BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON Public Safety
Senator Bruce McPherson, Chair A
2003-2004 Regular Session B
1
6
1
AB 161 (Steinberg)
As Amended June 30, 2003
Hearing date: July 8, 2003
Penal Code
SH:mc
DEALERS RECORD OF SALE SPECIAL ACCOUNT -
EXPANDING AUTHORIZED USE -
APPROPRIATION TO FUND FIREARMS TRAFFICKING PREVENTION ACT OF
2002
HISTORY
Source: Department of Justice
Prior Legislation: AB 2080 (Steinberg) - Chapter 909, Statutes
of 2002
SB 670 (Lewis) - Chapter 901, Statutes of 1995
Support: Women Against Gun Violence; Legal Community Against
Violence
Opposition:NRA; California Rifle and Pistol Association
Assembly Floor Vote: No longer relevant
KEY ISSUES
SHOULD THE EXISTING SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF THE FUNDS
IN THE DEALERS' RECORD OF SALE SPECIAL ACCOUNT OF THE GENERAL
FUND BE EXPANDED BY ADDING USE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE "FOR
THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH FUNDING DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 2
FIREARMS-RELATED REGULATORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES RELATED
TO THE SALE, PURCHASE, LOAN, OR TRANSFER OF FIREARMS PURSUANT
TO" CHAPTER 1 OF THE DANGEROUS WEAPONS CONTROL LAW?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD $548,000 BE APPROPRIATED FROM THE DEALERS' RECORD OF SALE
SPECIAL ACCOUNT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO IMPLEMENT THE
FIREARMS TRAFFICKING PREVENTION ACT OF 2002?
SHOULD RELATED CHANGES IN LAW BE MADE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is (1) to expand the existing specific
limitations on the use of the funds in the Dealers' Record of
Sale Special Account of the General Fund by adding use by the
Department of Justice "for the costs associated with funding
Department of Justice firearms-related regulatory and
enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, loan, or
transfer of firearms pursuant to" Chapter 1 of the Dangerous
Weapons Control Law; (2) to appropriate $548,000 from the
Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account to the Department of
Justice to implement the Firearms Trafficking Prevention Act of
2002; and (3) to make related changes in law.
Existing law does the following:
Requires all sales, loans, and transfers of firearms -
including private party transfers - to be processed through or
by a state-licensed firearms dealer or a local law enforcement
agency. (Penal Code 12072(d).)
Provides that there is a 10-day waiting period when purchasing
a firearm - or effecting a private party transfer - through a
firearm dealer, during which time a background check is
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 3
conducted - and a handgun safety certificate is required for
handguns - prior to delivery of the firearm. The licensed
deal shall submit purchaser information to the Department of
Justice (DOJ), as prescribed, to enable the DOJ to complete
background checks. (Penal Code 12071, 12072, and 12076.)
Requires that the Department of Justice determine whether
the purchaser or transferee is among a specified category of
persons who are prohibited to possess firearms; the
department is required to immediately notify the dealer and
local law enforcement upon ascertaining that fact. In
addition, the department is authorized to charge the dealer
a fee sufficient to reimburse specified costs, including,
but not limited to, the costs of furnishing this
information. (Penal Code 12076.)
The Dealers Record of Sale (DROS) fee is charged by the
Department of Justice to dealers; the dealers in turn charge
that fee to purchasers.
Provides that the Department of Justice may require the dealer
to charge each firearm purchaser a fee not to exceed $14,
except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed
any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as
compiled and reported by the California Department of
Industrial Relations. The fee shall be no more than is
sufficient to reimburse all of the following, and is not to be
used to directly fund or as a loan to fund any other program
(Penal Code 12076(e).):
(1) (A) The department for the cost of furnishing this
information.
(B) The department for the cost of meeting its obligations
under paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 8100 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code [regarding mental health
issues].
(2) Local mental health facilities for state-mandated local
costs resulting from the reporting requirements imposed by
Section 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(3) The State Department of Mental Health for the costs
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 4
resulting from the requirements imposed by Section 8104 of
the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(4) Local mental hospitals, sanitariums, and institutions
for state-mandated local costs resulting from the reporting
requirements imposed by Section 8105 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(5) Local law enforcement agencies for state-mandated local
costs resulting from the notification requirements set
forth in subdivision (a) of Section 6385 of the Family Code
[protective orders].
(6) Local law enforcement agencies for state-mandated local
costs resulting from the notification requirements set
forth in subdivision (c) of Section 8105 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code.
(7) For the actual costs associated with the electronic or
telephonic transfer of information pursuant to subdivision
(c) [regarding the purchaser/transferee background
information].
(8) The Department of Food and Agriculture for the costs
resulting from the notification provisions set forth in
Section 5343.5 of the Food and Agricultural Code [personal
handgun importers moving into California].
(9) The department for the costs associated with
subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of
Section 12072 [personal handgun importers].
The fee established pursuant to Penal Code section 12076(e)
shall not exceed the sum of the actual processing costs of
the department and the estimated reasonable costs for the
other items identified, as specified.
Provides that the DOJ may charge a fee sufficient to reimburse
the DOJ for each of the following but not to exceed $14,
except that the fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed
any increase in the California Consumer Price Index as
compiled and reported by the California Department of
Industrial Relations (Penal Code 12076(f)):
(A) For the actual costs associated with the preparation,
sale, processing, and filing of forms or reports required
or utilized pursuant to Section 12078 if neither a dealer
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 5
nor a law enforcement agency acting pursuant to Section
12084 is filing the form or report.
(B) For the actual processing costs associated with the
submission of a Dealers' Record of Sale to the department
by a dealer or of the submission of a LEFT [Law Enforcement
Firearms Transfer Form] to the department by a law
enforcement agency acting pursuant to Section 12084 if the
waiting period described in Sections 12071, 12072, and
12084 does not apply.
(C) For the actual costs associated with the preparation,
sale, processing, and filing of reports utilized pursuant
to subdivision (l) of Section 12078 or paragraph (18) of
subdivision (b) of Section 12071, or clause (i) of
subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of
Section 12072, or paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of
Section 12072.
(D) For the actual costs associated with the electronic or
telephonic transfer of information pursuant to subdivision
(c).
Provides that if the DOJ charges a DROS/LEFT fee, it shall be
charged in the same amount to all categories of transaction
that are within that subparagraph; that any costs incurred by
the DOJ to implement the DROS fee shall be reimbursed from
fees collected and charged pursuant to that authorization; and
provides that no fees shall be charged to the dealer or a law
enforcement agency for costs incurred for implementing the
system.
Provides that all money received by the DOJ pursuant to this
section shall be deposited in the Dealers' Record of Sale
Special Account of the General Fund, which is hereby created,
to be available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for
expenditure by the department to offset specified costs.
(Penal Code 12076(g).)
Existing law - the Firearms Trafficking Prevention Act of 2002 -
requires California firearms dealers provide specified
information to the DOJ and that a new program be implemented, as
specified, requiring that out of state Federal Firearms License
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 6
holder shipping firearms to California firearms dealers obtain
confirmation that the California dealer does have a valid
license in this state, as prescribed. (Enacted in AB 2080
(Steinberg) - Chapter 909, Statutes of 2002.) Those provisions
are effective, as follows:
1.Any costs incurred by the DOJ to implement the new
requirements for out-of-state firearms dealers section shall
be funded from the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account, as
set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 12076, upon
appropriation by the Legislature.
2.The Firearms Trafficking Prevention Act of 2002 shall become
operative on January 1, 2004, if the actual reserve balance in
the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account is $1,000,000 or
more on January 1, 2004, as determined by the DOJ. If the
reserve balance is not equal to $1,000,000 or more on January
1, 2004, as determined by the DOJ, specified provisions shall
become operative when the DOJ determines that the actual
reserve balance in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account
equals $1,000,000 or more.
This bill does the following:
Expands the existing specific limitations on the use of the
DROS fees in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account of
the General Fund by adding use by the Department of Justice
"for the costs associated with funding Department of Justice
firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities related
to the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer of firearms pursuant
to" Chapter 1 of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law.
Adds to the limit on the DROS fee inclusion of estimated costs
"the estimated reasonable costs of department firearms-related
regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale,
purchase, loan, or transfer of firearms pursuant to" Chapter 1
of the Dangerous Weapons Control Law.
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 7
Appropriate $548,000 from the Dealers' Record of Sale Special
Account to the Department of Justice to implement the Firearms
Trafficking Prevention Act of 2002.
Makes related changes in law.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The sponsor indicates the following (emphasis by the sponsor):
Because of enforcement activities funded by the state
legislature from the Dealers' Record of Sale Special
Account (DROS), and funding sources added over the last 24
months, California has gone from almost no enforcement of
firearms laws relating to sales, transfers, purchase or
loans of firearms to having investigated a wide number of
firearm dealers, criminally prohibited individuals and
illegal firearm possessors and sellers.
The Department of Justice has identified more than 1000 law
violations by firearm dealers and investigated more 500
illegal firearm possessions by individuals who have
purchased guns in CA but fell into prohibited category. In
addition, we have discovered 2,500 illegally prohibited
firearm and other dangerous weapons transactions and seized
those weapons as a result. Unfortunately, because of a
recent legislative counsel opinion, the Department of
Justice feels strongly that clarification of enforcement
activity and the use of the DROS account to fund it is of
extreme importance. At issue is whether or not the DROS
fee (which makes up more than 80% of the DROS Fund) can be
used to fund DOJ enforcement of the gun laws.
Over last ten years, California's firearm laws have changed
substantially with new bills being enacted almost every
year including:
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 8
Assault Weapons and Magazines ban (Perata, 1999)
Handgun Safety Standards (Polanco, 1999)
One Handgun a Month (Knox, 1999)
Child Safety Locks (Scott, 1999)
Gun Show Enforcement (Corbett, 1999)
Penalty Increase for Carrying a Concealed Weapon (Scott,
1999)
Gun Ownership Prohibitions for Domestic Violence
Perpetrators (Various bills)
Prohibition of Gun Ownership for Individuals who are
Subject to WIC 5150 (Scott, 1999)
Armed and Prohibited (Brulte, 2001)
Handgun Safety Training (Scott, 2001)
Gun Dealer License Verification (Steinberg, 2002)
Retest Handguns (Koretz, 2002)
Most of these bills came with no funding for enforcement,
however, some identified the DROS fund as a funding source
for enactment, i.e., Assault Weapons Public Education
Campaign, Handgun Retesting, and Gun Dealer License
Verification.
Attorney General Lockyer feels it is of utmost importance
that the Department of Justice work to enforce California's
landmark firearms laws to ensure that those who are
prohibited from possessing or purchasing firearms do not
gain illegal access to guns. Furthermore, he believes, as
the code states, that the Department must monitor gun
commerce in the state to ensure that all laws relating to
firearms sales, gun standards and prohibitions be strictly
enforced. Finally, he feels that it is important that
those laws be enforced by fees paid directly by those who
engage in gun commerce in California (gun dealers,
purchasers and transferees) under the 12000 series of the
Penal Code.
From the continuing mantra of "enforce the current gun
laws" by the National Rifle Association to the call for
preventing illegal gun sales and trafficking by the gun
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 9
safety community, every statewide, indeed national,
organization concerned with guns desires that the
Department put significant effort into enforcement of gun
laws. The Department's activities, as approved in the
Budget Act over the last 2 years, have been exactly that.
When the legislature identifies a firearm program that they
would like to fund and when they specify that the funding
shall be from DROS, of course the legislature is talking
about the fees with background check fees that make up more
than 80% of the DROS account rather than taking from
specific items that fund other activities such as dangerous
weapon explosive permit inspections, handgun safety
certificates testing and the one dollar firearm safety
device development/monitoring.
Current state enforcement of alcohol, tobacco, hunting,
fishing and prescription drug laws are just a few of the
state enforcement areas where users/purchasers fund state
regulatory and enforcement activity. In fact, 33% of fish
and game licensing fees (or $31.4 million) go towards
conservation education and enforcement. Although the
Department of Justice believes it currently uses the DROS
fund and fees appropriately, we wish to clarify how the
DROS fee may be used to avoid further debate as raised in
the legislative counsel's opinion of August 28, 2002.
2. Expansion on Use of the Dealers' Record of Sale Fees
As noted in the author's background and the Purpose section,
above, there is a Dealers Record of Sale Fee and there is a
Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account in the General Fund for
appropriation by the Legislature. However, while the DROS fee
is deposited in that account, the account contains other fees as
well.
Committee staff's general impression is that this bill in
intended to resolve two issues, at least. The first is that
funding for last year's AB 2080 - the Firearms Trafficking
Prevention Act of 2002 - may not be funded under the current law
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 10
and that the creative drafting of the funding for that bill is
problematic.
Therefore, this bill could have simply added that act to the
authorized uses of the DROS fee and made the appropriation also
included in this bill.
However, this bill also changes the authorized use of the DROS
fee by adding a new general authorization for:
costs associated with funding Department of Justice
firearms-related regulatory and enforcement activities
related to the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer of
firearms [pursuant to Chapter 1 of the Dangerous Weapons
Control Law].
That more general authority appears to be designed to allow the
DOJ the kind of "flexibility" in using DROS fees than exists
under current law, including funding AB 2080.
The sponsor argues that this bill will not expand the use of
DROS fees, but clarify their use, and asserts that:
The Legislature has historically appropriated DROS funds
for purposes that include regulatory and enforcement
activities related to the sale, purchase, loan, or transfer
of firearms. This bill will not authorize DOJ to spend
DROS fees for purposes other than what the Legislature has
already approved through Budget Act appropriations.
Additionally, two other 2002 bills specified that they be
funded by DROS (AB 2580 [note: contingent on specific
conditions of the fund] and AB 2902). As of right now, the
Legislature has included funding from DROS for these two
bills in the 03-04 Budget Bill.
The sponsor further asserts that that without the broader change
proposed by this bill, the DOJ would - If the Legislative
Counsel's opinion were strictly followed - have to stop or
curtail a number of activities. The sponsor has provided a
two-page list of 24 such activities which are listed in their
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 11
entirety in the last comment to this analysis.
SHOULD THAT NEW "GENERAL" AUTHORITY FOR THE USE OF DROS FEES BE
ADDED TO LAW?
WOULD IT INSTEAD BE APPROPRIATE TO ONLY ADD AUTHORITY TO USE THE
DROS FEES FOR AB 2080?
In addition, the Chapter referred to includes Penal Code section
12000 through 12101. All of those sections pertain to dangerous
weapons, including firearms. Firearms are defined in several
subdivisions of Penal Code section 12001. This bill's limiting
language added does include "sale, purchase, loan, or transfer"
so the DOJ has placed some limits on the new broader authority
for use of the DROS fee.
ARE THE "LIMITATIONS" INCLUDED IN THIS BILL APPROPRIATE AND
SUFFICIENT?
In addition, this bill does not authorize the DOJ to increase
DROS fees beyond the current authority in law.
3. Appropriation of $548,000 in This Bill
The sponsor indicates the following about the appropriation in
this bill:
The Legislature funded the implementation of three bills
from the DROS fund last year: AB 2080, AB 2902 and AB
2580.
Assembly Bill 2080 (Steinberg, 2002) required DOJ to
establish a process to ensure that FFL's in California who
accept guns are also licensed under California law. The
costs for AB 2080 are one-time and AB 161 (Steinberg, 2003)
would appropriate the funds from the DROS account to DOJ
for implementation.
Assembly Bill 2580 (Simitian, 2002) required annual
inspections of Dangerous Weapons Permit Holders, (except if
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 12
they have fewer than five devices, then inspections would
only be required every five years). Senate Bill 1312
required DOJ to establish a fee schedule to pay for these
costs ($165,000 approx annually) by January 1, 2006.
Dangerous Weapons permit fees are also deposited into and
paid from the DROS fund.
Assembly Bill 2902 (Koretz) was permissive. It authorized
DOJ to retest up to 5% of handguns on the Roster of
approved handguns for sale. If fully implemented, ongoing
costs will be $120,000 annually. First year costs would
include another $30k for regulations. Manufacturers would
be required to reimburse DROS for reinstatement testing
($30k approx).
The DROS fund is healthy. The Department has not raised
fees in 10 yrs. Assembly Bill 161 would only clarify DOJ's
authority to use the fund for the activities it is already
budgeted for, which include enforcement and regulatory
activities specified in AB 161. According to the DROS Fund
Condition Statement contained in the 03 Governor's Budget
(page LJE 76), a reserve of $3.1M is projected for the DROS
fund in 02-03 and a reserve of $1.7M is projected in 03-04.
However, more recent Department calculations project a
reserve of $4.0 M in 02-03 and $3.2M in 03-04.
4. Further Information About the DROS Fee
The previous comment contains information from the DOJ about the
condition of the DROS
Fund in general. In addition, the DOJ has provided the
following from the November 1, 2002, report to the Legislative
Analyst's Office "Supplemental Report of the 2002 Budget Act":
Local law enforcement agencies in California began
conducting background checks for firearm purchasers
approximately 80 years ago. This responsibility shifted to
the Department of Justice approximately 50 years ago.
Through the years, firearm background checks have changed
from a manual process to a complex and comprehensive
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 13
electronic background check. The background check has
expanded from relatively few prohibiting categories to
today where the check is a comprehensive screening of
prohibiting felony, violent misdemeanor, mental health,
restraining order, and federal violation prohibitions.
Many of these changes resulted from 1991 legislation.
Other changes are the result of more recent legislation.
Some of the post-1991 changes include reducing processing
time so that the waiting period could be reduced from 15
days down to 10, expanding prohibiting violent misdemeanor
categories to include crimes such as stalking, carrying a
firearm on school grounds, threatening witnesses and other
firearm related prohibitions. Also, since 1991 the
screening has been broadened to include additional
categories of restraining orders, civil, criminal and
work-place protective orders as well as increasing the
number of states participating in the background check
process from 22 states to over 37 states to determine
whether or not the purchaser may be prohibited due to a
criminal conviction resulting in another state.
Additionally in 1996, the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) was incorporated into the
California background check process to identify federal
firearm prohibitions. These changes, along with
improvements in validating purchaser information and in
limiting handgun purchasers to one gun a month, occurred
while the prohibiting databases including criminal, mental
health and restraining orders grew in size. Consequently,
the background check carried out today is much more
expansive, comprehensive, and thorough while the time
allowed for processing has been reduced by 1/3. Even with
these dramatic changes post-1991, the cost associated with
carrying out this check has remained constant for more than
a decade.
The Department of Justice has been able to successfully
accomplish these changes while maintaining firearm
purchaser costs by streamlining processes, incorporating
data processing solutions, and combining like processes.
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 14
These like processes are the firearm purchaser eligibility
checks performed for prospective firearm purchasers (DROS
checks) and the background check carried out for peace
officers, armed security guards, assault weapon
registrants, concealed weapon permittees, voluntary firearm
registrants, etc. Rather than setting up unique programs
for each of these categories, the background check process,
which is identical for each of these categories, is carried
out by a pool of staff that can shift the workload to meet
fluctuating volumes associated with each of these
categories. It is the economies of scale, the shifting of
background check personnel, and employing improvements in
technology that has enabled the department to keep the DROS
fee as well as the fee charged to others needing a firearm
eligibility check at $14.00.
The department believes that the pooling of resources and
sharing of equipment and supervision is consistent with
California law and as required by PC section 12076(f)(1).
The department only charges a fee sufficient to reimburse
for the PC section 12076 process, and all DROS monies
deposited into the DROS account are used only by the
Department to offset the costs incurred pursuant to this
section.
5. Legislative Counsel Opinion
The Legislative Counsel did prepare an opinion at the request of
Senator Morrow that asked the following questions:
You have asked whether Assembly Bill No. 2080, as amended
August 26, 2002, [final amended version] (hereafter A.B.
2080), if enacted, would authorize the use of revenues from
the fees currently paid to dealers by the purchasers of
firearms for the new purposes proposed in the bill. You
have also asked whether the expenditure of those revenues,
without authorization, for the purposes proposed by A.B.
2080 would convert the fee imposed to a tax.
The opinion, dated August 28, 2002 - delivered to Assemblymember
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 15
Steinberg as well pursuant to Joint Rule 34 - concludes:
? A.B. 2080 would not authorize the expenditure of these
DROS fees for the new purposes proposed in A.B. 2080 and,
consequently, A.B. 2080 would make no change that would
raise the issue of whether the DROS fee should be
recharacterized as a tax. That conclusion would not be
changed by an unauthorized expenditure of those funds for
the new purposes proposed by A.B. 2080. We perceive no
basis upon which an unauthorized expenditure of these funds
would be deemed to cause the DROS fee to be considered a
tax.
That opinion discusses the specific nature of the provisions of
Penal Code section 12076(e), (f), and (g) - see Purpose section
of this analysis, above - and discusses the appropriate
construction of section (g) and the fact that the DOJ deposits
funds from 12 other sources in the DROS account, for example
fees for assault weapon registration (Penal Code section
12285(a)) and Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training
fees collected pursuant to Penal Code section 13511.5. Thus the
opinion also concludes that:
? it is our view that the appropriate construction of
subdivision (g) of Section 12076 is that the phrase "to be
available, upon appropriation" refers generally to money in
the DROS account, rather than specifically to the revenue
from the DROS fee pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section
12076. ? Under existing law, the purposes in subdivision
(g) for which DROS account funds may be expended include
purposes not listed in subdivision (e) of Section 12076.
For example, Section 12289 requires that department to
conduct a public education program regarding the
registration of assault weapons. However, because the DROS
account contains funds in addition to the funds obtained
pursuant to subdivision (e) of section 12076, the purposes
to which funds are directed pursuant to subdivisions (g)
may be accomplished with the use of subdivisions (e) funds,
and there without conflict with the provisions of
subdivisions (e).
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 16
6. Implementing the Firearms Trafficking Prevention Act of 2002
As noted in the Purpose section, above, AB 2080 contained the
following language:
SEC. 9. Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 12083,
Section 12083 of the Penal Code, and the amendments made to
Section 12071 of the Penal Code by this act shall become
operative on January 1, 2004, if the actual reserve balance
in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account is one
million dollars ($1,000,000) or more on January 1, 2004, as
determined by the department. If the reserve balance is
not equal to one million dollars ($1,000,000) or more on
January 1, 2004, as determined by the department, those
provisions shall become operative when the department
determines that the actual reserve balance in the Dealers'
Record of Sale Special Account equals one million dollars
($1,000,000) or more.
7. Elimination of the "ghost" Version of Penal Code Section
12071 in Section 1 of This Bill
This bill does delete a non-operative version of Penal Code
section 12071 created by AB 2793 (Pescetti) - Chapter 911,
Statutes of 2002 - that was created in a flurry of
double-jointing amends last year involving section 12071.
However, this bill does not delete the operative section 12071
otherwise created in law.
8. Support for This Bill
The letter in support of this bill from Women Against Gun
Violence includes:
The Department of Justice has made great strides these past
few years in the enforcement of important firearms
legislation and we believe that such momentum must continue
and increase. Given that these funds are already allocated
to and used by the DOJ, that a budget reserve is projected
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 17
for this fiscal year and that the DROS fees have not been
raised in ten years, we believe that the fiscal
implications of AB 161 passage are negligible to all sides,
and that this bill makes sense.
9. Opposition to this bill
The NRA letter in opposition includes the following:
The proposed changes to the Penal Code in AB161 would
change a long
established policy for the use of the Dealer Record of Sale
(DROS) fees collected for
the background checks on firearms transferees.
The proposed language would allow the Department of Justice
(DOJ) to use the
DROS fees collected for DOJ Firearms Division programs that
are not related to
conducting and administering the backgrounds checks for the
transfer of
firearms.
We understand that their are difficulties for the DOJ
Firearms Division in
funding some of their programs, the solution would be for
the legislature to
appropriate the funds necessary for the DOJ to do their
work.
10. List of Activities the Sponsor States Would Have to be
Curtailed or Stopped if the Legislative Counsel's Opinion was
Strictly Followed
As noted in Comment #2, above, the DOJ asserts that without the
broader change proposed by this bill, the DOJ would - if the
Legislative Counsel's opinion were strictly followed - have to
stop or curtail a number of activities. First the DOJ indicates
that approximately 75% of DOJ's Firearms Division (75 of 105
positions) is budgeted from DROS. Second, the DOJ indicates
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 18
that many of the following Division functions would either have
to cease operation or function without enforcement or
administrative oversight if the Legislative Counsel opinion were
strictly enforced:
Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS). Gun buyers firearms
eligibility background checks.
Peace Officer Standard Training (POST). Firearms eligibility
background check to allow non-sponsored individuals to attend
a peace officer training academy.
Peace Officer Firearms Eligibility. Firearms eligibility
background check for peace officer applicants.
Security Guard Firearm Eligibility. Firearms eligibility
background check for armed security guards.
Handgun Reporting (Voluntary Registrations, Operation of Law,
New Resident Report of Handguns, Curio/Relic). All require
firearms eligibility background checks.
Law Enforcement Assault Weapon Registration. Firearms
eligibility background check and gun registration process for
persons who possess assault weapons as defined by state law.
Certificate of Eligibility. Fingerprint based firearms
eligibility background check required on gun dealers, gun show
promoters and persons applying for local explosive permits
used for construction, employees of gun manufacturers, etc.
Carry Concealed Weapon Licenses. State required fingerprint
based firearms eligibility background check on citizens
authorized to carry a concealed handgun on their person.
Centralized List of Gun Dealers/Dealer Inspection. Gun dealer
registration licensure tracking and inspection program used to
ensure that only duly licensed dealers sell firearms and that
they comply with all applicable laws.
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 19
Dangerous Weapons Licenses and Permits. State required
fingerprint based firearms eligibility background check on
persons authorized to possess dangerous weapons (e.g., machine
guns, assault weapons grenades, etc.)
(More)
Gun Manufacturers License. Licensing and inspection program
for statewide firearms manufacturers.
Gun Show Promoter's License. Licensing/tracking program for
gun show promoters.
Safe Handgun/Laboratory Testing. DOJ administered laboratory
certification and handgun testing program to ensure that
unsafe handguns are not manufactured/sold in the state.
Mental Health Firearms Prohibition Reports. Database entry,
verification and maintenance of mental health reports
submitted to DOJ by public/private statewide mental health
facilities.
Superior Court Reports of Firearms Prohibition. Database
entry, verification, and maintenance of superior court reports
of mentally prohibited persons.
Law Enforcement Agency Tarasoff Reports of Firearms
Prohibition. Database entry, verification, and maintenance of
reports of persons who communicated to their psychotherapist a
threat against themselves or others.
Juvenile Courts Reports of Firearms Prohibition. Database
entry, verification and maintenance of juvenile courts reports
of violent firearms prohibited juvenile offenders.
Law Enforcement Gun Releases. Conduct firearms eligibility
background checks on civilians on behalf of law enforcement
agencies returning previously confiscated/stolen/lost firearms
back to these individuals.
Firearms Dealer Acquisition Reports. AFS database update of
mandatory reports submitted by gun dealers acknowledging the
purchase/acquisition/receipt of a handgun from a private
citizen.
Reports of No Longer in Possession of Firearms. AFS database
(More)
AB 161 (Steinberg)
Page 21
update of reports submitted by private citizens noticing DOJ
that they are no longer in possession of a firearm(s) that was
previously registered with the Department.
Automated Firearms System. Maintain and conduct quality
control of the statewide firearms of records entered into the
system by local law enforcement agencies and the DOJ CJIS
system. AFS is directly linked to the NCIC Gun File
maintained by the FBY. AFS is available to law enforcement 24
hours a day, 7 days a week.
Database Audits Section. Conduct on-site audits on law
enforcement agencies regarding the use of AFS and the Domestic
Violence Restraining Order System.
Domestic Violence Restraining Order System (DVROS). Maintain
and conduct quality control of DVROS; train law enforcement
and criminal justice agencies on DVROS, restraining orders and
the firearm prohibitions associated with each type of order;
and monitor the forwarding of restraining order information
tot NCIS's Protection Order File.
Field Operations Section. Functions as liaison to California
law enforcement agencies; conduct onsite training on
information contained in AFS and DVROS; conducts terminal
inspections.
***************