Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) proceedings in California operate within a highly prescriptive statutory and procedural framework, making them a recurring and closely scrutinized component of public-agency firearms regulation. Unlike discretionary enforcement tools, GVROs are court-driven proceedings governed by detailed statutory requirements and standardized Judicial Council forms. Outcomes are shaped primarily by statutory compliance, evidentiary sufficiency, and procedural consistency, rather than discretionary policy judgment.
Because GVRO matters frequently involve multiple hearings, accelerated timelines, and repeated court appearances, public agencies face heightened exposure where implementation practices are inconsistent or inadequately documented. In this environment, effective GVRO enforcement depends less on novel legal theory and more on training, standardized protocols, and disciplined execution that align with statutory mandates and due process requirements.
California GVRO: Statutory Framework and Procedural Structure
California’s GVRO framework provides three distinct types of orders, each with defined durations and evidentiary standards:
- Temporary emergency GVROs—available only to law enforcement—may be issued based on reasonable cause and remain in effect for up to 21 days.
- Ex parte GVROs, available to a broader class of authorized petitioners, operate on an expedited basis pending a noticed hearing.
- Long-term GVROs, which may remain in effect for one to five years, require a full adversarial hearing and proof by clear and convincing evidence that the subject poses a significant danger and that less restrictive alternatives are inadequate.
California’s GVRO statutory scheme was enacted to provide law enforcement and eligible petitioners with a judicial mechanism to temporarily restrict firearm access where an individual poses a significant risk of harm. The framework is intentionally structured around court oversight, defined evidentiary standards, and standardized Judicial Council forms, reflecting the Legislature’s effort to balance public safety with constitutional protections.
GVRO proceedings follow a sequence of statutorily defined hearings, typically beginning with an ex parte temporary order and followed by noticed hearings requiring evidentiary support. While the statutory criteria are uniform statewide, the practical administration of GVROs varies significantly among agencies and courts—particularly with respect to officer training, evidence presentation, and continuity across repeat hearings.
Recent statutory amendments have expanded the categories of authorized petitioners to include, among others, roommates and individuals in dating relationships, increasing both access to GVRO proceedings and the need for consistent evidentiary standards across petition types.
As a result, agency exposure in GVRO matters rarely turns on unsettled questions of law. Instead, risk most often arises from inconsistent implementation, insufficient familiarity with statutory requirements, or breakdowns in how evidence and testimony are prepared and presented over the life of the case.
Appellate courts have clarified that the GVRO statute does not require proof that gun violence is likely to occur, but rather that the subject poses a significant danger of causing personal injury if allowed access to firearms or ammunition. This distinction underscores the importance of how risk factors are articulated and supported in the evidentiary record.
Risk Management Through Training and Consistency
From a risk-management perspective, GVRO exposure most often arises not from the decision to seek an order, but from how the process is implemented over time. Agencies that lack standardized protocols for evidence collection, officer testimony, and hearing preparation may encounter inconsistent outcomes, increased judicial scrutiny, or avoidable due-process challenges. Conversely, agencies that invest in training and repeatable procedures are better positioned to manage GVRO matters efficiently and defensibly.
When California’s “red flag” laws went into effect in 2016, agencies statewide faced the challenge of operationalizing a new statutory process under significant public scrutiny. Kayla Watson, Partner at Serviam by Wright LLP, played a central role in that transition by implementing and training one of the largest county sheriff’s departments on GVRO issuance and litigation in compliance with the new law.
Since that time, Ms. Watson has trained and advised multiple city attorney’s offices on GVRO procedures and courtroom practice. That experience has reinforced a consistent lesson: GVROs function best when agencies adopt clear internal protocols, ensure officer familiarity with evidentiary requirements, and work closely with counsel who understands both the statutory mechanics and the practical realities of repeated hearings.
GVRO Enforcement in California: Practical Considerations for Public Agencies
For public agencies, GVRO proceedings are not isolated enforcement actions, but part of an ongoing system of court-based public-safety regulation. Effective GVRO practice requires more than statutory awareness—it requires institutional consistency, trained personnel, and defensible procedures capable of withstanding repeated judicial review. Counsel with experience in both the statutory framework and the practical realities of GVRO litigation can help agencies align implementation practices with constitutional and procedural safeguards.
Kayla Watson is an expert in municipal liability defense law, and she is a Partner at Serviam by Wright LLP (“Serviam”). Kayla may be contacted about this article at Watson@Serviam.Law. Serviam articles are not legal advice. Additional facts or future developments will affect the subject of this article. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting upon any information in this article.
