Research Question

Is there a relationship between the restrictiveness of a state’s firearm regulations/laws for individuals with domestic violence related criminal records and intimate partner homicide rates perpetrated by a firearm?

Background on Intimate Partner Homicide (by firearm)

Each state varies in the number and restrictiveness of gun laws. In particular, states differ in how they regulate the possession of firearms for individuals with domestic violence (intimate partner violence) related charges/restraining orders and if/how firearms can be seized from these individuals.

In this research, intimate partner homicide is defined as the killing of an individual perpetrated by a former or current spouse or partner (ex. girlfriend/boyfriend) of the victim.
- This research will focus particularly on those homicides caused the perpetrator’s use of a firearm, but this data is not available for all states and is less reliable than general firearm homicides (due to difficulty determining or lack of resources/data to report motive).
At this time, there has been plentiful research noting the high number of intimate partner homicides perpetrated using a firearm in the United States. I will include some examples of applicable research findings below to show the relevance of this issue and to justify the use of state firearm homicide rates (due to lack of intimate-partner-homicide specific data):
1. From 2002: “Nearly one-third of all women murdered in the United States in recent years were murdered by a current or former intimate partner… Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds of were killed by their intimate partners… Access to firearms increases the risk of intimate partner homicide more than five times more than in instances where there are no weapons, according to a recent study.” Source
2. From 2017: “Every year, more than 1800 persons in the United States are killed by their intimate partners, and approximately 50% of these homicides are committed with firearms. Approximately 85% of victims of intimate partner homicide (IPH) are women, and IPH accounts for nearly 50% of all homicides involving women in the United States each year.” Source
3. From 2022: “In an average month, 57 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner—and over 4.5 million American women report being threatened with a gun by an intimate partner.” Source
Given the prevalence of intimate partner homicides using a firearm, this research project aims to investigate how state legislation regulating firearm possession and seizures may influence intimate partner homicide rates.

Since 1996, federal law bans possession of a firearm for anyone convicted of a felony or of a domestic violence misdemeanor crime or with a domestic violence related protective order against them:
- GUN BAN FOR INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF A MISDEMEANOR CRIME OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9): “The 1968 Gun Control Act and subsequent amendments codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq. prohibit anyone convicted of a felony and anyone subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm. The intended effect of this new legislation is to extend the firearms ban to anyone convicted of a ‘misdemeanor crime of domestic violence’.” Source
Despite the baseline provided by federal law, states vary significantly in the strength of domestic violence firearm laws.
1. “While federal law already bars most people convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse from having guns, a separate state prohibition is important to ensure the law is enforced properly. The best states have closed the “boyfriend loophole,” going beyond the federal prohibition — which applies only to spouses, those who share a child, and co-habitants — to cover all dating partners.” This loophole also applies to the domestic violence protective order provision. Source
2. While federal law states that convicted domestic violence abusers must relinquish any firearms, each state varies in the enforcement and logistical clarity of this process. Furthermore, some states exclude domestic violence firearm bans entirely from their legislation or limit the bans to specific timelines (ex. probation term). Source
3. Mississippi is an example of a state with very limited firearm legislation pertaining to domestic violence. Mississippi state law does not explicitly prohibit individuals who are “convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition”. The state also does not require “courts to notify people when they become prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under state or federal law due to domestic violence”. Additionally, Mississippi law does not “explicitly authorize or require the removal of firearms or ammunition at the scene of a domestic violence incident”. Source
4. California is an example of a state that has enacted many thorough provisions related to domestic violence firearm legislation. For example, it allows for courts to prohibit firearm possession for those charged (not yet convicted) of domestic violence misdemeanors. It also expands the definition of domestic violence protective orders (which prohibit firearm purchase/possession) to include “spouse/former spouse, current/former dating partner, any person who is presently or has in the past resided with the individual, any family member (even if the respondent has never resided with the individual)”. Additionally, California law requires immediate relinquishment of firearms to law enforcement, and failure to do so allows for the issuance of a warrant allowing law enforcement to search and seize firearms. Source

Data Sources

CDC WONDER: State Homicide Rates Committed Using a Firearm

Source: https://wonder.cdc.gov/ucd-icd10.html

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) provides CDC Wonder, which is an online database that allows for the collection and analysis of public health data. I am using the Underlying Cause of Death database, which allows the selection of Homicide as the Injury Intent and the specification of Firearm as the Injury Mechanism, and the information is determined through death certificates.

I decided to use an average across 3 years to account for any single year abnormalities. The state firearm laws are from 2018. I do not have information on how long each state has had each firearm provision enacted, so I am using homicide rates averages for 2017 through 2019.

# importing data
HomRates <- read.delim("../../DACSS 697/DV Research/Homicide_Firearm_2017through2019.txt")

HomRates <- HomRates %>%
  select(State, Deaths, Population, Crude.Rate) 

A <- function(x) x/3

HomRates1 <- sapply(HomRates[2:4], A) %>%
  data.frame()
HomRates1 <- HomRates1 %>%
  add_column(State = HomRates$State)
HomRates1 <- HomRates1[, c('State', 'Crude.Rate', 'Deaths', 'Population')]

HomRates1$State[HomRates1$State == ""] <- NA
HomRates1 <- na.omit(HomRates1) %>%
  filter(!str_detect(`State`, "District of Columbia"))

HomRates1 <- HomRates1 %>%
  mutate_at(vars(-State), funs(round(., 1)))
HomRates1 <- HomRates1 %>%
  mutate_at(vars(Population), funs(round(., 0)))

kable(HomRates1, col.names = c("State", "Crude Rate (per 100,000)", "Deaths", "Population"), align = c('c', 'c', 'c', 'c'), caption = "Average State Homicide Rates by a Firearm (2017-2019)") %>%
  kable_styling() %>%
  scroll_box(width = "100%", height = "400px")

Table 1: Average State Homicide Rates by a Firearm (2017-2019)
State	Crude Rate (per 100,000)	Deaths	Population
Alabama	3.3	486.7	4888601
Alaska	2.0	44.7	736259
Arizona	1.4	294.0	7155544
Arkansas	2.2	198.0	3011969
California	1.1	1318.7	39535307
Colorado	1.0	170.7	5687151
Connecticut	0.6	64.0	3575379
Delaware	1.7	49.3	967625
Florida	1.5	979.0	21253821
Georgia	2.1	667.0	10522092
Hawaii	0.3	12.7	1421300
Idaho	0.5	25.3	1752739
Illinois	2.2	836.3	12738308
Indiana	1.8	363.3	6696972
Iowa	0.5	50.0	3152309
Kansas	1.4	119.7	2912647
Kentucky	1.6	212.0	4463421
Louisiana	3.7	524.3	4664368
Maine	0.3	10.7	1339508
Maryland	2.5	449.3	6046858
Massachusetts	0.5	100.7	6884824
Michigan	1.5	458.3	9981694
Minnesota	0.5	82.0	5609139
Mississippi	3.7	327.0	2982260
Missouri	3.0	552.3	6125804
Montana	0.7	21.7	1060525
Nebraska	0.5	31.3	1927917
Nevada	1.6	143.0	3037529
New Hampshire	0.3	14.0	1352988
New Jersey	0.8	224.0	8932118
New Mexico	2.1	131.7	2093442
New York	0.6	331.3	19615056
North Carolina	1.7	517.3	10381708
North Dakota	0.5	10.3	759177
Ohio	1.6	578.0	11679050
Oklahoma	1.9	219.7	3943638
Oregon	0.6	72.7	4183742
Pennsylvania	1.5	577.0	12804862
Rhode Island	0.4	11.7	1058772
South Carolina	2.5	388.0	5085737
South Dakota	0.5	12.7	878853
Tennessee	2.4	481.7	6771723
Texas	1.4	1232.7	28667441
Utah	0.5	46.0	3156299
Vermont	0.4	7.3	624648
Virginia	1.3	340.3	8507741
Washington	0.7	167.7	7518742
West Virginia	1.3	70.3	1804612
Wisconsin	0.9	155.0	5810495
Wyoming	0.7	12.0	578604

NVDRS: Confirmed Intimate Partner Homicides Using a Firearm

Source: https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/nvdrs/

The National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS) is a product of the CDC and specifically the Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS). This database provides data specifically on confirmed homicides perpetrated by an intimate partner and using a firearm, as opposed to the CDC WONDER dataset above of firearm homicide rates. Confirmed intimate partner homicide (IPH) rates are not available for all states or years, but that will likely change as the CDC began providing NVDRS funding to all states in 2018. The system allows for states to combine law enforcement reports, medical examiner/coroner reports, and death certificates when reporting and surveilling public health matters like homicide.

To align with the CDC dataset, this dataset covers 2017 through 2019. One problematic character of this set is that it supresses counts less than 10 (for confidentiality reasons).

NVDRSall <- read_csv("../../DACSS 697/DV Research/NVDRS_IPH_2017-2019.csv", skip = 6)

NVDRSall <- NVDRSall %>%
  select("...1", "Number of Deaths...2", "Population...3", "Crude Rate...4", "Number of Deaths...6", "Population...7", "Crude Rate...8", "Number of Deaths...10", "Population...11", "Crude Rate...12", "Number of Deaths...14", "Population...15", "Crude Rate...16") %>%
  rename('State' = "...1", '2017_Deaths' = "Number of Deaths...2", '2017_Population' = "Population...3", '2017_Crude_Rate' = "Crude Rate...4", '2018_Deaths' = "Number of Deaths...6", '2018_Population' = "Population...7", '2018_Crude_Rate' = "Crude Rate...8", '2019_Deaths' = "Number of Deaths...10", '2019_Population' = "Population...11", '2019_Crude_Rate' = "Crude Rate...12", 'Total_Deaths' = "Number of Deaths...14", 'Avg_Population' = "Population...15", 'Avg_Crude_Rate' = "Crude Rate...16")

NVDRSall <- NVDRSall %>%
  filter(!str_detect(`State`, "TOTAL"))%>%
  filter(!str_detect(`State`, "State"))%>%
  filter(!str_detect(`State`, "District of Columbia"))

NVDRSall$Avg_Population <- as.numeric(as.character(NVDRSall$Avg_Population)) / 3 
NVDRSall <- NVDRSall %>%
  mutate_at(vars(Avg_Population), funs(round(., 0)))

kable(NVDRSall, caption = "State Intimate Partner Homicide Rates by a Firearm (2017-2019)") %>%
  kable_styling() %>%
  scroll_box(width = "900px", height = "500px")

Table 2: State Intimate Partner Homicide Rates by a Firearm (2017-2019)
State	2017_Deaths	2017_Population	2017_Crude_Rate	2018_Deaths	2018_Population	2018_Crude_Rate	2019_Deaths	2019_Population	2019_Crude_Rate	Total_Deaths	Avg_Population	Avg_Crude_Rate
Alaska	–*	739795	–*	–*	737438	–*	–*	731545	–*	14*	736259	0.63*
Arizona	25	7016270	0.36	27	7171646	0.38	32	7278717	0.44	84	7155544	0.39
California	26	11917896	0.22	57	21362199	0.27	34	22513766	0.15	117	18597954	0.21
Colorado	–*	5607154	–*	17*	5695564	0.30*	21	5758736	0.36	–**	5687151	–**
Connecticut	–*	3588184	–*	–*	3572665	–*	–*	3565287	–*	15*	3575379	0.14*
Delaware	–*	961939	–*	–*	967171	–*	–*	973764	–*	10*	967625	0.34*
Georgia	49	10429379	0.47	51	10519475	0.48	49	10617423	0.46	149	10522092	0.47
Illinois	24	10149280	0.24	25	10962819	0.23	19*	11409362	0.17*	68	10840487	0.21
Indiana	17*	6666818	0.25*	24	6691878	0.36	16*	6732219	0.24*	57	6696972	0.28
Iowa	–*	3145711	–*	–*	3156145	–*	–*	3155070	–*	12*	3152309	0.13*
Kansas	12*	2913123	0.41*	15*	2911505	0.52*	–*	2913314	–*	–**	2912647	–**
Kentucky	25	4454189	0.56	27	4468402	0.60	18*	4467673	0.40*	70	4463421	0.52
Maine	–*	1335907	–*	–*	1338404	–*	–*	1344212	–*	13*	1339508	0.32*
Maryland	–*	6052177	–*	17*	6042718	0.28*	10*	6045680	0.17*	–**	6046858	–**
Massachusetts	–*	6859819	–*	10*	6902149	0.14*	–*	6892503	–*	19*	6884824	0.09*
Michigan	28	9962311	0.28	43	9995915	0.43	38	9986857	0.38	109	9981694	0.36
Minnesota	10*	5576606	0.18*	–*	5611179	–*	–*	5639632	–*	22	5609139	0.13
Nevada	12*	2998039	0.40*	20*	3034392	0.66*	18*	3080156	0.58*	50	3037529	0.55
New Hampshire	–*	1342795	–*	–*	1356458	–*	–*	1359711	–*	10*	1352988	0.25*
New Jersey	13*	9005644	0.14*	–*	8908520	–*	–*	8882190	–*	27	8932118	0.10
New Mexico	12*	2088070	0.57*	11*	2095428	0.52*	16*	2096829	0.76*	39	2093442	0.62
North Carolina	53	10273419	0.52	44	10383620	0.42	38	10488084	0.36	135	10381708	0.43
Ohio	52	11658609	0.45	40	11689442	0.34	41	11689100	0.35	133	11679050	0.38
Oklahoma	29	3930864	0.74	26	3943079	0.66	33	3956971	0.83	88	3943638	0.74
Oregon	16*	4142776	0.39*	11*	4190713	0.26*	–*	4217737	–*	–**	4183742	–**
Pennsylvania	37	10461388	0.35	22	10524784	0.21	33	10621092	0.31	92	10535755	0.29
Rhode Island	0	1059639	0.00*	–*	1057315	–*	–*	1059361	–*	–*	1058772	–*
South Carolina	26	5024369	0.52	28	5084127	0.55	34	5148714	0.66	88	5085737	0.58
Utah	–*	3101833	–*	–*	3161105	–*	–*	3205958	–*	12*	3156299	0.13*
Vermont	0	623657	0.00*	–*	626299	–*	–*	623989	–*	–*	624648	–*
Virginia	36	8470020	0.43	33	8517685	0.39	29	8535519	0.34	98	8507741	0.38
Washington	18*	7071935	0.25*	17*	7535591	0.23*	24	7614893	0.32	59	7407473	0.27
West Virginia	12*	1815857	0.66*	–*	1805832	–*	16*	1792147	0.89*	–**	1804612	–**
Wisconsin	16*	5795483	0.28*	13*	5813568	0.22*	23	5822434	0.40	52	5810495	0.30

–* The number of deaths fewer than 10; the number has been suppressed to retain confidentiality

–** State-level counts and rates based on fewer than 10 deaths have been suppressed to retain confidentiality

Disarm Domestic Violence

https://www.disarmdv.org/#

URL <- "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/"

State <- c('alabama', 'alaska', 'arizona', 'arkansas', 'california', 'colorado', 'connecticut', 'delaware', 'florida', 'georgia', 'hawaii', 'idaho', 'illinois', 'indiana', 'iowa', 'kansas', 'kentucky', 'louisiana', 'maine', 'maryland', 'massachusetts', 'michigan', 'minnesota', 'mississippi', 'missouri', 'montana', 'nebraska', 'nevada', 'new-hampshire', 'new-jersey', 'new-mexico', 'new-york', 'north-carolina', 'north-dakota', 'ohio', 'oklahoma', 'oregon', 'pennsylvania', 'rhode-island', 'south-carolina', 'south-dakota', 'tennessee', 'texas', 'utah', 'vermont', 'virginia', 'washington', 'west-virginia', 'wisconsin', 'wyoming')

URLS <- URL

# loop through the States 
for (i in 1:length(State)){
  URLS <- c(URLS, paste("https://www.disarmdv.org/state/", State[i], sep = ""))
}

head(URLS)

[1] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/"          
[2] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/alabama"   
[3] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/alaska"    
[4] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/arizona"   
[5] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/arkansas"  
[6] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/california"

StateURL <- paste(URLS, "/?sec=law", sep="")
StateURL <- StateURL[2:51]
head(StateURL)

[1] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/alabama/?sec=law"   
[2] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/alaska/?sec=law"    
[3] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/arizona/?sec=law"   
[4] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/arkansas/?sec=law"  
[5] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/california/?sec=law"
[6] "https://www.disarmdv.org/state/colorado/?sec=law"

disarmdv <- c()
css_selector <- ".auto-navigation-content"

for (i in 1:length(StateURL)){
  
  laws <- StateURL[i] %>% 
  read_html() %>%
  html_nodes(css = css_selector) %>%
  html_text()

  
  disarmdv <- c(disarmdv, laws)
}


# look at first 2 states' legal info
kable(disarmdv[1:2]) %>%
  kable_styling()

x
Alabama Law ALABAMA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FIREARM PROHIBITIONS Alabama Domestic Violence Firearm Purchase and Possession Prohibitions Alabama prohibits the following individuals from owning a firearm, possessing a firearm, or having a firearm in their control: Persons convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence; and Persons subject to a valid protection order for domestic abuse.1 “Valid protection order” is defined as “an order issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate, that does any of the following: Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening a qualified individual* or child of the qualified individual or person or engaging in other conduct that would place a qualified individual in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the individual or child and that includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the qualified individual or child. By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the qualified individual or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.”2 ALABAMA CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER FIREARM REMOVAL Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders That Require Firearm Removal Alabama law does not require the removal of firearms from persons subject to domestic violence protection orders. Alabama law does allow a judge issuing an ex parte protection order, an ex parte modification of a protection order, a final protection order, or a modification of a protection order issued after notice and hearing to “[o]rder other relief as it deems necessary to provide for the safety and welfare of the plaintiff or any children and any person designated by the court.”3 Individuals Who May Petition for a Protection Order The following persons may petition for a protection order: A spouse (including a common law spouse); A former spouse (including a common law former spouse); A person with whom the defendant has a child in common, regardless of whether the victim or defendant have ever been married and regardless of whether they are currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same household; A person who has or had a dating relationship with the defendant; A person who is or was cohabiting with the defendant and who is in, or was engaged in, a romantic or sexual relationship with the defendant; A relative of a person defined in (e) who also lived with the defendant; or An individual who is a parent, stepparent, child, or stepchild and who is in or has maintained a living arrangement with the defendant.4 Penalties for Violation A violation of a protective order is a Class A misdemeanor.5
Alaska Law DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FIREARM PROHIBITIONS Alaska Domestic Violence Firearm Purchase and Possession Prohibitions Alaska may prohibit the person subject to a protective order issued after notice and a hearing at which the respondent had the right to appear and be heard from “using or possessing a deadly weapon if the court finds the respondent was in the actual possession of or used a weapon during the commission of domestic violence[.]”1 Alaska does not prohibit firearm purchase and possession by: Persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors; Persons subject to an ex parte domestic violence protective order. CIVIL PROTECTIVE ORDER FIREARM REMOVAL Domestic Violence Civil Protective Orders That Require Firearm Removal Alaska law does not require the removal of firearms from persons subject to domestic violence protective orders; however, a court issuing a domestic violence protective order, after notice and a hearing at which the respondent had the right to appear and be heard, may “direct the respondent to surrender any firearm owned or possessed by the respondent if the court finds that the respondent was in the actual possession of or used a firearm during the commission of the domestic violence[.]”2 Individuals Who May Petition for a Protective Order A “household member” may petition for a protective order. “Household member” includes: Adults or minors who are current or former spouses; Adults or minors who live together or who have lived together; Adults or minors who are dating or who have dated; Adults or minors who are engaged in or who have engaged in a sexual relationship; Adults or minors who are related to each other up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption, computed under the rules of civil law; Adults or minors who are related or formerly related by marriage; Persons who have a child of the relationship; and Minor children of a person in a relationship that is described in (A)-(G) of this paragraph[.]3 Removal Process A court issuing a domestic violence protective order may “direct the respondent to surrender any firearm owned or possessed by the respondent” but does not specify a time frame in which to comply nor does it specify to whom firearms should be surrendered.4 Return of Firearms to Respondent Alaska law does not specify how firearms are returned to the respondent at the termination or expiration of a domestic violence protective order. Penalties for Violation A violation of a protective order may be a misdemeanor “punishable by up to one year of incarceration and up to a $25,000 fine[.]”5

Alabama Law ALABAMA DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FIREARM PROHIBITIONS Alabama Domestic Violence Firearm Purchase and Possession Prohibitions Alabama prohibits the following individuals from owning a firearm, possessing a firearm, or having a firearm in their control: Persons convicted of a misdemeanor offense of domestic violence; and Persons subject to a valid protection order for domestic abuse.1 “Valid protection order” is defined as “an order issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate, that does any of the following: Restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening a qualified individual* or child of the qualified individual or person or engaging in other conduct that would place a qualified individual in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the individual or child and that includes a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of the qualified individual or child. By its terms, explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the qualified individual or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury.”2 ALABAMA CIVIL PROTECTION ORDER FIREARM REMOVAL Domestic Violence Civil Protection Orders That Require Firearm Removal Alabama law does not require the removal of firearms from persons subject to domestic violence protection orders. Alabama law does allow a judge issuing an ex parte protection order, an ex parte modification of a protection order, a final protection order, or a modification of a protection order issued after notice and hearing to “[o]rder other relief as it deems necessary to provide for the safety and welfare of the plaintiff or any children and any person designated by the court.”3 Individuals Who May Petition for a Protection Order The following persons may petition for a protection order: A spouse (including a common law spouse); A former spouse (including a common law former spouse); A person with whom the defendant has a child in common, regardless of whether the victim or defendant have ever been married and regardless of whether they are currently residing or have in the past resided together in the same household; A person who has or had a dating relationship with the defendant; A person who is or was cohabiting with the defendant and who is in, or was engaged in, a romantic or sexual relationship with the defendant; A relative of a person defined in (e) who also lived with the defendant; or An individual who is a parent, stepparent, child, or stepchild and who is in or has maintained a living arrangement with the defendant.4 Penalties for Violation A violation of a protective order is a Class A misdemeanor.5

Alaska Law DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FIREARM PROHIBITIONS Alaska Domestic Violence Firearm Purchase and Possession Prohibitions Alaska may prohibit the person subject to a protective order issued after notice and a hearing at which the respondent had the right to appear and be heard from “using or possessing a deadly weapon if the court finds the respondent was in the actual possession of or used a weapon during the commission of domestic violence[.]”1 Alaska does not prohibit firearm purchase and possession by: Persons convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors; Persons subject to an ex parte domestic violence protective order. CIVIL PROTECTIVE ORDER FIREARM REMOVAL Domestic Violence Civil Protective Orders That Require Firearm Removal Alaska law does not require the removal of firearms from persons subject to domestic violence protective orders; however, a court issuing a domestic violence protective order, after notice and a hearing at which the respondent had the right to appear and be heard, may “direct the respondent to surrender any firearm owned or possessed by the respondent if the court finds that the respondent was in the actual possession of or used a firearm during the commission of the domestic violence[.]”2 Individuals Who May Petition for a Protective Order A “household member” may petition for a protective order. “Household member” includes: Adults or minors who are current or former spouses; Adults or minors who live together or who have lived together; Adults or minors who are dating or who have dated; Adults or minors who are engaged in or who have engaged in a sexual relationship; Adults or minors who are related to each other up to the fourth degree of consanguinity, whether of the whole or half blood or by adoption, computed under the rules of civil law; Adults or minors who are related or formerly related by marriage; Persons who have a child of the relationship; and Minor children of a person in a relationship that is described in (A)-(G) of this paragraph[.]3 Removal Process A court issuing a domestic violence protective order may “direct the respondent to surrender any firearm owned or possessed by the respondent” but does not specify a time frame in which to comply nor does it specify to whom firearms should be surrendered.4 Return of Firearms to Respondent Alaska law does not specify how firearms are returned to the respondent at the termination or expiration of a domestic violence protective order. Penalties for Violation A violation of a protective order may be a misdemeanor “punishable by up to one year of incarceration and up to a $25,000 fine[.]”5

laws_corpus <- corpus(disarmdv)
summary(laws_corpus)

Corpus consisting of 50 documents, showing 50 documents:

   Text Types Tokens Sentences
  text1   207    498         5
  text2   186    481         8
  text3   191    503         7
  text4   138    232         5
  text5   495   1735        22
  text6   263   1016         5
  text7   320   1281         3
  text8   435   1533        14
  text9   276    797         8
 text10   126    225         4
 text11   241    625         5
 text12   155    332         5
 text13   380   1378         8
 text14   184    472         6
 text15   235    670         6
 text16   188    408         3
 text17   251    620         7
 text18   482   2087        22
 text19   390   1423         6
 text20   259    991        11
 text21   359   1329         7
 text22   266    708         7
 text23   440   1706         4
 text24   185    397         3
 text25   160    329         5
 text26   196    528         5
 text27   171    359         3
 text28   254    972         5
 text29   377   1348        27
 text30   270   1170        12
 text31   380   1325        14
 text32   444   1746        10
 text33   416   1637        24
 text34   265    643         4
 text35   298    853         9
 text36   265    782         8
 text37   246    684         5
 text38   629   3547        65
 text39   392   1509         8
 text40   176    470         2
 text41   219    610         6
 text42   261    761         3
 text43   233    660         4
 text44   254    834         4
 text45   376   1223         9
 text46   278    880         7
 text47   506   2380        16
 text48   340   1324        11
 text49   452   2125        15
 text50   179    396         6

laws_tokens <- tokens(laws_corpus, remove_punct = TRUE)
laws_tokens

Tokens consisting of 50 documents.
text1 :
 [1] "Alabama"      "Law"          "ALABAMA"      "DOMESTIC"    
 [5] "VIOLENCE"     "FIREARM"      "PROHIBITIONS" "Alabama"     
 [9] "Domestic"     "Violence"     "Firearm"      "Purchase"    
[ ... and 436 more ]

text2 :
 [1] "Alaska"       "Law"          "DOMESTIC"     "VIOLENCE"    
 [5] "FIREARM"      "PROHIBITIONS" "Alaska"       "Domestic"    
 [9] "Violence"     "Firearm"      "Purchase"     "and"         
[ ... and 420 more ]

text3 :
 [1] "Arizona"      "Law"          "DOMESTIC"     "VIOLENCE"    
 [5] "FIREARM"      "PROHIBITIONS" "Arizona"      "Domestic"    
 [9] "Violence"     "Firearm"      "Purchase"     "and"         
[ ... and 437 more ]

text4 :
 [1] "Arkansas"     "Law"          "DOMESTIC"     "VIOLENCE"    
 [5] "FIREARM"      "PROHIBITIONS" "Arkansas"     "Domestic"    
 [9] "Violence"     "Firearm"      "Purchase"     "and"         
[ ... and 197 more ]

text5 :
 [1] "California"   "Law"          "DOMESTIC"     "VIOLENCE"    
 [5] "FIREARM"      "PROHIBITIONS" "California"   "Domestic"    
 [9] "Violence"     "Firearm"      "Purchase"     "and"         
[ ... and 1,569 more ]

text6 :
 [1] "Colorado"     "Law"          "DOMESTIC"     "VIOLENCE"    
 [5] "FIREARM"      "PROHIBITIONS" "Colorado"     "Domestic"    
 [9] "Violence"     "Firearm"      "Purchase"     "and"         
[ ... and 904 more ]

[ reached max_ndoc ... 44 more documents ]

laws_dfm <- dfm(laws_tokens)
docnames(laws_dfm) <- c('alabama', 'alaska', 'arizona', 'arkansas', 'california', 'colorado', 'connecticut', 'delaware', 'florida', 'georgia', 'hawaii', 'idaho', 'illinois', 'indiana', 'iowa', 'kansas', 'kentucky', 'louisiana', 'maine', 'maryland', 'massachusetts', 'michigan', 'minnesota', 'mississippi', 'missouri', 'montana', 'nebraska', 'nevada', 'new-hampshire', 'new-jersey', 'new-mexico', 'new-york', 'north-carolina', 'north-dakota', 'ohio', 'oklahoma', 'oregon', 'pennsylvania', 'rhode-island', 'south-carolina', 'south-dakota', 'tennessee', 'texas', 'utah', 'vermont', 'virginia', 'washington', 'west-virginia', 'wisconsin', 'wyoming')
laws_dfm

Document-feature matrix of: 50 documents, 2,238 features (88.84% sparse) and 0 docvars.
            features
docs         alabama law domestic violence firearm prohibitions
  alabama          7   5        6        5       7            2
  alaska           0   4       11       11       8            2
  arizona          0   3        7        7      10            2
  arkansas         0   2        4        4       4            2
  california       0  19       10       12      42            2
  colorado         0   9        6        6      18            2
            features
docs         purchase and possession prohibits
  alabama           1  10          1         2
  alaska            2   8          4         0
  arizona           1   4          1         2
  arkansas          1   1          1         0
  california        2  18          8         1
  colorado          1   7          9         1
[ reached max_ndoc ... 44 more documents, reached max_nfeat ... 2,228 more features ]

laws_dfm2 <- tokens(laws_corpus, 
                      remove_punct= TRUE,
                      remove_numbers = TRUE) %>%
  tokens_tolower() %>%
  tokens_select(pattern=stopwords("en"),
                selection="remove") %>%
  dfm() 
docnames(laws_dfm2) <- c('alabama', 'alaska', 'arizona', 'arkansas', 'california', 'colorado', 'connecticut', 'delaware', 'florida', 'georgia', 'hawaii', 'idaho', 'illinois', 'indiana', 'iowa', 'kansas', 'kentucky', 'louisiana', 'maine', 'maryland', 'massachusetts', 'michigan', 'minnesota', 'mississippi', 'missouri', 'montana', 'nebraska', 'nevada', 'new-hampshire', 'new-jersey', 'new-mexico', 'new-york', 'north-carolina', 'north-dakota', 'ohio', 'oklahoma', 'oregon', 'pennsylvania', 'rhode-island', 'south-carolina', 'south-dakota', 'tennessee', 'texas', 'utah', 'vermont', 'virginia', 'washington', 'west-virginia', 'wisconsin', 'wyoming')

textplot_wordcloud(laws_dfm2, max_words = 50)

topfeatures(laws_dfm2, 30)

      order     firearm    firearms    domestic    violence 
       1007         596         564         503         452 
 protection       court      person         may  respondent 
        433         403         364         346         326 
 protective       shall         law     persons  ammunition 
        322         311         309         302         288 
      abuse  possession       party   defendant     subject 
        263         255         206         194         181 
    removal      family       child enforcement   surrender 
        174         162         155         152         145 
    weapons  possessing   household      orders      member 
        145         143         142         141         131

textstat_frequency(laws_dfm2, n=20)

      feature frequency rank docfreq group
1       order      1007    1      50   all
2     firearm       596    2      50   all
3    firearms       564    3      50   all
4    domestic       503    4      50   all
5    violence       452    5      50   all
6  protection       433    6      36   all
7       court       403    7      50   all
8      person       364    8      45   all
9         may       346    9      50   all
10 respondent       326   10      31   all
11 protective       322   11      23   all
12      shall       311   12      35   all
13        law       309   13      50   all
14    persons       302   14      50   all
15 ammunition       288   15      39   all
16      abuse       263   16      28   all
17 possession       255   17      50   all
18      party       206   18      19   all
19  defendant       194   19      17   all
20    subject       181   20      48   all

It is important to note that domestic violence does appear in each of the 50 documents (states), BUT that does not mean the state has any domestic violence related firearm provisions. For example, the text for Missouri (below) says “Missouri does not prohibit purchase and possession of firearms or ammunition by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence”. First, I’ll want to determine which states do and don’t have relevant provisions before diving more into the specific provisions and language used.

kable(disarmdv[25]) %>%
  kable_styling()

x
Missouri Law Missouri Domestic Violence Firearm Purchase and Possession Prohibitions Missouri does not prohibit purchase and possession of firearms or ammunition by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Missouri does not prohibit purchase and possession of firearms or ammunition by persons subject to orders of protection. MISSOURI DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER OF PROTECTION FIREARM REMOVAL Civil Domestic Violence Orders of Protection that Require Removal Missouri does not require removal of firearms or ammunition from subjects of domestic violence orders of protection; however, a court issuing an ex parte or final domestic violence order of protection may “include such terms as the court reasonably deems necessary to ensure the petitioner’s safety” that includes a non-exhaustive list of relief.1 Individuals Who May Petition for a Domestic Violence Order of Protection Any person who has been subject to domestic violence by a present or former family or household member may petition for a domestic violence order of protection.2 “Domestic violence” is defined as “abuse or stalking committed by a family or household member.”3 “Abuse” is defined to include, but is not limited to, “the occurrence of any of the following acts, attempts or threats against a person who may be protected pursuant to” Missouri law: Assault; Battery; Coercion; Harassment; Sexual assault; Unlawful imprisonment.4 “Family or household member” includes: Spouses; Former spouses; Any person related by blood or marriage; Persons who are presently residing together or have resided together in the past; Any person who is or has been in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and Anyone who has a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have resided together at any time.5

Missouri Law Missouri Domestic Violence Firearm Purchase and Possession Prohibitions Missouri does not prohibit purchase and possession of firearms or ammunition by persons convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence. Missouri does not prohibit purchase and possession of firearms or ammunition by persons subject to orders of protection. MISSOURI DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER OF PROTECTION FIREARM REMOVAL Civil Domestic Violence Orders of Protection that Require Removal Missouri does not require removal of firearms or ammunition from subjects of domestic violence orders of protection; however, a court issuing an ex parte or final domestic violence order of protection may “include such terms as the court reasonably deems necessary to ensure the petitioner’s safety” that includes a non-exhaustive list of relief.1 Individuals Who May Petition for a Domestic Violence Order of Protection Any person who has been subject to domestic violence by a present or former family or household member may petition for a domestic violence order of protection.2 “Domestic violence” is defined as “abuse or stalking committed by a family or household member.”3 “Abuse” is defined to include, but is not limited to, “the occurrence of any of the following acts, attempts or threats against a person who may be protected pursuant to” Missouri law: Assault; Battery; Coercion; Harassment; Sexual assault; Unlawful imprisonment.4 “Family or household member” includes: Spouses; Former spouses; Any person related by blood or marriage; Persons who are presently residing together or have resided together in the past; Any person who is or has been in a continuing social relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim; and Anyone who has a child in common regardless of whether they have been married or have resided together at any time.5

Some provisions that research has indicated may be important to influencing the protectiveness of domestic-violence-related firearm measures have to do with the removal process of weapons. Key words may be “removal”, “removed”, “removing”. I’ll take the word stems and see how frequent “remov” occurs in each document (state).

laws_stems <- tokens(laws_corpus, 
      remove_punct= TRUE,
      remove_numbers = TRUE) %>%
  tokens_tolower() %>%
  tokens_select(pattern=stopwords("en"),
                selection="remove") %>%
  tokens_wordstem() %>%
  dfm() 
docnames(laws_stems) <- c('alabama', 'alaska', 'arizona', 'arkansas', 'california', 'colorado', 'connecticut', 'delaware', 'florida', 'georgia', 'hawaii', 'idaho', 'illinois', 'indiana', 'iowa', 'kansas', 'kentucky', 'louisiana', 'maine', 'maryland', 'massachusetts', 'michigan', 'minnesota', 'mississippi', 'missouri', 'montana', 'nebraska', 'nevada', 'new-hampshire', 'new-jersey', 'new-mexico', 'new-york', 'north-carolina', 'north-dakota', 'ohio', 'oklahoma', 'oregon', 'pennsylvania', 'rhode-island', 'south-carolina', 'south-dakota', 'tennessee', 'texas', 'utah', 'vermont', 'virginia', 'washington', 'west-virginia', 'wisconsin', 'wyoming')
laws_stems %>%
  dfm_select("remov") %>%
  convert(to = "data.frame")

           doc_id remov
1         alabama     3
2          alaska     4
3         arizona     4
4        arkansas     3
5      california     5
6        colorado     4
7     connecticut     4
8        delaware     5
9         florida     6
10        georgia     3
11         hawaii     4
12          idaho     3
13       illinois     3
14        indiana     4
15           iowa     4
16         kansas     3
17       kentucky     3
18      louisiana     3
19          maine     4
20       maryland     3
21  massachusetts     5
22       michigan     3
23      minnesota     5
24    mississippi     3
25       missouri     3
26        montana     3
27       nebraska     3
28         nevada     4
29  new-hampshire     7
30     new-jersey     7
31     new-mexico     4
32       new-york     3
33 north-carolina     4
34   north-dakota     4
35           ohio     3
36       oklahoma     3
37         oregon     3
38   pennsylvania     3
39   rhode-island     3
40 south-carolina     3
41   south-dakota     3
42      tennessee     3
43          texas     3
44           utah     3
45        vermont     3
46       virginia     2
47     washington     4
48  west-virginia     3
49      wisconsin     4
50        wyoming     3

What about which states use “shall” versus “may” in their wording…

laws_shall <- laws_dfm2 %>%
  dfm_select("shall") %>%
  convert(to = "data.frame")
laws_may <- laws_dfm2 %>%
  dfm_select("may") %>%
  convert(to = "data.frame")
data.frame(laws_shall, laws_may[2])

           doc_id shall may
1         alabama     0   2
2          alaska     0   6
3         arizona     3   5
4        arkansas     0   3
5      california    16  17
6        colorado     9   8
7     connecticut     7   8
8        delaware    11  11
9         florida     1   5
10        georgia     0   4
11         hawaii     3   5
12          idaho     1   4
13       illinois     8   6
14        indiana     0   6
15           iowa     5   2
16         kansas     0   3
17       kentucky     2   7
18      louisiana    26  11
19          maine     4   6
20       maryland     2   9
21  massachusetts    14   9
22       michigan     6  10
23      minnesota    17  12
24    mississippi     0   5
25       missouri     0   4
26        montana     3   5
27       nebraska     2   4
28         nevada     0   7
29  new-hampshire    13  13
30     new-jersey    11   8
31     new-mexico    12   7
32       new-york    13  13
33 north-carolina    11   7
34   north-dakota     0   4
35           ohio     2   5
36       oklahoma     9   8
37         oregon     2   2
38   pennsylvania    35  13
39   rhode-island     8   8
40 south-carolina     0   1
41   south-dakota     0   6
42      tennessee     3   6
43          texas     2   7
44           utah     0   8
45        vermont     6   7
46       virginia     0   8
47     washington     8  10
48  west-virginia    18   4
49      wisconsin    18  14
50        wyoming     0   3

Blog Post 5