BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Mark Leno, Chair
S
2009-2010 Regular Session
B
1
0
8
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
0
As Amended March 23, 2010
Hearing date: April 6, 2010
Penal Code
SM:dl
NON-SUBSTANTIVE DEADLY WEAPONS REORGANIZATION
HISTORY
Source: Committee on Public Safety
Prior Legislation: ACR 73 (McCarthy) - Chap. 128, Res. of
2006
Support: Legal Community Against Violence; California Brady
Campaign Chapters
Opposition:None known
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE NONSUBSTANTIVE REVISION OF DEADLY WEAPON STATUTES
PREPARED BY THE CALIFORNIA LAW REVISION COMMISSION, AS DIRECTED BY
ACR 73 OF 2006, BE CODIFIED?
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill, in conjunction with companion
bill SB 1115, is to codify the nonsubstantive revision of
deadly weapon statutes prepared by the California Law
Revision Commission, as directed by ACR 73 of 2006.
Existing law creates the California Law Revision Commission
(CLRC) as a state agency, funded from the General Fund.
Created in 1953 as the permanent successor to the Code
Commission, the CLRC is given responsibility for the
continuing substantive review of California statutory and
decisional law. CLRC studies the law in order to discover
defects and anachronisms and recommends legislation to make
needed reforms. The CLRC consists of nine voting members:
one member of the Senate appointed by the Senate Rules
Committee, one member of the Assembly appointed by the
Speaker, and seven members appointed by the Governor with
the advice and consent of the Senate. The Legislative
Counsel is an ex officio member. (Government Code 8280
to 8298.)
Existing law, (The Dangerous Weapons Control Law) controls
the ownership or prohibition on ownership, of a variety of
"dangerous weapons"; the lawful manufacture, sale,
transfer, and ownership of firearms; and contains criminal
penalties for unlawful acts pertaining to dangerous
weapons. (Penal Code 12000-12101.)
Existing law provides that the Department of Justice shall
prepare a pamphlet which summarizes California firearms
laws and shall offer copies of the pamphlet at actual cost
to firearms dealers who shall have copies of the most
current version available for sale to retail purchasers or
transferees of firearms. The cost of the pamphlet, if any,
may be added to the sale price of the firearm. Other
interested parties may purchase copies directly from the
Department of General Services. The pamphlet shall declare
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageC
that it is merely intended to provide a general summary of
laws applicable to firearms and is not designed to provide
individual guidance for specific areas. Individuals having
specific questions shall be directed to contact their local
law enforcement agency or private counsel. (Penal Code
12080.)
This bill , together with companion bill SB 1115, makes
numerous technical, nonsubstantive revisions to the deadly
weapons statutes. This nonsubstantive revision was
prepared by the state Law Revision Commission, in response
to the Legislature's directive.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
The severe prison overcrowding problem California has
experienced for the last several years has not been solved.
In December of 2006 plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits
against the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
sought a court-ordered limit on the prison population
pursuant to the federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On
January 12, 2010, a federal three-judge panel issued an
order requiring the state to reduce its inmate population
to 137.5 percent of design capacity -- a reduction of
roughly 40,000 inmates -- within two years. In a prior,
related 184-page Opinion and Order dated August 4, 2009,
that court stated in part:
"California's correctional system is in a
tailspin," the state's independent oversight
agency has reported. . . . (Jan. 2007 Little
Hoover Commission Report, "Solving California's
Corrections Crisis: Time Is Running Out").
Tough-on-crime politics have increased the
population of California's prisons dramatically
while making necessary reforms impossible. . . .
As a result, the state's prisons have become
places "of extreme peril to the safety of
persons" they house, . . . (Governor
Schwarzenegger's Oct. 4, 2006 Prison Overcrowding
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageD
State of Emergency Declaration), while
contributing little to the safety of California's
residents, . . . . California "spends more on
corrections than most countries in the world,"
but the state "reaps fewer public safety
benefits." . . . . Although California's
existing prison system serves neither the public
nor the inmates well, the state has for years
been unable or unwilling to implement the reforms
necessary to reverse its continuing
deterioration. (Some citations omitted.)
. . .
The massive 750% increase in the California
prison population since the mid-1970s is the
result of political decisions made over three
decades, including the shift to inflexible
determinate sentencing and the passage of harsh
mandatory minimum and three-strikes laws, as well
as the state's counterproductive parole system.
Unfortunately, as California's prison
population has grown, California's political
decision-makers have failed to provide the
resources and facilities required to meet the
additional need for space and for other
necessities of prison existence. Likewise,
although state-appointed experts have repeatedly
provided numerous methods by which the state
could safely reduce its prison population, their
recommendations have been ignored, under funded,
or postponed indefinitely. The convergence of
tough-on-crime policies and an unwillingness to
expend the necessary funds to support the
population growth has brought California's
prisons to the breaking point. The
state of emergency declared by Governor
Schwarzenegger almost three years ago continues
to this day, California's prisons remain severely
overcrowded, and inmates in the California prison
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageE
system continue to languish without
constitutionally adequate medical and mental
health care.<1>
The court stayed implementation of its January 12, 2010
ruling pending the state's appeal of the decision to the
U.S. Supreme Court. That appeal, and the final outcome of
this litigation, is not anticipated until later this year
or 2011.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison
overcrowding crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
The California Law Revision Commission states:
The Legislature has directed the Law Revision
Commission to "study, report on, and prepare
recommended legislation by July 1, 2009, concerning
the revision of the portions of the Penal Code
relating to the control of deadly weapons ?." 2006
Cal. Stat. res. ch. 128. The general purpose of the
study is to improve the organization and accessibility
--------------------
<1> Three Judge Court Opinion and Order, Coleman v.
Schwarzenegger, Plata v. Schwarzenegger, in the United
States District Courts for the Eastern District of
California and the Northern District of California United
States District Court composed of three judges pursuant to
Section 2284, Title 28 United States Code (August 4, 2009).
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageF
of the deadly weapons statutes, without making any
change to criminal liability under those statutes.
In drafting the proposed law, the Commission
took extreme care to ensure that it would not cause
any substantive change in the law.
2. ACR 73 - The Legislature's Directive to Revise These
Statutes
In 1996, the Legislature adopted ACR 73 (McCarthy).
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageG
(Chap. 128, Res. of 2006.)<2> This bill, and companion
----------------------
<2> That resolution states:
WHEREAS, Title 2 (commencing with Section 12000) of
Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to the control of
deadly weapons, is lengthy and complex, and could be
simplified; and
WHEREAS, It is the intent of the Legislature that the
firearms laws be simplified and reorganized; now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California,
the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature
authorizes and requests that the California Law
Revision Commission study, report on, and prepare
recommended legislation by July 1, 2009, concerning
the revision of the portions of the Penal Code
relating to the control of deadly weapons, and that
this legislation shall accomplish the following
objectives:
(a) Reduce the length and complexity of current
sections.
(b) Avoid unnecessary use of cross-references.
(c) Neither expand nor contract the scope of criminal
liability under current provisions. In the event that
the commission's draft changes the scope of criminal
liability under the
(d) To the extent compatible with objective (c), use
common definitions of terms.
(e) Organize existing provisions in such a way that
similar provisions are located in close proximity to
each other.
(f) Eliminate duplicative provisions; and be it
further
Resolved, That nothing in this resolution shall be
construed to prevent the Legislature, prior to receipt
of the commission's recommendations, from enacting any
measure related to the Penal Code sections under
review by the California Law Revision Commission; and
be it further
Resolved, that the Chief Clerk of the Assembly
transmit copies of this resolution to the California
Law Revision Commission and to the author for
appropriate distribution.
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageH
measure, SB 1115, are the recommended nonsubstantive
revisions to the deadly weapons statutes compiled by the
Law Revision Commission in response to the directive given
to it by the Legislature in ACR 73.
3. Why Deadly Weapon Statutes Are Ripe for Revision
This Committee's analysis of ACR 73 pointed out the
existing problem with California's statutes relating to
deadly weapons.
California's firearms laws are Byzantine in their
complexity. This Committee's analysis of AB 491
(Scott) of 1999 observed, "California firearm law
is particularly dense, if not impenetrable, to
the non-aficionado or law enforcement expert."
The Assembly Public Safety Committee's analysis
of AB 754 (Jones) of 2005 states, "Every year
changes to the firearms laws create substantial
chaptering problems as it is far too complicated
to correctly cross-reference all firearms statute
elements." A comprehensive review of these
statutes for the purpose of making
recommendations for legislation to clarify and
simplify existing law could both assist the
public by making the law easier to understand and
assist the Legislature in making it easier to
modify in the future, as the need arises.
4. Law Revision Commission Background
The Law Revision Commission provides the following
background information on the process it followed in
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageI
carrying out the Legislature's directive to reorganize
these statutes.
SB 1080 and SB 1115 would implement the Law
Revision Commission's recommendation on
Nonsubstantive Reorganization of Deadly Weapon
Statutes, 38 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports
(2009).
These bills are the product of many years of
effort. In 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed a
bill (SB 1140 (Scott)) on the ground that the
firearms laws should be reorganized "to ensure
that statutes that impose criminal penalties are
easily understandable." Soon afterwards, the
Legislature directed the Law Revision Commission
to prepare such legislation. The Legislature made
clear that this legislation should simplify the
law but "[n]either expand nor contract the scope
of criminal liability under current provisions."
See ACR 73 (McCarthy), 2006 Cal. Stat. res. ch.
128.
The Commission began working on this project
three years ago, in January 2007. Since then, the
Commission has considered the topic at thirteen
public meetings, which were attended by
representatives of gun control organizations
(such as the Legal Community Against Violence and
the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) and
gun owner organizations (such as the National
Rifle Association, California Association of
Firearms Retailers, California Rifle and Pistol
Association, and Gun Owners of California).
Before these meetings, the Commission staff
prepared written materials for consideration,
which were distributed to over 120 interested
groups and individuals, including, but not
limited to:
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageJ
Administrative Office of the Courts
American Academy of Pediatrics, California District IX
American College of Emergency Physicians, California
Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
California Commission on Peace Officer Standards &
Training ("POST")
California Department of Corrections &
Rehabilitation, Office of Legislation
California Department of Justice
California Department of Motor Vehicles
California District Attorneys Assn
California Judges Ass'n
California Office of the State Public Defender
California Peace Officers Assn
California Police Chiefs Assn
California Public Defenders Assn
California Rifle and Pistol Assn
California Sportsman's Lobby, Inc.
California State Sheriff's Assn
Central California Appellate Program
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Crime Victims United of California
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Gun Owners of California
Judicial Council of California, Office of Governmental
Affairs
Legal Community Against Violence
Los Angeles County District Attorney
Los Angeles County Public Defender
Michel & Associates P.C.
Million Mom March
National Rifle Assn
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
Office of the Attorney General
Office of Criminal Justice Planning
Office of Legislative Counsel
Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition
Peace Officers Research Assn of California
Placer County District Attorney
More
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageK
Physicians for Social Responsibility
Safari Club International
San Mateo County District Attorney
Santa Clara County Public Defender's Office
State Bar of California
Tulare County Public Defender
Women Against Gun Violence
The written materials were also posted on
the Commission's website (www.clrc.ca.gov), where
they remain available. A total of 47 staff
memoranda, seven supplements, and two lengthy
tentative recommendations were prepared and
distributed. Comments were welcome throughout the
Commission's process, in both oral and written
form. There was not much controversy, however,
because the Commission was scrupulous about
avoiding any risk of a substantive change.
More
The Commission submitted the original version
of its report in compliance with the legislative
deadline of July 1, 2009. Since then, the
Commission has revised the report to account for
legislation enacted in 2009 and make other
refinements. SB 1080 and SB 1115 contain the
legislation proposed in the revised report.
SB 1080 is the heart of the proposal.
It would reorganize the substance of Title 2 of
Part 4 of the Penal Code (Penal Code
12000-12809), relating to control of deadly
weapons. The sentence enhancement provisions
(Penal Code 12021.5-12022.95) would be left in
place, to minimize disruption in calculating
criminal sentences. The remaining material would
be relocated to a new Part 6 of the Penal Code,
and reorganized to make it more user-friendly
without changing its substantive effect. Among
other things, the bill would:
Put similar provisions in close proximity to
each other. In general, the rules relating to a
particular kind of weapon would be collected in one
place, instead of intermingled with other material.
This will make it easier for persons to find the rules
applicable to their situation, without having to read
extensive irrelevant material.
Divide excessively long sections into short,
simple sections. This will enhance readability and
understanding of the law, and make it easier to locate
and refer to pertinent material.
Collect almost all definitions in alphabetical
order at the beginning of new Part 6. Where possible
to do so without risking a substantive change,
definitions would be extended to the entirety of new
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageM
Part 6.
Eliminate unnecessary cross-references in
statutory text.
Place exceptions in close proximity to the
substantive rules they modify, so that the exceptions
are easier to find and understand than at present.
To ensure that there will be no substantive
change, the bill sticks closely to the language
in existing law. In addition, the bill includes
several codified provisions that would make the
nonsubstantive intent clear (Penal Code
16000-16025). The Commission's Comment to each
section and its narrative report would further
underscore the nonsubstantive nature of the
reform. Courts routinely rely on such Commission
materials as evidence of legislative intent.
SB 1115 is a companion bill, which is
contingent on enactment of the main proposal. It
would amend numerous statutes that cross-refer to
the provisions that would be relocated. It would
update those cross-references to reflect the
relocation of the pertinent material.
Both bills have a delayed operative date of
January 1, 2012. This will allow time for law
enforcement personnel, courts, attorneys, and
others affected by the legislation to prepare for
the transition to the new statutory scheme.
SB 1080 will have to be coordinated with other
pending legislation that affects Title 2 of Part
4 of the Penal Code. In contrast, SB 1115
includes a subordination clause, so it will
automatically be coordinated with other
legislation. If any of the amendments in SB 1115
is chaptered out, there will be time to fix the
problem in a clean-up bill before the new
statutory scheme becomes operative.
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety)
PageO
SHOULD THE RECOMMENDED NONSUBSTANTIVE REVISIONS TO THE
DEADLY WEAPON STATUTES BE ADOPTED?
***************