LEBANON, Pa. (AP) - No one will ever know how John Walton convinced his brother Donald to give him back his guns.
It’s quite possible that Donald Walton didn’t know he was doing anything wrong. Donald had only been holding John’s guns while John was under a Protection From Abuse order. That order had been withdrawn - although the Luzerne County sheriff’s office hadn’t given Donald permission to return the firearms, according to the (Hazleton) Standard-Speaker.
It was a fatal mistake.
John Walton fatally shot his estranged wife - Stacy Walton, a local school teacher - and killed himself on Dec. 7, 2012 at their Luzerne County home with the gun Donald had given back to him, police determined.
“What she endured the hours before he killed her can only be characterized as torture,” her family said in a written statement, according to local news reports.
If the story sounds familiar, it should. It’s just one example of an all-to-common pattern.
According to a Lebanon Daily News analysis, there have been at least 27 Pennsylvania cases from 2012 to 2016 in which PFA proceedings were initiated against someone who later committed a murder with a gun.
One of the 27 cases: the Mt. Gretna murder of Stacey Pennington in early 2015 by ex-boyfriend Patrick Derr, who obtained guns owned by his deceased father and used one to murder Pennington.
“If you want to get one, you’re going to get one. But in this case, it was too easy,” said Richard Cheri, who was Pennington’s current boyfriend when she died. “What’s happening now is still unacceptable.”
A Republican state senator is braving the issue of gun control to try to prevent such murders. Sen. Tom Killion, R-9, recently introduced a bill that would eliminate the third-party safekeeping option for firearms in PFA cases, and would require judges to order the removal of firearms whenever a PFA is issued.
Federal law forbids people under a domestic restraining order from owning a firearm. In Pennsylvania, however, judges typically don’t order PFA defendants to turn over their weapons.
Gun rights advocates worry about the loss of PFA defendants’ Second Amendment rights, and argue that a person intent on murder will get their hands on a weapon. But supporters of Killion’s bill say something needs to be done to end an all-too-common trend.
She heard the screaming
Most of the 27 murders - collected from news reports, records kept by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and a report on PFAs compiled by the Joint State Government Commission - don’t involve third-party safekeeping of firearms. In some cases, the PFA had expired or been dropped before the murder occurred. In others, the murder victim was associated with but not the same as the person who sought the PFA (for example, the PFA plaintiff’s child).
Still, a glance at the homicides reveals a troubling pattern that verges on monotonous: a person is sufficiently concerned about their significant other’s behavior to seek a PFA, yet the defendant still finds access to a gun, bringing himself and his loved ones to a violent end. Among the examples:
.Susan Hoke was so worried her estranged husband Scott would murder her that she barricaded doors, changed locks, and even asked her son if he wanted Scott killed, the York Daily Record reported. Although she had obtained a PFA, and Scott had pled guilty to a domestic violence crime, family members said firearms were not taken from him. On Sept. 12, 2016, Scott went to Susan’s York County home and fatally shot her before turning the handgun on himself. Her 17-year-old daughter, Tiffany, heard the screaming.
.Violeta Isackov was looking forward to the future in April 2013 when the past violently intervened. She had just left a dress shop in Bucks County in preparation for her upcoming wedding when her ex-husband, Kenneth Philipp, fatally shot her while she was sitting inside a car with her daughter. Philipp died in a shootout with police. Isackov had a protection-from-abuse order against Philipp. David Zellis, then chair of the Bucks County Domestic Violence Fatality Commission, told NBC10 Philadelphia that Philipp shouldn’t have had access to a gun.
.Tierne Ewing not only had a PFA against estranged husband Kevin Ewing, officials said he had held her captive and tied up for two weeks while he beat, pistol-whipped, and spat on her, according to news reports. Yet Kevin Ewing somehow made bail and gained access to a gun. In August 2016, he forced Tierne Ewing to leave their Washington County home at gunpoint before he murdered her and shot himself.
Since there is no official database of domestic violence-related homicides, it is difficult to say how many people are killed with a firearm after a PFA is entered, said Ellen Kramer, deputy director for PCADV. However, there are probably many more domestic homicides than they are able to identify, she said.
Guns not removed
The coalition did list at least four cases in which a killer gained access to weapons that had been transferred to a third-party - and one case in which a murder could happen any day.
An unnamed Adams County resident obtained a PFA in September 2014 after her spouse beat and choked her in front of their children, according to PCADV. The spouse owns approximately 12 firearms, which were transferred to a friend after the PFA order.
The catch: her spouse’s friend is in the midst of his own divorce and is now living with them. She’s tried to get the friend’s possession of the weapons revoked, but proving he lives in their home has been a challenge, PCADV said. Meanwhile, continued actions by her spouse have her living in fear.
___
“What we know about abusers is that they are uncannily good at manipulation.”
Ellen Kramer, PCADV
___
“She feels like she is not the protected party but he is,” PCADV’s description of her case stated.
There are restrictions on who can take possession of a PFA defendant’s firearms. The third party is not allowed to be a member of the defendant’s household, be themselves prohibited from possessing firearms, or have an active PFA against them, Kramer said. Even so, a defendant intent on murder can often figure out how to get the gun back, she said.
“What we know about abusers is that they are uncannily good at manipulation,” she said.
Killion’s bill would eliminate that option, requiring guns to be turned over to the sheriff’s office or other law enforcement agency.
The biggest impact of the bill, however, would likely come from requiring judges to remove firearms after all final PFAs are granted.
In Pennsylvania, judges usually don’t make that order. Only 14 percent of final PFA orders in Pennsylvania required the relinquishment of firearms from 2011-2015, according to PCADV. Lebanon County Sheriff Bruce Klingler said it happens about 10 percent of the time in Lebanon County.
Eliminating a constitutional right
Gun rights groups are queasy about expanding the removal of guns from people who haven’t been convicted of a crime. A PFA is a civil order signed by a judge, not the result of a criminal jury trial, and only a preponderance is needed to obtain a final PFA.
Kim Stolfer, president of Pennsylvania-based Firearm Owners Against Crime, said Killion’s bill in its current form would violate the concept of innocent until proven guilty.
“All we’re asking for is reasonable protections before a person loses their constitutional rights,” Stolfer said.
There is no proof that eliminating the third-party safekeeping option would prevent murders, he said. While stories of domestic violence are tragic, there are also stories of innocent PFA defendants whose lives were impacted by plaintiffs taking advantage of the PFA law.
“We’re all for protecting domestic violence victims from being harmed. We’re not for throwing the baby out with the bathwater, which is the constitution,” he said.
However, Killion’s bill is backed by a major police organization, in part for very personal reasons. Two police officers were killed in the line of duty responding to domestic violence calls in 2016, including state trooper Landon Weaver. In both cases, the shooter had previously been served with a PFA.
“(Domestic disputes) are a very high priority and a very dangerous type of call to respond to,” said Tom Gross, executive director of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police Association. “These PFA orders are all based on a lot of situations that can result in violence.”
___
“All we’re asking for is reasonable protections before a person loses their constitutional rights.”
Kim Stolfer, president of Firearm Owners Against Crime
___
Chester County District Attorney Tom Hogan, speaking on behalf of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association, which favors the bill, said he supports gun rights and believes police and judges should take care to assume the circumstances leading to the PFA are legitimate. But with the right to own a firearm comes a responsibility, he said.
“If a PFA’s been granted, if you have guns, you’re a risk,” Hogan said. “If you’re a gun owner, you always have to be the calmest, most rational person in the room.”
A judge’s choice
Former Lebanon County District Judge Michael Smith also believes judges should use any means possible to protect victims - in fact, he believes district judges should be able to order the confiscation of firearms, not just county Court of Common Pleas judges. However, he doesn’t believe in taking the choice out of the judge’s hands. There are cases in which someone happens to apply for a PFA right before their spouse is set to go on a hunting trip, for example, he said.
“It’s not covered in the book - you’re trying to do what’s right on one end, and ensure safety on the other,” he said. “You are dispossessing someone of a constitutional right.”
State Rep. Frank Ryan, R-101, said he understands Killion’s concern about the third-party safekeeping option, but is uneasy about eliminating judicial discretion, since PFAs are sought in a wide range of situations that vary from patterns of violent abuse to situations in which no violence occurred.
“Good legislation should be should be designed to give the greatest degree of latitude to the people who know what’s going on,” Ryan said.
Kramer and Gross said they are also concerned about the defendant’s civil rights, and only want guns removed after a final PFA, when a defendant has had an opportunity to respond to the allegations against him.
Of course, people intent on murder don’t necessarily need a gun to carry it out. There were at least nine cases in Pennsylvania between 2012-2016 in which murderers with restraining orders used methods that didn’t involve a firearm, such as stabbing, strangling, or even setting the victim on fire.
___
“Good legislation should be should be designed to give the greatest degree of latitude to the people who know what’s going on.”
State Rep. Frank Ryan, R-101
___
Still, there are studies that have found that abused women are at least 5 times more likely to be murdered if their abuser owns a firearm, according to the Joint State Government Commission.
“Will this bill, alone, eliminate domestic violence fatalities? Not completely,” Kramer said in an email. “But.we are certain that under the leadership of Senator Killion and his Senate colleagues, we can and will have a major impact in reducing this senseless loss of life.”
Bail reform and other PFA improvements
“Will this bill, alone, eliminate domestic violence fatalities? Not completely,” Kramer said in an email. “But.we are certain that under the leadership of Senator Killion and his Senate colleagues, we can and will have a major impact in reducing this senseless loss of life.”
Sen. Tom Killion’s bill to restrict access to firearms by abusers is only one of four Pennsylvania bills designed to make Protection From Abuse orders more effective at preventing domestic violence.
The other bills include:
.SB 449, which would clarify that judges can use risk assessment tools when setting bail in domestic violence criminal cases. The bill is named Tierne’s law after Tierne Ewing, who was killed by her husband in 2016 while he was out on bail. Patrick Derr was also out on bail before killing Stacey Pennington in Mt. Gretna in 2015.
.SB 502, which would address incarcerated abusers. Extensions of PFAs typically require proof that the defendant has continued to engage in acts that place the plaintiff at risk, but that may not be possible if the defendant has been in prison. The bill would allow for extension of PFAs without proof of further abuse in those cases.
.SB 500, which would require law enforcement to accompany the victim when a PFA order is served. Tom Hogan, Chester County District Attorney, said that is the least controversial proposal, since it cements what is already considered a “common sense” best practice. In Lebanon County, a sheriff’s deputy always directly serves the PFA on the defendant, Sheriff Bruce Klingler said.
Still, Killion’s bill is probably the most controversial. Two of three other Republican legislators involved in proposing this package of legislation haven’t joined Killion’s bill, and some Lebanon County legislators are also skeptical.
“I would want to hear more about the reasons for (eliminating the third-party safekeeping option), before I would decide to support that or not,” said State Rep. Russ Diamond, R-102.
___
Online:
https://bit.ly/2nRmDqa
___
Information from: Lebanon Daily News, https://www.ldnews.com
Please read our comment policy before commenting.