BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2011-2012 Regular Session B
1
4
0
AB 1402 ( Assembly Committee on Public Safety) 2
As Amended June 1, 2011
Hearing date: June 7, 2011
Code of Civil Procedure; Education Code;
Family Code; Government Code; Penal Code;
Welfare and Institutions Code
SM:dl
NON-SUBSTANTIVE DEADLY WEAPONS REORGANIZATION
HISTORY
Source: Law Revision Commission
Prior Legislation: SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch.
711, Stats. of 2010
SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) - Ch. 178,
Stats. of 2010
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 77 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD MINOR NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BE MADE TO THE VARIOUS DEADLY
WEAPONS PROVISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REORGANIZED AND RENUMBERED BY THE
ENACTMENT OF SB 1080 (COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY), CHAPTER 711,
STATUTES OF 2010?
(More)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to make minor non-substantive
changes to the various deadly weapons provisions that have been
reorganized and renumbered by the enactment of SB 1080
(Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 711, Statutes of 2010.
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 Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, (SB
1080, ch 711, stats. of 2010) recast without substantive change,
existing statutes which control the ownership or prohibition on
ownership, of a variety of "dangerous weapons"; the lawful
manufacture, sale, transfer, and ownership of firearms; and
criminal penalties for unlawful acts pertaining to dangerous
weapons. (Penal Code §§ 16000-34270.)
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
(More)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageC
areas. Individuals having specific questions shall be directed
to contact their local law enforcement agency or private
counsel. (Penal Code § 34205.)
This bill makes minor non-substantive changes to the various
deadly weapons provisions that have been reorganized and
renumbered by the enactment of SB 1080 (Committee on Public
Safety), Chapter 711, Statutes of 2010.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2011, the United States Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the three-judge panel in its entirety, giving
California two years from the date of its ruling to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity, subject
to the right of the state to seek modifications in appropriate
circumstances.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
(More)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageD
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
In 2010, the Legislature enacted legislation to
reorganize the statutes governing control of deadly
weapons in a user-friendly manner in new Part 6 of the
Penal Code, without changing any substantive effect.
That legislation was recommended by the Law Review
Commission, and is scheduled to become operative on
January 1, 2011.
Before the statutory reorganization becomes operative,
a clean-up bill needs to be enacted in order to
implement minor revisions that became necessary as the
result of other bills being enacted, and other
technical revisions requested by the Office of
Legislative Counsel. Enactment of clean-up
legislation will help prevent confusion and ease the
transition to the new statutory scheme.
AB 1402 makes non-substantive minor changes to the
various deadly weapons provisions that have been
reorganized and renumbered by the enactment of SB 1080
(Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 711, Statutes of
2010.
2. Background - The Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010
In 1996, the Legislature adopted ACR 73 (McCarthy) (Chap. 128,
(More)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageE
(More)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageF
Res. of 2006),<1> which directed the Law Revision Commission to
---------------------------
<1> 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)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageG
recommend legislation to simplify state firearms laws without
making any substantive change. The Commission studied the
statutes, held several public hearings and received input from
numerous interested parties before making its recommendations to
the Legislature. Last year the Legislature adopted SB 1080
(Senate Committee on Public Safety), (Chapter 711, Statutes of
2010) and its companion measure SB 1115 (Chapter 178, Statutes
of 2010) to implement the recommendations of the Law Revision
Commission, which were prepared pursuant to the legislative
directive of ACR 73. (See Non-substantive Reorganization of
Deadly Weapon Statutes, 38 Cal. L. Revision Comm'n Reports 217
(2009); 2006 Cal. Stat. res. ch. 128.)
3. Current Recommendations of the Law Revision Commission
The Commission now proposes that certain additional revisions be
enacted in a clean-up bill before the new statutory scheme
becomes operative. In particular, the proposed legislation would
accomplish the following:
Implement conforming revisions that were
chaptered out by other bills.
Effectuate minor statutory revisions that were
chaptered out by the bill consisting of conforming
revisions for the deadly weapons reorganization.
Address certain deviations from the language
recommended in the Commission's report.
Conform a provision that was not included in
last year's legislation because it required further study.
Conform some new cross-references that were
added to the codes in 2010.
Make certain technical revisions requested by
the Office of Legislative Counsel.
(More)
AB 1402 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety)
PageH
The reforms are needed to fully implement the non-substantive
reorganization enacted last year. They are technical and
non-substantive in nature, and thus appear to be
noncontroversial. The Commission circulated them to numerous
individuals and organizations for comment, and is not aware of
any opposition.
SHOULD THESE NON-SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BE MADE?
(More)