Examining State Firearm Prohibitor Laws and Employment Exemptions That Regulate Intimate Partner Violence Perpetrators in the United States
A Brief Report
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12141122 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Lindsay K Cloud (0000-0001-5601-8179, Temple University, corresponding author), Alex Hunter Willhouse (Temple University), Jennifer Ibrahim (0000-0001-6739-6933, Temple University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-03-31 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Family Violence (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0885-7482 • E-ISSN: 1573-2851 |
| Publisher | Springer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE) |
| DOI | 10.1007/s10896-026-01066-5 |
| OpenAlex | W7144171392 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 14 |
Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects over 12 million people annually in the United States, and firearm access significantly heightens the risk of serious harm. While many states have enacted firearm prohibitor laws restricting access through domestic violence restraining orders (DVROs) and temporary restraining orders (TROs), some include employment-based exemptions that allow individuals to retain firearms due to their profession. This brief report analyzes state firearm prohibitor laws, focusing on employment exemptions, and presents legal data on the evolution of these laws nationwide. Researchers followed the policy surveillance process to create a longitudinal dataset measuring key features of firearm prohibitor laws from January 1, 2014, to January 1, 2020, across all 50 states and the District of Columbia. As of January 1, 2020, 42 states enacted firearm prohibitor laws restricting firearm access through DVROs, with 20 of those states also extending restrictions through TROs. Of these 42 states, 11 had officer-based employment exemptions. These 11 states varied widely in the scope of their exemptions and the level of legal protection afforded to survivors. This analysis provides a foundational dataset and identifies employment exemptions as a critical yet understudied feature of state firearm prohibitor laws. Balancing survivor autonomy, professional roles, and public safety underscores the complexity of regulating IPV. Policymakers, courts, and law enforcement should approach the enactment, implementation, and enforcement of exemptions cautiously, ensuring survivor safety remains central. Future research is needed to evaluate the impact of these laws and align legal frameworks with the best available evidence
Domestic violence · Enforcement · Law enforcement · Poison control · Scope (computer science · State (computer science · Suicide prevention · Gun Ownership and Violence Research · Intimate Partner and Family Violence · Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
| Highly cited | No |
|---|