BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 566 Hearing Date: April 28, 2015
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Bates |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 21, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Firearms Safety Certificate
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: SB 683 (Block)-2013, Chap. 761, Stats. 2013
SB 1422 (Anderson)-2012, held in Senate
Appropriations
SB 404 (Anderson) - 2011, died in Senate Public
Safety
AB 2609 (Anderson) - 2010, failed passage in
Assembly Public Safety
AB 2152 (Neilson) - 2010, failed passage in
Assembly Public Safety
AB 201 (Samuelian) - 2004, failed passage in
Assembly Public Safety
AB 2081 (Briggs) - 2002, failed passage
in Assembly Public Safety
SB 1615 (Johannessen) - 2002, died in
Senate Public Safety
SB 52 (Scott) - Chap. 942, Stats. 2001
SB 731 (Thompson) - Chap. 6, Stats. 1992
Support: American Legion-Department of California;
SB 566 (Bates ) PageB
of?
AMVETS-Department of California; California Associate
of County Veterans Services Officers; California Rifle
and Pistol Association, Inc.; Gun Owners of
California; Military Officers Association-California
Council of Chapters; Veterans of Foreign
Wars-Department of California; Vietnam Veterans of
America-California State Council<1>; 1 individual
Opposition:The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence; Law Center to Prevent Gun
Violence<2>
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to reduce the Firearm Safety
Certificate (FSC) fee and the FSC renewal fee that a certified
instructor may charge an honorably discharged member of the
armed forces to $15, $10 of which is to be paid to the
Department of Justice (DOJ), as specified.
Existing law provides that no person shall do either of the
following:
Purchase or receive any firearm, except an antique
firearm, without a valid firearm safety certificate, except
that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety
certificate may be used.
Sell, deliver, loan, or transfer any firearm, except an
antique firearm, to any person who does not have a valid
firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a
handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be
used.
Any person who violates either of these provisions is guilty of
a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in county jail, a
fine of up to $1,000, or both.
---------------------------
<1> All support was for prior version of legislation.
<2> All opposition was to prior version of legislation.
SB 566 (Bates ) PageC
of?
(Penal Code § 31615.)
Existing law requires the license applicant to complete and pass
a written test prescribed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and
administered by an instructor certified by DOJ. The test shall
include:
The laws applicable to carrying and handling firearms,
particularly handguns;
The responsibilities of ownership of firearms,
particularly handguns;
Current law as it relates to the sale and transfer of
firearms laws;
Current law as it relates to the permissible use of
lethal force;
What constitutes safe firearm storage;
Risks associated with bringing firearms into the home;
and,
Prevention strategies to address issues associated with
bringing firearms into the home.
(Penal Code § 31640.)
Existing law states that an applicant for a firearm safety
certificate who successfully passes the test, with a passing
grade of at least 75 percent, shall immediately be issued a
firearm safety certificate by the instructor. (Penal Code §
31645.)
Under existing law a certified instructor may charge a fee of
twenty-five dollars for the firearms safety certificate, fifteen
dollars of which must be paid to DOJ. (Penal Code § 31650.)
Existing law provides that DOJ is required to develop firearm
safety certificates to be issued by certified instructors to
those persons who have complied with specified requirements. A
firearm safety certificate shall include, but not be limited to,
the following information:
A unique firearm safety certificate identification
number;
The holder's full name;
The holder's date of birth;
SB 566 (Bates ) PageD
of?
The holder's driver's license or identification number;
The holder's signature;
The signature of the issuing instructor; and,
The date of issuance.
The firearm safety certificate expires five years after the date
that it was issued by the certified instructor. (Penal Code §
31655.)
This bill would reduce the Firearm Safety Certificate fee or FSC
renewal fee that a certified instructor may charge an honorably
discharged member of the armed forces to $15, $10 of which is to
be paid to the department, as specified.
This bill would reduce the fee that the department may charge
the certified instructor for each handgun safety certificate
issued by that instructor to no more than $10 for each handgun
safety certificate issued by an instructor to an honorably
discharged member of the armed forces, to cover the department's
cost in carrying out and enforcing this article, and enforcing
specified provisions, as determined annually by the department.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past eight 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.
SB 566 (Bates ) PageE
of?
In February of this year the administration reported that as "of
February 11, 2015, 112,993 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. This current population is now below the
court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity."(
Defendants' February 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).
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state now 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
According to the Author:
SB 566 (Bates ) PageF
of?
California is home to the largest number of veterans,
with nearly 2 million living here. Some veterans are
discharged from the service for a wide range of
reasons. "Honorably discharged veterans" have the
highest form of discharge from the service. This means
that a veteran has separated from the military with
honor and they have met or exceeded the standards of
duty, performance, and personal conduct.
Effective January 1, 2015, SB 683 (Block, 2013) went
into effect. This measure replaced the Handgun Safety
Certificate program with the Firearm Safety
Certificate (FSC) program. The FSC program not only
applies to the purchase of handguns, but now applies
to the purchase of all firearms (handguns and long
guns), unless one falls under the list of current
exemptions. For hand gun purchases with a valid
certificate, handguns may still be purchased until the
certificate expires. Long guns purchased after the
first of this year will now require a FSC.
The FSC program requires a simple, multiple choice
test on general firearm safety. Veterans have already
received many hours of firearm safety training. Most
firearms dealerships have the capability to give this
test on-site and it normally doesn't take more than a
few minutes to complete. This certificate does NOT
bypass an individual from being subject to the full
background check and waiting period required by law.
The existing fee for all people who want to take this
test is $25. With amendments, SB 566 would lower the
current fee to $15 for those members of the military
who have been "honorably discharged." Providing these
veterans with this discount recognizes the time in
which they served their country and their inherent
skills in doing so as members of our military. . .
Ultimately, SB 566 simply seeks to recognize honorably
discharged veterans for their skills and service with
a lower fee to take the test on firearm safety.
2. History of SB 52 - Military Exemption
SB 566 (Bates ) PageG
of?
The law prior to 2001 exempted all honorably discharged veterans
from obtaining a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate and under the
new Handgun Safety Licensing Program, enacted by SB 52, that
exemption was narrowed to include only honorably retired
veterans.<3> Legislative history indicates that narrowing of
the exemption was deliberate.
SB 52 (Scott), Chapter 942, Statutes of 2001, repealed the Basic
Firearms Safety and Certificate Program and replaced that
program with the more stringent Handgun Safety Licensing
Program. SB 52 provided that, effective January 1, 2003, no
person may purchase, transfer, receive, or sell a handgun
without a Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC). As introduced, SB
52 contained no exemption for retired or discharged veterans.
SB 52 was amended April 5, 2001 to include an exemption to the
HSC requirement for active military and military reserve
personnel. SB 52 was amended again on June 4, 2001 and added
honorably retired members of the military to the military
exemption provision. The much broader category of all honorably
discharged members of the military was never included in the
military exemption contained in SB 52.
This bill, as recently amended, does not seek to exempt veterans
from the FSC requirement, but now would reduce the fee paid by
honorably discharged veterans for this certificate.
4.Prior Legislation
SB 404 (Anderson) of the 2011-2012 Legislative Session,
similarly would have exempted honorably discharged veterans from
having to obtain a HSC in order to purchase a handgun. SB 404
was not heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee.
AB 2152 (Nielsen) of the 2009-2010 Legislative Session,
similarly would have exempted honorably discharged veterans from
having to obtain a HSC in order to purchase a handgun. AB 201
failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 2609 (Anderson), of the 2009-2010 Legislative Session,
similarly would have exempted honorably discharged veterans from
---------------------------
<3> Senate Bill 683 (Block, of 2013) extended to the handgun
safety certificate requirements to all firearms.
SB 566 (Bates ) PageH
of?
having to obtain a HSC in order to purchase a handgun. AB 201
failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 201 (Samuelian), of the 2003-2004 Legislative Session,
similarly would have exempted honorably discharged veterans from
having to obtain a HSC in order to purchase a handgun. AB 201
failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
AB 2081 (Briggs), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session,
similarly would have exempted honorably discharged veterans from
having to obtain a HSC in order to purchase a handgun. AB 2081
failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
SB 1615 (Johannessen), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session,
would have similarly exempted honorably discharged veterans from
having to obtain a HSC in order to purchase a handgun. SB 1615
was not heard by the Senate Public Safety Committee.
-- END -