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: 6/22/16 in Senate
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.
Senate Floor Amendments of 6/22/16 exempt additional parties
from the prohibition on making an application to purchase more
than one firearm within any 30-day period, as specified; and
also include chaptering amendments.
AB 1674
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
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;
AB 1674
Page 3
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 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
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
AB 1674
Page 4
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 firearm 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.
3)Adds the following exemptions to the one firearm a month
prohibition:
a) A transaction completed through a licensed firearms
dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section
28050) if both of the following conditions apply:
i) The transferor is an executor or administrator of an
estate.
ii) The transferee is a person acquiring ownership of
the firearm by bequest or intestate succession from the
estate.
b) The purchase of a firearm that is not a handgun or a
finished frame or receiver by a person who has been issued
a valid hunting license by the state.
AB 1674
Page 5
c) The purchase of a firearm that is not a handgun acquired
at an auction or similar event conducted by a nonprofit
public benefit or mutual benefit corporation to fund the
activities of that corporation or local chapters of that
corporation.
Background
According to the Senate Public Safety Committee analysis of AB
202 (Knox, Chapter 128, Statutes of 1999), 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 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.
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
AB 1674
Page 6
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].)
NOTE: See Senate Public Safety Committee analysis for
additional background.
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
AB 1674
Page 7
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: (Verified6/23/16)
California Academy of Family Physicians
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: (Verified6/23/16)
California Rifle and Pistol Association
AB 1674
Page 8
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
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
AB 1674
Page 9
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 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
AB 1674
Page 10
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 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.
Despite recent amendments of June 22, AB 1674 makes it
virtually impossible for a widow(er) to dispose of a
collection at fair-market value as it could take years to line
up the hundreds of individual buyers-each one requiring a
face-to-face interaction.
Bizarrely, the recent amendments also exempt those with a
hunting license, however if one were to exercise the exemption
it would limit the purchaser to only buying non-handguns and
those firearms that aren't "finished frames or receivers"-or
said another way the only legal definition of firearm is the
only thing you can't buy.
This type of legislation will only fuel the underground
economy as people seek to dispose of a collection-or build
one, no longer feeling bound by illegible, frenetic and
overreaching laws.
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
AB 1674
Page 11
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. /
6/24/16 14:33:51
**** END ****