For years, Wisconsin law said people with a domestic abuse order against them were supposed to surrender their firearms. But that wasn't enforced in many cases, according to Tony Wilkin Gibart, a domestic violence advocate there.

His group pushed for change, and it helped get increased restrictions passed by a Republican-controlled State Legislature and signed by a Republican governor.

The state is now one of 12 across the country that explicitly requires anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order to surrender firearms, according to a September 2016 report from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports the restrictions. In some of those states, the surrender process is not automatic until a defendant has a chance to participate in a hearing.

Pennsylvania isn't on that list of 12. Even though federal requirements mean people subject to Pennsylvania's final protection-from-abuse orders are not allowed to buy or possess firearms while the order is in effect, judges are not required to order the surrender of firearms.

MORE:PFA report cites York County case, calls for gun restrictions

READ:After a PFA, what happens to my gun?

MORE:LDN investigates: Gun deaths common after PFAs

That can lead to tragic results: The 2013 shooting death in Huntingdon County of 2-year-old Michael Ayers, for example, and the September 2016 death of Susan Hoke in York County's Jackson Township.

In March, state Sen. Tom Killion, R-Delaware County, introduced legislation that would require all defendants with final protection-from-abuse orders against them in Pennsylvania to surrender their guns. They would have to give up firearms to a law enforcement agency or a licensed firearms dealer. They could no longer hand over firearms to a relative or friend. The legislation hasn't come up for a hearing or votes yet in the Republican-controlled General Assembly.

In April, Ellen Kramer, deputy director of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, acknowledged the challenge of passing gun restrictions in Pennsylvania, with its large number of  hunters and gun owners. But she told WITF's "Smart Talk" that her group is proposing "common-sense" ideas to protect domestic violence victims.

Several of the states with stricter surrender requirements than Pennsylvania's are historically Democratic leaning, or passed the requirements while Democrats controlled state government. But Tennessee and Wisconsin are two places where Republican support was key to increasing gun restrictions in domestic violence cases. What happened in those states shows the possibility for change in Pennsylvania — and the hurdles.


During one committee hearing in May 2009, a Democratic lawmaker thanked Rep. Beth Harwell for introducing her firearms bill and said not many lawmakers would be willing to propose something that the National Rifle Association opposes.

Harwell, a Republican, thanked the lawmaker for the compliment. But she said the NRA is “all right with this piece of legislation.”

Harwell and Diane Black, a state senator at the time who was later elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, introduced companion bills in their respective chambers. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has called the 2009 domestic violence legislation in Tennessee "ground-breaking." But when Harwell and Black pitched the measure to fellow Tennessee lawmakers, they emphasized that federal law already says people with the orders of protection against them are not allowed to possess weapons.

“This simply puts into state law how to go about doing that," Harwell said.

In the original version of the Tennessee legislation, people with final orders of protection against them would have had 24 hours to turn over their firearms to a sheriff or other law enforcement agency.

The bill was amended to give them 48 hours and allow them to turn over the weapons to a third party, as long as that third party was not banned from possessing firearms. Defendants have to submit an affidavit to the courts saying that they surrendered the firearms as required.

That change was a compromise. Black told fellow lawmakers that law enforcement agencies did not want to be in a position of being responsible for those guns. And Harwell told lawmakers the NRA was not opposed to the revised version of the bill.

During the May 2009 committee hearing, another lawmaker raised concerns to Harwell about allowing a friend to possess the weapon. That might make it easier for someone to obtain a weapon again, the lawmaker said.

"Well, this is a step in the right direction on these domestic violence cases. I truly believe that," Harwell replied.

The measure passed the Tennessee Senate with zero no votes and with one no vote in the House.

Kathy Walsh, executive director of the Tennessee Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence, said the changes have meant that "victims feel a little more secure in knowing that there is some teeth behind the law." But the impact of gun laws on domestic violence is an ongoing concern for her group.

Harwell, who is now the speaker of the Tennessee state House, called Tennessee "a strong Second Amendment rights state." The same year that Tennessee passed the order of protection restrictions, state lawmakers gained national attention for overriding a Democratic governor's veto on a bill to allow handguns in bars and restaurants.

But Harwell said the orders of protection legislation was seen as a "common-sense approach," not an anti-gun one.



In 2009, Wisconsin lawmakers proposed a measure to try to ensure defendants in domestic abuse injunction cases surrendered their weapons. In February 2010, the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action said that the domestic abuse injunction bill would violate Fifth Amendment rights because it would require defendants to appear in court and reveal all firearms they own. If any of those firearms were possessed illegally, then those people would be admitting to a crime without any immunity from prosecution, the NRA-ILA said. The organization urged people to contact their lawmakers.

"Tell them that you will not sit idly by while special interest groups try to take away Second Amendment rights one piece at a time," the NRA-ILA wrote.

The measure failed.

But four years later, a similar bill passed in Wisconsin, where Republicans controlled both legislative chambers and the governor's office.

Wilkin Gibart, associate director of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin, pointed to multiple factors that made a difference.

Between 2010 and 2014, some Wisconsin counties piloted the new enforcement measures, which helped them gain support from court officials. An October 2012 mass shooting in suburban Milwaukee left four people, including the shooter, dead and gained national attention. Wilkin Gibart said technical changes were made that addressed the NRA's self-incrimination concerns, and the NRA did not oppose the firearms legislation in 2014.

NRA officials did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Republican Garey Bies, a former chief deputy sheriff and former Wisconsin assemblyman, introduced the firearms legislation in Wisconsin. He thinks NRA officials realized, "we were just taking the bad guys' rights away. ...I think they saw that to oppose it any longer, or any more, they would not win any points with the general public."

Gov. Scott Walker signed the bill into law in April 2014. Among other things, the law says that if a defendant fails to attend a required hearing to surrender firearms, the court must issue an arrest warrant. The law allows defendants to surrender their weapons to a third party, but that third party has to be approved by the court.

Wilkin Gibart said there hasn't been a comprehensive study of the impact of the changes. But based on feedback, it appears "that active enforcement is more the norm than the exception." He said there are other types of protective orders in Wisconsin that do not automatically trigger a firearms surrender.


In September 2016, Scott Hoke fatally shot his estranged wife, Susan, before killing himself at her Jackson Township home. Susan Hoke had a three-year PFA order against Scott Hoke, but judges did not order him to give up his firearms.

"Just because he didn’t harm anybody with a weapon doesn’t mean he’s not going to, obviously,” said Kimberly Brown, Susan Hoke's daughter. “Our family’s a perfect example of that."

Earlier this month, Brown said in a message that it's not possible to completely get rid of abuse, but she thinks "we can make it nearly impossible for abusers to get to the" victims.

Killion's legislation, Senate Bill 501, aims to keep abusers away from guns. The proposal in Pennsylvania to require anyone with a final PFA order against them to give up firearms is similar to what Wisconsin and Tennessee passed. The Pennsylvania automatic ban would not apply to temporary orders, which are issued before a defendant has a chance to appear at a hearing.

But removing the option of surrendering a firearm to a relative or friend goes further than what Wisconsin and Tennessee proposed.

Firearms Owners Against Crime, a Pennsylvania group, has labeled Killion's legislation "anti-gun." Kim Stolfer, president of the group, described multiple objections.

He said his group did not oppose a 2005 bill, which made changes to the PFA law, including extending the amount of time a final PFA order could be in effect. He called third-party safekeeping the "cornerstone" of that compromise. He said allowing people to hand over firearms to a third-party they trust helps ensure the guns will be properly taken care of and is less expensive than going to a firearms dealer.

And Stolfer thinks there's too low a standard for issuing PFA orders. Filing for a PFA order is a civil court issue, so the standard is lower than proving something beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the case in criminal issues.

During the April “Smart Talk” interview, Kramer, of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said, “Third-party safekeeping is an extraordinarily dangerous option for victims.”

The Pennsylvania legislation for firearms relinquishment in all final PFA cases was introduced in March. In addition to Killion, the bill was introduced with 13 other sponsors.

Most are Democrats. Killion and the other three Republicans who signed onto the bill are from the Philadelphia suburbs.

When Killion and other lawmakers unveiled multiple domestic violence bills, one of the other lawmakers at the news conference, state Sen. Camera Bartolotta, R-Washington County, said she did not sign on as a co-sponsor to Killion's bill, because she had concerns about false PFAs.

Killion said his proposal wasn't "a Second Amendment bill."

"This is a domestic violence bill to protect the lives of folks that have been subject to violence within their household," Killion said.

Read or Share this story: