Objectives.
We
evaluated a law enforcement initiative to screen respondents to domestic
violence restraining orders for firearm ownership or possession and recover
their firearms.
Methods.
The
initiative was implemented in San Mateo and Butte counties in California from
2007 through 2010. We used descriptive methods to evaluate the screening
process and recovery effort in each county, relying on records for individual
cases.
Results.
Screening
relied on an archive of firearm transactions, court records, and petitioner interviews;
no single source was adequate. Screening linked 525 respondents (17.7%) in San
Mateo County to firearms; 405 firearms were recovered from 119 (22.7%) of them.
In Butte County, 88 (31.1%) respondents were linked to firearms; 260 firearms
were recovered from 45 (51.1%) of them. Nonrecovery occurred most often when
orders were never served or respondents denied having firearms. There were no
reports of serious violence or injury.
Conclusions.
Recovering firearms from persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders is possible. We have identified design and implementation changes that may improve the screening process and the yield from recovery efforts. Larger implementation trials are needed.
Recovering firearms from persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders is possible. We have identified design and implementation changes that may improve the screening process and the yield from recovery efforts. Larger implementation trials are needed.
Below: Restraining orders processed, firearms identified, and source of firearms information in (a) San Mateo County, CA, May 2007–June 2010, and (b) Butte County, CA, April 2008–June 2010
Respondents With Firearms Recovered | ||
Characteristics | San Mateo County, No. (%)a | Butte County, No. (%)a |
Source of information | ||
Automated Firearms System only | 42 (40.8) | 8 (44.4) |
AFS and declaration | 17 (89.7) | 7 (77.8) |
AFS and contact with petitioner | 17 (48.6) | 4 (57.1) |
Petitioner declaration only | 17 (17.7) | 6 (35.3) |
Declaration and contact with petitioner | 0 (0.0) | 1 (25.0) |
Contact with petitioner only | 0 (0.0) | 1 (12.5) |
All 3 sources | 15 (88.2) | 5 (62.5) |
Other | 11 (57.9) | 13 (100.0) |
Method of serviceb | ||
Civil deputies | 43 (44.3) | NA |
Detectives or in court | 19 (20.4) | NA |
Private party | 14 (63.6) | NA |
Unrecorded | 43 (28.9) | NA |
Note. AFS = Automated Firearms System; NA = not available. Data are limited to cases in which orders were served.
aPercentages are of all respondents who were linked to firearms by the specified source of information or had restraining orders served by the specified method.
Full article at: http://goo.gl/8rIhvP
By: Garen J. Wintemute, MD, MPH, Shannon Frattaroli, PhD, MPH, Barbara E. Claire, Katherine A. Vittes, PhD, MPH, and Daniel W. Webster, ScD, MPH
Garen J.
Wintemute and Barbara E. Claire are with the Violence Prevention Research
Program, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis
School of Medicine, Sacramento. Shannon Frattaroli, Katherine A. Vittes, and
Daniel W. Webster are with the Center for Gun Policy and Research, Johns
Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD.
Corresponding
author.
Correspondence should be sent to Garen J. Wintemute, MD,
MPH, Violence Prevention Research Program, UC Davis Medical Center, 2315
Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95817 (e-mail: ude.sivadcu@etumetniwjg). Reprints can be
ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the
“Reprints” link.
Contributors
G. J. Wintemute drafted the article, obtained funding, and
supervised the study. G. J. Wintemute, S. Frattaroli, and B. E. Claire acquired
the data. B. E. Claire performed administrative, technical, and material
support. All authors designed and developed the study, analyzed and interpreted
the data, and critically revised the article for important intellectual
content.
More at: https://twitter.com/hiv insight
No comments:
Post a Comment