BILL ANALYSIS Ķ
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
9
6
AB 1964 (Dickinson) 4
As Introduced: February 19, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
UNSAFE HANDGUNS: SINGLE-SHOT PISTOLS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: AB 169 (Dickinson) - 2013 vetoed
SB 269 (Dutton) - Chapter 683, Statutes of 2005
SB 15 (Polanco) - Chapter 248, Statutes of 1999
Support: All Saints Church; California Chapters of the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Coalition Against Gun
Violence; Coalition to Stop Gun Violence; Law Center to
Prevent Gun Violence; League of Women Voters of
California; Michael Feuer, Los Angeles City Attorney;
Physicians for Social Responsibility; South County
Citizens Against Gun Violence; Women Against Gun
Violence; Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
Opposition:California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 48 - Noes 25
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE SINGLE-SHOT PISTOL EXEMPTION BE AMENDED?
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageB
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to amend an exemption to the safe
handgun requirements for single-shot firearms by exempting only a
single-shot pistol with a break top or bolt action and a barrel
length of not less than six inches and that has an overall length of
at least 10 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel
are assembled, as specified.
Existing law provides that commencing January 1, 2001, no
"unsafe handgun" may be manufactured or sold in California by a
licensed dealer, except as specified, and requires that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) prepare and maintain a roster of
handguns which are determined not to be unsafe handguns.
Private party sales (used or previously owned) and transfers of
handguns through a licensed dealer are exempted from those
restrictions. (Penal Code §§ 27545, 32000, et seq., § 32110.)
Existing law provides that any person in California who
manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the
state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale,
gives, or lends any unsafe handgun shall be punished by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. (Penal
Code § 32000(a).)
Existing law does the following:
Defines "unsafe handgun" as any pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person,
as specified, which lacks various safety mechanisms,
including a chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect,
and does not pass listed tests, as specified. (Penal Code
§ 31910.)
Requires any concealable firearm manufactured in
California, or intended to be imported for sale, kept for
sale, or offered for sale to be tested within a reasonable
period of time by an independent laboratory, certified by
the state DOJ, to determine whether it meets required
safety standards, as specified. (Penal Code § 32010.)
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageC
Requires DOJ, on and after January 1, 2001, to compile,
publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all of
the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being
concealed upon the person that have been tested by a
certified testing laboratory, have been determined not to
be unsafe handguns, and may be sold in this state, as
specified. The roster shall list, for each firearm, the
manufacturer, model number, and model name. (Penal Code §
32015.)
Existing law requires that, commencing January 1, 2010, all
semiautomatic pistols that are not already listed on the roster
be designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters
that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol,
etched or otherwise imprinted in two or more places on the
interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and
that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when
the firearm is fired, provided that the DOJ certifies that the
technology used to create the imprint is available to more than
one manufacturer
unencumbered by any patent restrictions. On May 17, 2013, DOJ
issued that certification. (Penal Code § 31910(b)(7).)
Existing law specifies that roster requirements do not apply to
a single-action revolver that has at least a five-cartridge
capacity with a barrel length of not less than three inches, and
meets any of the following specifications:
The firearm is a curio or relic.
The firearm has an overall length of over seven and a
half inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel
are assembled.
The firearm has an overall length of over seven and a
half inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel
are assembled and is currently approved for importation
under the federal regulations.
(Penal Code 32100(a).)
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageD
Existing law specifies that a single-shot pistol with a barrel
length of not less than six inches and has an overall length of
at least ten and a half inches is exempt from roster
requirements. (Penal Code 32100(b).)
This bill would amend an exemption to the safe handgun requirements
for single shot handguns to exempt from those requirements a
single-shot pistol with a break top or bolt action and a barrel
length of not less than six inches and that has an overall length of
at least 10 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and barrel
are assembled. This exemption would not apply to a semiautomatic
pistol that has been temporarily or permanently altered to that it
will not fire in semiautomatic mode.
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.
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageE
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 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:
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageF
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.
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
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageG
1. Need for This Legislation
The author states, in part:
Existing law provides that the sale, loan, or transfer
of firearms must be processed by, or through, a state
licensed dealer or a local law enforcement agency.
Existing law also provides that no "unsafe handgun"
may be manufactured or sold in California by a
licensed dealer, as specified, and requires that the
Department of Justice (DOJ) prepare and maintain a
roster of handguns which are determined to be safe.
"Unsafe handguns" are defined as those which do not
have requisite safety devices, do not meet specified
firing tests, or do not meet a drop safety test, and
therefore do not appear on the DOJ safe handgun
roster.
Since the enactment of the Unsafe Handgun law, the
statute has been amended a number of times to add
exemptions to the prohibitions on buying and selling
the affected weapons. One of the most significant
loopholes in the Unsafe Handgun law concerns single
shot handguns. In effect, a person may purchase a
handgun which is manufactured or altered to only
accept a single bullet (no semi-automatic reload of a
bullet in the firing chamber), even if the handgun is
considered by DOJ as unsafe, (i.e. not meeting state
safe handgun requirements, and therefore not on the
state safe handgun roster).
Up until 2009, no more than 1100 single shot handguns
which did not contain state required safety features
or failed state safety tests, were purchased and
registered each year, often far fewer than that.
However, beginning in 2010, the number of unsafe
single shot handguns purchased and registered
skyrocketed. In 2013 alone, more than 18,000 of these
weapons were purchased in California.
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageH
The jump in the purchase of unsafe single shot
handguns coincides with the enactment of new handgun
safety requirements such as bullet chamber load
indicators and micro-stamping of bullets. In essence,
more people are using the exemption to acquire guns
they would otherwise be unable to legally purchase if
the gun was bought in its original semi-automatic
configuration.
2. Effect of the Legislation
SB 269 (Dutton) Ch. 683, Stats. of 2005 exempted from the safe
handgun requirements, single-shot pistols with a barrel length
of not less than 6 inches and which has an overall length of at
least 101/2 inches when the handle, frame or receiver, and
barrel are assembled. The intent of SB 269 was articulated in
the author's statement:
Single-shot pistols are specialty firearms used mostly
by sportsmen and competition shooters. Because of
this, they are not sold large numbers compared to the
sales of semiautomatic pistols and double action
revolvers. The cost of testing single-shot pistols,
because of the many barrel length and chamber
dimension options available depending upon the
intended usage, could easily exceed the amount of any
profit that might be realized.
(http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/
sb_269_cfa_ 20050614_074934_asm_comm.html)
According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, this
exemption has been exploited and has, in practice, allowed
dealers to modify off-roster handguns to single-shot weapons for
the purpose of the sale, after which they are readily converted
back to the original illegal configuration.
Direct Action Solutions, a licensed firearms dealer in
California, states on its website:
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageI
OK. Here it is. Here is how the Single Shot Exemption
(SSE) works here at Direct Action Solutions.
For starters, the SSE transfer process cannot be done
on every pistol that is not listed on the California
Roster of Approved Handguns. Most of the guns we
offer require purchasing extra parts to make the gun
meet the dimensional requirements needed to make the
pistol eligible for SSE, which means the pistol must
have a minimum barrel length of 6 inches and an
overall length of 10.5 inches.
Since most guns don't fit these dimensional
requirements, the solution is to purchase a new barrel
from manufacturer or source one from an aftermarket
company. In some cases this may cost as much as $500.
After we have found and purchased a barrel, it will
need to be lengthened so it meets the SSE transfer
requirements. Usually lengthening the barrel will
help us meet both the barrel and overall length
dimensional requirements. The final modification is
to manufacture a block for insertion into the magazine
well to
(More)
change the pistol from a semi-auto magazine fed
firearm to a single shot firearm that can only be
loaded one round at a time. With the longer barrel
installed in the slide and the block installed in the
magazine well, we now have a Single Shot Exempt
pistol, meaning this pistol is now exempt from the
California Roster of Handguns and also legal to sell
in California.
When you come into purchase your SSE pistol, it will
be configured with the longer barrel and magazine
block installed. You will start your ATF and
Department of Justice (DOJ) paperwork and your ten day
waiting period. When you return to pick up your
firearm, you will sign and complete all the necessary
documents and receive your SSE pistol. The gun is now
yours.
Once the pistol is legally in your possession, you can
legally modify it back to its intended original
configuration. This means you can remove the
lengthened barrel and magazine well block and install
or use the original barrel and magazines that came
with your gun. This step may require some tools, which
we can provide for your use if you desire.
Once completed, your gun is fully functional, just as
it was when it started out life as a Glock Gen4, HK45
or any other pistol not on the California Roster of
Handguns.
(http://www.directactionsolutions.net/single-shot-exemp
tion-explanation/)
This use of the single-shot exemption has led to an
increase in the number of single-shot pistols sold in
California in recent years. In 2006, 360 single-shot
pistols were sold in California and this number has grown
to 18,053 in 2013.<1>
-------------------------
<1> Numbers provided by the California Department of Justice.
(More)
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageK
AB 169 attempted to close this loophole last year in a
broader piece of legislation that would have also curtailed
the use of private party transfers of off-roster firearms
in California. The Governor vetoed the legislation
stating, with regard to the portion relating to single-shot
pistols, "AB 169 would close a loophole in the single-shot
exemption. That makes sense."
This legislation is more narrow than AB 169-this
legislation would eliminate the ability to convert a
firearm to a single-shot pistol so it can be sold in
California without being on the roster and would bring the
exemption more in line with its original intent.
3. Arguments in Support
The Law Center to Prevent Gun violence states, in part:
Unfortunately, a critical gap in the state's unsafe handgun
law enabled the continued circulation of these dangerous
guns on the consumer marker. Under current law, any
semiautomatic handgun that has been temporarily altered to
operate as a single-shot weapon (i.e., a gun that can only
hold a single ammunition round at a given time) is exempt
from the unsafe handgun law. As a result, manufacturers
and dealers may sell these temporarily altered single-shot
guns to purchasers, who may then convert them
back into semiautomatic handguns that would not meet the
state's safety requirements. According to the Department
of Justice, sales of single-shot guns have skyrocketed and
more than 18,000 of these dangerous weapons were sold in
California in 2013 alone. AB 1964 would amend the law so
that the unsafe handgun law's requirements apply to any
semiautomatic pistol, even if it has been temporarily or
permanently altered into a single-shot functionality.
4. Arguments in Opposition
AB 1964 (Dickinson)
PageL
The California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
states, in part:
The clear intent of this measure is to further narrow
California's already onerous and overly burdensome
"not unsafe" handgun roster and eliminate more
firearms from the non-peace officer marketplace.
While AB 1964's passage would certainly reinforce the
arguments against the roster in ongoing federal civil
rights litigation (see, e.g., Peņa v. Lindley), we
must remain opposed to AB 1964 on its merits.
There is not evidentiary need for the passage of AB
1964. The penal code, as it relates to firearms, is
already overflowing with laws that are not enforced or
unenforceable. AB 1964 is a solution in search of a
problem and may be the bill that bursts the penal code
levee.
In 2008, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled
in District of Columbia v. Heller that firearms in
common use for lawful purpose-such as those targeted
for prohibition by AB 1964-are protected under the
Second Amendment.
***************