. STAFF
MEMBERS AND I ALSO WANT TO
THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HARD
WORK SOMETIMES LATE IN THE HOUR
BUT WE THINK THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ENOUGH MEASURE. THAT
WE SHOULD MOVE IT NOW. PERCENT
A BEFORE SIXTY FIVE A BILL TO
BETTER PROTECT SURVIVORS OF
DOMESTIC. VIOLENCE FROM GUN
VIOLENCE. AB FOR SIXTY FIVE
WOULD CODIFY TO EXISTING
CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT THAT
ESTABLISHES ADDITIONAL
OVERSIGHT PROCESS. RECORDS TO
ENSURE THAT FIREARM
RELINQUISHMENT IN DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER
CASES ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE I
WOULD MAKE THIS PROCESS
CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA. BUT ALSO A LINE THE
CIVIL RULES LANGUAGE WITH A
CRIMINAL RULE WHICH MEANT
MANDEECEES PROCESSES ARE
REQUIRED. AT THEY'RE IN
EXPEDITED TIMELINE. IN
CALIFORNIA 33% OF WOMEN AND 20%
OF MEN EXPERIENCE SOME FORM OF
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DURING THEIR
LIFETIMES. IN TWENTY EIGHTEEN
THERE ARE A HUNDRED AND SIXTY
THOUSAND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
RELATED CALLS FOR ASSISTANCE
ACROSS THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AND OVER 45% OF THESE CALLS
REPORTS SOME KIND OF WEAPON
BEING INVOLVED IN THE ABUSE. WE
ALSO KNOW THAT THE PRESENT
FIREARM IN THE HOME DURING AN
INCIDENT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
INCREASES THE RISK OF HOMICIDE
BY AT LEAST FIVE HUNDRED
PERCENT. IN FACT OVER HALF OF
THE FEMALE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE HOMICIDE IN UNITED
STATES. ARE KILLED WITH A
FIREARM. EVERY MONTH THE NUMBER
FIFTY TWO WOMEN ARE SHOT AND
KILLED UNITED STATES BY AN
INTIMATE PARTNER. IN NEARLY ONE
MILLION. WOMEN TODAY ARE ALIVE
WHO HAVE BEEN SHOT AT WERE SHOT.
SHOT OR SHOT AT BY A TO AN
INTIMATE PARTNER EVEN WITH OUR
STATES ROBUST FIREARM
LEGISLATION THEY'RE STILL OVER
TWENTY THREE THOUSAND FARM TO
PROHIBIT A PERSON TO HAVE
FAILED TO RELINQUISH THEIR
WEAPONS. OF THOSE TWENTY THREE
THOUSAND EIGHTEEN HAVE BECOME A
PROHIBITIVE PERSON TO A
RESTRAINING ORDER. SO UNDER
EXISTING LAW WHEN A PERSON
BECOMES HAS A RESTRAINING ORDER
PUT IT UP ON THEM FOR DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE THEY AUTOMATICALLY ARE
SUPPOSED TO RELINQUISH THEIR
FIREARMS. WITHIN TWENTY FOUR
HOURS OF THAT BEING HAPPEN TO
RULES OF COURT THAT ARE
SUPPOSED TO AT. THERE'S NO
LIMIT IN OFTENTIMES IS
INCONSISTENT TO ONE SUMMER. AND
BACK BEFORE THE JUDGE THEY
SEVEN GET THEIR TEMPORARY
RESTRAINING ORDER THANK THEN
COME BACK THE SEE THE JUDGE THE
JUDGES AND OFTEN ASK HAVE YOU
RELINQUISH YOUR FIREARMS DO YOU
HAVE SOME KIND OF PROOF OF THAT
OR ARE YOU STILL. HOLDING OUT
NOW ALL OF THEM THE WOMAN IS
GOING TO COME TO THE COURT WITH
THAT THAT THAT SAID ABUSER AND
MAY NOT EVEN HAVE AN ATTORNEY
PRESENT I BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF
TIMES AND CIVIL COURTS FAMILY
COURT. DO YOU GO WHEN YOU DON'T
EVEN KNOW YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO
ASK THE JUDGE TO ASK QUESTIONS.
AND SO OFTEN. AND WHO ARE LEFT
OUT AN ATTORNEY WITH SOMEBODY
SPEAK FOR THEM WITHOUT NO RIGHT.
TO ASK. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.
QUESTION YOU NEED. HAS REALLY
WHICH THEIR FIRE ARMS AS THEY
ARE ALREADY BOUND TO DO UNDER
LAW. THIS BILL SUPPORTED BY THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS
ASSOCIATION THE GIFFORDS LAWSON
TO PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE THE
PARTNER THE CALIFORNIA
PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND THE CALIFORNIA
POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION. AS
YOU KNOW THERE WAS JUST
RECENTLY IT LOCALLY IT WAS
SOMEBODY WHO HAD SUPPOSED TO
HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR WEAPONS A
WOMAN CALLED AT TO SAY I NEED
HELP GETTING OUT OF MY HOUSE
WHEN THE POLICE OFFICER SHOWED
UP. THAT ABUSER OPENED FIRE AND
SHOT AND KILLED AN OFFICER SO
THIS IS NOT ONLY TO KEEP
VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SAFE BUT ALSO OUR FIRST
RESPONDERS WHO HAVE TO
OFTENTIMES GO OUT ON THE CALLS.
AND YOU KNOW A SOCIAL THE BODY
ALSO MIGHT SHOW UP I KNOW THAT
IF SOMEBODY HAS A RESTRAINING
ORDER AGAINST THEM AND THEY'RE
NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF
A POSSESSION. OF IT. WITH HERE
TO ANSWER SHINJI. LOS IN CAP
PART. OF LEGAL SERVICES AT
WE'VE WHO HELPS TO REPRESENT.
IN COURT AT NO COST. THE BILL.
I'M BILLS BEEN MOVED THERE ANY
QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION BY OUR.
WE HAVE ANY OTHER WITNESSES AS
WELL OUR STORY FOR DOWN THAT'S
A GOOD POINT. ALL RIGHT LET'S
JUST DOUBLE FOR FIRST. SKINNER
HAVING BEEN TO FOR SO LONG I'M
ACTUALLY HEAR MORE LACKEY.
PRESIDENT BRADFORD. JACKSON
MITCHELL MITCHELL WIENER. RIGHT
WILL RETURN TOWARDS GOOD
PROCESS THAT WE DO IN CASE YOU
MAY STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR
SUPPORT AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF
ANYBODY ELSE IS HERE IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU I MY NAME IS ALLISON
CAP PART IN THE DIRECTOR OF
LEGAL SERVICES WITH WE'VE- I'M
HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY HAVE
ABOUT THE PROCESS. NOW ARE
THERE ANY PEOPLE HERE IN
SUPPORT. YOUR MEMBERS JONATHON
FELDMAN CALIFORNIA POLICE
CHIEFS ASSOCIATION SUPPORT
GREAT ANY OTHERS OR IS THERE
ANYONE HERE IN OPPOSITION. SURE.
WELL I THINK THEY CAN. YEAH.
OKAY THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING IN
THE LIVING ROOM ON THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA AND WE
ARE REGRETFULLY IN OPPOSITION
OF THE BILL THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
REALLY QUICK RELINQUISHING
WEAPONS UPON THE ISSUANCE OF
DVR ROSE AND CRIMINAL
PROTECTIVE ORDERS CANNOT BE
OVERSTATED AND THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THAT SWIFT
ACTION IS IMPERATIVE THE
COUNCIL ALSO RECOGNIZES THE
NEED TO ENSURE THAT REPRESENT
UNNECESSARILY AN UNREASONABLY
IMPACTED WILL RESTRAINING
ORDERS ARE REQUESTED. AB FOR
SIXTY FIVE NEEDS MORE WORK THE
PROCEDURES IN THE BILL DO FAR
MORE THAN CODIFY TO RULES OF
COURT AND INSTEAD THEY APPEAR
ALTHOUGH IT IT'S SOMEWHAT
UNCLEAR. TO SUBSTITUTE OF THE
CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND PUT
THEM INTO FAMILY LAW. AND THERE
ARE PROBLEMS WITH THAT IN THE
CRIMINAL UNIVERSE DEFENDANTS
ARE REPRESENTED THEY HAVE
COUNSEL THERE IS LAW
ENFORCEMENT PRESENT. IN THE
FAMILY LAW AS- AS OF THE
ASSEMBLY MEMBER RIGHTLY POINTED
OUT PEOPLE MAY NOT BE
REPRESENTED WHICH MEANS THAT
THERE ARE PROCEDURES THAT NEED
TO BE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE
COURTS. TO ADVISE AND GUIDE TO
PEOPLE IN THE PROCESS OF
PROTECTING THEMSELVES THE BILL
HAS THE RIGHT HEART WE JUST
WANT TO BE THE COURTS WANT TO
BE AT THE TABLE TO HELP THE
PROCEDURES WORK SO WE KNOW WHAT
IT IS THAT WE CAN DO. AND WHAT
IS THAT WE CANNOT DO. WE FEEL
THAT THE BILL IS. AMBIGUOUS.
THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT GAPS IN
OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE
COURTS ARE BEING ASKED TO DO.
MAKING FINDINGS IN THE NEGATIVE
FOR EXAMPLE IS ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT THE LANGUAGE WOULD
SUGGEST. HOW FAMILY COURTS THAT
DON'T HAVE THESE COMMON
RELATIONSHIPS ARE SUPPOSED TO
COMMUNICATE WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. HOW THE COURTS
WILL REVAMP OUR RULES ARE FORMS
ARE CALENDARING OUR PERSONNEL
AND OUR TRAINING TO MAKE SURE
THAT WE ARE GOOD TO GO WHEN
THIS IMPORTANT CHANGE GOES INTO
PLACE. THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
VERY MUCH WOULD LIKE TO WORK ON
THIS WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO
BE A PARTNER WITH THE AUTHOR AS
THIS MOVES FORWARD. BUT WE FEEL
THAT UNFORTUNATELY IN ITS
CURRENT FORM IT SHOULD NOT GO
FORWARD AND WE MUST REGRETFULLY
OPPOSE. HELLO BEFORE WE HEAR
FROM THE NEXT WITNESS IN
OPPOSITION I JUST WANT TO RAISE
THAT. SOME OF YOUR AND-
CONCERNS ARE RELATED TO THE
FAMILY COURT PROCESS WHICH IS
PART OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
WHERE THIS BILL WILL GO NEXT
AND WHAT OUR OUR. MAY HER VIEW
IT IS IN THE CRIMINAL SIDE IN
THIS DOES NOT. CHANGE THE
CRIMINAL CODE PART OF THIS SO
YOUR AND NOT TO DISCOUNT THE
CONCERNS BUT WHAT'S RELEVANT TO
US IS THE CRIMINAL SIDE SO JUST
WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE
RECORD AND NOW WE WILL. HEAR
FROM OUR NEXT WEEK. RIGHT OVER
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
AND IT'S ALSO AND REGRET FOR
OPPOSITION TO AB FOR SIXTY FIVE
AND WE ALIGN A LOT OF OUR
COMMENTS WITH THE JUDICIAL
COUNCIL SO I WON'T GO BACK INTO
THOSE CONCERNS. BUT I JUST
WANTED TO SAY THAT. YES OUR
FIRST AND FOREMOST I WANT TO
EMPHASIZE THAT THE
RELINQUISHMENT OF FIREARMS BY
RESTRAIN PERSONS SHOULD BE A
PRIORITY IN THE COURTS TO PLAY
A ROLE IN THAT. HOWEVER AB FOR
SIXTY FIVE AS WRITTEN EITHER
HAS TOO MANY TEETH BECAUSE OF
SEPARATION OF POWERS
ENVIRONMENT AND DUE PROCESS
CONCERNS OR NOT ENOUGH TEETH
BECAUSE IT IS NO BENCH WARRANTS
NO EXPLICIT CONTENT AND NO DUTY
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO
INVESTIGATE. BECAUSE THE LAST
MINUTE CONSIDERATION OF THIS
BILL MANY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN
RAISED BUT NO ANSWERS PROVIDED.
AND CJ AND FOR THESE REASONS CJ
RESPECTFULLY REQUEST AND NO
VOTES THAT WE CAN HAVE
CONVERSATIONS AND DISCUSSIONS
ON THIS IN THE FALL TO SEE HOW
THE COURTS CAN WORK WITH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. TO MAKE SURE THAT
THESE FIREARMS ARE REMOVED. YOU.
THOSE CONCERNS PRIMARILY AROUND
THE PORTION OF THE BILL THAT.
IS WRITTEN THAT AFFECTS THE TO
DISTORT THE PAINT NOT THE WELL
THE JUDICIAL CODE VERSUS THE
PENAL CODE. I THINK THERE IT'S
A HEIGHTENED AND THE FAMILY
CODE SECTION OF THIS BECAUSE I
KNOW THAT BECAUSE- THERE'S
USUALLY IS COUNSEL ON THE
CRIMINAL SIDE AND THE DEFENDANT
IS ALREADY SOMETIMES AND THE
BECAUSE CITY SO THE NOTICE
REQUIREMENTS OUR ALLEVIATE
SLIGHTLY FOR THE CRIMINAL SIDE
BUT WE STILL THINK THERE ARE
SOME IMPLICATIONS. WHICH I
OUTLINED IN A LETTER. ALRIGHT
ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN OFFICE.
OKAY GIVEN THAT SOME PEOPLE
CAME IN LATE WERE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
BEFORE WE OPEN THE DíAS FOR
DISCUSSION. OKAY LET'S SEE
DISCUSSION MOVES SENATOR. THANK
YOU YOU MAY REMEMBER I TH I
THINK THE TERM GUT AND AMEND
THIS GUY IS HAS UP IN FOR
NEGATIVE CONNOTATIONS I DON'T
WANT TO USE THAT TERM BUT CAN
YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS BILL IS
BEFORE ME. I'LL FRAME IT THAT
WAY. AS OPPOSED TO NEXT YEAR.
CERTAINLY BUT- YEAH AND I AND I
DON'T THINK ANY WE LIKE TO TERM
LIMITS. I AM NOT I AM NOT. A
FAN OR ONE WHO USES THEM MUCH.
HOWEVER IN LIGHT IT FEELS TO ME
OF THE URGENCY THAT WE CONTINUE
TO SEE AROUND THE STATE AND THE
NATION. AND WE PULL TOGETHER A
COALITION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
WORK WITH MY DE A DOMESTIC THAT
VIOLENCE ORGANIZATIONS. GOT
ORGANIZATIONS AND THOUGHT HOW
CAN HOW CAN WE- FIVE THREAD
THIS NEEDLE NOW I WILL SHARE
WITH YOU SENATOR AND SENATORS.
LAST WEEK AHEAD. THE STOCK AND
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT A BLOCK
AND A HALF FROM A AND IS SIDE
SCHOOL VERY POOR SOULS WHO ARE
NOT ON THE DEMOGRAPHIC. A WOMAN
HAD INVITED A FRIEND TO COME
AND STAY WITH HER WAS AFRAID
FOR HER LIFE FROM HER SPOUSE.
WHEN THEY LEFT THAT MORNING TO
GO TO SCHOOL. FRONT YARD I'M OF
THE FIREARM AND BEGAN FIRING AT
THEM. THEY WERE ABLE TO GET
BACK INTO THE HOUSE. AND THE
LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOWED UP AND
THAT INDIVIDUAL IS NOW TO SEIZE
WAS TURNED THE GUN ON LAW
ENFORCEMENT AT THAT TIME. THAT
ENTIRE SCHOOL HAD TO GO ON
LOCKDOWN. TALK LINKED WITH THE
TEACHERS AND PRINCIPALS
AFTERWARDS ABOUT THE HORROR
THAT IS THAT WAS ONE OF THEIR
TEACHERS ALSO THAT WAS IN THE
HOUSE. AND SO JUST THE
COMPOUNDING OF THAT ESPECIALLY
IN POOR NEIGHBORHOODS I JUST
FEEL LIKE WE DIDN'T HAVE A YEAR
TO WAIT. A AND WE HAVE A TOOL
THAT WE CAN PUT INTO EFFECT AND
I AM I AM. I KNOWLEDGE THAT WE
MAY HAVE MORE WORK TO DO AND
I'M WILLING TO DO WORK ON SOME
CLEAN UP THINGS AS WE MOVE
FORWARD. BUT I THINK WITH THE
HEIGHTENED. SENSE THAT WE ALL
HAVE THAT GUNS ARE GETTING OUT
OF CONTROL AND THAT WE KNOW
FACTUALLY THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ISSUES AND
HAVE WEAPONS ARE MORE LIKELY TO
USE THEM. I DON'T WANT TO WAIT
FOR A YEAR. I CAN I GET THAT
FULLY APPRECIATE. THAT RESPECT
THAT I AM. IN THREE BY. THE
OPPOSITION'S ARGUMENT AROUND
KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE OF THE
RULES AND EXPERIENCES IN THE
TWO COURTS. AND IF THE BILL.
GOALS FAR ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE
THAT IN NON CRIMINAL COURT SEAT
SETTINGS WHERE THERE ISN'T
ALWAYS REPRESENTATION THAT WHAT
YOUR INTENT REALLY HAPPEN. YOU
HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT
THE VIDEO. SHORT THANK YOU FOR
YOUR QUESTION I THINK THE I
THINK THE WAY IN THIS DOES LOOK
A LITTLE BIT MORE AT THE CIVIL
CODES AND PARTICIPANT
PROTECTION WHICH I RECOGNIZE IS
A LITTLE MORE UNDER THE PURVIEW
OF. OUR NEXT COMMITTEE BUT I
BELIEVE IN THAT PARTICULAR
ROUND THAT'S AROUND THAT I HAVE
THE MOST EXPERIENCE IN FAMILY
COURT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IN FACT THAT
THERE ARE OFTEN ARE NOT
ATTORNEYS ON EITHER. SIDE THE
ONLY NOT LAW ENFORCEMENT
TYPICALLY INVOLVED. ONLY
INDIVIDUAL IN THAT ARENA WHO
HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE RELINQUISHMENT ARE
HAPPENING AT THE FOLLOW UP ON
THIS IS THE JUDICIAL OFFICER AT
THAT HEARING. THAT CASE. THANK
YOU OKAY OTHER AT CENTER
JACKSON YES AND I APPRECIATE
THAT THERE ARE DEFINITE
DISTINCTIONS TO BE DRAWN HERE
AND SO WE'LL BE HEARING THAT
BILL IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
THIS AFTERNOON. AND I APOLOGIZE
FOR BEING LATE AND WHICH IS TO
OTHER. GUNMEN I MEAN OTHER
BILLS I WAS. HEARING JUST
BEFORE COMING TO THIS I WOULD
APPRECIATE. THOUGH THE GETTING
A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY ON
WHAT EXACTLY YOU'RE TRYING TO
DO AND I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO
SORT OF WALK A TIGHTROPE
BETWEEN THE CRIMINAL.
REQUIREMENTS AND THE FAMILY LAW
REQUIREMENTS MY UNDERSTANDING
IS YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THESE
A LITTLE TIGHTER THAN THE
FAMILY DOG BUT NOT QUITE. AS
THEY ARE IN THE CRIMINAL
COURTS. OF OR THE CRIMINAL
PROCESS I SHOULD SAY AND THEN.
IF THE OPPOSITION COULD.
ARTICULATE PERHAPS AGAIN
APOLOGIZE WHAT THE JUDICIAL
COUNCILS CONCERNS ARE BUT
PRACTICALLY SPEAKING HOW HOW WE
GONNA DO THIS YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE
NOT IN A CRIMINAL COURT
PROCEEDING. SO DO YOU HAVE TO
GIVE NOTICE AND THE RIGHT TO
GET COUNCIL OF OR NOT. HOW YOU
CAN IMPLEMENT THIS I KNOW IT'S
A NEW CRIME. TO VIOLATE THIS
AND I'M WONDERING WHAT THE
FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN
AND WHY WE'RE SORT OF TRYING TO
CREATE THIS HYBRID. SO FAR
AGAIN FROM THE FAMILY A
PERSPECTIVE THAT WE'RE NOT AND
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THIS
BILL IS NOT CHANGING THE
RELINQUISHMENT REQUIREMENT THAT
ALREADY EXISTS SO THEY'RE
ALREADY EXIST AB SECTION IN THE
FAMILY CODE THAT REQUIRES
ANYONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO A
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER. TO RELINQUISH THEIR
FIREARMS UPON BEING GIVEN
NOTICE OF THAT ORDER AND THAT
INCLUDES TEMPORARY PROTECTIVE
ORDERS THAT ARE ISSUED
OFTENTIMES AND AN EX PARTY YES
WITH THE COURT. THEY THE
REQUIREMENT TO. RELINQUISH
MEN'S GOD DOESN'T COME IT DOES
IS IT TRIGGERED HE IS A LOADED
WORD. INTEL THE RESTRAINT
PERSON IS SERVED WITH A COPY OF
THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND AT
THAT POINT THEY HAVE TWENTY
FOUR HOURS TO RELINQUISH THEIR
FIREARMS TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OR
LICENSED GUN DEALER. AND FORTY
EIGHT HOURS TO PROVIDE
DOCUMENTATION TO THE FAMILY
COURT THAT THEY'VE DONE SO
THERE'S THE JUDICIAL COUNCIL
FORM TO DO IT AND THEY'RE
SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE A RECEIPT
THAT SHOWS THE TODAY. THE
REALITY IS BECAUSE THERE ARE
NOT OFTEN TIMES. LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS NOT OFTENTIMES
INVOLVED OTHER THAN PERHAPS TO
SERVE THE RESTRAINING ORDER AND
THERE ARE NOT ATTORNEYS
INVOLVED AT THAT POINT IN TIME
THE REALITY IS THAT THESE
RESTRAINT PARTIES ARE NOT
RELINQUISHING THEIR WEAPONS.
WHETHER THAT'S BECAUSE THEY
FEEL. THEY DON'T NEED TO
BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T READ
THE RESTRAINING ORDER. OR
WHATEVER CENTERPOINT SO. THE
FAMILY LAW CONTACT WHEN A WHEN
THE TWO PARTIES COME TO THE
FIRST NOTICED HEARING WHICH IS
NOTICED BY SERVING THE
TEMPORARY WATER. THAT IS THE
PLACE THAT WE'D LIKE TO HAVE
THE JUDICIAL OFFICER. MAKING
AND DO AN ANALYSIS OF HAS THE
COURT RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT.
THE RESTRAINT PARTY DOES
POSSESS A FIREARM OR HAS ACCESS
AND CONTROL OVER A FIREARM AND
HAD THEY COMPLIED WITH THE
RELINQUISHMENT REQUIREMENTS AND
WE'RE ASKING THAT THAT HAPPENED
REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS ON
THE MERITS OF THE CASE SO IT'S
NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE A
RESTRAINED PARTY UP HERE AND
ASK FOR A CONTINUANCE TO GET
COUNCIL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
NO PROBLEM THERE BUT WE ARE
ASKING THAT THE JUDICIAL%
OFFICER AT THAT POINT MAKE THAT
DRAMATIC REGARDLESS WHETHER
CASES COULD TAKE BACK LATER.
EXACTLY. TO THE BRIDGE SO IS
OPPOSE BECAUSE. THANK YOU
BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT
WE UNDERSTAND FULLY THE
PROCEDURES WE DON'T BELIEVE
THAT THE COURTS WOULD HAVE
QUALITY INFORMATION TO MAKE A
FINDING IN FAMILY COURT BECAUSE
PEOPLE ARE. LARGELY ON
REPRESENTED WE DON'T KNOW WHAT
INFORMATION WOULD BE AVAILABLE
UPON WHICH COURTS COULD MAKE A
REASONABLE FINDING ONE WAY OR
AND OTHER THAT WOULD ACTUALLY
RESULT IN THE RELINQUISHMENT
THE PROCEDURES FOR
RELINQUISHMENT ALREADY EXIST
BUT THEY WERE HARD UP FOUGHT TO
GET TO WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE
AUTHOR I'M MAKING SURE WE
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PROCEDURES
ARE WITH THE KIDS CAN DO WHAT
THE LIMITS OF THE COURTS CAN
DO. MAKING FINDINGS BECAUSE
SOMEBODY. WAS IN COURT AND SAYS
THEY'RE IN DANGER. MAY NOT
RESULT IN A FINDING THAT THEIR
FIRE ARMS WHEN IN FACT THERE
ARE FIREARMS IN THE HOUSE WHICH
WOULD MEAN THAT THE COURTS HAVE
FAILED THAT PERSON AND THAT
SEEMS LIKE A TERRIBLE
SITUATION. SO SIMPLY WE JUST
WANT TO BE AT THE TABLE AND
WORK IT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT
THE COURTS UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY
CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN. BE
HELPFUL IN. I THINK WE CAN.
FOLLOW UP IN THIS IN THE IN THE
FAMILY LAW ARENA I APPRECIATE
IT THANK YOU. NOT TO BELABOR IT
BUT- IF YOU. MAY THIS INTO YOUR
BILL AND THEN PUT AN URGENCY
CLAWS ON IT AND IN JANUARY WE
GET IT PASSED AFTER YOU'VE
COLLABORATED THEN IT COULD BE
SIGNED BY THE GOVERNOR BE
EFFECTIVE FOUR MONTHS FROM NOW.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE
YEAR LATER ACT I'M I'M
WONDERING WHY. THAT ROUTE ISN'T
BEING TAKEN. THIS IS OUR FIRST
COMMITTEE. IS OUR FIRST
COMMITTEE HEARING AND WHILE WE
ALWAYS INTENDED TO TAKE IT ALL
THE WAY ACROSS THE FINISH LINE
WE KNOW SOMETIMES HAVE TIME IS
CALLED. SO WE ARE OUR INTENTION
IS TO CONTINUE TO MOVE THIS
FORWARD WE THINK THERE'S
URGENCY INVOLVED WITH IT
BECAUSE NO MATTER THE COURT.
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIM IS
STILL WE CAN STILL KILL RIGHT
AND THEY ARE ARE WE SUPPOSED TO
HAVE BEEN RELINQUISHED. WE FEEL
LIKE WE CAN DO SOME CLEAN UP
LANGUAGE LATER IF WE NEED TO
BUT CERTAINLY WOULD BE A TO THE
COMMITTEES PROCESS THAT WE
WOULD DECIDE IF WE'RE GOING TO
GO. ALL THE WAY RIGHT NOW OR IF
WE'RE GONNA PAUSE UNTIL
JANUARY. TO WRITE HIS BILL. AND
BUT IT'S A LAST WEEK A SESSION
THANK GOD. YEAH I UNDERSTAND.
OKAY AND. AND YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE
THAT WANT TO HELP. YOU KNOW
MAKE IT RIGHT THE FIRST. THANK
YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME CENTER MORE
LIKE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR
QUESTIONS. RIGHT ON. APPRECIATE
JUDICIAL COUNCILS CONCERNS FROM
THE CRIMINAL SIDE. THE BILL AS
WRITTEN DOES NOT DISTURB OUR
PROCESS SEES THAT MAYBE THAT'S
INACCURATE WORRIED BUT WHATEVER
IT IS AND SO I'M WILLING TO
SUPPORT IT TODAY. AND IT IS
TRUE SOMETIMES THAT RUSHING
THINGS CAN BE. WHATEVER BUT WE
DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO FIX AND
I KNOW THAT THE JUDICIAL
COMMITTEE WILL BE VERY.
JUDICIOUS BECAUSE I KNOW THE
CHAIR AND I KNOW THEY'LL BE
CAREFUL ABOUT REVIEWING IT. I'M
JUST STRUCK BY. THE NUMBERS THE
PERCENT OF WOMEN WHO WERE
MURDERED IN OUR COUNTRY AND OUR
STATE. AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE THAT YOU'RE MOST LIKE.
AS A WOMAN. I'M RARELY GOOD I'M
NOT GONNA BE MURDERED EXCEPT BY
THE INTERNET PARTNER THAT'S
PRETTY MUCH WHAT THE STATS SHOW.
THE OTHER AND THIS MAY BE WHY
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS IN SUPPORT.
THE RECORDS SHOW THAT AT
MINIMUM THERE ARE FIVE SWORN
OFFICERS KILLED IN A- WHEN THEY
INTERVENE IN A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE DISPUTE SO OUR OWN
PEACE OFFICERS IT'S ONE OF THE
MOST DANGEROUS SITUATIONS THAT
DAY WE OFTEN TALK ABOUT. THE
TYPE OF. EVERY TIME A SWORN
OFFICER PUTS THEIR UNIFORM ON
STEPS OUT THE DOOR THAT THEY'RE
TAKING THEIR LIFE IN THEIR
HANDS. AND HALF PERCENTAGE GOES
UPS HOW MUCH HIGHER WHEN THEY
ARE INTERVENING IN THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE DISPUTE. AND THERE'S
ALSO A VERY SIGNIFICANT
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE ABUSERS
ARE PERPETRATORS OF DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE AND OTHER VIOLENT
CRIME. SO I AM VERY VERY
SUPPORTIVE OF TRYING TO. BETTER
OUR RELINQUISHMENT OR OBTAINING
THOSE WEAPONS FROM THE DOMESTIC
ABUSER AS POSSIBLE SO FOR THAT
REASON I'M WILLING TO MOVE IT
ON NOW AND. WE WILL SEE HOW THE
G. JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HANDLES
IT. ALRIGHT LET'S TO ROLL CALL.
THE. MOTION OF I'M SORRY WE HAD
A MOTION HAS LOST MITCHELL. OR
OKAY YOU'RE RIGHT WE MIGHT NOT
HAVE. THEN I'LL TAKE YOUR
MOTIONS YOU MAKE OKAY USUALLY
DID MAKE THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT
YOU MADE THE MOTION OKAY. ALL
RIGHT GO FOR IT MOTIONS TO PASS
TO DIGEST. SKINNER ALL RIGHT
SKINNER I'M MORE LACKEY. THAT
THIS COMMITTEE PUBLIC SAFETY
WILL BE A JERK THANK YOU. MAYBE
FOR THE YEAR