As I understand it, she could still have firearms; they would have to be secured in such a manner that he could not access them, if they were not on her person.
I don't know how she had her gun stored, but I would be surprised if it had any bearing in this instance.
Meanwhile, I haven't seen this raised anywhere, and it may not have been a factor - but something else to consider: People are saying she shouldn't have gone back in and put the kids at risk. But she had just been assaulted by the father; what if she thought he posed a risk to the kids, in his present state? Would people then say she should not have re-entered the home?
IE, would you (as a parent) leave your kids alone with a person who had just physically attacked you?
I can see several reasons that could have justified her re-entering the home and shooting at the man. They haven't been raised in the articles I've seen, so maybe they did not exist, but it struck me that nobody who has posted in this thread has considered those possibiliities.
Also, the fact they don't seem to have been raised does not mean that they did not exist. I don't know the quality of reporting nor level of media attention on the case (so details could have been overlooked), I don't know the competence of the defense attorney (so he could have put all his eggs in the SYG basket and not paid enough or any attention to more pertinent factors), and I don't know how well the defendant understood the law, or the things she should have brought to light with regard to her thought process.
I will be surprised if there is no appeal.
If there is an appeal, I'll be curious to see if any of these points come up.