False DV TRO

[TacticalBean]

There is a lot of backstory here, but I truly was falsely accused of DV by my brother in retaliation of another court case we have open. He completely fabricated a story that I can disprove with video evidence and testimony from a former law enforcement officer. He also lied on the TRO request and said we don’t have any other court cases open together.

The TRO was granted, but I have yet to be served. I only found out because I check the case search database often for cases involving him to see if he has started probate.

So far I have already lost my Global Entry and I’m making arrangements to sell my firearms and ammo to a buddy. I also have a CCW in Santa Clara county which per their website would be have to be surrendered when I have a TRO.

My concern now is about two jointly owned, registered assault weapons (RAWs). Both my wife and I are listed as registered owners. Do I need to surrender them too, or is it acceptable for her to secure them in our gun safe and maintain sole access (keeping the key from me)? I haven’t found much guidance on how jointly registered RAWs are handled in situations like this, so I’d appreciate hearing from anyone who’s dealt with something similar. I do have an appointment with an attorney, but thought I’d check here first.

 

[thawolf]

There is a lot of backstory here, but I truly was falsely accused of DV by my brother in retaliation of another court case we have open. He completely fabricated a story that I can disprove with video evidence and testimony from a former law enforcement officer. He also lied on the TRO request and said we don’t have any other court cases open together.

The TRO was granted, but I have yet to be served. I only found out because I check the case search database often for cases involving him to see if he has started probate.

So far I have already lost my Global Entry and I’m making arrangements to sell my firearms and ammo to a buddy. I also have a CCW in Santa Clara county which per their website would be have to be surrendered when I have a TRO.

My concern now is about two jointly owned, registered assault weapons (RAWs). Both my wife and I are listed as registered owners. Do I need to surrender them too, or is it acceptable for her to secure them in our gun safe and maintain sole access (keeping the key from me)? I haven’t found much guidance on how jointly registered RAWs are handled in situations like this, so I’d appreciate hearing from anyone who’s dealt with something similar. I do have an appointment with an attorney, but thought I’d check here first.

Hi Buddy. Family law lawyer here, so keep that in mind, not a civil lawyer. Sorry to hear about your situation. It’s terrible, but whatever you do, make sure you get a lawyer and make sure you fight it and turn that temporary order into a dismissal at the court hearing.



Here is a little breakdown, and the bottom line comes to Access to the guns and not your joint ownership. Turn it over to your wife while you can as you are not yet served.


The law/breakdown below:

-------

Co-Owned Firearms and CH-110 Civil Harassment Restraining Order

When a person is subject to a CH-110 Civil Harassment Restraining Order in California, the law imposes strict restrictions on firearm possession, including co-owned or jointly purchased firearms.

Legal Framework

1. California Family Code § 6389:

A person subject to a protective order shall not own, possess, purchase, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive a firearm or ammunition while the protective order is in effect. This includes co-owned firearms.

2. Penal Code §§ 29825 and 11106:

These statutes make it a crime for anyone under a restraining order to have access to firearms, even if they are jointly owned.

Court Interpretation of Co-Owned Guns

Courts consider both actual and constructive possession. If the restrained individual has any means of accessing the firearm—even without sole ownership—it constitutes a violation of the order.

Examples of Violations Involving Co-Owned Guns

• • Firearm stored in a shared home or closet.

• • Joint access to a gun safe (same code or key).

• • Hunting rifles registered to both partners with shared access.

Options for Co-Owners to Remain in Compliance


1) Change Storage Relocate the firearm to a place completely inaccessible to the restrained person.

2) Change Possession Transfer sole ownership if appropriate and legal.

3) Temporary Transfer Store the firearm with a licensed gun dealer or law enforcement agency.

4) Documentation Keep detailed records of all changes and communications.

Court Filings and Compliance

The restrained party must file CH-800 (Proof of Firearms Turned In, Sold, or Stored), even for co-owned firearms. They must show they have NO ACCESS OR CONTROL (this is key) over the firearm. The court requires affirmative evidence, not assumptions.



Risks of Non-Compliance

• • Criminal prosecution

• • Contempt of court charges

• • Revocation of firearm rights

• • Search and seizure of firearms



Sucks, but good luck.

 

[TacticalBean]

Hi Buddy. Family law lawyer here, so keep that in mind, not a civil lawyer. Sorry to hear about your situation. It’s terrible, but whatever you do, make sure you get a lawyer and make sure you fight it and turn that temporary order into a dismissal at the court hearing.



Here is a little breakdown, and the bottom line comes to Access to the guns and not your joint ownership. Turn it over to your wife while you can as you are not yet served.


The law/breakdown below:

-------

Co-Owned Firearms and CH-110 Civil Harassment Restraining Order

When a person is subject to a CH-110 Civil Harassment Restraining Order in California, the law imposes strict restrictions on firearm possession, including co-owned or jointly purchased firearms.

Legal Framework

1. California Family Code § 6389:

A person subject to a protective order shall not own, possess, purchase, receive, or attempt to purchase or receive a firearm or ammunition while the protective order is in effect. This includes co-owned firearms.

2. Penal Code §§ 29825 and 11106:

These statutes make it a crime for anyone under a restraining order to have access to firearms, even if they are jointly owned.

Court Interpretation of Co-Owned Guns

Courts consider both actual and constructive possession. If the restrained individual has any means of accessing the firearm—even without sole ownership—it constitutes a violation of the order.

Examples of Violations Involving Co-Owned Guns

• • Firearm stored in a shared home or closet.

• • Joint access to a gun safe (same code or key).

• • Hunting rifles registered to both partners with shared access.

Options for Co-Owners to Remain in Compliance


1) Change Storage Relocate the firearm to a place completely inaccessible to the restrained person.

2) Change Possession Transfer sole ownership if appropriate and legal.

3) Temporary Transfer Store the firearm with a licensed gun dealer or law enforcement agency.

4) Documentation Keep detailed records of all changes and communications.

Court Filings and Compliance

The restrained party must file CH-800 (Proof of Firearms Turned In, Sold, or Stored), even for co-owned firearms. They must show they have NO ACCESS OR CONTROL (this is key) over the firearm. The court requires affirmative evidence, not assumptions.



Risks of Non-Compliance

• • Criminal prosecution

• • Contempt of court charges

• • Revocation of firearm rights

• • Search and seizure of firearms



Sucks, but good luck.

Thank you so much for all this info! Dismissal with order language that hopefully says the TRO was filled with false or misleading info is our goal for sure, but given how easy it was to attain, I’m a bit disheartened.

Hopefully, I’ll be able to meet with my attorney before I get served to get some guidance on your comments here. I am hopeful that storing the RAWs at another location with no access by me would suffice.

Again, thank you for taking the time to comment here!

 

[westsidearms]

I am just thinking would it be cheaper to PPT them all to your buddy or just temp store them at a gun store? PPT to buddy is going to be $20 each plus $74.38. Ask the gun shop if they will temp store them for $20 each and one DROS instead of you PPTing them twice. It would save them double the paperwork and not involve your buddy. They would have to be an AW dealer to keep the AWs and I am not sure if that is worth the headache. Probably better for wife to keep them away from you in the short term.

Another not as legal option but who would know. What kind of AWs? For example I registered three OLLs rifles, one OLL pistol, and one Glock. If I take the uppers off and hell just hand over the Glock, no one would know they were AWs and they could be temp stored no problem. The only risk there is the CA DOJ has them already in an AW database and somehow sees this when you DROS to return. I am not sure what they would do about that and my guess is not a damn thing. They are busy enough as is.

 

[Malibu]

I have helped a friend through this awful mess in the past.
All his legally owned firearms were DROS’d to me through a current FFL.
His small legal collection of Roberti-Roos era AW’s were promptly driven (by him) out of state prior to being served, and “pawned” to a legal FFL in Arizona. At that point he had NO firearms in his possession, had NO access to any firearms or ammunition, and had WRITTEN PROOF of such to satisfy the court. When the whole divorce and associated court happenings concluded, we waited until his attorney ensured that the necessary notifications had been made to the DOJ, and he was eligible to legally have firearms again. At that point, we did a PPT on ONLY ONE firearm to see if it worked, and it did. Some time later we did a PPT for the remainder.
As to his RAW’s, he elected to sell those to the dealer out of state, as the offer was too good to pass up. I’m not sure if he could have brought them back anyways, that I’ll leave for someone else to answer.
Good luck, hopefully this works out in your favor. Sometimes we get the shaft, as you have seen.

 

[westsidearms]

As to his RAW’s, he elected to sell those to the dealer out of state, as the offer was too good to pass up. I’m not sure if he could have brought them back anyways, that I’ll leave for someone else to answer.

Pretty sure once they are out of your possession out of state, it would be illegal to import them. Even with AW registration. Someone smarter might make a case otherwise, but I do not think that is the route I would take. Legally, he could not have the dealer redeliver them. It might be smarter to have given the AWs to the AZ dealer for gunsmithing though how do you prove to the courts you no longer have them in that case?

 

[Malibu]

Pretty sure once they are out of your possession out of state, it would be illegal to import them. Even with AW registration. Someone smarter might make a case otherwise, but I do not think that is the route I would take. Legally, he could not have the dealer redeliver them. It might be smarter to have given the AWs to the AZ dealer for gunsmithing though how do you prove to the courts you no longer have them in that case?

As to the AZ dealer for “gunsmithing”, I’ll ask about that later when I go over there, for my own knowledge.

I wonder if the court would accept a receipt from the gunsmith that has a statement saying “the listed firearm will be held at our facility in (insert name of state) until client’s legal affairs in regards to firearm possession/ownership are adjudicated by the court overseeing such matters”, or something to that effect.
If the person having legal and proper title to the RAW is released from prohibitions on ownership/possession, he then personally might be able to legally bring them back to this state. I’d ask a qualified attorney who deals in such matters for guidance, YMMV.
This whole “RAW” business is a real PIA. Thank you Governor George Deukmejian (R) for signing that bill…your action in that regard has caused massive grief and damage to the citizens.

 

[Michael the Beloved]

In my 26 years as a criminal defense lawyer and Public Defender, I have never seen the DA (or City Attorney) in LA county, file misdemeanor charges for violating a TRO (once actually served) under similar circumstances.

Here is an important thing to keep in mind, prosecutors do NOT bother with filing this charge on its own. The few times I have seen it, is when it was coupled with more serious charges involving domestic violence or a 245 assault. Thus violation of the TRO and losing one’s firearms, was the least of their worries, because folks in those circumstances were usually facing plenty of jail time..l if not prison time on more serious felony violent charges.

Although actual proof of service of the TRO is what the prosecutor would want to see before moving forward on charges, I have seen police detectives get creative to detain, in order to elicit a confession, or to arrest someone (while seizing Firearms), and then letting the local prosecutor figure out if they will file charges based on this digital constructive notice.

There are electronic means by which the State can prove one had notice of the TRO, by using one’s civil court account, to prove on a specific date, one accessed the civil index to the specific court case, and clicked the link to access the TRO…as proof one knew about it. If a police arrest such an individual, who then makes a silly admission about knowing, then it makes it easier to prove their case.

I have seen cases where the TRO was not served, that folks were trying to dodge it knew about it and it’s contents, and then when there was an incident that the police detained them, they admitted that they knew about the TRO but had not been served, and the DA opted to file that charge in addition to usually other charges of violence as I mentioned above.

By analogy, the Courts do this nonsense with red light camera tickets. Folks receive a ticket in the mail with their alleged photo driving the car. Unsuspecting folks then either called the court, went in person, or typically go to the court website, look up the ticket, and the court, then flags their automated system as proof one has notice of the ticket because one researched it with the court. They then notify the DMV that one had notice, in order to suspend one’s license if one failed to appear on the ticket. This is the due process that the Democrats have given citizens on a variety of violations, especially folks dealing with a TRO.