BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 140
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 140 (Leno and Steinberg)
As Amended April 11, 2013
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :31-0
APPROPRIATIONS 12-1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Gatto, Bocanegra, | | |
| |Bradford, | | |
| |Ian Calderon, Campos, | | |
| |Eggman, Gomez, Hall, | | |
| |Holden, Pan, Quirk, Weber | | |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Donnelly | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY : Appropriates $24 million from the Dealers Record of
Sale (DROS) Special Account to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
to fund enforcement of illegal gun possession by relieving
weapons from persons in the Armed Prohibited Persons System
(APPS).
This bill also requires the DOJ to report specified information
to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee by March 1, 2015, and
every March 1 until 2019, including the following:
1)APPS backlog reduction and the number of weapons confiscated.
2)The number of agents hired by the DOJ to conduct APPS
enforcement.
3)The number of persons cleared from APPS and the number of
persons added.
4)Information regarding collaboration with local law
enforcement.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriates $24 million from DROS to the DOJ.
SB 140
Page 2
The DROS is projected to have total resources of about $34
million in 2012-13, with a year-end reserve of about $13
million. For 2013-14, total DROS resources are projected to be
about $47 million, with a reserve of about $25 million.
Appropriations are available for up to three years, allowing the
DOJ to draw annually from the projected reserves to reach $24
million.
COMMENTS :
1)Rationale . DOJ estimates there are about 20,000 persons with
about 39,000 guns, including almost 2,000 assault weapons, on
the APPS list. These persons, by law, are not allowed to
possess guns. Due primarily to state and local fiscal
constraints, this backlog continues to grow. The author's
intent is to provide the resources to begin significantly
reducing this growing backlog.
According to the author, "Although the DOJ and local law
enforcement have the authority to confiscate these weapons in
the interest of public safety, the truth is, the situation
continues to get worse. Law enforcement is struggling to
disarm people who've lost the right to own a gun. Neither DOJ
nor the locals have the resources to confiscate the enormous
backlog of weapons, nor can they keep up with the daily influx
of the newly prohibited."
According to the DOJ, the appropriation in this bill will
allow the department to hire, on a three-year limited term
basis, 30 special agents, six special agent supervisors, six
criminal intelligence specialists, and six office technicians.
These positions will make up six new statewide APPS teams in
existing DOJ offices. These positions will cost about $8
million per year.
DOJ's goal is reduce the APPS backlog to a reasonable level
within three years.
2)DOJ's Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) is an online
database that cross-references persons who possess a gun and
who, subsequent to possession of that gun, become a member of
the class of persons legally prohibited from possessing a gun.
Law enforcement agencies have access to APPS and thus are
able to identify persons who are prohibited from possessing a
SB 140
Page 3
gun.
According to the DOJ, about half of the persons on the APPS
list are prohibited due to criminal history; about 30% due to
mental health status, and about 20% due to active restraining
orders.
3)Current law authorizes DOJ to use DROS , which is funded by a
$19 fee on gun purchases at the point-of-sale, for gun-related
regulatory activities, including enforcement activities
related to APPS (SB 819 (Leno), Chapter 743, Statutes of
2011).
This bill provides a specific appropriation.
4)Is confiscation of guns from prohibited persons a local law
enforcement responsibility ? Yes. DOJ, however, does have a
statewide law enforcement responsibility, and given local law
enforcement fiscal constraints in recent years, the use of a
reserve from a state special fund already authorized for this
purpose, for a demonstrable public safety need, appears
appropriate.
5)Supporters , including Attorney General Kamala Harris, the
Coalition Against Gun Violence, Women Against Gun Violence,
the Violence Prevention Coalition, and the Chief Probation
Officers of California, contend this bill protects public
safety by providing law enforcement the resources necessary to
confiscate guns from prohibited persons. Moreover, they note
the funding is from a special fund already authorized for such
purposes.
6)Opponents , including the National Rifle Association, the
California Rifle and Pistol Association, and other groups,
contend the DROS fund should not be used to enforce the
possession of guns by prohibited persons. According to the
National Shooting Sports Foundation, "The fact that the amount
of the DROS fees charged to firearms buyers has been excessive
resulting in a surplus does not provide justification to use
the money for SB 140 or other non-DROS purposes. The
Department should have reduced the fee or refunded the fee
surplus long ago."
SB 140
Page 4
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
FN: 0000142