BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1999 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Achadjian |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |March 15, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Prohibited Armed Persons File: Initial Review
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: Unknown
Opposition: None known
Assembly Floor Vote: 78 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to require the Department of Justice
(DOJ) to both complete an initial review of a match in the Armed
Prohibited Persons System (APPS) within seven days of the match
being placed in the queue, and periodically reassess whether the
department can complete reviews of APPS matches more
efficiently.
Existing law provides for an automated system for tracking
firearms and assault weapon owners who might fall into a
prohibited status. The online database, which is currently
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
2 of ?
known as the APPS, cross-references all handgun and assault
weapon owners across the state against criminal history records
to determine persons who have been, or will become, prohibited
from possessing a firearm subsequent to the legal acquisition or
registration of a firearm or assault weapon. (Penal Code §
30000, et seq.)
Existing law prohibits persons who know or have reasonable cause
to believe that the recipient is prohibited from having firearms
and ammunition to supply or provide the same with firearms or
ammunition. (Penal Code §§ 27500 and 30306; Welfare and
Institutions Code § 8101.)
Existing law provides that various categories of persons are
prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm, including
persons convicted of certain violent offenses, and persons who
have been adjudicated as having a mental disorder, among others.
(Penal Code §§ 29800 to 29825, inclusive, 29900, 29905, 30305;
Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 8100 and 8103.)
Existing law establishes the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS)
Account, a special fund, which receives various firearm
registration fees, and which may be used by the DOJ for firearms
related regulatory activities, including enforcement activities
related to possession. (Penal Code §§ 28225 and 28235.)
Existing law establishes the Firearms Safety and Enforcement
Special Fund (FSESF), a continuously appropriated fund, for use
by the DOJ for specified purposes related to weapons and
firearms regulation. Monies in the fund may be used for the
following purposes:
Implementing and enforcing the provisions of the Firearm
Safety Certificate program;
Implementing and enforcing various gun law enforcement
programs; and,
Establishment, maintenance, and upgrading of equipment
and services necessary for firearms dealers to comply with
the DROS system.
(Penal Code §28300.)
Existing law requires the DOJ, upon submission of firearm
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
3 of ?
purchaser information, to examine its records to determine if
the purchaser is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning,
or purchasing a firearm. Existing law prohibits the delivery of
a firearm within 10 days of the application to purchase, or,
after notice by the department, within 10 days of the submission
to the department of any corrections to the application to
purchase, or within 10 days of the submission to the department
of a specified fee. (Penal Code §§ 28200 to 28250.)
Existing law mandates those dealers notify DOJ that persons in
applications actually took possession of their firearms. (Penal
Code § 28255.)
Existing law requires that in connection with any sale, loan or
transfer of a firearm, a licensed dealer must provide the DOJ
with specified personal information about the seller and
purchaser as well as the name and address of the dealer. This
personal information of buyer and seller required to be provided
includes the name; address; phone number; date of birth; place
of birth; occupation; eye color; hair color; height; weight;
race; sex; citizenship status; and a driver's license number;
California identification card number; or, military
identification number. A copy of the DROS, containing the buyer
and seller's personal information, must be provided to the buyer
or seller upon request. (Penal Code §§ 28160, 28210, and
28215.)
Existing law requires DOJ to report, until March 1, 2019, on the
following APPS statistics:
The degree to which the backlog in APPS has been reduced
or eliminated;
The number of agents hired for enforcement of APPS;
The number of people cleared from APPS;
The number of people added to APPS;
The number of people in APPS before and after the
relevant reporting period, including a breakdown of why
each person in APPS is prohibited from possessing a
firearm;
The number of firearms recovered due to enforcement of
APPS;
The number of contacts made during the APPS enforcement
efforts; and
Information regarding task forces or collaboration with
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
4 of ?
local law enforcement on reducing the APPS backlog.
(Penal Code § 30015(b) and (c).)
This bill requires DOJ to complete an initial review of a match
in the daily queue of APPS within seven days of the match being
placed in the queue.
This bill requires DOJ to periodically reassess whether the
department can complete reviews of APPS matches within the daily
queue more efficiently.
This bill defines "match" as "an entry into the Automated
Criminal History System, or into any department automated
information system, of the name and other information of an
individual who may be prohibited from acquiring, owning, or
possessing a firearm, matched with a corresponding record of
ownership or possession of a firearm by that individual, 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
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
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
5 of ?
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
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
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
6 of ?
According to the author:
In 2013, the State Auditor (State Audit Report 2013-103)
uncovered that the Department of Justice had a backlog of
more than 1,200 matches in their daily queue which contains
the daily events from courts and mental health facilities
that may trigger a prohibition for an individual to own a
firearm.
As part of their findings, the State Auditor's office
recommended that the Department establish a goal of no more
than 400 to 600 cases in the daily queue. However, since
the initial audit, the Justice's daily queue has grown to
over 3,600 cases. The Department of Justice has cited new
reporting laws and the need to redirect staff to another
Bureau of Firearms priority, which has a statutory
deadline, as the reason for this backlog.
The State Auditor has recommended a statutory deadline of
seven days on the initial processing of matches in the APPS
database to encourage the Department to avoid redirecting
APPS unit staff (SAR 2015-504). The longer it takes to
review an individual's records, the longer a potentially
armed prohibited person keeps their firearms, which
increase the risk to public safety.
AB 1999 fulfills the recommendations of the State Auditor
in requiring the Department of Justice to review an initial
match in the Armed Prohibited Persons daily queue within 7
days and periodically reassess whether the Department can
complete those reviews more efficiently.
2. Armed Prohibited Persons List
On March 13, 2013, the Joint Legislative Audit Committee
approved a request for an audit of the California Department of
Justice's Armed Prohibited Persons Program. (http://legaudit.
assembly.
ca.gov/sites/legaudit.assembly.ca.gov/files/March%2013%20Vote%20T
ally.pdf.) The focus of the audit was on "the reporting and
identification of persons with mental illness who are prohibited
from owning or possessing a firearm." (Armed Persons with
Mental Illness, California State Auditor (2013) Report
2013-103.) This audit revealed:
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
7 of ?
Justice has faced obstacles throughout the three-year
period we reviewed-2010 through 2012-in meeting its
workload demands for both the daily and the historical
review queues of prohibited persons in the APPS database.
During this time, Justice focused staff efforts on
addressing a rise in background checks that state law
requires when someone attempts to purchase a firearm, which
resulted in the APPS unit experiencing a daily backlog that
at times exceeded its internal goal of having no more than
1,200 matches pending for initial review at any one time.
Although, on average, the APPS unit reviewed its daily APPS
database workload within a time frame of five days, a few
potential armed prohibited person cases waited more than
three years before the APPS unit made a final determination
about the person's prohibited status. Further, the APPS
unit has also experienced delays in processing a historical
backlog of firearms owners-nearly 380,000 as of July
2013-who remain to be reviewed from more than six years ago
when it implemented the APPS database.
(http://www.auditor.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/ 2013-103.pdf.)
On July 9, 2015, the State Auditor issued a follow-up report
that found:
. . . [I]n our previous report we noted that Justice had
backlogs in its two processing queues: a daily queue and a
historical queue. During late 2012 and early 2013, Justice
had a backlog of more than 1,200 matches pending initial
review in its daily queue-the queue that contains the daily
events from courts and mental health facilities that
indicate a match and may trigger a prohibition for an
individual to own a firearm. Because a backlog in this
queue means that Justice is not reviewing these daily
events promptly, we recommended that Justice establish a
goal of no more than 400 to 600 cases in the daily queue.
However, during this follow-up audit, we found that
Justice's daily queue during the first quarter of 2015 was
over 3,600 cases; this is six times higher than its revised
goal of no more than 600 cases. Just as it did during the
previous audit, Justice continues to cite its need to
redirect staff to another Bureau of Firearms (bureau)
priority, which has a statutory deadline, as the reason for
this backlog. We believe that, if Justice had a statutory
AB 1999 (Achadjian ) Page
8 of ?
deadline on the initial processing of the matches in the
APPS database, it would encourage Justice to avoid
redirecting APPS unit staff. The chief of the bureau
believes that seven days would be a reasonable time frame
to complete an initial review of matches.
(http://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2015-504/summary.html.)
The report recommended that the legislature require DOJ to
complete an initial review of cases in the daily queue within
seven days. (Id.) This legislation would simply implement this
recommendation.
-- END -