SB 899

Bill Subjects

Abstract

Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would require the court, when issuing those orders, to provide the person subject to the order with information on how any firearms or ammunition still in their possession are to be relinquished, as specified. The bill would require the court to review the file to determine whether the receipt has been filed and inquire as to whether the person has complied with the requirement. The bill would require violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing unless the restrained party provides a receipt showing compliance at a subsequent hearing or by direct filing with the clerk of the court. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would also require the court, at a noticed hearing relating to these orders, to consider information presented that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would authorize the court, upon making this finding, to set a review hearing, as specified, to determine whether the person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the above provisions. Existing law requires specified protective orders related to domestic violence to be served on the respondent at the request of the petitioner, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody, by a law enforcement officer who is present at the scene of reported domestic violence involving the parties to the proceeding or who receives a request from the petitioner to provide service of the order. Existing law requires the petitioner to provide the officer with an endorsed copy of the order and proof of service that the officer is then required to complete and transmit to the issuing court, as specified. If the law enforcement officer determines that a protective order has been issued but not served, existing law requires the office to immediately notify the respondent of the terms of the order and where a written copy of the order can be obtained, and to enforce the order at that time. Existing law prohibits a fee from being charged to the petitioner for service of those orders. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would similarly require a peace officer, as defined, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve and enforce specified protective orders related to, among other things, elder or dependent adult abuse, harassment, workplace violence, or violence in postsecondary educational institutions, on a respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. The bill would similarly prohibit the imposition of a fee on a petitioner for service of these orders. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of a child and establishes factors to be considered in rebutting that presumption, including that the perpetrator is restrained by a domestic violence prevention order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally establish, as a factor to be considered, whether the perpetrator is restrained by any other protective order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would, for specified protective orders if the respondent declines to relinquish possession of a firearm or ammunition based on the assertion of the right against self-incrimination, authorize the court to grant use immunity for the relinquishment of the firearm. Existing law authorizes the court, as part of a relinquishment order, to grant an exemption from certain relinquishment requirements if the respondent can show that a firearm is necessary as a condition of continued employment and their employer is unable to reassign the respondent to a position where the firearm is unnecessary. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would revise the relinquishment process and would instead authorize the court to grant an exemption if the respondent is not precluded from owning, possessing, controlling, or purchasing a firearm and ammunition under state or federal law and specified conditions, depending on whether the respondent is a peace officer, are met. Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning that firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued for, among other things, ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to a domestic violence restraining order, and for a firearm or ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to other specified temporary restraining orders or injunctions. Existing law, the Safety For All Act of 2016, approved by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires any person selling specified amounts of ammunition to be licensed as an ammunition vendor. Existing law exempts specified transfers of ammunition from these provisions. Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. This bill would amend Proposition 63 to exempt the sale of ammunition to a licensed ammunition vendor by a person required to relinquish that ammunition due to specified protective orders. The bill would make additional conforming and clarifying changes, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6389 of the Family Code proposed by AB 2759 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2759 are enacted and this bill is enacted last, and would also incorporate additional changes to Section 1524 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1002 to become operative only if this bill and SB 1002 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.