California's Gun Violence Restraining Order statute, Penal Code Division 3.2, beginning with Section 18100 [1], creates three types of orders:
Emergency GVRO (Section 18125): Issued by a judicial officer at a law enforcement officer's request on reasonable cause to believe the subject poses an immediate danger of personal injury through firearm access and the order is necessary because less restrictive alternatives have failed or are inadequate or inappropriate. Lasts 21 days. A judicial officer must grant the order. The officer takes temporary custody of firearms at the scene.
Temporary (Ex Parte) GVRO (Section 18150): Issued by a judge on a showing of a substantial likelihood that the subject poses a significant danger of personal injury to themselves or another in the near future through firearm access and that the order is necessary because less restrictive alternatives have failed or are inadequate or inappropriate. The respondent is not present and not notified before the order issues. Lasts up to 21 days, until a full hearing can be held.
GVRO After Hearing (Section 18170): Issued after a noticed hearing where the respondent has the right to be present, represented by counsel, and to present evidence. The petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent poses a significant danger. Duration: 1 to 5 years, renewable.
Who Can Petition
AB 61 (2019) expanded eligibility beyond law enforcement officers and immediate family members to include employers and qualifying coworkers and school employees. As of 2026, the following may petition for a GVRO [2]:
Eligible petitioners include law enforcement officers, immediate family members (including a spouse, parent, child, sibling or grandparent) and employers. Coworkers must have had substantial and regular interactions with the person for at least one year and obtain employer approval. Employees or teachers of a secondary or postsecondary school the person attended within the last six months need approval from a school administrator or a staff member with a supervisorial role. Roommates must currently reside in the household or have resided there within the prior six months and have had substantial and regular interactions with the person for at least one year. A person in a dating relationship may petition, as may a person who shares a child with the subject and has had substantial and regular interactions with the subject for at least one year. This broad list of eligible petitioners has drawn criticism from gun rights organizations.
Due Process Concerns
The primary constitutional concern is the ex parte temporary GVRO. A judge may issue the order without hearing from the respondent based on the petition and may also examine the petitioner under oath. Firearms are seized immediately. The respondent then has up to 21 days before a full hearing where they can challenge the order. During this period, the respondent is disarmed based on one-sided evidence.
Proponents argue that the "substantial likelihood" standard, combined with the requirement for a full hearing within 21 days, provides adequate due process. The Supreme Court's framework in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), balances the private interest affected, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government interest. Proponents argue the government interest in preventing imminent violence justifies temporary deprivation before a full hearing.
Critics argue that the "substantial likelihood" standard for ex parte orders, combined with the broad list of eligible petitioners, creates significant risk of abuse. A disgruntled coworker, estranged family member, or vindictive ex-spouse can trigger firearms seizure with minimal evidence. While filing a false petition is perjury, prosecutions for false GVRO petitions are virtually nonexistent.
Rahimi and the Second Amendment Analysis
The Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi [3] is directly relevant to the constitutional analysis of GVROs. In Rahimi, the Court upheld 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), the federal prohibition on firearm possession by persons subject to domestic violence restraining orders, in an 8-1 decision.
Rahimi has two important implications for GVROs. First, the Court confirmed that a judicial finding of dangerousness can constitutionally justify temporary firearms dispossession. The majority held that when a court finds an individual poses a credible threat to another person's physical safety, disarming that individual is consistent with the Second Amendment and the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. This reasoning supports the constitutionality of GVRO orders issued after a full hearing with a "clear and convincing evidence" standard.
Second, Rahimi clarified that the Bruen framework does not require courts to find a "historical twin" for every modern regulation. Instead, courts should look for historical analogues that are "relevantly similar", addressing a comparable problem using comparable means. This more flexible approach strengthens the argument that GVROs, which address the problem of imminent dangerousness through temporary dispossession, can find sufficient historical support in surety laws, "going armed" statutes, and other founding-era mechanisms for disarming dangerous individuals.
Whether this reasoning extends fully to the ex parte GVRO process, where firearms are seized before the respondent has any opportunity to be heard, remains an open question that has not been directly addressed by the Supreme Court.
Return of Firearms
Section 18120 provides for return of firearms upon expiration of a GVRO under the procedures beginning with Section 33850. The respondent must request return from the law enforcement agency holding the firearms. The agency conducts a background check to confirm continued eligibility. Some agencies have been criticized for requiring respondents to provide detailed descriptions or serial numbers of seized firearms when the agency failed to create adequate inventories at the time of seizure.
Bottom Line
Settled: GVROs are authorized by statute and have been used thousands of times since 2016. The ex parte procedure allows firearms seizure before the respondent has a hearing. The full hearing requires clear and convincing evidence. The Supreme Court's Rahimi decision (2024) upheld the constitutionality of disarming individuals found to pose a credible threat under a restraining order.
Unsettled: Whether the ex parte GVRO procedure, which allows seizure before any hearing, survives full Second Amendment scrutiny post-Rahimi. Whether the broad list of eligible petitioners creates unacceptable risk of abuse. Whether the firearms return process provides adequate procedural protections.
Do: If served with a GVRO, comply immediately. Knowingly owning or possessing a firearm or ammunition while prohibited by the order is a misdemeanor under Section 18205. Contact an attorney. Prepare for the full hearing with evidence of non-dangerousness. Document all firearms surrendered with serial numbers and photographs before surrendering them.