[Vision2020] NRA: Women's Best Friend

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

------------------------------
March 17, 2013
Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns By MICHAEL
LUO<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/michael_luo/index.html>

Early last year, after a series of frightening encounters with her former
husband, Stephanie Holten went to court in Spokane, Wash., to obtain a
temporary order for protection.

Her former husband, Corey Holten, threatened to put a gun in her mouth and
pull the trigger, she wrote in her petition. He also said he would “put a
cap” in her if her new boyfriend “gets near my kids.” In neat block letters
she wrote, “He owns guns, I am
scared<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_location.mp3#media/holten2>.”


The judge’s order prohibited Mr. Holten from going within two blocks of his
former wife’s home and imposed a number of other restrictions. What it did
not require him to do was surrender his guns.

About 12 hours after he was served with the order, Mr. Holten was lying in
wait when his former wife returned home from a date with their two children
in tow. Armed with a small semiautomatic rifle bought several months
before, he stepped out of his car and thrust the muzzle into her chest. He
directed her inside the house, yelling that he was going to kill her.

“I remember thinking, ‘Cops, I need the cops,’ ” she later wrote in a
statement to the police. “He’s going to kill me in my own house. I’m going
to die!”

Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under
a blanket on the couch. The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for
her life<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_911.mp3#media/holten1>and
quickly directed officers to the scene. As they mounted the stairs
with
their guns drawn, Mr. Holten surrendered. They found Ms. Holten cowering,
hysterical, on the floor.

For all its rage and terror, the episode might well have been prevented.
Had Mr. Holten lived in one of a handful of states, the protection order
would have forced him to relinquish his firearms. But that is not the case
in Washington and most of the country, in large part because of the
influence of the National Rifle
Association<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org>and
its allies.

Advocates for domestic violence victims have long called for stricter laws
governing firearms and protective orders. Their argument is rooted in a
grim statistic: when women die at the hand of an intimate partner, that
hand is more often than not holding a gun.

In these most volatile of human dramas, they contend, the right to bear
arms must give ground to the need to protect a woman’s life.

In statehouses across the country, though, the N.R.A. and other gun-rights
groups have beaten back legislation mandating the surrender of firearms in
domestic violence situations. They argue that gun ownership, as a
fundamental constitutional right, should not be stripped away for anything
less serious than a felony conviction — and certainly not, as an N.R.A.
lobbyist in Washington State put it to legislators, for the “mere issuance
of court orders.”

That resistance is being tested anew in the wake of the massacre in
Newtown, Conn., as proposals on the mandatory surrender of firearms are
included in gun control legislation being debated in several states.

Among them is Washington, where current law gives judges issuing civil
protection orders the discretion to require the surrender of firearms if,
for example, they find a “serious and imminent threat” to public health.
But records and interviews show that they rarely do so, making the state a
useful laboratory for examining the consequences, as well as the politics,
of this standoff over the limits of Second Amendment rights.

By analyzing a number of Washington databases, The New York Times
identified scores of gun-related crimes committed by people subject to
recently issued civil protection orders, including murder, attempted murder
and kidnapping. In at least five instances over the last decade, women were
shot to death less than a month after obtaining protection orders. In at
least a half-dozen other killings, the victim was not the person being
protected but someone else. There were dozens of gun-related assaults like
the one Ms. Holten endured.

The analysis — which crosschecked protective orders against arrest and
conviction data, along with fatality lists compiled by the Washington State
Coalition Against Domestic Violence <http://www.wscadv.org/> — represents
at best a partial accounting of such situations because of limitations in
the data. The databases were missing some orders that have expired or been
terminated. They also did not flag the use of firearms in specific crimes,
so identifying cases required combing through court records.

Washington’s criminal statutes, however, contain a number of gun-specific
charges, like unlawful possession of a firearm and aiming or discharging
one, offering another window into the problem. Last year, The Times found,
more than 50 people facing protection orders issued since 2011 were
arrested on one of these gun charges.

In some instances, of course, laws mandating the surrender of firearms
might have done nothing to prevent an attack. Sometimes the gun used was
not the one cited in the petition. In other cases, no mention of guns was
ever made. But in many cases, upon close scrutiny, stricter laws governing
protective orders and firearms might very well have made a difference.

The Times also looked at several other states without surrender laws. In
Minnesota, more than 30 people facing active protection orders were
convicted of some type of assault with a dangerous weapon over the last
three years, court records show.

And in Oklahoma, The Times found the case of Barbara Diane Dye.

Ms. Dye, 40, obtained an emergency order of protection in July 2010, on the
same day she filed for divorce from her husband, Raymond Dye, a
firefighter. Ms. Dye, who worked as a personal trainer at a gym the couple
owned, explained in her petition that since telling her husband she wanted
a divorce because of his infidelity, he had repeatedly threatened to kill
her. She wrote that she feared he would “have a violent reaction when he
receives divorce papers.”

When asked if there were weapons on the premises, she wrote, “Yes.” In
fact, Mr. Dye possessed an arsenal of weapons, which Ms. Dye and her family
would later beg the local police to help them deal with, to no avail.

After obtaining the court order, which was good until a hearing about a
lengthier order three weeks later, Ms. Dye went into hiding in Texas but
returned to Oklahoma to attend divorce proceedings. Two weeks after
obtaining the initial order, she was in a bank parking lot in the city of
Elgin when her husband pulled
up<http://newsok.com/murder-suicide-leaves-elgin-residents-in-shock/article/3478169>in
his truck, blocking her in.

Witnesses later told the police that Mr. Dye, 42, tried to drag her into
his truck. When she fought back, Mr. Dye brandished a .357 revolver and
shot her in the leg. She fell to the ground. Mr. Dye fired several more
shots into her, saying, “I love you, I love you,” according to the police
report. He then shot himself in the chest with a different gun, a
.45-caliber semiautomatic pistol, and collapsed, dead, onto his wife.

“We kept telling them, ‘He’s got all of these
weapons<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/burk_guns.mp3#media/burk1>,’
”
said Ms. Dye’s mother, Barbara Burk, a local official who has fought
unsuccessfully in Oklahoma for a measure that would give judges issuing
protective orders the power to order sheriffs to confiscate weapons and
hold them for a “cooling off” period. “Is there nothing you can do?”

*Legislative Landscape*

Intimate partner homicides account for nearly half the women killed every
year, according to federal statistics. More than half of these women are
killed with a firearm. And a significant percentage were likely to have
obtained protection orders against their eventual killers. (A 2001
study<http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/26/2/193.short>,
published in Criminal Justice Review, of women slain by intimate partners
in 10 cities put that number at one in five.)

It was in recognition of these converging realities that Congress included
a provision in the 1994 crime bill<https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt>,
over the objections of the N.R.A., that barred most people subject to full
protective orders filed by intimate partners from purchasing or possessing
firearms. In a nod to the concerns of the gun lobby, the statute excluded
most people under temporary orders, on the ground that they had not yet had
the opportunity to contest the accusations in court.

The statute, though, is rarely enforced. In 2012, prosecutors nationwide
filed fewer than 50 such cases, according to a Times analysis of records
from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse <http://trac.syr.edu/>,
a research center at Syracuse University that collects federal government
data.

It has, therefore, largely fallen to a state-by-state patchwork of laws to
regulate this issue — or not.

A handful of states have enacted laws requiring that judges order the
surrender of firearms when issuing even temporary protection orders. The
strictest states, like California, Hawaii and Massachusetts, make it
mandatory for essentially all domestic violence orders; others, like New
York and North Carolina, set out certain circumstances when surrender is
required. In a few other states, like Maryland and Wisconsin, surrender is
mandatory only with a full injunction, granted after the opposing party has
had the opportunity to participate in a court hearing. Several other
states, like Connecticut and Florida, do not have surrender laws but do
prohibit gun possession by certain people subject to protective orders.

Although enforcement remains an issue, researchers say these laws have made
a difference. One
study<http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/2/90.abstract>,
published in 2010 in the journal Injury Prevention, found a 19 percent
reduction in intimate partner homicides.

Washington State has seen several efforts to enact firearm surrender laws.
In 2004, Representative Ruth Kagi, a Democrat, introduced a bill mandating
the surrender of firearms with temporary protective orders. But after
strong opposition from the N.R.A., the bill failed to make it out of
committee. The N.R.A.’s lobbyist in the state, Brian Judy, testified that
the measure granted “extraordinarily broad authority to strip firearms
rights.”

Gun-rights groups stress that the subjects of temporary orders have not
even had the chance to be heard in court, and that many temporary orders do
not become full injunctions. Advocates for domestic violence victims
counter that the most dangerous moment is when such orders are first
issued, and that the surrender of weapons at this stage may be only
temporary.

Nevertheless, in 2010, they decided to lower their ambitions and backed a
proposal in the Washington Legislature requiring surrender only after a
full protective order was issued, restraining threatening conduct against
family members or children of family members. The measure also would have
made it a felony to possess a firearm while subject to such an order.

Once again, the N.R.A. and its allies strenuously objected. The group sent
out a legislative alert to its members, who besieged legislators. A veteran
gun-rights lobbyist flew in from Florida to meet with Representative Roger
Goodman, a Democrat who had introduced the measure.

Mr. Judy, the state N.R.A. lobbyist, wrote in an e-mail to Mr. Goodman that
his organization considered the current Washington law “already bad on this
subject.” He added, “It is the N.R.A.’s position that any crime that is
serious enough to cause an individual to lose a fundamental constitutional
right should be classified as a felony.”

Ultimately, lawmakers stripped the gun measure out of a broader package of
domestic violence legislation.

*Lessons of History*

This year, the issue is pending once again in the Washington Legislature,
part of a number of gun-related proposals introduced after the Newtown
shooting. The proposed
legislation<http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1840&year=2013>,
further narrowed in an attempt to placate the N.R.A., seeks to mirror the
language of the federal prohibition, which bars most people under full
protective orders from buying or owning weapons. But in an e-mail to House
Judiciary Committee members considering the measure, Mr. Judy wrote that
the federal law “does not provide adequate protection” and argued that
individual firearm rights were more broadly protected in Washington’s State
Constitution than in the Second Amendment.

The bill seemed on the verge of being scuttled as the N.R.A. pushed to
amend it in a way that supporters argued would render it meaningless, but
House Democrats managed to close ranks and pass it. It faces a much steeper
climb in the Republican-controlled State Senate, where the N.R.A. wields
greater influence.

The issue has also gained traction in Colorado — a traditional power base
for the gun lobby but also the state where 12 people were shot to death and
58 were wounded at a movie theater in July. A
measure<http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/24B586DC34FB057F87257B08007A98F7?open&file=197_ren.pdf>that
would require the surrender of firearms in protection-order cases is
part of a gun-control package passed by the State Senate last week, though
not a single Republican voted for it.

And in Congress, Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California,
introduced a bill
<http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:hr1177:>last week that
would expand the federal prohibition to include temporary
orders and current or former “dating partners.”

Even so, across the country, any suggestion of a broad shift must be
tempered by history.

In the mid-1990s, Wisconsin became one of the first states to require the
surrender of firearms with full protective orders. But in 2010, seeking to
strengthen enforcement, advocates for domestic violence victims pushed for
the statewide adoption of procedures that had been successful in a few
counties. Among a host of provisions, people subject to protective orders
would have been required to list their firearms and surrender them to the
county sheriff or a third party within 48 hours.

The N.R.A. mobilized, calling the measure “a blatant violation of
Americans’ Fifth Amendment rights” in an alert to its members. Jordan
Austin, an N.R.A. lobbyist, expanded in his testimony on the bill before an
Assembly committee: “Once a person has an injunction issued against him, he
is already a prohibited person. He cannot, under the Fifth Amendment, be
forced to disclose whether he is in possession of firearms, because that
would be tantamount to forcing him to admit a crime.”

The bill died in the State Senate.

In Virginia, the gun lobby has repeatedly stymied efforts to make it
illegal for people subject to court injunctions to possess firearms.
(Currently, they are barred only from buying and transporting firearms.)

“There’s often recognition that firearms and domestic violence is a lethal
combination, but it’s followed quickly with concerns about taking away an
individual’s right to possess a firearm,” said Kristine Hall, the policy
director for the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action
Alliance<http://www.vsdvalliance.org/index.html>.


The lack of a state surrender law helps explain what happened when Deborah
Wigg, a 39-year-old accountant in Virginia Beach, obtained a protective
order in April 2011 against her husband, Robert Wigg, whom she was in the
process of divorcing. In her petition, she described a violent encounter in
which Mr. Wigg grabbed her by her hair, threw her down, ripped out a door
and threw it at her. He was arrested and charged with assault. She also
made clear in the petition that her husband owned a 9-millimeter
semiautomatic handgun.

She eventually won a full protective order, but Mr. Wigg kept his gun,
which he used in his business installing and servicing A.T.M.’s.

Ms. Wigg and her co-workers at an accounting firm openly fretted about the
weapon. She agreed that every morning she would call Marty Ridout, a
partner at the firm, so he could make sure she was safe.

On the morning of Nov. 8, 2011, Ms. Wigg left Mr. Ridout a voice mail
message saying everything was fine.

Around 11 p.m. that night, however, Mr. Wigg, 43, showed
up<http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/man-kills-wife-self-suffolk-neighborhood>at
his wife’s home and began ringing the doorbell and pounding on the
door.
Ms. Wigg called her parents. Her mother, Adele Brown, told her to hang up
and call 911.

But as Ms. Brown and her husband, who lived about a half-mile away, were
heading over, Mr. Wigg smashed through the door and into the house. The
Browns arrived to find a neighbor bent over their daughter’s bleeding form,
screaming, “Debbie, don’t leave me!”

“When we got to her, those beautiful blue eyes were already set,” Ms. Brown
said.

Ms. Wigg died of a single shot to the head.

After shooting his wife, Mr. Wigg drove to the Browns’, apparently to kill
them as well. He killed himself in their front yard.

“It astounds me,” Mr. Ridout said. “I cannot believe we have a society
where a person has physically abused another person and been charged with
assaulting her and that they don’t automatically take away his weapon.”

*A System That’s Working*

One state with strict laws in this arena is California, where anyone served
with a temporary protective order has 24 hours to turn over any weapons to
local law enforcement or sell them to a licensed gun dealer.

Enforcement, however, has been inconsistent. So in 2006, the state set up
pilot programs to increase enforcement in San Mateo County, just outside
San Francisco, and Butte County, a largely rural area north of Sacramento.
The programs’ money dried up in 2010 with the state’s fiscal woes, but San
Mateo sought other financing because it believed that its program was
saving lives.

“We have not had a firearm-related domestic violence homicide in the last
three years,” said Sgt. Linda Gibbons, who oversees the program as the head
of the major crimes unit in the county sheriff’s office.

Last year alone, the program took in 324 firearms through seizure or
surrender from 81 people, out of more than 800 protective orders it
reviewed.

Every morning, Detective John Kovach, who handles a range of domestic
violence investigations, reviews a stack of protective orders filed the day
before — generally 15 to 20 a day — looking for any mention of firearms.

Usually, a handful of orders a day will contain some reference to guns,
which Detective Kovach follows up on. He sometimes contacts the person
protected by the order to find out more. He also checks various law
enforcement databases, including one available in California that tracks
handgun purchases.

He goes out once or twice a week and serves the restraining orders himself.
Usually, he says, he tries to collect firearms immediately, employing a
well-honed sales pitch about helping the person comply with the law. If he
believes beforehand that the person might not be cooperative, he will
sometimes request a search warrant.

“My experience is the quicker you act, the more successful you’re going to
be,” he said.

Notably, given the gun lobby’s objections to seizing guns after just a
temporary order, Detective Kovach said he had handled only one or two
restraining orders involving firearms in the last year that were eventually
dropped after the court hearing.

In a typical case, a 19-year-old woman from Redwood City filed for a
restraining order against her husband in December, explaining that he had
become increasingly abusive and that she had recently moved out. She
checked off a box on the form saying he had used firearms to threaten her
and, on a confidential “weapons possession data sheet” provided as a part
of the San Mateo program, indicated that he owned an assault rifle and a
handgun.

The detective picked up her order the following morning and, with a
colleague, arranged to meet that day. She told them that after an argument
a year earlier, her husband had threatened to kill himself, sending her in
a text message a picture of himself holding an assault rifle to his head.
More recently, he had warned that if she started dating, he would shoot the
man, her and then himself.

Detective Kovach quickly secured a search warrant. He and several other
detectives staked out the man’s home and served him with the protective
order while he was walking his dog. In their search, they turned up seven
guns, including two AR-15 assault rifles.

“Every murder, when you look at it, there are always points where law
enforcement could have made a difference,” the detective said. “I don’t
ever want to be that guy who goes to sleep knowing he hasn’t done
everything to protect the public.”

*Deadly Consequences*

In Washington State, The Times’s analysis highlighted danger at play when
there is no broad mandatory firearm surrender law.

Under current law, judges issuing protective orders are required to order
the surrender of firearms only in very specific situations, like a
determination by “clear and convincing evidence” that the person has used
the weapon in a felony or has committed another offense that by law would
disqualify him from having a firearm. Otherwise, judges have the discretion
to issue a surrender order under a variety of circumstances, including a
finding that there is a threat of “irreparable injury.” (There is also a
court form specifically requesting the surrender of firearms, but advocates
say it is rarely used because few victims of domestic violence know about
it.)

All five of the Washington cases identified by The Times in which the woman
who obtained the protective order was later killed were murder-suicides. In
three cases, the woman wrote in her petition that her husband or
ex-boyfriend possessed firearms. In none of the cases did the judges issue
surrender orders.

In fairness, it was not always clear that such an order would have
prevented the deaths. Even so, those cases can show the existing system’s
weakness in the face of obvious peril.

Melissa Batten, a 36-year-old software developer for Xbox, secured a
temporary protective order in July 2008, describing a series of episodes in
which her estranged husband harassed her and also broke into her workplace
in Redmond. She said he also pointed a loaded gun at her in an argument and
then put it to his head, threatening to kill himself.

It fell to a mutual friend, however, not the courts or law enforcement, to
deal with the gun. He persuaded the husband, Robert Batten, to sell his
.22-caliber handgun back to the dealer, according to a police report. But
Mr. Batten later bought two more guns, a .357 Smith & Wesson revolver and a
9-millimeter Taurus semiautomatic, according to the police. It is not clear
exactly when he bought them, but the police found evidence that he went to
a gun show a few days after being served with the protective order. (In
some states, the existence of the order would have barred him from buying
guns.)

Mr. Batten shot his wife eight times in the parking lot outside her home
before shooting himself, killing them both.

Ms. Batten’s case made
headlines<http://kotaku.com/5032443/xbox-developer-dead-in-murder+suicide>.
Then there are the more routine episodes that unfold outside the public
eye.

Julie Lohrengel obtained a temporary order for protection against her
estranged husband, Shawn Lohrengel, in August 2010, detailing several
encounters, including one in which he had shaken her and grabbed her by the
throat. She checked off the box in the petition that indicated he possessed
firearms.

The court commissioner did not order Mr. Lohrengel to surrender his guns.
Several weeks later, Ms. Lohrengel and a friend, with Ms. Lohrengel’s two
children in the back seat, drove up to her home in Centralia but stopped
when they saw Mr. Lohrengel’s truck parked outside the garage. As they
started backing out of the driveway, between five and eight gunshots rang
out, but no one was wounded. When the police arrived, Mr. Lohrengel ran out
onto the front porch with a rifle, as if looking for someone, the police
report said. He eventually pleaded guilty to aiming and discharging a
firearm and reckless endangerment.

Sometimes, the person who takes out a protective order is not the one
ultimately victimized.

James Anthony Mills, 17, pleaded guilty last year to second-degree murder
for firing two shots<http://seattletimes.com/html/theblotter/2015148297_16-year-old_charged_with_murde.html>that
killed Adrian Wilson, 16, at a birthday barbecue in Auburn, Wash. Less
than a year before, an ex-girlfriend of Mr. Mills’s had obtained an order
for protection against him. She explained in her petition that Mr. Mills
had threatened her with a gun during an argument. Nothing was done about
the weapon.

Even in cases where there was evidence that someone subject to a civil
order for protection possessed a gun in violation of state and federal law,
no move was made to remove it.

Dennis Pirone was arrested in Seattle in July 2009 and charged with
harassing his ex-girlfriend Jody Mayes. A criminal no-contact order was
issued, requiring him to surrender his firearms. He filled out a form
declaring that he had none. He was arrested again a few weeks later for
violating the no-contact order. Once again, after being ordered to
surrender firearms, he declared that he did not have any.

That December, Ms. Mayes sought a protective order, writing in her petition
that Mr. Pirone had bought a gun even though “he is a convicted felon and
is not supposed to have it in his own words.”

Two months later, Mr. Pirone flew into a rage at another woman, a roommate,
after she refused his sexual advances. He came back with a small silver
handgun, told the woman, “I will kill you,” and pointed the gun at her
before firing a shot into an old sofa, according to a Seattle police
report. The police later found two .22-caliber semiautomatic handguns in
the house.

More than a year after her ordeal in Spokane, Stephanie Holten still cannot
understand why the judge did nothing about her former husband’s guns.

“I do believe in the Second
Amendment<http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_guns.mp3#media/holten3>,”
she said, “but at the same time, public safety has to be paramount.”

Ms. Holten, 39, who is still seeing a counselor about the episode, said her
mind relentlessly replays the scene of her on her knees, looking down the
barrel of a loaded gun. In the recording of her 911 call, she can be heard
sobbing and begging Mr. Holten to leave. He can be heard responding,
between expletives, that she is going to die.

Mr. Holten — who later pleaded guilty to attempted first-degree assault and
was sentenced to more than six years in prison — ordered her upstairs to
her bedroom, forcing her to show him that she still had their wedding
photos and other mementos. He then offered her a deal: he would put the gun
down if she promised to drop the protection order, give him custody of
their son and not call the police. When she tearfully assented, Mr. Holten
placed his 9-millimeter carbine — the same weapon Ms. Holten believes she
saw at his home a month earlier and cited in her court petition — in a
hallway closet. That was when they both heard a male voice say “Police
Department.”

Her legs buckled, and she crumpled to the ground.

“I wish in my case he had to surrender everything,” she said. “If the cops
had been able to take the firearms out of that household when they served
him, I think it would have averted the entire thing.”

Griff Palmer contributed reporting. Kristen Millares Young and Jack
Styczynski contributed research.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130318/5e2734ad/attachment-0001.html>