Newsom Just Signed a Gun Confiscation Bill – What It Means for Your Rights

Gov. Gavin Newsom just signed AB 1344, and it’s not a minor tweak.

As reported by KTLA’s Iman Palm, the law creates a pilot program in four counties – Alameda, El Dorado, Santa Clara, and Ventura – that for the first time lets district attorneys directly seek Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs).

Those are California’s “red flag” orders that temporarily take firearms from people a judge deems a danger to themselves or others.

Under current law, prosecutors can’t file these petitions themselves. AB 1344 changes that – at least in the pilot counties – through January 1, 2032, with annual reports starting in 2027 to the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis, according to Palm’s coverage.

That’s the official description. The practical consequences are where the debate gets heated.

Prosecutors Move Front And Center

Ventura County District Attorney Erik Nasarenko, who sponsored the bill, called it “a significant law for community safety,” telling Iman Palm that prosecutors are “uniquely positioned and qualified” to go to court for GVROs.

Supporters see this as closing a gap. If police or family members are slow to act, a DA’s office can file quickly and professionally – presumably with stronger evidence and better legal drafting.

On paper, that could mean fewer procedural errors, more consistent petitions, and faster action when someone is truly dangerous.

But that same shift could also mean GVROs become far more common, because the entity that prosecutes gun crimes now has its own direct pathway to seize guns – civilly, not criminally – without charging anyone with a crime.

That’s precisely the fear gun-rights advocates are voicing.

“This will supercharge confiscation,” Warns Copper Jacket TV

On his channel Copper Jacket TV, host William (Will) argues AB 1344 is “red flag confiscation” on steroids. In his words, giving DAs filing power will “more than likely double the number of red flags we see issued.”

He paints a picture of a state that already issues a lot of GVROs and wants more. William points to recent coverage showing Santa Clara County at the top of the statewide leaderboard, claiming the county issued around 700 GVROs in 2024, nearly two per day, and that DA Jeff Rosen has signaled an interest in “boosting the numbers.”

William also stresses how broad California’s list of petitioners already is – neighbors, roommates, spouses or romantic partners, family, your kids’ school, employers, and law enforcement – so long as the person has had contact with you in the past six months.

Now add prosecutors to that list – with institutional resources, attorneys on staff, and political incentives – and he believes you’ve created a pipeline for routine, not exceptional, confiscation.

What a GVRO Means in Real Life

A GVRO is civil, not criminal. No conviction is required. In many cases the first order is ex parte – you’re not in the room when it’s granted.

A judge can approve a temporary order based on sworn statements and evidence presented by the petitioner. Your first notice might be a knock at the door and instructions to hand over your firearms and stop acquiring new ones.

Later, there’s a hearing where you can contest the order, but by then your rights and property have already been affected. That’s why critics, including William, argue due process is paper-thin on the front end.

He goes further, saying ordinary behavior can be twisted into “warning signs.” He even claims that in California simply owning armor has been enough to trigger filings when a neighbor or coworker feels uncomfortable.

Whether or not that would hold up in court, the point he’s making is simpler: the bar to file is low; the initial restraint can be fast; and the burden then shifts to you to undo it.

What AB 1344 specifically changes

Iman Palm’s reporting spells out the key changes:

• New filer: District attorneys in the four pilot counties can directly file GVRO petitions.
• Timeline: The program runs until Jan. 1, 2032.
• Data requirement: Annual reports begin in 2027 to UC Davis’ firearm research center to track data and outcomes.

That last point is crucial. The pilot is designed to be measured, and its results will likely be used to argue for either statewide expansion or scaling back.

Supporters will say, “Let’s study the impact.” Opponents will warn, “This is policy laundering – collect numbers to justify expansion.”

Both may be right, depending on what the data shows and who interprets it.

Why Prosecutors Matter Here

Prosecutors aren’t just any petitioner. They have standing relationships with law enforcement, access to investigative resources, and a working knowledge of what convinces judges.

That can translate into more filings, but also stronger petitions that are harder to defeat.

Ventura DA Erik Nasarenko calls it a community safety tool. If a shooting can be prevented, he argues, the system should use every lawful tool available. And because GVROs are civil, the state can act before a crime happens.

William’s counter is that “before” is exactly the point of concern. When government can strip rights without charges or a conviction, he argues, it flips the American default – innocent until proven guilty – into temporarily guilty until you can speak up.

Palm notes the pilot sits in Alameda, El Dorado, Santa Clara, and Ventura. That’s a geographic and political cross-section, and it aligns with places that already take red flag enforcement seriously.

William believes the pilot is only a first step, predicting the policy will “more than likely spread statewide” once the data is in. If Santa Clara’s volume becomes the benchmark, he fears statewide normalization of “file first, sort it out later.”

That fear isn’t unfounded. California has a long history of piloting gun policies in a subset of counties, collecting data, and then expanding the model.

What This Means For You Right Now

If you live in one of the four pilot counties, the circle of people who can initiate a GVRO against you now includes your local DA.

That doesn’t mean one is coming, and it doesn’t mean judges are rubber stamps. But it does mean another well-resourced actor is in the arena – one that files cases for a living and has public-safety and political incentives to use the tool.

If you live outside those counties, this still matters. The UC Davis reporting is designed to influence statewide policy. If the pilot “works” by the metrics chosen, expect pressure to roll it out everywhere.

The Real Fight Is Over Front-End Process

There’s a world in which GVROs are narrow, rare, and aimed at truly acute, imminent dangers – with meaningful adversarial hearings, strict evidentiary standards, and swift return of rights and property when allegations don’t hold up.

There’s also a world where GVROs become routine administrative acts, wielded by an ever-growing list of petitioners – now including district attorneys – with ex parte orders that function as temporary punishments rather than temporary safeguards.

AB 1344 nudges California toward the second world. The safeguard will not be the statute; it will be how judges rule, how prosecutors exercise discretion, and how fiercely defense attorneys challenge weak petitions.

If you’re concerned about overreach, this is a moment to learn the process, document your conduct, and be mindful of disputes that could be misread as “warning signs.” If you’re relieved prosecutors can step in, insist on transparent reporting that distinguishes between truly dangerous cases and marginal ones.

Both realities can exist. The difference is in how the tool is used.

Where The Numbers Fit (And Don’t)

William cites estimates that California has issued thousands of GVROs since 2016, arguing the state already relies on the tool heavily. He highlights Santa Clara County’s reported 700 GVROs in 2024 and the DA’s stated intent to increase filings through awareness campaigns.

Iman Palm’s reporting doesn’t weigh in on those counts. Her focus is the law’s design – new authority for prosecutors in four counties, a multi-year pilot, and UC Davis oversight beginning in 2027.

Put together, the picture is this: a state that already uses GVROs frequently is now empowering prosecutors to use them directly, and the results will be studied with an eye toward future policy.

Whether that future is targeted and careful or expansive and aggressive will depend on how the next few years play out in courtrooms – not just in the Capitol.

AB 1344 doesn’t rewrite California’s red flag law. It reassigns power – and power matters.

As Iman Palm reported, district attorneys in four counties can now directly seek GVROs through 2032, with UC Davis tracking the outcomes. As William warned on Copper Jacket TV, that shift could supercharge confiscation by putting a professional filer – the prosecutor – behind the wheel.

If you live in Alameda, El Dorado, Santa Clara, or Ventura, pay attention. If you live elsewhere in California, don’t tune out. The pilot’s data may write the next statewide bill.

And wherever you stand, remember: the fight over GVROs is really a fight over process – who can trigger it, how high the bar is, and how quickly you can get your rights back when the facts don’t add up.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.