We’ve consistently highlighted the defects of “red flag” laws, the chief of which is the underlying philosophy that compelling removal of a person’s own firearms is a sufficient resolution of any risk or threat of harm. These laws, moreover, require bypassing constitutional guarantees – Second Amendment rights, and rights to property and due process. Orders are issued based on allegations that are often later shown to be baseless or mistaken.
A recent tragic illustration of these shortcomings arises from California’s red flag law, which had been invoked in advance of the May 18 San Diego mosque attack. The law failed to prevent the significant danger of substantial harm it was supposed to address, and the same law was improperly brought to bear against a homeowner simply because he legitimately refused consent to a police search.
According to news reports (NBC News and Seattle Times), a red flag order (“gun violence restraining order” in California) had been issued against one of the alleged perpetrators in the mosque attack, 18-year-old Caleb Vazquez.
California’s red flag law authorizes law enforcement officers to obtain a court order to prohibit an individual from possessing, owning or controlling access to firearms and ammunition, based on a finding that the individual poses a significant danger, in the near future, of causing personal injury to self or others because of their access to firearms. State law requires that the petition be supported “by an affidavit made in writing and signed by the petitioner under oath, or an oral statement” that provides evidence of this substantial likelihood of harm.
In 2025, the Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) was investigating Caleb Vazquez for “suspicious behavior” and visited his home for a wellness check. A sworn declaration by Marco Vazquez, Caleb’s father (obtained by NBC News) explains what happened next.
Officers conducting the wellness check on “February 24, 2025” (which appears to be an error that likely refers to January, as the declaration is dated February 14, 2025) asked about firearms kept in the home, based on “firearm records” police had reviewed. The father responded that all of the guns were secured in a locked gun safe that was itself inside a locked closet, and that no one else, including his son, had access. After the officers stated they wished to inspect the security arrangements for themselves, the father invoked his Fourth Amendment rights and “respectfully” refused consent to a police search. Five days later, police served a GVRO against Caleb.
In the meantime, as the declaration makes clear, before being served with any of the GVRO paperwork, Caleb’s parents had already removed all firearms, ammunition and firearm accessories from their home and stored them with a licensed gun dealer. Marco’s declaration states he was not going to bring firearms back into his home until it was safe to do so, and he had “no intention of allowing my son access to my firearms.”
On January 30, after Marco Vazquez presented the police with a receipt confirming that all guns, ammunition and accessories had been transferred to the custody of the gun dealer, the police obtained another GVRO, this one naming him as the respondent.
It’s improbable that the necessary legal foundation for the order – a substantial likelihood of a significant danger attributable to him personally – even existed.
The relevant paperwork refers to “[subject’s] child being involved in suspicious activities” and being placed in a “5150 hold” (a 72-hour involuntary commitment). As the declaration states, though, there is no evidence of any threats or acts of violence committed by the subject parent; no indication he had behaved irresponsibly with firearms or supported any violent ideology; and no mental health, substance abuse, or criminal history that would otherwise justify a GVRO. The sole rationale for the order appeared to be his invocation of his Fourth Amendment rights: “Reading through the application, the only reason for seeking a gun violence restraining order against me is that I would not allow law enforcement to search my home” (emphasis in original).
Later developments bear that out. At a court hearing on February 14, 2025, the GVRO naming Marco Vazquez was dismissed in its entirety, and the petitioner, the CVPD, stipulated to the dismissal.
Despite Marco Vasquez’s attempts to safeguard his firearms from his son’s possession, including removing them from the home, as well as other attempts to monitor and mitigate his son’s unhealthy behaviors and preoccupations, Caleb continued his downward spiral. News report indicated he met his alleged conspirator in the attack online, and that individual obtained weapons from his mother’s home on the morning of the attack. While the investigation is continuing, it seems all too clear that – as we have often said of red flag laws – merely limiting access to one source of firearms not sufficient when a dangerous person is otherwise left to his own devices.
Like other so-called solutions backed by gun control advocates, red flag laws have a dysfunctional “law of the instrument”-like focus on guns rather than the underlying human pathology that creates the risk of harm. If the law works as intended, it eliminates a respondent’s access to their firearms without medical intervention or requiring anything in the way of diagnosis, treatment or cure. The respondent is left at the mercy of whatever mental health crisis or other condition it is that led to the issuance of the order.
All indications so far point to the GVROs in this case accomplishing nothing except, perhaps, the false hope of a problem solved. Caleb’s parents voluntarily preempt the GVRO against him and took many additional steps to guard their son from his worst impulses, including significantly increasing their supervision of him and monitoring all of his online and social activities. The GVRO naming the parent was not only entirely unnecessary (following, as it did, presentation of proof that firearms had already been removed from the home), but appears to have been petitioned for and issued in violation of state law and perhaps the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, none of this is enough to deter California’s lawmakers, who even now are mulling over fresh enhancements of the GVRO law.
More Like This From Around The NRA
