People who are convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic abuse or subject to a qualifying protective order aren’t allowed to have firearms according to federal law, but actually separating them from their guns is another matter. Often, abusers can deny having or refuse to surrender their firearms, and in states that have not passed their own versions of the federal ban — which, among other limitations, does not itself mandate how or when subjects should relinquish guns they already have in their possession — the process can be even more precarious.
Ohio is one of the states that hang in the balance. Judges in Ohio have the discretion to require the surrender of firearms because of a civil protection order — a temporary order to remove guns from a potentially dangerous person — but there is no legal statute requiring the relinquishment of firearms following an order.
In Ohio, more than 188,000 people are victims of intimate partner violence annually, and the state loses $1.2 billion every year because of the pervasive violence, according to a 2025 report by the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. But Ohio is not unique; access to firearms is a key factor in the lethality of intimate partner violence. Research studies estimate that, in instances where a domestic abuser has access to a gun, a victim is five times more likely to die, and the rate of intimate partner firearm homicides in the United States is substantially higher than in other similar-income countries.
The Advisory Committee on Domestic Violence through the Supreme Court of Ohio noticed that because of the disconnect in federal and state law, there was a gap in potential abusers surrendering their firearms. The committee came up with an unusual solution: paperwork.
Members argued that the lack of legal follow-up after the issuance of protection orders could be remedied by the state’s 10-F Form, implemented in 2021. When law enforcement goes to serve a protection order, they use the form to ask a subject if they have access to firearms, securing them if so, keeping them in storage, or noting whether they deny having access to weapons at all. Then the form gets placed in a court’s docket, leaving a paper trail if there’s a violation later.
“This really is a tool that can be used as a way to clarify, does someone have weapons, and if this person is lying, it could be the basis of another charge or a violation of that protection order,” said Alexandria Ruden, a member of the advisory committee and a supervising attorney with Legal Aid Society of Cleveland.
Ruden, who has worked in domestic violence law for four decades, emphasized that shootings are among the most common ways victims are killed. She and her colleagues have participated in training sessions on the 10-F Form across Ohio. But she explained that there are roadblocks to successful implementation, like having a place to store weapons after they have been seized. Though Ruden emphasized the practicality of the form, she said the need for a state statute is crucial to truly protect victims.
“If we were able to codify federal law regarding qualifying protection orders, and the qualifying misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, then the implementation of this form would be much easier to work with,” Ruden said.
The difference in state approaches can have significant consequences for victims.
“The place you live, not only the state but the county that you live in, can dictate what protections under the law that you have, and how safe you will be,” said Dr. April Zeoli, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health who has researched the relationship between firearm access and intimate partner violence.
“We see these differences when it comes to domestic violence protection order firearm restrictions,” Zeoli told me. “States that have these restrictions see decreases in domestic violence partner homicide compared to states that don’t, and that is very frustrating.”
Different states are implementing strategies to address intimate partner gun violence. In 2017, Washington became the first state to alert domestic violence survivors when an abuser tries to buy a gun. Other recent efforts have focused on securing financial support for those at risk, like Colorado’s voter-approved gun tax to fund services for domestic violence victims. Earlier this year, Illinois passed a law clarifying the surrender process, requiring law enforcement to quickly seize firearms from people with protection orders against them.
In Louisiana, even as federal laws have weakened, local leaders are still committed to keeping firearms out of the hands of abusers. Lafourche Parish Sheriff’s Lieutenant Valerie Martinez-Jordan spearheaded an innovative firearm divestiture program that has since spread across the deep-red state. (Read my colleague Alma Beauvais’s story for more.)
These varied approaches are innovative, but as in Ohio, they are not being implemented without challenges. Some of the Trump administration’s recent budget cuts have targeted domestic violence services. The actions on the federal level will have residual effects for organizations throughout the country.
Still, the state actions show momentum for addressing the relationship between firearm violence and domestic violence. The 10-F form is just one example of recent efforts that are focused on less punitive approaches.
Ruden, who has worked in intimate partner violence law since the Domestic Violence Act was enacted in 1979, told me that she looks forward to the day that she’s “out of a job,” but that there’s a lot of work left to do. Often, she said, creating policies to counter intimate partner violence is a process that takes two steps back after taking a step forward. Still, these innovations represent hope.
“I am hopeful even now that what we are able to do with this particular piece is to focus on getting law enforcement to ask” about guns when a protection order is served, Ruden said. “‘Do you have weapons?’ or ‘Let me take your weapons.’”
