If California gun laws protected victims of abuse, a Rocklin woman might still be alive
In May, Vita Joga, a 51-year-old single mother and waitress, filed a restraining order against her ex-fiance after a violent altercation. He allegedly threatened to kill her. Joga told friends and wrote in court filings she feared her former partner, 48-year-old Johnnie Jordan, would follow through with his threat.
Joga was granted a protective order against Jordan, which required him to stay away from Joga, her daughter, her Rocklin home and her workplace of seven years, Roseville’s House of Oliver. Jordan was also barred from carrying or purchasing a gun or ammunition for five years.
On the morning of Monday, June 21, Jordan skipped a court hearing where he faced charges stemming from the domestic violence incident in May. Later that afternoon, Jordan stormed into the restaurant, and shot and killed Joga in broad daylight.
Roseville officials said this type of crime is “very uncommon.” But for domestic violence advocates, law enforcement and those who work in the realm of gun violence prevention, Joga’s murder is part of a larger epidemic. Her death was also entirely preventable.
In 2006, California became the first state to implement the Armed and Prohibited Persons System, which monitors gun owners who might fall into “prohibited” status due to a felony or other qualifying misdemeanor. The state Department of Justice recommended last year that the Legislature actually fund the program so all California county courts could confiscate, transfer or store known firearms from newly prohibited individuals.
Last year, the DOJ also recommended a statewide county-level system to seize firearms from individuals when they are issued any type of restraining order. Had state leaders taken these recommendations seriously, Joga might still be alive.
In the U.S., nearly three women are killed every day by an intimate partner. There’s also a lethal nexus between gun violence and domestic abuse: Firearms are the most commonly used weapons in domestic violence homicides.
The mere presence of firearms in abusive relationships increases the risk. “Access to a gun makes it five times more likely that the abusive partner will kill his female victim,” according to Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit advocating for gun control.
There is also a direct line between domestic violence and mass shootings. A 2020 Bloomberg report that analyzed nearly 750 mass shootings from the previous six years found that around 60% of the shootings were either domestic violence attacks or were committed by men with histories of domestic violence. The San Jose shooter, who killed nine of his colleagues at the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority on May 26, had such a history, and was accused of rape and abuse by his ex-girlfriend.
“The willingness to engage in ... domestic violence should be a red flag regarding someone’s need for some help to change their behavior or to separate them from their firearms, at least temporarily, to assess whether they are safe,” said Julia Weber, the implementation director at the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
California already has laws to prevent not only gun violence, but firearm-related domestic abuse. The Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO), also referred to as a “Red Flag Law,” empowers law enforcement — as well as family members, colleagues, employers and teachers — to work with courts to seize firearms from individuals who pose a potential threat to themselves or others.
In conservative-leaning areas, red flag laws are underutilized. Placer County, where Joga was killed, issued 19 GVROs between 2016-2019, according to the DOJ. Nearby Yuba, Sutter, Sierra, Plumas and Colusa Counties all issued zero. By comparison, Sacramento County issued 53 in that same span.
The five neighboring counties that failed to issue any GVROs all voted strongly Republican in the 2020 election. Here, gun freedoms are valued more than victim safety. The protections exist, but failing to implement them has clearly cost lives.
Domestic violence and gun violence advocates say red flag laws are effective and do serve a purpose, but cases of domestic violence are better served by a Domestic Violence Restraining Order (DVRO). While GVROs are designed just to remove firearms, DVROs include the same firearm prohibitions and are more comprehensive — providing, for example, child and pet custody and workplace and financial protections.
Joga already had a restraining order in place against her abusive ex-fiance. It included firearm restrictions. Why didn’t it protect her?
The law, as written, is comprehensive and largely effective, Weber said. The issue, however, is that California has failed to implement the victim safety laws and ensure that abusers actually relinquish their firearms.
California leaders have a chance to step up and protect future tragedies by passing Senate Bill 320, which codifies existing procedures for seizing firearms under protective orders.
“What advocates found is that (under) Domestic Violence Restraining Orders, if the individual didn’t surrender their firearm, there’s very little follow-up,” said Krista Colon, public policy director at the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. “The tracking to make sure those weapons were turned in wasn’t always happening. That follow-up can be really key.”
The bill requires that restrained persons relinquish ammunition and notify involved parties of any firearms or ammunition still in their possession. SB 320 will save lives.
Joga’s murder is a systemic failure as much as it is a horrific tragedy. County and state officials knew how to prevent her death — several prevention measures were already in place — but by ignoring DOJ recommendations and failing to enforce domestic violence protections, they failed Joga, her family and her community.
California has common-sense gun laws. If we truly care about victims, we need to enforce them.
The number for the National Domestic Violence Hotline is (800) 799-7233.
This story was originally published July 11, 2021 at 6:00 AM.