P3 Podcast Domestic Violence, Guns, and United States v. Rahimi

9:44PM Jan 8, 2024

Speakers:

Marcel Harris

Robert Lee

Michael Rodriguez

Jennifer White

Keywords:

domestic violence

firearms

violence prevention

violence

guns

jennifer

michael

case

law

survivors

individuals

communities

access

protection

prohibitions

important

protect

systems

prevent

community

Welcome to People.Power.Perspectives, the podcast where we talk to the people that are working to overcome system inequities to achieve just outcomes.

Hi, welcome to this episode of People.Power.Perspectives, I'm Marcel Harris with CA4Health and today we'll hear from Michael Rodriguez and Jennifer White during such a critical time in violence prevention work. Jennifer White is the Program Director at Futures Without Violence. And Michael is the Executive Director for the California Alliance of Academics and Communities for Public Health Equity, also called the Alliance, we're looking forward to learning more about you, your work and sharing perspectives. To get us started, Michael, why don't you go ahead and tell us a little bit about yourself, and what brought you to work in the equity and justice space?

Sure, Marcel, and thank you for the invitation to be here. I am a childhood survivor of domestic violence, son of immigrants from Mexico and El Salvador, first in my family to graduate from high school. And now I'm a family physician professor at UCLA School of Medicine. As you stated, I'm direct the alliance. And from my experience, living a healthy life requires access to systems and structures that promote health like good schools, and liveable wages, gender equity, safe homes and communities. Unfortunately, everyone doesn't have access to these systems and structures. So I work to promote the needed transformations for an equitable and just world where everyone has an opportunity to live a healthy and full life.

Amazing. I learned something new about you already. Thank you, for sharing, Michael. And then Jennifer, the same question to you. Tell us a little bit about yourself, and what brought you to work in the equity and justice space.

Thank you, Marcel. Thank you for the invitation as well. As you said, my name is Jennifer White, I am a Director for Learning and Leadership at Futures Without Violence. And Futures has a number of projects that address violence prevention intervention, I've been a lawyer since 2002. And in particular, for Futures Without Violence, and our partners have done judicial education around domestic violence since 2005. So really excited to be here and talk with you about this topic, and about some recent cases that are happening that have implications for violence prevention around the country.

Awesome. Thank you for joining, and really glad to have your expertise in the space today. So let's go ahead and go into our first question. This one's for you, Michael. So one of the areas that the Alliance is focused on is violence prevention, and what do you want people to understand about violence prevention?

Great question. You know, when people and or communities don't have access to these environmental conditions that I've referred to earlier, the result is social inequities, including poverty and unemployment, that put us at risk for health problems, including violence. And so World Health Organization defines violence as the use of physical and or psychological force, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person or against a group or community that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, or deprivation. And so it's important to know that violence reduces the quality of life for all of society. And while many people see violence as a criminal issue, violence is also a public health issue that's preventable. Millions of people die of violence every year around the world. And it affects all people from infants to elderly, all stages of life leads to a lifetime of physical, emotional and economic problems. It can be self directed, as in suicidal type of behavior, or self abuse, it can be interpersonal in terms of intimate partner violence, child abuse, as well, elder abuse, it can also be community violence, where it's violence not only between individuals who are unrelated, outside the home, usually this can be youth violence, or rape or sexual assault, as well as institutional violence. And there's also collective violence in terms of large scale genocide, repression, terrorism, or structural violence that exists when certain groups classes or genders have privileged access to goods over others. And this is built into the social, political and economic systems. And so US right now in terms of domestic violence is closely linked to the widespread and growing use of guns by abusers. And so in fact, two thirds of women are killed by intimate partners with a gun and so this is why it's so this topic that we're talking about is so important as it is very interrelated with the Rahimi case and the interconnectedness between guns Domestic violence making it deadly for those involved as well as those around.

Thank you, Michael, for sharing those connections to public health and talking about some of those things that overlap. I really appreciate your work Jennifer's work as well, I think that there's a lot more that we can do in terms of educating people and folks on violence prevention work, what that looks like, connecting back to traditional public health efforts, talking about some of those solutions and things moving forward. And so from your perspective, Michael, how does violence prevention connect to some of those broader movements for social justice, racial equity, and democracy?

Well, the issues of equity are built into the issues I talked about in terms of having access to some of the basic necessities for living a full life, whether it be related to where we're born, where we grow up, where we go to school, where we work, where we play, and having access to safe places, supportive places or not. And so when you don't, then you have limited choices, you have increased poverty. And all of these are risks for violence, including domestic violence. And then when you look at the interrelated issue of guns, it actually increases the likelihood for lethality or death. Every month, an average of 70 women are shot and killed by an intimate partner, nearly 1 million women have reported being shot or shot at by intimate partners. So the ripple effects of guns in the hands of an abuser extend far beyond the intimate relationship. It affects children, family members, co workers, and the law enforcement officers who respond to it. The intersection of this is disproportionately impacts particular populations. These are Black, American, Indian, Latina women as examples. Research shows that federal and state policies and practices can disrupt abusers access to guns and save lives. This is where some of this interaction is in terms of equity group's violence, and potential of family as well as other significant impacts to individuals and communities.

I appreciate you sharing Michael. And for the audience and listeners, you know, we'll definitely have additional resources fact sheets, that document some of those facts that Michael shared, and additional information to continue the conversation around violence prevention, the importance in connecting this to other social justice issues that are happening now. And so definitely want to bring Jennifer into the conversation. She's gonna go ahead and cover a few things. To kick us off to ask you the first question, what challenges do the communities you work with face and then how does your work address those?

As I mentioned, I have been involved in judicial education on domestic violence since 2005. For a project that is national in scope and is celebrating its 25th anniversary this year. A fundamental part of the training is lethality of individuals who have a history of domestic violence when there is also access to a firearm. Research shows that firearms are involved in the majority of homicides committed by an intimate partner. We spent a significant time helping judges to identify the risks associated with access to firearms in domestic violence cases, and then practicing how to apply the Federal Firearms prohibitions to their decision making. So many of you may know that there's a very important case coming up called the Rahimi case, and the Rahimi case has major implications for judges and judicial officers and their decision making in domestic violence cases. So the Rahimi case focuses on the Federal Firearms prohibitions and and what it says specifically is that if an individual is subject to a restraining order or protection orders, sometimes called and it's a qualifying protection order, and they have had notice and opportunity to be heard. So the due process protections have taken place, that individual is not permitted to have access to a firearm, and that is the federal prohibition that is in question right now for the Supreme Court. And, you know, we have focused for decades on removal of firearms pursuant to these federal laws, this federal law and others like it, there's another law that's similar that deals with criminal cases. So if perpetrator of domestic violence has been found guilty of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, so criminal case, right, they are also prohibited from access to a firearm. So these two firearms prohibitions, the one that's at issue here in Rahimi, and then also the one that deals with misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, they're really important tools to protect survivors, men, children and the community at large because we know that for instance, in two thirds of mass shootings, the perpetrator either killed a family member or an intimate partner or had a history of domestic violence. So sometimes people think domestic violence happens, and it's within a family. It's within the four walls of a home. But what we actually know is that domestic violence, it harms communities, it's pervasive. And a perfect example of that is the statistics I just shared regarding mass shooting. So we do work with judges to be able to recognize when lethality is high in a domestic violence case, and to remove firearms or to order that firearms be removed pursuant to this federal law. So it's a really important tool. In Rahimi, coming up in November, the Supreme Court will determine if that firearm prohibition is unconstitutional. And if they do find that the particular laws unconstitutional, I fear that's not the end that there will be other challenges to other firearms protections, such as the other one I mentioned, that protect survivors when there is a misdemeanor crime and other firearms prohibitions that have existed for decades. So you know, the domestic violence field, including a coalition of national organizations that address violence prevention, and many others have come together, and many have submitted what we call friend of the court briefs or amicus briefs, to really urge the Supreme Court to uphold the prohibition on gun violence in cases of domestic violence where there is a protection order, we feel that there's long standing support with respect to legal precedent, but also with respect to science and public health that support the existence of this law to protect survivors and the community at large.

I really appreciate you sharing, Jennifer and, Michael, I wanted to pose the same question to you. So if you have anything to add to either what Jennifer has shared, or from your work with communities on this particular topic of violence prevention.

Thank you, Marcel and agree with what Jennifer just said and want to underscore that she points out how domestic violence is where we want to continue to have to protect the public safety is a public health approach. Now, when we talk about a public health approach, we're talking about trying to prevent it from happening. And so when we do that, usually we look at the problem, we see how big of a problem it is, we then look at those factors might increase or decrease this problem. And then we test for ways to address the problem and and then try to help promote dissemination of this successful ways to reduce the problem. And so in this case, for violence prevention, we're pointing out that in the presence of domestic violence, when you have a gun, it increases the likelihood of death, and not just death to the two people involved in the relationship. It also increases likelihood of death, the people around them, sometimes their children, sometimes there are other people in the same household in the place whereever one of them works. And so it is so important to understand this and that in this case, the intervention that we're talking about to help increase safety is sensible gun laws, reducing easy access to dangerous weapons, these guns especially we do see them when there are people who are at risk of harming themselves or others. That's the laws that Jennifer was underscoring are these guardrails that we have to try to protect people. And sometimes they're referred to as red flag laws are a type of them that allow people to petition the court that Jennifer was talking about for temporary confiscation of firearms if a person is deemed to be a risk to themselves or others. Domestic violence is a huge red flag and everyone is safer when abusers don't have access to guns.

I completely agree. Thank you for sharing, Michael. I think this is a really interesting dynamic here. We have some that believe we're trying to take all guns away and probably the goal of some, but it's definitely not the ultimate goal and what we're aiming to do more rather, just like you said those the danger of hurting yourself or others, how can we intervene before additional and further harm is inflicted? Regarding the Rahimi case, what are some of the other major implications on domestic violence? And that's to you, Jennifer, and then to Michael.

Sure, thank you, Marcel. The elimination of this protection will undoubtedly endanger domestic violence victims and children and will disrupt decades of prevention work. And education that has ensued since the enactment of the law. The law has shown to be an effective approach to prevent homicides. But the law alone is not sufficient to protect survivors as it is. So while we know this is, as I mentioned, it's an important tool. It's one of our fundamental tools, right? Despite its existence, enforcement is a major impediment to effectiveness. So while judges may restrain a respondent from possessing firearms and a protection order, currently, the surrender itself is not self implementing. So in other words, a judge can order in a protection order x person is not permitted to have a firearm, the firearm does not automatically disappear, right. There are other systems that have to be put into place, other coordination that has to happen so that the individual surrenders the firearms so that the firearms are then placed somewhere, there needs to be systems in place to petition for firearms to be returned, if that's applicable. If, for instance, a protection order ends and it's safe for a survivor, that person can then have the firearm returned to them, right. So there are lots of systems that need to be put into place and coordinated. In order for these laws to work effectively. States have to have implementing legislation as well, to make it most effective, law enforcement officers must be trained. And really importantly, survivors need to know that these laws exists. So we're sitting here we're talking about this law, we're talking about Rahimi, but many people don't know that this is a tool to help survivors achieve safety. So we need advocates that can tell survivors that this is a law that this is something that they should know about that if they know that the person who has been abusive to them or has threatened to harm them has access to a firearm, that they can report it that they should safety plan they should think about, especially if a person is going to be ordered to turn over a firearm, a survivor should think about what steps they can take to keep themselves safe, especially in the immediate aftermath of a person surrendering their firearm, for instance, or being told they have to surrender their firearm. These are times that are especially dangerous for survivors. And so we want to think about all of those things. But the reason I bring all that up is because while this particular law, of course, is not a panacea, it doesn't mean that the presence of this law has eradicated firearm deaths. And it doesn't mean that it's the law is eliminated, that it's the only recourse. That's not the case. But what this law has done is that it created awareness, and it manifested all of these different systems, doing more education, educating law enforcement, educating judges, like I do, right advocates, educating survivors. So the law itself, not only did it actually remove firearms from the hands of people who shouldn't have them, it also created a prevention strategy, it created education, outreach, all of these things. So that's why policies are so important. It's not just the law itself. That's important. It's everything that surrounds it, all of the outreach all of the education. And this is how we make communities safer. So I think one of the biggest challenges if we find that this law is overturned in the Supreme Court is this piece around awareness, education, outreach, and how it has helped mobilize all of these different systems to get firearms out of the hands of people who are dangerous and should not have access to them.

Thank you for sharing. I'm one of those individuals that believes highly in policy, but if it's not enforced, not implemented, then it doesn't do any good. So you know, I really appreciate you bringing up those other elements to really enforce the law and hold folks accountable on you know, what we said and how we do it. Michael I don't know if there's anything that you wanted to add? Before we move on to the next question?

I just wanted to again, underscore that what's at stake is these mass shootings. Again, to underscore what Jennifer said, more than two thirds of mass shootings in more than two thirds, the perpetrator either killed a family member or an intimate partner, or had a history of domestic violence. Guns are the most common weapons used in domestic violence homicide, with female partners more likely to be murdered with a gun than all other means combined. An average of 70 women in America are shot and killed by an intimate partner every month. So the implications are life and death. We need to be able to have sensible gun laws that helps to keep people protected and prevent the injuries and deaths from happening. This is what we want. And this will help protect people and typically individuals who are in domestic violence relationships. And so this is what we're looking for. And it also is important to underscore that it's not only that it's the whole wraparound services that we're talking about is the other aspects that are also important. Indeed, there are other types of work that needs to be done that are interrelated to reduce domestic violence, as well as gun violence.

Awesome. And I feel like this next section could really add on to what you're saying in terms of that broader vision. And if decision makers invested more into health equity and racial justice, what would that look like? What types of violence prevention projects would we see? And I'm gonna go ahead and pass this over to Jennifer first, and then we'll go to Michael,

A couple of things I really want to highlight and think about in the context of this case, in the context of gun violence and violence prevention, generally, we talk in the domestic violence field a great deal about the co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence, which we know is estimated somewhere between 30 and 60% overlap of domestic violence and child abuse. We also know that since 2020, firearms are the leading cause of death among US children. We hear every day about children who are shot in their schools, children who were shot in the streets slaughtered, the availability of guns and access to firearms. In cases where we know there is domestic violence, where a person who has had the opportunity to be heard has had due process avail to them, and they have been found, there has been a finding that this person is a credible threat to an individual that has now made it so many times more likely that a child is going to be harmed, that a child could actually die at the hands of a person who has access to firearms in these cases. So it's just something that we really need to think about. Again, sometimes we talk about domestic violence, and people automatically think something between two partners. But really, the impacts are broader. And they go beyond two people, they impact children, they impact the community at large. And the other thing I really want folks to remember, and I mentioned this a little bit earlier at stake here, and this Supreme Court case is one particular law 18 USC 922 G8, it involves protection orders. But that will not be the end of it. There are many other common sense gun laws that we have currently, that our tools, again, to keep individuals safe to keep communities safe. And the elimination of this particular protection will only cascade to other protections. It's not going to end there. So we know that in the United States, the majority of people support some kind of common sense gun legislation, right, we have some of those already, we may need more, we do need more. But we have in existence, some laws that are sensible, and that protect people from individuals who should not have access to firearms. And with the elimination possibly of this protection, I feel like it will only spark more and more attacks and other sensible gun protections that we have, and also prevents legislation of future legislation that is meant to protect communities and individuals.

Before we go to Michael, I wanted to acknowledge and appreciate you Jennifer. I know that we have some of that going on already. So here in California, we did pass Senate Bill 2 to uphold some of those gun provisions. And that's already being challenged. And a lawsuit has been filed by the other side to essentially just have more guns rather than less. I think it's really interesting. And it'll continue on. And this sort of back and forth and figuring out that middle ground. Michael, I'm curious from your work and whether that's in the past or things we're looking forward to hopefully collaborating on what are some of those types of violence prevention projects that we would see if we had decision makers investing more into health equity and racial justice.

Indeed, the many different ways that we can continue to protect people and promote the health and livelihood of folks, particularly around domestic violence include having a broader perspective on the different factors that contribute to domestic violence, and that people have frequently talked about domestic violence as a cycle. And so because they see in the generations having a multi generational approach to ending domestic violence is so important that would mean in preventing childhood exposure at not only seen it but also being harmed in the process, ending harm. In full gender norms and seeing domestic violence is a societal issue that we can work together to prevent that we can talk about we can, we can support the healing that is needed as well. Indeed, working with those survivors in communities and families towards the community working for planning, and implementation of comprehensive community safety plans, as Jennifer was talking about, we sort of frequently consult the individuals to have a safety plan. Well, communities also can have safety plans, safety plans to promote prevention and intervention of violence, we know that poverty and contributes, so we need to reduce it and related and invest in employment opportunities, invest in the communities to promote their resilience and mental health as well. So they have access to mental health services and partnering with them and other organizations that help to promote that these are all sort of various multi faceted efforts that we can do to move forward and actually help create healthier communities that will not only help to reduce things like domestic violence and gun violence, but also a number of other health problems as well. And as such, promote to the health and well being of communities and to everyone.

Completely agree with you that there needs to be more funds allocated to comprehensive approaches as it relates to social determinants of health and some of those factors that really feed into increased violence. And some of that is not addressed enough in short term funding, not enough funding or less siloed work even within public health. You know, I think that's where some of our work fills in some of those gaps and bringing more people together and collaborating to tackle these tough issues. And before we end, I want to get into some of this action and future. From your standpoint, Michael and Jennifer, what do you see as the most critical points action in the year ahead to advance violence prevention work? And then we'll go ahead and with Michael first, and then I'll go to you, Jennifer.

One of the important things is for the Supreme Court to keep this important protection for domestic survivors in place and clarify that the Constitution allows for keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, as well as other people who may also be more dangerous with a gun. And so that's critical, short term issues that we need to continue to do. We also need to continue to help to support those community led initiatives that I said, because these community led initiatives working together to help prevent domestic violence from being passed on to next generations. They also help to expand the community power that exists and change our systems to ensure that everyone has access to the basic needs for health and well being while prioritizing the lives of people over the rights to have a gun.

Yeah, I agree completely with Michael, I really hope that the Supreme Court will make the right decision in this case and will strike down the Fifth Circuit's decision in the United States v Rahimi to uphold the prohibition against people who are subject to a restraining order of having access to firearms. In addition to that, I think we need to continue to work really hard at implementing the laws that we have, including that law to make sure that once individuals are subject to restraining orders that their firearms are removed, that they surrendered their firearms, that they're stored, that survivors are given access to safety planning and support. And I think that we need to continue to be vigilant about the other laws that currently are in place to protect survivors, and to make sure that we work harder at implementing those laws as well. And I think we need to continue to work hard to pass sensible gun legislation that protects domestic violence survivors and the community at large. I think lastly, Michael addresses as well, thinking about the root causes, right, we need to continue to think about not just violence and how it occurs between two people or multiple people. But what the root causes are that allow this type of violence to occur and persist. Things like poverty, racism, misogyny, ageism, in the case of elder abuse, all of the things that we know that we need to address if we're really going to eradicate and prevent violence. So I think it's multiple levels. I think there's a lot of work to be done and that we need to keep on doing that work and to really include the voice of individuals who are most likely to be harmed in our conversations, always upfront so that they're leading the way in that way. We're learning from them, and that we are moving forward in a way that respects what our communities want and need.

Well said, I really appreciate you bringing in that lived experience and ensuring those that are experiencing these issues up front are included in the solutions and work moving forward. Was there anything else that either one of you wanted to add before we go ahead and close up?

I want to emphasize and underscore what Jennifer just said, so that we can appreciate what's at stake. And we need to commit to preventing violence so that everyone can be safe and healthy. And an important way to do that is go beyond criminal justice beyond dealing with something after the fact and us focusing on prevention using a public health approach in this national conversation. And recognizing that gun and domestic violence, as well as other forms of violence are critical in preventable public health problems that together as communities we can prevent from happening in the future so that we can all have full and happy lives.

Awesome. Well, I want to thank you, Michael and Jennifer, for taking your time and sharing your perspectives. I learned a lot and I'm hoping that the audience also learned some new bits of information and we'll also provide facts and additional materials on the website. Thank you for listening to another episode of CA4Health's, People.Power.Perspectives.