How Far Will the Strictest State Push the Limits: The Constitutionality of California’s Proposed Gun Law Under the Second Amendment

I. INTRODUCTIONElliot Rodger viewed Friday, May 24, 2014, as his "day of retribution" as he embarked on a violent killing spree throughout the streets of California.1 Rodger's massacre left a total of seven victims dead, including himself, on the streets neighboring the University of California, Santa Barbara campus.2 Rodger executed his premeditated, meticulous mass murder with three semi-automatic handguns, accompanied by 400 rounds of ammunition - all of which he legally purchased and registered.3As a child, Rodger participated in therapy and received psychiatric drug treatment; however, at the age of 18, Rodger refused continued mental healthcare.4 Professionals agree that Rodger displayed warning signs indicating he harbored violent tendencies.5 For example, in Rodger's 137-page manifesto, "My Twisted World," he documented his violent propensities including his attempt to push people off of a ledge at a college party.6 In April 2014, after discovering her son's disturbing YouTube videos, Rodger's mother tried to intervene by alerting his former therapist.7 In response, the therapist reported the incident to the Santa Barbara mental health hotline, which dispatched police officers to follow up with Rodger.8 Rodger admitted to the police officers that he had difficulties socializing with his classmates and peers, yet the police determined that his calm, lucid behavior did not meet the criteria for an involuntary hold.9 If the officers had searched Rodger's home they would have uncovered three semi-automatic handguns, 400 rounds of ammunition, and his 137-page manifesto plotting his "day of retribution."10 However, because Rodger maintained a clean record and did not meet the criteria for an involuntary commitment for mental health treatment, California law did not allow police to intervene or remove firearms.11 Further, even if police believed Rodger truly posed a threat to himself or others, California law did not permit police to intervene.12In response to Rodger's mass shooting, California politicians recognized the problems with California gun laws; particularly, Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner affirmed that the Santa Barbara mass shooting illuminated the problems with California's mental health laws, but more importantly, with the state's gun laws.13 Rodger's massacre prompted California lawmakers to create Assembly Bill 1014, which allows police to temporarily seize guns from people who pose a threat to themselves or others.14This Comment argues that Assembly Bill 1014 does not infringe on an individual's Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms because the bill is narrowly tailored to prevent gun violence as it targets only dangerous individuals.15 Part II discusses Assembly Bill 1014 and summarizes the basic principles of Second Amendment jurisprudence.16 Part III argues that since the Supreme Court has not yet established an appropriate standard for Second Amendment analysis, courts should use First Amendment jurisprudence as guidance in determining the appropriate level of scrutiny to employ when analyzing Second Amendment claims.17 Part III explains how Assembly Bill 1014 survives the requisite intermediate scrutiny analysis and further survives strict scrutiny - the highest level of scrutiny applied by the courts.18 Part IV recommends that other states should consider the impact of gun violence by passing legislation similar to California's Assembly Bill 1014.19 Part V concludes by reiterating that California's Assembly Bill 1014 is constitutional because it survives both intermediate and strict scrutiny.20II. BACKGROUNDA. The Triggering Factors of Assembly Bill 1014.Assembly Bill 1014 creates a procedure for family members to obtain a restraining order and firearm seizure warrant against an individual who poses significant injury to themselves or others by possessing a firearm.21 A gun violence restraining order prohibits an individual from having in his or her custody or control, owning, purchasing, or possessing any firearm or ammunition. …