With the conclusion of Virginia’s veto session, Gov. Glenn Youngkin refused to do more to protect individuals, most of whom are women, experiencing domestic violence.
Violence against partners and family members is a public health epidemic. The danger is amplified for victims of domestic violence when combined with the prevalence and accessibility of firearms. To protect victims, survivors and the public, domestic abusers are often prohibited from possessing firearms; yet enforcement of those prohibitions are lacking. By vetoing bills aimed at strengthening our domestic violence and firearms laws, Gov. Youngkin chose to protect abusers and their firearms rather than victims and public health.
Domestic violence and firearms are pervasive problems. According to one study, approximately 1 million U.S. women alive today have had firearms used against them by intimate partners and about 4.5 million U.S. women have had intimate partners threaten them with firearms. The danger goes beyond injury and threats. Another study found that a woman who is domestically abused is five times more likely to be killed by a male partner when there is a firearm in the house. In 2020 alone, 70% of domestic violence-related homicides in Virginia were by firearm. We also know that laws addressing the intersection of domestic violence and firearms are effective at significantly reducing intimate partner homicide.
People are also reading…
In the last decade, the commonwealth has made significant progress toward addressing the deadly combination of domestic violence and firearms. Virginia has prohibited possession of firearms and required the surrender of firearms by persons subject to final protective orders. The state also prohibited the purchase, possession and transportation of firearms by persons convicted of misdemeanor assault and battery of a family or household member. But more must be done to fully realize the promise of these protections.
Several bills passed by the General Assembly that were vetoed by Gov. Youngkin would have closed significant gaps. Senate Bill 47 and House Bill 46 would have mandated that when someone had to relinquish their firearms, those guns would have to go to someone 21 or older who does not live with the person subject to the order.
As of now, someone can relinquish their weapons to another person living in the same home — which means firearms may still be immediately accessible to dangerous people. The new bill also would have required the person subject to the order to provide the name and address of the person to whom they surrendered firearms to court — allowing law enforcement to check that firearms were actually surrendered.
Finally, they would have extended the requirement to surrender firearms to include persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of assault and battery of family or household members.
Two other bills, Senate Bill 642 and House Bill 362, would have also ensured anyone convicted of assault and battery against current or former dating partners are not allowed to possess a firearm for three years. The current law only pertains to persons convicted of assault and battery of family or household members.
When Gov. Youngkin vetoed these bills, he allowed dangerous individuals, like those subject to family abuse protective orders or with convictions of assault and battery of a family or household member, the opportunity to possess firearms. Gov. Youngkin’s veto message, which described the legislation as failing “to achieve its intended purpose” and “unnecessary,” reflects a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of domestic and intimate partner violence, as well as the existing legal framework to address it.
Domestic violence perpetrated with firearms continues to be a pervasive public health crisis in Virginia and across the nation. There is an abundance of public health research that illustrates just how dangerous domestic abusers are, specifically those with access to guns, to not only victims and survivors but also to public safety at large. Gov. Youngkin can, and should, defend Virginians from domestic violence by firearms and ensure the disarmament of dangerous abusers throughout the state. He chose not to.
Kelly Roskam is director of law and policy at the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Roskam studies the constitutional implications of, advocates for, and works to improve the implementation of firearms laws, particularly laws at the intersection of domestic violence and firearms. Contact Roskam at kroskam@jhu.edu.