The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors began a public outreach campaign aimed at expanding the use of gun violence restraining orders, which can prevent gun purchases and ownership by people deemed by a judge to be a danger of harming themselves or others.
The board earlier this year directed its staff to develop a plan for increasing public awareness of the orders, which Supervisors Janice Hahn and Hilda Solis contended in a motion are highly underutilized in the county. The motion notes that in 2022, only 66 such restraining orders were issued in the county, and only one of those was initiated by a non-law-enforcement party. During the same year, more than 400 gun violence restraining orders were issued in San Diego County, which has only one-third the population of Los Angeles County, according to the motion.
The board on Tuesday, Aug. 8, unanimously approved public-outreach recommendations that were developed by the Department of Public Health’s Office of Violence Prevention, which will oversee the awareness campaign.
“This includes beginning the public awareness campaign by launching a website and disseminating information about GVROs; collecting, synthesizing, and publicly sharing existing data on GVROs; advocating for better access to accurate data from the courts and law enforcement; and providing training on GVROs that support both law enforcement and public access,” according to the motion approved by the board Tuesday. “The motion also directs the Chief Executive Office to collaborate with OVP, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and County Counsel to identify funding options for the additional recommendations laid out in the report that would increase the reach of the public awareness campaign and provide dedicated individuals to support members of the public who are seeking a GVRO.
“The process to petition for a GVRO can be very challenging and the decision to pursue one is not to be taken lightly, so having dedicated personnel housed in OVP to help navigate that system would be very beneficial,” the motion states.
A 2016 state law allows certain people — including police, family members, domestic partners, housemates and school officials — to petition a court for a Gun Violence Restraining Order. Such an order mandates that the subject of the petition who is deemed a threat to themselves or others be stripped of firearms and ammunition for up to five years. The law also prohibits anyone subject to a GVRO from purchasing weapons and ammunition, including those who do not currently possess guns.
“Gun violence is an epidemic that has taken too many lives and continues to plague too many communities,” according to the board motion. “The board has taken multiple steps to combat this epidemic from all angles, including strengthening local gun regulations, advocating for stronger federal and state regulations, investing in community-based violence prevention programs, holding gun buy-back events, and creating various risk assessment and co-response programs.
“Another way that the board can fight gun violence is to spread awareness and improve access to Gun Violence Restraining Orders under California’s `red flag’ law. This is a vastly underutilized tool that can help save lives, so it is time for Los Angeles County to ensure that its residents are aware of this tool and have access to it when needed.”
–
Mike says
Restraining orders which remove a persons guns are highly unconstitutional and the county board of supervisors are keenly aware that these laws are currently being challenged in the district courts and Supreme Court. Yet they continue to advocate for their use. Owning a gun a is constitutionally guaranteed right. Giving an unelected official, like a police officer, or a doctor, psychologist, or neighbor, the authority to deem you “unworthy” of your rights is the literal definition of fascism.
People fail to understand that the Constitution does not give the government authority to “grant” certain rights. The Constitution is meant to recognize inherent natural rights and PREVENT government from infringing upon them without DUE PROCESS.
The restraining order process involves NO DUE PROCESS. Under current California law, you can have your rights stripped from you without ever being found guilty of a crime in a court of law. Show me where in our Constitution that this is permissible? A “hearing” before the judge evaluating the merits of a restraining order is NOT due process. It is a hearing where a judge makes an independent decision on whether or not you are worthy of your constitutional rights. The judge is not an elected legislator. The judicial branch of government cannot make laws. So why are the people allowing this to happen? Do you really think they will just stop at “guns” if they are successful? If they want to get rid of guns, they need to amend the constitution. But they won’t, and they haven’t, because they know they can’t. There is not enough nationwide support to abolish guns in this country. Sorry to disappoint you California, but the rest of the nation is not afflicted by the same disease you suffer from. The rest of the nation is keenly aware of the history of this country and other countries who have slaughtered their own people in pursuit of the “greater societal good.” Nationalism has always defeated every other ideological platform throughout history. People who truly believe the in Constitution are Nationalists. History guarantees you that this is not a fight you can ever win.
John Hancock says
you said: “Owning a gun a is constitutionally guaranteed right.”
but only in the context of forming a militia for domestic defense.
without the militia part of the constitutional clause, there is really no qualification for ownership.
Horace Greeley says
you said “Show me where in our Constitution that this is permissible?”
using that logic, parking tickets are unconstitutional, nearly every local statute is unconstitutional, every states rights claim is…you guessed it…unconstitutional.
but, please, keep natterring on.
images on a screen are inexpensive sources for entertainment
Tim Scott says
Want some cheese with that?
Restraining Orders says
Easily circumvented…
PRETTY POLLYANNA says
A HEAVILY ARMED AND ARMORED UP SWAT TEAM SHOULD SERVE ALL THE RED FLAG RESTRAINING ORDER PAPERS –
SOME OF THESE VIOLENT PEOPLE ARE BOUND TO RESIST –
MAYBE HAVE THE SWAT TEAM SERVE A SEARCH WARRANT TO SEIZE ALL THE GUNS AND AMMO –
THEN DEMOLISH THEIR HOUSE –
JUST SAY NO TO ICKY SCARY GUNS –
TAKE AWAY ALL THE GUNS AND THROW THEM AWAY –
***
THEN, WE CAN ALL LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER –
SIGNED:
PRETTY POLLYANNA
Learn your rights says
Wow, are you going to take away every knife? Every baseball bat? Every fist?
More people are beaten to death than shot. So, that angry person can’t have a gun. They can just beat the person to death or run them down with their car or get someone else to do it. As for SWAT teams and warrants? You know the police can’t enter your home even with a search warrant unless you let them. And even then, you still have the right to have a lawyer read and verify the warrant before they can actually serve you with it. No knock warrants. You still have the right to defend your home, this is where people get killed.
Mike says
Sorry bud. But you are incorrect about search warrants. Police must serve you with the warrant, true. However if you still refuse to grant the police entry into your home after serving you with a valid warrant, they are authorized by law to use force to gain entry. The law does not require police to wait until your lawyer reviews the warrant. The law only requires that you, the homeowner, be served with the warrant prior to the search. I only felt the need to clarify this so that someone who reads your initial comment isn’t misinformed.
Tim Scott says
While “more people are beaten to death than shot” might be accurate, it ignores the significant issue. A depressed guy doesn’t “go out with a bang” by going to Vegas and beating fifty people to death. An angry bigot doesn’t go to a nightclub and beat thirty people to death. A bullied high school kid doesn’t show their angst by beating thirty schoolkids to death. No, these people use GUNS.
Mike says
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
~Benjamin Franklin
Tim Scott says
If you weren’t a well known coward you’d be a better source for this quote.