It’s called a gun violence restraining order (GVRO) (or an Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO)). It was enacted in California (my state) in 2014 following the Isla Vista mass shooting (remember that one?).
The Gun Violence Restraining Order bill arose after the horror of the Isla Vista rampage this year, and stands as a common-sense approach to dealing with a persistent problem in American society: mentally unstable individuals in possession of firearms.
…
AB 1014 empowers a judge to issue a "gun violence restraining order" after being presented with reasonable cause to believe a gun owner could "in the near future" harm himself or others.
Under its authority, police would be allowed to search the subject's residence and remove weapons. Guns owned by another resident of the home could also be confiscated unless they are secured beyond the reach of the restrained person, such as in a locked gun case.
The Parkland massacre might not have happened if Florida had such a law, according to gun safety advocates:
If Cruz had lived in California, for example, a report by a household member or police officer would have been sufficient grounds for preventing Cruz from obtaining his AR-15 assault rifle, said John Donohue, a professor at Stanford Law School.
Cruz’s YouTube comment was reported to the FBI in 2017 but FBI Special Agent in Charge Robert Lasky told reporters on Thursday that investigators were unable to find Cruz based on the comment.
The comment was likely too vague to trigger FBI action even if the agents had been able to locate him, said James Jacobs, a law professor at New York University School of Law.
These laws are drawing attention not just from the mainstream media, but from prominent conservatives. David French wrote about the concept in National Review (yes, that National Review), and said in an NPR interview that even Marco Rubio (R-NRA) is on board. French’s rationale that even “carry here, carry now” advocates might support the concept?
Well, it has a chance to work because it's individualized. It's based on a person's behavior. And it provides due process. And so we have this paradox in this country right now where gun violence has been decreasing and - as far, far below the numbers of 25 years ago, even though guns are more accessible than they've ever been. But at the same time that general gun violence is decreasing, these spree killings, these mass killings - as everyone has been able to see - have been increasing and increasing in particular since the Columbine massacre.
And what you see time and again with these spree killings, these things that are increasing, is there are - the killers kind of radiate warning signs time and time again. And this is also the case in suicides. People are often giving off warning signs well in advance. And the - there is very little - very few tools available to family members, to people close to those who are exhibiting these warning signs to do anything about it.
…
I know they're (people who are very supportive of the Second Amendment and very vocal about gun rights) open to it. In fact, since I wrote my article about this on Friday, I've received an enormous amount of feedback, and I would say it's overwhelmingly positive. Over the weekend, Marco Rubio, Senator Rubio, tweeted in favor of the idea. Jeb Bush tweeted in favor of the idea. I - there are some folks who are hesitant, but I would say the response to my article has been overwhelmingly positive on the right side.
Such laws have been shown to be effective at reducing both domestic violence deaths and suicides. A 2015 article even said Gabby Giffords’ assassination attempt might have been prevented if Arizona had such a law:
In their analysis, the researchers considered the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., where Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were shot, and the 2014 mass shooting in Isla Vista, Calif., near the University of Santa Barbara campus to determine the potential impact of GVROs. In Tucson, shooter Jared Loughner’s family had taken away his shotgun and advised him to seek clinical help because of his threatening behavior. However these actions weren’t enough to keep him from buying another gun and using it to kill and injure more than a dozen people. In the absence of a criminal act or involuntary commitment, those around Loughner had limited options to prevent his rampage. Similarly, California shooter Elliot Rodger’s family was also concerned about his behavior, and had reached out to mental health professionals who in turn engaged law enforcement. The local sheriff’s office sent deputies to Rodger’s residence, but concluded they did not have a legal basis to intervene.
“In both of these cases, those closest to the shooters identified dangerous behaviors and took concrete actions to intervene; however, their options were limited,” said study author Emma (Beth) McGinty, PhD, an assistant professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research. “Both of these men went on to commit horrific acts of gun violence that potentially could have been avoided.”
We’ll see whether David French is right (note: NRO link). If so, we might get more than thoughts and prayers...
Tuesday, Feb 20, 2018 · 11:46:15 PM +00:00
·
1BQ
Updated to add a call to action: if you live in a state that doesn’t have such laws, please contact your elected representatives, both state and federal, to express your support for gun safety legislation that is both temporary and specific to an individual. Get your representatives on board, and spread the word via social media. If may be a tough slog to get safety legislation passed nationally, but getting enough states to enact such laws could make a nationwide effort more likely to succeed.