BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1674 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Santiago |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |May 31, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Firearms: Transfers
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:AB 202 (Knox) - Chap. 128, Stats. of 1999
AB 532 (Knox) - Failed passage on Assembly Floor,
1997-98
Support: California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence; City of Long Beach; Coalition Against
Gun Violence, A Santa Barbara County Coalition; Women
Against Gun Violence; Rabbis Against Gun Violence;
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles;
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social
Responsibility; California Academy of Family
Physicians; Courage Campaign; Friends Committee on
Legislation of California; One individual
Opposition: California Rifle and Pistol Association;
California Waterfowl Association; Deputies of the Mono
County Deputy Sheriff's Association; Firearms Policy
Coalition; Glenn County Rangeland Association; Gun
Owners of California; National Rifle Association of
America; National Shooting Sports Foundation
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
2 of ?
Assembly Floor Vote: 44 - 33
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to: (1) prohibit any person from
making an application to purchase more than one firearm within
any 30-day period, as specified; and, (2) delete from the
existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one
handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party
transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.
Existing law prohibits any person from making an application to
purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Penal
Code § 27535(a).)
Existing law exempts from the above 30-day prohibition any of
the following:
Any law enforcement agency;
Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement
duties;
Any state or local correctional facility;
Any private security company licensed to do business in
California;
Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is
authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
3 of ?
employment;
Any motion picture, television, video production company
or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by
its nature involves a firearm;
Any authorized representative of a law enforcement
agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or
manufacturer;
Any private party transaction conducted through a
licensed firearms dealer;
Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current
certificate of eligibility issued by the DOJ;
The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a
licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
A community college that is certified by the Commission
on POST to present law enforcement academy basic course or
other commission- certified training. (Penal Code §
27535(b).)
Existing law prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a
licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the
preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another
application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not
exempted, as specified. (Penal Code § 27540(f).)
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
4 of ?
Existing law provides that the penalties for making more than
one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period
is as follows:
A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine
of fifty dollars ($50);
A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine
of one hundred ($100); and,
A third violation is a misdemeanor. (Penal Code §
27590(e)(1)-(3).)
This bill prohibits any person from making an application to
purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period.
This bill deletes from the existing prohibition related to the
purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an
exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed
firearms dealer, as specified.
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
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
5 of ?
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.
(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
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
6 of ?
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 Legislation
According to the author:
Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of
gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any
data collection and analysis to the contrary, this
perception has held for several decades, and has resulted
in current law in California which limits new handgun
purchases to one per month per person.
Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere
have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact,
examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings
that have occurred in the United States throughout the last
30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used
in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and
semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings
in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were
used along with 16 handguns.
It should be noted that in mass shooting cases, analysis
shows that nearly 80% of shooters (including those in San
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
7 of ?
Bernardino) obtained their guns legally.
Long guns are a significant piece of California's gun
trafficking problem, as well. Over the past ten years,
Californians have typically purchased more long guns than
handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682
crime guns entered into the California Department of
Justice's (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database
in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found
that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited
persons are long guns.
A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National
Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used
in crime were purchased as part of a multi-gun sale and
that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to
be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased
individually.
Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital
importance to me. In April 2014, one person purchased 144
long guns in California in one single transaction. It is
mind boggling that a person (no matter their intentions)
could purchase as many rifles or shotguns they want at any
given time. It is past time for us to treat long guns the
same as handguns - they hold equal powers of destruction
and create major problems for law enforcement, and society
in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.
AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month.
This includes both purchases of used guns and new long
guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns
are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they
should be treated no differently. In fact, California
already maintains parity between these types of guns in
both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the
remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations.
2. History of One-Handgun-a-Month Law
According to the Senate Public Safety Analysis of Assembly Bill
202 (Knox, of 1999), which created the one-handgun-a-month law
in California:
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
8 of ?
The State of Virginia enacted a "one-handgun-a-month"
law in 1993 (before the Federal Brady Bill, which
required at least a five day waiting period plus a
background check for states without such
requirements). That state had weak restrictions on
handgun sales and it has been stated that gun
traffickers from New York City routinely traveled to
Virginia to purchase quantities of weapons to take
back for illegal sale in other states. Purchases of
more than one handgun per 30-day period in Virginia is
allowed upon completion of an "enhanced" background
check when the purchase is for lawful business or
personal use, for purposes of collectors, bulk sales
and purchases from estates, to replace a lost or
stolen weapon, and similar situations.
Supporters of limits on purchases of handguns assume
that the Virginia limits and the limits in this bill
would only affect a very small proportion of
legitimate handgun purchasers. A family of two adults
could still purchase 24 handguns a year under the
provisions of both this bill and the Virginia law.
Virginia repealed this law in 2012. But, according to the Law
Center to Prevent Gun Violence,
Virginia's one-gun-a-month law - which was in effect from
1993 to 2012 and prohibited the purchase of more than one
handgun per person in any 30-day period - significantly
reduced the number of crime guns traced to Virginia
dealers. Virginia initially adopted its law after the
state became recognized as a primary source of crime guns
recovered in states in the northeastern U.S. After the
law's adoption, the odds of tracing a gun originally
acquired in the Southeast to a Virginia gun dealer (as
opposed to a dealer in a different southeastern state)
dropped by:
71% for guns recovered in New York;
72% for guns recovered in Massachusetts; and
66% for guns recovered in New Jersey, New
York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts
combined.
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
9 of ?
(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearm
s-policy-summary/ [footnotes omitted].)
Other states that have limits on the number of firearms that can
be sold in one month include:
California: California law prohibits any person from
purchasing more than one handgun within any 30-day
period. In addition, a licensed firearms dealer may not
deliver a handgun to any person following notification
from the California Department of Justice that the
purchaser has applied to acquire a handgun within the
preceding 30-day period. Finally, firearms dealers must
conspicuously post in their licensed premises a warning,
in block letters at least one inch in height, notifying
purchasers of these restrictions.
District of Columbia: A person may not register
more than one handgun in the District during any 30-day
period. Since every handgun must be registered, this
amounts to a purchase and sale limitation of one handgun
per 30-day period. . .
Maryland: Maryland prohibits any person from
purchasing more than one handgun or assault weapon within
a 30-day period. Under limited circumstances, a person
may be approved by the Secretary of the Maryland State
Police to purchase multiple handguns or assault weapons
in a 30-day period. Maryland also penalizes any dealer
or other seller who knowingly participates in an illegal
purchase of a handgun or assault weapon. . .
New Jersey: New Jersey prohibits licensed firearms
dealers from knowingly delivering more than one handgun
to any person within any 30-day period. With limited
exceptions, no person may purchase more than one handgun
within any 30-day period. New Jersey requires a handgun
purchaser to obtain a separate permit for each handgun
purchased, and present the permit to the seller. The
seller must keep a copy of each permit presented.
(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-pol
icy-summary/[footnotes omitted].)
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
10 of ?
3. Argument in Support
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence state:
In 1999, legislation (AB 202) was enacted that limits
purchases of handguns from licensed firearms dealers
in California to no more than one per person per
month. AB 202 provided a number of exemptions,
including private party transactions. The purpose of
the bill was to curb the illegal flow of handguns by
taking the profit out of selling guns from bulk
purchases on the black market. AB 1674 applies
existing law under AB 202 to all firearms, including
long guns (rifles, shotguns, and lower receivers), and
removes the exemption for private party transfers.
Under AB 1674, firearms will not be delivered whenever
the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice
that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser
had made another application to purchase a firearm.
It stands to reason that a person buying large
quantities of guns at one time may be acting as a
straw purchaser or gun trafficker. Moreover, firearms
acquired this way are frequently used in crime. In
fact, an ATF study of tracing data demonstrated that
22% of all handguns recovered in crime in 1999 were
originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. A
similar study found that 20% of all handguns recovered
in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of
a multiple sale. Additionally, a University of
Pennsylvania report found that a quarter of all guns
used in crime were purchased as part of a multiple-gun
sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64%
more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns
purchased individually.
The California Brady Campaign believes that handguns
and long guns should be subject to the same laws.
Sixteen years ago, it was thought that handguns made
up an overwhelming share of crime guns, but the data
shows that is no longer the case. Of the 26,682 crime
guns entered into the Department of Justice's
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
11 of ?
Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500
were long guns. Additionally, DOJ has found that
over the last three fiscal years, nearly half the
illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons
through the Armed Prohibited Persons System are long
guns.
AB 1674 (Santiago)
Over the past ten years, Californians have annually
purchased more long guns than handguns, including
534,469 long guns in 2013. These long guns include
legal weapons that have military-style features and a
mechanism, such as a bullet button, to allow for the
rapid exchange of magazines and lower receivers, which
can be assembled into military-style weapons.
Limiting multiple-gun sales within a short period of
time for such weapons, which are more lethal than
handguns, is clearly in the interest of public safety.
The Department of Justice began to retain records of
long gun purchases on January 1, 2014. An analysis of
the transaction data from the period January 2014
through June 2015 shows that 81.9% of long guns were
sold as a single long gun purchase within a 30-day
period. Clearly, the vast majority of long gun
purchasers will not be impacted by AB 1674. However
at the opposite end of the spectrum, an individual
purchased 177 long guns in two transactions within a
one month period (April 2014). Furthermore, sales to
single individuals ranging from 5 to 54 long guns per
month occurred on 1,787 occasions, totaling 12,090
guns. Department data also shows that when multiple
long guns are transferred in a sale, it is more than
twice as likely that lower receivers are included.
The largest bulk sale of long guns in one month to an
individual (177 long guns) was composed entirely of
lower receivers, which can be built into illegal
assault weapons and sold on the black market.
Preventing the flow of illegal guns is important to
public safety regardless of whether the firearm is a
handgun or long gun, or purchased new from a dealer or
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
12 of ?
through a private party transaction. Limiting
firearms sales to one gun per month is a recognized
strategy to reduce gun trafficking and keep firearms
out of dangerous hands.
4. Argument in Opposition
According to the Firearms Policy Coalition:
AB 1674 seeks to limit, chill, and, and ration a
fundamental, individual right by making it a crime to
even apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a
constitutionally-protected firearm more than once
every thirty days.
As the shooting sports experience historic growth form
participation by more and more law-abiding people across
all social, racial, gender, and financial lines,
Assemblymember Santiago would respond by creating an
artificial market cap on the very instruments protected by
the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In spite of a total lack of controlling regulations on the
possession, transfer, and use of firearms in the production
of movies and television, Hollywood, however, would be
exempt from this scheme, leaving only "regular citizens" to
comply with AB 1674.
AB 1674 would additionally ban the timely, lawful transfer
of private property between individuals (through licensed
firearm dealers, no less) by eliminating the ability for a
law-abiding California gun owner to sell, trade, or loan
their firearms if the intended buyer or transferee has
already initiated any kind of acquisition within the past
30 days.
The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and
California's law-abiding residents are not second-class
people. AB 1674 must be rejected for its moral and policy
flaws if not for its blatant constitutional infirmities.
-- END -
AB 1674 (Santiago ) Page
13 of ?