O n June 16, 2015, in broad daylight and in view of several witnesses, Phillip Seidle, an off-duty police officer, shot and killed his ex-wife, Tamara Wilson-Seidle, as their seven-year old daughter watched.
Angered over the fact Tamara was living with another man, Phillip pursued his ex-wife in a high-speed car chase through a densely-populated part of Asbury Park, New Jersey, which ended when Phillip slammed his car into the back of Tamara’s. With his youngest daughter sitting beside him in the passenger seat, Phillip jumped out of his car and fired a round of shots from his .40-caliber service pistol into the driver’s side of his ex-wife’s Jetta.
After a standoff with police — during which Philip fired a second volley of shots through Tamara’s front window — Philip finally surrendered. Tamara was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital 25 minutes after the first shots were fired.
Afterwards, Philip sent his children a text message.
“Your mother is dead because of her actions.”
T
Tamara’s story of a relationship marred by abuse, and a life ended at the hands of a violent partner, is tragically common. In New Jersey, 216 women were killed in a domestic violence homicide between 2003 and 2012. Of those, nearly a third were killed with a firearm.
The same grim statistics are projected nationwide: Between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 American women were killed by an intimate partner — more than the combined number of U.S. troops killed in action during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Each year, 40 to 45 percent of gun homicides involving women — some 700 to 800 deaths — occur at the hands of an intimate partner. The mere presence of a gun in an abusive household, regardless of who owns the gun, makes it five times more likely that a victim of domestic violence will be killed.
In recent years, both domestic violence advocates and gun safety advocates have pushed for laws that keep guns out of the hands of people who have either been convicted of a domestic violence-related offense or are subject to a court-issued restraining order — and in states like Louisiana, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Vermont, Oregon, and Minnesota, they’ve been successful.
“Between 2001 and 2012, 6,410 American women were killed by an intimate partner — more than the combined number of U.S. troops killed in action during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.”
For the last year, a similar effort has been underway in New Jersey, backed by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. But they’ve been blocked at every turn by Gov. Chris Christie (R), who, in his attempt to rebrand himself as a gun-friendly politician for his presidential campaign, has instead pushed for stronger sentences for individuals convicted of domestic violence and an expedited review process for victims applying for guns — policies that domestic violence advocates worry could actually make victims less safe.
NBut even seemingly strong laws can house loopholes that help domestic abusers keep their guns long after they should have surrendered them to law enforcement. In New Jersey, for instance, existing law simply authorizes judges to issue an order telling people convicted of domestic violence crimes, or subject to restraining orders, to hand over their guns and to order law enforcement to search for weapons if the court has reasonable cause to believe the defendant has firearms in their possession.
In practice, domestic violence and gun safety advocates say this leaves courts and state law enforcement in a bit of a grey area, with no clear procedure to follow when attempting to remove guns from the hands of perpetrators of domestic violence.
“It appears that a lot of law enforcement agencies did have some sort of process or requirement, but it wasn’t codified,” said Robin Lloyd, state legislative director for Americans for Responsible Solutions, a gun safety group founded by former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, which worked with New Jersey legislators to help craft the bill. “Specifically in New Jersey, it appears that a lot of law enforcement agencies have some procedure to process [gun relinquishment], but it’s not required, and when it’s not required, you don’t really know if it happens or not.”
The bill, introduced by Assemblywoman Gabriela Mosquera (D) and Senator Loretta Weinberg (D), outlined steps for law enforcement and the court to take when dealing with individuals who have been convicted of domestic violence crimes or are subject to a restraining order. It required such individuals to immediately surrender any guns in their possession, along with any gun purchasing permits or identification cards, to law enforcement, setting up a new receipt system to verify surrender. It also required law enforcement to conduct a thorough background check of anyone subject to a restraining order, to find out whether that person owns a gun.
According to Mosquera, the bill enjoyed wide bipartisan support when it came up for a vote in the assembly, with 48 legislators voting for it and only 11 voting against. In the senate, Weinberg’s bill also easily passed, with 29 senators voting for the bill and only one voting against.
Then, after sitting stagnant on the governor’s desk for nearly five months, Christie conditionally vetoed the bill, arguing that it largely restated existing New Jersey laws without offering “new and sensible improvements.” He sent it back to the legislature, proposing lawmakers add provisions that would enhance penalties for people convicted of domestic violence and prioritize the applications of domestic violence victims seeking firearms for protection.
And so legislators tried again, led for a second time by Mosquera and Weinberg. Again, each bill passed its respective legislature with bipartisan support. And again, Christie conditionally vetoed the bill, this time sending it back with 30 suggestions for deletions and additions, including prioritized review for applications of domestic violence victims looking to purchase a firearm. In his push for prioritized application review, Christie cited the murder of Carol Browne, a New Jersey woman who was stabbed to death by her boyfriend while her application to purchase a firearm stalled in the state’s review process. New Jersey gun groups called Browne’s death an “outrage,” and used it as a rallying point to push for easier access to firearms for victims of domestic abuse. Domestic abuse advocates, however, warn that arming victims is not a proven way to ensure their safety, and instead may actually make victims less safe.
“The mere presence of a gun in an abusive household, regardless of who owns the gun, makes it five times more likely that a victim of domestic violence will be killed.”
“I once again urge the Legislature to join with me in a bipartisan manner to broaden this bill’s approach to reducing domestic violence while simultaneously empowering victims to protect themselves through lawful means,” Christie wrote in the second conditional veto.
ABut domestic violence advocates, as well as lawmakers who supported the legislation, disagree, arguing there is a big difference between prohibiting someone from having a firearm and outlining clear requirements for law enforcement, courts, and domestic violence defendants to follow when dealing with the surrender of guns.
“While [New Jersey] law prohibits people with domestic violence restraining orders or convictions from having access to firearms or being able to legally purchase, it didn’t have a strong guidelines in place for law enforcement for how they would go about seizing those weapons, ensuring that perpetrators did not go and gain access to firearms, or that [perpetrators] were turning in their firearms,” Nicole Morella, director of public policy and communications at the New Jersey Coalition to End Domestic Violence, said. “This new legislation was hopefully going to make the process more consistent, more efficient and more immediate.”
Senator Weinberg, who sponsored the bill in the senate, agrees.
“It was always in our law that a domestic violence abuser owning a gun would lose a gun, it’s just that the process was not set up appropriately,” she said. “This was just about making sure that law enforcement would find out if such firearms exist and would make sure that those firearms were removed.”
In an email, Brian Murray, Christie’s press secretary, called any assessment that says New Jersey does not require law enforcement to remove guns from domestic abusers “incorrect.”
In his conditional vetoes, not only did Christie strike broad sections of the bill that he deemed repetitive of existing laws, he also removed almost all language that would have codified law enforcement’s ability — and duty — to find and remove guns from situations of domestic violence.
“Current law already provides for the seizure of firearms in domestic violence cases, even before a restraining order has been finalized,” Christie wrote in the second conditional veto. “Current law also requires law enforcement officers to seize an individual’s weapons when there is probable cause to believe that the individual has committed an act of domestic violence.”
New Jersey law, however, is less clear-cut on how and when an officer can seize firearms from an alleged domestic abuser. In some cases, when law enforcement are called to respond to a domestic violence incident, the presence of firearms might be obvious: either the gun is being used in the altercation, the gun is visible to law enforcement, or the participating parties admit to the presence of a gun. But what about situations where an abuser is in possession of a gun, and law enforcement officers aren’t aware of that weapon?
Those are the kinds of situations that Mosquera was hoping prevent with her bill.
“Right now, the courts are not required for the perpetrator to surrender his firearms unless there is something obvious, like for example let’s say it was a domestic call and the police came and they saw the firearms and that was put in the police report,” Mosquera said. “This is trying to close that loophole. If there are guns in the home, or the perpetrator is in possession of guns, all those guns have to be surrendered.”
CHistorically, domestic violence bills that seek to protect victims from gun violence have been some of the most successful gun control bills in the country. In 2014, Wisconsin State Representative Garey Bies, a Republican, successfully pushed for a law that streamlined the process for the surrender of guns from those subject to domestic abuse injunctions — and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R), who has an A+ rating from the National Rifle Association’s political action committee, signed the bill into law.
“Domestic violence laws should not be controversial.”
“In the past three to five years, across the country, you’ve seen a tremendous number of domestic violence bills pass and be passed by Democratic or Republican governors,” Americans for Responsible Solutions’ Lloyd said. “There is a lot of support for these policies. Domestic violence laws should not be controversial.”
So why has Christie — who received a C grade from the NRA before his reelection in 2013 — been so staunchly opposed to this type of law in New Jersey?
“He could make up whatever he wanted to make up, what it was about was his presidential aspirations and New Hampshire, that’s how I look at it,” Senator Weinberg said.
Christie’s opposition to the legislation, for the most part, aligns with his general rightward shift on guns in the months leading up to, and throughout, his failed bid for the Republican presidential nomination. In a crowded field, Christie’s track-record on gun legislation immediately set him apart from his competition, and not in a way that bolstered the governor’s chances of courting conservative voters.
In April of 2015, he was the only potential presidential candidate to not be invited to speak at the NRA’s annual conference. Compared with the likes of Walker, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) — all of whom boast A+ ratings from the NRA — Christie’s C grade was an anchor around his conservative bid for the White House. In response to the NRA’s apparent snub, Christie gave a speech in New Hampshire calling for gun laws that protect both public safety and “people’s rights both as sportsmen and hunters and for self protection,” a more centrist position than he had taken previously.
Christie announced his candidacy on June 30, 2015 — five days after New Jersey legislators passed the domestic violence bill for the first time, and a mere 14 hours after Christie announced that New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman was filing new regulations that would expedite the review process for applications of domestic violence victims seeking firearms. Guns-rights activists have long called for victims of domestic violence to have easier access to guns, and some saw Christie’s embrace of the idea as further proof of his political shift on gun issues.
Unknown iFrame situation
Later that summer, again at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Christie moved even further to the right on guns, telling a questioner during a campaign stop that “we don’t need to pass new [gun control] laws,” and that there were “plenty of laws on the books.”
Christie repeated his suggestion that victims of domestic violence should enjoy an expedited review process when applying for firearms in his first conditional veto of the New Jersey domestic violence bill, which he sent to the legislature on November 9, 2015 — the day after he was bumped off the mainstage of a Republican presidential debate due to low poll numbers.
In campaign stops across the country, as well as on the debate stage, Christie used his recent actions as governor — his veto of the domestic violence bill, his veto of a bill that would have banned high capacity magazines, his pardon of half-a-dozen gun owners convicted of violating New Jersey’s gun transport law — to create an image of a politician that gun owners could support. And while his shift didn’t earn him any financial contributions from the NRA, the New York Times reported that it did earn him the tentative endorsement of a former New Hampshire state senator and guns rights activist, who told the paper that Christie had become “somebody that I could support.”
Even after he dropped out of the race — endorsing eventual nominee Donald Trump in February of 2016 — Christie continued to grasp for relevance on the national conservative stage. His endorsement of Trump, and subsequent high-profile appearances alongside the candidate over the next several months, fueled speculation that Christie was auditioning to be Trump’s running mate.
Christie’s second conditional veto — which also included a push for an expedited review process for domestic violence victims applying to purchase a gun — came in late May, as speculation around Trump’s vice presidential pick began ratcheting up. Trump, who has held various views about gun control in his lifetime, has run his campaign on a decidedly pro-NRA platform, a feeling that any potential running mate would ostensibly need to mirror. (Trump’s eventual pick, Gov. Mike Pence (R-IN), has an A-rating from the NRA.)
In conditionally vetoing the domestic violence bill twice, and twice insisting that the bill include provisions that would expedite the review process for victims of domestic violence seeking a firearm, Christie steered his position decidedly in line with guns-rights advocates — but domestic violence and gun safety advocates worry that it could come at the expense of public safety.
“Something that we have talked about pretty extensively with domestic violence advocates is that’s not actually a solution,” Americans for Responsible Solutions’ Robin Lloyd said. “There is this narrative that if you are armed with a gun you can defend yourself, but the presence of a gun in the home where there is a domestic violence incident regardless of who is the owner increases the danger of the situation dramatically.”
And domestic violence and gun safety experts have research to back this up — a multi-state study published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2003 found that the risk of homicide went up by 500 percent when a gun was present in domestic violence situations — regardless of who owned the gun in the first place.
“Even if the gun hasn’t been used, or if [the victim] hasn’t necessarily been shot at, just the presence of a gun in the home makes it increasingly dangerous to her,” Qudsia Raja, director of policy at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, said.
OLike the bills that came before it, the new compromise bill — crafted in conjunction with gun safety groups like Americans for Responsible Solutions — seeks to streamline the process for the surrender of firearms for anyone convicted of a domestic violence-related offense or a domestic violence-related restraining order. But the bill diverges from its predecessors in that it also includes enhanced penalties for anyone convicted of certain domestic violence crimes, and outlines mandatory minimum sentences for those crimes.
“I’m not going to give up. I hope that one day there is going to be a governor that will sign it into law.”
That last part, in the eyes of some domestic violence advocates, actually makes this bill weaker than those that came before it. Instead of focusing on removing guns from perpetrators of domestic violence, they worry that prioritizing mandatory minimums could dissuade victims from reporting crimes, or courts from issuing certain orders. Moreover, according to Leigh Goodmark, an attorney and author of the book A Troubled Marriage: Domestic Violence in the Legal System, there is no evidence that increased penalties for domestic abusers does anything to decrease or deter domestic violence in any way.
What does help drive down instances of domestic violence, particularly cases that turn fatal? According to Ari Freilich, a staff attorney at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the steps outlined in the very first iteration of the New Jersey domestic violence bill: clear requirements for the surrender of guns, timely implementation of those requirements, and proof of compliance with the law. In California, which made relinquishing guns mandatory for individuals subject to a restraining order in 2000, domestic violence calls to law enforcement involving a firearm have fallen 50 percent, even as overall domestic violence-related calls increased.
“That suggests that this is an effective law,” Freilich said.
New Jersey will have another chance to enact this kind of law in the fall, when the compromise bill will head to the Assembly, likely sometime in September. If it passes, it will head to the governor’s desk; whether he will sign the measure into law remains to be seen.
This time, however, Weinberg and Mosquera may be able to pass their bill without him. Weinberg said even if Christie chooses not to sign the bill for a third time, she is confident the legislature will have sufficient votes to override his veto — something they have attempted and failed in the past.
But for Mosquera, who witnessed her mother become a victim of domestic violence at the hands of her father, the issue goes beyond politics.
“For me, this is extremely personal,” she said. “I will still continue to pursue this. I’m not going to give up. I hope that one day there is going to be a governor that will sign it into law.”