AB1344: pilot program for new gun confiscation

[luanh1987]

Hello guys, I read about this bill today and watch couple YouTube video about this. From my understanding, for the counties that have this pilot program, the LEO can confiscate your firearms if someone report you as unsafe or potentially endanger others (red flag).
At first i thought this bill meant for people to report criminals, but when I think about it deeper, it could be potential life threatening for us, legal gun owners. Let me explain. If a criminal wants to break in your home, or your business, and they know you have firearms to defend yourself. All they need to do is have a 14 year old, or a sweet lady, called the cop on you. Once your firearms are gone, they will swoop in and rob you at gun point with nothing you can do.
I do not know if the bill leave the confiscation part up to LEO to make a call on the spot, or they will arrest you, take your weapons away first, and ask questions later.
Any thoughts?

 

[smoothy8500]

Hello guys, I read about this bill today... From my understanding,....
Any thoughts?

Text of the bill here: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1344/id/3245350

Sounds like it is a study of "Red Flag" filings to be sent to UC Davis research center?

 

[luanh1987]

It is a study to collect the demographic data, what’s the report rate and what’s the outcome of those reports. Of course, people who reported red flag individuals are going to feel safer with no firearms around. However, would I considered be red flag if my neighbor see myself carry my firearms to the range? They leave it up to LEO to interpret the bill. And of course, LEO wouldn’t take a risk to not confiscate the firearms upon reports. No cops would like to take responsibility for what if scenario.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Hello guys, I read about this bill today and watch couple YouTube video about this. From my understanding, for the counties that have this pilot program, the LEO can confiscate your firearms if someone report you as unsafe or potentially endanger others (red flag).
At first i thought this bill meant for people to report criminals, but when I think about it deeper, it could be potential life threatening for us, legal gun owners. Let me explain. If a criminal wants to break in your home, or your business, and they know you have firearms to defend yourself. All they need to do is have a 14 year old, or a sweet lady, called the cop on you. Once your firearms are gone, they will swoop in and rob you at gun point with nothing you can do.
I do not know if the bill leave the confiscation part up to LEO to make a call on the spot, or they will arrest you, take your weapons away first, and ask questions later.
Any thoughts?

The current red flags laws allow LEO to petition the court to put a gun violence restraining order, this bill would expand it so that district attorneys also can petition the court. I don't see that changes the process much and I would probably trust attorneys over LEO personally, they know the law better. Presumably the threat has to be credible but if cops or attorneys are crooked they can abuse it. However this bill doesn't seem to change the existing process very much so I'm not particularly worried about it.

 

[Deleted member 16735]

It is a study to collect the demographic data, what’s the report rate and what’s the outcome of those reports. Of course, people who reported red flag individuals are going to feel safer with no firearms around. However, would I considered be red flag if my neighbor see myself carry my firearms to the range? They leave it up to LEO to interpret the bill. And of course, LEO wouldn’t take a risk to not confiscate the firearms upon reports. No cops would like to take responsibility for what if scenario.

that's how it already is, LEO can petition the court already and take your guns but only under certain conditions

18125. Temporary emergency gun violence restraining order; ex parte order; conditions​

(a) A temporary emergency gun violence restraining order may be issued on an ex parte basis only if a law enforcement officer asserts, and a judicial officer finds, that there is reasonable cause to believe both of the following:

(1) The subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.

 

[treelogger]

Hello guys, I read about this bill today and watch couple YouTube video about this. From my understanding, ...

The YouTube videos must have been pretty awful, since your understanding is mostly wrong.

It has always been true (at least for decades) that many forms of restraining orders and criminal charges require a person to surrender their weapons. So if someone files a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) or civil harassment restraining order (CHRO), and the judge grants it, the restrained person has to get rid of their weapons within 24 hours.

Anyone can request a CHRO, and only domestic partners can request DVROs. GVROs come in two flavors: The temporary one (which can ONLY be requested by a law enforcement officer), and the ex parte one (which can be requested by a limited set of people, employers, house mates, teachers for example). The only change in the law from this bill is that in addition to LEOs, temporary GVROs can now be requested by DAs (and that only in three counties, and only for a few years). So in reality, this is a very minor change.

When a person gets a RO, they don't have to give their guns to LEO, nor are they usually confiscated by LEO. In most cases, the restrained person sells them to a FFL (gun store for example), or gives them to an FFL for storage. They are also not arrested, unless they commit another crime. One example of a crime might be refusing to get rid of their guns, and then refusing to hand them over to LEO in the rare case that confiscation is necessary.

None of this is done "on the spot". All of these restraining orders have a due process, and require a judge to issue the order. The judge has to be given evidence that there is a problem (like domestic violence, harassment). Here is the law about temporary GVROs, which determines whether judges can grant such an order:

(1) The subject of the petition poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to himself, herself, or another by having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.

(2) A temporary emergency gun violence restraining order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another because less restrictive alternatives either have been tried and found to be ineffective, or have been determined to be inadequate or inappropriate for the circumstances of the subject of the petition.

None of this is changed by the new law.

So no, a "14 year old, or a sweet lady" can not force people to lose their guns. They can call the cops, explain to the LEO in detail why this person is a danger; the LEO then write a report, take the report to court, convince a judge of this fact, and then the court issues the RO. This is actually surprisingly rare. I've hung out in court rooms quite a bit, and the number of GVROs is small. As an example, in Santa Clara county (population several million), the number of temporary GVROs was about 400 in a recent year, or about 1 per day. About a tenth of the felony and serious misdemeanor convictions per year, and those also remove guns from people.

Editorial comment: The amount of paranoia and fact bending in the gun community is just staggering.

 

[muffin_top]

Is this "due process" still in the country with us?

 

[ikeo1]

Is this "due process" still in the country with us?

Depends if you have enough $$

 

[donmatteo]

I wonder if this will apply to criminals.......

 

[bbp00]

Editorial comment: The amount of paranoia and fact bending in the gun community is just staggering.

Sometimes justified.
Read the ACLU (not known to be 2A friendly) opinion in opposition of AB 1344. Page 10 and 11.

https://spsf.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2025-07/ab-1344-analysis.pdf

 

[Deleted member 16735]

Sometimes justified.
Read the ACLU (not known to be 2A friendly) opinion in opposition of AB 1344. Page 10 and 11.

https://spsf.senate.ca.gov/system/files/2025-07/ab-1344-analysis.pdf

That's interesting. one question I have though is if only LEO can make the petition, what happens if the dangerous person is LEO? Seems like only having one group have that power could be problematic

 

[GoldensRule]

Depends if you have enough $$

More so it depends upon your color, ethnicity, language spoken and political orientation. Fat white guys with scraggly beards are probably safe, "for now".

 

[ikeo1]

More so it depends upon your color, ethnicity, language spoken and political orientation. Fat white guys with scraggly beards are probably safe, "for now".

$$ can still get you out of that.. it just takes more of it.. No one is safe really. If they want you they'll get you, unless you pay the piper. Doesn't matter about the superficial stuff. These days its about what you say and do.

 

[treelogger]

Depends if you have enough $$

No, wrong.

One of our neighbors was hit with an unjustified restraining order. This is a multi-millionaire, well educated and employed, and a member of one of the groups that our society tends to think is "privileged". Took them about 3 months to make it go away; in theory, the hearing to lift the order is supposed to be held in 30 days, but his attorneys thought it would be safer to take the process slowly. Ultimately, the attorneys were mostly unnecessary, since once the judge saw the evidence from the other side, it was clear the RO was going to be lifted. During that time, all their guns were stored at an FFL in town.

Note that this was neither a gun violence nor domestic violence restraining order.

 

[treelogger]

That's interesting. one question I have though is if only LEO can make the petition, what happens if the dangerous person is LEO? Seems like only having one group have that power could be problematic

Then another LEO files the petition. Often, to prevent intra-agencies problems, that other LEO is from another unit, such as city PD versus county sheriff, or a state police unit, for example the CHP.

 

[treelogger]

Is this "due process" still in the country with us?

You need to spend some time in courtrooms. Yes, there is an enormous amount of due process. I often think there is even too much, in particular in the CA state court system, which is overly bureaucratic and slow, under the guise of "protecting those who need protection".

Even in the federal court system, pro se litigants get a heck of a lot of leeway. Enough rope to shoot themselves in the foot. But first, the other side gets to spend many K$ on preventing the pro se litigant (typically a nutcase) from causing harm.