Good News And Bad News About California's Gun Violence Restraining Orders

Web Page
Facebook
YouTube

This graphic explains the California gun violence
restraining order system.  In 2016, 89% of orders
were lifted as soon as the subject got before a judge.

Gun violence restraining orders are being proposed in 24 states as a solution to the ongoing problem of gun related crime and violence, such as the Parkland school shooting.  One advantage to the restraining order system is that it doesn't affect the rights of all gun owners, but instead is intended to only affect those gun owners who actually present a threat.  

California has had a version of these restraining orders for some time.  The gun owner is required to store their firearms at a licensed dealer, sell them to a licensed dealer, or surrender them to police BEFORE GETTING THEIR DAY IN COURT.  If this sounds like what President Trump was talking about, you are correct.  How has this law been used and applied in California?  Well, the numbers we have are that in 2016, 86 initial orders were granted and 10 were extended to one year at the required hearing.  What conclusions can we draw from these numbers?

First the good news:

These restraining orders have seldom been issued.  The number of such restraining orders that has been granted is tiny compared to the number of gun owners in the state.

Most of the restraining orders were of short duration, with 79% lasting only 21 days.

Now the bad news:

These numbers prove that these orders are redundant, and perhaps even dangerous.  If there is sufficient evidence that a person is dangerous, why would a family member not call law enforcement?  Why would a law enforcement officer leave them free to injure or kill with another weapon?  The answer is: They wouldn't.  So, as someone who worked EMS in California for ten years, here is what I would bet my life is happening:  Either officers are arresting them for a crime, advising an actual restraining order, or sending them in for mental health evaluation under a 5150 hold.  Since these last two also create a firearms disability under California law, the firearms restraining order isn't needed.

OK, so they are redundant, but how are they dangerous?  Well, especially when it comes to the mentally ill, obtaining such an order leaves a clearly dangerous person free to do harm.  Sending them in for evaluation isn't hard for officers to do and then the task is the same as with the firearms restraining order: Make sure the guns are taken away.  In addition, instead of 21 days, a 5150 hold results in a 5 year firearms ban.  If they are committed, that create a lifetime firearms ban under federal law.  Only obtaining a firearms ban creates a totally false sense of security.

The other piece of bad news is that only 11% of these orders were found to be justified.  How do we know this?  Well, according to the article, only 10 of 82 orders were extended at the first hearing.  Now think about this:  What judge wants to be the guy who gave a murderer his guns back?  Can we not expect that California judges would error on the side of caution and, if there is any indication at all that the order might be justified, extend it for one year?  I think so.  What are the chances that someone really was a threat and stopped being a threat in just 21 days?  Does it not make more sense that the first time the subject of the order was able to get before a judge and make his (or her) case, the judge saw that they were never a threat?   So, we can reach the conclusion that 89% of these initial orders were completely unjustified and likely many were abuses of the system.

These abuses were exactly what gun rights activists feared.  Fortunately, they were able to get the bill amended.  The original bill would have permitted virtually anyone with the slightest relationship to the subject to file for such an order.  Imagine the potential for abuse if the original bill had passed?

So, in short, firearms restraining orders are a flawed and dangerous idea.  Is there a better idea?

Yes there are several better ideas:

Attach a temporary firearms disability to short term mental health commitments.  Then make sure that they person actually disposes of, or properly stores their firearms with a licensed firearms dealer.

Instead of firearms restraining orders, enforce the current law against persons subject to orders of protection possessing or buying firearms.  The Parkland murderer could have been prevented from lawfully owning firearms had the school simply obtained a restraining order.  In addition he could have been barred from school grounds and arrested if he set foot on them.

We can also make sure that such persons are entered into the background check database.

Speaking as a former first responder, the above solutions make a great deal more sense - and it looks like the above measures, which are law in California, are being used in many more cases than the firearms retraining orders.