Here's a gun control measure that even Tea Party members should support Gun violence restraining orders let those closest to potentially violent people ask the government to take that person's gun rights away temporarily.

Mark Meckler | Opinion contributor

Show Caption Hide Caption Gun control that Tea Party members can support The president of Citizens for Self-Governance, Mark Meckler, says a GVRO statute is the answer to stop gun violence.

After every school shooting, the cultural reaction is about as predictable as the sun coming up in the morning. First, liberals get on social media and demand the government just do something about gun violence. Their suggestions usually involve confiscation, curtailing the Second Amendment, and wearing lapel pins in impotent rage. Conservatives, on the other hand, dig in their heels, and make comments about liberty, and how “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Little common ground has ever been found, until now: A gun control measure first used in my home state of liberal California has recently been championed by a writer at the conservative National Review.

Tea Party members and champions of self-governance should support it, too. Here’s why.

More: Students are right on gun control, and Republicans are dangerously wrong: Dianne Feinstein

More: The simplest gun control questions don't have answers. It's past time to get the facts.

In 2014, California passed a “gun violence restraining order,” or a GVRO statute which went into effect two years later. When someone is showing signs of being troubled or potentially violent, it allows someone they live with or a spouse, parent or sibling to petition the court to temporarily take that person’s gun rights away.

Now calm down.

The loved ones of the troubled person must produce real evidence (for example, social media posts, journals, audio recordings, sworn statements, etc.) which minimizes the possibility of just harassing innocent people. In fact, this process is very similar to restraining orders common in family law. In its first year, California granted 86 restraining orders, most of which were in effect for just their 21 days. In 10 cases, the GVROs were extended for a year.

Normally, conservatives don’t rally behind any measures that might be perceived as diminishing the Second Amendment. The words “cold, dead, fingers” come to mind. However, when National Review’s David French said conservatives should consider GVROs as a way to help reduce the number of shootings that have been occurring on high school campuses across the nation, it marked a rare bipartisan moment of agreement.

He was cautious, explaining that a well-crafted GVRO shouldn’t let just anyone file a complaint against another person. Only close relatives or those who are living with the troubled person can petition the courts and they have to have clear and convincing evidence. Plus, the troubled person should have the chance to defend himself or herself at hearings that should be scheduled within 72 hours of the petition. GVROs will lapse after a certain amount of time unless petitioners come back with more evidence that restrictions should remain.

More: Parkland kids can protest, but they don't know what they are talking about

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

This is not about punishing innocent people, it’s about giving average Americans the tools they need to make a difference in their communities as self-governing citizens. What I love about this common sense approach is that Americans will no longer have to rely on an inept bureaucracy to slowly step in and try to make a difference. You don’t have to call in a tip line, hoping someone will take you seriously.

In the case of the Parkland shooter, the FBI and local law enforcement received many tips that should’ve alerted them to the disturbed mental condition of the shooter … yet they admitted they did not respond appropriately.

“Just since 2015, the Charleston church shooter, the Orlando nightclub shooter, the Sutherland Springs church shooter, and the Parkland school shooter each happened after federal authorities missed chances to stop them,” French writes. “For those keeping score, that’s four horrific mass shootings in four years where federal systems failed, at a cost of more than 100 lives.”

I’m a straight-up Second Amendment advocate, but I support putting a solid, GVRO process in place. It ensures due process, and potentially (and I believe likely) can save lives as it re-establishes accountability on the local level. This solves a flaw in our current system that desperately needs fixing, while allowing citizens to take an active role in keeping their communities — and children safe.

This, of course, is not going to solve all of our violence problems. And no, it won’t stop all mass shootings. However, if you’ve ever felt despair over the inability to actually do something tangible to help fix this problem, consider embracing this solution which Americans of both political parties should be able to wholeheartedly support, without compromising their deeply held beliefs.

We all want to protect our children. Let’s start acting like it by enacting GVROs. It is the self-governance solution.

Mark Meckler, president of Citizens for Self-Governance, is founder of the Convention of States Project. Follow him on Twitter: @MarkMeckler