BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 396
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 13, 2013
Counsel: Stella Choe
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 396 (Hancock) - As Amended: May 15, 2013
SUMMARY : Prohibits the possession of any large-capacity
magazine with specified exemptions. Specifically, this bill :
1)Amends the current definition of "capacity to accept more than
10 rounds" to mean capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and
specifies that the term does not apply to a feeding device
that has been permanently altered so that it cannot hold more
than 10 rounds.
2)Includes within the definition of a "large-capacity magazine"
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.
3)States that a "large-capacity magazine" does not include a
magazine that is only of sufficient length to hold no more
than 10 rounds of ammunition.
4)Makes it a crime, commencing July 1, 2014, for any person in
California to possess any large-capacity magazine, regardless
of the date the magazine was acquired, punishable by
imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or
imprisonment pursuant to realignment.
5)Provides that any person who, prior to July 1, 2014, legally
possesses a large-capacity magazine shall dispose of that
magazine by any of the following means:
a) Remove the large-capacity magazine from California;
b) Prior to July 1, 2014, sell the large-capacity magazine
to a licensed firearms dealer;
c) Destroy the large-capacity magazine; or,
SB 396
Page 2
d) Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law
enforcement agency for destruction.
6)Exempts the possession of a large-capacity magazine by:
a) Any federal, state, county, city and county, or city
agency that is charged with the enforcement of any law, for
use by agency employees in the discharge of their official
duties, whether on or off duty, and where the use is
authorized by the agency and is within the course and scope
of their duties;
b) A sworn peace officer, as defined, who is authorized to
carry a firearm in the course and scope of that officer's
duties;
c) Any entity that operates an armored vehicle business
pursuant to the laws of California;
d) Authorized employees, while in the course and scope of
employment for purposes that pertain to the entity's
armored vehicle business; and,
e) The holder of a special weapons permit for use as a prop
for a motion picture for specified purposes.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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) A feeding device that has been permanently altered so
that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds;
b) A .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device; or,
c) A tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action
firearm. (Penal Code Section 16740.)
2)States, except as provided, commencing January 1, 2000, any
person in California who manufactures or 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
SB 396
Page 3
county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment pursuant to
realignment. (Penal Code Section 32310.)
3)Allows a person who lawfully possessed a large-capacity
magazine in California prior to January 1, 2000, and lawfully
took it out of the state, to return to the state with the same
large-capacity magazine without violating the prohibition
against importing a large-capacity magazine into California.
(Penal Code Section 32420.)
4)Provides the following exceptions to the prohibition against
manufacturing or causing to be manufactured, importing into
the state, keeping for sale, or offering or exposing for sale,
or giving, or lending, any large-capacity magazine:
a) Government agency charged with law enforcement (Penal
Code Section 32400);
b) Sworn peace officer (Penal Code Section 32405);
c) Sale or purchase by licensed person (Penal Code Section
32410);
d) Loan under specified circumstances (Penal Code Section
32415);
e) Importation by person in legal possessions prior to
January 1, 2000 (Penal Code Section 32420);
f) Delivery to gun smith (Penal Code Section 32425);
g) Person with permit and registration (Penal Code Section
32430);
h) Entity that operates armored vehicle business (Penal
Code Section 32435);
i) Manufacture for government agency (Penal Code Section
32440);
j) Use as prop (Penal Code Section 32445); or,
aa) Purchase for use as prop (Penal Code Section 32450).
5)Provides that the Attorney General, district attorney, or city
SB 396
Page 4
attorney may bring an action to enjoin the manufacture of,
importation of, keeping for sale of, offering or exposing for
sale, giving, lending, or possession of, any item that
constitutes a nuisance under any of the specified code
sections, including the code section relating to
large-capacity magazines. [Penal Code Section 18010(a).]
6)States that the weapons listed in the specified code sections
constituting a nuisance shall be subject to confiscation and
summary destruction whenever found within California. [Penal
Code Section 18010(b).]
FEDERAL LAW : The federal assault weapons law (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 10 rounds of ammunition, manufactured after that date. The
federal assault ban contained a grandfather clause which stated
that the ban shall not apply to the possession of a large
capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed
within the United States on or before the date of the enactment
of the law. The federal assault weapons law expired in 2004 and
has not been reenacted.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : 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 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
SB 396
Page 5
used in crime.
"High capacity 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."
2)Background : Many rifles and handguns that use a detachable
ammunition magazine can accept a large-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
large-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 large-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 Sections 32310 and 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. (Penal Code Section
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. Once the magazine is assembled, law
enforcement is unable to take action on the mere possession of
SB 396
Page 6
the large capacity magazine.
3)Current Law on Large-Capacity Magazines : Current law
prohibits the manufacture, importation, keeping for sale,
offering or exposing for sale, giving or lending any
ammunition magazine with a capacity greater than 10 rounds.
(Penal Code Section 32310.) The criminal penalty for
violating these prohibitions is an alternate
misdemeanor/felony. Exemptions are given to law enforcement
agencies, permit holders, peace officers, and other specified
persons or entities from the purchase prohibitions on
large-capacity magazines. (Penal Code Sections 32315,
32400-32450.) This bill expands the large-capacity magazine
prohibitions to include the possession of large-capacity
magazines, regardless of when the magazine was acquired, and
imposes the same criminal penalties for possession of
high-capacity magazines as currently exist for their
importation, manufacture or sale in California.
4)Second Amendment : The Second Amendment to the federal
Constitution provides, "A well regulated militia being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, the United
States Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects
an individual's right to possess and carry weapons in case of
confrontation. The Court struck down a law banning possession
of handguns in the home.
Subsequently, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) 561 U.S.
3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020, the Court held that Second Amendment
rights are applicable to the states. The majority found the
individual right to bear arms, particularly for self-defense
was fundamental.
However, the Second Amendment does not afford an unlimited
right to own a weapon. "It is not a right to keep and carry
any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose. . . ." (Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 646.)
As the Court explained in Heller, the right "to keep and
carry arms" is limited to weapons "in common use." (Id. at p.
627.) Moreover, in Heller, the United States Supreme Court
did not strike down neutral licensing and registration as a
condition of possession and the Court also enumerated examples
of presumptively valid government regulation of firearms.
SB 396
Page 7
While it can be argued that a ban on large-capacity magazines
could infringe on a person's right to bear arms as protected
by the Second Amendment, this argument would likely be
unsuccessful because the ban, unlike the one challenged in
Heller, does not ban handgun possession outright. Rather, a
ban on large-capacity magazines regulates the type of firearm
that can be possessed, which under the Heller ruling, is
constitutionally permissible.
5)Fifth Amendment Takings Issues : Both the Federal Government
and the states have the authority to take private property
when necessary for government activities. But there is a
limitation on this power. The Fifth Amendment to the federal
constitution states "nor shall private property be taken for
public use without just compensation." For a legal analysis
under the takings clause one must consider the following: Is
there a taking of property; if so, is it for public use; if
so, is "just compensation" paid?
A possessory taking occurs when the government confiscates,
physically occupies property or deprives a property owner of
all beneficial use of the property. While the takings clause
is often discussed in the context of land and real estate, it
also applies to personal property.
In Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002), 312 F.3d 1052, the
plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the California
Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) which banned the possession
of assault weapons by individuals but contained a grandfather
clause allowing the retention of previously owned assault
weapons by the owners, provided that the owners register them
with the state. The court rejected the plaintiffs' claim that
the AWCA violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment
based on the reasoning that "a government may enact
regulations pursuant to its broad powers to promote the
general welfare that diminish the value of private property,
yet do not constitute a taking requiring compensation, so long
as a reasonable use of the regulated property exists. . . .
Here, plaintiffs who owned assault weapons prior to the
enactment of the AWCA are protected by a grandfather clause
that permits them to use the weapons in a number of reasonable
ways so long as they register them with the state." (Id. at
pg. 1092; citations omitted.) Unlike the AWCA, this bill
creates a ban on large-capacity magazines that does not
SB 396
Page 8
contain a grandfather clause for those who legally possessed
the large-capacity magazines prior to the ban. Under the
rationale used by Silveira, this bill would constitute a
taking because it is total ban that deprives the owner of any
reasonable use of the property.
The next question to consider is whether the taking is for
public use. The Supreme Court has expansively defined "public
use" so that almost any taking will meet this requirement.
The "government does not itself have to use property to
legitimate the taking; it is only the taking's purpose, and
not its mechanics, that must pass scrutiny under the Public
Use Clause." [Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) 467
U.S. 229, 244.] Thus, a taking is for public use so long as
the government is taking property to achieve a legitimate
government purpose and the taking is a reasonable way to
achieve this goal. The intent to stop the use of
large-capacity magazines in mass shootings in order to reduce
the potential number of victims would appear to be a
legitimate government purpose, and restrictions on possession
of those magazines may be a reasonable means of achieving this
goal.
If it is determined that a taking has occurred, and the taking
is for public use, one must consider the issue of just
compensation. This bill does not include a provision
requiring compensation for owners who must dispose of their
large-capacity magazines. Thus, some potential takings issues
presented by this bill may be alleviated by providing that
individuals must be compensated or by adding a grandfather
clause.
If the takings issue were to be litigated, the state may argue
that the prohibitions in this bill do not require just
compensation because it is a valid exercise of police powers.
One district court has found that a ban on dangerous weapons
is a valid exercise of police powers. In Fesjian v. Jefferson
(D.C. 1979) 399 A.2d 861, plaintiffs challenged a District of
Columbia statute that banned the registration of new handguns
and machine guns, with a grandfather clause for handguns
possessed prior to the ban. Any handguns or machine guns that
could not be registered would have to be surrendered to the
chief of police, lawfully removed from the District, or
lawfully disposed. (Id. at pg. 865.) With regard to the
takings clause issue, the court held that, assuming that the
SB 396
Page 9
statute authorized a taking, such a taking was an exercise of
legislative police power to prevent a perceived harm, rather
than an exercise eminent domain for public use. Accordingly,
the government did not have to provide just compensation.
(Id. at pg. 866.)
However, Fesjian is not binding on California. At least one
court in California has analyzed the issue of police powers
differently from Fesjian. In American Sav. & Loan Asso. v.
County of Marin (9th Cir. 1981) 653 F.2d 364, 368, the court
held "if the regulation is a valid exercise of the police
power, it is not a taking if a reasonable use of the property
remains." Unlike Fesjian, the American Sav. & Loan case did
not find that a valid exercise of police power preempts the
need for compensation. Instead, the court looked at whether a
reasonable use of the property remained to determine whether
the action was a taking requiring compensation. If the court
applies the reasonable use test, this bill would constitute a
taking requiring just compensation regardless of whether it is
an exercise of police powers because no reasonable use of the
large capacity magazine would remain. If the court applies
the reasoning used in Fesjian, and assuming the banning of
large-capacity magazines is a valid exercise of police powers,
compensation would not be required.
6)Arguments in Support :
a) According to the Friends Committee on Legislation of
California (FCLCA) , "The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly
held that the right to bear arms is not an absolute right
that cannot be regulated under the Second Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution. For example, citizens are prohibited
from owning machine guns and other military weapons, and
FCLCA supports the reasonable regulation of firearms.
"FCLCA is fully aware that regulating firearms in and of
itself does not take the place of other constructive
measures to reduce crime and social disorganization, but
the use of military-style large capacity magazines are
capable of devastating lethality. These devices in the
hands of civilians serves no legitimate purpose - to the
contrary, they are a means to violent ends. Prohibiting
their possession is an important step towards reducing gun
violence."
SB 396
Page 10
b) The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department states,
"High capacity ammunition magazines can hold upwards of 100
rounds of ammunition and allow a shooter to rapidly fire
without reloading. The ability to fire a large number of
bullets in a short period of time escalates the number of
victims and lethality in any shooting incident. As
demonstrated in 2011 when Jared Lee Loughner killed six
people and wounded 13 others, including U.S. representative
Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona, bystanders were able to
intervene when the gunman stopped to reload. Likewise,
eleven children were able to escape from one of the
classrooms at Sandy Hook Elementary last December when the
shooter stopped to reload.
"California has prohibited the importation, manufacture and
sale of large capacity ammunition magazines since the year
2000. This law is difficult to enforce since the date of
acquisition is nearly impossible to prove. Magazines
acquired before the ban, or illegally purchased in other
states since the ban, are usually indistinguishable. A ban
on the possession of high capacity magazines will help
address this issue."
7)Arguments in Opposition :
a) The National Rifle Association writes, "The provisions
of SB 396 would ban the simple possession of ammunition
feeding devices/magazines that are capable of holding more
than 10 cartridges. There are hundreds of thousands of
Californians that possess millions of these ammunition
feeding devices/magazines, the possession of which was
'grandfathered' in the various versions of this legislation
that sought to regulate so called 'assault weapons.'
"The requirements of Senate Bill 396 would require that
Californians surrender the ammunition feeding
devices/magazines or face criminal penalties and
confiscation of their property. Many Californians will not
be aware of the passage of the new law and be unaware that
the ammunition feeding devices/magazines that have been
owned for generations have now become contraband. "
b) The California State Sheriffs Association argues,
"California has some of the strictest gun laws in the
nation, yet incidents of gun violence continue to plague
SB 396
Page 11
our state. We must continue to take steps to keep guns out
of the hands of criminals and other prohibited persons.
Unfortunately, this measure would have little impact on the
ability of criminals or other prohibited persons from
obtaining large-capacity magazines. On January 1, 2000,
California banned the manufacturing, importation, sale,
giving, and lending of any large-capacity magazine, but
allowed the continued possession of existing magazines. We
are concerned that by expanding existing law this measure
would unintentionally turn many law abiding citizens into
criminals, subject to felony prosecution, for failing to
sell or destroy their lawfully obtained property. If
someone has lawfully possessed a large-capacity magazine
for over 13 years without incident, it is troubling that
the state would mandate its destruction now without
compensation. For handguns that are designed to use larger
magazines, it is equally troubling that this measure would
render such firearms inoperable. Finally, we are concerned
about the unfunded mandate this measure would create by
requiring law enforcement agencies to destroy any magazines
obtained."
8)Related Legislation :
a) AB 48 (Skinner) expands provisions limiting
large-capacity magazines by revising the definition of
"large-capacity magazine." AB 48 is pending hearing by the
Senate Appropriations Committee.
b) SB 47 (Yee) amends the definition of an "assault weapon"
to include those weapons that do not have a detachable
magazine and one of specified features, and requires
registration of weapons which now fall under the new
definition but which previously did not require
registration. SB 47 will be heard by this Committee today.
c) SB 374 (Steinberg) redefines an assault weapon by
creating a new test to determine if a semi-automatic pistol
or centerfire rifle is an assault weapon. SB 374 also
defines "fixed magazine" and "detachable magazine" in
statute. SB 374 will be heard by this Committee today.
d) SB 396 (Hancock) prohibits the possession of
large-capacity magazines. SB 396 will be heard by this
Committee today.
SB 396
Page 12
e) SB 567 (Jackson) redefines an assault shotgun to include
a shotgun with a rifled bore and a rotating ammunition
cylinder. SB 567 will be heard by this Committee today.
9)Prior Legislation :
a) SB 249 (Yee), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would
have prohibited any person from importing, making, selling,
loaning, transferring or possessing any conversion kit
designed to convert certain firearms with a fixed magazine
into firearms with a detachable magazine. SB 249 was held
on the Appropriations Committee's Suspense File.
b) SB 776 (Hancock), of the 2009-10 Legislative Session,
among other provisions, would have prohibited the
possession of large-capacity magazines commencing January
1, 2011, with specified exceptions, and would have required
registration for large-capacity magazines that are subject
to those exceptions. SB 776 was never heard by the Senate
Committee on Public Safety.
c) AB 2728 (Klehs), Chapter 793, Statutes of 2006, made the
possession of unregistered assault weapons and .50 BMG
rifles in violation of the Penal Code a nuisance, allowing
for their destruction.
d) SB 626 (Perata), Chapter 937, Statutes of 2001, exempts
the manufacture of a large-capacity magazine for certain
law enforcement agents, peace officers, government
agencies, the military, or for export, and specifies
additional magazines that are not included within the
definition of "large-capacity magazine."
e) SB 23 (Perata), Chapter 129, Statutes of 1999, made it
an alternate felony/misdemeanor, commencing January 1,
2000, for any person to manufacture or cause to be
manufactured, import into California, keep for sale, offer
or expose for sale, give away, or lend any large-capacity
magazine with specified exceptions.
f) SB 1483 (Perata), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session,
would have exempted tubular magazines contained in
lever-action firearms from the "large-capacity magazine"
restrictions, and exempts the manufacture of
SB 396
Page 13
"large-capacity magazines" for use by specific law
enforcement agencies, peace officers, and firearm
licensees. SB 1483 passed this Committee, but was later
amended and became a vehicle for an unrelated matter.
g) AB 357 (Roos), Chapter 19, Statutes of 1989, established
the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 which
prohibited the manufacture in California of any of the
semi-automatic weapons specified in the statute, or the
possession, sale, transfer, or importation into the state
of such weapons without a permit. AB 357 contained a
grandfather clause that permits the ownership of assault
weapons by individuals who lawfully purchased them before
its enactment, so long as the owners register the weapons
with the Department of Justice.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign (Co-Sponsor)
Courage Campaign (Co-Sponsor)
Alameda County District Attorney's Office
Alameda Police Department
American Academy of Pediatrics, California
American Association of University Women, Santa Barbara-Goleta
Valley Branch
American Association of University Women, Santa Maria Branch
Antelope Valley Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Anti-Defamation League
Antonio R. Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles Mayor
Auburn Area Democratic Club
Bend the Arc, Jewish Partnership for Justice
Burbank Police Department
California Chapter on the American College of Emergency
Physicians
California Church Impact
California Federation of Teachers
California Medical Association
California State PTA
Chief of Police, Chula Vista Police Department
City of San Leandro
City of Santa Monica
CLUE California
SB 396
Page 14
Coalition Against Gun Violence, Santa Barbara Coalition
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Contra Costa County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
CREDO Action
Diablo Valley Democratic Club
Doctors for America
El Cerrito Police Department
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Jean Quan, Oakland Mayor
Laguna Woods Democratic Club
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
League of Women Voters of California
Livermore Police Department
Long Beach Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Los Angeles Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Marin County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America
Moms Demand Action for Gun Violence in America, Orange County
Chapter
Myrna De Vera, Vice-Mayor, City of Hercules
Napa Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Neighbors United to Protect Our Communities
Nevada County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Nevada County Democratic Women's Club
Oakland/Alameda County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence
Orange County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Orange County Democrats
Pam O'Connor, Mayor , City of Santa Monica
PICO California
Piedmont Police Department
Pomona Valley Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Sacramento Valley Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
San Diego County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
San Fernando Valley Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
SB 396
Page 15
San Francisco Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
San Joaquin Valley Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
San Mateo County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Santa Barbara County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence
Santa Barbara County District Attorney's Office
Santa Barbara Police Department
Santa Barbara Rape Crisis Center
Santa Clara County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Santa Cruz Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Sisters of St. Joseph of Orange
Solano County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Sonoma County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
South Bay LA Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
South County Citizens Against Gun Violence
St. Stephens Church
Tri-Cities Democratic Forum
Tri-City Alameda County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence
Tri-City Interfaith Council
Ventura County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Violence Policy Center
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Violence Prevention Coalition of Orange County
Women Against Gun Violence
Women For: Orange County
Yolo County Chapter of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
Youth ALIVE!
52 private individual
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
CalGuns Foundation
California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees
California Chapters of Safari Club International
SB 396
Page 16
California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations
California Public Defenders Association
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.
California Sportsman's Lobby
California State Sheriffs' Association
Gun Owners of California
L.A. County Probation Officers Union
Lassen County Sheriff's Office
Long Beach Police Officers Association
National Rifle Association of America
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
Riverside County Sheriff's Office
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Safari Club International
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department
Shasta County Sheriff's Office
14 private individuals
Analysis Prepared by : Stella Choe / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744