Domestic Violence Restraining Order Case Study

Another solution to suicide gun violence is Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVRO). According to a study on GVRO, past tendencies of violence are a better detector of future gun violence than mental illness (Frattaroli, McGinty, Barnhorst, & Greenberg, 2015, pp. 292-293). Domestic Violence Restraining Orders (DVRO) inspired the idea of GVRO; DVRO allow people to get a short-term restraining order from their partner who may harm them. GVRO prevents someone from getting or using a gun or ammunition for a year.

If a family or friend thinks a person is showing signs of violence, and may harm themselves or others, the person will get a notice of the GVRO. The notice will explain why a restraining order was issued and will inform the person that he or she must give up its guns and ammunition, or police will come in with a warrant and confiscate them. Although California is the only state to enact GVRO, “Indiana, Connecticut, and Texas have laws allowing law enforcement officers to remove guns from people they believe are dangerous” (Resnick, 2015, para. 14). GVRO in California allows people to go through the justice system and get a trial in court.

There are three types of GVRO: the two more temporary GVRO include emergency GVRO and an ex parte GVRO, and a more permanent GVRO includes a standard GVRO. An

An argument against GVRO is that the individual getting the restraining order has his or her guns taken away before the trial. This law may seem unjust; it is the American way to have a fair trial before getting punished. This is true, except in cases where someone may pose an extreme threat to society, such as homicide. GVRO may not be different from a person being too dangerous to receive bail before a trial. Furthermore, GVRO are not in effect until a judge issues it. Meaning that when guns are confiscated immediately, a police officer called a judge and both agreed that an emergency GVRO should be in