BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2013-2014 Regular Session B
1
4
5
6
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
As Introduced: February 21, 2014
Hearing date: April 22, 2014
Penal Code
JRD:sl
FIREARMS: ASSAULT WEAPONS AND .50 BMG RIFLES:
EXEMPTIONS
HISTORY
Source: CALFIRE Local 2881
Prior Legislation: None
Support: Unknown
Opposition:California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence; Central Coast Forest Association; One
private citizen
KEY ISSUE
SHOULD OFFICERS EMPLOYED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION BE EXEMPTED FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE ASSAULT
WEAPONS CONTROL ACT?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to expand the list of peace
(More)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageB
officers who are authorized to possess certain assault weapons,
to include officers employed by the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, as specified.
Current law contains legislative findings and declarations that
the proliferation and use of assault and .50 BMG rifles poses a
threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of
California. (Penal Code § 30505.)
Current law states legislative intent to place restrictions on
the use of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles and to establish a
registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
possession. (Penal Code § 30505.)
Current law defines an "assault weapon," as specified. (Penal
Code §§ 30510 and 30515.)
Current law defines a ".50 BMG rifle and cartridge," as
specified. (Penal Code §§ 30525 and 30530.)
Current law makes the manufacture, distribution, transportation,
importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault weapon or a .50
BMG rifle a criminal offense. (Penal Code § 30600.)
Current law makes the possession of assault weapons a criminal
offense, subject to certain exceptions. (Penal Code § 30605.)
Current law exempts the Department of Justice (DOJ), police
departments, sheriffs' offices, marshals' offices, the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of
Highway Patrol, district attorneys' offices, the Department of
Fish and Game, the Department of Parks and Recreation, or the
military or naval forces of this state or of the United States,
from the prohibition against sales to, purchase by, importation
of, or possession of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (Penal
Code § 30625.)
Current law allows the peace officers employed by the agencies
listed in Penal Code section 30625 to possess or use assault
weapons for law enforcement purposes, whether on or off duty.
(More)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageC
(Penal Code § 30630(a).)
Current law allows the peace officers employed by the agencies
listed in Penal Code section 30625 to purchase assault weapons
with their own money provided that the peace officer has
verifiable written authorization from his or her employer to
possess or receive the specific assault weapon and also that the
officer registers it with the DOJ. (Penal Code § 30630(b).)
This bill would add the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection to the list of exempted agencies in Penal Code
section 30625.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
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 that 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.
In January of 2013, just over a year after the enactment of the
historic Public Safety Realignment Act of 2011, the State of
(More)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageD
California filed court documents seeking to vacate or modify the
federal court order requiring the state to reduce its prison
population to 137.5 percent of design capacity. The State
submitted 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 opposed the
state's motion, arguing 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." In an order dated January 29,
2013, the federal court granted the state a six-month extension
to achieve the 137.5 % inmate population cap by December 31,
2013.
The Three-Judge Court then ordered, on April 11, 2013, the state
of California to "immediately take all steps necessary to comply
with this Court's . . . Order . . . requiring defendants to
reduce overall prison population to 137.5% design capacity by
December 31, 2013." On September 16, 2013, the State asked the
Court to extend that deadline to December 31, 2016. In
response, the Court extended the deadline first to January 27,
2014 and then February 24, 2014, and ordered the parties to
enter into a meet-and-confer process to "explore how defendants
can comply with this Court's June 20, 2013 Order, including
means and dates by which such compliance can be expedited or
accomplished and how this Court can ensure a durable solution to
the prison crowding problem."
The parties were not able to reach an agreement during the
meet-and-confer process. As a result, the Court ordered
briefing on the State's requested extension and, on February 10,
2014, issued an order extending the deadline to reduce the
in-state adult institution population to 137.5% design capacity
to February 28, 2016. The order requires the state to meet the
following interim and final population reduction benchmarks:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
(More)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageE
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
If a benchmark is missed the Compliance Officer (a position
created by the February 10, 2016 order) can order the release of
inmates to bring the State into compliance with that benchmark.
In a status report to the Court dated February 18, 2014, the
state reported that as of February 12, 2014, California's 33
prisons were at 144.3 percent capacity, with 117,686 inmates.
8,768 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
The ongoing prison overcrowding litigation indicates that prison
capacity and related issues concerning conditions of confinement
remain unresolved. While real gains in reducing the prison
population have been made, even greater reductions may be
required to meet the orders of the federal court. Therefore,
the Committee's consideration of ROCA bills -bills that may
impact the prison population - will be informed by the following
questions:
Whether a measure erodes realignment and impacts the
prison population;
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:
(More)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageF
Currently, CAL FIRE officers are tasked with a wide
variety of responsibilities and duties, partly due to
the fact that they are sworn Peace Officers of the
State of California and may be requested to assist law
enforcement agencies outside of CDF. CDF officers
receive the same training as all state law enforcement
agencies through POST training (Peace Officer Standard
Training), and since 2008, POST determined CAL FIRE is
a general law enforcement agency.
SB 1456 would amend the Roberti-Roos Act of 1989 to
add CAL FIRE peace officers to the existing list of
peace officers that are authorized to possess certain
assault weapons in the course of their duties.
Currently, CAL FIRE officers are tasked with a series
of dangerous duties including illegal land conversion,
fire investigations, criminal and civil
investigations, internal affairs investigations,
assistance with fire, explosion, bomb, fireworks, and
search and rescue missions.
(More)
CAL FIRE officers face daily public encounters where
the potential use of force options, including deadly
force, exists. However, the current long rifle
available to CAL FIRE officers is a sports version
which is available to the public and lacks the high
power, combat quality necessary in various dangerous
situations.
SB 1456 would allow for CAL FIRE to equip their
officers with the equipment necessary for the safety
of their officers.
2. Effect of this Legislation
California's Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) provides for
peace officer exceptions for the general prohibitions on the
purchase and possession of assault weapons. Existing law allows
the sale to or purchase of assault weapons by specified state
and federal law enforcement agencies for the possession or use
by sworn peace officers for law enforcement purposes for use in
the discharge of their official duties. (Penal Code § 30625.)
Officers who work for the exempted agencies are also allowed to
possess or use assault weapons for law enforcement purposes,
whether on or off duty. (Penal Code § 30630(a).) This section
essentially permits an officer to receive and use a weapon that
is lawfully owned by a qualified law enforcement agency.
Finally, existing law allows specified sworn peace officers to
purchase assault weapons with their own money provided that the
peace officer has verifiable written authorization from his or
her employer to possess or receive the specific assault weapon.
These weapons must be registered with DOJ. (Penal Code §
30630(b)(1) and (2).) This section does not restrict peace
officers to use such weapons for law enforcement purposes
(More)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageH
only.<1>
The list of state and federal agencies was last updated in 1999,
when Senate Bill 23 (Chapter 129, Statutes of 1999) added the
Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Parks and
Recreation. There were a number of other statewide,
full-authority peace officers that sought an exemption, but were
not added, including Alcoholic Beverage Control investigators,
Consumer Affairs investigators, Department of Motor Vehicle
investigators, and Insurance Fraud investigators.
The Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of Senate Bill 23
stated, with regard to Department of Fish and Game and
Department of Parks and Recreation:
Fish and Game warden authority extends to anywhere in
California, and they make arrests of armed hunters for
Fish and Game Code violations. These hunters can be
armed with semi-automatic rifles and the arrests can
occur in remote regions. There are 230 sworn Fish and
Game wardens. Similarly, state park rangers are
charged with general law enforcement responsibilities
in the largest state park system in the nation, with
over 80 million visitors. Fish and Game wardens
make up the third largest California state law
enforcement agency, with 350 sworn officers, and are
currently authorized to carry tactical rifles in some
areas. Fish and Game wardens encounter clandestine
drug laboratories and marijuana planting in remote
areas. In some rural areas, there is only one CHP
officer, one sheriff's deputy, and one park ranger;
they depend heavily on each other for backup when a
dangerous situation arises.
(http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/99-00/bill/sen/sb_0001-0050/sb_23_cfa
---------------------------
<1> Prior to the 9th Circuit ruling in Silveira, peace officers
who are exempt from the AWCA were allowed to keep assault
weapons into retirement; the court struck down this provision as
unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. Silveira v.
Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1089-1090 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
SB 1456 (Nielsen)
PageI
_19990702_141822_ asm_comm.html)
Similarly, the Central Coast Forest Association, which
opposes SB 1456, argues that California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection does not need the exemption
proposed by this legislation:
We cannot think of any circumstance where the
execution of CAL FIRE's duties would require use of an
assault weapon or 50 caliber machine gun. If a
situation needs this level of firepower, then the
local police or the National Guard should be there
instead.
***************