BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1674|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1674
Author: Santiago (D), et al.
Amended: 5/31/16 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/14/16
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/20/16
AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza
NOES: Bates, Nielsen
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 44-33, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Firearms: transfers
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill prohibits any person from making an
application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day
period, as specified; and 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.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
AB 1674
Page 2
1)Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase
more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Penal Code §
27535(a).)
2)Exempts, in Penal Code Section 27535(b), from the above 30-day
prohibition any of the following:
a) Any law enforcement agency;
b) Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement
duties;
c) Any state or local correctional facility;
d) Any private security company licensed to do business in
California;
e) Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is
authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of
employment;
f) Any motion picture, television, video production company
or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by
its nature involves a firearm;
g) Any authorized representative of a law enforcement
agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or
manufacturer;
h) Any private party transaction conducted through a
licensed firearms dealer;
i) Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current
certificate of eligibility issued by the California
Department of Justice (DOJ);
j) The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a
licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
aa) A community college that is certified by the Commission
on Peace Officer Standards and Training to present law
enforcement academy basic course or other commission-
certified training.
3)Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed
firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the
AB 1674
Page 3
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).)
4)Provides, in Penal Code Sections 27590(e)(1)-(3), that the
penalties for making more than one application to purchase a
handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
a) A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine
of $50;
b) A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine
of $100; and,
c) A third violation is a misdemeanor.
This bill:
1)Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase
more than one long gun within any 30-day period.
2)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.
Background
According to the Senate Public Safety Committee analysis of AB
202 (Knox, Chapter 128, Statutes of1999), which created the
one-handgun-a-month law in California:
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
AB 1674
Page 4
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.
(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-p
olicy-summary/ [footnotes omitted].)
AB 1674
Page 5
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...
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-p
olicy-summary/[footnotes omitted].)
AB 1674
Page 6
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:YesLocal: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
DOJ: One-time costs of about $350,000 (Special Fund*) to
modify the various firearm databases impacted by this bill.
Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 (Special
Fund*) annually.
Firearm purchase violations: Potential non-reimbursable local
costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and incarceration offset
to a degree by fine revenue for infraction and misdemeanor
violations of the prohibition on purchasing more than one
firearm within any 30-day period.
Sales tax revenue: Unknown, potentially significant loss of
sales tax revenue (General Fund) due to the expansion of the
30-day single purchase restriction to include all firearms,
including long guns.
*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 potentially 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 the costs of this bill.
SUPPORT: (Verified6/21/16)
California Academy of Family Physicians
AB 1674
Page 7
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun
Violence
City of Long Beach
Coalition Against Gun Violence, A Santa Barbara County Coalition
Courage Campaign
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Rabbis Against Gun Violence
San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles
Women Against Gun Violence
One individual
OPPOSITION: (Verified6/21/16)
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
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Several individuals
ARGUMENTS 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
AB 1674
Page 8
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
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.
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
AB 1674
Page 9
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 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.
ARGUMENTS 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
AB 1674
Page 10
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.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 44-33, 6/1/16
AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown,
Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Dababneh,
Daly, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson,
Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden,
Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian,
O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bigelow, Brough,
Chang, Chávez, Cooley, Dahle, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher,
Gray, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder,
Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte,
Olsen, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dodd, Hadley, Rodriguez
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
6/22/16 15:15:15
**** END ****
AB 1674
Page 11