Bill Sponsor
California Assembly Bill 2759
Session 20232024
Domestic violence protective orders: possession of a firearm.
Active
Active
Passed Senate on Jun 27, 2024
First Action
Feb 15, 2024
Latest Action
Jun 27, 2024
Origin Chamber
Assembly
Type
Bill
Bill Number
2759
State
California
Session
20232024
Sponsorship by Party
Assembly Votes (3)
Senate Votes (3)
Summary
Existing law prohibits a person subject to a protective order, as defined, from owning, possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition while that protective order is in effect and makes a willful and knowing violation of a protective order a crime. Existing law requires the court, when issuing the order with both parties present, to inform the parties of this information and to order the restrained person to relinquish any firearm or ammunition in the person's immediate possession or control or subject to their immediate possession or control. Existing law specifies the means of relinquishment if the law enforcement officer serving the protective order does not request the immediate surrender of the firearm or ammunition, including, surrender to law enforcement, or by selling the firearm or ammunition to a licensed gun dealer. Existing law requires a court to order the restrained person to relinquish firearms or ammunition and to notify the parties of how any firearms or ammunition still in the restrained party's possession are to be relinquished and how to submit a receipt to the court. Existing law authorizes the court to grant an exemption from the relinquishment order for a particular firearm or ammunition if the respondent can show that the firearm or ammunition is a necessary condition of continued employment and the person cannot be reassigned, as specified, and only authorizes possession on the job or traveling to and from employment. If the person is a peace officer who carries a firearm or ammunition as a condition of employment and the peace officer's personal safety depends on the ability to carry a firearm or ammunition, the court may exempt them from the relinquishment order, on duty or off, if the court finds that the peace officer does not pose a threat of harm. Existing law requires, prior to making this finding, that the court require a mandatory psychological evaluation of the peace officer and authorizes the court to require the peace officer to enter into counseling or other remedial treatment program to deal with any propensity for domestic violence. This bill would revise the peace officer exemption to authorize a court to allow a peace officer to carry a specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition if the peace officer is required, as a condition of continued employment, to carry that firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition, as specified, if they cannot be reassigned, and if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, in writing or on the record, that the peace officer's personal safety depends on the ability to carry that specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition outside of scheduled work hours and they do not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public, as specified. The bill would require the mandatory psychological evaluation of the peace officer to be conducted by a mental health professional with domestic violence expertise and would require the court to consider the results of that evaluation. This bill would authorize an exemption from the relinquishment requirement, only during scheduled working hours, for a nonpeace officer who is required to carry a specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition as a condition of continued employment, as specified, if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence, in writing or on the record, that the respondent does not pose an additional threat of harm to a protected party or the public by having access to the specific firearm, ammunition, or firearm and ammunition. The bill would authorize the court to order a psychological evaluation by a licensed mental health professional with domestic violence expertise to make this finding. The bill would require the court, if an exemption is granted during the pendency of a temporary restraining order and the court subsequently issues a restraining order on the same application, to review and make a finding regarding the appropriateness of the granted exemption, as provided.
Actions (15)
06/27/2024
Assembly
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after June 29 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
06/27/2024
Senate
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0.).
06/20/2024
Senate
Read second time and amended. Ordered to consent calendar.
06/19/2024
Senate
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 18).
06/04/2024
Senate
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 4). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
05/01/2024
Senate
Referred to Coms. on PUB S. and JUD.
04/18/2024
Senate
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
04/18/2024
Assembly
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 72. Noes 0.)
04/11/2024
Assembly
Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar.
04/10/2024
Assembly
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
04/09/2024
Assembly
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 9).
04/03/2024
Assembly
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
03/04/2024
Assembly
Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.
02/16/2024
Assembly
From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.
02/15/2024
Assembly
Read first time. To print.
Sources
Record Created
Feb 16, 2024 9:24:15 PM
Record Updated
Jun 29, 2024 12:27:43 PM