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