Image by Jason Gillman from Pixabay
June 21, 2024 - OAKLAND — California Attorney General Rob Bonta today released the following statement after the Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi reversed a lower court decision that would have endangered domestic violence victims and put guns into the hands of their abusers. The case involved a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to certain Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVROs) from possessing firearms. In the lower court’s decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the criminal conviction of a defendant who had unlawfully possessed a firearm while subject to a DVRO, which had been issued by a state court in Texas that found the defendant had assaulted his ex-girlfriend.
“This is an important victory for public safety and for survivors of domestic violence nationwide,” said Attorney General Bonta. “Disarming violent and dangerous individuals is a cornerstone of public safety. Many people’s lives and safety rely on efforts to keep guns out of the hands of people engaged in violent and abusive conduct. Laws prohibiting individuals subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Orders from possessing firearms are a critical tool for preventing shootings and other serious harms. These laws have played a critical role in reducing gun violence in California, and they empower survivors to build lives free from terror and abuse. Today the Supreme Court rightly held that these laws are constitutional. In California, we will continue to prioritize efforts to defend and implement policies that protect survivors from gun violence.”
Attorney General Bonta joined 25 attorneys general in submitting an amicus brief in the case, urging the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit decision and uphold the federal law prohibiting firearm access by individuals subject to DVROs.
In November 2023, the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Gun Violence Prevention issued a data report providing an in-depth look at the link between domestic violence and gun violence. The report documented California’s long-term progress in reducing domestic violence involving firearms and challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report also highlighted California’s efforts to protect domestic violence survivors by providing a range of support services, crisis intervention and safety planning options, and protections from gun violence, including through the DVRO process.
In June 2024, for Gun Violence Awareness Day, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention also published a report on “Pathways to Safety: California’s Nine Court Protection Orders to Prevent Gun Violence,” which provides an in-depth guide to California’s array of protection order processes available to protect people experiencing violence, threats, and abuse. These processes empower survivors of violence and abuse, and other individuals acting on their behalf, to obtain safety protections from the courts and law enforcement by presenting sworn evidence to a judge that an individual has engaged in violent or abusive conduct or is a significant danger to themselves or others. If the court finds sufficient evidence, it may issue a protection order that requires the individual to comply with a set of mandatory safety rules designed to protect those in danger and prevent further harm. Those safety rules can include provisions restricting that individual from accessing firearms and ammunition while the protection order is in effect against them.
In California, these nine protection order processes include the DVRO, as well as the Civil Harassment Restraining Order, Criminal Protective Order, Elder or Dependent Adult Abuse Restraining Order, Gun Violence Restraining Order, Emergency Protective Order, Juvenile Restraining Order, Postsecondary School Violence Restraining Order, and Workplace Violence Restraining Order. Under state and federal law, California courts and law enforcement also enforce protection orders issued by out-of-state and tribal courts. These processes are vital to protecting survivors and the public from gun violence and other harms.
A copy of the opinion can be found here.
Source: CA. DOJ
