By William R. Slomanson

As a result of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 first graders and 6 staff members, a number of states responded with a various programs seeking to avoid reoccurrences. They have not yet succeeded in completely restraining the ensuing gun violence. But states like California have robustly responded with generically designated “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO). One version of the ERPO is the comparatively new GVRO (California 2014).

The validity of any gun law begins with the threshold issue applicable to all jurisdictions: the individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court’s blockbuster 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) conjured a new test for gun litigation. Bruen thus held that “the government must demonstrate that the [challenged] regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Court’s ensuing 2024 building block connected both domestic and gun violence retraining orders. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ____, 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024). There was no gun violence restraining order (GVRO) against Mr. Rahimi. But he did violate an analogous domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). Rahimi thus furnished the yardstick for measuring constitutional attacks on GVROs.

One may obtain various restraining orders in California, as listed in this essay. It focuses on Cal. Pen. Code § 18125 sets forth and analyses the statute’s three-option core. This essay also presents the associated GVRO Judicial Council forms. The next subsection provides selected case law regarding the GVRO regime’s key applications. Subjects covered include the Confrontation Clause; judicial assessments of the substantial evidence needed for a GVRO; hearsay evidence options; expert witnesses; oral v. written GVRO applications; notification requirements; and sanctions for misuse.Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper 4930668, 38 California Litigation Reporter (forthcoming Nov. 2024)

By Wyatt Lutenbacher

Gaps in federal regulation have allowed “privately made firearms,” or “ghost guns,” to proliferate. Until August 2022, “firearm kits,” which allowed for easy assembly of functional firearms without serial numbers, could be purchased without a background check. Federal law and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) have historically regulated assembled weapons rather than firearm components, and as a result, firearm kits have circumvented traditional firearm regulations. As a result, state and federal regulations have now had to try to adapt accordingly. Yet in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the United States Supreme Court unsettled many firearm regulations by creating a new test for the Second Amendment that focuses on history and tradition.

This Note posits that ghost guns are a problem not seriously addressed by federal regulations. To address these regulatory gaps, this Note will analyze proposed and potential administrative and legislative solutions, then defend them under the Bruen test. First, this Note will begin by describing the ghost gun epidemic and the relevant Second Amendment law, specifically the Bruen test. Next, it will present and analyze both current and proposed federal regulations and legislation targeting ghost guns. Finally, this Note will conclude by arguing that these current and proposed solutions are constitutional under Bruen.

42 Minn J. L. & Inequality 253 (2025)

By Joseph Blocher, Jacob D. Charles, and Darrell A.H. Miller

  Academic work is increasingly important to court rulings on the Second Amendment and firearms law more generally. This article highlights two recent trends in social science research that supplement the traditional focus on guns and physical harm. The first strand of research focuses on the changing ways that gun owners connect with firearms, with personal security, status, identity, and cultural markers being key reasons people offer for possessing firearms. The second strand focuses on broadening our understanding of the impact of guns on the public sphere beyond just physical safety. This research surfaces the ways that guns can create fear, intimidation, and social trauma; deter civic participation and the exercise of constitutional rights; and further entrench racial inequality.  

Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2023. 19:165–77