BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair A
2013-2014 Regular Session B
2
3
0
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas) 0
As Amended April 1, 2014
Hearing date: June 10, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:mc
FIREARMS:
PROHIBITED ARMED PERSONS FILE
HISTORY
Source: California Department of Justice
Prior Legislation: AB 950 (Brulte) - Chap. 944, Stats. of 2001
Support: California State Sheriffs' Association; Los Angeles
District Attorney's Office
Opposition:None known
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 75 - Noes 0
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD THE ARMED PROHIBITED PERSONS FILE (APPS) BE REVISED TO
CONFORM STATUTORY LANGUAGE TO THE STATE'S TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY TO
CROSS-REFERENCE RECORDS BACK TO 1996?
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 2
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to correct a statutory
inconsistency by requiring that only firearm ownership records
that are in CFIS and date back to January 1, 1996, be
cross-referenced for APPS purposes.
Existing law requires that firearms dealers obtain certain
identifying information from firearms purchasers and forward
that information, via electronic transfer to Department of
Justice (DOJ) to perform a background check on the purchaser to
determine whether he or she is prohibited from possessing a
firearm. (Penal Code § 28160-28220.)
Existing law requires that, upon receipt of the purchaser's
information, DOJ shall examine its records, as well as those
records that it is authorized to request from the State
Department of Mental Health pursuant to Section 8104 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, in order to determine if the
purchaser is prohibited from purchasing a firearm. (Penal
Code § 28220.)
Existing law requires firearms to be centrally registered at
time of transfer or sale by way of transfer forms centrally
compiled by the DOJ. DOJ is required to keep a registry from
data sent to DOJ indicating who owns what firearm by make,
model, and serial number and the date thereof. (Penal Code §§
11106(a) and (c).)
Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish and
maintain an online database to be known as APPS. The purpose of
the file is to cross-reference persons who have ownership or
possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991, as indicated
by a record in the Consolidated Firearms Information System
(CFIS), and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or
possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are
prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. The information
contained in APPS shall only be available to specified entities
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 3
through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System,
for the purpose of determining if persons are armed and
prohibited from possessing firearms. (Penal Code § 30000.)
Existing law provides that the Prohibited Armed Persons File
database shall function as follows:
Upon entry into the Automated Criminal History
System of a disposition for a conviction of any felony, a
conviction for any firearms-prohibiting charge specified
in Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 29800), a
conviction for an offense described in Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 29900), a firearms prohibition
pursuant to Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code, or any firearms possession prohibition
identified by the federal National Instant Criminal
Background Check System, DOJ shall determine if the
subject has an entry in CFIS indicating possession or
ownership of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991 or an
assault weapon registration, or a .50 BMG rifle
registration;
Upon an entry into any department automated
information system that is used for the identification of
persons who are prohibited by state or federal law from
acquiring, owning, or possessing firearms, the department
shall determine if the subject has an entry in CFIS
indicating ownership or possession of a firearm on or
after January 1, 1991, or an assault weapon registration,
or a .50 BMG rifle registration;
If the department determines that, pursuant to
subdivision (a) or (b), the subject has an entry in the
CFIS indicating possession or ownership of a firearm on
or after January 1, 1991 or an assault weapon
registration, or a .50 BMG rifle registration, the
following information shall be entered into APPS:
o The subject's name;
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 4
o The subject's date of birth;
o The subject's physical description;
o Any other identifying information
regarding the subject that is deemed necessary by
the Attorney General;
o The basis of the firearms possession
prohibition; and,
o A description of all firearms owned or
possessed by the subject, as reflected by the
Consolidated Firearms Information System. (Penal
Code § 30000.)
This bill would require DOJ to cross-reference, in APPS, persons
who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after
January 1, 1996, and who, subsequent to the date of that
ownership or possession, fall within a class of persons who are
prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.
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
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 5
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
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,
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 6
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.
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,
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 7
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 Legislation
According to the author:
Assembly Bill 2300 would make a technical amendment to
the statute establishing the creation of the
Prohibited Armed Persons File online database. This
amendment makes the Department of Justice's
obligations under that statute consistent with
information available via the Consolidated Firearms
Information System database.
Penal Code Section 30000(a) provides that the Attorney
General shall establish and maintain an online
database to be known as the Prohibited Armed Persons
File (APPS). The purpose of APPS is to
cross-reference persons who have ownership or
possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1991,
as indicated by a record in the Consolidated Firearms
Information System (CFIS), and who, subsequent to the
date of ownership or possession of a firearm, fall
within a class of persons who are prohibited from
owning or possessing a firearm.
(More)
2. State Audit
On March 13, 2013, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee
approved a request for an audit of the California
Department of Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons Program.
(http://legaudit. assembly.ca.gov/
sites/legaudit.assembly.ca.gov/files/March%2013%20
Vote%20Tally.pdf.) The focus of the audit was on "the
reporting and identification of persons with mental illness
who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm."
(Armed Persons with Mental Illness, California State
Auditor (2013) Report 2013-103.) The audit revealed:
In addition to our concerns over how Justice's staff
were making and documenting certain APPS
determinations, we noted a limitation in what the APPS
database is identifying-one that does not appear to be
fully consistent with state law. As we discuss in
Chapter 1, during our testing at two of the three
courts we visited, Justice had not identified as armed
prohibited persons two individuals who are firearm
owners and who had mental health prohibiting events
recorded in the mental health database. The assistant
bureau chief explained that these individuals were not
identified as armed prohibited persons because
Justice's review of firearm owners is limited to
firearm records from 1996 through the present. He
noted that because both of these individuals acquired
their firearms in the 1980s, Justice would not have
reviewed their prohibition history when their
prohibiting event was reported. Still, he said that
when individuals who obtained their firearm before
1996 and have prohibiting events come to Justice's
attention through other investigations, APPS unit
staff will identify the individual as an armed
prohibited person. We confirmed that Justice
subsequently completed this process for the two
individuals we identified and brought to its
attention.
(More)
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 9
Although Justice is generally only reviewing firearm
records from 1996 through the present, the state law
that establishes the APPS database requires Justice to
identify armed prohibited persons in its Consolidated
Firearms Information System (CFIS) going back to
January 1991. According to the assistant bureau
chief, because CFIS was not implemented until 1996,
CFIS does not contain firearm records going back to
1991. However, Justice does have firearm records that
pre-date 1996, but it considers these records less
reliable for the purpose of identifying prohibited
persons and thus for conducting prohibition reviews.
The assistant bureau chief stated that records before
1996 are extremely unreliable. He explained that
before 1996, Justice did not verify the firearm
purchaser's information against DMV database
information. Further, the assistant bureau chief
stated that he believed all parties that were involved
in developing the state law understood that CFIS
records only went back to 1996. However, such an
understanding is not currently displayed in the plain
language of state law. Therefore, Justice's effort to
implement the APPS database using only firearm
information from 1996 to the present appears
inconsistent with the requirement in state law to
review firearm records going back to 1991. (Id. at
44.)
Based on these findings, the audit report recommended, "[t]o
ensure that its implementation of reviews of armed prohibited
persons is consistent with state law, Justice should seek
legislative change to confirm whether its practice of reviewing
firearm records only back to 1996 is appropriate." (Id. at 64.)
3. Effect of this Legislation
Existing law requires DOJ to cross-reference, within APPS, all
firearm owner information entered in CFIS back to January 1,
AB 2300 (Ridley-Thomas)
Page 10
1991. According to DOJ, "[t]he problem with existing law is
that the CFIS database only contains firearms records beginning
in 1996, and not 1991 as the statute requires." This
legislation is a technical fix that would require DOJ to review
ownership records that are in CFIS and date back to January 1,
1996.
***************