I once knew a woman in Moscow... Thirty-nine years ago, she married her first husband. Thirty-seven years ago, they separated. One night, gun in hand, he broke down her front door.. Between the time he started pounding on the door, and the time it broke down, the police were called. After a few hours of talking, the man finally gave up his gun. An officer for the MPD took the husband's gun, and it was never seen again.. A year later, the woman asked the officer what he did with the gun. The officer replied he buried it in his back yard, deep enough no one would ever find it. Knowing protective orders are about as good as the paper they are written on, to this day, she is very thankful to the officer. <br>
<br>Janesta<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Art Deco <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/" target="_blank"><img src="" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div>March 17, 2013</div>
<h1>Ruled a Threat to Family, but Allowed to Keep Guns</h1>
<h6>By
<span>
<a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/michael_luo/index.html" rel="author" title="More Articles by MICHAEL LUO" target="_blank"><span>MICHAEL LUO</span></a></span></h6>
<div>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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, “<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_location.mp3#media/holten2" target="_blank">He owns guns, I am scared</a>.” </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
“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!” </p>
<p>
Ms. Holten, however, managed to dial 911 on her cellphone and slip it under a blanket on the couch. <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_911.mp3#media/holten1" target="_blank">The dispatcher heard Ms. Holten begging for her life</a>
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. </p>
<p>
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 <a href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_rifle_association/index.html?inline=nyt-org" title="More articles about National Rifle Association" target="_blank">National Rifle Association</a> and its allies. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
The analysis — which crosschecked protective orders against arrest and
conviction data, along with fatality lists compiled by the <a href="http://www.wscadv.org/" target="_blank">Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence</a>
— 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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
And in Oklahoma, The Times found the case of Barbara Diane Dye. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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 <a href="http://newsok.com/murder-suicide-leaves-elgin-residents-in-shock/article/3478169" target="_blank">her husband pulled up</a> in his truck, blocking her in. </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
“<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/burk_guns.mp3#media/burk1" target="_blank">We kept telling them, ‘He’s got all of these weapons</a>,’ ”
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?”
</p>
<p>
<b>Legislative Landscape</b> </p>
<p>
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 <a href="http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/26/2/193.short" target="_blank">2001 study</a>,
published in Criminal Justice Review, of women slain by intimate
partners in 10 cities put that number at one in five.) </p>
<p>
It was in recognition of these converging realities that Congress included a provision in the <a href="https://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt" target="_blank">1994 crime bill</a>,
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. </p>
<p>
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 <a href="http://trac.syr.edu/" target="_blank">Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse</a>, a research center at Syracuse University that collects federal government data. </p>
<p>
It has, therefore, largely fallen to a state-by-state patchwork of laws to regulate this issue — or not. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
Although enforcement remains an issue, researchers say these laws have made a difference. <a title="Abstract." href="http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/16/2/90.abstract" target="_blank">One study</a>, published in 2010 in the journal Injury Prevention, found a 19 percent reduction in intimate partner homicides. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
Ultimately, lawmakers stripped the gun measure out of a broader package of domestic violence legislation. </p>
<p>
<b>Lessons of History</b> </p>
<p>
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 <a title="House Bill 1840 in Washington State Legislature." href="http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=1840&year=2013" target="_blank">legislation</a>,
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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 <a title="Senate Bill 197 in Colorado General Assembly." href="http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2013a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/24B586DC34FB057F87257B08007A98F7?open&file=197_ren.pdf" target="_blank">measure</a>
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. </p>
<p>
And in Congress, Representative Lois Capps, Democrat of California, introduced a <a title="Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act." href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d113:hr1177:" target="_blank">bill</a>
last week that would expand the federal prohibition to include
temporary orders and current or former “dating partners.” </p>
<p>
Even so, across the country, any suggestion of a broad shift must be tempered by history. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
The bill died in the State Senate. </p>
<p>
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.)
</p>
<p>
“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 <a href="http://www.vsdvalliance.org/index.html" target="_blank">Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance</a>. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
On the morning of Nov. 8, 2011, Ms. Wigg left Mr. Ridout a voice mail message saying everything was fine. </p>
<p>
Around 11 p.m. that night, however, Mr. Wigg, 43, <a href="http://hamptonroads.com/2011/11/man-kills-wife-self-suffolk-neighborhood" target="_blank">showed up</a>
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. </p>
<p>
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!” </p>
<p>
“When we got to her, those beautiful blue eyes were already set,” Ms. Brown said. </p>
<p>
Ms. Wigg died of a single shot to the head. </p>
<p>
After shooting his wife, Mr. Wigg drove to the Browns’, apparently to
kill them as well. He killed himself in their front yard. </p>
<p>
“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.” </p>
<p>
<b>A System That’s Working</b> </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
“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.
</p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
“My experience is the quicker you act, the more successful you’re going to be,” he said. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
“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.” </p>
<p>
<b>Deadly Consequences</b> </p>
<p>
In Washington State, The Times’s analysis highlighted danger at play
when there is no broad mandatory firearm surrender law. </p>
<p>
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.) </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.) </p>
<p>
Mr. Batten shot his wife eight times in the parking lot outside her home before shooting himself, killing them both. </p>
<p>
Ms. Batten’s case <a href="http://kotaku.com/5032443/xbox-developer-dead-in-murder+suicide" target="_blank">made headlines</a>. Then there are the more routine episodes that unfold outside the public eye. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Sometimes, the person who takes out a protective order is not the one ultimately victimized. </p>
<p>
James Anthony Mills, 17, pleaded guilty last year to second-degree murder for <a href="http://seattletimes.com/html/theblotter/2015148297_16-year-old_charged_with_murde.html" target="_blank">firing two shots</a>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
“<a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/audio/multimedia/bundles/projects/2013/DVGunsQuickLinks/holten_guns.mp3#media/holten3" target="_blank">I do believe in the Second Amendment</a>,” she said, “but at the same time, public safety has to be paramount.” </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
Her legs buckled, and she crumpled to the ground. </p>
<p>
“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.” </p>
<div>
<p>Griff Palmer contributed reporting. Kristen Millares Young and Jack Styczynski contributed research.</p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"> </font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<div>
</div>
</font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src=""><br>
</font></span></div>
<br>=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></blockquote></div><br>