BILL ANALYSIS
AB 532
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 12, 2009
Counsel: Nicole J. Hanson
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Jose Solorio, Chair
AB 532 (Lieu) - As Amended: April 13, 2009
SUMMARY : Authorizes the issuance of a search warrant when the
property or things to be seized include a firearm or any other
deadly weapon at the scene of, or at the premises occupied or
under the control of: (1) a person arrested in connection with
a domestic violence incident involving a threat to human life or
physical assault, or (2) a person who has been detained or
apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Defines a "search warrant" as an order in writing in the name
of the People, signed by a magistrate, directed to a peace
officer, commanding him or her to search for a person or
persons, a thing or things, or personal property, and in the
case of a thing or things or personal property, bring the same
before the magistrate. (Penal Code Section 1523.)
2)States that a search warrant may be issued upon any of the
following grounds:
a) When the property was stolen or embezzled.
b) When the property or things were used as the means of
committing a felony.
c) When the property or things are in the possession of any
person with the intent to use them as a means of committing
a public offense, or in the possession of another to whom
he or she may have delivered them for the purpose of
concealing them or preventing them from being discovered.
d) When the property or things to be seized consist of any
item or constitute any evidence that tends to show a felony
has been committed, or tends to show that a particular
person has committed a felony.
AB 532
Page 2
e) When the property or things to be seized consist of
evidence that tends to show that sexual exploitation of a
child, or possession of matter depicting sexual conduct of
a person under the age of 18 years, has occurred or is
occurring.
f) When there is a warrant to arrest a person.
g) When a provider of electronic communication service or
remote computing service has records or evidence, showing
that property was stolen or embezzled constituting a
misdemeanor, or that property or things are in the
possession of any person with the intent to use them as a
means of committing a misdemeanor public offense, or in the
possession of another to whom he or she may have delivered
them for the purpose of concealing them or preventing their
discovery. [Penal Code Section 1524(a).]
3)Affirms that whenever a person, who has been detained or
apprehended for examination of his or her mental condition or
who is a person that is a danger to themselves or others as a
result of a mental illness or disorder, is found to own, have
in his or her possession or under his or her control, any
firearm whatsoever, or any other deadly weapon, the firearm or
other deadly weapon shall be confiscated by any law
enforcement agency or peace officer, who shall retain custody
of the firearm or other deadly weapon. [Welfare and
Institutions Code (WIC) Section 8102(a).]
4)Allows peace officers at the scene of a domestic violence
incident involving a threat to human life or a physical
assault, to take temporary custody of any firearm or other
deadly weapon in plain sight or discovered pursuant to a
consensual or other lawful search as necessary for the
protection of the peace officer or other persons present.
Upon taking custody of a firearm or other deadly weapon, the
officer shall give the owner or person who possessed the
firearm a receipt. The receipt shall describe the firearm or
other deadly weapon and list any identification or serial
number on the firearm. The receipt shall indicate where the
firearm or other deadly weapon can be recovered, the time
limit for recovery as required by this section, and the date
after which the owner or possessor can recover the firearm or
other deadly weapon. No firearm or other deadly weapon shall
AB 532
Page 3
be held less than 48 hours. If a firearm or other deadly
weapon is not retained for use as evidence related to criminal
charges brought as a result of the domestic violence incident
or is not retained because it was illegally possessed, the
firearm or other deadly weapon shall be made available to the
owner or person who was in lawful possession 48 hours after
the seizure or as soon thereafter as possible, but no later
than five business days. [Penal Code Section 12028.5(b).]
5)Specifies that in domestic violence cases in which a law
enforcement agency has reasonable cause to believe that the
return of a firearm or other deadly weapon would be likely to
result in endangering the victim or the person reporting the
assault or threat, the agency shall advise the owner of the
firearm or other deadly weapon, and within 60 days of the date
of seizure, initiate a petition in superior court to determine
if the firearm or other deadly weapon should be returned.
[Penal Code Section 12028.5(f).]
a) Requires the law enforcement agency to inform the owner
or person who had lawful possession of the firearm or other
deadly weapon, at that person's last known address by
registered mail, return receipt requested, that he or she
has 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice to
respond to the court clerk to confirm his or her desire for
a hearing, and that the failure to respond shall result in
a default order forfeiting the confiscated firearm or other
deadly weapon. [Penal Code Section 12028.5(g).]
b) If the person requests a hearing, the court clerk shall
set a hearing no later than 30 days from receipt of that
request. The court clerk shall notify the person, the law
enforcement agency involved, and the district attorney of
the date, time, and place of the hearing. Unless it is
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the return of
the firearm or other deadly weapon would result in
endangering the victim or the person reporting the assault
or threat, the court shall order the return of the firearm
or other deadly weapon and shall award reasonable
attorney's fees to the prevailing party. [Penal Code
Section 12028.5(h).]
c) If the person does not request a hearing or does not
otherwise respond within 30 days of the receipt of the
notice, the law enforcement agency may file a petition for
AB 532
Page 4
an order of default and may dispose of the firearm or other
deadly weapon. [Penal Code Section 12028.5(i).]
d) If, at the hearing, the court does not order the return
of the firearm or other deadly weapon to the owner or
person who had lawful possession, that person may petition
the court for a second hearing within 12 months from the
date of the initial hearing. If there is a petition for a
second hearing, unless it is shown by clear and convincing
evidence that the return of the firearm or other deadly
weapon would result in endangering the victim or the person
reporting the assault or threat, the court shall order the
return of the firearm or other deadly weapon and shall
award reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
If the owner or person who had lawful possession does not
petition the court within this 12-month period for a second
hearing or is unsuccessful at the second hearing in gaining
return of the firearm or other deadly weapon, the firearm
or other deadly weapon may be disposed of. [Penal Code
Section 12028.5(j).]
6)Mandates that a search warrant shall be executed and returned
within 10 days after date of issuance. A warrant executed
within the 10-day period shall be deemed to have been timely
executed and no further showing of timeliness need be made.
After the expiration of 10 days, the warrant, unless executed,
is void. [Penal Code Section 1534(a).]
7)Provides that a defendant may move for the return of property
or to suppress as evidence any tangible or intangible thing
obtained as a result of a search or seizure on either of the
following grounds:
a) The search or seizure without a warrant was
unreasonable.
b) The search or seizure with a warrant was unreasonable
because any of the following apply:
i) The warrant is insufficient on its face.
ii) The property or evidence obtained is not that
described in the warrant.
iii) There was not probable cause for the issuance of the
AB 532
Page 5
warrant.
iv) The method of execution of the warrant violated
federal or state constitutional standards.
8)There was any other violation of federal or state
constitutional standards. [Penal Code Section 1538.5(a)(1).]
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, "AB 532 will
help protect victims of domestic violence and individuals who
present a danger to themselves and others because of mental
health issues by strengthening California law which allows law
enforcement officials to temporarily seize firearms and other
dangerous weapons. California law requires law enforcement
officers at the scene of a domestic violence incident or
whenever an individual is apprehended because they have a
mental condition that makes them a danger to themselves or
others to, take temporary custody of any firearm or other
deadly weapon. However, California law does not provide law
enforcement officials with any constitutionally permissible
way to seize the firearms or other deadly weapons from these
individuals in the absence of some exigent circumstance as
required by California law. AB 532 solves this problem by
authorizing a court to issue a search warrant to seize any
firearm or other deadly weapon authorized by Penal Code
Section 12028.5 or WIC Section 8102."
2)Background : According to information provided by the author,
"California Penal Code Section 12028.5 requires a law
enforcement officer at the scene of a domestic violence
incident to 'take temporary custody of any firearm or other
deadly weapon' in order to protect the victim of the abuse or
other persons present at the scene.
"California WIC Section 8102 requires that whenever a law
enforcement officer detains or apprehends a person because
they have a mental condition that makes them a danger to
themselves or others, the officer shall confiscate any firearm
or other deadly weapon in the person's possession or control.
"California Penal Code Section 1524 lists the circumstances
AB 532
Page 6
under which a court can issue a search warrant under
California law.
"California's Third District Court of Appeal ruled recently that
a warrantless search of the residence of an individual taken
into custody because the individual suffered from a mental
condition that made him a danger to himself or others (WIC
Section 5150) in order to seize firearms and other deadly
weapons violated the 4th Amendment despite the fact the search
was conducted for the primary purpose of seizing deadly
weapons as mandated by WIC Section 8102. [People v. Sweig
(2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1145.]
"The Court of Appeal in Sweig stated, 'The flaw in the statutes
is that the legislative scheme does not provide a
constitutionally permissible way for law enforcement to
confiscate a firearm or other deadly weapon when it is in the
residence of the mentally disordered person who is detained
outside the residence and there is no exigent circumstance or
other basis for a warrantless entry into the residence.
Although section 8102 requires confiscation of the firearm or
deadly weapon, the situation is not included as a ground for
the issuance of a search warrant (Pen. Code, Section 1524),
and section 8102 does not contain a mechanism to seize the
firearm or other deadly weapon in that circumstance.'
"The United States Supreme Court in Georgia v. Randolph ruled
that a joint occupant of a residence who is present and
expressly refuses consent to a law enforcement search of a
residence can cancel another joint occupant of that residence.
"Because of the holdings in Sweig and Randolph law enforcement
officers have no constitutionally permissible way to seize
firearms or other deadly weapons as required by Penal Code
Section 12028.5 or WIC Section 8102 if they make the arrest or
detention outside of a residence and no exigent circumstance
exists allowing them access to the inside of the residence.
"The inability of law enforcement to remove firearms and other
deadly weapons from the scene of a domestic violence incident
or from individuals who pose an immediate danger to themselves
or others places victims of domestic violence or those living
with or near an individual suffering from a serious mental
health condition at unnecessary risk.
AB 532
Page 7
"AB 532 solves this problem by authorizing a court to issue a
search warrant pursuant to Penal Code Section 1524 to seize
any firearm or other deadly weapon authorized by Penal Code
Section 12028.5 or WIC Section 8102."
3)Seizure of Firearms in Domestic Violence Incidences under
Current Law : Firearms and domestic violence create a lethal
combination - one that heightens the risks for victims.
Domestic violence incidents that involve a firearm are 12
times more likely to result in death than those involving any
other type of weapon. [Saltzman, Mercy, O'Carroll, Rosenberg
& Rhodes, Weapon Involvement and Injury Outcomes in Family and
Intimate Assaults (1992), 267 JAMA 3043, 3043.] This
consequence likely because firearms are more lethal than other
weapons, and many batterers who kill "with a firearm would be
unable or unwilling to exert the greater physical or
psychological effort required to kill with another, typically
available weapon." (Id. at 3045.) Simply having a firearm in
a home increases the risk of homicide by a family member or
intimate acquaintance. [Kellermann, Rivara, Rushforth,
Banton, Reay, Francisco, Locci, Prodzinski, Hacman & Somes,
Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home (1993)
329 N. Eng. J. Med. 1084, 1087.] In addition, if a history of
domestic violence incidents in that home exists, the risk of
firearm-related homicide becomes even greater. (Id. at 1087.)
The availability of guns in a home also increases the risk of
suicide - one in every ten abused women tries to kill herself.
[Nocolais, State and Federal Statutes Affecting Domestic
Violence Cases Recognize Dangers of Firearms (Nov. 1999) N.Y.
St. B.J., p. 39.]
Legislators at the federal, state and local levels are working
to remove firearms from the hands of abusers in order to lower
the likelihood of injury and death caused by domestic
violence. On October 6, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis
signed into law SB 218 (Solis), Chapter 662, Statutes of 1999,
the 1999 Domestic Violence Omnibus Bill. Under SB 218, Penal
Code Section 12028.5 was created. Under that section, law
enforcement officers are required take temporary custody of
any firearms or deadly weapons in plain view or discovered in
a consensual search at the scene of a domestic violence
incident. Upon seizure of the weapon or firearm, the officer
must give the owner a receipt that describes the weapon or
firearm, lists any identification or serial number, and
indicates where and when the firearm can be recovered. [Penal
AB 532
Page 8
Code Section 12028.5(3)(b).] The law requires that all
weapons or firearms be held for at least 48 hours, but no more
than business five days. (Ibid.) If the law enforcement
officer has reason to believe that returning the weapon or
firearm would endanger the victim or the person reporting the
incident, however, the officer has 60 days during which to
file a petition in superior court. [Id. at subd. (f).] This
petition will help determine whether or not the weapon or
firearm should be returned. (Ibid.) With a showing of good
cause, this 30-day time limit may be extended an additional 30
days. (Ibid.)
The law enforcement agency must then inform the person who
originally possessed the weapon that he or she has 30 days to
decide whether or not to attend a hearing on this matter.
[Id. at subd. (g).] Failure to respond to this notice will
result in a default order that forfeits the seized firearm.
(Ibid.) If the person desires a hearing, however, the date
will be calendared within 30 days of the court's receipt of
the request for a hearing. [Id. at subd. (h).] In order to
retain custody of the weapon in the interim, the state must
show the preponderance of the evidence that returning the gun
will endanger the victim or the person reporting the threat.
(Ibid.)
If the court decides not to return the firearm to the owner or
person in possession, he or she may petition the court for a
second hearing anytime during the year following the initial
one. [Id. at subd. (j).] If he or she does not request the
second hearing or is unsuccessful in regaining the weapon at
the second hearing, the gun may be disposed of. (Ibid.)
Thus, at the minimum, a seized firearm will be in the hands of
law enforcement for two days. Once law enforcement files a
petition, as many as 60 days could elapse until the hearing -
two months during which the abuser is denied access to his or
her weapons.
4)Mental Disorder and Firearm Seizure under Current Law : A
person who is gravely disabled or a danger to others because
of a mental disorder may be taken into custody and placed in a
mental health facility "for 72-hour treatment and evaluation."
(WIC Section 5150.) When detained, if such a person "is
found to own, have in his or her possession or under his or
her control, any firearm whatsoever, or any other deadly
weapon," the weapon "shall be confiscated by any law
AB 532
Page 9
enforcement agency or peace officer, who shall retain custody
of the firearm or other deadly weapon." [WIC Code Section
8102(a).] When the person is released from custody, "the
confiscating law enforcement agency shall have 30 days to
initiate a petition in the superior court for a hearing to
determine whether the return of a firearm or other deadly
weapon would be likely to result in endangering the person or
others . . . ." [WIC Section 8102(c).]
The constitutionality of WIC Section 8102 was upheld in Rupf v.
Yan (Ct. App. 2000) 85 Cal. App. 4th 411. In Rupf, the court
found that it has long been established in California that
regulation of firearms is a proper police function. [Galvan
v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal. 2d 851, 866; People v. Seale
(1969) 274 Cal. App. 2d 107, 114; People v. Evans (1974) 40
Cal. App. 3d 582, 586-587.] "[L]egislative restrictions on
the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally
suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally
protected liberties." [Lewis v. United States (1980) 445 U.S.
55, 65-66, fn. 8.] The Ninth Circuit is among those federal
circuits considering the issue that have held "that the Second
Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect
the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." [Hickman v.
Block (9th Cir. 1996) 81 F.3d 98, 101; accord, U.S. v. Hancock
(9th Cir. 2000) 231 F.3d 557, 565; San Diego County Gun Rights
v. Reno (9th Cir. 1996) 98 F.3d 1121, 1124; Gillespie v. City
of Indianapolis (7th Cir. 1999) 185 F.3d 693, 709; Love v.
Pepersack (4th Cir. 1995) 47 F.3d 120, 124; United States v.
Warin (6th Cir. 1976) 530 F.2d 103, 106-107; Cases v. U.S.
(1st Cir. 1942) 131 F.2d 916, 920-923.] Thus, the Legislature
can deny persons being detained for observation under
circumstances where it appeared they were mentally unstable
and presented a danger to themselves or to others access to
firearms they owned or possessed and that in such emergency
circumstances, the police should be allowed to confiscate such
firearms.
5)Fourth Amendment Analysis of the Current Laws Relating to
Firearm Seizures : The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of
the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. Shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, support by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and persons
or things to be seized" (U.S. Const., 4th Amend.) In a long
AB 532
Page 10
line of cases, the Supreme Court has stressed that "searches
conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval
by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the
Fourth Amendment -- subject only to a few specifically
established and well delineated exceptions." [Katz v. United
States (1967) 389 U.S. 347, 357.] Because the physical entry
of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the
Fourth Amendment is directed, it is a basic principle of
Fourth Amendment law that searches and seizures inside a home
without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. The
presumption is rebutted, when an exception to the warrant
requirement - such as plain view, consent, or exigent
circumstances:
a) Domestic Violence Firearm Seizure Pitfalls : Penal Code
Section 12028.5 states that an officer "shall take
temporary custody of a firearm or other deadly weapon in
plain sight or discovered pursuant to a consensual or other
lawful search as necessary for the protection of the peace
officer or other persons present." [Penal Code Section
12028.5(b).]
In this context, "plain view" is defined as "open and visible
to the naked eye." [20 Cal. Jur. 2515 (3d ed. 1985) at p.
506 ("[S]eizure of property in plain view involves no
invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable,
assuming that there is probable cause to associate the
property with criminal activity").] A search is deemed
"consensual" if the consent is voluntary, if the search
conforms to the consent given, and if the person consenting
had the authority to do so. [Whitebread & Slobogin,
Criminal Procedure: An Analysis of Cases and Concepts 5.05
(4th ed. 2000) at pp. 276-77).] When these requirements
are met, the consent functions as a waiver of Fourth
Amendment protections. (Ibid.) Thus, valid consent allows
an officer to search an area without probable cause or a
warrant. (Ibid.) The ability to perform this type of
search provides law enforcement with an essential tool for
removing firearms from explosive situations. William
Flannery, an officer in the Gun Unit at the Los Angeles
Police Department (LAPD), stated that while performing
consensual searches at the site of domestic violence
incidents, he has found guns hidden in toilet tanks, fish
tanks, and freezers. [Interview with William Flannery,
Officer, LAPD Gun Unit, Detective Headquarters Division, in
AB 532
Page 11
Los Angeles, Cal. (Feb. 8, 2001).] Clearly, these weapons
would not have been removed if officers had only the "plain
view" option at their disposal.
The challenging aspect of a consensual search is determining
who has the authority to consent. An individual's
authority to permit a search "does not rest upon the law of
property . . . but rests rather on mutual use of the
property by persons generally having joint access or
control for most purposes." [United States v. Matlock
(1974) 415 U.S. 164, 171 n.7.] In other words, if law
enforcement serves a domestic violence protective order,
the protected person cannot give permission for law
enforcement to seize firearms or other dangerous weapons in
a residence if the individual being served is a joint
occupant and does not consent. This bill alleviates this
gap by allowing for the issuance of a search warrant, thus
obviating the need for plain view or consent altogether.
Although, the Fourth Amendment recognizes a valid warrantless
entry and search of premises when police obtain the
voluntary consent of an occupant who shares, or is
reasonably believed to share, authority over the area in
common with a co-occupant who later objects to the use of
evidence so obtained." [Georgia v. Randolph (2006) 547
U.S. 103, 106 (citing Illinois v. Rodriguez (1990) 497 U.S.
177).] However, the police have "no recognized authority
in law or social practice" to enter the residence over the
objection of a "present and objecting co-tenant." (Id. at
114.) According to the Supreme Court, a "disputed
invitation, without more, gives a police officer no better
claim to reasonableness in entering than the officer would
have in the absence of any consent at all." (Ibid.)
Thus, if law enforcement services an individual with a
protective order which disallows possession of firearms or
dangerous weapons, the protected person cannot give
permission for law enforcement to seize the weapons within
a residence over the protests of the person being served.
This bill obviates the need for a warrantless search
exception to acquire deadly weapons at the premises
occupied or under the control of a person arrested in
connection with a domestic violence incident. It seems
counterintuitive to the spirit of Penal Code Section
AB 532
Page 12
12028.5 to require acquisition of deadly weapons, yet rely
upon the narrow exceptions to a warrantless search to
achieve such goals. This bill explicitly allows law
enforcement to obtain a warrant, and search a residence
beyond "plain view" without the consent of the batterer,
thus protecting the victim further danger.
b) Mental Disorder Firearm Seizure Pitfalls : The flaw in
the statutes relating to firearm seizure of a mentally
unstable person is that the legislative scheme does not
provide a constitutionally permissible way for law
enforcement to confiscate a firearm or other deadly weapon
when it is in the residence of the mentally disordered
person who is detained outside the residence. None of the
exceptions to a warrantless search apply in this
circumstance.
"Exigent circumstances" exist, and when there is a
requirement of swift action, leaving no time to obtain a
warrant before entering a residence. [People v. Frye
(1998) 18 Cal.4th 894, 989.] If a person is detained
outside of his or her residence, there is no exigent
circumstance for which to enter the dwelling. The person,
who is the threat, has been quelled. Thus, law enforcement
may not enter and the seizure of any weapons would be
invalid.
Additionally, the "community caretaking function" exception
does not obviate the need for a warrant. The community
caretaking exception recognizes law enforcement officers
perform many community functions apart from investigating
crime and officers are "expected to aid those in distress,
combat actual hazards, prevent potential hazards from
materializing, and provide an infinite variety of services
to preserve and protect community safety." [U.S. v.
Rodriguez-Morales (1st Cir. 1991) 929 F.2d 780, 784-785.]
For example, the community caretaking function encompasses
law enforcement's authority to remove vehicles that impede
traffic or threaten public safety and to inventory the
contents of impounded vehicles. [See South Dakota v.
Opperman (1976) 428 U.S. 364, 368-372.] The search warrant
requirement is also obviated under the emergency aid
doctrine, a subcategory of the community caretaking
doctrine that applies where there is a "need to assist
persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such
AB 532
Page 13
injury." [Brigham City v. Stuart (2006) 547 U.S. 398, 403;
see U.S. v. Snipe (9th Cir. 2008) 515 F.3d 947, 951-952;
U.S. v. Stafford (9th Cir. 2005) 416 F.3d 1068, 1073.]
Again, when the person who poses a danger to himself,
herself, or others has already been detained, it is
unlikely that the hazard, threat or potential thereof still
exists. Although WIC Section 8102 requires confiscation of
the firearm or deadly weapon, the situation is not included
as a ground for the issuance of a search warrant (Penal
Code Section 1524), and WIC Section 8102 does not contain a
mechanism to seize the firearm or other deadly weapon in
that circumstance. This bill creates that mechanism by
allowing the issuance of a warrant when the property or
things to be seized include a firearm or any other deadly
weapon that is owned by, or in the possession of a person
who poses a danger to himself or others.
6)Argument in Support : According to the California Partnership
to End Domestic Violence , "AB 532 is crucial legislation that
protects domestic violence victims and others living with
mentally unstable individuals by ensuring that law enforcement
have the ability to remove potentially harmful weapons from
the home. In 2007 alone, 119 murders were committed as a
result of intimate partner violence in California and law
enforcement received 174,649 domestic violence calls - 69,422
calls involved weapons, including firearms. Current law does
not provide a constitutional way for law enforcement to
confiscate firearms and other weapons while at the scene of a
domestic violence or mental health incident and this leaves
victims vulnerable."
7)Related Legislation : AB 789 (DeLeon) authorizes the issuance
of a search warrant when the property or things to be seized
include a firearm owned by, in the possession of, or in the
custody or control of a person who is subject to the
prohibitions regarding firearms pursuant to protective orders
issued to prevent the molesting, attacking, striking,
stalking, threatening, sexually assaulting, battering,
harassing, telephoning, destroying personal property;
contacting, either directly or indirectly, by mail or
otherwise; coming within a specified distance of, or
disturbing the peace of, the other party; and, in the
discretion of the court, on a showing of good cause, of other
named family or household members. AB 789 is scheduled to be
AB 532
Page 14
heard by this Committee today.
8)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 585 (Kehoe), Chapter 467, Statutes of 2006, requires
a person ordered to relinquish a gun, pursuant to terms of
a protective order, to surrender the weapon immediately
upon request of any law enforcement officer, or within 24
hours, if no request is made by an officer. Failure to
file a receipt in a timely manner is a violation of the
protective order; a misdemeanor pursuant to existing law.
b) AB 1288 (Chu), Chapter 702, Statutes of 2005, provides
that if a court orders a protective order in a domestic
violence case, the order shall prohibit the defendant from
purchasing firearms and require the defendant to relinquish
any firearms he or she possesses.
c) SB 1391 (Romero), Chapter 250, Statutes of 2004,
requires a person subject to a domestic violence protective
order to relinquish any firearm within 24 hours of the
service of the order.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
California Partnership to End Domestic Violence
California State Sheriffs' Association
Legal Community Against Violence
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office
Peace Officer's Research Association of California
Opposition
None
Analysis Prepared by : Nicole J. Hanson / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744