BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
3
9
6
SB 396 (Hancock)
As Amended April 3, 2013
Hearing date: April 16, 2013
Penal Code
SM:dl
HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 776 (Hancock) - (2009) died in this
Committee
SB 23 (Perata) - Chap. 129, Statutes of 1999
Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989
(Chapter 19, § 3, Stats. of 1989.)
Support: California Church Impact; California Chapters of the
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; Individual
Chapters of the Brady Campaign from the following
Counties and regions: Antelope Valley, Contra Costa,
Long Beach, Los Angeles, Marin, Napa, Nevada, Oakland,
Orange County, Pomona, San Joaquin, Sacramento Valley,
San Diego, San Fernando Valley, San Francisco, San
Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, South
Bay LA, and Tri City Alameda County; California
Federation of Teachers; City of Oakland; Coalition
Against Gun Violence; Emeryville Police Department;
Contra Costa County Supervisor John Gioia; Oakland
Police Department; Violence Prevention Coalition of
Orange County; Youth Alive!; Friends Committee on
Legislation of California; Auburn Area Democratic Club;
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 2
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (San
Francisco Bay Area Chapter); California State PTA; PICO
California; Doctors for America; Law Center to Prevent
Gun Violence; Violence Prevention Coalition; CLUE
California; El Cerrito Police Department; Democratic
Women of Santa Barbara County; National Council of
Jewish Women; South County Citizens against Gun
Violence; Bend the Arc: Jewish Partnership for Justice;
Courage Campaign; Christy Lynn Foundation; letters from
several individuals
Opposition:California Right to Carry; Shasta County Sheriff;
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.;
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees;
National Rifle Association; California Public Defenders
Association (oppose unless amended); letters and phone
calls from several individuals
KEY ISSUES
BEGINNING JULY 1, 2014, SHOULD THE POSSESSION OF ANY AMMUNITION
MAGAZINE THAT IS CAPABLE OF HOLDING MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS OF
AMMUNITION BE PROHIBITED, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE DEFINITION OF "LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE" INCLUDE A FEEDING
DEVICE THAT HAD A CAPACITY OF MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS BUT HAS BEEN
PERMANENTLY MODIFIED TO HOLD NO MORE THAN 10 ROUNDS OF AMMUNITION?
SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED THAT ANY PERSON WHO, PRIOR TO JULY 1, 2014,
LEGALLY POSSESSES A LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE DISPOSE OF THAT MAGAZINE
BY REMOVING IT FROM THE STATE, SELLING THE LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINE
TO A LICENSED FIREARMS DEALER BEFORE JULY 1, 2014, DESTROYING IT, OR
SURRENDERING IT TO A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY FOR DESTRUCTION?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) prohibit, beginning July 1,
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 3
2014, possession of any ammunition magazine that is capable of
holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, except as specified;
(2) amend the definition of large-capacity magazine to include a
feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds but
has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10 rounds of
ammunition; and (3) and require that any person who, prior to
July 1, 2014, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine
dispose of that magazine by removing it from the state, selling
the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer before
July 1, 2014, destroying it, or surrendering it to a law
enforcement agency for destruction.
Current Federal Law
Current federal law , the federal assault weapons law (the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, H.R. 3355, Pub.L.
103-322,) became effective on September 13, 1994, and banned the
possession of "assault weapons" and "large capacity ammunition
feeding devices," defined as a magazine capable of holding more
than ten rounds of ammunition, manufactured after that date.
That law expired in 2004 and has not been reenacted.
Current California Law
Current law defines a "large-capacity magazine" as "any
ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than
10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include any of the
following:
A feeding device that has been permanently altered so
that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.
A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device.
A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm."
(Penal Code § 16740.)
Current law provides that, except as specified, commencing
January 1, 2000, any person in this state who manufactures or
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 4
causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for
sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any
large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment for 16
months, two or three years pursuant to penal code section
1170(h). (Penal Code § 32310.)
Current law provides that, upon a showing that good cause
exists, the Department of Justice may issue permits for the
possession, transportation, or sale between a licensed firearms
dealer and an out-of-state client, of large-capacity magazines.
(Penal Code § 32315.)
Current law provides that, except as specified, any
large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to an
injunction against its possession, manufacture or sale, and is
subject to confiscation and summary destruction. (Penal Code §
32390.)
This bill would prohibit, beginning July 1, 2014, possession of
any ammunition magazine that is capable of holding more than 10
rounds of ammunition, except as specified.
This bill would amend the definition of high capacity magazine
to include a feeding device that had a capacity of more than 10
rounds but has been permanently modified to hold no more than 10
rounds of ammunition.
This bill would require that any person who, prior to July 1,
2014, legally possesses a large-capacity magazine dispose of
that magazine by removing it from the state, selling the
large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer before
July 1, 2014, destroying it, or surrendering it to a law
enforcement agency for destruction.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 5
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 which 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. ROCA necessitated many hard and
difficult decisions for the Committee.
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 to reduce the state's prison population to
137.5 percent of design capacity. The State submitted in part
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, who oppose the state's
motion, argue in part 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."
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 6
In an order dated January 29, 2013, the federal court granted
the state a six-month extension to achieve the 137.5 % prisoner
population cap by December 31st of this year.
The ongoing litigation indicates that prison capacity and
related issues concerning conditions of confinement remain
unsettled. However, in light of the real gains in reducing the
prison population that have been made, although even greater
reductions are required by the court, the Committee will review
each ROCA bill with more flexible consideration. The following
questions will inform this consideration:
whether a measure erodes realignment;
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
1. Need For This Bill
According to the author:
In 1999, the Legislature passed SB 23 (Perata) which
prohibited the possession of assault weapons, such as
the AK-47 and created a generic definition of an
assault weapon. As part of that legislation, the
importation, manufacture and sale of large capacity
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 7
ammunition magazines was strictly prohibited.
However, the possession of high capacity magazines was
not prohibited.
Federal law also outlawed possession of high capacity
magazines as part of the 1994 federal assault weapons
ban but allowed current owners to keep them under a
"grandfathering" provision. The federal assault
weapons ban was allowed to expire in 2004. Research
has shown that, prior to the implementation of the
federal assault weapons ban, these high capacity
magazines were used in between 14 and 26% of guns used
in crime.
High capacity ammunition magazines are ammunition
feeding devices that hold more than ten rounds of
ammunition. These mega-magazines can hold upwards of
100 rounds of ammunition and allow a shooter to
rapidly fire without reloading.
High capacity magazines are not designed for hunting
or target shooting. High capacity magazines are
military designed devices. They are designed for one
purpose only -- to allow a shooter to fire a large
number of bullets in a short period of time.
This bill will make clear that possession of these
"mega-magazines" is also prohibited. Law enforcement
officers have told us that, because the Penal Code
currently fails to specifically prohibit possession,
the law is very difficult to enforce. This needs to be
fixed and this measure addresses that by prohibiting
the possession.
Prohibiting possession of these high capacity
magazines is just one important part of the
comprehensive strategy being proposed today to reduce
gun violence in California.
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 8
2. High Capacity Magazines in Both Long Guns and Handguns
Many rifles and handguns that use a detachable ammunition
magazine can accept a high capacity magazine, meaning a magazine
that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. On a
semiautomatic handgun or rifle, one bullet is fired per
trigger-pull. The effect of attaching a high capacity magazine
is to allow the shooter to rapidly fire as many rounds as the
magazine holds, as fast as they can pull the trigger. A high
capacity magazine typically holds 30 rounds but some have been
designed to hold as many as 100 rounds. Since January 1, 2000,
California has banned the importation, manufacture or sale of
high capacity magazines. (Penal Code §§ 32310, 32390.) These
magazines have also been deemed a public nuisance and are,
therefore, subject to confiscation and destruction, although
this requires a prosecutor to obtain a civil injunction, which
is costly and time-consuming. (Penal Code § 18010.) The
Department of Justice states that sellers are currently
circumventing the ban on sale of these magazines in California
by selling all the parts necessary to construct them as "repair
kits," which are then easily assembled in a matter of minutes.
Because possession is not prohibited, once the magazine is
assembled, law enforcement is unable to take any action at that
point. This bill would impose the same criminal penalties for
possession of high capacity magazines as currently exist for
their importation, manufacture or sale in California.
Many mass shootings, as well as other shootings with fewer
victims, have involved the use of high capacity magazines. The
Violence Policy Center, a Washington D.C. - based nonprofit
research group, compiled a list of 34 such mass shootings in the
United States that have involved the use of high capacity
magazines. Most recently these include the massacre at Sandy
Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in which the
shooter used several 30-round magazines and killed 28 people,
the Aurora Colorado movie theater massacre last July, in which
the shooter used a 100-round magazine and left 12 dead and 58
wounded, and the shooting in Tucson, Arizona on January 8, 2011,
in which the shooter used a Glock 19 pistol with a 33-round
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 9
magazine, killing 6 and wounding another 13. One of those
wounded was U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who is now
urging Congress to reinstate the federal ban on high capacity
ammunition magazines.
WASHINGTON - A halting but riveting Gabrielle Giffords
told Congress on Wednesday that it must act now to
stem gun violence, telling senators "too many children
are dying" just two years after she was shot at
point-blank range and suffered brain damage.
The former Democratic Arizona congresswoman, who
struggles to walk and is partially blind, stoutly read
a brief statement in a high-pitched, almost childlike
voice as her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly ,
sat at her side in a packed and dramatically hushed
hearing room.
"Speaking is difficult, but I must say something
important. Violence is a big problem. Too many
children are dying. Too many children," Giffords said.
She enunciated each word slowly and clearly, and
punctuated her remarks at several points by looking up
abruptly, as if her head was a personal exclamation
point.
"We must do something," she said. "It will be hard,
but the time is now. You must act. Be bold. Be
courageous. Americans are counting on you."
* * * * * * *
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 10
Both she and her husband own guns and back the Second
Amendment. However, they have become critics of the
National Rifle Association, pushing for a new assault
weapons ban, universal background checks and a ban on
high-capacity magazines.
* * * * * * *
In his own testimony, Kelly said that a limit on the
size of ammunition magazines, as proposed by Obama,
could have saved lives in the Tucson attack that
killed six and wounded his wife.
He said the gunman emptied his high-capacity
ammunition clip in 15 seconds, firing 33 bullets. If
the shooter had used a 10-round clip, 9-year-old
Christina-Taylor Green, who was struck by bullet No.
13, "would be alive today," Kelly said.
"I'm certainly willing to give up my right to own a
high-capacity magazine to bring back that young girl,"
he said.
("Gabby Giffords Says 'Too Many Children Are Dying' During
Emotional Plea to Senate Committee for Stricter Gun Control,"
New York Daily News, January 30, 2013,
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/gabby-giffords-senate-gu
n-control-hearing-report-article-1.1251013#ixzz2MnHJGkby )
A high capacity magazine increases the number of people that can
be killed or wounded in a short period of time with even a
conventional handgun or rifle. Perhaps the most dramatic and
horrifying example of this occurred in 2011 when a man opened
fire on teenagers at a summer youth camp in Norway, killing 69
and wounding another 110, using a semi-automatic rifle, the .223
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 11
caliber Ruger Mini-14. The Mini-14 does not contain any of the
features commonly associated with military-style assault
weapons, is perfectly legal in California, and is a popular
rifle with ranchers. What made that weapon such a monstrously
effective tool of mass murder is the fact that the killer was
able to rapidly reload one magazine after another of ammunition.
According to the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, Norway forbids
sale of ammunition magazines for hunting rifles that hold more
than three rounds. The killer stated that he bought 10 30-round
magazines by mail-order from a supplier in the United States.
(Norway Shooter: Ammo Clips Were From U.S., Politico, July 28,
2011, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60154.html.)
3. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban Has Been Allowed to Expire
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was passed as a portion of the
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act on September 13,
1994. In addition to banning assault weapons, the Act also
banned the possession, manufacture or transfer of large capacity
ammunition feeding devices, or high capacity magazines. The Act
expired on September 13, 2004 and was not reenacted.
Like the assault weapons ban, whether citizens should be allowed
to own high-capacity magazines is one of the contested issues in
the debate over what constitutes reasonable gun regulation.
"Anyone who's thought seriously about armed
self-defense knows why honest Americans - private
citizens and police alike - choose magazines that hold
more than 10 rounds. Quite simply, they improve good
people's odds in defensive situations," Chris W. Cox,
the executive director of the National Rifle
Association's legislative institute wrote in a piece
posted online. He called the ban a "dismal failure."
The federal prohibition on high-capacity magazines and
assault weapons was spurred in part by the 1989 mass
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 12
killing in Stockton, Calif. Patrick Edward Purdy, a
mentally unbalanced drug addict, fired 110 rounds from
an AK-47 into a schoolyard, killing five children and
wounding 29 others and a teacher. Purdy used a
75-round drum magazine and a 35-round banana clip, one
of four he carried.
(David S. Fallis, Data Indicate Drop in High-Capacity Magazines
During Federal Gun Ban, Washington Post, January 10, 2013,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/data-point-to-drop-i
n-high-capacity-magazines-during-federal-gun-ban/2013/01/10/d56d3
bb6-4b91-11e2-a6a6-aabac85e8036_story.html)
According the Washington Post, an analysis of data taken from
one jurisdiction, the State of Virginia, showed, "During the
10-year federal ban on assault weapons, the percentage of
firearms equipped with high-capacity magazines seized by police
agencies in Virginia dropped, only to rise sharply once the
restrictions were lifted in 2004[.]"
* * * * * * * *
"I was skeptical that the ban would be effective, and
I was wrong," said Garen Wintemute, head of the
Violence Prevention Research Program at the University
of California at Davis School of Medicine. The
database analysis offers "about as clear an example as
we could ask for of evidence that the ban was
working."
(Fallis, supra.)
4. The Fifth Amendment "Takings" Clause
The "takings clause" of the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution states: "nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation." California law already
bans the import, manufacture and sale of high capacity
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 13
ammunition magazines, and has declared them a nuisance and
subject to confiscation and destruction. (Penal Code §§ 32310,
32390, 18010.) Nonetheless, the question has been raised whether
adding criminal penalties for possession of these ammunition
magazines would constitute a 'taking of private property for
public use without just compensation,' in violation of the 5th
Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized for well over a century a
difference between legislative action that results in a taking
of private property for public use through a process of eminent
domain and a legitimate use of the police power of the state to
protect the public health and welfare. In upholding a statute
prohibiting the sale of alcohol, the Court stated,
The exercise of the police power by the destruction of
property which is itself a public nuisance, or the
prohibition of its use in a particular way, whereby
its value becomes depreciated, is very different from
taking property for public use, or from depriving a
person of his property without due process of law. In
the one case, a nuisance only is abated; in the other,
unoffending property is taken away from an innocent
owner.
(Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668-669 (1887); see also
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U.S. 561, 593-594
(1906) ("It has always been held that the legislature may make
police regulations, although they may interfere with the full
enjoyment of private property and though no compensation is
given."); Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251
U.S. 146, 157-158 (1919); Bala v. State, 2010 ND 164, P9 (2010):
("Eminent domain takes property because it is useful to the
public, while the police power regulates the use of, or impairs
rights in, property to prevent detriment to the public interest,
and constitutional provisions against taking private property
for public use without just compensation impose no barrier to
the proper exercise of the police power."); Eggleston v. Pierce
County, 64 P.3d 618, 623 (Wash. 2003) ("Police power and the
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 14
power of eminent domain are essential and distinct powers of
government. Courts have long looked behind labels to determine
whether a particular exercise of power was properly
characterized as police power or eminent domain. But clearly,
not every government action that takes, damages, or destroys
property is a taking. 'Eminent domain takes private property for
a public use, while the police power regulates its use and
enjoyment, or if it takes or damages it, it is not a taking or
damaging for the public use, but to conserve the safety, morals,
health and general welfare of the public.'")
Specifically in the context of the regulation of firearms,
courts have held that prohibiting possession of dangerous
weapons is a valid exercise of the government's police power not
to be confused with the power of imminent domain. In 1978,
Washington, D.C. passed a law prohibiting the ownership of
certain types of weapons, including those that could fire more
than 13 rounds without reloading. The law was quickly
challenged by a several gun owners who had legally purchased
such weapons before the law went into effect and were thus
required to dispose of them or be in violation of the law. They
claimed this amounted to a taking by the government, without
just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held:
Petitioners' third constitutional challenge alleges
that D.C. Code 1978 Supp., § 6-1820(c) provides for a
taking of their property without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment. That section of the
Code provides three alternatives for disposition
within seven days of a firearm denied registration.
The unsuccessful applicant may (1) "peaceably
surrender" the firearm to the chief of police, (2)
"lawfully remove" the firearm from the District for as
long as he retains an interest in the firearm, or (3)
"lawfully dispose" of his interest in the firearm.
Petitioners' argument is that the second and third
alternatives require, under the terms imposed by the
Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 922
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 15
(1970), a quick "forced sale" of the firearms at less
than fair market value to a dealer in firearms, while
the first alternative would provide not even a salvage
value return.
Assuming, arguendo, that the statute authorized a
"taking," we note that the Fifth Amendment prohibits
taking of "private property . . . for public use,
without just compensation." Such a taking for the
public benefit under a power of eminent domain is,
however, to be distinguished from a proper exercise of
police power to prevent a perceived public harm, which
does not require compensation . Lamm v. Volpe, 449 F.2d
1202, 1203 (10th Cir. 1971). That the statute in
question is an exercise of legislative police power
and not of eminent domain is beyond dispute . The
argument of petitioner, therefore, lacks merit.
(Fesjian v. Jefferson, 399 A.2d 861, 865-866 (1979), emphasis
added.)
If banning possession of high capacity magazines, as this bill
proposes, required that the state compensate all current owners
of these items, the same requirement would be applicable to
legislation that bans any dangerous weapon or substance. This
would lead to absurd results. For example, in 2009 the
Legislature approved a ban on importation, manufacture, sale or
possession of hard plastic knuckles, a weapon that had often had
a sharp edge and could pass undetected through a magnetometer.
(AB 714 (Feuer) Chap. 121, Stats. of 2009, Penal Code § 21710.)
The Legislature did not deem it necessary or appropriate to
provide compensation to the owners of these weapons. Similarly,
in 2008, legislation outlawed possession of a plant known as
Khat, and its synthetic equivalent due to fears of abuse due to
its psychoactive properties. (AB 1141 (Anderson) Chap. 292,
Stats. of 2008, Health and Safety Code § 11055.) Again, no
compensation was offered to current owners of the plant or drug.
Prohibiting possession of these dangerous weapons and substances
was undertaken pursuant to the government's police power 'to
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 16
prevent a perceived public harm,' and, accordingly, the
Legislature did not deem it necessary to compensate current
owners of these weapons or substances. As the Supreme Court has
stated, "Government hardly could go on if to some extent values
incident to property could not be diminished without paying for
every such change in the general law." (Pennsylvania Coal Co. v.
Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922).)
(More)
5. Argument in Support
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence states:
Since January 2000, California law has prohibited the
manufacture, importation, sale, gift, or loan of any
large capacity ammunition magazine capable of holding
more than ten rounds. SB 396 would add a prohibition
on possessing large capacity magazines, regardless of
the date the magazine was acquired.
Recent mass shootings involving large capacity
magazines have demonstrated the tragic carnage caused
by these magazines. The shooters in Fort Hood,
Tucson, Aurora, and Newtown were able to injure or
kill large numbers of people very quickly because of
their ability to shoot a large number of bullets in a
very short period of time. Jared Loughner, who was
able to rapidly fire 31 bullets in 15 seconds without
reloading, killed six people and wounded thirteen
others in Tucson. The shooting ended when bystanders
tackled the gunman while he was reloading. Nine year
old Christina-Taylor Green was shot by the thirteenth
bullet - had there been a magazine limit of ten
rounds, she might be alive today.
California had a number of mass shootings involving
large capacity ammunition magazines before the ban on
their sale and transfer in year 2000 (in San Ysidro,
Stockton, San Francisco and Orange). Other rampage
shootings involving large capacity magazines have
happened since then - and will happen again - because
of the prevalence of large capacity magazines and the
difficulty of enforcing existing law. It is nearly
impossible to prove when a large capacity magazine was
acquired or whether the magazine was illegally
purchased after the 2000 ban. Furthermore, "magazine
repair kits" are now being sold in California. These
(More)
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 18
kits, containing parts to repair large capacity
magazines, are legally purchased and later assembled
into new large capacity magazines. Since the
possession of large capacity magazines is permissible,
this practice, which clearly evades the intent of the
law, is difficult to stop. SB 396 would enable the
enforcement of existing law regarding large capacity
magazines.
With average use, magazines typically last about
twelve years. It is now time to end the
grandfathering of large capacity magazines and
exploitation of the law by prohibiting the possession
of these magazines. Serious hunters do not use large
capacity magazines. A prohibition on the sale,
transfer, and possession of large capacity magazines
clearly furthers public safety. The California Brady
Campaign Chapters appreciate your introduction of SB
396 and are in full support.
6. Argument in Opposition
The Shasta County Sheriff states:
I am strongly opposed to Senate Bill 396. Existing law
defines firearm magazine capacity. This bill would add
that the magazine be only of a sufficient length to
accommodate 10 rounds. This bill would also prohibit
the possession, sale, lending, offering, giving, etc.
of any current or existing large capacity magazine.
This bill not only restricts magazines but would
render certain firearms such as semi-automatic
handguns inoperable due to grip and magazine design.
Currently, there are literally millions of magazines
with capacity greater than 10 rounds. Existing law
exempts or grandfathers in such magazines. This law
would make current law abiding citizens who possess
such magazines into criminals. If citizens would be
SB 396 (Hancock)
Page 19
required to turn in high capacity magazines, they
would need to be compensated for them at fair market
value. This would cost the state hundreds of millions
to reimburse citizens, all at a time when the state
should be saving money.
This bill improperly and unreasonably places unfounded
mandates on local agencies, such mandates need to be
properly funded. This bill does nothing to address the
causes of gun violence, such as criminal behavior,
mental illness, or substance abuse. There are plenty
of gun related laws, enforce them. Strict enforcement,
vigorous prosecution, and harsh sentences will address
criminals, reduce violence, and save lives.
7. Sentencing Considerations
This bill would amend the definition of "large-capacity
magazine" for purposes of California's assault weapons laws.
The punishment for a violation of this provision is a wobbler;
the felony punishment is 16 months, 2 or 3 years imprisonment
(Penal Code section 1170 (h).). Currently, there are no inmates
in state prison for this offense.
************