In Md., a Quest to Toughen Domestic Violence Laws

O'Malley Seeks to Ease Removal of Guns From People Under Protective Orders

Even when they are ordered to stay away from the partner they assaulted or threatened, many domestic abuse suspects in Maryland and Virginia get to keep their guns.

Advocates for victims in Maryland have fought for a decade to tighten the law, ever since Francseea Batts of Baltimore was killed by the father of her child two days after she unsuccessfully asked a judge to take away his gun. But they have been rebuffed by a House of Delegates committee dominated by gun-rights supporters and defense attorneys who fiercely guard the rights of the accused.

Today, Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony G. Brown (D) will urge the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee to support what would be the biggest change to the state's domestic violence laws in a decade. Two bills introduced by Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) would give judges more authority to remove firearms when a victim seeks temporary and final protective orders. Similar legislation sailed through the Senate last year but was killed in the House Judiciary Committee by lopsided votes.

Any changes would come too late for Gail Pumphrey and her three children, David, Megan and Brandon, who were fatally shot Thanksgiving Day 2007 by her ex-husband during a custody handoff in a Damascus park. Or Destiny and Richard Spicknall, ages 3 and 2, who were shot to death by their father after he bought a handgun in Howard County. Or Mary Crawford, whose ex-husband fired a shotgun at her in their Carroll County home, narrowly missing her. Each woman had obtained a protective order, but the men either were allowed to keep their guns or to purchase another one. Pumphrey's former husband killed himself; Richard Spicknall and Steve Crawford were convicted.

"My niece and nephews couldn't outrun a bullet," said Janet Blackburn, Pumphrey's sister, who will testify at today's bill hearing. "He was able to get all four of them because he had a gun." Pumphrey took a photograph of David Brockdorff's rifle, which he bought for target practice, and kept it in her files, her sister recalled, because she was so afraid that he would use it against her.

Judges in Maryland and Virginia are allowed to order firearms removed after a court hearing in which a final protective order is issued, but the law does not require it. In Maryland, that authority is limited to handguns; judges can't take rifles. Nor can Maryland judges confiscate guns when a judge issues a temporary protective order limiting a suspect's contact with a victim for a week, a time when passions in domestic conflicts can be red hot and violence is possible.

The law is stricter in the District and in Virginia, a state that holds dear the rights of gun owners. Anyone subject to a protective order in Virginia can't buy or carry a gun, and courts have the discretion to take guns when they issue a temporary order.

O'Malley wants to require anyone under a final protective order, which is limited to a year, to surrender all firearms, including rifles. He also wants to allow, but not require, a judge to remove guns when a victim seeks temporary protection.

First lady Katie O'Malley has stepped into the debate, drawing on the accounts of gun violence she hears every day in Baltimore, where she is a District Court judge.

"Why would you give matches to an arsonist?" she said in an interview. "We should not be protecting the abuser." While she said she routinely orders suspects to get rid of their guns, other judges might not.

Domestic violence claimed the lives of 52 women and children in Maryland in 2006-07, 21 of them by guns, according to the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence. As of Jan. 29, there were 7,230 final and temporary protective orders open in Maryland. Of the people under such orders, 132 had firearms registered with the state police.

It is uncertain how the House committee will lean, despite the governor's advocacy.