It's odd for me to find myself nodding in agreement with a headline at Ms. magazine, especially when guns are the topic. But when I saw "A Restraining Order Is Not Enough When an Abuser Has a Gun," my first reaction was "you're darn right it's not enough."
Unfortunately, once I started reading the column by Sofia Little, my head nodding turned into head scratching pretty quickly. Little and I are on the same page when it comes to the practical limits of protective orders. We disagree, though, on what the remedy for that looks like.
A recent Los Angeles Times investigation illustrates the deadly consequences when legal protections fail. The investigation found that former partners or close relatives were charged in the deaths of at least 63 women killed in Los Angeles County in 2024 and 2025—more than 40 percent of the 156 women slain during that period. At least 10 of those women had sought restraining orders, but only four received them.
One was Nora Villanueva Campanor, whose abusive husband stalked her for months before abducting and fatally shooting her, despite the restraining order she had secured.
Restraining orders can require accused abusers and stalkers to forfeit their guns, but an order cannot protect a victim if it is not enforced. In King County, Wash., a specialized domestic violence firearms enforcement unit works to remove guns from accused abusers when temporary restraining orders are issued. The unit was created after officials found that many people subject to restraining orders were simply keeping their firearms because law enforcement was not conducting follow-up investigations.
The article goes on to argue that more gun control is the answer, though it never really offers specifics. I wonder if that's because Little understands that ultimately, no amount of gun control is going to stop an abuser from getting their hands on a weapon if they want one.
I'm in 100 percent agreement with Little that a restraining order isn't enough when an abuser has a gun. I'd go even further, actually. A restraining order isn't enough when an abuser is intent on causing harm to their victim. Is a restraining order enough if an abuser decides to arm themselves with a knife, or if they decide to use their car to strike their victim? What if the abuser is so much stronger and bigger than their victim that no weapon other than fists or feet is necessary to do them harm?
A restraining order isn't a suit of armor. It's a piece of paper, and if the abuser decides to ignore the words printed on it then there's nothing law enforcement can do to proactively stop them.
I mentioned in an earlier post that I was speaking to a firearm instructor yesterday who's also in Dallas for the Gun Rights Policy Conference this weekend, and they shared with me that one of their clients was murdered by her abuser while she was waiting for her gun license application to be approved. She had done everything the law required her to do, from taking out a protective order to getting the required training and filling out the paperwork the state deems necessary to exercise our right to keep and bear arms, but because her attacker ignored that protective order she was killed before her license was approved.
If an abuser is intent on harm, then their intended victim must be able to defend herself or himself. Carrying a gun is no guarantee that they'll survive an encounter with an abuser, but it provides more protection than a piece of paper.
More gun control isn't the answer. I know that Little would probably never recommend any domestic violence or stalking victim arm themselves for self-protection, but I know plenty of survivors and advocates who vehemently disagree. And ultimately, whether it meets with Little's approval or not, we have a right to keep and bear arms. Someone intent on doing harm, who's maybe even ready to end their own life afterward, isn't going to care much about violating a gun law. It's their intended victim who's really impacted by gun control measures, and we should be doing everything possible to ensure that when someone needs access to a firearm for self-defense, they can get one.
There was a bill proposed in my home state of Virginia a few years ago that would have allowed someone who had taken out an order of protection to carry a firearm once they'd submitted their license to carry application, instead of waiting weeks for it to be approved. That was too much for Democrats in the General Assembly, though, and the bill went down to defeat.
That legislation, in my eyes, is truly a "common sense gun safety" policy. But for those who view gun ownership in general as a problem, anything that makes it easier for victims to arm themselves is a step in the wrong direction.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member