|
Abstract
|
Much has been written about the gun control debate, mass shoot- ings, and gun violence in high crime neighborhoods, but less attention has been paid to efforts to prevent shootings altogether. A gun vio- lence restraining order ("GVRO") is a tailored, individualized way to deter homicide, suicides, and even mass shootings by providing a tool for law enforcement to intervene when harm appears imminent, with- out having to wait for injury, lethality, or criminal actions.. A GVRO is a "red flag" law which permits removal of firearms from an individual and allows the police to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to them- selves or others.
GVROs are a moderate and effective tool for preventing violence. A court decides whether to issue a GVRO based on statements or actions by the gun owner in question. Evidence might include threats of violence by the individual toward themselves and others, a violation of a domestic violence restraining order, or the recent acquisition of a significant num- ber of firearms.
This Article explores the application and enforcement of GVROs in California and offers an evaluation of their effectiveness thus far. It then argues that GVROs are constitutionally permissible under the new standard announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen. In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a century-old New York gun safety law, which required a license to carry concealed weapons in public places, was unconstitutional. Further, the Court adopted a new test that says a modern gun law must have an analogue in American legislative text, history, and tradition.
This Article blends statutory and legal analyses of GVROs in Cal- ifornia and includes a rare discussion of the practical and administrative aspects of how attorneys proceed in bringing forth a GVRO against a respondent. It stands apart from the extant legal literature which has largely addressed the goals and feasibility of red flag laws generally, or has focused on red flag laws in states other than California. Thus far, the analytical scope of the research surrounding GVROs has been defined and maintained by medical and public health academics within medical journals. These studies lean heavily towards case summaries, discussing study design and/or collecting statistics. This Article bridges their results with best legal practices and caselaw analyses to broaden the conversa- tion about the need for GVROs
Language: en |