Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Supervisor urges city attorney to draft rules to implement state gun‑violence restraining orders

3006250 · April 16, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A supervisor asked the city attorney to draft and expedite legislation and protocols for implementing California's gun‑violence restraining order law, and requested an assessment of resources and school‑notification protocols following recent national and local incidents cited in remarks.

A member of the Board of Supervisors on April 30 urged the city attorney's office to draft and expedite local protocols to implement California's gun‑violence restraining order (GVRO) law and said the board would seek budget resources if additional funding is needed to support enforcement.

The supervisor described recent national incidents and a local case reported in the San Francisco Chronicle and said that the GVRO law allows family members, household members, or law enforcement to petition a court to temporarily remove a person's access to firearms when there are warning signs that the person is likely to harm themselves or others.

"I've asked the city attorney's office to immediately draft and expedite legislation establishing protocols to do so," the supervisor said. She also said she would work to determine whether additional resources are needed to carry out and enforce GVROs and would push for that funding in the budget if necessary. She asked the city attorney to identify appropriate protocols for notifying schools when relevant information about risk comes to light.

What the board member requested: the city attorney was asked to draft implementing legislation and guidance for local use of GVROs; to identify resource needs for enforcement; and to advise on school‑notification protocols when an individual has been subject to a psychiatric hold or other indicators that could place schools at risk.

No formal board vote was recorded on legislation at the meeting; the remarks constituted a request for staff work and potential future legislation.