California now has restraining orders for guns, but opponents worry about law’s unintended consequences

California is attempting to curb access to firearms for the mentally ill, but the vagueness of the state’s new law could lead to abuse.

According to the National Journal, in September of 2014, California became the first state to set up gun violence restraining orders. The GVRO gives families of suicidal or mentally ill people the right to have them restrained from purchasing a gun.

Though the law will not completely go into effect till 2016, the goal is to prevent future cases like Jared Loughner, the Arizona shooter who killed six people and injured 13 others, including former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords. The Loughner family knew he had a problem, but couldn’t prevent him from purchasing a firearm before he went on his massacre.

The law has won praise by gun control advocates like Shannon Frattaroli, who is gun violence prevention researcher at Johns Hopkins University.

Frattaroli recently co-authored a paper in the Behavioral Sciences & the Law journal, writing that mental illness is not the best way to predict future acts of violence but that a history of violence is. More often than not, the family of a mentally ill person is the first to know if someone is prone to violence, she said.

Despite its good intentions, Second Amendment rights activists are worried about the law’s unintended effects.

The NRA is concerned that the person accused of being dangerous is ex parte to the entire proceeding. They can have their firearms taken away before getting a chance to defend themselves.

Supporters of the law deny this claim and say that abuse is unlikely given that the petitioner must show “reasonable cause” and “substantial likelihood” that the person is a threat to themselves and others to get a GVRO.