Existing law authorizes a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition when it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of harm to himself, herself, or another in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. Existing law requires the ex parte order to expire no later than 21 days after the date on the order. Existing law also authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order prohibiting the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year when there is clear and convincing evidence that the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm, and that the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to himself, herself, or another, as specified. Existing law authorizes renewal of a gun violence restraining order within 3 months of the orders expiration. Petitions for ex parte, one-year, and renewed gun violence restraining orders may be made by an immediate family member of the person or by a law enforcement officer.

This bill would similarly authorize, an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 61

Author:(Ting, et al.)

As Amended Ver:August 30, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Expands the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte temporary gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, to include an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.

The Senate Amendments:

1. Delay implementation of this measure until September 1, 2020.
2. Clarify that school administration staff means a school administrator or a school administration staff member with a supervisorial role.
3. Double joint this bill with AB 12 (Irwin) of the current legislative session to avoid chaptering issues.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"Gun violence and mass shootings can no longer be tolerated or accepted. We need to provide the people in all our communities with more tools to take firearms out of the hands of individuals that pose a deadly threat to themselves and others. Family members, co-workers, employers, and teachers are most likely to see early warning signs if someone is becoming a danger to themselves or others.

"In these circumstances, existing law enables family members and law enforcement to prevent gun-related tragedies before they happen by pursuing a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) in court. If granted by a court, a GVRO results in a temporary seizure of firearms possessed by a dangerous individual and a prohibition of their ability to purchase new firearms. This bill logically expands who can petition a court for a GVRO by adding co-workers, employers, and teachers."

Arguments in Support:

According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "Existing law allows law enforcement and immediate family members to petition the court to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order when a person is at risk of injury to self or others by having a firearm. The order would temporarily prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms while the order is in effect and would allow a warrant to be issued to seize firearms or ammunition from a person subject to the order. AB 61 would similarly authorize an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

''Those who teach or work with a person and have frequent interaction may see the early warning signs and be the first to know that the person is at severe risk of harming self or others with a firearm. These people need the ability to directly petition the court for a temporary firearm prohibition, particularly if law enforcement is not responsive to an urgent concern. For example, last February, 17 people were killed and 17 more were injured at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The shooter was a former student of the school and there had been several warnings raised about his potential for violence. AB 61 would provide school employees the opportunity to petition the court for a gun violence restraining order on a similar young person.

''The Gun Violence Restraining Order statute is modeled after California's domestic violence restraining order laws and ensures due process and a rigorous standard of proof. A noticed hearing before the court is required within 21 days. In fact, the law provides more protections than the state's domestic violence restraining order or mental health commitment laws. The person subject to the temporary order expires after one year (unless renewed) or is revoked by the court.''

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ''The ACLU of California does not oppose gun control measures that regulate the acquisition or use of guns – so long as those regulations contribute to public safety and do not raise civil liberties issues. Additionally, we do not oppose laws that authorize protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others, provided there are nondiscriminatory criteria for defining people as dangerous, and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.

''AB 61, however, poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.

''The statutory scheme creating the Gun Violence Restraining Order (Penal Code Sections 18100-18205) was established in 2014 (AB 1014, Skinner). Under this scheme a family member, or any law enforcement officer, who has reason to believe a person owns a gun and poses a significant danger to themselves or others, may petition the court for an ex parte order to prohibit the subject from possessing a gun for up to 21 days, at which time a hearing is held to determine whether to extend the order for to one year.

''An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other. We believe AB 1014 was crafted in order to properly strike that balance. By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61 upsets that balance and creates significant potential for civil rights violations.''

FISCAL COMMENTS:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. GVRO petitions: Potentially-significant workload cost pressure to the court to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition the court for a GVRO results in additional petitions filed, subsequently prompting new hearings and the issuance of warrants and GVROs. (General Fund*)

Additionally, unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the court to adjudicate charges brought against defendants who possess, own, receive, or purchase (or attempt to do so) a firearm or ammunition while being refrained from doing so by a GVRO that was petitioned for by an individual who would be allowed to do so by this bill. While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2019 appropriated $41.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations.

1. APPS administration & enforcement: Potential increase in costs to the Department of Justice for administration and enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) list to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition for GVROs increases workload to monitor changes to the APPS list based on new GVROs issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. Additional one-time workload costs to modify an information system (the California Restraining and Protective Orders System) to accommodate the changes proposed by this bill. (Special fund**, General Fund)
2. Prosecution & incarceration: Unknown potential increase in non-reimbursable local enforcement and incarceration costs to prosecute and incarcerate those charged with and found guilty of 1) violations of GVROs, 2) violations of the subsequent five-year firearms/ammunition prohibition due to violating a GVRO; and, 3) filing GVRO petitions with false information or with the intent to harass. Costs would be offset, to a degree, by fee and assessment revenue. (Local funds)
3. Mandated law enforcement activities: Potential increase in local law enforcement agency costs, potentially state-reimbursable to retain surrendered firearms and ammunition during the restraining order period, issue a receipt to the restrained person at the time of surrender, and serve ex-parte orders. (General Fund)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Dealers Record of Sale Special Account (DROS)—structurally imbalanced

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-17-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NO: Bigelow, Brough, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

ABS, ABST OR NV: Arambula, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Eggman, Gray, Mayes, Rodriguez, Salas

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 4-3-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep, Quirk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Kamlager-Dove

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

UPDATED:

VERSION: August 30, 2019

CONSULTANT: Gregory Pagan (Counsel) / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0001927

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 61

Author: Ting (D), Muratsuchi (D) and Reyes (D), et al.

Amended: 8/30/19 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/18/19

AYES: Skinner, Bradford, Jackson, Mitchell, Wiener

NOES: Moorlach, Morrell

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 8/30/19

AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Durazo, Hill, Wieckowski

NOES: Bates, Jones

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-17, 5/6/19 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: Gun violence restraining orders

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST:

This bill allows, starting September 1, 2020, an employer, coworker, or an employee or teacher of a secondary or postsecondary school to file a petition requesting a gun violence restraining order (GVRO), as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Defines a "GVRO" as "an order, in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition." (Pen. Code, § 18100.)
2. Requires a petition for a GVRO to describe the number, types, and locations of any firearms and ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the subject of the petition. (Pen. Code, § 18107.)
3. Prohibits a person that is subject to a GVRO from having in his or her custody any firearms or ammunition while the order is in effect. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (a).)
4. Requires the court to order the restrained person to surrender all firearms and ammunition in his or her control. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(1).)
5. States that the law enforcement officer serving a GVRO shall request that all firearms and ammunition be immediately surrendered. Alternatively, if the request is not made by the law enforcement officer, the surrender shall occur within 24 hours of being served with the order, by surrendering all firearms and ammunition in a safe manner to the control of the local law enforcement agency, selling all firearms and ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer, or transferring all firearms and ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(2).)
6. Requires the law enforcement officer or licensed firearms dealer taking possession of any firearms or ammunition to issue a receipt to the person surrendering the firearm, or firearms, or ammunition, or both, at the time of surrender and the restrained person shall within 48 hours of being served, do both of the following:
   1. File with the court that issued the gun violence restraining order the original receipt showing all firearms and ammunition have been surrendered to a local law enforcement agency or sold or transferred to a licensed firearms dealer. Failure to timely file a receipt shall constitute a violation of the restraining order; and,
   2. File a copy of the receipt with the law enforcement agency that served the gun violence restraining order. Failure to timely file a copy of the receipt shall constitute a violation of the restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(2).)
7. Allows law enforcement to obtain a temporary GVRO if the officer asserts, and the court finds, that there is reasonable cause to believe the following:
   1. The subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing injury to himself, herself, or another by possessing a firearm; and,
   2. The emergency GVRO is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the order or another because less restrictive alternatives have been tried and been ineffective or have been determined to be inadequate under the circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 18125, subd. (a).)
8. States that a temporary GVRO shall expire 21 days from the date the order is issued. (Pen. Code, § 18125, subd. (b).)
9. States that a law enforcement officer who requests a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order shall do all of the following:
   1. If the request is made orally, sign a declaration under penalty of perjury reciting the oral statements provided to the judicial officer and memorialize the order of the court on the form approved by the Judicial Council;
   2. Serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located;
   3. File a copy of the order with the court as soon as practicable after issuance; and,
   4. Have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ). (Pen. Code, §18140.)
10. Allows an immediate family member, as defined, or law enforcement officer to file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte GVRO enjoining a person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (a)(1).)
11. Allows a court to issue an ex parte GVRO if an affidavit, made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement, and any additional information provided to the court on a showing of good cause that the subject of the petition poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by balancing specified factors. (Pen. Code, §§ 18150, subd. (b) & 18155.)
12. Requires an ex parte GVRO to be issued or denied on the same day that the petition is submitted to the court unless the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective review, in which case the order shall be issued or denied on the next judicial business day. (Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (d).)
13. Requires a law enforcement officer to serve the ex parte GVRO on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. When serving a gun violence restraining order, the law enforcement officer shall inform the restrained person that he or she is entitled to a hearing and provide the date of the scheduled hearing. (Pen. Code, § 18160.)
14. States that an ex parte GVRO shall expire no later than 21 days from the date the order is issued. (Pen. Code, § 18155, subd. (c).)
15. Allows an immediate family member or law enforcement officer to file a petition requesting that the court issue a GVRO after notice and a hearing enjoining a person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18170.)
16. States that at the hearing, the petitioner has the burden of proof, which is to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (b).)
17. Provides that if a GVRO is issued after the hearing, the order has a duration of one year, subject to termination by further order of the court at a hearing and renewal by further order of the court. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (d).)
18. Allows a restrained person to file one written request for a hearing to terminate the order (Pen. Code, §18185) and allows a request for renewal of a GVRO for up to one year (Pen. Code, § 18190).
19. States that every person who files a petition for an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 18200.)
20. States that every person who violates an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a five-year period, to commence upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18205.)

This bill:

1. Expands the category of persons who may file a petition requesting an ex parte, one-year or renewal GVRO to include:
   1. An employer;
   2. A coworker who has had substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer; and,
   3. An employee or teacher of a secondary or postsecondary school that the subject has attended in the last six months, if the employee or teacher has obtained the approval of a school administrator or a school administration staff member with a supervisorial role.
2. Goes into effect September 1, 2020.

Comments

According to the author of this bill: “If granted by a court, a GVRO results in a temporary seizure of firearms possessed by the dangerous individual and a prohibition of their ability to purchase new firearms. In the three years that the GVRO program has been implemented 614 GVROs have been issued across California. Although the program has seen success, parties other than law enforcement and immediate family lack access to this new public safety tool. This bill logically expands who can petition a court for a GVRO by adding co-workers, employers, and teachers.”

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

GVRO petitions: Potentially-significant workload cost pressure to the court to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition the court for a GVRO results in additional petitions filed, subsequently prompting new hearings and the issuance of warrants and GVROs. (General Fund*)

Additionally, unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the court to adjudicate charges brought against defendants who possess, own, receive, or purchase (or attempt to do so) a firearm or ammunition while being refrained from doing so by a GVRO that was petitioned for by an individual who would be allowed to do so by this bill. While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2019 appropriated $41.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations.

APPS administration & enforcement: Potential increase in costs to DOJ for administration and enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) list to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition for GVROs increases workload to monitor changes to the APPS list based on new GVROs issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. Additional one-time workload costs to modify an information system (the California Restraining and Protective Orders System) to accommodate the changes proposed by this bill. (Special fund**, General Fund)

Prosecution & incarceration: Unknown potential increase in non-reimbursable local enforcement and incarceration costs to prosecute and incarcerate those charged with and found guilty of (1) violations of GVROs, (2) violations of the subsequent five-year firearms/ammunition prohibition due to violating a GVRO, and (3) filing GVRO petitions with false information or with the intent to harass. Costs would be offset, to a degree, by fee and assessment revenue. (Local funds)

Mandated law enforcement activities: Potential increase in local law enforcement agency costs, potentially state-reimbursable to retain surrendered firearms and ammunition during the restraining order period, issue a receipt to the restrained person at the time of surrender, and serve ex-parte orders. (General Fund)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Dealers Record of Sale Special Account (DROS)—structurally imbalanced

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/30/19)

American Academy of Pediatrics, California

Bay Area Student Activists

Brady California United Against Gun Violence

California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians

California District Attorneys Association

Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Health Officers Association of California

Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office

Riverside Sheriffs’ Association

Ventura County Board of Supervisors

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/30/19)

American Civil Liberties Union of California

California Civil Liberties Advocacy

California Rifle & Pistol Association

Gun Owners of California

National Rifle Association

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 54-17, 5/6/19

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Daly, Frazier, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gloria, Gonzalez, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Muratsuchi, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Blanca Rubio, Santiago, Smith, Mark Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Cooley, Cunningham, Dahle, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher, Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel, Waldron

NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Chen, Choi, Cooper, Eggman, Gray, Mayes, Rodriguez, Salas

Prepared by: Stella Choe / PUB. S. /

9/3/19 11:19:55

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 61 (Ting) - Gun violence restraining orders

*********** ANALYSIS ADDENDUM – SUSPENSE FILE ***********

The following information is revised to reflect amendments

adopted by the committee on August 30, 2019

Bill Summary:

AB 61, starting September 1, 2020, would expand the population of individuals eligible to petition the court for a gun violence restraining order (GVRO), as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• GVRO petitions: Potentially-significant workload cost pressure to the court to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition the court for a GVRO results in additional petitions filed, subsequently prompting new hearings and the issuance of warrants and GVROs. (General Fund*)

Additionally, unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the court to adjudicate charges brought against defendants who possess, own, receive, or purchase (or attempt to do so) a firearm or ammunition while being refrained from doing so by a GVRO that was petitioned for by an individual who would be allowed to do so by this measure. While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2019 appropriated $41.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations.

• APPS administration & enforcement: Potential increase in costs to the Department of Justice for administration and enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) list to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition for GVROs increases workload to monitor changes to the APPS list based on new GVROs issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. Additional one-time workload costs to modify an information system (the California Restraining and Protective Orders System) to accommodate the changes proposed by this measure. (Special fund**, General Fund)
• Prosecution & incarceration: Unknown potential increase in non-reimbursable local enforcement and incarceration costs to prosecute and incarcerate those charged with and found guilty of (i) violations of GVROs, (ii) violations of the subsequent five-year firearms/ammunition prohibition due to violating a GVRO, and (iii) filing GVRO petitions with false information or with the intent to harass. Costs would be offset, to a degree, by fee and assessment revenue. (Local funds)
• Mandated law enforcement activities: Potential increase in local law enforcement agency costs, potentially state-reimbursable to retain surrendered firearms and ammunition during the restraining order period, issue a receipt to the restrained person at the time of surrender, and serve ex-parte orders. (General Fund)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Dealers Record of Sale Special Account (DROS)—structurally imbalanced

Author Amendments:

Clarify the definition of school administration staff and make technical changes.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anthony Portantino, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular Session

AB 61 (Ting) - Gun violence restraining orders

Bill Summary:

AB 61, starting September 1, 2020, would expand the population of individuals eligible to petition the court for a gun violence restraining order (GVRO), as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• GVRO petitions: Potentially-significant workload cost pressure to the court to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition the court for a GVRO results in additional petitions filed, subsequently prompting new hearings and the issuance of warrants and GVROs. (General Fund*)

Additionally, unknown, potentially-significant workload cost pressures to the court to adjudicate charges brought against defendants who possess, own, receive, or purchase (or attempt to do so) a firearm or ammunition while being refrained from doing so by a GVRO that was petitioned for by an individual who would be allowed to do so by this measure. While the superior courts are not funded on a workload basis, an increase in workload could result in delayed court services and would put pressure on the General Fund to fund additional staff and resources. For example, the Budget Act of 2019 appropriated $41.8 million from the General Fund to backfill continued reduction in fine and fee revenue for trial court operations.

• APPS administration & enforcement: Potential increase in costs to the Department of Justice for administration and enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) list to the extent that expanding the population of individuals eligible to petition for GVROs increases workload to monitor changes to the APPS list based on new GVROs issued, renewed, dissolved, or terminated. Additional one-time workload costs to modify an information system (the California Restraining and Protective Orders System) to accommodate the changes proposed by this measure. (Special fund**, General Fund)
• Prosecution & incarceration: Unknown potential increase in non-reimbursable local enforcement and incarceration costs to prosecute and incarcerate those charged with and found guilty of (i) violations of GVROs, (ii) violations of the subsequent five-year firearms/ammunition prohibition due to violating a GVRO, and (iii) filing GVRO petitions with false information or with the intent to harass. Costs would be offset, to a degree, by fee and assessment revenue. (Local funds)
• Mandated law enforcement activities: Potential increase in local law enforcement agency costs, potentially state-reimbursable to retain surrendered firearms and ammunition during the restraining order period, issue a receipt to the restrained person at the time of surrender, and serve ex-parte orders. (General Fund)

*Trial Court Trust Fund

**Dealers Record of Sale Special Account (DROS)—structurally imbalanced

Background:

A gun violence restraining order, modeled after domestic violence restraining orders, prohibits the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and allows law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession. There are three types of GVROs: a temporary emergency GVRO, an ex parte GVRO, and a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing. The temporary emergency GVRO may be sought by a law enforcement official and expires after 21 days. An ex parte GVRO may be obtained by a law enforcement official or an immediate family member, as defined, and also lasts for 21 days. The ex parte GVRO may be extended by the court to a full GVRO. An order issued after notice and a hearing can remain in place for up to one year. The order may be renewed for another year or terminated early at the decision of the court. The person who is the subject of the GVRO may request in writing another hearing during the period of prohibition to ask the court to terminate the order.

A person who violates an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing is guilty of a misdemeanor that is punishable by incarceration in county jail for up to six months, a base fine of up to $1,000, or both the incarceration and fine. Additionally, a person convicted of such offense is prohibited from having under the person’s custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a five-year period. This five-year period starts upon the expiration of the existing GVRO.

Proposed Law:

This bill, starting September 1, 2020, would expand the population of individuals (beyond immediate family members and law enforcement officers) eligible to petition the court for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed GVRO to include the following persons:

• An employer.
• A coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject for at least one year and who has obtained the approval of the employer.
• An employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that a petition subject has attended in the last six months if the person has obtained the approval of the school administration staff.

Related Legislation:

AB 2888 (Ting, 2018) and AB 2607 (Ting, 2016), which were substantially similar to this—AB 2607 also would have allowed mental health workers to seek a GVRO—were vetoed by the previous governor. In his veto message for AB 2888, the previous Governor stated that “[a]ll of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today under existing law by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual. I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions.”

SB 1200 (Skinner, Ch. 898, Stats. 2018) made various changes to the GVRO law.

AB 1014 (Skinner, Ch. 873, Stats. 2014) allows the court to issue a GRVO and established the process by which the orders can be obtained.

Staff Comments:

The Dealers Record of Sale Special Account has experienced significant revenue decreases in recent years to the extent that it is structurally imbalanced. From FY 2017-18 to FY 2018-19, DROS revenues dropped by 22 percent; proposed revenue for FY 2019-20 is projected to remain consistent with 2018-19, however. The FY 2019-20 budget assumes a beginning balance of $6.159 million, revenues of $21.471 million, expenditures of $24.88 million, and an ending reserve of $2.75 million. Given the operational deficit of DROS, the added expense resulting from AB 61 would create cost pressure on the General Fund to backfill any shortage.

Actual court workload associated with this measure would be dependent of the volume of petitions filed by the expanded population. The number of additional petitions filed cannot be known with certainty, but to the extent even one or two petitions are filed in each county per year, estimated costs to the courts could be in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually statewide. California courts were allowed to issue GVROs commencing in 2016. Since that time, the GVRO has been used relatively infrequently, respective to other states that have a similar option available. In 2016, the court issued eighty-six orders. That number increased by 21 percent in 2017 to 104 orders. California, however, could follow the trend experienced by other states like Connecticut, which saw fewer than ten orders (or “warrants”) issued in the first eight years but significantly increased the number after the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech. Connecticut, which has a fraction of the population of California, went on to issue 726 gun violence prevention warrants through 2013. By expanding the categories of individuals who may petition the court for a GVRO, this bill could additionally increase the number of petitions that the court would be required to decide.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Nancy Skinner, Chair

2019 - 2020 Regular

Bill No: AB 61 Hearing Date: June 18, 2019

Subject: Gun Violence Restraining Orders

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: SB 1200 (Skinner), Ch. 898, Stats. 2018

AB 2888 (Ting), vetoed, 2018

AB 2526 (Rubio), Ch. 873, Stats. 2018

AB 2607 (Ting), 2016, vetoed

AB 950 (Melendez), Ch. 205, Stats. 2015

AB 225 (Melendez), 2015, failed Assembly Public Safety

SB 505 (Jackson), Ch. 918, Stats. 2014

AB 1014 (Skinner), Ch. 872, Stats. 2014

Support: American Academy of Pediatrics, California; Bay Area Student Activists; Brady California United Against Gun Violence; California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians; California District Attorneys Association; Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office; Riverside Sheriffs’ Association; Ventura County Board of Supervisors

Opposition: American Civil Liberties Union of California; California Civil Liberties Advocacy; California Rifle & Pistol Association; Gun Owners of California; National Rifle Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 54 - 17

This Analysis Reflects the Bill as Proposed to be Amended

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to allow an employer, coworker, an employee or teacher of a secondary school or postsecondary school to file a petition requesting a gun violence restraining order, as specified.

Existing law defines a "GVRO" as "an order, in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition." (Pen. Code, § 18100.)

Existing law requires a petition for a GVRO to describe the number, types, and locations of any firearms and ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the subject of the petition. (Pen. Code, § 18107.)

Existing law prohibits a person that is subject to a GVRO from having in his or her custody any firearms or ammunition while the order is in effect. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (a).)

Existing law requires the court to order the restrained person to surrender all firearms and ammunition in his or her control. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law states that the law enforcement officer serving a GVRO shall request that all firearms and ammunition be immediately surrendered. Alternatively, if the request is not made by the law enforcement officer, the surrender shall occur within 24 hours of being served with the order, by surrendering all firearms and ammunition in a safe manner to the control of the local law enforcement agency, selling all firearms and ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer, or transferring all firearms and ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(2).)

Existing law requires the law enforcement officer or licensed firearms dealer taking possession of any firearms or ammunition to issue a receipt to the person surrendering the firearm, or firearms, or ammunition, or both, at the time of surrender and the restrained person shall within 48 hours of being served, do both of the following:

1. File with the court that issued the gun violence restraining order the original receipt showing all firearms and ammunition have been surrendered to a local law enforcement agency or sold or transferred to a licensed firearms dealer. Failure to timely file a receipt shall constitute a violation of the restraining order; and,
2. File a copy of the receipt with the law enforcement agency that served the gun violence restraining order. Failure to timely file a copy of the receipt shall constitute a violation of the restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(2).)

Existing law allows law enforcement to obtain a temporary GVRO if the officer asserts, and the court finds, that there is reasonable cause to believe the following:

1. The subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing injury to himself, herself, or another by possessing a firearm; and,
2. The emergency GVRO is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the order or another because less restrictive alternatives have been tried and been ineffective or have been determined to be inadequate under the circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 18125, subd. (a).)

Existing law states that a temporary GVRO shall expire 21 days from the date the order is issued. (Pen. Code, § 18125, subd. (b).)

Existing law states that a law enforcement officer who requests a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order shall do all of the following:

1. If the request is made orally, sign a declaration under penalty of perjury reciting the oral statements provided to the judicial officer and memorialize the order of the court on the form approved by the Judicial Council;
2. Serve the order on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located;
3. File a copy of the order with the court as soon as practicable after issuance; and,
4. Have the order entered into the computer database system for protective and restraining orders maintained by the Department of Justice (DOJ). (Pen. Code, §18140.)

Existing law allows an immediate family member, as defined, or law enforcement officer to file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte GVRO enjoining a person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (a)(1).)

Existing law allows a court to issue an ex parte GVRO if an affidavit, made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement, and any additional information provided to the court on a showing of good cause that the subject of the petition poses a significant risk of personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by balancing specified factors. (Pen. Code, §§ 18150, subd. (b) & 18155.)

Existing law requires an ex parte GVRO to be issued or denied on the same day that the petition is submitted to the court unless the petition is filed too late in the day to permit effective review, in which case the order shall be issued or denied on the next judicial business day. (Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (d).)

Existing law requires a law enforcement officer to serve the ex parte GVRO on the restrained person, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. When serving a gun violence restraining order, the law enforcement officer shall inform the restrained person that he or she is entitled to a hearing and provide the date of the scheduled hearing. (Pen. Code, § 18160.)

Existing law states that an ex parte GVRO shall expire no later than 21 days from the date the order is issued. (Pen. Code, § 18155, subd. (c).)

Existing law allows an immediate family member or law enforcement officer to file a petition requesting that the court issue a GVRO after notice and a hearing enjoining a person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18170.)

Existing law states that at the hearing, the petitioner has the burden of proof, which is to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (b).)

Existing law allows a restrained person to file one written request for a hearing to terminate the order. (Pen. Code, §18185.)

Existing law allows a request for renewal of a GVRO. (Pen. Code, § 18190.)

Existing law states that every person who files a petition for an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing, knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass, is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 18200.)

Existing law states that every person who violates an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing, is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prohibited from having under his or her custody and control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a five-year period, to commence upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18205.)

This bill expands the category of persons who may file a petition requesting an ex parte, one-year or renewal GVRO to include:

1. An employer;
2. A coworker who has had substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and,
3. An employee or teacher of a secondary or postsecondary school that the subject has attended in the last six months, if the employee or teacher has obtained the approval of the school administration staff.

This bill makes the operative date of its provisions September 1, 2020.

COMMENTS

1. Need for this Bill

According to the author of this bill:

Gun violence and mass shootings can no longer be tolerated or accepted. We need to provide the people in all our communities with more tools to take firearms out of the hands of individuals that pose deadly threat to themselves and others. Family members, co-workers, employers, and teachers are the most likely to see early warning signs if someone is becoming a danger to themsel[ves] or others.

In these circumstances, existing law enables family members and law enforcement to prevent gun-related tragedies before they happen by pursuing a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) in court. If granted by a court, a GVRO results in a temporary seizure of firearms possessed by the dangerous individual and a prohibition of their ability to purchase new firearms. In the three years that the GVRO program has been implemented 614 GVROs have been issued across California. Although the program has seen success, parties other than law enforcement and immediate family lack access to this new public safety tool. This bill logically expands who can petition a court for a GVRO by adding co-workers, employers, and teachers.

2. California’s GVRO Law

California's GVRO laws, modeled after domestic violence restraining order laws, went into effect on January 1, 2016. A GVRO will prohibit the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and authorizes law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession.

The statutory scheme establishes three types of GVRO's: a temporary emergency GVRO, an ex parte GVRO, and a GVRO issued after notice and hearing. According DOJ:

There are two initial types of GVROs that can, if appropriate, be extended for up to one year. A Temporary Emergency GVRO may only be sought by a law enforcement officer. (Pen. Code, § 18125.) To obtain this order, a court must find (1) that the subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm; and (2) the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or have been determined to be inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition. (Ibid.)

The second type of GVRO is an Ex Parte GVRO, which may be sought by a law enforcement officer or an immediate family member. In this case, the order is issued if the court finds that (1) the subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering the factors listed in Penal Code section 18155; and (2) the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition. (Pen. Code, § 18150.) Unlike the Temporary Emergency GVRO, this application must be supported by an affidavit that sets forth the facts tending to establish the grounds of the petition, or the reason for believing that they exist. (Ibid.)

. . . .

Within 21 days, and before the temporary GVRO expires, an immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer may request that a court, after notice and a hearing, issue a GVRO enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition for a period of up to one year.1 (Pen. Code, § 18170 et seq.) At the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that both of the following are true: (1) the subject of the petition, or a person subject to an Ex Parte GVRO, as applicable, poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; (2) a GVRO is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition, or the person subject to an Ex Parte GVRO, as applicable, or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition, or the person subject to an Ex Parte GVRO, as applicable. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (b).) If the court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence to issue a GVRO, the court shall issue a GVRO that prohibits the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (c).) If the court finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the issuance of a GVRO, the court shall dissolve any temporary emergency or Ex Parte GVRO then in effect. (Ibid.)

(California DOJ Division of Law Enforcement, Gun Violence Restraining Order Process (Jan. 2019) https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/infobuls/2019-bof-02.pdf.)

When AB 1014 (Skinner), Chapter 872, Statutes of 2014, which created the GVRO statutory scheme was considered in this Committee, the bill would have allowed anyone to request a gun violence restraining order. The committee analysis noted that "Only those with a close relationship to the person to be restrained can request a domestic violence protective order." This Committee questioned whether anyone should be allowed to petition for a GVRO. AB 1014 was subsequently amended in the Senate Appropriations Committee to only permit law enforcement and immediate family members to petition for a GVRO.

This bill would expand the category of people who are able to petition for an ex parte, one-year or renewal GVRO to include an employer, a coworker who has had substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.

3. Data on Issuance of GVROs

According to DOJ’s data, since the law went into effect in 2016, courts issued GVROs 86 times in 2016 and 104 times in 2017. Los Angeles County had the highest number of GVROs issued for a total of 32 from 2016 to 2017. The county with the second highest number was Santa Barbara with 21 GVROs. The county that had the highest number of GVROs per capita was Contra Costa. (Koseff, ‘Best tool’ to prevent gun violence is rarely used in California, Sacramento Bee (Mar. 29, 2018) < http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article206994229.htmlnews/article206994229.html>.)

Last year, 424 GVROs were issued throughout the state. San Diego County accounted for the majority of the increase with 185 orders issued; the nine Bay Area counties accounted for 53 GVROs with only one issued in San Francisco. (Koseff, California gun confiscations increase sharply under restraining-order law, San Francisco Chronicle (Feb. 10, 2019) < https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/California-gun-confiscations-increase-sharply-13602566.php>.)

DOJ’s data also shows that the vast majority of GVRO petitions are filed by law enforcement officers, rather than family members. Additionally, unlike petitions filed by law enforcement officers which have substantially increased since the early years that the GVRO law went into effect, GVRO petitions filed by family members have remained about the same from 2016 to 2018 (less than 10 issued per year statewide).

4. Governor’s Veto of Similar Prior Legislation

AB 2607 (Ting), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill and was vetoed by the Governor on the basis that the GVRO law had not been implemented thus the change in law was viewed as premature.

AB 2888 (Ting), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was also similar to this bill and was also vetoed by the Governor. The Governor’s veto message stated:

This bill would authorize an employer, a coworker, an employee of a secondary school or postsecondary school that a person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a gun violence restraining order against an individual. All of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual. I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions.

5. Arguments in Support

According to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

Prior to the June 12, 2016 shooting at a gay night club in Orlando, Florida, the gunman’s co-workers had also repeatedly reported that he was “dangerous,” “unstable,” and “unhinged,” and that he had made credible threats of violence and of committing a mass shooting. One former co-worker told reporters, “When news broke of the shooting. . . I absolutely knew he was the shooter.” By contrast, the gunman’s father said his family was “not aware of any action he [was] taking” and “in shock like the whole country;” though the gunman’s wife believed her husband was planning to attack a gay nightclub, she made no attempt to notify law enforcement.

In such cases, where family members are unable or unwilling to help disarm a dangerous person, other well-situated individuals should be able to proactively and directly intervene. But existing California law provides no legal standing for co-workers and other with unique personal insight about a potential gunman’s dangerousness to petition a court to hear relevant information and issue a GVRO. AB 61 would simply empower more community members to “see something and say something” by filing a sworn petition to a judge when they observe serious and imminent threats to public safety.

To be clear, AB 61 would not alter the strict legal standard under which courts must evaluate whether to issue a GVRO; all of the due process protections afforded by existing GVRO statutes would still apply. Ex parte GVROs may only be issued in emergency cases if the judge finds that there is a substantial likelihood that the respondent poses a significant danger to self or others in the near future by having access to a firearm and that a GVRO issued after notice and a hearing have to meet an even higher burden of proof to demonstrate “clear and convincing evidence” of the respondent’s dangerousness and the GVRO’s necessity. Existing law also guards against potential abuse of the GVRO process by imposing significant criminal penalties on individuals who file a knowingly false or harassing petition, including felony perjury charges. And AB 61 makes clear it would not legally obligate any person to file a petition.

6. Argument in Opposition:

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of California:

The ACLU of California does not oppose gun control measures that regulate the acquisition or use of guns – so long as those regulations contribute to public safety and do not raise civil liberties issues. Additionally, we do not oppose laws that authorize protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others, provided there are nondiscriminatory criteria for defining people as dangerous, and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.

AB 61, however, poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.

The statutory scheme creating the Gun Violence Restraining Order (Penal Code Sections 18100-18205) was established in 2014 (AB 1014, Skinner). Under this scheme a family member, or any law enforcement officer, who has reason to believe a person owns a gun and poses a significant danger to themselves or others, may petition the court for an ex parte order to prohibit the subject from possessing a gun for up to 21 days, at which time a hearing is held to determine whether to extend the order for to one year.

An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other. We believe AB 1014 was crafted in order to properly strike that balance. By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61 upsets that balance and creates significant potential for civil rights violations.

-- END –

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 61

Author:(Ting, et al.)

As Amended Ver:April 4, 2019

Majority vote

SUMMARY:

Expands the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte temporary gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, to include an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.

Major Provisions

See above.

COMMENTS:

According to the Author:

"Gun violence and mass shootings can no longer be tolerated or accepted. We need to provide the people in all our communities with more tools to take firearms out of the hands of individuals that pose a deadly threat to themselves and others. Family members, co-workers, employers, and teachers are most likely to see early warning signs if someone is becoming a danger to themselves or others.

"In these circumstances, existing law enables family members and law enforcement to prevent gun-related tragedies before they happen by pursuing a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) in court. If granted by a court, a GVRO results in a temporary seizure of firearms possessed by a dangerous individual and a prohibition of their ability to purchase new firearms. This bill logically expands who can petition a court for a GVRO by adding co-workers, employers, and teachers."

Arguments in Support:

According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "Existing law allows law enforcement and immediate family members to petition the court to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order when a person is at risk of injury to self or others by having a firearm. The order would temporarily prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms while the order is in effect and would allow a warrant to be issued to seize firearms or ammunition from a person subject to the order. AB 61 would similarly authorize an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

''Those who teach or work with a person and have frequent interaction may see the early warning signs and be the first to know that the person is at severe risk of harming self or others with a firearm. These people need the ability to directly petition the court for a temporary firearm prohibition, particularly if law enforcement is not responsive to an urgent concern. For example, last February, 17 people were killed and 17 more were injured at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The shooter was a former student of the school and there had been several warnings raised about his potential for violence. AB 61 would provide school employees the opportunity to petition the court for a gun violence restraining order on a similar young person.

''The Gun Violence Restraining Order statute is modeled after California's domestic violence restraining order laws and ensures due process and a rigorous standard of proof. A noticed hearing before the court is required within 21 days. In fact, the law provides more protections than the state's domestic violence restraining order or mental health commitment laws. The person subject to the temporary order expires after one year (unless renewed) or is revoked by the court.''

Arguments in Opposition:

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), ''The ACLU of California does not oppose gun control measures that regulate the acquisition or use of guns – so long as those regulations contribute to public safety and do not raise civil liberties issues. Additionally, we do not oppose laws that authorize protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others, provided there are nondiscriminatory criteria for defining people as dangerous, and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.

''AB 61, however, poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.

''The statutory scheme creating the Gun Violence Restraining Order (Penal Code Sections 18100-18205) was established in 2014 (AB 1014, Skinner). Under this scheme a family member, or any law enforcement officer, who has reason to believe a person owns a gun and poses a significant danger to themselves or others, may petition the court for an ex parte order to prohibit the subject from possessing a gun for up to 21 days, at which time a hearing is held to determine whether to extend the order for to one year.

''An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other. We believe AB 1014 was crafted in order to properly strike that balance. By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61 upsets that balance and creates significant potential for civil rights violations.''

FISCAL COMMENTS:

Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.

Please see the policy committee analysis for a full discussion of this bill.

VOTES:

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 6-2-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 4-3-1

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Bauer-Kahan, Santiago, Wicks

NO: Lackey, Diep, Quirk

ABS, ABST OR NV: Kamlager-Dove

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 8-0-0

YES: Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, Bauer-Kahan, Diep, Kamlager-Dove, Quirk, Santiago, Wicks

UPDATED:

VERSION: April 4, 2019

CONSULTANT: Gregory Pagan (Counsel) / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0000234

Date of Hearing: April 23, 2019

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 61

Author:(Ting) – As Amended Ver:April 4, 2019

Vote Only

SUMMARY:

Expands the category of persons that may file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte temporary gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, to include an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the subject of the petition for at least one year and has obtained the approval of the employer, and an employee or teacher of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the subject has attended in the last six months and has the approval of the school administration staff.

EXISTING LAW:

1. 
   
2. Defines a GVRO as an order in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18100.)
   
3. Requires, upon issuance of a GVRO, the court to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in the restrained person’s custody or control, or which the restrained person possesses or owns. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(1).)
   
4. Allows an immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer to file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte GVRO, that expires no later than 21 days from the date of the order, enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, §§ 18150 and 18155, subd. (c).)
   
5. States that the court, before issuing an ex parte GVRO, shall examine on oath, the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce, or in lieu of examining the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce, the court may require the petitioner and any witness to submit a written affidavit signed under oath. (Pen. Code, § 18155, subd. (a).)
   
6. Requires a showing that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of personal injury to himself or herself, or to another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering specified factors, and that less restrictive alternatives have been ineffective, or are inappropriate for the situation, before an ex parte gun violence restraining order may be issued. (Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (b).)
   
7. Specifies in determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the court shall consider all evidence of the following:
   
   1. A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward another;
      
   2. A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward himself or herself;
      
   3. A violation of an emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition;
      
   4. A recent violation of an unexpired protective order;
      
   5. A conviction for any specified offense resulting in firearm possession restrictions; or,
      
   6. A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward himself, herself, or another. (Pen. Code, § 18155, subd. (b)(1).)
      
8. States that an ex parte gun violence restraining order shall be personally served on the restrained person by a law enforcement officer, or any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. When serving a gun violence restraining order, a law enforcement officer shall inform the restrained person of the hearing that will be scheduled to determine whether to issue a gun violence restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18160, subd. (b).)
   
9. Requires, within 21 days from the date an ex parte gun violence restraining order was issued, before the court that issued the order or another court in the same jurisdiction, the court to hold a hearing to determine if a gun violence restraining order should be issued. (Pen. Code, § 18160, subd. (c).)
   
10. Allows an immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer to request a court, after notice and a hearing, to issue a gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year. (Pen. Code, § 18170.)
    
11. States at the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that both of the following are true:
    
    1. The subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself or herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and
       
    2. A gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition, or the person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (b)(1) & (2).)
12. Provides if the court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence to issue a gun violence restraining order, the court shall issue a gun violence restraining order that prohibits the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition. If the court finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the issuance of a gun violence restraining order, the court shall dissolve any temporary emergency or ex parte gun violence restraining order then in effect. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (c)(1) & (2)
    
13. Requires the court to inform the restrained person that he or she is entitled to one hearing to request a termination of the gun violence restraining order and provide the restrained person with a form to request a hearing. (Pen. Code, § 18180, subd. (b).)
    
14. States that it is a misdemeanor offense for every person who files a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass. (Pen. Code, § 18200.)
    
15. Provides that it is a misdemeanor offense for every person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order and he or she shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a five-year period, to commence upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18205.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Gun violence and mass shootings can no longer be tolerated or accepted. We need to provide the people in all our communities with more tools to take firearms out of the hands of individuals that pose a deadly threat to themselves and others. Family members, co-workers, employers, and teachers are most likely to see early warning signs if someone is becoming a danger to themselves or others.
   
   "In these circumstances, existing law enables family members and law enforcement to prevent gun-related tragedies before they happen by pursuing a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) in court. If granted by a court, a GVRO results in a temporary seizure of firearms possessed by a dangerous individual and a prohibition of their ability to purchase new firearms. This bill logically expands who can petition a court for a GVRO by adding co-workers, employers, and teachers."
   
2. Gun Violence Restraining Orders: California's GVRO laws, modeled after domestic violence restraining order laws, went into effect on January 1, 2016. A GVRO will prohibit the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and authorizes law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession.
   
   The statutory scheme establishes three types of GVRO's: a temporary emergency GVRO, an ex parte GVRO, and a GVRO issued after notice and hearing. A law enforcement officer may seek a temporary emergency GVRO by submitting a written petition to or calling a judicial officer to request an order at any time of day or night. In contrast, an immediate family member or a law enforcement officer can petition for either an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO after notice and a hearing.
   
   An ex parte GVRO is based on an affidavit filed by the petitioner which sets forth the facts establishing the grounds for the order. The court will determine whether good cause exists to issue the order. If, the court issues the order, it can remain in effect for 21 days. Within that time frame, the court must provide an opportunity for a hearing. At the hearing, the court can determine whether the firearms should be returned to the restrained person, or whether it should issue a more permanent order.

Finally, if the court issues a GVRO after notice and hearing has been provided to the person to be restrained, this more permanent order can last for up to one year.

When AB 1014 (Skinner), Statutes of 2014, which created the GVRO statutory scheme was considered in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the bill would have allowed anyone to request a gun violence restraining order. The committee analysis noted that "Only those with a close relationship to the person to be restrained can request a domestic violence protective order." The Committee questioned whether anyone should be allowed to petition for a GVRO. AB 1014 was subsequently amended in the Senate Appropriations Committee to only permit law enforcement and immediate family members to petition for a GVRO.

This bill would expand the class of people who are able to petition for a GVRO to enjoin an individual for possessing or purchasing a firearm. It would allow an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months to seek such an order. While a mental health worker who has recently treated an individual should be in a position to know whether a person poses a danger to himself or others; employers, co-workers, and school personnel would not necessarily know this. It might depend on the work environment, the size of the place of employment, or the size of the school.

1. Governor's Veto Messages: AB 2607 (Ting), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it expanded the list of individuals that are authorized to petition the court to issue a GVRO. AB 2607 was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor's veto message stated, “In 2014, I signed Assembly Bill 1014 which allowed immediate family members and members of law enforcement to petition for a GVRO. That law took effect on January 1, 2016, so at this point it would be premature to enact a further expansion.”
   
   AB 2888 (Ting), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was also similar to this bill in that it expanded the list of individuals that are authorized to petition the court to issue a GVRO. AB 2888 was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor’s veto message stated, “I am returning this bill without my signature. This bill would authorize an employer, a coworker, an employee of a secondary school or postsecondary school that a person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a gun violence restraining order against an individual. All of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual. I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions.”
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "Existing law allows law enforcement and immediate family members to petition the court to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order when a person is at risk of injury to self or others by having a firearm. The order would temporarily prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms while the order is in effect and would allow a warrant to be issued to seize firearms or ammunition from a person subject to the order. AB 61 would similarly authorize an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

''Those who teach or work with a person and have frequent interaction may see the early warning signs and be the first to know that the person is at severe risk of harming self or others with a firearm. These people need the ability to directly petition the court for a temporary firearm prohibition, particularly if law enforcement is not responsive to an urgent concern. For example, last February, 17 people were killed and 17 more were injured at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The shooter was a former student of the school and there had been several warnings raised about his potential for violence. AB 61 would provide school employees the opportunity to petition the court for a gun violence restraining order on a similar young person.

''The Gun Violence Restraining Order statute is modeled after California's domestic violence restraining order laws and ensures due process and a rigorous standard of proof. A noticed hearing before the court is required within 21 days. In fact, the law provides more protections than the state's domestic violence restraining order or mental health commitment laws. The person subject to the temporary order expires after one year (unless renewed) or is revoked by the court.''

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil Liberties Union, ''The ACLU of California does not oppose gun control measures that regulate the acquisition or use of guns – so long as those regulations contribute to public safety and do not raise civil liberties issues. Additionally, we do not oppose laws that authorize protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others, provided there are nondiscriminatory criteria for defining people as dangerous, and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.
   
   ''AB 61, however, poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.

''The statutory scheme creating the Gun Violence Restraining Order (Penal Code §§ 18100-18205) was established in 2014 (AB 1014, Skinner). Under this scheme a family member, or any law enforcement officer, who has reason to believe a person owns a gun and poses a significant danger to themselves or others, may petition the court for an ex parte order to prohibit the subject from possessing a gun for up to 21 days, at which time a hearing is held to determine whether to extend the order for to one year.

''An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other. We believe AB 1014 was crafted in order to properly strike that balance. By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61 upsets that balance and creates significant potential for civil rights violations.''

1. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2888 (Ting), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it authorized an employer, co-worker, or health care worker to file a petition requesting a court to issue a GVRO. AB 2888 was vetoed by the Governor.
      
   2. AB 2607 (Ting), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it authorized an employer, co-worker, or health care worker to file a petition requesting a court to issue a GVRO. AB 2607 was vetoed by the Governor.
      
   3. AB 1014 (Skinner), Chapter 872, Statutes of 2014, provided that commencing January 1, 2016, authorized a law enforcement officer or immediate family member of a person, to seek, and a court to issue, a GVRO, as specified, prohibiting that person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Academy of Pediatrics, California
Bay Area Student Activists
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California Chapters of the American College of Emergency Physicians
California District Attorneys Association
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Los Angeles City Attorney 
Riverside Sheriffs' Association

16 Private Individuals

Oppose

American Civil Liberties Union of California
Gun Owners of California, Inc.
National Rifle Association - Institute For Legislative Action

Analysis Prepared by:

Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

Date of Hearing: February 26, 2019

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 61

Author:(Ting) – As Introduced Ver:December 3, 2018

SUMMARY:

Authorizes an employer, a coworker, an employee of a secondary school, or postsecondary school the person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition requesting a court to issue an ex parte gun violence restraining order (GVRO), a one year GVRO, or a renewal of a GVRO, and clarifies that a person who is authorized to request a GVRO is not required to seek one.

EXISTING LAW:

1. 
   
2. Defines a GVRO as an order in writing, signed by the court, prohibiting and enjoining a named person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition. (Pen. Code, § 18100.)
   
3. Requires, upon issuance of a GVRO, the court to order the restrained person to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition in the restrained person’s custody or control, or which the restrained person possesses or owns. (Pen. Code, § 18120, subd. (b)(1).)
   
4. Allows an immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer to file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte GVRO, that expires no later than 21 days from the date of the order, enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition. (Pen. Code, §§ 18150 and 18155, subd. (c).)
   
5. States that the court, before issuing an ex parte GVRO, shall examine on oath, the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce, or in lieu of examining the petitioner and any witness the petitioner may produce, the court may require the petitioner and any witness to submit a written affidavit signed under oath. (Pen. Code, § 18155, subd. (a).)
   
6. Requires a showing that the subject of the petition poses a significant danger, in the near future, of personal injury to himself or herself, or to another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm as determined by considering specified factors, and that less restrictive alternatives have been ineffective, or are inappropriate for the situation, before an ex parte gun violence restraining order may be issued. (Pen. Code, § 18150, subd. (b).)
   
7. Specifies in determining whether grounds for a gun violence restraining order exist, the court shall consider all evidence of the following:
   
   1. A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward another;
      
   2. A recent threat of violence or act of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward himself or herself;
      
   3. A violation of an emergency protective order that is in effect at the time the court is considering the petition;
      
   4. A recent violation of an unexpired protective order;
      
   5. A conviction for any specified offense resulting in firearm possession restrictions; or,
      
   6. A pattern of violent acts or violent threats within the past 12 months, including, but not limited to, threats of violence or acts of violence by the subject of the petition directed toward himself, herself, or another. (Pen. Code, § 18155, subd. (b)(1).)
      
8. States that an ex parte gun violence restraining order shall be personally served on the restrained person by a law enforcement officer, or any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the action, if the restrained person can reasonably be located. When serving a gun violence restraining order, a law enforcement officer shall inform the restrained person of the hearing that will be scheduled to determine whether to issue a gun violence restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18160, subd. (b).)
   
9. Requires, within 21 days from the date an ex parte gun violence restraining order was issued, before the court that issued the order or another court in the same jurisdiction, the court to hold a hearing to determine if a gun violence restraining order should be issued. (Pen. Code, § 18160, subd. (c).)
   
10. Allows an immediate family member of a person or a law enforcement officer to request a court, after notice and a hearing, to issue a gun violence restraining order enjoining the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition for a period of one year. (Pen. Code, § 18170.)
    
11. States at the hearing, the petitioner shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that both of the following are true:
    
    1. The subject of the petition, or a person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, poses a significant danger of personal injury to himself or herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition; and
       
    2. A gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition, or the person subject to an ex parte gun violence restraining order, as applicable, or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or are inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (b)(1) & (2).)
12. Provides if the court finds that there is clear and convincing evidence to issue a gun violence restraining order, the court shall issue a gun violence restraining order that prohibits the subject of the petition from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition. If the court finds that there is not clear and convincing evidence to support the issuance of a gun violence restraining order, the court shall dissolve any temporary emergency or ex parte gun violence restraining order then in effect. (Pen. Code, § 18175, subd. (c)(1) & (2)
    
13. Requires the court to inform the restrained person that he or she is entitled to one hearing to request a termination of the gun violence restraining order and provide the restrained person with a form to request a hearing. (Pen. Code, § 18180, subd. (b).)
    
14. States that it is a misdemeanor offense for every person who files a petition for an ex parte gun violence restraining order or a gun violence restraining order issued after notice and a hearing knowing the information in the petition to be false or with the intent to harass. (Pen. Code, § 18200.)
    
15. Provides that it is a misdemeanor offense for every person who owns or possesses a firearm or ammunition with knowledge that he or she is prohibited from doing so by a gun violence restraining order and he or she shall be prohibited from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a five-year period, to commence upon the expiration of the existing gun violence restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 18205.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Gun violence and mass shootings can no longer be tolerated or accepted. We need to provide the people in all our communities with more tools to take firearms out of the hands of individuals that pose a deadly threat to themselves and others. Family members, co-workers, employers, and teachers are most likely to see early warning signs if someone is becoming a danger to themselves or others.
   
   "In these circumstances, existing law enables family members and law enforcement to prevent gun-related tragedies before they happen by pursuing a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) in court. If granted by a court, a GVRO results in a temporary seizure of firearms possessed by a dangerous individual and a prohibition of their ability to purchase new firearms. This bill logically expands who can petition a court for a GVRO by adding co-workers, employers, and teachers."
   
2. Gun Violence Restraining Orders: California's GVRO laws, modeled after domestic violence restraining order laws, went into effect on January 1, 2016. A GVRO will prohibit the restrained person from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and authorizes law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual's possession.
   
   The statutory scheme establishes three types of GVRO's: a temporary emergency GVRO, an ex parte GVRO, and a GVRO issued after notice and hearing. A law enforcement officer may seek a temporary emergency GVRO by submitting a written petition to or calling a judicial officer to request an order at any time of day or night. In contrast, an immediate family member or a law enforcement officer can petition for either an ex parte GVRO or a GVRO after notice and a hearing.
   
   An ex parte GVRO is based on an affidavit filed by the petitioner which sets forth the facts establishing the grounds for the order. The court will determine whether good cause exists to issue the order. If, the court issues the order, it can remain in effect for 21 days. Within that time frame, the court must provide an opportunity for a hearing. At the hearing, the court can determine whether the firearms should be returned to the restrained person, or whether it should issue a more permanent order.

Finally, if the court issues a GVRO after notice and hearing has been provided to the person to be restrained, this more permanent order can last for up to one year.

When AB 1014 (Skinner), Statutes of 2014, which created the GVRO statutory scheme was considered in the Senate Public Safety Committee, the bill would have allowed anyone to request a gun violence restraining order. The committee analysis noted that "Only those with a close relationship to the person to be restrained can request a domestic violence protective order." The Committee questioned whether anyone should be allowed to petition for a GVRO. AB 1014 was subsequently amended in the Senate Appropriations Committee to only permit law enforcement and immediate family members to petition for a GVRO.

This bill would expand the class of people who are able to petition for a GVRO to enjoin an individual for possessing or purchasing a firearm. It would allow an employer, a coworker, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months to seek such an order. While a mental health worker who has recently treated an individual should be in a position to know whether a person poses a danger to himself or others; employers, co-workers, and school personnel would not necessarily know this. It might depend on the work environment, the size of the place of employment, or the size of the school. Arguably these people do not necessarily have the kind of close relationship that the amendments to the original GVRO legislation sought to ensure.

1. Governor's Veto Messages: AB 2607 (Ting), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it expanded the list of individuals that are authorized to petition the court to issue a GVRO. AB 2607 was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor's veto message stated, “In 2014, I signed Assembly Bill 1014 which allowed immediate family members and members of law enforcement to petition for a GVRO. That law took effect on January 1, 2016, so at this point it would be premature to enact a further expansion.”
   
   AB 2888 (Ting), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was also similar to this bill in that it expanded the list of individuals that are authorized to petition the court to issue a GVRO. AB 2888 was vetoed by the Governor. The Governor’s veto message stated, “I am returning this bill without my signature. This bill would authorize an employer, a coworker, an employee of a secondary school or postsecondary school that a person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a gun violence restraining order against an individual. All of the persons named in this bill can seek a gun violence restraining order today by simply working through law enforcement or the immediate family of the concerning individual. I think law enforcement professionals and those closest to a family member are best situated to make these especially consequential decisions.”
   
2. Argument in Support: According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, "Existing law allows law enforcement and immediate family members to petition the court to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order when a person is at risk of injury to self or others by having a firearm. The order would temporarily prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms while the order is in effect and would allow a warrant to be issued to seize firearms or ammunition from a person subject to the order. AB 61 would similarly authorize an employer, a coworker, a mental health worker who has seen the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person as a patient in the prior six months, or an employee of a secondary or postsecondary school that the person has attended in the last six months, to file a petition for a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

''Those who teach or work with a person and have frequent interaction may see the early warning signs and be the first to know that the person is at severe risk of harming self or others with a firearm. These people need the ability to directly petition the court for a temporary firearm prohibition, particularly if law enforcement is not responsive to an urgent concern. For example, last February, 17 people were killed and 17 more were injured at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The shooter was a former student of the school and there had been several warnings raised about his potential for violence. AB 61 would provide school employees the opportunity to petition the court for a gun violence restraining order on a similar young person.

''The Gun Violence Restraining Order statute is modeled after California's domestic violence restraining order laws and ensures due process and a rigorous standard of proof. A noticed hearing before the court is required within 21 days. In fact, the law provides more protections than the state's domestic violence restraining order or mental health commitment laws. The person subject to the temporary order expires after one year (unless renewed) or is revoked by the court.''

1. Argument in Opposition: According to the American Civil Liberties Union, ''The ACLU of California does not oppose gun control measures that regulate the acquisition or use of guns – so long as those regulations contribute to public safety and do not raise civil liberties issues. Additionally, we do not oppose laws that authorize protective orders to remove guns from people who pose a risk to themselves or others, provided there are nondiscriminatory criteria for defining people as dangerous, and a fair process for those affected to object and be heard by a court.
   
   ''AB 61, however, poses a significant threat to civil liberties by expanding the authorization to seek ex parte orders, with all the ensuing consequences, without an opportunity for the person to be heard or contest the matter.

''The statutory scheme creating the Gun Violence Restraining Order (Penal Code §§ 18100-18205) was established in 2014 (AB 1014, Skinner). Under this scheme a family member, or any law enforcement officer, who has reason to believe a person owns a gun and poses a significant danger to themselves or others, may petition the court for an ex parte order to prohibit the subject from possessing a gun for up to 21 days, at which time a hearing is held to determine whether to extend the order for to one year.

''An ex parte order means the person subject to the restraining order is not informed of the court proceeding and therefore has no opportunity to contest the allegations. We support the efforts to prevent gun violence, but we must balance that important goal with protection of civil liberties so we do not sacrifice one in an attempt to accomplish the other. We believe AB 1014 was crafted in order to properly strike that balance. By expanding the parties that could apply for such an ex parte restraining order to include all the parties listed above, many of whom lack the relationship or skills required to make an appropriate assessment, AB 61 upsets that balance and creates significant potential for civil rights violations.''

1. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2888 (Ting), of the 2017-2018 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it authorized an employer, co-worker, or health care worker to file a petition requesting a court to issue a GVRO. AB 2888 was vetoed by the Governor.
      
   2. AB 2607 (Ting), of the 2015-2016 Legislative Session, was similar to this bill in that it authorized an employer, co-worker, or health care worker to file a petition requesting a court to issue a GVRO. AB 2607 was vetoed by the Governor.
      
   3. AB 1014 (Skinner), Chapter 872, Statutes of 2014, provided that commencing January 1, 2016, authorized a law enforcement officer or immediate family member of a person, to seek, and a court to issue, a GVRO, as specified, prohibiting that person from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving any firearms or ammunition.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Academy of Pediatrics, California
Bay Area Student Activists
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California District Attorneys Association
Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Los Angeles City Attorney 
Riverside Sheriffs' Association

Oppose

American Civil Liberties Union of California
Gun Owners of California, Inc.
National Rifle Association - Institute For Legislative Action

Analysis Prepared by:

Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744