Domestic Abuse and Firearms
As a current law student, I’m always looking for legal issues in the news. Whether it involves mergers and acquisitions, employment disputes, or criminal convictions, I enjoy keeping up with current legal events. Last night, was just like any other night; I was sitting on the couch scrolling though Facebook, when I saw an article regarding the following event.
Around 8:20 p.m. on March 28, 2019, Stephanie Miller met her ex-husband, Brian Kennedy, at a Wawa in Radnor, PA to exchange custody of their son. However, Kennedy did not bring the child with him, but brought an AR-15 style rifle instead. Kennedy shot Miller, his ex-wife and mother of his child, twice — once in the back of the head and once in the stomach — at point blank range. Miller was pronounced dead at the scene.
This wasn’t the first time the Kennedy resorted to violence. Three years ago, in a checkout line at the same Wawa, Kennedy had threatened to kill Miller during a child custody exchange.
Miller had been granted a protection from abuse order, which had expired in September, against Kennedy, but chose not to renew it.
As I read, I realized this was the same Wawa I had been to countless time. This was the same Wawa my boyfriend and I go to when I visit him on the weekends; this was the same Wawa my boyfriend goes to just about every day. How could something so awful occur somewhere so close to me? When I read this story, I couldn’t help but wonder about the weapon Kennedy used in this horrific tragedy. Although there are minimal facts available right now regarding the AR-15 used, I wanted to further my understanding of the effects a Protection from Abuse order has on firearms.
Under Pennsylvania’s Protection from Abuse act, generally, if a court order requires the abuser to surrender his firearms, other weapons or ammunition, the items will be returned when the protection from abuse order has expired. As stated above, Miller’s protection from the abuse order expired in September. Assuming Kennedy legally owned the AR-15 and the order provided for the surrendering of firearms, Kennedy would have had to give up the firearms on the day the protection from abuse order began and would have received the firearms the day the order expired.
Continuing with the assumption, I next began to wonder who could he give the firearms to. The statute states that one option is to relinquish firearms to a third party. However, a third party is defined as, “a person, other than defendant, who: (1) is not a member of the defendant’s household and (2) is not prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to any Federal or State law.” Simply put, this mean that anyone who meets these two credentials can watch over the abuser’s firearms. This really troubled me. How can the bar be set so low that all an abuser needs to do is hand over his firearms to someone who meets these two, very simple requirements? This means that the abuser could surrender his firearms to family or close friends; people who may either grant or enable him access to the firearms.
Although in the present case, the PFA order was expired, I don’t think it would have stopped Kennedy from killing his ex-wife.
“Does [a PFA order] stop an individual from killing you? It doesn’t. [. . .] This is a classic case of what can happen in situations regarding domestic abuse and violence with the use of firearms,” stated Delaware County DA Kat Copeland.
