BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1135
Page 1
(Without Reference to File)
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB
1135 (Levine and Ting)
As Amended May 11, 2016
Majority vote
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | | (May 22, |SENATE: | |(May 19, 2016) |
| | |2015) | |24-14 | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
Original Committee Reference: AGRI.
SUMMARY: Redefines what constitutes an assault weapon in order
to close the bullet button loophole. Also requires registration
of weapons (which were previously not prohibited) which now fall
under the new definition.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill,
and instead:
1)Amend the definition of assault weapon to refer to a firearm
that has one of several specified features and does not have a
"fixed magazine" rather than a firearm with one of those
features and the "capacity to accept a detachable magazine."
2)Define "fixed magazine" as "an ammunition feeding device
AB 1135
Page 2
contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a
manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly
of the firearm action."
3)Provide that, notwithstanding the new definition of assault
weapon contained in this bill, any person who possessed an
assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, is exempt from
punishment pursuant to Penal Code Section (PC) 30605, if all
of the following are applicable:
a) Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to
register that assault weapon pursuant to PC 30900(c);
b) The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon on
January 1, 2017; and
c) The person registers the assault weapon by January 1,
2018, a specified.
4)Provide that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December
31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that
does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in PC 30515,
including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that
can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a
tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, with
the department pursuant to those procedures that the
department may establish.
a) Registrations shall be submitted electronically via the
Internet utilizing a public-facing application made
available by the department.
b) The registration shall contain a description of the
firearm that identifies it uniquely, including all
identification marks, the date the firearm was acquired,
the name and address of the individual from whom, or
business from which, the firearm was acquired, as well as
the registrant's full name, address, telephone number, date
of birth, sex, height, weight, eye color, hair color, and
California driver's license number or California
identification card number.
AB 1135
Page 3
c) The department may charge a fee of up to $15 per person
but not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the
department. The fee shall be paid by debit or credit card
at the time that the electronic registration is submitted
to the department. The fee shall be deposited in the
Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account.
d) The department shall establish procedures for the
purpose of carrying out this subdivision. These procedures
shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill clarified that all cost,
and not just reasonable costs, to the Department of Food and
Agriculture (DFA) under the Citrus Pests and Disease Management
Program are reimbursable under that program; and made technical
amendments to the Certified Farmers' Market statute to 1)
include mushrooms and herbs in the list of produce that may not
be sold immediately adjacent, but outside the Certified Farmers'
Market, and 2) correct the certification requirements for
farmers, requiring information on products be submitted to the
county agricultural committee in the county where the production
land or facility is located.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations
Committee:
1)Registration process: Estimated costs of $1.7 million in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17, $1.5 million in FY 2017-18, and
$37,000 (Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS Fund*)/General Fund)
annually thereafter, to be fully offset by fees collected from
registrants once fully implemented. Staff notes the DROS Fund
is structurally imbalanced, and current revenues are
insufficient to cover the costs of this bill. As a result, a
General Fund appropriation may be required to enable
completion of the activities within the timelines prescribed.
2)State prisons: Potentially significant increase in annual
AB 1135
Page 4
state incarceration costs (General Fund) to the extent the
narrower definition of "assault weapon" results in additional
firearms violations. For every 10 new commitments to state
prison (five each for manufacturing and possession),
additional annual costs of $290,000, compounding to $1.2
million for overlapping sentences assuming the middle term of
the triads for violations of both manufacturing and
possession.
3)Firearms sales: Potential near-term loss of sales tax revenue
of $1.6 million (General Fund) per 10% of annual rifle sales
in California. Future year impact could be somewhat mitigated
to the extent consumers shift to purchases of alternative
firearms.
4)Local agencies: Potential future increase in local
enforcement and incarceration costs for unlawful possession or
sale/manufacture of assault weapons.
5)Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) enforcement: Unknown,
potential increase in Department of Justice (DOJ) enforcement
costs (Special Fund*) to the extent additional persons are
placed on the armed prohibited persons list resulting from the
provisions of this measure.
*Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS) Special Account - Staff notes
the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with an estimated
reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end FY 2016-17.
As a result, an appropriation from another fund source,
potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the
activities required by this bill.
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the Author, "Military
assault weapons have no place on our streets and gun violence
AB 1135
Page 5
must not be tolerated. This bill closes a loophole in law
that allows military-style assault rifles to be sold legally
in California. We raise our children in communities, not war
zones. The gun manufacturers' development of the bullet
button clearly exploits California law and allows dangerous
weapons on our streets."
2)Bullet Button: California law bans semiautomatic rifles with
the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition magazine and
which also have any one of six enumerated weapon
characteristics (e.g., folding stock, flash suppressor, pistol
grip, or other military-style features). The term 'detachable
magazine' is not defined in statute. In response, firearm
manufacturers have developed a new feature to make
military-style weapons compliant in California, the bullet
button.
The bullet button is a "device allows gun owners to pop out
their magazines quickly by inserting the tip of a bullet or
some other small tool into a button on the side of their
weapons. Since the magazine requires a tool to release it --
and cannot be released by hand -- it is not considered
'detachable' under California law."
(< http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/20/us/lessons-in-politics-and-
fine-print-in-assault-weapons-ban-of-90s.html?pagewanted=all&_r
=1& >.)
This bill amends the statute defining assault weapons by
defining a detachable magazine as "an ammunition feeding
device that can be removed readily from the firearm without
disassembly of the firearm action, including an ammunition
feeding device that can be removed readily with the use of a
tool." The purpose of this change is to clarify that
equipping a weapon with a bullet button magazine release does
not take that weapon outside of the definition of an assault
weapon.
3)Governor's Veto Message: In 2013, the Legislature passed SB
374 (Steinberg) which attempted to close the bullet button
loophole by redefining an assault weapon. SB 374 required a
AB 1135
Page 6
fixed magazine, but eliminated the six prohibited features
from the definition in current law. However, SB 374 was
vetoed by the Governor. In his veto message, the Governor
said, "The State of California already has some of the
strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on
military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition
magazines.
"While the author's intent is to strengthen these
restrictions, this bill goes much farther by banning any
semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. This ban
covers low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting,
firearms training, and marksmanship practice, as well as some
historical and collectible firearms. Moreover, hundreds of
thousands of current gun owners would have to register their
rifles as assault weapons and would be banned from selling or
transferring them in the future."
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 United States (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. 742, 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. As the Court explained in Heller, the
right "to keep and carry arms" is limited to weapons "in
common use." (Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 627.) At least
one court has held that Heller does not invalidate the statute
prohibiting the possession of assault rifles. (See People v.
James (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 662, 676.) 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.
AB 1135
Page 7
5)Registration Provisions: This bill would not prohibit the
possession of any firearm that is currently legally owned.
This bill would require that the owner of a firearm that is
currently not considered an assault weapon, but which would be
deemed such under the new definition, to register the firearm
with the DOJ before July 1, 2018. In this manner, this bill
would avoid taking issues because the owner of a weapon which
had been legally acquired does not have to relinquish it.
This bill was substantially amended in the Senate and the
Assembly-approved version of this bill was deleted. This bill,
as amended in the Senate, is inconsistent with the Assembly
actions and the provisions of this bill, as amended in the
Senate, have not been heard in an Assembly policy committee.
Analysis Prepared by:
Gabriel Caswell/ PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN:
0003037