So Far, So Good: Enforcing California's Gun Violence Restraining Orders Before and After Bruen

Abstract

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 California 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 conversation about the need for GVROs.