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