Legislation expands access to Gun Violence Restraining Orders

Among the flurry of bills signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in October were Assembly Bill 61 and Assembly Bill 1493, which expand the reach of existing legislation affecting gun violence restraining orders. Under existing law (which was enacted in 2014) an immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer can request that a court (after notice and hearing) issue a gun violence restraining order against that person. If a petition for a restraining order is granted under the existing law the subject of the order would be prohibited from owning, possessing, purchasing or receiving or having in their custody or control a fire arm or ammunition. See "Issuing a Gun Violence Restraining Order in California," Daily Journal (Aug. 21, 2019).

Under AB 61, authored by Assemblymember Philip Ting (D-San Francisco) and signed by the governor on Oct. 11, the list of people who can seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) has been expanded. The new legislation, which does not take effect until Sept. 1, 2020, would authorize an employer, coworker with substantial and regular interaction with the person for at least a year and with the approval of the employer, or a teacher or other secondary or post-secondary school employee with approval of a school supervisor that the subject has attended in the last six months may seek a GVRO. To accomplish these goals AB 61 amends Penal Code Sections 18150, 18170 and 18190. The standard for obtaining a GVRO by employers, employees, teachers and school employees is the same as the existing legislation: "clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of causing personal injury" and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury.

Under AB 1493 the subject of a petition for a GVRO can file a form with the court relinquishing the subject's fire arms rights for the duration of the restraining order and stating that the subject will not contest the petition. The new legislation provides that if the subject of the petition files the form the court would be required to issue the GVRO and to provide notice to all of the parties. AB 1493 amends PC Sections 18115 and 18175.

The legislation was supported by several organizations such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. In support they note that teachers and other school employees and co-workers are often at most risk of themselves or others in the same location being harmed by someone with a fire arm. The Brady Campaign cites the example from February 2018 of the 17 people killed and the 17 injured at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida by a former student after school employees received several warning signs. Opposing the Legislation was the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU stated that while they did not oppose gun control legislation per se but that AB 61 poses a "significant threat to civil liberties" by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders without opportunity for the subject of the petition to be heard or otherwise contest the petition.

Seventeen states have gun violence restraining order laws on the books, most adopted after the Stoneman Douglas High School killings in Florida. California appears to be the first state where teachers, employees and employers can seek GVROs.

According to California Department of Justice data, GVROs have not been widely used in the state since courts have started issuing them in 2016. In 2018 for example, only 424 GVROs were issued state wide. In Los Angeles County only 63 were issued in 2018 and in San Francisco County only one. The exception is San Diego County, which issued 203 GVROs in 2018. San Diego's track record in issuing gun violence restraining orders is explained by the efforts of local law enforcement officials in San Diego, working closely with police and other law enforcement officers, to educate them and the public about California's Gun Violence Restraining Order GVRO laws and procedures. 