If the petitioner requests a TRO, the court must hear the petition in an expedited manner. The judge must issue a TRO if, after questioning the petitioner and witnesses or relying on affidavits, the judge determines that it is substantially likely that the petition for an injunction will be granted and the judge finds good cause to believe there is an immediate and present danger that the person will injure himself or herself or another if the person has a firearm and that waiting for the injunction hearing may increase the immediate and present danger. If the judge issues a TRO, the TRO is in effect until the injunction hearing, which must occur within 14 days of the TRO issuance. The TRO must require a law enforcement officer to personally serve the person with the order and to require the person to immediately surrender all firearms in his or her possession. If a law enforcement officer is unable to personally serve the person, then the TRO requires the person to surrender within 24 hours all firearms to a law enforcement officer or a firearms dealer and to provide the court a receipt indicating the surrender occurred.

At the injunction hearing, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is substantially likely to injure himself or herself or another if the person possesses a firearm, the court may grant an extreme risk protection injunction ordering the person to refrain from possessing a firearm and, if the person was not subject to a TRO, to surrender all firearms he or she possesses. An extreme risk protection injunction is effective for up to one year and may be renewed. A person who is subject to an extreme risk protection injunction may petition to vacate the injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the TRO has expired or the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.

A person who possesses a firearm while subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction is guilty of a Class G felony. In addition, a person who files a petition for an extreme risk protection injunction, knowing the information in the petition to be false, is guilty of the crime of false swearing, a Class H felony.

Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Under state law, a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law also may not purchase a firearm or be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon. State law requires DOJ, before approving a handgun purchase or issuing a license, to conduct a background check to determine if the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm. To determine if the person is prohibited under federal law, DOJ must review court records of all of the person’s criminal convictions to identify if any conviction is for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. DOJ must determine if the relationship between the offender and the victim qualifies as a domestic relationship and if the offender engaged in violent conduct when committing the crime. The bill reorganizes two statutes—the crime of disorderly conduct and the definition of domestic abuse—so that DOJ is able to more easily determine if a conviction under one of those statutes qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

First, under current law, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct and if the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. A person who has been convicted of disorderly conduct is prohibited from possessing a firearm if the disorderly conduct was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence—that is, if the person engaged in violent conduct and if the relationship between the person and the victim was domestic. The bill reorganizes the disorderly conduct statute to separate “violent” conduct from the other types of disorderly conduct so that the court record clearly indicates that the crime was a violent crime.

Second, under current state law, “domestic abuse” is defined as certain actions taken against a victim if the victim is related to the actor, has a child in common with the actor, or currently resides or has resided with the actor. Unlike state law, federal law does not define a crime as domestic violence if the only relationship is that the victim currently resides or has resided with the actor. The bill reorganizes the statute defining domestic abuse so that a court record would indicate the exact nature of the relationship. Therefore, under the bill, the court record would indicate when a person who is guilty under state law of a crime of domestic abuse is not guilty under federal law of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if the person is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or the partner’s child and that contains a finding that the person represents a credible threat to the safety of the partner or child or an explicit term that prohibits the person from using, attempting to use, or threatening to use physical force against the partner or child.

Under the bill, if a person is released on bail or bond and the court issues such an order, the clerk of court must send a copy of the order to the appropriate sheriff within one business day of the person’s release. The sheriff must then enter the court order into an information system so that law enforcement has access to the order similar to how law enforcement has access to other orders for domestic violence, harassment, or child abuse that prohibit a person from possessing a firearm.

The bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under the bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony.

The bill prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony.

The bill also prohibits the possession of a frame or a receiver of a firearm that is not marked with a serial number. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class I felony.

The bill increases the penalty for the illegal possession of a firearm or for the straw purchase of a firearm. Under current law either crime is a Class G felony. The bill increases the penalty to a Class F felony for a repeat offense.

Under current law, DOJ reimburses counties for costs they incur in providing services to victims and witnesses of crime. The bill increases funding for these reimbursements by $1,503,400 in fiscal year 2023-24 and by $1,901,400 in fiscal year 2024-25.

The bill provides new general purpose revenue funding for the address confidentiality program operated by DOJ. Under current law, DOJ’s address confidentiality program, known as “Safe at Home,” provides certain victims of domestic abuse with a substitute legal address that can be used for both public and private purposes so that the victim’s home address can remain confidential.

Under current law, the crime of intimidation of a witness or a victim is a Class A misdemeanor, unless certain aggravating factors are present, in which case it is a Class H felony. The bill increases the penalty for the crime of intimidation of a witness or a victim from a Class A misdemeanor to a Class H felony and from a Class H felony to a Class G felony if the aggravating factors are present.

The bill provides an additional $10,000,000 in the 2023-25 biennium for victim services provided by DOJ across the state.

Under current law, the Law Enforcement Standards Board reimburses political subdivisions for certain expenses associated with certification training for law enforcement officers. Under current law, these reimbursements are funded from a combination of GPR and penalty surcharges on court fines and forfeitures. The bill increases GPR funding for law enforcement certification training reimbursements by $1,000,000 GPR in each fiscal year.