BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
AB 1664 (Levine) - Firearms: assault weapons
-----------------------------------------------------------------
| |
| |
| |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Version: June 14, 2016 |Policy Vote: PUB. S. 5 - 2 |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Urgency: No |Mandate: Yes |
| | |
|--------------------------------+--------------------------------|
| | |
|Hearing Date: June 20, 2016 |Consultant: Jolie Onodera |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.
Bill
Summary: AB 1664 would update California's regulation of
"assault weapons," as follows:
Amends the definition of assault weapon to refer to a
firearm that has one of several specified military-style
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".
Defines "fixed magazine" as "an ammunition feeding device
contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such
a manner that the device cannot be removed without
disassembly of the firearm action.
Requires that any person who from January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2016, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that
does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the
firearm via online submission before January 1, 2018, with
the Department of Justice (DOJ), as specified.
Authorizes DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person not
to exceed the reasonable processing costs for this
registration.
AB 1664 (Levine) Page 1 of
?
Fiscal
Impact:
Registration process : Estimated costs to the DOJ of $1.8
million in FY 2016-17, $1.5 million in FY 2017-18, and
$40,000 (DROS Account*/General Fund) annually thereafter, to
be offset in whole or in part by fees collected from
registrants once fully implemented. Staff notes the DROS
Account 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
and to support the ongoing costs of this measure.
State prisons : Potentially significant increase in annual
state incarceration costs (General Fund) to the extent the
revised 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.
Local agencies : Potential future increase in local
enforcement and incarceration costs for unlawful possession
or sale/manufacture of assault weapons.
Firearms sales : Potentially significant near-term loss of
sales tax revenue (General Fund) to the extent the revised
definition of "assault weapon" results in a reduction in
sales of firearms newly prohibited under the bill's
provisions. Future year impacts could be somewhat mitigated
to the extent consumers shift to purchases of alternative
firearms.
APPS enforcement : Unknown, potential increase in 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) 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. Current
revenues to the DROS Account are insufficient to cover the costs
of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative
measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be
enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund
source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support
AB 1664 (Levine) Page 2 of
?
the costs of this measure.
Background: The enactment of the assault weapons ban in California is
described by the federal Court of Appeal from Silveira v.
Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), in part, as follows:
"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 codified legislative findings and declarations of the AWCA
state, in part, "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 Section 30510 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."
The AWCA was amended by SB 23 (Perata) Chapter 129/1999 to
expand the definition of an assault weapon to include a
definition based on its generic characteristics in addition to
one of several specified features. 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
slightly different, perhaps only by the name of the weapon,
thereby circumventing the ban. The more general definition of an
assault weapon enacted under SB 23 was intended to remove the
allowance of such copycat weapons that the law previously
authorized by its definition of an assault weapon as only those
listed by specified make and model.
AB 1664 (Levine) Page 3 of
?
This bill seeks to address the issue regarding the definition of
an assault weapon as it pertains to what constitutes a
"detachable magazine." 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, features such as the "bullet button" have been
developed by firearms manufacturers that enable easy detachment
of a magazine with the use of a "tool" and are thus not
classified as a "detachable magazine." As a result, firearms
with features such as the "bullet button" do not fall within the
current definition of an assault weapon.
Proposed Law:
This bill would redefine "assault weapon" to refer to a firearm
that has one of several specified military-style 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 bill:
Defines "fixed magazine" as "an ammunition feeding device
contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such
a manner that the device cannot be removed without
disassembly of the firearm action.
Requires that any person who from January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2016, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that
does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the
firearm via online submission utilizing a public-facing
application before January 1, 2018, with the DOJ.
Provides that notwithstanding the new definition of
"assault weapon," any person who possessed an assault weapon
prior to January 1, 2017, is exempt from punishment pursuant
to PC 30605, if all of the following are applicable:
o Prior to January 1, 2017, the person was eligible to
register that assault weapon pursuant to PC 30900(c).
o The person lawfully possessed that assault weapon on
January 1, 2017.
o The person registers the assault weapon by January
1, 2018, as specified above.
Authorizes DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person not
AB 1664 (Levine) Page 4 of
?
to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the DOJ. Fees
are to be deposited in the DROS Account. Requires the fee to
be paid by debit or credit card at the time the electronic
registration is submitted to the DOJ.
Requires the DOJ to adopt regulations to implement the
registration requirements.
Related Legislation: AB 1135 (Levine) 2016 is identical to this
measure. AB 1135 is pending on the Assembly Floor.
SB 880 (Hall) 2016 is nearly identical to this measure. SB 880
is pending hearing in the Assembly Committee on Appropriations.
Prior
Legislation: SB 47 (Yee) 2013 was substantially similar to this
measure. SB 47 was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly
Committee on Appropriations.
SB 249 (Yee) 2012 was substantially similar to this measure. SB
249 was held on the Suspense File of the Assembly Committee on
Appropriations.
Staff
Comments: The DOJ has indicated costs of $1.8 million in FY 2016-17,
$1.5 million in FY 2017-18, and $40,000 (DROS Fund) annually
thereafter to redesign the existing Assault Weapon Registration
(AWR) system with a new web user interface to enable online
registration of the specified firearms, to be fully offset by
fees. The existing AWR application is over 15 years old, and due
to its inflexibility and lack of technical support, DOJ has
indicated it cannot be modified for the new business
requirements. The new application would be public facing for
applicants to complete the personal and firearm information
along with the required fee payable upon registration. The
software development project is estimated to take 12 months to
complete. Given the projected year-long process to develop the
system, it is unclear whether the requirement for all persons to
register their firearms via online submission before January 1,
2018, could be accomplished.
Staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with a
projected reserve balance of less than $1 million at year end FY
2016-17. In order for the DOJ to fully fund the associated costs
AB 1664 (Levine) Page 5 of
?
of the mandates of this bill, an appropriation of funds,
potentially from the General Fund, would be required, as the
estimated costs cannot be absorbed in FY 2016-17. With either
the aforementioned appropriation or delayed implementation of
the bill, the DOJ would have time to submit a Budget Change
Proposal to request additional resources via the FY 2017-18
budget process. Finally, a new revenue source would need to be
identified, as current revenues in the DROS Account are
insufficient, and it is unknown at this time whether revenue
from registration fees will be sufficient to cover the ongoing
costs of this measure.
Under existing law, unlawful possession of an assault weapon is
an alternate felony-misdemeanor punishable as a felony by
imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months, two or three years
(or in state prison with a current or prior serious or violent
felony), or as a misdemeanor by imprisonment in a county jail
for up to one year. Under specified circumstances, a first
violation for unlawful possession of an assault weapon could
result in a fine. Current law also provides that any person who
within the state imports, manufactures, offers for sale, or who
gives or lends any assault weapon, is guilty of a felony
punishable by imprisonment in state prison or county jail for
four, six, or eight years. By narrowing the scope of firearms
that are legal in the state, this bill expands the scope of the
aforementioned crimes.
Arrest information from the DOJ indicates an increasing number
of violations of possession of an assault weapon since 2010,
with 825 arrests in 2012. Arrest data for felony violations for
the import, sale, manufacture, or loan of an assault weapon
reflect a decreasing trend, with 124 arrests in 2012. According
to the CDCR, 58 individuals in 2011 and 22 individuals in 2012
were committed to state prison specific to these crimes.
It is unknown how many persons will be convicted under the
expanded scope of these crimes, though it is assumed the
convictions could likely be highest in the near-term. For every
10 individuals (assuming convictions for both manufacturing/sale
and possession), increased state incarceration costs are
estimated at $290,000 (General Fund) per year, compounding to
$1.2 million due to overlapping sentences (assuming the middle
terms of the 4, 6, 8 year triad for manufacturing and 16 month,
2, 3 year triad for possession with a prior), based on the range
AB 1664 (Levine) Page 6 of
?
of potential costs to accommodate extended state prison
sentences. To the extent the number of individuals impacted is
greater/less or the average sentence imposed is longer/shorter
than estimated, annual costs would be impacted accordingly.
To the extent the provisions of this bill have the effect of
reducing the number of semi-automatic rifles currently sold,
there would be an impact to both local and state sales tax
revenues. It is estimated that Californians spend over $400
million annually on rifle purchases. The impact to sales tax
revenue cannot be estimated with certainty and would be
dependent on numerous factors including the purchasing decisions
of consumers. It is estimated that any revenue impact would
likely occur in the near term, with the impact in future years
projected to be somewhat mitigated to the extent consumers shift
to purchases of alternative and/or newly developed firearms.
To the extent the provisions of this bill serve to reduce the
incidence of firearms-related injuries and death, potential
future cost savings could be substantial. A study by the
non-profit Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (PIRE)
reported over 105,000 incidences of firearm injury and death in
2010 nationally, with an estimated societal cost of over $174
billion in work lost, medical care, insurance, criminal justice
expenses, and pain and suffering. At a unit level, the study
reported a governmental cost of $187,000 to $582,000 per firearm
fatality in medical and mental health care, emergency services,
and administrative and criminal justice costs. The estimated
societal cost per firearm injury or fatality, including lost
work productivity and quality of life was reported at nearly
$430,000 to $5 million, respectively.
Proposed Author Amendments: Technical amendments specify
contingent enactment with SB 880 (Hall).
-- END --