BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1664 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Levine |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 31, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Firearms: Assault Weapons
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 47 (Yee) - died in Assembly
Appropriations, 2013
SB 249 (Yee) - died in Assembly Appropriations,
2012
AB 2728 (Klehs) - Ch. 793, Statutes of 2006
SB 238 (Perata) - Ch. 499, Statutes of 2003
SB 626 (Perata) - Ch. 937, Statutes of 2001
SB 23 (Perata) - Ch. 129, Statutes of 1999
Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act - Ch. 19, §
3, Stats. 1989
Support: All Saints Church; California Chapters of the Brady
Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; California Chapter
of the American College of Emergency Physicians; City
of Long Beach; City of Santa Monica; Cleveland School
Remembers; Coalition Against Gun Violence, a Santa
Barbara County Coalition; Laguna Woods Democratic
Club; Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Physicians
for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Area
Chapter
Opposition:California Sportsman's Lobby; California State
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
2 of ?
Sheriffs' Association; California Waterfowl;
California Rifle and Pistol Association; Crossroads of
the West Gun Shows; Firearms Policy Coalition; Gun
Owners of California; National Rifle Association of
America; National Shooting Sports Foundation; Outdoor
Sportsmen's Coalition of California; Safari Club
International
Assembly Floor Vote: 43 - 31
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) define "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 from the firearm with the use of a tool"; (2) provide
that any person who was eligible to register an assault weapon
and lawfully possessed such a weapon prior to January 1, 2017,
would be exempt from penalties, if the person registers the
weapon by July 1, 2018; (3) provide that this registration be
submitted online, as specified; (4) authorize DOJ to charge a
fee not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the
department for this registration; and (5) require DOJ to
establish procedures for the purpose of carrying out this
registration requirement and to specify that these procedures
shall be exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act.
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 "assault weapon" as one of certain specified
rifles and pistols (Penal Code § 30510) or as:
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity
to accept a detachable magazine and has at least one of the
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
3 of ?
following:
o A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon;
o A thumbhole stock;
o A vertical handgrip;
o A folding or telescoping stock;
o A grenade launcher or flare launcher;
o A flash suppressor; or,
o A forward handgrip.
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed
magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;
A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall
length of less than 30 inches;
A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and has at least one of the following:
o A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash
suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
o A second handgrip;
o A shroud that is attached to, or partially or
completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer
to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand,
excepting a slide that encloses the barrel; or
o The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some
location outside of the pistol grip.
A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has
the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds;
A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:
o A folding or telescoping stock; and
o A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath
the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical
handgrip.
A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a
detachable magazine; and
Any shotgun that has a revolving cylinder. (Penal Code
§ 30515.)
Current law defines a "detachable magazine" as any ammunition
feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
4 of ?
neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool
being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered
a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted or linked
ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or
stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine. (11 Cal.
Code of Regs. § 5469.)
Current law provides that unlawful possession of an assault
weapon is an alternate felony-misdemeanor and shall be punished
by imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding one
year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section
1170 (16 months, two or three years). Notwithstanding the
above, a first violation of these provisions is punishable by a
fine not exceeding $500 if the person was found in possession of
no more than two firearms and certain specified conditions are
met. (Penal Code § 30605.)
Current law provides that any person who within California
manufactures, imports into California, offers for sale, or who
gives or lends any assault weapon with specified exceptions is
guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in state prison
for four, six, or eight years. (Penal Code § 30600.)
Current law defines a ".50 BMG rifle and cartridge," as
specified. (Penal Code §§ 30525, 30530.)
Current law exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military
forces, and other specified agencies from the prohibition
against sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of
assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (Penal Code § 30625.)
Current law requires that any person who lawfully possesses an
assault weapon, as specified, must register the firearm with
DOJ, as specified. (Penal Code § 30900 et. seq.)
This bill states legislative intent to effectuate the
Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and to close
the bullet button loophole by redefining "detachable magazine."
This bill defines 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 from the
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
5 of ?
firearm with the use of a tool."
This bill provides that, notwithstanding the new definition of
assault weapon contained in this bill, the penalties for the
possession of an assault weapon under this provision shall not
apply to any person who initially possessed such a weapon before
January 1, 2017, and until July 1, 2018, if both of the
following are applicable:
During the person's possession, he or she was eligible
to register that assault weapon, as specified; and,
The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon before
January 1, 2017.
This bill provides 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 specified,
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 with the Department of Justice (DOJ)
before July 1, 2018, pursuant to DOJ-established procedures.
This bill requires registrations be submitted electronically via
the Internet utilizing a public-facing application made
available by the DOJ.
This bill mandates that the registration contain a description
of the firearm which 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; and 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.
This bill allows the DOJ to charge a registration fee, not to
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
6 of ?
exceed the reasonable processing costs, payable by debit or
credit card at the time of submission of the electronic
registration. The fee shall be deposited in the Dealers' Record
of Sale Special Account.
This bill requires the DOJ to establish registration procedures
and exempts these procedures from the Administrative Procedure
Act.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
7 of ?
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, and
subsequent enhancements in 1999 and 2004, banned assault
weapons in California.
These laws define prohibited assault weapons to include
firearms that have both the capacity to accept a detachable
magazine and one of a list of specific military-style
features.
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
8 of ?
The law, however, does not define the term "detachable
magazine."
Unfortunately, current regulations define "detachable
magazine" in a manner that runs counter to both the spirit
and the letter of the state's assault weapons law.
Under the regulations, if any "tool," including a bullet,
is required to release a firearm's magazine, then the
weapon does not fall within the scope of the ban.
As a way to circumvent the law, firearm manufacturers
developed a new feature to make military-style weapons
compliant in California, the bullet button.
The bullet button allows a shooter to use a bullet or other
tool to quickly detach and replace the gun's ammunition
magazine. Because the use of a bullet or other "tool" is
required to remove the magazine, the magazine is not
considered detachable making the firearm legal. However,
these guns are functionally operating in the same manner as
illegal assault weapons. This bill seeks to close that
loophole.
2.Bullet Button: San Bernardino Shooting
On December 2, 2015, 14 people were killed and 21 were seriously
injured in a mass shooting at the Inland Regional Center in San
Bernardino, California. The perpetrators of this mass shooting
used firearms that were legally purchased in California,
A carveout in a California gun law reportedly allowed for
the legal purchase of two assault-style rifles that were
used in the San Bernardino shooting Wednesday, which killed
14 people and injured 21 others, though the weapons were
later altered illegally.
Many guns in the style of the two AR-15 semiautomatic
rifles, a .223-caliber DPMS Model A15 and a Smith & Wesson
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
9 of ?
M&P15, are banned under a 1989 California gun law targeting
assault weapons. The law specifically targets assault
rifles with magazines that are detachable by hand, in order
to prevent users from reloading quickly and inflicting mass
damage.
But if the guns are equipped with a "bullet button," as the
Wall Street Journal reports the San Bernardino shooters'
were, they're perfectly legal to sell. Instead of removing
a magazine by hand, the shooter must press a recessed
button that is only accessible using the tip of a bullet or
another small tool. Technically, this does not classify as
a "detachable magazine," so the guns are allowed. In
practice, the method still allows users to swap out
magazines within seconds. Gunmakers began making bullet
buttons after California passed its harsher gun laws,
according to the Associated Press.
But in this case, the weapons were additionally altered in
a way that violated the California law, the Journal
reports, allowing one to use higher-capacity magazines than
permitted.
The two gunmen fired 65 to 75 rounds during the attack and
then another 76 rounds in a later shootout with police,
according to officials. They had more than 1,400 more
assault rifle rounds on their bodies and in their vehicle.
(This Gun Law May Have Let the San Bernardino Attackers
Shoot Faster, Victor Luckerson, Time Magazine, December 4,
2015,
http://time.com/4136757/san-bernardino-shooting-gun-law-bull
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
10 of ?
et-button/.)
3. Background - The Genesis and Evolution of the Assault
Weapons Ban in California
The origin of and subsequent modifications to the assault
weapons ban in California are described by the federal Court of
Appeal in the following extended excerpt from Silveira v.
Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amend. Jan. 27,
2003).
In response to a proliferation of shootings involving
semi-automatic weapons, the California Legislature
passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act
("the AWCA") in 1989. The immediate cause of the
AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that
year at the Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton,
California. An individual armed with an AK-47
semi-automatic weapon opened fire on the schoolyard,
where three hundred pupils were enjoying their morning
recess. Five children aged 6 to 9 were killed, and
one teacher and 29 children were wounded.
The California Assembly met soon thereafter in an
extraordinary session called for the purpose of
enacting a response to the Stockton shooting. The
legislation that followed, the AWCA, was the first
legislative restriction on assault weapons in the
nation, and was the model for a similar federal
statute enacted in 1994. The AWCA renders it a felony
offense to manufacture in California any of the
semi-automatic weapons specified in the statute, or to
possess, sell, transfer, or import into the state such
weapons without a permit. The statute contains a
grandfather clause that permits the ownership of
assault weapons by individuals who lawfully purchased
them before the statute's enactment, so long as the
owners register the weapons with the state Department
of Justice. The grandfather clause, however, imposes
significant restrictions on the use of weapons that
are registered pursuant to its provisions.
Approximately forty models of firearms are listed in
the statute as subject to its restrictions. The
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
11 of ?
specified weapons include "civilian" models of
military weapons that feature slightly less firepower
than the military-issue versions, such as the Uzi, an
Israeli-made military rifle; the AR-15, a
semi-automatic version of the United States military's
standard-issue machine gun, the M-16; and the AK-47, a
Russian-designed and Chinese-produced military rifle.
The AWCA also includes a mechanism for the Attorney
General to seek a judicial declaration in certain
California Superior Courts that weapons identical to
the listed firearms are also subject to the statutory
restrictions.
The AWCA includes a provision that codifies the
legislative findings and expresses the legislature's
reasons for passing the law:
The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a
threat to the health, safety, and security of all
citizens of this state. The Legislature has
restricted the assault weapons specified in [the
statute] based upon finding that each firearm has such
a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that
its function as a legitimate sports or recreational
firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that
it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is
the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter
to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons
and to establish a registration and permit procedure
for their lawful sale and possession. It is not,
however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter
to place restrictions on the use of those weapons
which are primarily designed and intended for hunting,
target practice, or other legitimate sports or
recreational activities.
In 1999, the legislature amended the AWCA in order to
broaden its coverage and to render it more flexible in
response to technological developments in the
manufacture of semiautomatic weapons. The amended
AWCA retains both the original list of models of
restricted weapons, and the judicial declaration
procedure by which models may be added to the list.
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
12 of ?
The 1999 amendments to the AWCA statute add a third
method of defining the class of restricted weapons:
The amendments provide that a weapon constitutes a
restricted assault weapon if it possesses certain
generic characteristics listed in the statute.
Examples of the types of weapons restricted by the
revised AWCA include a "semiautomatic, center-fire
rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to
accept more than 10 rounds," and a semiautomatic,
centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and also features a flash
suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a flare launcher.
The amended AWCA also restricts assault weapons
equipped with "barrel shrouds," which protect the
user's hands from the intense heat created by the
rapid firing of the weapon, as well as semiautomatic
weapons equipped with silencers. (Silveira v.
Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1057-1059 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002)
(footnotes omitted; citations omitted).)
4. Constitutional Questions
The constitutionality of California's assault weapons ban has
been upheld by both the California Supreme Court (Kasler v.
Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472 (2000)), and the federal Court of
Appeal. (Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as
amend. Jan. 27, 2003).) While the California Supreme Court
rejected allegations that the law violated equal protection
guarantees, the separation of powers, and failed to provide
adequate notice of what was prohibited under the law, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeal decision in Silveira was based largely
on its interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms. The Second Amendment to the Constitution states, "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." (United States Const. Amend. 2.) The
Silveira Court based its ruling on the widely-held
interpretation of the Second Amendment known as the "collective
rights" view, that the right secured by the Second Amendment
relates to firearm ownership only in the context of a "well
regulated militia." (Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1086
(9th Cir. Cal. 2002).)
The Silveira Court's interpretation of the meaning of the Second
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
13 of ?
Amendment has since been squarely rejected by the U.S. Supreme
Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). Whether
the Heller and McDonald cases mean that California's assault
weapons ban violates the Second Amendment, and is therefore
unconstitutional, is a different matter.
In Heller, the Supreme Court rejected the "collective rights"
view of the Second Amendment, and, instead endorsed the
"individual rights" interpretation, that the Second Amendment
protects the right of each citizen to firearm ownership. After
adopting this reading of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court
held that federal law may not prevent citizens from owning a
handgun in their home. (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570, 683-684.) In the McDonald case, the Supreme Court
extended this ruling to apply to laws passed by the 50 states.
(McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050.)
While the Supreme Court has held it is unconstitutional to
prohibit citizens from owning a handgun in the home for
self-defense, it has also stated that the right secured by the
Second Amendment does not prohibited laws banning certain types
of weapons for civilian use, specifically, "M-16 rifles and the
like." Whether the specific prohibitions contained in
California's existing assault weapons ban, or those proposed in
this bill, are consistent with the right guaranteed under the
Second Amendment was not specifically resolved by the decisions
in Heller and McDonald.
5.How This Bill Would Change the Existing Assault Weapons Ban
As the Court of Appeal explained, in 1999, the Assault Weapons
ban was amended to expand the definition of an assault weapon to
include a definition by the generic characteristics,
specifically, to include a "semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that
has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine" in addition to
one of several specified characteristics, such as a grenade
launcher or flash suppressor. (SB 23 (Perata) Stats. 1999, Ch.
129, § 7 et seq.) SB 23 was enacted in response to the
marketing of so-called "copycat" weapons, firearms that were
substantially similar to weapons on the prohibited list but
differed in some insignificant way, perhaps only the name of the
weapon, thereby defeating the intent of the ban. "SB 23 takes
weapons that are made, then modified, named and re-named off the
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
14 of ?
market. It fixes the loophole in current law that bans guns by
name, not by capability, by providing a generic definition of
the weapons." (Committee analysis of SB 23 (Perata), Assembly
Public Safety Committee.)
SB 23's generic definition of an assault weapon was intended to
close the loophole in the law created by its definition of
assault weapons as only those specified by make and model.
Regulations promulgated after the enactment of SB 23 define a
detachable magazine as "any ammunition feeding device that can
be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of
the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet
or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool." (11 CFR §
5469(a).) In response to this definition, a new feature has
been developed by firearms manufacturers to make semi-automatic
rifles "California compliant," the bullet button.
In 2012, researchers at the nonprofit Violence Policy Center in
Washington, D.C. released a paper describing the phenomenon of
the bullet button and its effect on California's assault weapons
ban:
The "Bullet Button"-Assault Weapon Manufacturers'
Gateway to the California Market
Catalogs and websites from America's leading assault
rifle manufacturers are full of newly designed
"California compliant" assault weapons. Number one
and two assault weapon manufacturers Bushmaster and
DPMS, joined by ArmaLite, Colt, Sig Sauer, Smith &
Wesson, and others are all introducing new rifles
designed to circumvent California's assault weapons
ban and are actively targeting the state in an effort
to lift now-sagging sales of this class of weapon.
They are accomplishing this with the addition of a
minor design change to their military-style weapons
made possible by a definitional loophole: the "bullet
button." [Please see the Appendix beginning on page
six for 2012 catalog copy featuring "California
compliant" assault rifles utilizing a "bullet button"
from leading assault weapon manufacturers.]
California law bans semiautomatic rifles with the
capacity to accept a detachable ammunition magazine
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
15 of ?
and any one of six enumerated additional assault
weapon characteristics (e.g., folding stock, flash
suppressor, pistol grip, or other military-style
features).
High-capacity detachable ammunition magazines allow
shooters to expel large amounts of ammunition quickly
and have no sporting purpose.1 However, in
California an ammunition magazine is not viewed as
detachable if a "tool" is required to remove it from
the weapon. The "bullet button" is a release button
for the ammunition magazine that can be activated with
the tip of a bullet. With the tip of the bullet
replacing the use of a finger in activating the
release, the button can be pushed and the detachable
ammunition magazine removed and replaced in seconds.
Compared to the release process for a standard
detachable ammunition magazine it is a distinction
without a difference.
1 Department of the Treasury Study on the Sporting
Suitability of Modified Semiautomatic Assault Rifles,
April 1998. (Bullet Buttons, The Gun Industry's
Attack on California's Assault Weapons Ban, Violence
Policy Center, Washington D.C., May 2012. )
This bill would amend the definition of "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 from
the firearm 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 the
definition of an assault weapon.
This bill would also require any person who, from January 1,
2001, to December 31, 2016, lawfully possessed an assault weapon
that has a detachable magazine to register the firearm before
July 1, 2018, with the department pursuant to those procedures
that the department may establish. Because the bill would
clarify that these are assault weapons, this provision is
consistent with the existing law that requires assault weapons,
lawfully possessed, to be registered with DOJ.
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
16 of ?
6. 2016 Bullet Button Bills
The Senate Public Safety Committee has already heard and passed
two bullet button bills, SB 880 (Hall) and AB 1135 (Levine).
While the intent of this legislation is "to close the bullet
button loophole," it takes a slightly different approach than SB
880 and AB 1135. SB 880 and AB 1135 amend the definition of
assault weapon to a firearm that has one of several specified
features and does not have a "fixed magazine," rather than a
firearm that has one of those features and "has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine." This legislation, instead, adds
a definition of "detachable magazine" to the Penal Code. This
approach would likely put the Penal Code definition in conflict
with the regulatory definition of "detachable magazine" - thus
requiring that DOJ modify or delete its definition. The other
primary difference between the bills is that SB 880 and AB 1135
place a cap of fifteen-dollars on the amount that DOJ can charge
for registration. This legislation does not have a cap and,
instead, allows DOJ to charge a fee "no more than the reasonable
processing costs of the department."
7. Argument in Support
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence:
California's existing assault weapons statute prohibits
semi-automatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols
that have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
are equipped with any of the following features: a pistol
grip, a thumbhole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a
grenade or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or a forward
pistol grip. These features are not found on sporting
guns and were designed specifically to facilitate the
killing of human beings in battle.
The California Brady Campaign Chapters support prohibiting
military-style semi-automatic assault weapons. The rapid
and controlled spray of bullets associated with assault
weapons is a threat to police officers, families, and
communities. As was shown by the tragedy at Sandy Hook
School and more recently in San Bernardino, an assault
weapon escalates the lethality and number of victims in a
mass shooting incident.
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
17 of ?
Unfortunately, firearm manufactures have found ways to
enable the dangerous quick reloading that the California's
assault weapons law sought to ban. For example, the
"bullet button" is a feature that enables the firearm owner
to use a bullet or other pointed object to quickly detach
and replace the weapon's ammunition magazine. Because the
use of a bullet or other "tool" is required to remove the
magazine, the sale of bullet button-equipped guns has been
allowed, even though the California assault weapons law
prohibits weapons that have "the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine." In fact, in the first eleven months
after the retention of records for long guns became
operational (January 1, 2014 to December 2, 2014), there
were 50,574 sales or transfers of military-style weapons
with a bullet-button or other similar feature that allows
for the rapid exchange of the magazine.
The California Brady Campaign Chapters support clarifying
and strengthening California's assault weapons law as
proposed by AB 1664. The bill redefines 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 from the firearm with the use of a
tool. A weapon that has a detachable magazine, as
defined, and any one of the military-style features would
be unlawful.
AB 1664 would require any person who lawfully possessed
from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2016 an assault weapon
as defined in the bill to register the weapon before July
1, 2018 with the California Department of Justice. This
record would enable law enforcement to disarm the person
through the Armed Prohibited Persons System program if the
person were to become prohibited from possessing firearms
and assist law enforcement in the tracing of crime guns.
8. Argument in Opposition
According to the California Sheriffs Association:
On behalf of the California State Sheriffs' Association
(CSSA), I regret to inform you that we are opposed to
AB 1664 (Levine ) Page
18 of ?
Assembly Bill 1664, which would expand the California
definition of "assault weapon" by defining the term
"detachable magazine" as an ammunition feeding device that
can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly
of the firearm action or with the use of a tool.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the
nation, yet gun violence continues to plague our state. We
must continue to take steps to keep guns out of the hands
of criminals and other prohibited persons. That said, this
measure would make little progress toward that goal.
Instead, this measure would ban the sale of many commonly
owned and sold rifles that do not fall under the current
regulatory scheme. In doing so, AB 1664 would likely
result in the allocation of law enforcement resources to
regulating the gun-owning practices of otherwise
law-abiding persons at the expense of efforts to keep
firearms out of the hands of criminals and other persons
that should not be armed.
Sheriffs are generally supportive of efforts to create
appropriate penalties for persons who steal firearms and
for criminals who are found to possess firearms. We have
supported bills that create mechanisms to keep firearms
away from certain persons, including in the form of gun
violence restraining orders. Ultimately, we do not believe
AB 1664 will be successful in keeping firearms away from
dangerous persons.
-- END -