BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 755
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 30, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mike Gatto, Chair
SB 755 (Wolk) - As Amended: August 21, 2013
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:4-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill:
1)Adds numerous offenses to the list of offenses that result in
a 10-year prohibition on gun possession, and provides that
violation of two or more specified misdemeanors related to
substance abuse within a three-year period results in a
10-year prohibition on gun possession.
(Possession of a gun by a prohibited person is punishable by
up to one year in county jail, or 16 months, two, or three
years in state prison, and/or a fine of up to $1,000. This
offense is not eligible for county jail incarceration pursuant
to correctional realignment.)
2)Provides that a person ordered into outpatient treatment due
to mental illness, as specified, is prohibited from gun
possession while subject to outpatient treatment.
3)Requires the court to notify persons subject to gun possession
prohibition on forms prescribed by DOJ.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)One-time special fund (Dealer Record of Sales (DROS)) costs in
the range of $300,000 over two years to the Department of
Justice (DOJ) for upgrades to the Mental Health Reporting
System, the Mental Health Firearms Prohibition System, the
Consolidated Firearms Information System, and the Armed
Prohibited Persons System (APPS).
SB 755
Page 2
2)Unknown, potentially significant GF and/or special fund
enforcement costs to DOJ, likely in the hundreds of thousands
of dollars, as a result of a potentially significant increase
in persons on APPS. (In May DOJ received a $24 million
appropriation (SB 140, Leno) for a three-year effort to reduce
the number of guns held by about 20,000 persons on APPS.)
3)Unknown annual GF costs, potentially in the hundreds of
thousands of dollars, for additional state prison commitments.
This bill adds numerous predicate offenses for the gun
prohibition. For every 10 new commitments who serve one year
in state prison, the annual costs will be about $250,000.
In June 20, 2013, a U.S District Court three-judge panel
ordered California to reduce its prison population by about
9,000 inmates. The judges took the extreme step of waiving all
state and local laws and regulations that might interfere with
the order to allow the administration to begin to release
inmates.
4)Unknown annual nonreimbursable local correctional costs,
potentially in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, for
additional state prison commitments. For every 10 new
misdemeanor commitments who violate the gun possession
prohibition and serve one year in state prison, the annual
costs will be about $25,000.
5)Unknown potentially moderate state trial court costs, likely
in the range of $100,000, to notify DOJ of persons subject to
the gun prohibition.
SUMMARY, CONTINUED
Specifically this bill:
1)Adds a series of offenses to those that trigger a 10-year
prohibition on gun possession:
a) Obstructing or resisting an executive office by force or
threat of force.
b) Removing a weapon from the presence of a peace officer
while resisting arrest.
c) Active participation in a criminal street gang.
d) Hazing
e) Gun sale without a license.
SB 755
Page 3
f) Ammunition sale to an underage person.
g) Possession of ammunition by a person prohibited from
possessing a gun.
h) Sale or supplying ammunition to a person prohibited from
possessing a gun.
i) Bringing ammunition on school grounds.
j) Carrying a concealed gun when the person has been
convicted of a drug offense or crime against a person or
property.
aa) Carrying a concealed gun when the gun was loaded and not
registered to the possessee.
bb) Carrying a loaded gun in public when the person has been
convicted of a drug offense or a crime against a person or
property.
2)Provides that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation
of two or more of the following offenses within a three-year
period, and who, within 10 years of the second conviction,
possesses a gun, as specified, is guilty of an infraction:
a) Possession for sale or distribution of synthetic
cannabinoids.
b) Possession for sale or sale of specified controlled
substances.
c) Being under the influence of any controlled substance.
d) Vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated.
e) Public intoxication.
f) Driving a vehicle under the influence.
g) Driving a vehicle under the influence and causing
injury.
3)Provides that any person prohibited from possessing a gun as a
result of the offenses referenced in 2), above, who is
subsequently convicted of a misdemeanor violation of one of
these offenses during the prohibited period, and who, within
10 years of that subsequent offense possesses a gun, is guilty
of an offense punishable by up to one year in county jail
and/or a fine of up to $1,000, or 16 months, two, or three
years in state prison.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, "SB 755 adds a consequence
for those who are convicted of dangerous and irresponsible
behavior: give up your gun for 10 years. The easiest away to
SB 755
Page 4
avoid that consequence is not to break the law. It's that
simple."
2)Support includes a list of various gun safety groups and other
entities, such as L.A. District Attorney's Office, who contend
this bill will deter gun violence.
According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, "Senate Bill 755 also adds to the class
of prohibited persons those who have been convicted of two or
more drug or alcohol related offenses within a three year
period. Both State and federal law prohibit persons who are
addicted to narcotics from possessing firearms but this law is
not particularly effective because there is no data base of
addicted persons. The law is completely silent with regard to
alcohol abuse and firearm possession.
"The journal Injury Prevention reports that, 'there is a large
body of scientific evidence that people who abuse alcohol or
illicit drugs are at increased risk of committing acts of
violence or self harm.' If drug and alcohol abusers are at
higher risk of committing violence, then it stands to reason
that these individuals should also be prohibited from
possessing firearms. A follow up study by Dr. Garen Wintemute
found that firearm owners were more likely than non firearm
owners to have more than five drinks on one occasion, to drink
and drive and to have more than 60 drinks in one month.
Further, he found that heavy alcohol use was most common among
firearm owners who engaged in behaviors such as carrying a
firearm for protection against other people and keeping a
firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away. We
believe that adding drug and alcohol related offenses as a
prohibited category for firearm possession would add
significantly to public safety."
3)Opposition includes CA Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the CA
Public Defenders Association, and gun-related groups, such as
the National Rifle Association and the CA Pistol and Rifle
Association, who challenge the nexus of these offenses to gun
violence.
According to the California Public Defenders Association
(CDPA), "If the purpose of the bill is to limit persons, who
because of their conviction of these crimes, makes it more
dangerous for them to possess a firearm, hence, a firearm
SB 755
Page 5
control bill, this bill misses the mark because it adds
offenses to the firearms ban which have no nexus to either
firearm use or dangerousness.
"For example, the bill would add to the list of offenses that
trigger the 10-year ban on firearm possession, a number of
Vehicle Code violations, such as two convictions for driving
under the influence (VC 23152 or VC 23153), or simply being
drunk in public (PC 647(f)). None of these offenses have any
nexus to firearms, or their use. None of these offenses are of
the type that would make possession of a firearm more
dangerous to the public.
"On the other hand, the purpose of this bill may be to simply
increase penalties for conviction of the added offenses.
Unfortunately, the increased penalty of a 10-year firearm
possession ban has no real deterrent effect to people
committing these offenses. If that were the purpose, why not
take away the right to vote for people convicted of the added
offenses? Why the right to possess a firearm? Again, there is
no nexus between the proposed additional penalty and the
offense itself.
4)Current law prohibits persons who have been convicted of
specific crimes from owning or possessing guns. Any person
convicted of a felony, or specified crimes involving the use
of a gun, or anyone addicted to a narcotic drug, is prohibited
for life from possessing a gun under federal and state law.
State law also imposes a 10-year gun prohibition on persons
convicted of numerous misdemeanor offenses that involve
violence. Additionally, any person found to be a danger to
self or others due to mental illness is subject to a five-year
prohibition, and persons under domestic violence restraining
orders are subject to a prohibition for the duration of the
court order.
Current law requires DOJ to maintain an online database known
as the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) to
cross-reference gun owners and those who subsequently fall
within a prohibited class.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 755
Page 6