A new state law (Senate Bill 525) now allows Oregon judges to order the removal of guns from individuals who are convicted of misdemeanor domestic abuse.

That’s important because felony domestic abuse cases often are pleaded down to misdemeanors when victims decide not to testify, limiting the evidence available to prosecutors as they seek felony charges.

This leaves offenders, whose crimes may have risen to the level of a felony, still in possession of guns they may use against their victims in the future.

Amy Stubblefield, director of Safe Harbors, the domestic and sexual violence provider for Wallowa County, said statistics show that when an abusive partner has access to firearms, domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly. According to research published in the American Journal of Public Health, the presence of a gun in domestic violence situations increases the risk of homicide for women by 500 percent.

And in the last year alone, in approximately 20 percent of the cases reported in Wallowa County victims have said they were at some point threatened with a firearm in some way shape or form, including direct verbal threat, showing bullets claimed to be for the victim and more.

“There’s a huge, huge risk for victims if their abusers are allowed to have firearms,” Stubblefield said.

And there are a lot of victims in the county. More than 137 individuals sought services related to domestic violence at Safe Harbors in 2015.

Some of the victims were children.

Few such cases ever come to trial.

According to Wallowa County Sheriff Steve Rogers, only about 10 percent of the domestic violence cases in the county are even reported to law enforcement.

“These victims know about Safe Harbors so they’ll go there for protection without calling law enforcement, because (calling law enforcement) is going to get (them assaulted) when the abuser gets out of jail,” Rogers said.

A few cases of domestic violence made their way to Wallowa County courts last year, and observers saw firsthand how difficult it was for prosecutors to get either a felony conviction or serious sentencing for the perpetrators of the crimes.

In at least two high-profile cases in the county a contributor to the difficulty of getting a stronger sentence was the unwillingness of victims to “be victims.”

It’s difficult to criticize a victim for refusing to participate in the trial and sentencing of their abuser given the tremendous backlash that comes their way.

“It’s hard for a victim to stay strong in the (legal) process,” Stubblefield said. “Wallowa County is really, really tough with regard to victim blaming and the stigma attached to being a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault.”

Especially in the case of a minor who has been victimized, Stubblefield said, social ostracism is a crushing blow.

“We already have this conservative view of sex and want to believe that sex among our youth doesn’t happen, let alone that our youth are being sexually victimized,” she said.

If a community wants to believe “these things don’t happen here,” the solution to maintaining that belief is often to blame the victim.

“It’s a lot easier to blame a victim — that they did something to make this happen,” Stubblefield said. “This allows an ideal that it can be prevented instead of placing the responsibility where it belongs — on the individual making the choice to victimize another.”

State Sen. Bill Hansell, R-Athena, has no illusions about the reality of sexual and domestic violence. In addition to supporting Senate Bill 525, he signed his name to a bill that makes education on domestic violence mandatory in Oregon Schools,

“Bill 790, which already is in our legal system, states that somewhere in their junior to high school education a student needs to receive instruction in the area of dating violence,” Hansell said. “If a student is learning about dating violence at school and then goes home and witnesses or experienced domestic violence at home … what his he or she going to think?”

Hansell also supported was Senate Bill 788, which requires judges be apprised of past domestic assault convictions when considering sentencing for a new domestic assault crime.

“The judge must be made aware of (the past conviction); it cannot be hidden from him,” Hansell said.

Bill 525 is new for Oregon, but it is nothing new for the nation.

“Bill 525 makes it easier for us in Oregon,” said Wallowa County District Attorney Mona K. Williams. “It has been federal law for a long time. It puts into Oregon law what has been in federal law for years.”

There is still more that individuals and our community as a whole can do for the 90 percent of women and children who never seek the assistance of the court, Stubblefield said.

“Things don’t happen when it’s challenged and not deemed appropriate behavior, or something to be dealt with behind closed doors … that it is a ‘private matter’” Stubblefield said. “We don’t hold the abusers and batterers accountable in the community. We see people who have partners in high-powered positions in the county. What would be our response if we found out they were using drugs? Do you think it would be hush-hush or wives would be told ‘as a wife, you should cook more?’ These are the responses I’ve heard from victims of domestic violence.”

Stubblefield said the county also needs greater police presence.

“Officers in Wallowa County cover a huge area with a limit on the number of man-hours available to respond and investigate cases,” she said.

Safe Harbors already is tapping federal programs that help pay for the deputy district attorney, probation services and overtime for law enforcement specific to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Stubblefield is applying for a new grant that would continue the current funding support as well as provide the county with a full-time legal advocate at Safe Harbors focused on protection orders and other legal procedures; an investigator out of the DA’s office to do more follow-up investigation on domestic violence and sexual assault reports; funding to support the successful batterers intervention program; the ability to partner with an attorney to provide legal representation to victims in contested protection orders where the respondent has obtained representation; money to help support Wallowa County juvenile probation; and more.

Sheriff Rogers would like to have a stronger law enforcement presence to deter batterers.

“Does that guy need to go to jail? Absolutely,” Rogers said. “From a personal standpoint I’d prefer to put the badass in jail. But I don’t care if (victims) go to us or Safe Harbors. As long as they’re safe, that’s the primary concern right there. That’s the number one thing right there.”

No comment was available from the Oregon Friends of the NRA. State Sen. Bill Hansell, however, was willing to discuss the issue of Second Amendment rights and how the bill was perceived.

“I’m a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights and the NRA was neutral on this law,” he said. “It isn’t a bill that would be of issue to them. It had passed in other states where the NRA was also neutral to it. We already had federal legislation. Senate Bill 525 was not more restrictive than federal law, so we were basically bringing our laws in compliance with federal law.”

Safe Harbors already works with a faith advocate and a grant is being written for a liaison to continue to work directly with other churches in the area.

“There are a lot of churches that have been doing a phenomenal job,” said Safe Harbors Director Amy Stubblefield. “(Nevertheless) we have heard from some of our victims that abusers have used scripture as justification for abuse.”

“There are only two mandatory laws in the state of Oregon,” said Sheriff Steve Rogers. “One is violation of a restraining order, the other is assault or menacing in domestic violence. The laws actually read you ‘shall’ rather than you ‘may’ (which implies obligation). They’ve made the laws that way specifically to remove the danger to the victim.”

Officers are trained in response to domestic assault calls “starting from the day you are a baby (cop),” Rogers said. “In fact Liza Nichols and I used to teach domestic violence workshops at the academy.”

Although Rogers has no discretion in his action with regard to the two mandatory laws on violation of a restraining order or assault or menacing, in the case of complaints that don’t rise to that level, his philosophy of local law enforcement as “community caretakers” allows for the exercise of good judgment.

“We want to do the best for the community to obtain the best results,” he said. “I can tell you I don’t have a single person working for me that is heavy-handed.”

When an offender pleads a felony down to a misdemeanor, that offender may escape jail time but often is mandated to attend the batterer intervention program. How much good does that actually do?

According to Stubblefield, the 52-week program can do a lot of good. The program challenges the beliefs and values that have supported the mindset that allowed them to be abusive. To have those beliefs challenged is tough, Stubblefield said.

“About three months into the course they don’t like the course, they don’t like the teachers, they don’t like the curriculum. But by 52 weeks they get it.”

In fact, she says, men who are well into the program will begin challenging the beliefs of men new to the program.

“A lot of times these men in the class will take the message from someone who has been in their shoes better than for someone who is a program facilitator,” Stubblefield said.

But the best test of the program is the comments of victims who have maintained a relationship with their former abuser.

“They are able to state how drastically different (the former offender) is since completing the program,” Stubblefield said. “That’s the true testament. It goes to show it’s not just a combination of two people (bad chemistry); there is more to it — that the abuse was a choice for the abuser and given the tools, they can choose a different way.”

Although acknowledging that a crime could be committed with a gun, he cited Section 2 of the law, which prohibits guns and ammunition from being owned “if the person is subject to a court order that was issued or continued after a hearing for which the person had actual notice and during the course of which the person had an opportunity to be heard.”

“This means he has not been convicted,” Barreto said. “I think in some of these instances … they go too far and start taking away a person’s rights before they are convicted of a crime.”