First Monday and Every Monday
July 3, 2006

Last week, IPGV release a report, Arming Domestic Abusers: Failure of Iowa Courts to Uphold Federal Law That Prohibits Possession of firearms to Domestic Abusers. A full copy of the report is available on our website www.ipgv.org.

Following is a statement by John Johnson, director of Iowans for the Prevention of Gun Violence, regarding the report. 

A victim wrote the following on her petition to an Iowa district court requesting relief from domestic abuse by an intimate partner:

 “He said he was going to put fish hooks through my eyelids and make me watch him kill my family. I fear for my life and family.”

The judge issued a protective order in this case. The protective order restrained the alleged abuser from further acts of abuse or threats of abuse.

Under federal law – 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) – a person who is subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence meeting certain conditions is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition while the order is in effect.

However, the judge who issued the protective order in this case failed to invoke the mandatory federal firearms prohibition on the order or require the defendant to surrender his firearms to a designated law enforcement agency.

What is so disturbing about this case is that Iowa uses standard protective orders (see copy below) in domestic abuse cases. The standard orders clearly recognize that federal firearms law applies to these orders. The standard orders address the federal law with two check-off boxes on the second page of the order.

“Intimate Partner” box

[  ]  (4) If checked, the court finds the respondent and protected party meet the definition of intimate partners, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(32) (“intimate partner” means, with respect to a person, the spouse of the person, a former spouse of the person, an individual who is a parent of a child of the person, and an individual who cohabitates or has cohabited with the person).  

If (4) IS CHECKED, the court must check box 6, prohibiting the respondent from possessing firearms.

“Firearms” box

[  ]  6. If checked, the respondent shall not possess firearms while this order is in effect. Respondent shall deliver all firearms to the ____________ County Sheriff or ____________ (law enforcement agency) on or before ____________, 20 __. The respondent is advised that the issuance of this protective order may also affect the right to possess or acquire a firearm or ammunition under federal law. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(8), (g)(9).

In this case, the judge simply failed to check the boxes, even though both boxes applied. 

Is this case just an isolated incident? Or is it the “tip of the iceberg.” 

To find out, IPGV conducted a study to determine whether Iowa district court judges are enforcing federal law that prohibits persons subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. That is, are judges properly checking the “intimate partner” box and “firearms” box on the orders?

Iowa district courts issue an estimated 2,500 qualifying domestic abuse protective orders each year. For the study, IPGV examined domestic abuse protective orders issued in 2005 in each of Iowa’s eight judicial districts – a total of 1,186 protective orders. The sample included about one-half of all qualifying protective orders issued in 2005 and protective orders issued by about three-fourths of current district court judges.

Our study reveals that Iowa district courts are failing to enforce federal law that prohibits a person who is subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence from possessing firearms. Of approximately 2,500 qualifying protective orders issued in 2005, an estimated 1,800 protective orders (72%) failed to prohibit the defendant from possessing firearms and to require the defendant to surrender his/her firearms to a designated law enforcement agency. It is estimated that about 1,000 of the defendants named in these protective orders possessed firearms at the time the protective order was issued.

A breakdown of results by judicial district and individual district court judge is provided in the report.

Compliance with the federal law was strongly dependent on the individual district court judge that issued the order. The study found that about 25 percent of the judges were responsible for about 75 percent of the protective orders that prohibited the defendant from possessing firearms.

The federal law was enacted by Congress to promote public safety and prevent death and injury in domestic abuse cases. Removal of firearms from persons subject to a court restraining order for domestic violence is not discretionary. It’s the law.

IPGV has mailed a letter to the Chief Judge in each of Iowa’s eight judicial districts. The letter asks the Iowa District Court to (a) educate judges on the applicability of federal firearms laws to domestic abuse protective orders, and (b) develop and implement effective judicial practices to ensure that federal firearms laws are enforced on domestic abuse protective orders issued by the courts. 

The United States is a nation of laws. Iowa district court judges are bound by their oath of office to “administer justice according to law.”

The question is, “Is Iowa governed by the ‘rule of law’ or the ‘rule of individual judge.’”