BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 880
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2016
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB
880 (Hall) - As Amended May 17, 2016
SUMMARY: Redefines what constitutes an assault weapon in order
to close the bullet button loophole. Also requires registration
of weapons previously not prohibited, under the new definition.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Revises the definition of "assault weapon" to mean "a
semiautomatic centerfire rifle, or a semiautomatic pistol that
does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those
specified attributes."
2)Defines "fixed magazine" to mean "an ammunition feeding device
contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a
SB 880
Page 2
manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly
of the firearm action."
3)Exempts a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to
January 1, 2017, if specified requirements are met.
4)Requires that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to
December 31, 2016, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that
does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the
firearm with the Department of Justice (DOJ) before January 1,
2018.
5)Permits the DOJ to increase the $20 registration fee as long
as it does not exceed the reasonable processing costs of the
department.
6)Requires registrations to be submitted electronically via the
Internet utilizing a public-facing application made available
by the DOJ.
7)Requires the registration to contain specified information,
including, but not limited to, a description of the firearm
that identifies it uniquely and specified information about
the registrant.
8)Permits the DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person for
registration through the internet, not to exceed the
reasonable processing costs of the department to be paid and
deposited, as specified, for purposes of the registration
program.
9)Requires the DOJ to adopt regulations for the purpose of
SB 880
Page 3
implementing those provisions and would exempt those
regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Contains legislative findings and declarations that the
proliferation and use of assault and .50 BMG rifles poses a
threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of
California. (Pen. Code, § 30505.)
2)States legislative intent to place restrictions on the use of
assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles and to establish a
registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and
possession. (Pen. Code, § 30505.)
3)Prohibits several categories of assault weapons:
a) Specified firearms listed by name and others listed by
series (Pen. Code, § 30510);
b) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols
having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and
also having one of several specified characteristics;
c) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols
with a fixed magazine having the capacity to hold more than
10 rounds;
d) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with an overall length
of less than 30 inches;
SB 880
Page 4
e) Semiautomatic shotguns having two specified
characteristics;
f) Semiautomatic shotguns having the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine; and,
g) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder. (Pen. Code, §
30515.)
4)Defines a "detachable magazine" as any ammunition feeding
device that can be removed readily from the firearm with
neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool
being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is
considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any
belted or linked ammunition, but does not include clips, en
bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the
magazine. (11 Cal. Code Regs. Section 5469.)
5)Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation,
importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault weapon. (Pen.
Code, § 30600, subd. (a).)
6)Makes the possession of an assault weapon a criminal offense,
subject to certain exceptions. (Pen. Code, § 30605.)
7)Defines a ".50 BMG rifle" as "a center fire rifle that can
fire a .50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon
or a machinegun." (Pen. Code, § 30530.)
8)Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation,
importation, sale, gift, loan, or possession of .50 BMG
rifles. (Pen. Code §§ 30600 & 30610.)
9)Exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military forces,
and other specified agencies from the prohibition against
sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of
assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (Pen. Code, § 30625.)
10)Requires that any person who lawfully possesses an assault
SB 880
Page 5
weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon
to register the firearm with DOJ, as specified. (Pen. Code, §
30900 et. seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
1)Author's Statement: According to the author, "bullet
button-equipped semi-automatic weapons have no legitimate use
for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They are designed
only to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life. Such
weapons have been used in a number of recent gun attacks
including the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino that
left 14 Californians dead and 21 injured. Too many
Californians have died at the hands of these dangerous
weapons.
"SB 880 will make our communities safer and upholds our
commitment to reduce gun violence in California by closing the
bullet button loophole in California's Assault Weapons Ban.
This bill clarifies the definition of assault weapons and
provides the DOJ the authority to bring existing regulations
into conformity with the original intent of California's
Assault Weapon Ban. Absent this bill, the assault weapon ban
is severely weakened, and these types of military-style
firearms will continue to proliferate on our streets and in
our neighborhoods."
2)California's Assault Weapons Ban: The origin of and
subsequent modifications to the assault weapons ban in
California are described by the federal Court of Appeal in the
following extended excerpt from Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d
1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amend. Jan. 27, 2003).
SB 880
Page 6
In response to a proliferation of shootings involving
semi-automatic weapons, the California Legislature passed the
Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) in 1989. The
immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting
earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary School in
Stockton, California. An individual armed with an AK-47
semi-automatic weapon opened fire on the schoolyard, where 300
pupils were enjoying their morning recess. Five children ages
six to nine were killed, and one teacher and 29 children were
wounded.
The California Assembly met soon thereafter in an
extraordinary session called for the purpose of enacting a
response to the Stockton shooting. The legislation that
followed, the AWCA, was the first legislative restriction on
assault weapons in the nation, and was the model for a similar
federal statute enacted in 1994. The AWCA renders it a felony
offense to manufacture in California any of the semi-automatic
weapons specified in the statute, or to possess, sell,
transfer, or import into the state such weapons without a
permit. The statute contains a grandfather clause that
permits the ownership of assault weapons by individuals who
lawfully purchased them before the statute's enactment, so
long as the owners register the weapons with DOJ. The
grandfather clause, however, imposes significant restrictions
on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its
provisions. Approximately 40 models of firearms are listed in
the statute as subject to its restrictions. The specified
weapons include "civilian" models of military weapons that
feature slightly less firepower than the military-issue
versions, such as the Uzi, an Israeli-made military rifle; the
AR-15, a semi-automatic version of the United States
military's standard-issue machine gun, the M-16; and the
AK-47, a Russian-designed and Chinese-produced military rifle.
The AWCA also includes a mechanism for the Attorney General
to seek a judicial declaration in certain California superior
courts that weapons identical to the listed firearms are also
subject to the statutory restrictions.
SB 880
Page 7
The AWCA includes a provision that codifies the legislative
findings and expresses the legislature's reasons for passing
the law: "The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the
health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state.
The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified
in [the statute] based upon finding that each firearm has such
a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its
function as a legitimate sports or recreational firearm is
substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to
kill and injure human beings. It is the intent of the
Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on
the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and
permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. It is
not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to
place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are
primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice,
or other legitimate sports or recreational activities."
In 1999, the Legislature amended the AWCA in order to broaden
its coverage and to render it more flexible in response to
technological developments in the manufacture of semiautomatic
weapons. The amended AWCA retains both the original list of
models of restricted weapons, and the judicial declaration
procedure by which models may be added to the list. The 1999
amendments to the AWCA statute add a third method of defining
the class of restricted weapons: the amendments provide that
a weapon constitutes a restricted assault weapon if it
possesses certain generic characteristics listed in the
statute. Examples of the types of weapons restricted by the
revised AWCA include a "semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that
has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10
rounds," and a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the
capacity to accept a detachable magazine and also features a
flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a flare launcher.
The amended AWCA also restricts assault weapons equipped with
SB 880
Page 8
"barrel shrouds," which protect the user's hands from the
intense heat created by the rapid firing of the weapon, as
well as semiautomatic weapons equipped with silencers.
3)Changes This Bill Makes to the AWCA: As the Court explained,
in 1999 the assault weapons ban was amended to expand the
definition of an assault weapon to include a definition by the
generic characteristics, specifically, to include a
"semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to
accept a detachable magazine" in addition to one of several
specified characteristics, such as a grenade launcher or flash
suppressor. [SB 23 (Perata) Statutes of 1999, Chapter 129,
Section 7 et seq.] SB 23 was enacted in response to the
marketing of so-called "copycat" weapons - firearms that were
substantially similar to weapons on the prohibited list but
differed in some insignificant way, perhaps only the name of
the weapon, thereby defeating the intent of the ban.
SB 23's generic definition of an assault weapon was intended
to close the loophole in the law created by its definition of
assault weapons as only those specified by make and model.
Regulations promulgated after the enactment of SB 23 define a
detachable magazine as any ammunition feeding device that can
be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly
of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A
bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. In
response to this definition, a new feature has been developed
by firearms manufacturers to make military-style,
high-powered, semi-automatic rifles "California compliant,"
the bullet button.
In 2012, researchers at the nonprofit Violence Policy Center
in Washington, D.C. released a paper describing the phenomenon
of the bullet button and its effect on California's assault
weapons ban:
SB 880
Page 9
The "Bullet Button"-Assault Weapon Manufacturers'
Gateway to the California Market
Catalogs and websites from America's leading assault
rifle manufacturers are full of newly designed
"California compliant" assault weapons. Number one and
two assault weapon manufacturers Bushmaster and DPMS,
joined by ArmaLite, Colt, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson,
and others are all introducing new rifles designed to
circumvent California's assault weapons ban and are
actively targeting the state in an effort to lift
now-sagging sales of this class of weapon. They are
accomplishing this with the addition of a minor design
change to their military-style weapons made possible
by a definitional loophole: the "bullet button."
[Please see the Appendix beginning on page six for
2012 catalog copy featuring "California compliant"
assault rifles utilizing a "bullet button" from
leading assault weapon manufacturers.]
California law bans semiautomatic rifles with the
capacity to accept a detachable ammunition magazine
and any one of six enumerated additional assault
weapon characteristics (e.g., folding stock, flash
suppressor, pistol grip, or other military-style
features).
High-capacity detachable ammunition magazines allow
shooters to expel large amounts of ammunition quickly
and have no sporting purpose. However, in California
an ammunition magazine is not viewed as detachable if
a "tool" is required to remove it from the weapon. The
"bullet button" is a release button for the ammunition
magazine that can be activated with the tip of a
bullet. With the tip of the bullet replacing the use
of a finger in activating the release, the button can
SB 880
Page 10
be pushed and the detachable ammunition magazine
removed and replaced in seconds. Compared to the
release process for a standard detachable ammunition
magazine it is a distinction without a difference.
(Bullet Buttons, The Gun Industry's Attack on
California's Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Policy
Center, Washington D.C., May 2012. )
One approach to this issue, taken by SB 249 (Yee) in 2012 and
SB 47 (Yee) of 2014, as well as AB 1664 (Levine) of this
session, and this bill, amends the statute to replace the
language regarding detachable magazines This approach also
defines a "detachable magazine" as "an ammunition feeding
device that can be removed readily from the firearm without
disassembly of the firearm action, including an ammunition
feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm
with the use of a tool." In other words, a semiautomatic
rifle could have a detachable magazine, as long as that rifle
did not also have any of the six prohibited features or that
rifle could have the prohibited features as long as it had a
fixed magazine.
Proponents argue the feature that makes one semi-automatic
rifle capable of killing or wounding more people in a shorter
amount of time than another is the capacity to rapidly reload
large amounts of ammunition. For example, proponents note
that, in 2011, a man opened fire on teenagers at a summer
youth camp in Norway, killing 69 and wounding another 110,
using a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle, the .223 caliber
Ruger Mini-14. That rifle had none of the features listed in
California's definition of an assault weapon and it is a
perfectly legal weapon in California; supporters of this bill
submit that what made that weapon such an effective tool of
mass murder is the fact that the killer was able to rapidly
reload one magazine after another of ammunition.
4)Constitutionality: The Constitutionality of California's
SB 880
Page 11
assault weapons ban has been upheld by both the California
Supreme Court [Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472 (2000)] and
the federal Court of Appeal. [Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d
1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amend. Jan. 27, 2003).] While the
California Supreme Court rejected allegations that the law
violated equal protection guarantees, the separation of
powers, and failed to provide adequate notice of what was
prohibited under the law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
decision in Silveira was based largely on its interpretation
of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The
Second Amendment of the Constitution states, "A well regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." (United States Const. Amend. 2.) The Silveira
Court based its ruling on the widely held interpretation of
the Second Amendment known as the "collective rights" view,
that the right secured by the Second Amendment relates to
firearm ownership only in the context of a "well regulated
militia." [Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1086 (9th Cir.
Cal. 2002).]
The Silveira Court's interpretation of the meaning of the
Second Amendment has since been squarely rejected by the U.S.
Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020
(2010). Whether the Heller and McDonald cases mean that
California's assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment
and is, therefore, unconstitutional is a different matter.
In Heller, the Supreme Court rejected the "collective rights"
view of the Second Amendment and, instead, endorsed the
"individual rights" interpretation, that the Second Amendment
protects the right of each citizen to firearm ownership.
After adopting this reading of the Second Amendment, the
Supreme Court held that federal law may not prevent citizens
from owning a handgun in their home. (District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 683-684.) In the McDonald case, the
Supreme Court extended this ruling to apply to laws passed by
SB 880
Page 12
the 50 states. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020,
3050.)
In deciding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to
own a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court
stated that this ruling has its limitations:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment
is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century
cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the
right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever
in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For
example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider
the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state
analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive
historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second
Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of
firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding
the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools
and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and
qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
5)Governor's Veto Message of 2013's SB 374 (Steinberg):
Governor Brown vetoed somewhat similar legislation (requiring
a fixed magazine) in 2013 with the following veto message:
"I am returning Senate Bill 374 without my signature.
"The State of California already has some of the strictest
gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style
assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
SB 880
Page 13
"While the author's intent is to strengthen these
restrictions, this bill goes much farther by banning any
semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. This ban
covers low-capacity rifles that are commonly used for
hunting, firearms training, and marksmanship practice, as
well as some historical and collectible firearms. Moreover,
hundreds of thousands of current gun owners would have to
register their rifles as assault weapons and would be
banned from selling or transferring them in the future.
"Today I signed a number of bills that strengthen
California's gun laws, including AB 48, which closes a
loophole in the existing ban on dangerous high-capacity
magazines. I also signed AB 1131 and SB 127, which restrict
the ability of mentally unstable people to purchase or
possess guns.
"I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on
semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity or
enhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement
on gun owners' rights."
6)Argument in Support: According to the Law Center to Prevent
Gun Violence, "The California Legislature recognized long
ago-after a gunman with an assault weapon shot 34 children at
Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, California-that these
military-grade weapons of war have no place in our
communities. Since 1989, California has led the nation in
enacting common sense gun safety laws to keep assault weapons
off our streets. However, the gun industry has repeatedly
skirted the limits of this law and exploited its loopholes in
order to continue selling military-style weaponry within the
state.
"Existing California law defines prohibited assault weapons to
include firearms that have both the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and specified military-style features.
The ability to accept a detachable magazine allows a shooter
to quickly reload an assault weapon to continue firing and
SB 880
Page 14
killing without interruption.
"California's assault weapons ban does not define the term
'detachable magazine,' however. Perplexingly, current DOJ
regulations define 'detachable magazine' in a manner that runs
counter to both the spirit and the letter of the state's
assault weapons ban. Under these regulations' definition, a
weapon is not considered to have a detachable magazine, and is
therefore not a prohibited assault weapon, if a 'tool' is used
to release the firearm's magazine instead of the shooter's
finger alone. The regulations specifically state that "a
bullet or an ammunition feeding device is considered a
tool.<1>
"The gun industry has exploited this dangerous loophole in
recent years by marketing 'California compliant' assault
weapons that are equipped with a 'bullet button.' These
weapons are the functional equivalents of illegal assault
weapons in every respect, except that the shooter uses a
bullet, magnet, or other instrument, instead of his or her
finger, to depress the button that releases the weapon's
magazine. These weapons may be reloaded as quickly and
efficiently as prohibited assault weapons, but they have been
permitted to flood into this state at an alarming rate,
threatening Californians' safety.
"SB 880 would further the letter and spirit of California's
assault weapons law by adding a statutory definition of 'fixed
magazine' to clarify that bullet button weapons are illegal
assault weapons. This definition would establish that
firearms like bullet button weapons, whose magazines may be
--------------------------
<1>
11 CCR 5469.
SB 880
Page 15
removed and reloaded without disassembling the firearm action,
do not have 'fixed magazines.' Individuals who lawfully
obtained these weapons prior to January 1, 2017, would be
required to register their weapons with DOJ.
"A December 2015 mass shooting tragedy illustrates the
compelling need for this legislation. On that day, two
radicalized assailants used bullet button weapons to shoot 36
people in a San Bernardino community building in the span of
less than four minutes. The 'California compliant' bullet
button weapons they used were designed to inflict maximal
carnage on military battlefields and were nearly
indistinguishable from illegal assault weapons. Any
legitimate function these weapons might serve in sport or
recreation is substantially outweighed by the danger that they
may be used to-and in fact have been used to-quickly and
efficiently take large numbers of human lives. By prohibiting
all future manufacturing, possession, and sale of these
weapons, SB 880 would help protect the public and law
enforcement from battlefield weaponry that has no place in our
civilian communities.
"This legislation is substantively similar to AB 1664
(Levine), which recently passed with strong support in this
Committee and on the Assembly floor."
7)Argument in Opposition: According to the Firearms Policy
Coalition, "On behalf of the members and supporters of
Firearms Policy Coalition, I respectfully submit our
opposition to Senate Bill 880 (Hall and Glazer) and
respectfully request your 'NO' vote.
"SB 880 seeks to expand the ban on so-called 'assault weapon'
through vague language, by re-defining the term 'detachable
magazine' to mean 'an ammunition feeding device that can be
SB 880
Page 16
removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the
firearm action, including an ammunition feeding device that
can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a
tool.'
"SB 880 would ban millions of semi-automatic rifles protected
by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and
violate the civil rights of every law-abiding person in (and
visitor to) California, moving the goal posts yet again for
the millions of law abiding residents and visitors who have
[quite reasonably, given the volume] struggled for years to
keep up with the frenetic pace of California's ever-increasing
and expensive firearm regulations.
"The California Department of Justice (DOJ) will have to start
from scratch to create new regulations, new forms, new
databases and new online interfaces. Even with modest
compliance by the public, the already struggling DOJ will have
to hire or re-purpose dozens of staff in order to process
millions of firearms lawfully owned by hundreds of thousands
of California residents.
"Law enforcement will find cause to arrest thousands of
residents and visitors annually as SB 880 wraps in tens of
millions of firearms owned by millions of Californians and
visitors. This will burden the courts and the correctional
system-with people who are otherwise law-abiding.
"To summarize;
SB 880
Page 17
"SB 880's uninformed new definitions put
millions of law-abiding residents and visitors in to
our jails and prisons and therefore probation and
parole.
"SB 880 contains no provision for outreach to
the millions of Californians who have lawfully
acquired firearms that would be subject to SB 880's
reach.
"SB 880 contains no provision for educating
law enforcement officers or prosecutors-the very
people who will have to interpret and enforce it-which
will lead to false arrests and ruined lives.
"SB 880 creates overnight felons for mere possession,
transfer, transport or inheritance of common, constitutionally
protected items, creating a crisis for residents and visitors
who have been law abiding all their lives and could lose all
they have worked for -by simply exercising a fundamental
right."
1)Related Legislation:
a) AB 1663 (Chiu) takes a different approach to closing the
bullet button loophole. AB 1663 was held in Assembly
SB 880
Page 18
Appropriations Committee.
b) AB 1664 (Levine) is substantially similar to this
legislation. AB 1664 is currently awaiting a hearing in
Senate Public Safety.
2)Prior Legislation:
a) SB 47 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would
have closed the bullet button loophole by redefining an
assault weapon in statute as 'a semiautomatic, centerfire
rifle that does not have a fixed magazine' and has any one
of several specified features. SB 47 was held on the
Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
b) SB 374 (Steinberg), of the 2013-2014 Legislative
Session, would have closed the bullet button loophole by
redefining an assault weapon as it pertains to rifles and
defines "detachable magazines" and "fixed magazines."
Specifies that rifles which are not assault weapons have
fixed magazines. SB 347 was vetoed by the Governor.
c) SB 249 (Yee), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would
have prohibited any person from importing, making, selling,
loaning, transferring or possessing any conversion kit
designed to convert certain firearms with a fixed magazine
into firearms with a detachable magazine. SB 249 was held
on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
SB 880
Page 19
Support
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Emergency Physicians, California Chapter
Bend the Arc
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Orange County
Brotherhood Crusade
California Attorney General
California Academy of Family Physicians
California Catholic Conference
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign
California Communities United Institute
California State PTA
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
SB 880
Page 20
City of Berkeley
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
City of Oakland
Coalition Against Gun Violence
Community Clinic Association
Courage Campaign
International Health and Epidermiology Research Center
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Laguna Woods Democratic Club
Nevada County Democrats
Peace Over Violence
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento
SB 880
Page 21
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay
Rainbow Services
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Violence Prevention Coalition
Youth Alive
31 private individual
Opposition
California Rifle and Pistol Association
California Sportsman's Lobby
California State Sheriffs' Association
California Waterfowl Association
Crossroads of the West
SB 880
Page 22
Gun Owners of California
Firearms Policy Coalition
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California
Rick Farinelli, District 3 Supervisor, Madera County
Safari Club International
San Bernardino Sheriff's Office
Analysis Prepared by:Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744