Law increases protections for domestic, gun violence victims

Audio By Carbonatix

(The Center Square) – A new law in California is designed to make it easier for courts across the state to issue temporary or ex parte restraining orders, instituting more accountability for those accused of domestic violence or gun violence.

Assembly Bill 1753, introduced by Assemblymember Catherine Stefani, D-San Francisco, doesn’t require victims to establish exceptional circumstances to get a restraining order against an accused abuser, according to an analysis of the legislation.

“For too long, survivors of abuse and violence have had to overcome dangerous barriers to obtain protective orders and ensure those orders are effectively served and enforced to keep them safe,” state Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a press release. “We are taking crucial steps forward to end that with AB 1753. AB 1753 will ensure our court protective order systems rightfully set a national standard for safety, access to justice, and proactive, coordinated enforcement, especially to prevent gun violence, domestic violence, and hate-motivated violence.”

The Center Square reached out to Bonta’s office, which only responded via email to send a link to a Sept. 28 press release about the new law.

Stefani also did not respond to The Center Square before press time on Thursday.

"AB 1753 takes on one of the most critical gaps in survivor protection by making sure California's protective order laws actually work,” Stefani said in author comments included in the bill analysis. “Too often, survivors get a protective order and assume they're safe, only to find that the system meant to back it up is broken. This bill closes the gap between what the law promises and what survivors actually experience."

According to the bill analysis, the new law does not require accused abusers to receive notification in advance that a restraining order is being filed against them. That aspect of the legislation is designed to protect those who want to file a restraining order and protect them from further harm by their abusers. Those who are subject to a temporary restraining order have to give up ammunition, and a court can search for an accused abuser’s name in the state’s Automated Firearms System database to see if the accused abuser owns a gun.

Those who have a temporary restraining order served against them are barred from having firearms or ammunition for 10 years.

Ethan Murray, state policy attorney for the Giffords Law Center, which co-sponsored the bill, told The Center Square on Thursday that the law closes the gaps that allows accused abusers with restraining orders against them to keep their guns.

“Judges can now check whether someone with a restraining order owns firearms at any stage of the case, something they haven’t historically been able to do on their own,” Murray said. “What we’ve seen over the years is there hasn’t been consistent follow-up to make sure there was follow-through on the protection orders requirements that someone relinquish their firearms. In a situation like domestic violence where there’s increased risk of harm, firearms are really accelerant of that harm and often result in death, so removing firearms from those situations quickly and efficiently is a life-saving process.”

The California chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, which supported the bill, said in supporting comments earlier this year that access to firearms by abusers is a known risk factor in domestic violence and gun-related deaths.

“As emergency physicians, we are often the first – and only – physicians to treat victims of gun violence,” the group’s statement read. “To reduce firearm-related deaths and injuries, we must prevent people from getting shot in the first place.”

No one from the American College of Emergency Physicians was available for an interview before publication time on Thursday.

The California Rifle and Pistol Association, which opposed the bill, did not respond to The Center Square. However, in opposing statements submitted as part of the bill analysis, the association said the bill expanded California’s regulations on civil protective orders, which they believed eroded due process and property rights.

“California's firearm laws are among the strictest in the nation,” the association wrote. “Further expansions through low-threshold civil processes undermine constitutional rights without enhancing safety. Focus instead on enforcing criminal laws against actual threats and abusers."

The law will cost the state’s Judicial Council roughly $80,000 of taxpayers' money a year to enforce because of additional workload created by more hearings in these cases and running firearm checks for accused abusers. Significant costs could potentially be borne by local law enforcement agencies for activities related to restraining orders, as well as to store confiscated ammunition.

Several domestic abuse survivor advocacy organizations, as well as groups that advocate for the Second Amendment and gun ownership rights, did not respond to The Center Square on Thursday.