Intent vs Impact: A Qualitative Investigation of Domestic Violence and Extreme Risk Protective Order Gun Prohibitions in Two States

Purpose

Given the danger that guns pose in the context of domestic violence, significant attention has been given to interventions that mitigate risk for lethality. To better understand the implementation of domestic violence gun laws and perceived dynamics of these laws, we conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders in two states that differ in culture, politics, and legislation.

Method

Using a key informant approach, we interviewed a sample of Texas professionals (n = 27) about their perceptions of the traditional domestic violence protective order (DVPO) gun law and a sample of New Jersey professionals (n = 8) about their perceptions of an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) that prohibits “high risk” respondents from purchasing or owning guns. We analyzed the content of the 35 interviews using conventional content analysis.

Results

The perceived efficacy of both gun laws was tied to the amount and strength of other existing legislation in each state. Additionally, in the absence of strong state legislation and political will to enforce DVPO gun laws, local communities must develop strategies to overcome barriers of nonenforcement such as compliance hearings and ensuring DVPO respondents fully comprehend the gun prohibition. Finally, the relevance and potential unintended negative consequences of ERPO laws in the context of domestic violence need further empirical investigation.

Conclusions

These results may inform states and communities in their efforts to develop polices to enforce gun restrictions for abusers and increase public safety given the intersection of domestic violence and mass shootings. Further, high risk teams may act as a natural catalyst to discuss domestic violence gun prohibitions in resistant communities.