California 2025-2026 Regular Session

California Assembly Bill AB1344

Introduced
2/21/25  
Refer
3/24/25  
Report Pass
3/24/25  
Refer
3/25/25  
Report Pass
4/9/25  
Refer
4/9/25  
Refer
4/30/25  
Report Pass
5/23/25  
Engrossed
6/2/25  
Refer
6/3/25  
Refer
6/11/25  
Report Pass
6/23/25  
Refer
6/23/25  
Report Pass
7/8/25  
Refer
7/8/25  
Refer
8/18/25  
Report Pass
8/29/25  
Enrolled
9/8/25  

Caption

Restrictions on firearm possession: pilot project.

Impact

The bill will enable the identified counties to gather and report data on GVRO petitions beginning April 1, 2027. This data collection will include the number of petitions, their outcomes, demographic information on restrained individuals, and the reasons for filing such petitions. The collected information will be evaluated by the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis, ensuring a structured assessment of the pilot program's effectiveness. The findings will then be reported annually to both the Assembly and Senate Committees on Public Safety, promoting accountability and transparency in the application of the program.

Summary

Assembly Bill 1344, introduced by Assembly Member Irwin, aims to implement a pilot program focused on gun violence restraining orders (GVROs) in four California counties: Alameda, El Dorado, Santa Clara, and Ventura. This initiative expands the existing framework that allows courts to issue GVROs to prevent individuals deemed a significant danger from purchasing or possessing firearms. The bill proposes that district attorneys in the specified counties will be permitted to request temporary emergency GVROs, a critical addition aimed at addressing urgent cases more effectively and swiftly.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding AB 1344 appears to be supportive among proponents who advocate for enhanced public safety measures in light of gun violence. Advocates express that the bill represents a proactive approach to preventing potential violence by empowering district attorneys to act promptly. However, potential opposition could arise from concerns about due process and the implications of empowering district attorneys with more authority in the issuance of restraining orders without substantial oversight.

Contention

There might be notable contention regarding the balance between public safety and individual rights. Opponents may argue that allowing district attorneys to request emergency GVROs could infringe on due process rights, while supporters argue that the immediacy of addressing potential threats justifies such measures. Furthermore, the bill stipulates that it will remain effective until January 1, 2034, creating a deadline for its evaluation, which could provoke discussions around its longevity and efficacy in long-term violence prevention strategies.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

CA AB3014

Restrictions on firearm possession.

CA AB36

Domestic violence protective orders: possession of a firearm.

CA AB2759

Domestic violence protective orders: possession of a firearm.

CA SB899

Protective orders: firearms.

CA AB28

Firearms and ammunition: excise tax.

CA AB851

Firearms: Urban gun free zone pilot program.

CA AB2673

Sacramento Youth Firearm Prevention Pilot Program.

CA SB2

Firearms.

CA AB2917

Firearms: restraining orders.

CA SB368

Firearms: requirements for licensed dealers.

Similar Bills

CA AB3094

Privacy: driver’s license information.

CA AB748

California Abandoned and Derelict Commercial Vessel Program.

CA SB1065

California Abandoned and Derelict Commercial Vessel Program.

CA AB3014

Restrictions on firearm possession.

CA AB3209

Crimes: theft: retail theft restraining orders.

CA AB2421

Water: unlicensed cannabis cultivation.

CA AB6

Attorney General: duties.

CA SB781

Public Safety Omnibus.