Research and national data illustrate that female victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) are more likely to be killed if their abuser has access to a firearm (Campbell et al. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8 (3), 246–69, 2007 ; Gwinn Evaluation Review, 30 (3), 237–44, 2006 ; Sorenson Evaluation Review 30 , 361, 2006 ). A crucial part of protecting victims lies with the state’s ability to successfully track and remove firearms from Civil Protection Orders (CPO). While recent research on the court’s responses to firearms and IPV is robust (Fleury-Steiner et al. Violence Against Women , 1-12, 2016 ; Stockl et al. Lancet, 382 , 859–865. 2013 ; Logan and Walker Violence and Victims, 25 , 332–348, 2010 ), there is a notable lack of practitioner voices within the academic dialogue focusing on concrete responses to firearms within IPV. The author uses their experience as an administrator within Delaware Family Court and their experience as a researcher to focus research into informed practices that will result in better court compliance with the firearms ban. The current paper outlines concrete practices followed by Delaware Family Court to address the firearms ban and lists considerations for other jurisdictions to engage with as they begin to improve their processes. The current paper aims to center practitioner experiences into the conversation to not only add to current academic research, but to provide other courts and legal practitioners with concrete practices that they can bring to their jurisdictions.