restraining order without giving up firearms

If there is no history of physical abuse and the respondent voluntarily agrees at a DV-100 hearing to stay away and not contact the plaintiff, does the judge have to issue a restraining order? How likely is it that he will?

Can a restraining order be issued without requiring the respondent to give up any personal firearms? What reasons might a judge be sympathetic to in waiving the usual order to give up firearms?

he is free to order as he sees fit; it is common to give a warning and advise both parties to stay apart...without an actual order. But if any sign of abuse exists he will not do that.

Any domestic violence restraining order comes with a REQUIREMENT that the respondent "shall" relinquish those firearms. There is no universal law allowing a judge to issue orders allowing a subject to keep those firearms. However, each state is going to have different laws. I live in California and am part of a special task force formed to educate and enforce DV firearms restrictions. California does have one special section which permits an exception to subjects who use a firearm in the course of employment. In that case the specific firearm can only be physically possessed for purposes of employment and traveling too and from. A judge may allow law enforcement officers to continue to carry firearms on or off duty but shall require a psychological evaluation and may require counseling (6389(h) California Family Code). Once again laws will vary in every state but in California per 273.6(g)(1) PC (for DV) and 6389(a)FC (for other RO) make it a felony to possess firearms while subject to a restraining order.