Guns, Guns, Guns, Guns, Guns

Note: This article may contain triggers for those who have been in abusive relationships. If you are in an abusive relationship, note your internet usage may be being monitored without your knowledge.

A couple weeks ago, we discussed the hundreds of domestic violence victims that had been murdered with a gun in 2024 alone. Since that piece went live, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence has reported 25 more like deaths in America.

Twenty-five more lives over the course of two weeks.

The number may even go up higher between the time I’m writing this piece and the time you’re reading it.

While it’s true that domestic and intimate partner violence is a problem the world over, America’s laws make gun violence a uniquely profound women’s safety issue. Compared to other wealthy countries, women in the U.S. are 21 times more likely to be murdered with a firearm.

Between the years of 2011 and 2021, IPV-related firearm homicides went up by a whopping 58% in America. And those are just the people that died. A 2018 study found that 4.5 million American women have been threatened with a gun, and that 1 million have been shot or shot at with a firearm — specifically by an intimate partner.

While the home is the most dangerous place for women in the world, America’s gun problem presents unique dangers on U.S. soil as the presence of a firearm in these situations can raise the odds of homicide by as much as 1,000%.

A brief history of gun regulation and domestic violence in the U.S.

In colonial America, the general rule was to mind your own business when it came to the private sphere, with the private sphere being designated as the family home and the “proper” place for women to exist. As such, there weren’t explicit regulations against domestic violence.

There’s no way we can cover everything that’s happened since then today, but let’s at least hit the highlights (and lowlights.)

1824: Bradley v State

In 1824, Mississippi’s Supreme Court went so far as to endorse “moderate chastisement in cases of great emergency”  and “salutary restraints in every case of misbehavior” without the threats of “vexatious prosecution, resulting in the mutual discredit and shame of all parties concerned.”

Which pretty much boils down to, “We’re going to allow some measures of domestic abuse, so don’t bring us your cases as we want to protect these men from losing face in the community.”

This is the ruling where we get the ominous phrase “rule of thumb,” for reference.

1882: First state criminalizes wife beating

In 1882, Maryland was the first state to pass a law criminalizing wife battery.

Some other states would follow suit, but the prosecution of these laws was extremely hit or miss. Most police wouldn’t encourage or would actively discourage pressing charges, as this was a private sphere or “family” matter that should be resolved amongst the family members without the intrusion of the state.

There was (and still is) a particular tendency to not protect low-income and racialized women. In these instances, you’d often hear the excuse that violence was more of a cultural norm, which isn’t anywhere close to a truth. Instead, it’s a racially-prejudiced projection that aims to excuse authorities from protecting all women equally regardless of race, ethnicity or economic status.

1968: Gun Control Act

The Gun Control Act of 1968 was the first federal law regulating firearm possession for those convicted of felony-level domestic violence. A step in the right direction, but the number of people convicted of these crimes at a level that rose to felony meant that it wasn’t enough to address the severity of the problem. This regulation applied to very few people.

1970s & 1980s: Battered women’s movement

Born out of the wider women’s liberation movement, there was a battered women’s movement and an anti-rape movement in the 1970s and 1980s. This activism led to a lot of changes at the state level in terms of laws and resources for women going through IPV.

It was hardly a unified front, though. Sometimes the philosophies behind implementing the same measures in different places weren’t congruent, so even though you might have the same concept or institution implemented, you’ll still see it done in very different ways across state lines or even between individual communities.

Some of the changes we saw included:

• The creation of shelters and safe houses.
• The establishment of restraining orders.
• Mandatory arrest and prosecution laws at the state level.

1994: Violence Against Women Act

In 1994, the federal government finally caught up with the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). That’s a mere 30 years ago.

You could reasonably argue that this Act is insufficient to the problem at hand, but it did — for the first time — start funding things like the enforcement and prosecution of existing state domestic violence laws.

There was a provision in there that would have given gender-motivated violence victims the right to a civil case in federal court, but the Supreme Court shut that down. It said that this would have been “unconstitutional.”

1994: Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Also in 1994, the federal government put a 10-year ban on assault weapons. If you’re wondering what this has to do with domestic violence, keep reading. We’ll get to the tie-in shortly.

1996: Lautenberg Amendment

A feature of the VAWA, the Lautenberg Amendment updated the 1968 Gun Control Act by prohibiting the possession of firearms not just for those who had a felony domestic violence conviction, but also for those who had a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Section 922 also put restrictions on gun ownership if there was a domestic violence restraining order out against you. This was a very, very good thing. It has reduced intimate-partner homicides by 10%.

There were a couple problems with the amendment, though.

First, it only applied if:

• The perpetrator was a current or former spouse.
• The perpetrator was your parent.
• You used to live with the perpetrator.
• You and the perpetrator had a child together.

If you had “just” been dating without meeting one of the above criteria, there were no restrictions put on firearm possession.

The second big issue was and remains that the Lautenberg Amendment only prohibits the possession of firearms. It doesn’t actually require the surrender of said firearms.

In 2024, about half of states have laws filling in this relinquishment gap. The rest don’t.

Even in states with surrender requirements, the enforcement of those requirements can be a mixture of inconsistent and/or lax. For example, a police officer might ask you if you have any firearms in your possession. If you lie and say no, they’re not necessarily going to search your house to check you on it.

It’s not always easy to know if someone has a firearm in their possession. America has a lot of loopholes when it comes to gun ownership. Even if you legally purchase a weapon, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s registered in a database somewhere — especially if it’s a private sale.

2004: Expiration of Federal Assault Weapons Ban

Hi, it’s ten years later, and you’d hope the Federal Assault Weapons Ban would be renewed.

But it wasn’t.

Which led to an increase in mass shooting fatalities in the U.S. We’ll dive into further into the relevance of these mass shootings in context of IPV in a few minutes.

2005: Castle Rock v Gonzales

In June of 1999, Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order against her ex-husband. If the restraining order was violated, he was supposed to mandatorily be arrested.

He showed up at her home anyways, nabbing their three children away while they were playing outside. Jessica called the police, begging them to find and arrest him before harm could come to the children. But they did not act.

Later that day, her ex showed up at the police station with the three children in the back of his vehicle, dead. When he started shooting at the police station, the department finally acted and shot him themselves.

The case made its way in front of the Supreme Court in 2005. But the court ruled that although the restraining order required a mandatory arrest, the police had no responsibility to actually act on it.

Let’s say that again: The Supreme Court ruled the police had no responsibility toward Jessica and her children.

And what that ultimately means is that police departments do not have legal responsibility to act to protect women and children in this country, even when they take out a restraining order.

NOTE: There are plenty of police departments who act to protect, anyways. This ruling just legally protected the ones who don’t.

2008: District of Columbia v Heller

Prior to 2008, the general interpretation of the second amendment was that the right to bear arms was for communities to stand up against tyrannical governments.

But in 2008, District of Columbia v Heller reinterpreted it, setting a new precedent of an individual’s right to bear arms to “defend” themselves period.

2022: Safer Communities Act

In 2022, twenty-six years after the Lautenberg Amendment was first adopted, the boyfriend loophole was finally closed. Gun restrictions could now apply even if you hadn’t lived with your ex or didn’t have any children with them.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: Historical Inquiry & constitutional originalism

In 2022, there was a Supreme Court case that changed everything for gun regulation in a startling way. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v Bruen, the Court ruled that the state’s call for “proper cause” to obtain a conceal and carry license was unconstitutional.

Why?

Because no such requirement existed in 1787 when the Constitution was signed.

That’s called constitutional originalism, and it’s an extremely dangerous logic. It requires one to apply historic inquiry on all our present-day laws to ensure they’re the same as they were in the late 18th century — when automatic rifles didn’t exist and the government was perfectly okay with you beating your wife.

The Bruen ruling stood to undo the gun restrictions enacted by the Gun Control Act and the VAWA. If the logic had been applied universally, it would have meant the federal government could not prohibit firearm possession for convicted abusers and those under restraining orders, and that states couldn’t go further to require surrender of those firearms.

Lest you think this is sensationalism, courts in Texas really tried to make it happen. Multiple times over the past two years.

United States v. Rahimi

Just five months after the Bruen ruling, a U.S. District Judge in the Western Texas District used Bruen to uphold the right to possess a firearm — even while under a restraining order — under United States v Perez-Gallan. This because the VAWA and Lautenberg Amendment were only 30 years old, which means they don’t pass the historical inquiry test laid out by the Bruen case.

In 2023, also in Texas, the Fifth Circuit vacated a conviction against a man named Zackey Rahimi. Rahimi was discharging guns in the community after he had been placed under a restraining order.

In United States v Rahimi, though, the Supreme Court stepped in. Thank sweet baby Jesus, they said the Bruen ruling does not apply to domestic violence restraining orders. The government is allowed to disarm people who pose a threat to others in the community.

There was one lone dissenter — Justice Thomas, who is an ardent originalist.

This ruling superseded the lower court’s decision. Supposedly, the lower courts are now supposed to reconsider rulings like United States v Perez-Gallan in light of the Rahimi ruling. I’m not up-to-date on if they actually have or not yet. The Rahimi ruling just happened in June 2024.

It’s also important to note that rulings may set precedent, but precedent can be overturned. We saw this happen in 2022 with Roe v Wade, a ruling many of the justices nominated explicitly promised to uphold in their nomination hearings.

While Rahimi is good news for today — especially because it was an 8-to-1 vote — it’s not a promise that the VAWA and Lautenberg Amendment will never come under scrutiny again.

The link between mass shootings and domestic violence

One other important thing to note when it comes to domestic violence and gun laws is that it doesn’t only affect the woman who is being abused. There is an extremely strong link between domestic violence and mass shootings. Sixty-eight percent of mass shootings in America are committed by someone with a history of domestic violence.

Here are some examples:

• Uvalde
• Sandy Hook
• Pulse Nightclub
• San Jose rail yard
• Sutherland Springs church

The list could go on.

The number of armed police officers in America’s public schools has increased over the past few decades. We have data that shows that this is not an effective strategy to combat gun violence. As many mass shooters are suicidal, the presence of an armed police officer actually incentivizes rather than deters the worst-case scenario. We also know that this strategy leads to a more prominent school-to-prison pipeline.

In 2024, it’s not uncommon to see people on both sides of the aisle endorsing or conceding to this approach because they’re scared. They’ve given up on ever seeing meaningful change in gun regulation. The resignation is disconcerting to say the least. The militarization of our public institutions should be ringing massive alarm bells for a number of reasons.

When we look at the root of the problem — the fact that a majority of mass shootings are carried out by men with a history of domestic violence — we can see that there’s a much more logical solution. It’s strengthening gun laws, honing those regulations on known abusers, and improving the acknowledgement of that known abuse within our family court systems.

It’s closing some of the remaining loopholes in the Lautenberg Amendment, and actually checking to see if an abuser is telling the truth when they say they don’t have any firearms in their possession rather than accepting the answer at face value.

Domestic abuse is a problem the world over. But firearms exacerbate that problem in America. We can see those effects not just in individual homes, but also in our wider communities.

Domestic Violence Awareness Month 2024