State Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Birmingham, has filed a bill that would establish the Gun Violence Protective Order Act in an effort to reduce firearm related deaths in Alabama.

SB170 would authorize courts to issue ex parte gun violence protective orders and one-year gun violence protective orders if it finds that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to self or others, according to its text.

The bill defines an ex parte gun violence protective order as “an order issued by a court…that prohibits the respondent from owning, purchasing, controlling, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition until a court-scheduled hearing for a one-year gun violence protective order.”

The bill would require that the court order respondents to surrender to the local law enforcement agency all firearms and ammunition within their control or possession upon the issuance of an ex parte or one-year gun violence protective order.

“It is the purpose and intent of the Legislature to reduce firearm deaths and injuries by providing a formal court procedure that law enforcement officers, teachers, and family members may use to obtain a court order that prevents an individual who poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others from gaining access to firearms and ammunition,” the bill reads.

“The Legislature intends for these court orders to be limited to situations in which the individual poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to self or others by owning, purchasing, controlling, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition.”

Under SB170, a petitioner may seek a gun violence protective order by filing a verified petition on a form approved by the Administrative Office of Courts in the court of the county where the respondent resides.

The petition is required to include the grounds for the issuance of the order and describe the number, types, and locations of any firearms or ammunition presently believed by the petitioner to be possessed or controlled by the respondent, the bill states.

The petition shall also state whether there is an existing domestic violence protective order in effect governing the respondent and whether there is any pending lawsuit, complaint, petition, or other action between the parties under the laws of this state, it continues.

If the court finds reasonable cause to believe that the respondent poses an immediate and present danger of causing personal injury to self or others by owning, purchasing, controlling, possessing, or receiving a firearm or ammunition, it would be authorized to issue an ex parte gun violence protective order.

The court would then schedule a hearing within 14 calendar days of the issuance of an ex parte gun violence protective order to determine if a one-year gun violence protective order should be issued.

The bill adds that a respondent may seek an extension of time before the hearing.

If the court finds during the hearing that the respondent poses a substantial danger of personal injury to self or others through his or her ownership, purchase, control, possession, or receipt of a firearm or ammunition, the court shall issue a one-year gun violence protective order.

SB170 provides for the renewal or early termination of a one-year gun violence protective order under certain conditions and also establishes criminal penalties for the violation of the order.

If passed, a person who owns, purchases, controls, possesses, or receives a firearm or ammunition with knowledge that they are prohibited from doing so by a gun violence protective order is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor, punishable by up to up to three months of jail time and a $500 fine.

The individual would also be prohibited from owning, purchasing, controlling, possessing, or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, a firearm or ammunition for a period of five years from the date of conviction.

And a person who files a petition for a gun violence protective order, knowing the information in the petition to be materially false or with an intent to harass the respondent, is also guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

The bill is currently pending action in the Senate Committee on Judiciary.