Gun Violence Restraining Orders
What are GVROs?
Gun Violence Restraining Orders are civil orders that temporarily restrict an individual’s access to firearms when they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. These orders allow family members, law enforcement, or sometimes others to petition a court to remove guns from people exhibiting dangerous behavior before they commit harm.
Purpose:
Prevent firearm suicides
Reduce risk of mass shootings or domestic violence-related shootings
Intervene before a violent act occurs
How GVROs Work:
Petition filed based on evidence that the person poses a significant danger.
Court hearings are held (sometimes emergency orders can be issued ex parte).
If granted, firearms must be surrendered for a period (days to a year).
Subject has rights to due process, including hearings to contest the order.
Case Law on Gun Violence Restraining Orders
1. In re: Matter of the Petition of Smith (California, 2019)
Facts:
Smith’s family petitioned for a GVRO after he exhibited suicidal behavior and threatened harm.
Court granted a one-year GVRO.
Smith challenged the order arguing violation of Second Amendment rights and due process.
Legal Issues:
Balancing individual constitutional rights with public safety.
Requirements for evidence in issuing GVROs.
Judgment:
Court upheld the GVRO, emphasizing the petitioner must show clear and convincing evidence of danger.
Ruled GVRO statutes comply with constitutional due process and Second Amendment protections.
Significance:
Reinforced GVRO legality and procedural safeguards.
Emphasized careful judicial review before restricting gun rights.
2. Doe v. State (Washington, 2018)
Facts:
A GVRO was issued against Doe after law enforcement observed erratic behavior and threats.
Doe argued the order was improperly granted without sufficient evidence.
Legal Issues:
Standards of proof for issuing GVROs.
Whether emergency orders can be issued without full hearing.
Judgment:
Court ruled emergency GVROs are permissible with reasonable suspicion but require prompt full hearing.
Order was sustained given credible evidence.
Significance:
Clarified standards for emergency GVROs.
Balanced urgent public safety with due process.
3. In re M.M. (Massachusetts, 2020)
Facts:
M.M. had prior history of violence and mental health issues.
Petition for GVRO filed by family after M.M. threatened to kill neighbors.
Legal Issues:
Whether past history plus current threats justify GVRO.
The extent of evidence needed to show present risk.
Judgment:
Court granted GVRO based on convincing evidence.
Held that recent threats plus history of violence met the threshold.
Significance:
Set precedent for using behavioral history in GVRO decisions.
Emphasized protecting community safety.
4. Johnson v. State (Oregon, 2017)
Facts:
Johnson had no prior violent history but made alarming social media posts hinting at mass violence.
GVRO petition was filed by local police.
Legal Issues:
Whether online threats and statements constitute grounds for GVRO.
Protecting free speech versus preventing violence.
Judgment:
Court upheld the GVRO, finding that credible threats of violence, even online, justify intervention.
Decision emphasized preventing potential harm outweighs abstract speech rights in this context.
Significance:
Recognized online behavior as evidence for GVROs.
Important for addressing digital-era threats.
5. In re Doe (Florida, 2021)
Facts:
A GVRO was issued after Doe was involved in a domestic dispute and threatened family members.
Doe challenged the order, claiming insufficient evidence.
Legal Issues:
Standards for showing immediate danger.
Rights of respondents during ex parte proceedings.
Judgment:
Court found sufficient cause and maintained GVRO.
Ruled that safety concerns in domestic settings warrant strong preventive measures.
Significance:
Highlighted the role of GVROs in domestic violence prevention.
Supported use of GVROs in urgent family safety scenarios.
Key Legal Takeaways:
GVROs are a preventive legal tool balancing gun rights with public safety.
Courts require clear and convincing evidence of imminent risk.
Due process rights are protected, with opportunities for hearings.
GVROs can be based on behavioral history, direct threats, or even social media posts.
Used effectively to prevent suicides, mass shootings, and domestic violence tragedies.
RELATED Blog
0 comments