There hasn't been much fanfare. But, since last September 30, it's been against the law in the US for anyone with a domestic violence misdemeanor conviction to have a gun or ammunition. And if you know about it, it's illegal for you to sell or give them either one. Right now the ban applies to all such convictions no matter how old. And it applies to some 900,000 police and 1.2 million military.
As a practical matter, a police officer in the US deprived of a firearm is a police officer unable to work. As a symbolic matter, the prospect of losing one's gun is highly charged, and often cited as a major reason officers may not willingly seek assistance for the high incidence of stress-related difficulties police face. Weapons are used in 30% of all domestic violence incidents and, according to the FBI, policing has the highest proportion of batterers of all US occupations. In 1995, 40% of police asked told the FBI they'd used physical force with a partner in the past year.
As we go to press, Congressional hearings on the ban begin either March 5 or 6 in the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on crime. When the 105th Congress reconvened on January 7, the first proposals to amend the ban were ready. Spearheaded by police lobbies, these would either overturn its retroactivity (thus preserving some police careers) or exempt police and military altogether. On January 21 the national Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) also filed a federal lawsuit in Wshington challenging the ban's constitutionality. Some local police unions have filed injunctions to halt its enforcement pending judicial review.
Overall, current and former male partners commit over a million violent crimes against women yearly, including assault, rape and murder. Some statistics especially suggest a complex and problematic relationship of police to battering. Domestic violence is one of the largest categories of calls to police. In some places, police spend a third of their time on these incidents. But police are more likely to make formal reports when the victim doesn't know the offender. Nationally, police response time to stranger assaults is under five minutes, but averages an hour for domestic disputes. Research suggests that injuries in all domestic assaults are at least as severe as those suffered in 90% of violent felonies. Yet the great majority of domestic violence injuries are rated misdemeanors in most states. As in other crimes that are vastly under-reported -- rape and police misconduct are among the most -- domestic violence victims may be stigmatized and fear retaliation for "telling." Only about 10% of abused spouses ever call police.
These figures focus on violence to women partners and don't really scratch the surface of other domestic abuse, say, that between parents and children. And they don't address violence against women who are not partners, such as sexual harassment of colleagues on the job.
Lautenberg's bill then arrived in the House during the feverish last days of the 104th Congress showdown. There, Rep. Bob Barr, Jr. (R-Ga.) picked up the gun ban and deleted the section exempting police and military. Mark Clark of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas (CLEAT) has called this a "critical mistake" made in Barr's "rush to gut Senator Lautenberg's domestic violence language." But attaching the revised gun ban to the massive federal budget bill (Section 658) assured its passage.
The ATF also declared the ban effective "immediately," and said affected government employees "should relinquish" their weapons at once.
By mid-December the FOP had met with Attorney General Janet Reno. Their endorsement of Bill Clinton was the first time the 277,000-member FOP had supported a Democrat for president. They and others were especially angry that his administration asserted the gun ban applied retroactively. They argued this threatened police careers with convictions that could be decades old and therefore meaningless in terms of real danger. National FOP president Gil Gallegos wrote in the "Wall Street Journal" (1/9/97), "Now, police offices may be penalized to a far greater degree than the general populace."
But the 1994 Crime Bill imposed a similar prohibition against gun possession on individulas under orders of protection. Police departments can still exempt their officers in this case under an "official use exemption" to federal gun laws (Sec. 19, Title 18 USC). Thus, the very persons who are actively angry -- dangerous right now -- might still be re-armed. Three weeks after ATF's open letter, an attorney for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas posted an advisory warning, "...do not allow any of our CLEAT members to be needlessly stripped of their service weapons" when this option can be used.
Rep. Bob Barr introduced HR 26 to amend the gun ban when Congress reconvened. FOP officials joined his press conference, announcing the ban sould apply from the date of enactment onward. Side-stepping his own deletion of the original police exemption, Barr declared he never intended the bill to be retroactive. In January's Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) newsletter, he blamed the Clinton administration for "railroading" the rider through Congress.
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), himself a former state trooper, offered an alternative amendment, HR 445, to fully restore the exemption and apply regardless of date.
FOP legislative assistant Timothy Richardson noted Stupak's bill in a January 22 memo to members, but said the FOP would support Barr's bill. "Otherwise we may be characterized as arguing for a 'special' or 'elite' class of domestic abusers."
Not all police groups have agreed with the FOP. The "Minnesota Police Journal" (2/1/97) speculated that Barr, recipient of thousands of National Rifle Association campaign dollars, scuttled the gun ban exemption in retaliation for national police groups' differences with the NRA over repeal of the Brady Gun Control Law and the Waco-Ruby Ridge hearings. MPJ concluded, "We really need our exemption restored."
Indeed, by mid-February, a dozen new bills in Congress would exempt police from various consequences other citizens face. But as we go to press, of confirmed witnesses for the March hearings who support amending the ban, only the NAPO representaive will speak for Stupak's exemption bill.
But in many communites there seems to be no rush to comply. This is partly a matter of "wait and see" as various challenges grind into motion. Partly it's a matter of massive work. Although these misdemeanors are "fingerprintable" offenses in New York State, there's many a possible slip in actual practice between offense, charges, convictions, notification and dismissal.
Locally, Sheriff Kevin Walsh told me, "We've had to do some checking for deputies who are particiapting on federal task forces and needed to be certified. For 575 deputies it's much more complex. We'd respond to anything brought to our attention. It's not as easy as a criminal history check. I have very mixed feelings about this."
Jeff Piedmonte, president of the Syracuse Police Benevolent Association, says police should be exempt because "it's our profession. I haven't been asked [if I have such a conviction], and I don't know of any [officer] who has. That doesn't mean they aren't checking on us."
Inspector Richard Boynton, until January the long-time head of SPD's Internal Affairs, says he ran that check. "I couldn't come up with one domestic violence misdemeanor conviction for an active Syracuse police officer. Personnel couldn't cite a case either."
SPD Deputy Chief Steven Thompson confirms that check and added, "I don't think an exemption is right, but it might go that way."
Sgt. Josephine Townsend of the NYS Police, part of the local Domestic Violence Coalition, observed that the ban's "scope is what people are concerned about, whether there's an appeals process, whether someone could be affected in a way the law never intended."
State Police Public Records Officer in Albany, Timothy Howard, would not say how many state troopers might be affected. "We are sincerely looking to comply with the law, but it's a matter of balancing confidentiality. WE need to establish what we will say publicly about how we are doing this. I can say that ordinarily we would be made aware of any arrests of any officer. It does become problematic in larger communities, when officers go on vacation, when they have worked in other states."
Glann Valle, NYSP's Chief Counsel, called shortly after I talked to Howard. "We are requiring all of our 4,000 members to respond and inform us of ANY misdemeanor convictions. We expect to complete this in the next couple weeks. I would say it's extremely unlikely any of our members will be affected."
Such not-in-our-ranks assurances were sometimes joined by a favorite illustration of one argument against the gun ban: the 16 year-old arrested for fighting with an abusive parent, who decided to be a cop at 32 after the Army, and now could lose retirement at 50. But if police are not being convicted of these crimes, the question becomes, are they being charged to begin with? The Arlington Law Enforcemnt Institute reports that over 80% of police say they wouldn't favor firing a fellow officer for domestic assault, even after a second sustained complaint.
Since February 2, the FOP Grand Lodge has been preparing for that hearing in the House by particularly soliciting information on officers affected in 12 states, including New York, whose rep. Charles Shumer is the subcommittee's ranking Democrat.
Nancy writes often on police accountability and human rights issues. Past editor of "Policing by Consent," she is on PNL's editorial committee.
Vera House's Randi Bregman confirmed the PBA did contribute to Vera House's White Ribbon Campaign last year. But Vera House does not solicit funds by phone, would prefer direct contributions and will be communicating with Syracuse PBA about their fund drive. Contributions or further questions to Toni Bennett, c/o Vera House, P.O. Box 365, Syracuse 13209, 425-0818.