BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
7
9
AB 1798 (Assembly Committee on Public Safety) 8
As Introduced: February 18, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
DEADLY WEAPONS
HISTORY
Source: California Law Review Commission
Prior Legislation: SB 1115 (Committee on Public Safety) -
Chapter 178, Statutes of 2010
SB 1080 (Committee on Public Safety) - Chapter 711,
Statutes of 2010
Support: Unknown
Opposition:None Known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 78 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD NONSUBSTANTIVE REVISIONS BE MADE TO THE DEADLY WEAPON
STATUTES?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to make technical,
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 2
nonsubstantive changes to the laws related to deadly weapons, as
specified.
Existing law states, in order to assist in the investigation of
crime, the prosecution of civil actions by city attorneys, the
arrest and prosecution of criminals, and the recovery of lost,
stolen, or found property, the Attorney General shall keep and
properly file a complete record of all copies of fingerprints,
copies of licenses to carry firearms issued as provided,
information reported to the Department of Justice (DOJ) as
specified, dealers' records of sales of firearms, specified
forms and reports, that are not dealers' records of sales of
firearms, other specified information, and reports of stolen,
lost, found, pledged, or pawned property in any city or county
of this state, and shall, upon proper application therefor,
furnish this information to the officers authorized to receive
state summary criminal history information. (Penal Code §
11106(a).)
Existing law requires the Attorney General to permanently keep
and properly file and maintain all information reported to DOJ
pursuant to specified provisions of law as to firearms and
maintain a registry thereof. (Penal Code § 11106 (b).)
Existing law provides that any officer referred to in provisions
of law related to who may receive state summary criminal history
information may disseminate the name of the subject of the
record, the number of the firearms listed in the record, and the
description of any firearm, including the make, model, and
caliber, from the record relating to any firearm's sale,
transfer, registration, or license record, or any information
reported to DOJ if certain conditions are met. (Penal Code §
11106(c)(1).)
Existing law defines "application to purchase" to mean either of
the following:
a. The initial completion of the register by the
purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned a firearm,
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 3
as required by existing provisions of law; or,
b. The initial completion and transmission to DOJ of the
record of electronic or telephonic transfer by the dealer
on the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned a
firearm, as required by existing provisions of law.
(Penal Code § 16190)
Existing law defines "firearm safety device" as a device other
than a gun safe that locks and is designed to prevent children
and unauthorized users from firing a firearm. The device may be
installed on a firearm, be incorporated into the design of the
firearm, or prevent access to the firearm. (Penal Code §
16540.)
Existing law states that "locked container" means a secure
container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key
lock, combination lock, or similar locking device. The term
"locked container" does not include the utility or glove
compartment of a motor vehicle. (Penal Code § 16850.)
Existing law defines "short-barreled rifle" to mean any of the
following:
a. A rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16
inches in length;
b. A rifle with an overall length of less than 26 inches;
c. Any weapon made from a rifle (whether by alteration,
modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as modified,
has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or
barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
d. Any device that may be readily restored to fire a fixed
cartridge which, when so restored, is a device defined in
subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive; or,
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 4
e. Any part, or combination of parts, designed and intended
to convert a device into a device defined in subdivisions
(a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of parts from
which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to (c),
inclusive, may be readily assembled if those parts are in
the possession or under the control of the same person.
(Penal Code § 17170.)
Existing law states that "short-barreled shotgun" means any of
the following:
a. A firearm that is designed or redesigned to fire a
fixed shotgun shell and has a barrel or barrels of less
than 18 inches in length;
b. A firearm that has an overall length of less than 26
inches and that is designed or redesigned to fire a fixed
shotgun shell;
c. Any weapon made from a shotgun (whether by
alteration, modification, or otherwise) if that weapon, as
modified, has an overall length of less than 26 inches or
a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
d. Any device that may be readily restored to fire a
fixed shotgun shell which, when so restored, is a device
defined in subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive; or,
e. Any part, or combination of parts, designed and
intended to convert a device into a device defined in
subdivisions (a) to (c), inclusive, or any combination of
parts from which a device defined in subdivisions (a) to
(c), inclusive, can be readily assembled if those parts
are in the possession or under the control of the same
person.
(Penal Code § 17180.)
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 5
Existing law requires the producer and facility manager of a gun
show or event to prepare an annual event and security plan and
schedule that shall include, at a minimum, all of the
information specified for each show or event. The annual event
and security plan shall be submitted by either the producer or
the facility's manager to the DOJ and the law enforcement agency
with jurisdiction over the facility. (Penal Code § 27210.)
Existing law authorizes DOJ to conduct onsite inspections at the
business premises of a person on the centralized list of
exempted federal firearms licensees to determine compliance with
firearms laws; and requires DOJ to work in consultation with the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to
ensure that licensees are not subject to duplicative
inspections. (Penal Code § 28480.)
Existing law provides that DOJ may adopt regulations as
necessary to carry out specified provisions of law. DOJ shall
work in consultation with the ATF to ensure that state
regulations are not duplicative of federal regulations. (Penal
Code § 28490.)
Existing law allows the California Law Review Commission to
study and recommend revisions to correct technical or minor
substantive defects in the statutes of the state without a prior
concurrent resolution of the Legislature referring the matter to
it for study. (Government Code § 8298.)
This bill clarifies that the definitions of "application to
purchase," "firearm safety device," "locked container,"
"short-barreled rifle," and "short-barreled shotgun" apply to
all provisions in Part 6 of the Penal Code related to Control of
Deadly Weapons.
This bill standardizes references in the code to the "federal
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives" and the
"facility's manager."
This bill recasts language in statutes into separate
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 6
subdivisions to increase clarity and readability.
This bill deletes an erroneous cross-reference.
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 that 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.
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 requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted 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
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 7
42,000 inmates since 2006 . . . ." Plaintiffs opposed the
state's motion, arguing 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 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, 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." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 8
In a status report to the Court dated May 15, 2014, the state
reported that as of May 14, 2014, 116,428 inmates were housed in
the State's 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 140.8% of
design bed capacity, and 8,650 inmates were housed in
out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
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 This Bill
According to the author:
AB 1798 is based on a recommendation of the California
Law Revision Commission. The bill proposes minor,
technical changes to the deadly weapons provisions of the
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 9
Penal Code. These changes would clarify certain deadly
weapons statutes, making them easier to understand and
use.
AB 1798 will clarify the scope of definitions for the
following terms contained in Part 6 of the Penal Code:
'application to purchase,' 'firearm safety device,'
'locked container,' 'short-barreled rifle,' and
'short-barreled shotgun.' Currently, the definitions for
these terms have expressly limited application, covering
only specified provisions. The Commission reviewed
sections that use these terms, but fall outside the
express scope of the statutory definition. In all cases,
the Commission concluded that the undefined term was
nonetheless used in the defined sense. Therefore, this
bill would amend these definitions to clarify that they
govern the entirety of Part 6 of the Penal Code. This
change would eliminate potential confusion.
In addition, AB 1798 would standardize references to the
'federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives' and the 'facility's manager' for the site of
a gun show or event. This change would eliminate any
confusion arising from inconsistent references to this
organization and person.
Finally, AB 1798 also includes two other minor technical
revisions that were previously approved by the
Legislature, but did not take effect for process reasons.
These changes would improve clarity and readability &
correct an erroneous cross-reference.
There is no known opposition to this bill.
2. Law Revision Commission Background
The Law Revision Commission provides the following background
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 10
information:
In 2006, the Legislature directed the Law Revision
Commission (the Commission) to conduct a study and
recommend nonsubstantive changes to the statutes relating
to control of deadly weapons to simplify and provide
better organization to this area of law. The Commission
was expressly directed not to make any change that would
affect the existing scope of criminal liability.
In June 2009, the Commission submitted its recommendation
on Nonsubstantive Reorganization of Deadly Weapons
Statutes ('Deadly Weapons Recommendation') to the
Legislature. In 2010, the recommendation was enacted,
reorganizing the deadly weapons statutes into a new Part
6 of the Penal Code, structuring the provisions in a more
user-friendly form and making conforming revisions to the
law.
Throughout its deadly weapons study, the Commission took
an extremely cautious approach, to avoid making any
substantive change. During the course of the study, the
Commission found a number of minor issues that could not
be addressed without potentially causing concern about
the possibility of such a change. Consistent with the
Commission's limited mandate, the Commission did not
address any of these minor issues in its Deadly Weapons
Recommendation.
Instead, these minor issues were listed in Appendix B of
the Deadly Weapons Recommendation and set aside for
possible future work. In the Deadly Weapons
Recommendation, the Commission requested authority to
study these clean-up issues.
The Legislature granted the Commission authority to study
and make recommendations on the issues identified in
Appendix B. Pursuant to that authority, the Law Revision
Commission now recommends minor clean-up amendments to
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 11
address some of the issues identified in Appendix B of
the Deadly Weapons Recommendation.
(More)
This recommendation also proposes two other minor
technical revisions that were not included in Appendix B.
These minor revisions are proposed pursuant to the
Commission's authority in Government Code Section 8298.
Part 6 contains a number of statutory definitions that
have expressly limited application. These definitions
only govern specified provisions. For example, Section
16540 defines the term 'firearm safety device,' but only
for uses of that term in Section 25135 and Division 2
(commencing with Section 23620) of Title 4 of Part 6.
Part 6 also contains a number of sections that use a
defined term but are not within the provisions governed
by the statutory definition. For example, Section 26850
uses the term 'firearm safety device,' but this section
is not governed by the definition of that term provided
in Section 16540.
Undefined usage of defined terms can cause confusion.
When a definition does not govern all uses of the defined
term, it is unclear whether the term was intended to have
a different meaning in provisions that are not governed
by the definition. It is also possible that the failure
to expand a definition's application to cover a
particular provision using the term was inadvertent.
In order to address that confusion, the Commission
examined the undefined uses of the following defined
terms: 'application to purchase,' 'firearm safety
device,' 'locked container,' 'short-barreled rifle,' and
'short-barreled shotgun.' In each case, the Commission
found that in every provision of Part 6 that is not
governed by the definitions, the terms were nonetheless
used in the defined sense.
Because the defined meanings are consistent with every
undefined use of the terms, the Commission recommends
that the definitions be generalized to govern the
(More)
AB 1798 (ACoPS)
Page 13
entirety of Part 6. This would eliminate any confusion as
to the meaning of the terms in sections that are not
governed by the definitions. It would also simplify
future development of the law, by providing a default
definition that would govern any new provision added to
Part 6.
(Deadly Weapons: Minor Clean-Up Issues, California Law
Review Commission, December 2013 (citations omitted).)
***************