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?
***************