BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



          SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
                             Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
                                2015 - 2016  Regular 

          Bill No:    SB 678        Hearing Date:    April 28, 2015    
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Author:    |Hill                                                 |
          |-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
          |Version:   |April 20, 2015                                       |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Urgency:   |No                     |Fiscal:    |Yes              |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 
          |Consultant:|JRD                                                  |
          |           |                                                     |
           ----------------------------------------------------------------- 


                         Subject:  User-authorized firearms.



          HISTORY

          Source:   Author

          Prior Legislation:SB 293 (DeSaulnier) - held in Senate  
          Appropriations, 2013
                         SB 697 (DeSaulnier) - died in this Committee,  
          2009
                         AB 2235 (DeSaulnier) - held in Senate  
          Appropriations, 2008
                         AB 1471 (Feuer) - Ch. 572, Statutes of 2007

          Support:  Allied Biometrix, Inc.; Law Center to Prevent Gun  
          Violence; New Jersey Innovation
                 Institute  

          Opposition:  Firearms Policy Coalition (previous version)
                     
          PURPOSE
          
          The purpose of this legislation is to require the Department of  
          Justice (DOJ) to convene a workgroup and prepare a report to the  
          Legislature on user-authorized firearms, as specified. 

          Existing law generally regulates the sale, use and possession of  
          firearms in California. (Penal Code § 1600, et seq.)  








          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageB  
          of?
          
          
          This bill would require DOJ, with input from the working group  
          described in the legislation, to:

                     Survey the status of the current user-authorized  
                 firearm industry;
                     Assess the market conditions and barriers to market  
                 of user-authorized firearms; 
                     Investigate methods to increase the availability and  
                 use of user authorized firearms in California; and, 
                     Provide recommendations on manufacturer performance  
                 and reliability standards and how those standards should  
                 be tested.  

          This bill would require DOJ to report its findings to the  
          Legislature by January 1, 2017.
           
                    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. 

          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."(  









          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageC  
          of?
          
          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 Bill

          According to the Author: 

               SB 678 will provide important feedback and analysis  
               regarding user-authorized firearms. This important  
               technology has the potential to save lives, especially  
               those of children. It is essential for the Legislature to  
               understand the status of this industry,  and what we can do  
               to foster it and incentivize it to grow. Additionally it is  
               critical to have a public forum to provide input on what  
               some basic reliability standards should be for this new  









          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageD  
          of?
          
               innovative technology. Without a basic understanding of  
               where this industry it is and what is needed for it to  
               grow, the Legislature cannot make informed decisions  
               regarding this technology and bourgeoning industry. 

          2.  User-authorized Firearms 
          
          In a 2002 issue of the journal "The Future of Children," a  
          publication of The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and  
          International Affairs at Princeton University and The Brookings  
          Institution, researchers wrote the following:  

               The Promise of Personalized Guns
               
               Some researchers believe that the most important  
               change that could be made in the design of handguns to  
               reduce the incidence of gun-related injuries,  
               especially to children, would be to personalize guns.   
               A "smart" gun would rely upon a personal  
               identification number (PIN), a magnetic ring worn by  
               the user, a radio-frequency device on the user's  
               clothing or person, or fingerprint recognition  
               technology to ensure that only an authorized user  
               could actually fire the gun.  Some technology to  
               produce smart guns already exists; other technology  
               seems feasible in the near future.

               Theoretically, handgun personalization would prevent  
               unauthorized persons of any age-not just young  
               children-from operating a firearm.  Until these types  
               of guns are widely available for use, however, their  
               effectiveness remains unmeasured.  It is not known how  
               many firearm injuries personalization of guns may  
               prevent.  However, personalization technology could  
               prevent the use of stolen handguns, thus shrinking the  
               illegal gun market, and it could decrease access to  
               firearms by adolescents and protect young children.

               An Emerging Technology
               
               In 1992, faculty at The Johns Hopkins School of Public  
               Health commissioned three undergraduate engineering  
               students to devise a personalized gun.  With an  
               investment of $2,000, and use of existing technology,  









          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageE  
          of?
          
               the students converted a revolver so that only its  
               authorized user could operate it.  The gun's firing  
               mechanism was blocked unless it was touched by an  
               electronic "touch-memory" device.  Only the handgun's  
               authorized user had possession of the device.  

               Today, the technology to make personalized guns is far  
               more sophisticated.  In the near future, personalized  
               guns that identify the authorized user by a PIN  
               programmed into a gun may be available for sale.  This  
               development would make possible an early version of a  
               personalized gun.  Another future version of a  
               personalized gun could employ biometrics, such as  
               fingerprint recognition, for identification of the  
               authorized user.  Computer chips already on the market  
               for use in other products immediately scan  
               fingerprints.  Soon these chips will be made durable  
               enough to withstand the trauma of gunfire and will be  
               incorporated into guns.  A personalized holster  
               already on the market keeps a gun locked in its  
               holster unless a device reads the fingerprint of an  
               authorized user.



               Potential Advantages and Drawbacks of Personalized  
          Guns 

               Personalization has the potential to make guns less  
               accessible to young people and therefore holds promise  
               for reducing firearm injury and death.  Personalized  
               guns are not a panacea, however.  The increased cost  
               of the guns, the immense stock of nonpersonalized guns  
               in this country, and the potential for an increase in  
               gun sales once personalized guns enter the market make  
               uncertain the precise impact of smart guns on the  
               safety of children and youth.

               Personalized firearms would cost more than firearms  
               sold today, although how much more is unknown.  A  
               national poll on gun ownership and safety found that  
               80% of people who would buy a personalized gun would  
               buy one even if the personalization device added $100  
               to $300 to the price.  Even so, it is unlikely that  









          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageF  
          of?
          
               all, or even a significant proportion, of the nearly  
               200 million existing firearms in the United States  
               would be retrofitted for personalization.  The  
               majority of these older weapons would remain available  
               for use and purchase.  Also unknown is how many people  
               who do not currently own firearms would purchase  
               personalized guns because they would seem safer than  
               other guns.  Would the rate of concealed- weapon  
               carrying increase?  How many mothers would buy a  
               handgun for self-protection if the handgun were  
               "childproof"?

               Although firearms would remain hazardous for children  
               even with personalization, safer gun design could  
               contribute to the broader strategy to prevent firearm  
               injuries among children and adolescents.  At the very  
               least, young children could be protected from adult  
               inattention to safe firearm storage.  In a more  
               complex set of circumstances, adolescents would have  
               decreased access to operable firearms.

               Adolescents, proscribed by law from owning firearms,  
               nevertheless have four types of access to guns: (1)  
               unauthorized access to firearms in homes; (2)  
               authorized access to firearms transferred from My,  
               fiends, and acquaintances; (3) illegal purchase of  
               firearms off the street or through retailers, either  
               directly or through an intermediary; and (4) theft.   
               The hope for personalization technology is that the  
               firearm operating system would be individualized to  
               the gun owner so that the illegal transfer of weapons,  
               the utilization of stolen weapons, and other  
               unauthorized weapon use could not occur or would occur  
               only with great effort.  Personalization could  
               decrease the pool of readily usable firearms.

               Thus, for an adolescent, operating a firearm and  
               obtaining an operable firearm would be more difficult  
               and complicated.  For adolescents, who frequently  
               behave impulsively, the time it would take to find a  
               usable firearm or to make a firearm usable might  
               result in a change of mind and a loss of interest.   
               Personalization could thereby work to prevent many  
               homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries among  









          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageG  
          of?
          
               children and adolescents.  (Stephen P. Teret, J.D.,  
               M.P.H.; Patti L. Culross, M.D., M.P.H., The Future of  
               Children, Vol. 12, No. 2, Children, Youth, and Gun  
               Violence.  (Summer - Autumn, 2002), pp. 118-131.)  




          3.  Legislative Efforts Relating to Owner-Authorized Handguns
          
          Bills promoting owner-authorized handguns in some fashion have  
          been introduced in several states<1> as well as in Congress.<2>   
          In 2002, New Jersey passed the first state to require  
          owner-authorized handguns, as soon as the technology becomes  
          available.  On December 23, 2002, the Associated Press reported:

               New Jersey on Monday became the first state to enact  
               "smart gun" legislation that would eventually require  
               new handguns to contain a mechanism that allows only  
               their owners to fire them. 

               The law will not go into effect immediately because  
               the technology is still under development and it could  
               be years before it becomes a reality.  But supporters  
               hailed it as an important milestone in the campaign to  
               reduce handgun deaths.

               ----------------------
          <1> New York Assembly Bill 4878, introduced 1997; New Jersey  
          Senate Bill 113, Assembly Bill 780, introduced 1998;  
          Pennsylvania House Bill 1376, introduced 1999; Tennessee House  
          Bill 0954, Senate Bill 0469, introduced 1999; Hawaii House Bill  
          41, introduced 2001; Los Angeles motion to require that handguns  
          sold in the city incorporate safety features to prevent  
          unauthorized or accidental firing by criminals, minors, and  
          others, introduced 1999.
          <2> Children's Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1999, 106th  
          Congress, 1st Session (March 25, 1999), H.R. 1342 and S. 735;  
          Childproof Handgun Act of 1999, 106th Congress, 1st Session  
          (January 28, 1999), S. 319; Childproof Handgun Act of 1999,  
          106th Congress, 1st Session (June 7, 1999), H.R. 2025;  
          Concurrent Resolution Expressing the Sense of Congress in  
          Support of the Development and Use of Firearms Personalization  
          Technology, 106th Congress, 1st Session (June 7, 1999), H. Con.  
          Res. 125.








          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageH  
          of?
          

               "This is common-sense legislation.  There are safety  
               regulations on cars, on toys.  It's clearly time we  
               have safety regulations on handguns," Gov. James E.  
               McGreevey said at Monday's bill signing ceremony.  

               (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,73763,00.html.)



          In Maryland, a "personalized handgun" is defined as any handgun  
          manufactured with incorporated design technology (1) allowing  
          the handgun to be fired only by a person who is the authorized  
          user of the handgun, and (2) preventing any of the handgun's  
          safety characteristics from being easily deactivated.   
          Maryland's Handgun Roster Board is required to review the status  
          of personalized handgun technology and report its findings to  
          the Governor and the General Assembly.  

          

          4.  Effect of This Legislation 


          This legislation would require DOJ, with input from the working  
          group described in the legislation, to: (1) survey the status of  
          the current user-authorized firearm industry; (2) assess the  
          market conditions and barriers to market of user-authorized  
          firearms; (3) investigate methods to increase the availability  
          and use of user authorized firearms in California; and, (4) make  
          recommendations on manufacturer performance and reliability  
          standards and how those standards should be tested.  DOJ would  
          be required to report its findings to the Legislature by January  
          1, 2017.


                                       - END -
















          SB 678  (Hill )                                           PageI  
          of?