Editorial: Judges could seize more guns in PFA cases |

Editorial: Judges could seize more guns in PFA cases


You fear for your life in the place you should have been safe — your home.

So you go to the court. You ask for a protection from abuse order. The person who has been hurting or threatening you is served with a piece of paper that spells out exactly what is and isn’t allowed.

That should help. In most cases, according to the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, it does. A PFA might anger the recipient. It might make the end of the relationship bitter or awkward. But in most cases, it can put an end to the violence rather than aggravate it.

For cases where firearms are involved, however, that can be different.

According to the PCADV, there were 117 domestic violence deaths in 2017, up 14 percent from the year before. Of those, 78 victims were shot. Since 2008, more than half of those killed in a domestic violence situation each year have died by gun. In 2007, it was still the most common method at 48 percent.

A box on the PFA form asks about weapons. Was a weapon involved? Is there one at the home? Should weapons be collected? Is the defendant someone who has firearms at work?

When Patrick Dowdell of Masontown threatened his wife with a gun last month, she asked for a PFA. She got one. Despite her request for the guns to be taken away, Fayette County District Judge Joseph M. George Jr. didn’t take that step. On Wednesday, his office became a crime scene when Dowdell opened fire there, injuring four people before being killed by police .

George’s actions do not stand out because of their glaring rarity. They are all too common. In March, the Tribune-Review found Pennsylvania judges were “hesitant to invoke existing provisions for weapons confiscation in PFAs.” Despite language in state laws saying guns should be taken in certain threatening situations, judges are likely to decline to do so.

This is not a Fayette problem. It’s not just happening in Southwestern Pennsylvania. It’s across the commonwealth and it’s not new.

In 2013, a Centre County district judge released a retired state trooper on bail after an attack on his wife. He shot her and himself at the grocery store where she arranged flowers. In 2016, Trooper Landon Weaver arrived at a Huntingdon County home near Altoona, checking on a PFA violation, when he was shot and killed. On Black Friday last year, a Clearfield County woman, her mother and sister were shot by her ex-boyfriend. The ink was barely dry on his PFA. He fled, later shooting himself.

Now some judges say incidents like Dowdell’s shooting make their offices seem insecure. Westmoreland County’s magisterial courts office will be asking commissioners to game out the cost of scanners, metal detectors and sheriff’s department man hours.

In short, having been threatened, the judges are looking for protection from abuse. Let’s hope that, like the majority of people applying for PFAs, they get the help that they need. Let’s hope all of the judges in Pennsylvania do.

Maybe this will make them understand how vulnerable being in such a position can make someone feel, and maybe the next time they see an application with the box checked asking for weapons to be secured, they will remember not just how they feel, but that they would just be enforcing the law.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.