implementation: A 

Case Study of the Domestic Violence Provisions of the Maryland Gun Violence Act. 

Evaluation Review. 2006;30(3):347-360. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
78

52. Seave P. Disarming Batterers through Restraining Orders: The Promise and Reality in 

California. Evaluation Review. 2006;30(3):245-265. 

53. Bureau USC. State and County Quick facts. Available at: 

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37000.html. Accessed March 31, 2006. 

54. Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Modern Epidemiology, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia, PA: 

Lippincott-Raven; 1998. 

55. Steketee MW, Levey Lynn S., Keilitz, Susan L. Implementing an Integrated Domestic 

Violence Court: Systemic Change in the District of Columbia: Natinal Center for State 

Courts; June 30, 2000 2000. SJI-98-N-016. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. 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.