BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Elaine K. Alquist, Chair S
2005-2006 Regular Session B
5
8
5
SB 585 (Kehoe)
As Amended March 29, 2005
Hearing date: April 19, 2005
Family Code
AA:mc
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
PROTECTIVE ORDERS, SEARCH WARRANTS FOR
SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF FIREARMS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: None
Support: San Diego County Sheriff's Department; California State
Sheriffs' Association; San Diego
County District Attorney; Women Escaping a Violent Environment
("WEAVE"); California Alliance Against Domestic Violence
Opposition:
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; The Family Law
Section of the California State Bar
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD COURTS BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE WARRANTS TO SEARCH AND
SEIZE ANY FIREARM UPON THE ISSUANCE OF A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageB
PROTECTIVE ORDER, AS SPECIFIED?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD EXISTING LAW CONCERNING IMMUNITY FOR THE ACT OF RELINQUISHING
A FIREARM, AS SPECIFIED, BE REPEALED?
SHOULD THE TIME WITHIN WHICH A PERSON SUBJECT TO A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER MUST SHOW PROOF TO THE COURT THAT A FIREARM HAS
BEEN RELINQUISHED BE SHORTENED FROM 72 HOURS TO 48 HOURS?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to 1) authorize courts to issue
warrants to search and seize any firearm upon issuance of a
domestic violence protective order, as specified; 2) repeal
language in current law giving use immunity to persons who
surrender a firearm pursuant to a protective order, as
specified; 3) shorten from 72 to 48 hours the time within which
a person subject to a protective order must file a receipt with
the court showing they have surrendered any firearm, as
specified; and 4) to make additional specified changes to
existing law.
Domestic Violence Prevention Act; Protective Orders Under the
Act
Current law contains the "Domestic Violence Prevention Act."
(Family Code 6200 et seq.) "Domestic violence" under the Act
is abuse perpetrated against any of the following persons:
A spouse or former spouse.
A cohabitant or former cohabitant, as defined in section
6209.
A person with whom the respondent is having or has had a
dating or engagement relationship.
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageC
A person with whom the respondent has had a child, where
the presumption applies that the male parent is the father
of the child of the female parent under the Uniform
Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of
Division 12).
A child of a party or a child who is the subject of an
action under the Uniform Parentage Act, where the
presumption applies that the male parent is the father of
the child to be protected.
Any other person related by consanguinity or affinity
within the second degree. (Family Code 6212.)
"Protective order" under this Act means an order that includes
any of the following restraining orders, whether issued ex
parte, after notice and hearing, or in a judgment:
An order described in Section 6320 enjoining specific
acts of abuse.
An order described in Section 6321 excluding a person
from a dwelling.
An order described in section 6322 enjoining other
specified behavior. (Family Code 6218.)
Firearms Under the Act
Current law prohibits a person subject to a protective order
under Family Code section 6218 from owning, possessing,
purchasing, or receiving a firearm while that protective order
is in effect. (Family Code 6389(a).)
Current law further provides every person who owns, possesses,
purchases or receives, or attempts to purchase or receive, a
firearm while the protective order is in effect is guilty of a
public offense punishable by county jail, state prison or a
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageD
fine, as specified.<1> (Id.)
Current law requires the Judicial Council forms giving notice of
a protective order to include information to the respondent
concerning their obligations with respect to relinquishing and
not acquiring firearms while the order is in effect, as
specified. (Family Code 6389(b).)
This bill would revise this provision to additionally require
that "(e)ach form shall include a space for the petitioner to
identify all firearms known to be in the possession of the
respondent, the location of the firearms, the basis for the
petitioner's knowledge regarding the existence and location of
the firearms, and why the respondent's possession of firearms
subjects the petitioner to an increased risk of harm."
Current law requires courts, upon issuance of a protective
order, to "order the respondent to relinquish any firearm in
that person's immediate possession or control, or subject to
that person's immediate possession or control, within 24 hours
of being served with the order, by either surrendering the
firearm to the control of local law enforcement officials, or by
selling the firearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified . . .
." (Family Code 6389(c).)
---------------------------
<1> In addition, the federal Violence Against Women Act
provides, among other things, that it is unlawful for a person
to possess a firearm or ammunition when he or she is subject to
a domestic violence restraining order that was issued after a
hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at
which such person had an opportunity to participate, and 1)
includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat
to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or 2)
by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner
or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily
injury; or the person has been convicted in any court of a
misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. (18 USCS 922(g).)
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageE
This bill would additionally provide that a "judge may issue a
search warrant for the immediate search and seizure of any
firearm in the possession of the respondent upon a judicial
finding of probable cause that the respondent's possession of
firearms creates an increased risk of harm to the petitioner,
and that specified firearms will be found in a specified
location."
This bill would provide that in "the event that a subordinate
judicial officer reviews the petition, that judicial officer may
refer the matter to a judge for review and possible issuance of
a warrant," as specified.
This bill would provide that a peace officer serving an order
under this provision "may, upon recommendation of a judicial
officer or in his or her own discretion, request the immediate
surrender of any firearm in the possession of the respondent and
may use any lawful means to facilitate this surrender."
Current law further requires persons ordered to relinquish any
firearm pursuant to these provisions to file with the court a
receipt showing the firearm was surrendered to the local law
enforcement agency or sold to a licensed gun dealer within 72
hours after receiving the order. (Family Code 6389(c).)
This bill would amend this provision to instead require
relinquishment within 48 hours of receiving an order.
Current law provides that if "the respondent declines to
relinquish possession of any firearm based upon the assertion of
the right against self-incrimination, as provided by the Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 15 of
Article I of the California
Constitution, the court may grant use immunity for the act of
relinquishing the firearm required under this section."
This bill would delete this provision.
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageF
COMMENTS
1. Stated Need for This Bill
The author states:
Under existing law, individuals seeking protective
orders in domestic violence situations are asked
to identify firearms in the possession of the
person who is the subject of the order.
Individuals who are served with temporary
restraining orders then have twenty-four hours to
surrender or sell any firearms in their
possession.
Applicants who sought protective orders have, on
occasion, erroneously concluded that when they
disclosed the firearms in the possession of the
respondent on the affidavit, it meant that the
firearms were confiscated. In at least one tragic
case in the City of San Diego, a father shot and
killed his son while the 17-year old was training
with his high school's cross-country track team.
The shooting occurred within 24 hours of the order
being served, and was done with one of the
firearms that had been listed in the mother's
affidavit for the protective order.
Unfortunately, the act of seeking a temporary
restraining order can escalate the tensions
between the two parties. While the person seeking
the protection of the court assumes that the act
of identifying firearms in the possession of the
respondent ensures their prompt removal, it does
not.
SB 585 proposes to give the court and law
enforcement authorities the ability to order the
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageG
immediate removal of the identified firearms in
those instances where the court or law enforcement
personnel believe that their continued possession
by the respondent would create an unsafe
situation.
The purpose of this bill is to provide the maximum
amount of protection to individuals seeking
protective orders in domestic situations that are
heated, volatile and dangerous but up to that
point may have been non-violent.
2. What This Bill Would Do
California law currently provides two ways the state can seize
an otherwise lawfully possessed firearm from a suspect in a
domestic violence case. A law enforcement officer at the scene
of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life
or a physical assault can take temporary custody of any firearm
or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered after a
consensual or otherwise lawful search (i.e., exigent
circumstances).<2>
Second, a person can be ordered to relinquish a firearm pursuant
to a domestic violence protective order. Persons subject to a
domestic violence protective order issued by the Family Court
are required to relinquish any firearms they may have within 24
hours of being served with the order. Relinquishment pursuant
to a protective order can occur either by surrendering the
weapons to law enforcement or selling them to a gun dealer, as
specified. Persons who are ordered to relinquish a firearm must
---------------------------
<2> Current law requires a peace officer "who is at the scene
of a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life
or a physical assault," to "take temporary custody of any
firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered
pursuant to a consensual or other lawful search as necessary for
the protection of the peace officer or other persons present."
(Penal Code 12028.5.)
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageH
file a receipt showing the surrender or the sale with the court
within 72 hours after receiving the order.
This bill would change these provisions to authorize the court
to issue a warrant for the search and seizure of firearms in the
possession or control of a person subject to a restraining order
based upon information provided by a petitioner seeking the
protective order. This bill also would shorten the time within
which a respondent must provide proof of relinquishment to the
court, from 72 to 48 hours of receiving a protective order.
Specifically, this bill would change existing law as follows:
retain but recast the provision in current law requiring
the court to order that the respondent to surrender a
firearm to the control of local law enforcement officials
or sell the firearm to a licensed gun dealer, as specified
in Section 12071 of the Penal Code, within 24 hours of
being served with the order;
provide new authority for a judicial officer to "issue a
search warrant for the immediate search and seizure of any
firearm in the possession of the respondent upon a judicial
finding of probable cause that the respondent's possession
of firearms creates an increased risk of harm to the
petitioner, and that specified firearms will be found in a
specified location";
provide that a form shall "include a space for the
petitioner to identify all firearms known to be in the
possession of the respondent, the location of the firearms,
the basis for the petitioner's knowledge regarding the
existence and location of the firearms, and why the
respondent's possession of firearms subjects the petitioner
to an increased risk of harm.
authorize but not require a subordinate judicial officer
to refer the matter to a judge for review and possible
issuance of a warrant";
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageI
authorize but not require a peace officer serving the
order to request, upon recommendation of a judicial officer
or in his or her own discretion, the immediate surrender of
any firearm in the possession of the respondent and may use
any lawful means to facilitate this surrender;
shorten the time within which a person must file a
receipt showing a firearm has been surrendered or sold,
from 72 hours to 48 hours of receiving the order; and
delete from current law language concerning use immunity
for the act of relinquishing a firearm under this section
if the respondent declines to relinquish possession of any
firearm based upon the assertion of their constitutional
right against self-incrimination, as specified.
3. Warrant for Search and Seizure of Firearms
This bill would authorize a court to "issue a search warrant for
the immediate search and seizure of any firearm in the
possession of the respondent upon a judicial finding of probable
cause that the respondent's possession of firearms creates an
increased risk of harm to the petitioner, and that specified
firearms will be found in a specified location."
California statute defines a search warrant to be "an order in
writing, in the name of the people, signed by a magistrate,
directed to a peace officer, commanding him or her to search for
a person or persons, a thing or things, or personal property,
and, in the case of a thing or things or personal property,
bring the same before the magistrate." (Penal Code 1523.)
The California Constitution provides that "a warrant may not
issue except on probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons and things to be seized." (Art. I, 13) This
language is similar to that in the Fourth Amendment to the
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageJ
federal Constitution.<3>
Penal Code section 1525 restates the substance of
the constitutional requirement: "A search warrant
cannot be issued but upon probable cause,
supported by affidavit." The affidavit "must set
forth the facts tending to establish the grounds
of the application, or probable cause for
believing that they exist." (P.C. 1527.) The
magistrate may, before issuing the warrant,
"examine on oath the person seeking the warrant
and any witnesses the person may produce, and
shall take his or her affidavit or their
affidavits in writing, and cause the affidavit or
affidavits to be subscribed by the party or
parties making them." (P.C. 1526(a).) However,
a sworn oral statement may be used as an
alternative to a written affidavit. (P.C.
1526(b) . . . )<4>
Current law provides that a "magistrate, before issuing the
warrant, may examine on oath the person seeking the warrant and
any witnesses the person may produce, and shall take his or her
affidavit or their affidavits in writing, and cause the
affidavit or affidavits to be subscribed by
the party or parties making them." In lieu of the written
affidavit, the magistrate may take an oral statement under oath
under specified conditions.<5>
A search warrant may be issued under any of the following
circumstances pursuant to Penal Code section 1524:
(1) The property to be seized was stolen or embezzled;
(2) The property or things to be seized were used to commit a
felony;
---------------------------
<3> 4 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Illegal Evid 88.
<4> Id.
<5> Penal Code 1526.
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageK
(3) The property or things to be seized are in the possession
of a person who intends to use them to commit a public offense,
or in the possession of another to whom he or she may have
delivered them to conceal them or prevent their discovery;
(4) The property or things to be seized consist of an item or
constitute evidence that tends to show that a felony has been
committed, or that a particular person has committed a felony;
(5) The property or things to be seized consist of evidence
that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a child, in
violation of Penal Code section 311.3, or possession of matter
depicting sexual conduct of a person under age 18, in violation
of Penal Code section 311.11, has occurred or is occurring;
(6) There is an arrest warrant; or
(7) A provider of electronic communication service or remote
computing service has records or evidence showing that property
was stolen or embezzled, as specified.<6>
As currently drafted, this bill would authorize a court to issue
a warrant for the "immediate search and seizure of any firearm
in the possession of" someone who is about to be served with a
domestic violence protective order based upon a finding of
probable cause "that the respondent's possession of firearms
creates an increased risk of harm to the petitioner, and that
specified firearms will be found in a specified location." This
basis for probable cause, however, would not appear to meet the
required grounds described above. Requiring a finding of "an
increased risk of harm, and that specified firearms will be
found in a specified location," absent probable cause that the
respondent intends to use them to commit a public offense, or
that the person has committed a felony, may not meet the warrant
requirements under the law. Under the framework proposed by
this bill, a court could issue a search warrant before a person
---------------------------
<6> Penal Code 1524; see 4 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Illegal
Evid 80.
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageL
has been served with any order - either a protective order or a
notice to relinquishment firearms - or had an opportunity to
appear in court (this section includes ex parte protection
orders).
To the extent the provisions of this bill do not provide a
sufficient basis for establishing sufficient probable cause to
support a search warrant, it may not have the effect intended by
the author. As a technical matter, the author and/or the
Committee may wish to consider amending the bill to provide that
the asserted probable cause is supported by an oath or
affirmation accompanying the request for a protective order.<7>
However, whether a search warrant based upon assertions of
increased risk of harm meets the constitutional requirements of
probable cause absent any alleged unlawful conduct by the
respondent - which this bill would authorize - is uncertain.
There are other states that have statutory provisions similar in
concept to those proposed by this bill. For example in New
Jersey proceedings where restraining orders are sought, the
family court is statutorily authorized to grant an order
prohibiting a defendant form possessing a firearm or other
weapon and ordering the search and seizure of the weapon "where
the judge has reasonable cause to believe the weapon is located.
The judge shall state with specificity the reasons for and
scope of the search and seizure authorized by the order."<8> It
appears from the statute that this order is authorized after a
noticed hearing.<9> New Hampshire statute similarly authorizes
courts to issue a search warrant to seize firearms where there
is a domestic violence protective order, but that authority
exists only after a defendant fails to relinquish his or her
---------------------------
<7> As currently drafted, this bill would appear to amend a
petitioner's assertions regarding firearms into the forms that
provide notice of a protective order to the respondent. The
author may wish instead to provide that this or other language
be provided for in a request for an order (see, e.g., DV-100
(Judicial Council of California).
<8> N.J. Stat. 2C:25-29 b.(16).
<9> Id.
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageM
firearm:
The defendant may be prohibited from purchasing,
receiving, or possessing any deadly weapons and
any and all firearms and ammunition for the
duration of the order. The court may subsequently
issue a search warrant authorizing the peace
officer to seize any deadly weapons specified in
the protective order and any and all firearms and
ammunition, if there is probable cause to believe
such firearms and ammunition and specified deadly
weapons are kept on the premises or curtilage of
the defendant and if the court has reason to
believe that all such firearms and ammunition and
specified deadly weapons have not been
relinquished by the defendant.<10>
The Family Law Section of the California State Bar opposes this
bill based on many of the concerns noted above, as well as
others, including due process.
Most applications for temporary restraining orders
and the resulting issuance of a protective order
are made on an ex-parte basis, without a hearing.
This bill contemplates that a restrained person
can be the subject of an issued warrant and
subsequent search of his/her residence without
notice, without being present at the hearing, and
without the right to be heard in his/her own
defense, and most importantly, without the ability
to avoid the search and seizure by voluntarily
surrendering or selling his/her weapons when
served with the Temporary Restraining Order.
The bill contemplates that the basis for the
probable cause for the issuance of the warrant is
Petitioner's uncorroborated statement that
--------------------
<10> N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. 173-B:4 (II) (2004)(italics and
underlining added).
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageN
Respondent's possession of firearms creates an
increased risk of harm to him/her. This
requirement is vague and subject to misuse. What
does "increased risk of harm" mean? What facts
rise to the level of a determination of increased
risk of harm? In short, the term "increased risk
of harm" does not articulate a crime or violation
of a law that a reasonable judicial officer could
rely upon for purposes of issuing a valid search
warrant.
Additionally, the Respondent/Restrained party may
not be living with the Petitioner. This bill
contemplates searches of a home and seizure of
weapons that may belong to a third party, but
because the Respondent/Restrained party is living
with that third party, that person's home could
become subject to search and his/her weapons
seized because they are available to and hence in
the possession of the Respondent/ Restrained
party.
Further, subordinate judicial officers do not have
the power to issue warrants. Because of the
potential for the violation of constitutional
rights of Respondents/Restrained parties,
subordinate judicial officers cannot be allowed to
partially participate in the issuance of a
warrant.
WOULD ALLEGATIONS OF INCREASED RISK OF HARM, ABSENT ANY ALLEGED
UNLAWFUL CONDUCT, BE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A WARRANT TO SEARCH
AND SEIZE WEAPONS ISSUED IN CONJUNCTION WITH A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDER?
SHOULD THIS BILL BE AMENDED TO AUTHORIZE (OR REQUIRE) THE
ISSUANCE OF A SEARCH WARRANT IF THE COURT FINDS THAT FIREARMS
HAVE NOT BEEN RELINQUISHED BY THE RESPONDENT TO A PROTECTIVE
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageO
ORDER?<11> OR WOULD THIS APPROACH REQUIRE THE VERY LAPSE OF
TIME THIS BILL SEEKS TO AVOID?
This bill also would authorize peace officers serving protective
orders to, at their own discretion or "upon recommendation of a
judicial officer," "request the immediate surrender of any
firearm in the possession of the respondent and . . . use any
lawful means to facilitate this surrender." The effect of this
language is unclear. On what grounds and in what form would a
judicial officer make the recommendation authorized by this
bill? If a person refuses, what would be the officer's recourse
(i.e., a warrant or other legal means to search for a firearm)?
If a person complies and produces a weapon possessed illegally,
what would be the consequences of that in terms of
self-incrimination?
SHOULD THESE QUESTIONS BE ADDRESSED?
4. Alternative Approach
The Committee and the author may wish to consider an alternative
approach that may improve the likelihood that firearms will be
surrendered immediately upon the service of a domestic violence
order without generating Fourth Amendment problems. Members may
wish to consider requiring law enforcement officers who serve
---------------------------
<11> This would be consistent with at least one legal
commentary: "One effective monitoring mechanism used by some
courts is to require that law enforcement provide an accounting
to the court of all firearms removed, based upon the affidavit
that the abuser signs in court. If an abuser refuses to
relinquish the firearms, or if law enforcement is otherwise
unable to obtain them, the court may, under appropriate
circumstances, issue a search warrant for law enforcement to
obtain the guns or a bench warrant for the defendant's arrest
for failure to comply with the court order." (Firearms and
Domestic Violence: A Primer for Judges, Darren Mitchell and
Susan B. Carbon (39 Court Review 32 (2002).)
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageP
domestic violence protective orders to do the following:
Verbally inform the respondent that the protective order
also orders them to relinquish any firearms in their
possession or control;
If indicated on the order, verbally inform the
respondent that the court has been informed that they do in
fact have a firearm in their possession or control;
Verbally inform the respondent that the law requires
them to surrender their gun to law enforcement or sell it
to a gun dealer within 24 hours;
Verbally inform the respondent that they can surrender
the firearm to the officer immediately, at the time of the
service of the order; and
Verbally inform the respondent that if they surrender
their firearm to the officer serving the protective order
they will receive a receipt for the firearm, and that they
can take specified steps for the eventual return of the
firearm.
WOULD THIS ALTERNATIVE IMPROVE THE LIKELIHOOD THAT FIREARMS
WOULD BE SURRENDERED IMMEDIATELY UPON SERVICE OF A PROTECTIVE
ORDER WITHOUT GENERATING FOURTH AMENDMENT PROBLEMS?
OR WOULD THIS APPROACH EXPOSE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO UNDUE
AND HEIGHTENED RISK?
5. Use Immunity Language Repeal
Current law provides that if a respondent to a domestic violence
protective order declines to relinquish a firearm based on an
assertion of the constitutional right against
self-incrimination, the court may grant use immunity for the act
of relinquishment. This bill would repeal this provision.
Immunity statutes generally have been enacted to induce key
witnesses to testify on behalf of the state despite the
self-incriminating character of their evidence. "Their general
effect is to assure the witness freedom from prosecution for any
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageQ
crime disclosed by the witness' testimony."<12> Requiring the
relinquishment of firearms without use immunity potentially
raises the privilege against self-incrimination because it
requires, essentially, someone to disclose their ownership or
possession of a firearm that may not be legal. A mandate to
relinquish without use immunity could put a respondent at risk
for any number of possible criminal charges if the person
acquired a firearm illegally. Members may wish to consider
whether the state's interest in the relinquishment of firearms
in conjunction with a protective order is more imperative than
its interest in possibly prosecuting someone for an unknown, and
possibly unrelated, crime. <13>
SHOULD THIS LANGUAGE BE REPEALED?
WOULD REPEALING THIS LANGUAGE PROVIDE A DEFENSE FOR PERSONS WHO
FAIL TO RELINQUISH A FIREARM UNDER THIS PROVISION?
6. Technical Concern
This bill would appear to amend a petitioner's assertions
regarding firearms into the forms that provide notice of a
protective order to the respondent. The author may wish instead
to provide that this or other language be provided for in a
request for an order (see, e.g., DV-100 (Judicial Council of
California).
---------------------------
<12> 1 Witkin Cal. Crim. Law Defenses 231
<13> For example, In Marchetti v. United States (1968) 390 U.S.
39, the United States Supreme Court granted an individual who
was charged with failing to comply with a gambling registration
tax statute a defense from prosecution based on the Fifth
Amendment. The gambling statute was written in such a manner so
that the only persons required to comply with the statute were
persons engaged in illegal gambling activities. As such, the
statute was designed to ferret out and cause the prosecution of
illegal gambling through an ostensible tax scheme. The statute
did not contain any use immunity provisions.
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageR
SHOULD THIS AMENDMENT BE MADE?
7. Background: Domestic Violence and Firearms
That firearms are a potentially deadly ingredient in any
domestic violence situation is undisputed.
In 1999, approximately 791,000 violent crimes were
committed against persons age twelve or older by
their intimate partners. About eighty-five
percent of these victims - approximately 670,000 -
were women. Indeed, domestic violence is the
leading cause of injury to women. In California,
women were over thirteen times more likely to be
killed by their spouses than men during 1999.
Moreover, in the United States since 1976, thirty
percent of all murders with female victims have
occurred at the hands of intimates.
Although domestic violence can take many forms,
abusers often use firearms to threaten, injure, or
kill their victims. In fact, sixty-five percent
of the approximately 52,000 intimate murders
involved firearms in 1996. In single
victim/single offender incidents two years later,
"the number of females shot and killed by their
husband or intimate acquaintance ... was more than
four times higher than the total number murdered
by male strangers using all weapons combined."
. . .
(More)
Firearms and domestic violence create a lethal
combination - one that heightens the risks for
victims. Domestic violence incidents that involve
a firearm are twelve times more likely to result
in death than those involving any other type of
weapon. This consequence likely is because
firearms are more lethal than other weapons, and
many batterers who kill "with a firearm would be
unable or unwilling to exert the greater physical
or psychological effort required to kill with
another, typically available weapon." Simply
having a firearm in the home increases the risk of
homicide by a family member or intimate
acquaintance. In addition, if a history of
domestic
violence incidents in that home exists, the risk
of firearm-related homicide becomes even greater.
The availability of guns in the home also
increases the risk of suicide - one in every ten
abused women tries to kill herself.<14>
The California Department of Justice provides the following
general statistics concerning domestic violence in California:
In 2003, 182 murders were the result of intimate partner
violence in California.
In 2003, 151 women in California were killed by their
husbands, ex-husbands or boyfriends, and 27 men were killed
by their wives, ex-wives or girlfriends.
California law enforcement received 194,288 domestic
violence calls in 2003 -- 106,731 involved weapons,
including firearms and knives.
Domestic violence arrests dropped from 52,392 (2001) to
50,479 (2002), and to 48,854 in 2003. (DOJ, CJSC)
--------------------------
<14> Getting the Guns: Implementation and Enforcement
Problems with California Senate Bill 218, Michelle N.
Deutchman, (75 S. Cal. L. Rev. 185)(Nov. 2001)
(More)
SB 585 (Kehoe)
PageT
Every year, almost 6% of California's women suffer
physical injuries from domestic violence.<15>
***************
---------------------------
<15> See http://safestate.org.