BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
5
0
0
AB 500 (Ammiano)
As Amended May 24, 2013
Hearing date: July 2, 2013
Penal Code
SM:jr
FIREARMS: SAFE STORAGE AND WAITING PERIODS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 363 (Wright) - 2013, pending in Assembly
Appropriations
SB 108 (Yee) - 2013, pending in Assembly Public
Safety
AB 231 (Ting) - 2013, pending in Senate
Appropriations
Support: California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence; City of Sacramento; Coalition Against Gun
Violence; South County Citizens Against
Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Los
Angeles County District Attorney
Opposition:California Association of Firearms Retailers;
California Association of
Federal Firearms Licensees
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 47 - Noes 28
KEY ISSUES
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 2
SHOULD A PERSON WHO IS RESIDING WITH SOMEONE BE PROHIBITED BY
STATE OR FEDERAL LAW FROM POSSESSING A FIREARM FROM KEEPING A
FIREARM AT THAT RESIDENCE UNLESS IS IT SECURED OR CARRIED ON THE
PERSON, AS SPECIFIED?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD PROCEDURES BE ADOPTED TO DELAY TRANSFER OF A FIREARM TO A
BUYER FOR UP TO 30 DAYS IF A RECORD CHECK INDICATES THE BUYER HAS
BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FOR A MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION OR CHARGED
WITH A CRIME BUT THE FINAL DISPOSITION CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED WITHIN
THE 10-DAY WAITING PERIOD?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) prohibit a person who is
residing with someone who is prohibited by state or federal law
from possessing a firearm from keeping a firearm at that
residence unless is it secured or carried on the person, as
specified; (2) adopt procedures to delay transfer of a firearm
to a buyer for up to 30 days if a record check indicates the
buyer has been taken into custody for a mental health evaluation
or charged with a crime but the final disposition cannot be
ascertained within the 10-day waiting period; and (3) require
dealers to notify the Department of Justice if, after the
applicable waiting period, the firearm is transferred to the
buyer, as specified.
Firearms Storage Requirements
Current law provides that, except as specified, a person commits
the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the first degree"
if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises
that are under the person's custody or control.
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 3
The person knows or reasonably should know that a child
is likely to gain access to the firearm without the
permission of the child's parent or legal guardian.
The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby
causes death or great bodily injury to the child or any
other person. (Penal Code § 25100.)
Criminal storage of a firearm in the first degree is punishable
as a felony by imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, or
two or three years, by a fine not exceeding $10,000, or both; or
as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding
one year, by a fine not exceeding $1,000, or by both that
imprisonment and fine. (Penal Code § 25110(a).)
Current law provides that, except as specified, a person commits
the crime of "criminal storage of a firearm of the second
degree" if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
The person keeps any loaded firearm within any premises
that are under the person's custody or control.
The person knows or reasonably should know that a child
is likely to gain access to the firearm without the
permission of the child's parent or legal guardian.
The child obtains access to the firearm and thereby
causes injury, other than great bodily injury, to the child
or any other person, or carries the firearm and draws or
exhibits the firearm, as specified. (Penal Code §
25100(b).)
Criminal storage of a firearm in the second degree is punishable
by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, by a
fine not exceeding $1,000, or both. (Penal Code § 25110(b).)
Current law provides that, if all of the following conditions
are satisfied, a person shall be punished by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding
$1,000, or both:
The person keeps a pistol, revolver, or other firearm
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 4
capable of being concealed upon the person, loaded or
unloaded , within any premises that are under the person's
custody or control.
The person knows or reasonably should know that a child
is likely to gain access to that firearm without the
permission of the child's parent or legal guardian.
The child obtains access to that firearm and thereafter
carries that firearm off-premises. (Penal Code §
25200(a).)
Current law provides that, if all of the following conditions
are satisfied, a person shall be punished by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year, by a fine not exceeding
$5,000, or both:
The person keeps any firearm within any premises that
are under the person's custody or control.
The person knows or reasonably should know that a child
is likely to gain access to the firearm without the
permission of the child's parent or legal guardian.
The child obtains access to the firearm and thereafter
carries that firearm off-premises to any public or private
preschool, elementary school, middle school, high school,
or to any school-sponsored event, activity, or performance,
whether occurring on school grounds or elsewhere. (Penal
Code § 25200(b).)
Current law provides that a handgun a child gains access to and
carries off-premises in violation of this section shall be
deemed "used in the commission of any misdemeanor as provided in
this code or any felony" for the purpose of the authority to
confiscate firearms and other deadly weapons as a nuisance.
(Penal Code § 25200(c).)
Current law provides that the penalties listed above do not
apply if any of the following are true:
The child obtains the firearm as a result of an illegal
entry into any premises by any person.
The firearm is kept in a locked container or in a
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 5
location that a reasonable person would believe to be
secure.
The firearm is locked with a locking device, as defined,
which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
The firearm is carried on the person within close enough
range that the individual can readily retrieve and use the
firearm as if carried on the person.
The person is a peace officer or a member of the Armed
Forces or National Guard and the child obtains the firearm
during, or incidental to, the performance of the person's
duties.
The child obtains, or obtains and discharges, the
firearm in a lawful act of self-defense or defense of
another person.
The person who keeps a firearm has no reasonable
expectation, based on objective facts and circumstances,
that a child is likely to be present on the premises.
(Penal Code § 25205.)
Current law requires licensed firearms dealers to post within
the licensed premises a specified notice disclosing the duty
imposed by this chapter upon any person who keeps any firearm.
(Penal Code § 25225.)
Persons Prohibited From Firearms Ownership
Current federal law provides that it is unlawful for any person
to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any
person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such
person-
is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any
court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year;
is a fugitive from justice;
is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled
substance, as defined
has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution;
who, being an alien-
o is illegally or unlawfully in the United
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 6
States; or
o except as specified, has been admitted to the
United States under a nonimmigrant visa, as defined;
[who] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under
dishonorable conditions;
who, having been a citizen of the United States, has
renounced his citizenship;
is subject to a court order that restrains such person
from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate
partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or
person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an
intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the
partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only
apply to a court order that-
o was issued after a hearing of which such
person received actual notice, and at which such
person had the opportunity to participate; and
includes a finding that such person
represents a credible threat to the physical
safety of such intimate partner or child; or
by its terms explicitly prohibits
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of
physical force against such intimate partner or
child that would reasonably be expected to cause
bodily injury; or
has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime
of domestic violence. (18 United States Code § 922(d).)
Current California law provides that certain people are
prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. This includes
(not an exhaustive list):
Lifetime ban
Anyone convicted of a felony.
Anyone addicted to a narcotic drug.
Any juvenile convicted of a violent crime with a gun and
tried in adult court.
Any person convicted of a federal crime that would be a
felony in California and sentenced to more than 30 days in
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 7
prison, or a fine of more than $1,000. (Penal Code §
29800(a).)
Anyone convicted of certain violent misdemeanors, e.g.,
assault with a firearm; inflicting corporal injury on a
spouse or significant other, brandishing a firearm in the
presence of a police officer (Penal Code §§ 29800/23515;
29805; 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(A)/18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9)§.)
10 Year Ban
Anyone convicted of numerous misdemeanors involving violence or
threats of violence. (Penal Code § 29805.)
5 Year Ban
Anyone convicted of specified misdemeanors.
Any person taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to
a designated facility due to that person being found to be
a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental
disorder, is prohibited from possessing a firearm during
treatment and for five years from the date of their
discharge. (Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 8100,
8103(f).)
Temporary Bans
Current law provides that persons who are bound by a temporary
restraining order or injunction or a protective order issued
under the Family Code or the Welfare and Institutions Code, may
be prohibited from firearms ownership for the duration of that
court order. (Penal Code § 29825.)
Transfer of Firearms to Prohibited Persons
Current law provides that no person, corporation, or dealer
shall sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a
firearm to anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows
or has cause to believe is prohibited from possessing a firearm,
as specified. Violation is generally a misdemeanor, punishable
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 8
by up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000 or
both. However, violations may be punishable as a felony, with
varying prison terms, where a variety of aggravating
circumstances are present. (Penal Code §§ 27500, 27590.)
Waiting Period for Firearm Transfers
Current law requires that, except as specified, all sales,
loans, and transfers of firearms to be processed through or by a
state-licensed firearms dealer or a local law enforcement
agency. (Penal Code § 27545.)
Current law provides that there is a 10-day waiting period when
purchasing a firearm through a firearms dealer. During which
time, a background check is conducted and, if the firearm is a
handgun, a handgun safety certificate is required prior to
delivery of the firearm. (Penal Code §§ 26815, 26840(b), 27540
and 28220.)
This bill prohibits a person who is residing with someone who is
prohibited by state or federal law from possessing a firearm
from keeping a firearm at that residence unless:
The firearm is maintained within a locked container.
The firearm is disabled by a firearm safety device.
The firearm is maintained within a locked gun safe.
The firearm is maintained within a locked trunk.
The firearm is locked with a locking device as
specified, which has rendered the firearm inoperable.
The firearm is carried on the person or within close
enough proximity thereto that the individual can readily
retrieve and use the firearm as if carried on the person.
A violation of this section would be a misdemeanor and the
prohibition of this section is cumulative, and does not restrict
the application of any other law.
This bill provides:
The Department of Justice shall immediately notify a
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 9
firearms dealer to delay the transfer of a firearm to the
purchaser if, during the 10-day waiting period, the records
of the department, or the records available to the
department in the National Instant Criminal Background
Check System, indicate either of the following:
o The purchaser has been taken into custody and
placed in a facility for mental health treatment or
evaluation and may be a person described in Section
8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code and
the department is unable to ascertain whether the
purchaser is a person who is prohibited from
possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm, pursuant to Section 8100 or 8103 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, prior to the conclusion
of the waiting period, as specified.
o The purchaser has been arrested for, or
charged with, a crime that would make him or her, if
convicted, a person who has applied to purchase
another handgun within the last 30 days, or is
prohibited by state or federal law from possessing,
receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, and the
department is unable to ascertain whether the
purchaser was convicted of that offense prior to the
conclusion of the waiting period, as specified.
The dealer would be required to provide the purchaser
with information about the manner in which he or she may
contact the department regarding the delay.
DOJ would be required to notify the purchaser by mail
regarding the delay and explain the process by which the
purchaser may obtain a copy of the criminal or mental
health record the department has on file for the purchaser.
Upon receipt of that criminal or mental health record, the
purchaser shall report any inaccuracies or incompleteness
to the department on an approved form.
If the department ascertains the final disposition of
the arrest or criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental
health treatment or evaluation, as specified, after the
10-day waiting period but within 30 days of the dealer's
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 10
original submission of the purchaser information to the
department, the department shall do the following:
o If the purchaser has not tried to buy another
handgun within the last 30 days, and is not prohibited
by state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm, the department shall
immediately notify the dealer of that fact and the
dealer may transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon
the dealer's recording on the register or record of
electronic transfer the date that the firearm is
transferred.
o If the purchaser has attempted to buy another
handgun within the last 30 days, or is prohibited by
state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm, the department shall
immediately notify the dealer and the chief of the
police department in the city or city and county in
which the sale was made, or if the sale was made in a
district in which there is no municipal police
department, the sheriff of the county in which the
sale was made, of that fact in compliance with
specified existing notification requirements.
o If the department is unable to ascertain the
final disposition of the arrest or criminal charge, or
the outcome of the mental health treatment or
evaluation, as specified, within 30 days of the
dealer's original submission of purchaser information
to the department pursuant to this section, the
department shall immediately notify the dealer and the
dealer may transfer the firearm to the purchaser, upon
the dealer's recording on the register or record of
electronic transfer the date that the firearm is
transferred.
This bill would provide that beginning January 1, 2015, if after
the conclusion of the specified waiting period, the individual
named in the application as the purchaser of the firearm takes
possession of the firearm set forth in the application to
purchase, the dealer shall notify DOJ of that fact in a manner
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 11
and within a time period specified by the department, and with
sufficient information to identify the purchaser and the firearm
that the purchaser took possession of.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation
relating to conditions of confinement. On May 23, 2011, the
United States Supreme Court ordered California to reduce its
prison population to 137.5 percent of design capacity within two
years from the date of its ruling, subject to the right of the
state to seek modifications in appropriate circumstances.
Beginning in early 2007, Senate leadership initiated a policy to
hold legislative proposals which could further aggravate the
prison overcrowding crisis through new or expanded felony
prosecutions. Under the resulting policy known as "ROCA" (which
stands for "Receivership/ Overcrowding Crisis Aggravation"), the
Committee held measures which created a new felony, expanded the
scope or penalty of an existing felony, or otherwise increased
the application of a felony in a manner which could exacerbate
the prison overcrowding crisis. Under these principles, ROCA
was applied as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary
to ensure that the Legislature did not erode progress towards
reducing prison overcrowding by passing legislation which would
increase the prison population. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order issued by the Three-Judge Court three years
earlier to reduce the state's prison population to 137.5 percent
of design capacity. The State submitted in part that the, ". .
. population in the State's 33 prisons has been reduced by over
24,000 inmates since October 2011 when public safety realignment
went into effect, by more than 36,000 inmates compared to the
2008 population . . . , and by nearly 42,000 inmates since 2006
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 12
. . . ." Plaintiffs, who opposed the state's motion, argue in
part that, "California prisons, which currently average 150% of
capacity, and reach as high as 185% of capacity at one prison,
continue to deliver health care that is constitutionally
deficient." In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal
court granted the state a six-month extension to achieve the
137.5 % prisoner population cap by December 31st of this year.
In an order dated April 11, 2013, the Three-Judge Court denied
the state's motions, and ordered the state of California to
"immediately take all steps necessary to comply with this
Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to reduce overall
prison population to 137.5% design capacity by December 31,
2013."
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unresolved. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
whether a measure addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
whether a bill corrects a constitutional infirmity or
legislative drafting error;
whether a measure proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy; and
whether a bill addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for the Bill
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 13
According to the author:
This bill is intended to keep guns out of the hands of
people who should not have them, including people
prohibited by law from having a firearm and people who
do not pass background checks. California maintains
some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation,
and this bill makes common-sense changes to better
enforce existing gun laws.
2. Providing Access to Firearms to Prohibited Persons
Many people are prohibited by either federal or state law, or
both, from owning firearms for a variety of reasons, as detailed
above. This bill addresses the issue of firearm possession by a
person who resides with a person who is prohibited by law from
owning a firearm. Current California law makes it a crime for
any person to sell, supply, deliver, or give possession or
control of a firearm to anyone whom the person knows or has
cause to believe is prohibited from possessing a firearm.
(Penal Code § 27500, emphasis added.) Parallel federal law
makes it a crime for any person to "sell or otherwise dispose"
of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having
reasonable cause to believe that such person is prohibited from
possessing a firearm. (18 U.S.C. § 922(d).)
A recent decision by the federal Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal
upheld the conviction of a man who had allowed such a
'prohibited person' to stay in his RV and disclosed to his guest
the location of his firearms in the RV. (United States v.
Stegmeier, 701 F.3d 574 (8th Cir. 2012).) The Court found that
this constituted a violation of the federal law prohibiting
disposing of any firearm or ammunition to a prohibited person.
[A] recipient's possession is sufficient proof that a
defendant disposed of a firearm. Constructive
possession is "control over the place where the
firearm was located, or control, ownership, or
dominion of the firearm itself." Even assuming
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 14
Stegmeier did not give Kelley title or ownership of
the firearm, he did give Kelley full, unrestricted
control over the RV where the firearm was. Stegmeier
believes that the district court knew the case was
weak because there was no evidence that Kelley
actually possessed the firearm. However, the jury may
use circumstantial evidence. It heard evidence that
Stegmeier gave Kelley access to the entire RV and
disclosed the specific location of the firearm. When
police located it outside of the closet - near
Kelley's wallet - Stegmeier said that Kelley "must
have moved it." There is sufficient evidence for the
jury to find that Stegmeier provided a firearm to a
prohibited person. (United States v. Stegmeier, 701
F.3d 574, 579-580 (8th Cir. 2012)(citations omitted).)
Thus, residing with a person who you know or have reason to know
is prohibited from owning a firearm for any reason, and giving
that person access to any firearms you possess, whether that
person actually uses the firearm to cause harm or not, has been
found to be a crime under federal law. (U.S.v. Stegmeier,
supra, 18 U.S.C. 922(d).) The penalty for violation under
federal law is up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to
$250,000. (18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2), 18 USC § 3571.) Whether
permitting access to firearms to a cohabitant who is prohibited
from possessing a firearm is currently a violation of California
law is not clear. As noted above, current California law
provides that "no person, corporation, or dealer shall sell,
supply, deliver, or give possession or control of a firearm to
anyone whom the person, corporation, or dealer knows or has
cause to believe is prohibited from possessing a firearm."
(Penal Code § 27500.) While there does not appear to be any
published opinion to this effect, a California court could, as
the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal recently did, find that
anyone living with a person who is prohibited from possessing a
firearm has the duty to deny access to the firearm by the
prohibited person.
3. Constitutional Considerations
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 15
The Second Amendment of the Constitution states, "A well
regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed." (United States Const. Amend. 2.) For years,
courts and commentators have interpreted that language to mean
that the right secured by the Second Amendment relates to
firearm ownership only in the context of a "well regulated
militia." This is known as the "collective rights"
interpretation. In the landmark case of District of Columbia v.
Heller, the United States Supreme Court rejected the "collective
rights" view of the Second Amendment, and, instead, endorsed the
"individual rights" interpretation, that the Second Amendment
protects the right of each citizen to firearm ownership . After
adopting this reading of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court
held that federal law may not prevent citizens from owning a
handgun in their home. (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570, 683-684.) Two years later, in McDonald v. City of
Chicago, the Supreme Court extended this ruling to apply to laws
passed by the 50 states. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.
Ct. 3020 (2010).)
One question this bill poses is whether requiring firearms
owners who live with prohibited persons to keep their firearms
stored in such a way as to deny access to the prohibited
cohabitant violates the firearm owner's right to home defense,
as recognized in Heller. After deciding that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right to firearm ownership, the
Court applied that to the law in question:
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have
said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the
home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all
times, rendering it inoperable.
As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate,
the inherent right of self-defense has been central to
the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts
to a prohibition of an entire class of "arms" that is
overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 16
lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to
the home, where the need for defense of self, family,
and property is most acute. Under any of the standards
of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated
constitutional rights, banning from the home "the most
preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for
protection of one's home and family," would fail
constitutional muster. (District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 628-629 (2008) (citations and
footnotes omitted).)
The law that the Supreme Court struck down in Heller required
the firearms owner to render the firearm inoperable while the
owner is home. This bill would require that any firearms owned
by a person who resides with a prohibited person be:
maintained within a locked container.
disabled by a firearm safety device.
maintained within a locked gun safe.
maintained within a locked trunk.
locked with a locking device as specified, which has
rendered the firearm inoperable.
carried on the person or within close enough proximity
thereto that the individual can readily retrieve and use
the firearm as if carried on the person.
How the holding in Heller might be applied to a person residing
with a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm is not
clear.
4. Waiting Period Extension
The Department of Justice has a legal obligation to do
background checks or the state faces tort liability for
premature release. (Braman v. State of California, (1994) 28
Cal. App. 4th 344.) Because of the volume of transactions, the
Department of Justice is concerned about their ability to
complete all necessary background checks within the 10-day
waiting period, as required by current law. To address this
issue, this bill would allow DOJ to take up to 30 days to
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 17
complete the background check in those cases in which a
preliminary record check shows that the purchaser has previously
been taken into custody and placed in a facility for mental
health treatment or evaluation or has been arrested for a crime
and DOJ is unable to ascertain within the normal 10-day waiting
period the final disposition of such an arrest or detention and
whether the purchaser is prohibited from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm.
(More)
This bill would require the dealer to provide the purchaser with
information about the manner in which he or she may contact the
department regarding the delay and would require DOJ to notify
the purchaser by mail regarding the delay and explain the
process by which the purchaser may obtain a copy of the criminal
or mental health record the department has on file for the
purchaser. Upon receipt of that criminal or mental health
record, the purchaser shall report any inaccuracies or
incompleteness to the department on an approved form.
If the department is unable to ascertain the final disposition
of the arrest or criminal charge, or the outcome of the mental
health treatment or evaluation within 30 days of the dealer's
original submission of purchaser information to the department
pursuant to this section, the department shall immediately
notify the dealer and the dealer may transfer the firearm to the
purchaser, upon the dealer's recording on the register or record
of electronic transfer the date that the firearm is transferred.
5. Argument in Support
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence state:
In California, when a person purchases a firearm,
existing law requires that a thorough background check
be conducted and a ten day waiting period be observed
prior to turning the weapon over to the prospective
purchaser. In the vast majority of cases, this is
sufficient time to perform the background check.
However, in a small number of cases, usually because
court disposition documents are unavailable, the
Department of Justice (DOJ) has not been authorizing
delivery of the firearm by the dealer. AB 500
provides DOJ additional time to complete the
background check, if needed. Specifically, the bill
requires DOJ to immediately notify a dealer to delay
the transfer of a firearm if the department is unable
to determine the outcome of an arrest or criminal
(More)
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 19
charge or mental health evaluation. If DOJ is unable
to determine the final disposition of these cases
within thirty days, then DOJ must notify the firearms
dealer and the transfer of the firearm would proceed.
In addition, AB 500 would prohibit a person who
resides in the same residence with another person who
is prohibited from possessing a firearm, from keeping
a firearm in the residence unless it is either kept in
a locked container or otherwise secured. This would
limit access to weapons in the home by persons
considered to be at risk of committing acts of
violence towards self or others.
Finally, existing law requires firearm dealers to
electronically transmit certain information to the
Department of Justice for each firearm transaction.
This bill would require dealers to notify the
Department when firearm applicants actually took
possession of the firearm thereby ensuring the
integrity of the data in the Automated Firearms
System.
Clearly, all three of these common sense measures
advance the public safety and deserve the full support
of the legislature.
6. Argument in Opposition
The California Association of Firearms Retailers states:
The California Association of Firearms Retailers
believes that this bill would needlessly add to the
reporting requirements and restrictions already in
effect for firearms retailers.
Accordingly, the California Association of Firearms
Retailers is opposed to the enactment of AB 500.
AB 500 (Ammiano)
Page 20
***************