BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 293
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 14, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 293 (DeSaulnier) - As Amended: May 24, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill defines owner-authorized handguns (so-called smart
guns) and provides that if and when two owner-authorized
handguns are placed on the Department of Justice (DOJ) roster of
not unsafe handguns (guns not on the list may not be
manufactured or sold in California), two years from the date the
second handgun was placed on the roster, DOJ shall not place a
handgun on the roster that is not an owner-authorized handgun.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Defines an owner-authorized handgun as a handgun with a
permanent programmable biometric or other permanent
programmable feature as part of its original manufacture that
renders the gun inoperable except when activated by the lawful
owner or other authorized users.
2)Requires owner-authorized handguns to comply with minimum
performance standards, including:
a) The gun must not fail to recognize the authorized user,
and must not falsely recognize an unauthorized user, more
than one time per thousand recognition attempts.
b) The time from first contact to use recognition and gun
enablement must be less than .3 seconds.
c) The time from loss of contact with the authorized user
and gun disablement must be less than .3 seconds.
d) If the user is not recognized, or if the power supply
fails, the gun must be inoperable.
SB 293
Page 2
e) The gun must be capable of use by more than one
authorized user and, if the gun uses hand recognition
technology, it must recognize either of the authorized
user's hands.
f) An owner-authorized gun must be programmed by a licensed
firearms dealer.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Minor one-time special fund costs, likely less than $100,000,
for DOJ to develop regulations to implement the bill once the
smart-gun technology is available.
2)Special fund cost pressure, potentially in $100,000 range, to
the extent DOJ becomes involved with testing technology and
evaluation. While the bill requires gun manufacturers to bear
the cost of testing, DOJ will at a minimum have costs related
to database changes, training and information bulletins
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends that the biometric technology
necessary to create owner-authorized guns is imminent and will
save lives and money and that the state should encourage and
prepare for so-called smart guns.
2)Smartgun Background. For more than 20 years gun enthusiasts
and gun control advocates have debated the merits of
smartguns. For some gun enthusiasts, the notion of using
technology to control who can fire a gun raises issues of
excessive government control. For others, the
as-yet-widely-unavailable technology offers an opportunity for
gun safety without threatening personal ownership. For gun
control advocates, smartguns increase safety by thwarting
thieves and child access, while some gun control advocates,
however, worry that such technology, by making guns safer,
would encourage Americans to stockpile even more weapons.
As reported by the Associated Press in January 2013, in 1999,
the New Jersey Legislature provided a grant to researchers at
the New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) to study
personalized gun technology. Those efforts focused on adding
SB 293
Page 3
transducers to a gun's handle to detect the grasp of an
authorized user. Meanwhile, the U.S. Justice Department
offered a challenge grant to gun makers and although two
responded, they made limited progress.
Work on personalized weapons slowed when gun groups boycotted
Smith & Wesson over a 2000 agreement it signed with the
Clinton administration in which the manufacturer made numerous
promises, including one to develop smart guns.
Meanwhile, TriggerSmart Ltd. of Limerick, Ireland, has
developed a system using Radio Frequency Identification built
into the handle of a gun and triggered by a device the size of
a grain of rice inside a user's ring or bracelet, and Armatix
GmbH of Germany, states it has developed a personalized gun,
with settings based on radio frequency technology and
biometrics.
3)Is it helpful to define a technology and/or mandate its use
prior to its full development?
4)Current Law .
a) Defines an unsafe handgun as any gun capable of being
concealed upon the person that lacks various safety
mechanisms and does not pass listed tests, as specified.
Makes manufacturing, importing, or selling an unsafe
handgun, with specified exceptions, a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to 1 year in county jail.
b) Requires every handgun manufactured in California,
imported for sale, kept for sale, or offered for sale to be
tested within a reasonable period of time by an independent
laboratory and certified by DOJ to determine whether it
meets required safety standards.
c) Requires DOJ to compile and maintain a roster listing
all guns determined not to be unsafe.
5)Supporters include the cities of Oakland and L.A. , the Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and the California Chapter of
SB 293
Page 4
the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. According to the
Brady Campaign, "The concept of an owner-authorized handgun
has been under discussion for over 15 years. In 2002, New
Jersey passed a law similar to SB 293. A number of
technological solutions have been explored, but none had been
sufficiently reliable. However, there have been recent
advances in access control technologies and features for
handguns and prototypes are becoming available. This
technology has the potential to achieve very high authorized
user recognition reliability and very short response times.
"Once owner-authorized handguns are commercially available,
accidental firearm injuries, homicides, and suicides could be
significantly reduced. Personalized handguns would be
inoperable by unauthorized users - including children,
troubled young adults, and thieves - thereby helping to
prevent intentional and unintentional gun violence in
California."
6)Opposition. Various gun-related groups contend costs and
availability could limit gun ownership. Opponents also
question the author's contention that the technology is
imminent and/or effective or practical.
7)Prior Legislation .
a) SB 697 (DeSaulnier), 2009, was similar to this bill and
was never heard in the Senate.
b) AB 2235 (DeSaulnier), 2008, was similar to this bill and
was held on the Senate Appropriations Suspense File.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081