BILL ANALYSIS SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Senator Mark Leno, Chair S 2009-2010 Regular Session B 1 1 1 SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) 5 As Introduced February 17, 2010 Hearing date: April 6, 2010 Business and Professions; Civil; Civil Procedure; Family; Fish and Game; Government; Health and Safety; Penal; Public Contract; Welfare and Institutions Codes SM:mc NON-SUBSTANTIVE REVISION OF DEADLY WEAPONS STATUTES HISTORY Source: Committee on Public Safety Prior Legislation: ACR 73 (McCarthy) - Res. Chap. 128, Stats. 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? PURPOSE (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageB The purpose of this bill, in conjunction with companion bill SB 1080, is to codify the nonsubstantive reorganization 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 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 (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageC to contact their local law enforcement agency or private counsel. (Penal Code 12080.) This bill , together with companion bill SB 1080, 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 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 (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageD 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, underfunded, 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 system continue to languish without constitutionally adequate medical and mental health care.<1> ---------------------- <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 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageE 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 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 (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageF substantive change in the law. 2. ACR 73 - The Legislature's Directive to Revise These Statutes In 1996, the Legislature adopted ACR 73 (McCarthy). (Chap. 128, (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageG Res. of 2006.)<2> This bill, and companion measure, SB 1115, --------------------------- <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 current provisions, this shall be made explicit in the commission's draft or any commentary related to the draft. (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 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageH 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 carrying out the Legislature's directive to reorganize these statutes: SB 1080 and SB 1115 would implement the Law Revision (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageI 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: 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, (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageJ Office of Legislation California Department of Justice California Department of Motor Vehicles California District Attorneys Assn California Judges Assn 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 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 (More) 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. 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 (More) SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageL 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 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 SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) PageM 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. SHOULD THE RECOMMENDED NONSUBSTANTIVE REVISIONS TO THE DEADLY WEAPON STATUTES BE ADOPTED? ***************