BILL ANALYSIS
SB 41
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 19, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
SB 41 (Lowenthal) - As Amended: June 23, 2009
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill requires gun dealers to provide buyers a copy of the
dealer record of sale (DROS) form at the time of delivery and
after the dealer notes the delivery date and the dealer and
buyer acknowledge the buyer's receipt of the gun, as specified.
This bill also provides exemptions from regular gun transfer
requirements for guns transferred by a law enforcement agency to
licensed firearms dealers, wholesalers or manufacturers, as
specified.
FISCAL EFFECT
Negligible costs to DOJ.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . This bill is intended to address a perceived
loophole in California's handgun registry. The absence of DOJ
records confirming that a gun was received by the registered
purchaser allows guns to slip through the cracks and end up in
the hands of criminals.
According to the author, "Currently, persons who acquire,
dispose of, or move into California with a handgun have to go
through a handgun registration process. With the surge in
sales and increase of DROS forms, it is important to ensure
accuracy. SB 41 provides additional consumer protections by
requiring the dealer to obtain a signature when delivering the
gun to the consumer; and, improving the manner in which law
enforcement reports acquisitions, ownership, and disposition
SB 41
Page 2
of firearms obtained in the course and scope of their duties."
2)Current practice regarding recording date and time of
delivery . Before a consumer purchasing a handgun in California
may take possession of the gun, he or she must wait 10 days
from the date of purchase. During this time, the buyer's
personal identifying information is transmitted to DOJ for a
background check to determine whether the buyer is prohibited
from owning a gun. After the waiting period has expired and
the background check is completed, current law requires the
dealer to record on the DROS form the date and time of
delivery to the buyer. The DROS form prepared by the DOJ and
used by licensed dealers in California contains a line for
both date and time of delivery, which reflects changes made by
SB 824 (Scott), Chapter 502, Statutes of 2003. Dealers must
keep that form and make it available for inspection by law
enforcement officials. There is, however, some debate about
whether that information must be submitted to DOJ. This issue
was addressed in SB 357 (Perata), 2003-04 (which did not move
out of the Senate). At that time, Legislative Counsel opined
that while DOJ could require dealers to write the delivery
date on DROS registers, the department could not compel
dealers to submit the information to DOJ. The department can
enter that information into its Automated Firearms System
(AFS) only if it obtains the delivery information by
physically inspecting the registry kept by dealers.
This bill requires dealers to record the date of delivery and
transmit that information to DOJ.
3)In light of pending California Law Revision Commission (CLRC)
recommendations, are these relatively minor technical code
revisions necessary at this time ?
ACR 73 (McCarthy), 2007, requested the CLRC to recommend
legislation by July 1, 2009 to simplify Penal Code provisions
relating to guns, stating, "In particular, the laws relating
to the transfers of firearms are lengthy, with numerous
cross-references, highly fact-specific exemptions, and complex
provisions. These areas of the law are not for legal experts
only. Firearms owners, licensed dealers, and law enforcement
need to be able to interpret these provisions in order to
comply with the law and avoid criminal liability. Ambiguity
and confusion do not promote the public policy goals that
those laws were designed to accomplish. ACR 73 is designed to
SB 41
Page 3
task the CLRC, a neutral body of legal experts, with the task
of seeing if they can simplify and reorganize these laws."
4)Opposition. A number of gun-related organizations, Safari Club
International, CA Association of Firearm Retailers, National
Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., Outdoor Sportsman's
Coalition, Crossroads of the West Gun Shows, and the CA
Sportsman's Lobby, contend this measure is unnecessary,
administratively burdensome, and ultimately costly to dealers
and gun purchasers.
5)Prior Legislation.
a) SB 327 (Migden), 2008, required a gun dealer record of
electronic transfer to contain the date a transferred
firearm is delivered, a place to indicate if the handgun is
released to the purchaser, and whether the purchaser is
concurrently requesting a handgun registration notification
be issued. SB 327 was held on this committee's Suspense
File.
b) SB 357 (Perata), 2003-04, allowed DOJ to require a gun
dealer to report the delivery date of both handguns and
long guns in a manner and format prescribed by the DOJ. SB
357 was never heard by Senate Appropriations.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081