Skip to main content

Expansion of California’s Red Flag Law Heads to the Governor

Ting participated in a rally in August calling for more gun safety laws. Courtesy: SF Brady United Against Gun Violence

California is poised to expand its red flag law after a recent study suggested such policies may be effective in reducing the risk of mass shootings. The Assembly sent Governor Newsom AB 61 by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) today, which gives more Californians access to a court process that could temporarily take away someone’s firearms through a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), if they pose a danger to themselves or others. Current law only allows law enforcement and immediate family members to file a GVRO. Ting’s proposal adds educators, employers and co-workers.

“There’s no question in my mind that California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law is a powerful tool that helps save lives. With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day a way to prevent tragedies,” said Ting.

From 2016 (when California’s red flag law took effect) through 2018, more than 600 people had weapons removed from their possession via GVROs. Researchers at the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis closely examined a sample of these individuals and found none were involved in subsequent gun-related violence. While it is hard to say how many incidents were prevented, it is reasonable to conclude GVROs play a role in reducing the chance of gun-related violence.

Seventeen states have a version of red flag laws on the books. Twelve enacted their measures after the 2018 Parkland, FL shooting. In California, there are two ways a GVRO can be granted:

  • For a duration of 21 days, immediately, which can be extended for up to one year after a court hearing, or

  • For a duration of one year after a court hearing, which changes to five years, if AB 61 is signed into law.

For GVRO requests in the latter category, Ting has a companion bill, AB 1493, which allows the subject of a GVRO to surrender their firearms to authorities without contesting the order. Under current law, even a subject who agrees guns should not be in their possession must still go through a court hearing, wasting time and resources.

As with all bills sent to the Governor this month by the September 13th deadline, he has until October 13th to act. If signed into law, AB 61 & AB 1493 will take effect September 1, 2020.

Bill expanding gun-violence restraining orders heads to California governor

PUBLICATION: San Francisco Chronicle

SACRAMENTO — Californians could petition a judge to confiscate their coworkers’ or employees’ guns if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs a proposal twice rejected by his predecessor.

The Assembly gave final approval Monday to AB61, which would expand the state’s gun violence restraining order law, and sent it to the governor’s desk.

The existing restraining-order law allows police, immediate family members and roommates to ask a court to remove firearms and ammunition from people they believe pose a danger to themselves or others.

.....

AB61, by Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, would add employers, coworkers and school employees to the list of people who can petition a court for a gun violence restraining order.

“With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day a way to prevent tragedies,” Ting said in a statement.

A ban on gas-powered cars? 2020 Democrats embrace what once was a California fantasy

PUBLICATION: Sacramento Bee

WASHINGTON

Democrats running for president had a message for Americans on Wednesday night: you are going to have to wean yourselves off your gas-powered cars.

“It’s not something you have to do. It’s awesome,” entrepreneur Andrew Yang joked.

That didn’t satisfy CNN host Wolf Blitzer, who pressed Yang during Wednesday’s live presidential town hall on climate change. “What’s the answer? Are we all going to have to drive electric cars?” Blitzer asked.

....

California lawmakers have aired proposals in the past to ban gas-powered cars. Assemblyman Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, proposed one in 2017. His bill didn’t pass.

“Our climate crisis has worsened since I first introduced my bill less than two years ago to ban the sale of new, gas-powered vehicles in California by 2040. To make a lasting impact on the planet, we really need to get the whole country to start driving clean cars. It’s a relief to see this pressing issue discussed by the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidates,” Ting said.

Ting Proposal for Reservation & Pricing System On World Famous Lombard Street Heads to the Governor

Ting Proposal for Reservation & Pricing System On World Famous Lombard Street Heads to the Governor

As frustrations over traffic congestion on San Francisco’s Lombard Street heighten, the city is one step closer to being able to test a solution. The California State Assembly sent AB 1605 to the Governor today, allowing a Reservation and Pricing System Pilot Program on the Crooked Street, which sees more than two million visitors a year. The bill by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) is necessary because existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a tax, permit fee, or other charge for the use of its streets or highways.

“It has become increasingly difficult to manage the crowds and traffic congestion on Lombard Street,” said Ting.  “Neither the presence of parking enforcement officers, nor the closure of the crooked segment has changed the current situation. AB 1605 offers a fix worth trying to improve public safety and the quality of life for residents.”

The San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA) concluded in a 2017 study that access to the popular tourist attraction must be better managed and recommended a Reservation and Pricing System to do so. Lombard Street draws up to 17,000 visitors per day on busy summer weekends. Queues of motorists often form at 10am and run as late as 8pm, with wait times extending to 45 minutes per vehicle.

The proposed strategy would regulate demand and flow at the entrance while reducing the length of cars lined up, and could be implemented through an all-electronic system supported by a website, mobile app or on-street kiosks. Recent amendments to the bill require the SFCTA to identify ways to accommodate low-income, disabled or elderly visitors at Lombard Street. The SFCTA must also compile regular reports to assess the program’s effectiveness and ensure it is working as intended.

California's First College Admissions Reform Bill Heads To The Governor

California's First College Admissions Reform Bill Heads To The Governor

In an effort to make the college admissions process more fair and equitable, the California State Assembly sent Governor Newsom AB 697 by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco). Ting’s bill would require colleges to disclose to the state whether they give preferential admissions treatment to applicants related to donor or alumni, and detail how many students were admitted under such practices.

“If we’re allowing CalGrants and other state-funded benefits to go toward a school, we need to ensure every applicant has a level playing field during the application process,” said Ting.

In March, a handful of Assembly Democrats unveiled a package of six college admissions reform proposals in response to the scandal dubbed “Operation Varsity Blues.” That investigation alleges that well-connected families used a side door to get their children admitted into elite schools through illegal bribes and/or donations. Additionally, the scandal shed light on the many legal ways that wealth and relationships skew the college admissions process.  AB 697 is the first reform measure to reach the Governor.

Other proposals by lawmakers include:

  • AB 1383 strengthens checks and balances on special admissions (McCarty)
  • ACR 64 studies phasing out the use of SAT and ACT scores for admissions (McCarty)
  • AB 1312 establishes a registration process for college admission consultants (Low)
  • AB 136 prohibits fraudulent tax write-offs for individuals charged in the scandal (Quirk-Silva)
  • Audit request of the University of California’s admission policies and practices (Boerner Horvath)

As with all bills sent to the Governor this month by the September 13th deadline, he has until October 13th to act. If signed into law, AB 697 will take effect January 1, 2020.

#  #  #  #  #

State Assembly Recognizes 76th Anniversary of the Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act; Calls on Trump to Revoke Anti-Immigrant Actions

State Assembly Recognizes 76th Anniversary of the Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act; Calls on Trump to Revoke Anti-Immigrant Actions

Congress repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act on December 17, 1943. Today, the California State Assembly approved AJR 22, a resolution by Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) that would recognize the 76th anniversary of this historic moment, a significant point in the immigrant struggle for fairness and equality in America. The resolution also calls on President Trump to revoke his anti-immigrant orders and actions.

“Asian Americans see echoes of the past in the President’s rhetoric and policies. AJR 22 is a necessary reminder that progress is fragile, and that California must stand up against an administration determined to turn back the clock,” said Ting.

The resolution’s passage is timely, given the latest example of anti-immigrant policies at the federal level. Beginning October 15, a revision to the “public charge” rule is set to take effect, which makes it more difficult for immigrants to obtain a green card if they benefit from government programs, such as food, housing and medical assistance. Ting attended a rally in Oakland last week, denouncing the change. It joins a long list of actions by the Trump Administration directed against groups based on race, ethnicity, religious beliefs and immigration status, repeating mistakes of the past.

The Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted in 1882 and stood for more than sixty years before its repeal. It was the United States’ first law prohibiting immigration based solely on ethnicity because “the coming of Chinese laborers endangers the good order of certain localities.” For those who were already in America, the act also denied a pathway to citizenship, bearing striking similarities to federal actions today.

AJR 22 reaffirms that California welcomes all immigrants and refugees and now heads to the state Senate for consideration. The resolution’s co-authors include the Asian Pacific Islander Legislative Caucus.

#   #   #   #   #

Gridlock At The World-Famous “Crooked Street” Prompts Legislation To Soothe Residents' Woes

Publication: San Francisco Magazine

Looking to take a drive down the famed twisty segment of Lombard Street? There’s an app for that—or so California State Assemblyman Phil Ting hopes there will be in the near future.

When residents built the hairpin turns in 1922 on the brick road, they hoped to tackle its 27-degree grade, which made it difficult for cars in that era to climb. Never could they imagine they were laying the foundation for what would become one of the city’s most popular tourist spots, attracting more than 2 million visitors per year. In fact, between cars queuing up to take their turns down the road and people capturing selfies at the bottom of the street, what once was an answer to transportation woes has now become the exact opposite.

“On a busy summer weekend, that street can see 17,000 visitors a day on one block,” says Ting. “What ends up happening is that the block gets overrun; then, at the bottom of the hill, you have people taking pictures while all the cars are coming down. You also have all the traffic on the side streets, with cars queuing within four blocks from that street in gridlock. We want to make it a better experience for tourists and residents.”

San Diego Is Showing California How to Use Its Red Flag Law

Publication: Voice of San Diego

In 2018, at a car sales lot in San Diego, employees felt something was off.

In a break room, an employee allegedly praised the perpetrator of the Las Vegas mass shooting, remarking that he was genuinely impressed by the death toll. The man said that he had toyed with the idea of attempting a similar attack, perhaps at a church or synagogue. The dealership’s employees grew especially anxious when their co-worker, who they knew owned an assault rifle, said he would kill them all if he were ever to be fired.

The man’s co-workers called the police, fearing for their safety. Officers didn’t have enough evidence to arrest the man. But they did have enough to take away his guns. Using statements from employees of the dealership, police requested a Gun Violence Restraining Order, which allows a court to remove a person’s firearms if they pose a threat to themselves or others. The order was granted, and police seized the man’s two handguns, two shotguns, and an AR-15.

It was a textbook implementation of a GVRO, which are known colloquially as red flag laws.

.... 

In the California Legislature, lawmakers are also paying more attention to the spread of GVROs. In December of 2018, California Assemblymember Phil Ting introduced a bill that would allow school workers, employers, and coworkers to file GVROs. The bill is currently pending in the state Senate Appropriations Committee.

Ting's Statement On New Report Suggesting CA's “Red Flag” Law Plays a Role in Preventing Mass Shootings

California’s Red Flag Law is known as the Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) Law

Ting's Statement On New Report Suggesting CA's “Red Flag” Law Plays a Role in Preventing Mass Shootings

“Based on the new findings, there’s no question in my mind that California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law is an effective tool that helps save lives. I’m more committed than ever before to expanding the pool of Californians who have access to GVROs and will fight to get my bill, AB 61, to the Governor as soon as possible. With school and workplace shootings on the rise, it’s common sense to give the people we see every day a way to prevent tragedies,” said Assemblymember Phil Ting (D-San Francisco).

Ting is the author of AB 61, which adds educators, employers and co-workers to the list of people who can petition a court to temporarily take someone’s firearms away if they pose a danger to themselves or others. Currently, only law enforcement and immediate family can file for a GVRO.

Ting also serves as Chair of the Assembly Budget Committee and helped secure $5 million in the 2016-17 state budget for the University of California Firearm Violence Prevention Research Center. Read the Center’s new study about “red flag” laws here.

#  #  #  #  #

California’s ‘red flag’ law might be helping to reduce mass shooting risk, study says

Publication: Los Angeles Times

Four years after California became one of the first states to expedite the removal of guns from people seen as a public danger by family members or law enforcement, its “red flag” law appears to be helping to reduce the chance of mass shootings, according to a study released Monday by the UC Davis School of Medicine.

The initial findings by the school’s Violence Prevention Research Program were made public just hours after Gov. Gavin Newsom said Monday that he is interested in receiving a group of pending bills that would significantly expand the use of so-called “extreme risk protection” orders.

...

Assemblyman Phil Ting (D-San Francisco) has written one of nearly 10 bills pending that would enlarge California’s red flag law. His legislation would expand the number of people who can petition the court for orders to include co-workers, employers and school employees who believe individuals are a public risk of gun violence.

“It proves that strong gun control measures work,” Ting said Monday of the study. “You have potentially 21 people who could have carried out violent acts who aren’t able to because their guns were taken away.”