California Court of Appeal Upholds Firearm Restrictions Associated with Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

Decker Law Successfully Defends Domestic Violence Restraining Order and Related Firearm Prohibition

The California Court of Appeal recently issued a published decision affirming a domestic violence restraining order (DVRO) and rejecting constitutional challenges to California's firearm restrictions applicable to individuals subject to restraining orders.

The opinion provides important guidance regarding the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (DVPA), the meaning of "abuse" and "disturbing the peace," and the continued constitutionality of firearm restrictions imposed in connection with domestic violence restraining orders following the United States Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Decker Law represented the respondent and successfully defended the trial court's orders on appeal.

Background of the Case

The case arose from a deteriorating relationship between a mother and her adult son. After moving out of his mother's home, the son repeatedly informed her that he no longer wished to have contact with her. Despite those requests, she continued contacting him through emails, text messages, and unannounced visits to his residence.

The son also testified regarding an incident in which his mother allegedly drove her vehicle onto a curb and nearly struck him and his girlfriend while they were walking near his residence. He further described repeated unwanted communications that caused him significant emotional distress.

Following a hearing, the trial court found the son's testimony credible and issued a domestic violence restraining order for a period of one year. As required by California law, the restraining order included a prohibition against possessing firearms and ammunition while the order remained in effect.

The mother appealed.

The Legal Issues

The appeal presented several issues, including:

• Whether substantial evidence supported issuance of the domestic violence restraining order;

• Whether the trial court committed evidentiary errors during the hearing;

• Whether California's firearm restrictions applicable to persons subject to DVROs violate the Second Amendment following Bruen; and

• Whether the statutory scheme violates equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the restraining order.

The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings, including its determination that the son reasonably feared serious bodily injury after the vehicle incident. The court emphasized that the testimony of a single credible witness may constitute substantial evidence supporting a trial court's findings.

The court also explained that repeated unwanted contact—including emails, visits to a residence, and continued communications after requests for no contact—may constitute conduct that "disturbs the peace" under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act.

Most significantly, the Court of Appeal rejected constitutional challenges to California's firearm restrictions for individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders.

The court held that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bruen did not invalidate California's statutory prohibition on firearm possession by individuals subject to qualifying restraining orders. The opinion explained that Bruen addressed public-carry licensing requirements and did not disturb longstanding restrictions on firearm possession by persons who have been found to pose a risk of harm.

The court further rejected an equal protection challenge to the statutory scheme, concluding that California's limited employment-related exception to the firearm prohibition is rationally related to legitimate governmental interests and does not violate constitutional guarantees.

If you are interested in reading the Court of Appeal’s decision, click here.

Why This Decision Matters

This published decision addresses two important and frequently litigated areas of California law.

First, it reinforces that domestic violence under the DVPA extends beyond physical violence. Repeated unwanted contact, harassment, stalking, and conduct that destroys another person's mental or emotional calm may support issuance of a restraining order.

Second, the opinion provides published authority confirming that California's firearm restrictions applicable to individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders remain constitutional following Bruen. At a time when courts across the country continue to evaluate Second Amendment challenges, the decision offers important guidance to litigants and trial courts.

How This Decision May Affect Future Cases

The opinion may be particularly relevant in cases involving:

• Domestic violence restraining orders;

• Harassment and unwanted contact between family members;

• Conduct that disturbs the peace under the DVPA;

• Appeals challenging restraining orders;

• Firearm restrictions associated with protective orders; and

• Constitutional challenges based on the Second Amendment or Equal Protection Clause.

Because portions of the opinion were certified for publication, the decision now serves as precedential authority on important constitutional issues affecting domestic violence restraining orders throughout California.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents clients throughout California in appeals, writ proceedings, and complex appellate matters. If you are facing an adverse trial court ruling or need guidance regarding a potential appeal, contact Decker Law to discuss your options.