California Moves to Expand ‘Red Flag’ Law to Allow Teachers, Employers, Co-Workers to Ask for Confiscation Orders

If the California legislature passes expansions to the red flag law, Gov. Gavin Newsom has vowed to sign them. (Photo: Gavin Newsom Facebook)

At least ten bills are working their way through the California state legislature that would expand the state’s “red flag” law, according to the Los Angeles Times. The bills would, among other things, expand the list of people who could request gun confiscation orders and extend the duration of the orders from one to five years.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is ready and willing to sign whatever gun confiscation schemes the legislature cooks up.

The governor signaled his support at a press conference touting the new ammunition background check law set to take effect July 1. He said he hoped a number of legislative efforts “to expand the scope of the red flag laws” would get to his desk. “I expect they will be supported overwhelmingly upstairs,” he added, referring to the legislature.

Of the ten bills that would expand and/or modify the state’s red flag law, two have the most serious potential to affect California gun owners. AB-61, introduced by Assembly Members Philip Ting, Al Muratsuchi, and Eloise Gómez Reyez, would expand the list of people authorized to ask a judge for a gun confiscation order.

SEE ALSO: California Becomes the First State to Enact Total Lead Bullet Hunting Ban

Under current state law, an immediate family member or a law enforcement officer can request a judge to confiscate a person’s firearms if there is a “substantial likelihood” that the person poses an immediate danger to self or others. AB-61 would further allow an employer or a coworker who has “substantial and regular interactions with the person and approval of their employer” to request the order. It would also permit an employee or teacher of a secondary or postsecondary school, with approval of the school administration staff, to request a student’s firearms be removed, provided the student has been attending the school for at least six months.

The second bill, AB-12, would expand the maximum length of a gun confiscation order from one year to five years. In determining the duration of the order, the court would consider how long a person is “likely to continue” to be a danger to self or others. The bill allows the person under the order to request every year that the order be lifted, but they must prove that there is “no longer clear and convincing evidence” that they present a danger.

SEE ALSO: Standard-Capacity Magazines are Flooding California Following Landmark Ruling Striking Down Ban

Other bills affecting red flag laws would require police departments to standardize their gun confiscation procedures and allow gun owners to voluntarily surrender their firearms to a court.

News of the expanded red flag laws comes the same week that California gun owners will be required to pass a background check for ammunition purchases.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

About the author: Jordan Michaels has been reviewing firearm-related products for over four years and enjoying them for much longer. With family in Canada, he’s seen first hand how quickly the right to self-defense can be stripped from law-abiding citizens. He escaped that statist paradise at a young age, married a sixth-generation Texan, and currently lives in Waco. Follow him on Instagram @bornforgoodluck and email him at

{ 35 comments… add one }
  • Joseph Vaughn July 27, 2019, 11:10 am

    people like you allow these kinds of laws to be in effect. because you think there is no way it can be abused or the ends justify the means then everyone is held hostage to such draconian laws. there will be abuses of this law by the thousands, guaranteed. you and anyone else that’s okay with confiscating someones property based on the words of someone who may or may not be telling the truth, goes against everything this country stands for. cowards who live life scared of what might happen now have power over other citizens they don’t agree with politically. yes this law will be abused beyond control and law abiding citizens are yet again the only ones who are affected by these communist policies and laws.

  • Dan Gore July 1, 2019, 1:23 pm

    Democrats and anyone else who thinks these “red flag “laws are OK, are anti american, constitution hating, domestic terrorists. They go against the 4th and 5th amendment s,and should be struck down by the SCOUS! Just another way for the LEFTIST,socialist, America hating scumbags, to try to turn the citizens of this country into SLAVE’S! Resistance isn’t futall. Let’s see the ones who dream this crap up get the stones to do the dirty work. County Sheriffs should not allow unelected members of the police departments to enforce these laws. There’s nothing in these “laws “that punishes the people who lie about a person’s supposed “danger to themselves or society”. Just punish the gun owners. What a bunch of dumb asses!

  • Will Drider June 30, 2019, 12:43 am

    Why don’t CA politicians just cut to the end game:

    Any person in CA may RED FLAG any other person within the geographical boundries of CA with exception that “Undocumented Immigrants” and law enforcement (active and retired) may not be reported or investigated.

  • Randy Sravus June 29, 2019, 4:09 pm

    No truly freedom living intelligent person still lives in Californicate

  • Tomm June 29, 2019, 12:17 am

    This is absolute Bull Shit.
    Dont Tread on me.

    • William Alan Childress October 13, 2019, 3:41 pm

      What’s to stop a deranged lunatic from using another type of weapon? Like a large vehicle for instance. Also, in the article it talks about how the individual stabbed three people first. Where are the knife confiscation laws?

      Progressives want your guns. Tyrants always want your guns. Ask yourself why.

  • Jack Brazzon June 28, 2019, 6:02 pm

    That means any dem or anti gun person can say red flag on any law abiding gun owner just to violate the 2nd Amendment and remove or CONFISCATE their weapons. This is a so called fool proof way to remove guns. This must be stopped as a unconstitutional violation of the 2nd Amendment.

  • Robert Mccallum June 28, 2019, 5:10 pm

    So they can steal your property with the the opinion of a lay person…. but somehow you have to provide evidence that you’re not a danger? How do you prove a negative?…and god forbid something bad happen when they come to steal a persons property,,, they can say “ see, we told you he was dangerous “… only bad things will come from this draconian move

  • jon boyer June 28, 2019, 4:48 pm

    Two items here: Either gun owners are NOT voting, or you are truly overrun with cowards that have never served in the military

    Second: Where the hell is the NRA??? I say, “Not one more dollar.”

  • Shan June 28, 2019, 2:01 pm

    Shit is getting spooky out here. Let’s say now you say something the communist radical liberals don’t agree with, now you’re a threat. This is gonna limit free speech as well as second amendment rights. I think we are seeing a start of a new era of evil that is unprecedented. We fought wars to stop the spread of shit like this. California is still the most populated state in our Union. These laws effect real freedom loving Americans. I will not move out of my home Resist Bare arms!!!

  • Just1Spark June 28, 2019, 12:06 pm

    Many places in history, we have had the opportunity to learn about the evils called “Secret Government Lists”.

    “Redflag laws” are just that. And no one seems to notice.

    The “No fly list” is do different.

    If you are such a threat to society, why are you not charged? Why are you free to walk among the good tax cattle? Why no trial to determine innocence or guilt?

    Rest assured. The abuses of this (once it is put into effect) will be covered up just long enough, for other states to “justify” adopting it.

    And do not expect trump to save you from this one. “Take the guns first. Go through due process second,” -Donald Trump

    • Jonathan Speegle June 30, 2019, 11:25 pm

      We sure didnt here any more after Broward county FL issued over a hundred within the first month or two. While they dont currently hold the record here, they lit it off with a bang…actually prepared to issue judging from how many were ordered right away. If you look at the current totals, it really helps you understand which areas are devoid of responsible citizenship. Oddly, one of the counties with the most erpos is the most vocal sheriff for 2a defense, going so far as to publicly state that they will not arrive in time, please arm and protect yourself. Florida is a wacky beast to live within. You just cant get a read on anybody here unless they are openly fringe.

  • Mike June 28, 2019, 11:39 am

    Stay with me on this one:

    I have a woman friend who’s catch phrase is “just shoot me already”. No, she isn’t a gun person by any means. So let’s say her paper boy hears this after she stubs her toe. He tells his mother , who tells her beautician, who tells another client who tells a grocery clerk in the next town. This clerk has a police buddy in the woman’s town, tells it to him , who reports it to his desk sergeant . This sergeant , in Komifornia, has to report it to his C.O. The boys in the black and whites show up and take the guns from this woman’s husband.
    Far fetched….you be the judge

    • Mark N. June 29, 2019, 12:06 am

      Sure, I’ll play. Would this happen? Not under current law nor under the bills making their way to Pretty Boy Noisom* who will sign them into law. The underlying red flag law requires “clear and convincing evidence” that a person is a present danger to him/herself or others before an order is authorized. After an initial order is issued, a formal hearing is held in which the “accused” is entitled to appear, be represented by counsel, call and examine witnesses, etc. The clear and convincing standard is one step below “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” and two steps above “more likely than not. Add to that, the hearsay rule would prohibit everyone but the first witness from testifying, or from submitting affidavits to get the temporary restraining order. So it isn’t going to happen.

      On the other hand, if the “just shoot me” statement an be reasonably interpreted as suggesting suicidal depression, then California Welfare & Institutions Code section 5150 allows the police, “based on probable cause,” to take that person to the nearest mental health care facility for the purpose of “evaluation and treatment”, an involuntary hold that can extend no longer than 72 hours without a court order for further involuntary restraint, or the patient’s agreement to a voluntary admission. (Between me, you, and the lamp post, I don’t see anyone interpreting such a statement in that fashion.) TIt has been a while, but I am pretty sure that the 5150 results in a 5 year firearms prohibition.

      That said, your hypothetical implies that this woman is

      • Mark N. June 29, 2019, 12:07 am

        * Noisome is convinced that that pretty face of his and his political connections will be his ticket to the White House in 2024 or 2028.

      • Jonathan Speegle June 30, 2019, 11:39 pm

        I know this is not related to California, however strict our erpo law is, the loophole is the officer. For example not yet proven in my own case, but hypothetically, my ex-wife, who may not be allowed by law to report me, may inform an officer of the extreme risk, and that officer may advocate to the judge, which in orange county florida you have a 10-1 leftist vs normal ratio with our elected/appointed jurists in these cases. I already learned how devoid of honor and respect for our constitution and our citizens these judges are, add vague language and good lord, anyone can screw you. If it wasnt bad enough all the natural right being spat upon, those right have no apparent defense here. Im waiting to see one hit the headlines because someone said f-no. Just hope im not the martyr for the nation. If the supreme court upheld that it would have to be war, except our courts here sure dont any lick of sense or honor to their oath, so why would any citizen expect better up the rung? My take, keep stocked, keep dry. My teenage children know this already after they were usurped in school to support the gun control lobby. They didnt like the idea of being used.

  • Michael J June 28, 2019, 11:26 am

    California democrats red flag laws don’t require evidence to confiscate an indidivuals firearms? But requires proof that they are not a threat to reclaim their property? What could possibly go wrong?

    • Mark N. June 29, 2019, 12:13 am

      Yes, California law DOES require proof that a person is a danger to himself or others before a confiscation can occur. It is a two step process. Step one is to ask a judge for a temporary order. No order, no confiscation. The order must be based on admissible evidence in the form of sworn affidavits or other evidence satisfying the statutory prerequisites. If an order is issued, it must be personally served on the “subject” AND a hearing must be set within 14 days for a formal hearing. The temproary order lasts only util the formal hearing. At the hearing, the parties seeking the order must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the person is a threat etc. That person has the right to be represented, to cross-examine witnesses, to cll witnesses, and to introduce evidence.

      If it is a domestic violence situation, the procedure is much the same–and courts have an immense amount of experience with domestic violence orders.

      • Jonathan Speegle June 30, 2019, 11:42 pm

        Oooh. Sworn affidavit in a California courtroom. You sure make the case for trusting the California judiciary to hold someone responsible for false or misconstrued information. Until there is a felony penaly for erpo false claims this will continue to be an open confiscation order for anyone.

      • lenny February 14, 2020, 7:52 am

        so your talking about an exife to get even ,how about pelosis nephew the governor of calif isnt he a danger to us normal people.may calif fall in the ocean.hen i drove i refused to go to calif , the cops suck the dot suck .one of worst states in nation.

  • Tad Pole June 28, 2019, 10:48 am

    Smokey The Bear Says “Only You Can Return Fire” Keep Your Powder Dry, Carry On.

    • R.T. Bennett July 1, 2019, 12:51 am

      California’s fascist legislators can pass as many libtarded gun laws as they want. I will not comply. Ever. Our rights as American citizens in my book always supersedes Califorina’s asinine agenda.

  • Birtus Simpson June 28, 2019, 10:47 am

    The red flag laws is just another way to allow people to harass someone. They come to steal your property, you do have the right to stop them. Of course they would spin it to look like it was an unprovoked attack. Depriving someone of their property without due process is against the law.

    • Mark N. June 29, 2019, 12:24 am

      If you break into my house, there is a presumption “affecting the burden of proof” that you are entering with the intent to commit serious bodily harm or death. What this means is that in California self-defense is presumed and the prosecutor has the burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that I was not acting in elf defense if I shoot you down like a dog. The only time that the presumption does not apply is when you happen to be a family member.

  • krinkov545 June 28, 2019, 10:00 am

    You’ll never placate these Hell bound commie dogs. Only death and Hell will stop the vile dogs.

  • Rod Smalt June 28, 2019, 9:07 am

    Kalifornia isn’t a state. It’s a third-world banana republic, embedded withing the United States. Why ANYONE would choose to live there is beyond comprehension.

  • Jerry Herndon June 28, 2019, 9:05 am

    Someone in California needs to step up and challenge all of these laws. Stripping you of your property without due process is unconstitutional. But most of all “shall not be abridged” means shall not be abridged.

    • Mark N. June 29, 2019, 12:27 am

      No one has stepped up because under current authorities, the law comports with due process, no mater what the NRA or gun blog pundits say. And the NRA is VERY active in California courts, which ought to give you a clue what the NRA’s counsel thinks.

  • Steve h June 28, 2019, 8:19 am

    Now if the people of California were smart they would get together and put in confiscation orders for every politician’s security detail. That would stick it to them.

  • Phil June 28, 2019, 7:53 am

    If the legislature thinks a person is that dangerous, why isn’t the person locked up? A perverse move by the legislature and those supporting the move. Little by little the erosion continues.

    • SuperG June 28, 2019, 10:28 am

      When Ronald Reagan relaxed the mental health laws, and released thousands of psychos onto the streets, the criteria for locking up a mentally ill person changed. Now they have to be a imminent threat to themselves or others. Then, after they are stabilized, they are no longer a threat and released. Crazy, huh? Nobody wants to address mental health as it is too costly. It is just cheaper to let them run amok and let the criminal justice system take care of them. Now we have laws to incite them to violence by illegally taking their property and denying them their constitutional rights.

  • Jay June 28, 2019, 6:57 am

    Commiefornia has become the testing ground for what government wants for all the USA!

  • Roger J June 28, 2019, 6:22 am

    Next the drug addict shitting in the street will be able to take your guns.

  • J Franks June 28, 2019, 3:13 am

    How much longer will the gun owners of California sit idle while they’re stripped of their rights? There’s a reason the government has been chipping away at the ability to resist.

    The time for polite discourse and using the system to protect our basic right to defend ourselves from filth trying to take away our freedom.

    This scum will not stop with the 2nd amendment. They won’t stop until we are all slaves, easily crushed under the boot heel of the government.

    • George M. July 1, 2019, 1:08 am

      There is a massive underground movement within California involving LEA and citizens who are not allowing themselves to be played by Sacramento folly. It isn’t discussed openly but numbers at the present moment are claimed to be over 300,000 and growing. The worm is turning and it’s turning its ire at the likes of Newsom.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend