BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 1006 Hearing Date: April 19, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Wolk |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |April 11, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Firearm Violence Research Center
HISTORY
Source: American College of Emergency Physicians; American
Academy of Pediatrics, California
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: All Saints Church, Pasadena; Americans for Responsible
Solutions; California Chapter of the American College
of Emergency Physicians; California Academy of Family
Physicans; California Chapters of the Brady Campaign
to Prevent Gun Violence; California College and
University Policy Chiefs Association; California
Police Chiefs Association; California Psychiatric
Association; California Public Defenders Association;
California School Nurses Association; Dave Jones,
Insurance Commissioner; Doctors for America;
International Health & Epidemiology Research Center;
Friends Committee on Legislation of California; Los
Angeles City Attorney; National Association of Social
Workers; Physicians for Social Responsibility, San
Francisco Bay Area Chapter; Violence Prevention
Coalition of Orange County; United States Senator,
Dianne Feinstein; Youth Alive!; several individuals
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
2 of ?
Opposition:California Sportsman's Lobby; Doctors for Responsible
Gun Ownership; Firearms Policy Coalition; Gun Owners
of America; Gun Owners of California; Outdoors
Sportsmen's Coalition of California; Safari Club
International; several individuals
PURPOSE
This purpose of this bill is to request that the UC Regents
establish the Center for purposes of conducting research related
to firearm violence and its prevention, as specified.
Existing law generally regulates the use, possession and sale of
deadly weapons in California. (Penal Code § 16000, et. seq.)
Under existing law the California Constitution establishes the
UC, a public trust to be administered by the Regents of the UC
and grants the Regents full powers of organization and
government, subject only to such legislative control as may be
necessary to insure security of its funds, compliance with the
terms of its endowments, statutory requirements around
competitive bidding and contracts, sales of property and the
purchase of materials, goods and services. (Article IX, Section
(9)(a) of the California Constitution.)
Current law provides that the statutes related to UC (and most
other aspects of the governance and operation of UC) are
applicable only to the extent that the Regents of UC make such
provisions applicable. (Education Code § 67400.)
This bill requests that the UC Regents establish the Center for
purposes of conducting research related to firearm violence and
its prevention.
This bill states the legislative intent that the administration
of the Center be consistent with the following principles:
Works to address the nature, consequences, and
prevention of firearm violence, as described.
Conducts basic, translational, and transformative
research with a mission to provide the scientific evidence
on which sound firearm violence prevention policies and
programs can be based. Its research shall include, but not
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
3 of ?
be limited to, the effectiveness of existing laws and
policies intended to reduce firearm violence, including the
criminal misuse of firearms, and efforts to promote the
responsible ownership and use of firearms.
Identifies, implements, and evaluates innovative
prevention policies and programs with policymakers and
state agencies.
Recruits and provides specialized training opportunities
for new researchers, as specified.
This bill states the legislature's intent to appropriate funds
to a Firearm Research Center Account for purposes specified in
the bill and further:
Authorizes the Center to seek additional federal, state
or private funds.
Requires that the Center administer a small grant program
that provides for:
o An open, competitive peer review process
modeled after the National Institute of Health's granting
making process.
o A process by which all qualified
investigators have equal access to compete for funds.
This bill states legislative intent that the University of
California (UC) report, on or before December 31, 2017, and
every 5 years thereafter, specified information regarding the
activities of the Center and information pertaining to research
grants.
This bill requires state agencies to comply with data requests
initiated by the Center only to the extent permitted by current
law.
This bill requires that the Center provide copies of its
research publications to the Legislature and certain state
agencies.
This bill makes a number of findings and declarations relative
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
4 of ?
to the effects of firearm violence on public health and safety
and the need for expanded research efforts and more funding.
This bill provides that these provisions are applicable to UC
only if the Board of Regents, by resolution, makes it
applicable.
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
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).)
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
5 of ?
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 Bill
According to the author:
Research into gun-related injury, violence or death was
once the responsibility of the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC) and was funded by the federal
government, along with research on all other public health
issues, including diseases, accidental injuries and deaths,
and food safety. However, in 1996, at the request of the
National Rifle Association, Congress passed the "Dickey
Amendment" by Representative Jay Dickey, a Republican from
Arkansas that put an end to this research at the CDC. As a
result, there are many important questions asked which
remain unanswered. We as policymakers are often left with
insufficient data and evidence to determine the most
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
6 of ?
effective policies to reduce the number of deaths and
injuries resulting from firearm violence.
Fortunately, California is well situated to fill this
research gap. The University of California has the
capacity to do what Congress has failed to do - get the
facts, apply sound scientific methods, and find answers
that lead to solutions.
Support for more firearm violence research is strong, and
includes the author of the Dickey Amendment, Jay Dickey
himself, the Republican and NRA member from Arkansas who
has since changed his mind. Congressman Dickey has come
out strongly in favor of more research, including SB 1006.
Let me quote from Congressman Dickey who co-wrote the
following with Mark Rosenberg, the former Director of the
CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control:
"Our nation does not have to choose between reducing
gun-violence injuries and safeguarding gun ownership?
States can serve as democracy's laboratories for
firearm violence prevention research, as they do for
other major health and social problems? This research
could have been continued on gun violence without
infringing on the rights of gun owners, in the same
fashion that the highway industry continued its
research (on deaths and injuries from head-on
collisions) without eliminating the automobile."
2.Effect of This Bill
It appears there are various independent and university based
institutes that concentrate on firearm violence research
throughout the state, including the Violence Prevention
Research Program at the University of California, Davis (UCD).
The UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program (VPRP) is
a multi-disciplinary program of research and policy
development focused on the causes, consequences, and
prevention of violence. We place a particular focus on
firearm violence, and on the connections between violence,
substance abuse and mental illness. . .
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
7 of ?
Our program of research on firearm violence is
internationally recognized as among the best of its kind.
We are now expanding in size and scope, adding new areas of
emphasis in alcohol and drug abuse, mental illness, and the
social factors that determine risk for violence, substance
abuse, and mental illness. . .
Our program of research focuses on three main areas:
understanding current and emerging forms of
violence and their links to substance abuse and mental
illness;
identifying the individual and social
determinants of risk for violence and associated
health problems (e.g., substance abuse and mental
illness); and
evaluating policies and programs that seek to
reduce violence.
Violence is complex and cannot be understood from a single
point of view. Our research colleagues include
representatives from medicine, epidemiology, criminology,
public health, economics, statistics and the law. They work
at leading universities from across the nation, including
Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Rutgers, Northeastern,
Duke and the University of Chicago.
VPRP works to translate scientific evidence into improved
prevention policy through technical assistance to federal,
state, and local policy makers and agencies. We work
actively to disseminate new knowledge regarding violence
and its prevention through assistance to the media,
directed policy briefs, and our website.
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
8 of ?
(http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/vprp/.)
This bill requests that the UC Regents establish a center for
research into firearm-related violence for purposes of
conducting research related to firearm violence and its
prevention. This bill, additionally, states the legislature's
intent to appropriate funding to support the center.
GIVEN THAT FIREARMS RESEARCH IS ALREADY BEING DONE IN THE UC
SYSTEM, IS THIS LEGISLATION NECESSARY?
1.Argument in Support
According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence:
Senate Bill 1006 seeks to establish the California
Firearm Violence Research Center at the University of
California to conduct basic research on
firearm-related violence. Specifically the Center is
charged with studying: 1) the nature of firearm
violence, including individual and societal
determinants of risk for involvement in firearm
violence, 2) the individual, community, and societal
consequences of firearm violence; and 3) strategies
for prevention and treatment of firearm violence at
the individual, community, and societal levels. The
Center would be funded by the legislature and be
required to report annually on its activities.
Basic research is an essential element in formulating
and carrying out good public policy. California has
been at the forefront of passing strong firearm laws.
However, there is a need to conduct more research on
the efficacy of these laws and to suggest areas where
future legislative actions may be beneficial.
The limited research that has been conducted to date
is promising, however the large sample sizes needed to
draw robust conclusions has been inhibited by lack of
funding and lack of access to federal data. Since
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
9 of ?
1996, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
has been banned from using federal funds to "advocate
or promote gun control", which has been construed as a
ban on any firearm violence research whatsoever. In
2011, this limitation on collecting scientific data
was extended to the National Institutes of Health.
Accordingly, for the past twenty years it has been
nearly impossible to conduct research into this
important public safety issue.
As the most populous state, California has both the
ability and the duty to take the lead in this area.
Over the years, California has been a beacon on many
policy issues to other states and the nation and so
too should it be on formulating policies to reduce gun
violence.
2.Argument in Opposition
According to the Firearms Policy Coalition:
Our concerns with the measure are many fold but share
the common root; that the program is one-sided and the
"research" is to be used to guide the legislature on
gun control, euphemistically called "firearms violence
prevention."
SB 1006 presumes that violence that uses firearms is a
"health issue," it presumes that studying things like
"?risk for involvement in firearm violence, whether as
a victim or a perpetrator." rather than being includes
and studying things like the effect of an armed
citizenry on crime and violence prevention, show how
the measure is transparently biased before the first
dollar is doled out.
SB 1006 is so sure of its pre-determined outcomes it
requires a grant applicant to agree that firearms
violence can be treated like a disease, going so far
as to say "Prevention and treatment of firearm
violence at the individual, community, and societal
levels." Yes, that's right "treatment." Given that
this is really to fund one narrow worldview, it isn't
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
10 of ?
surprising, but when it comes to appropriating
taxpayer monies, it is controversial.
This type of academic limitation discourages actual
social scientists from applying for the grant for fear
their research will not match up with the
pre-determinations of SB 1006, which seem to revolve
around the opinions of one man who is a medical doctor
affiliated with the UC Davis violence prevention
research program.
Sadly, the positive use of firearms and their
inoculating presence in the community is not part of
the narrow grant requirements. Violent crime thwarted
by firearms is not either, nor the deterrent effect of
having millions of armed households and over a million
firearms sold annually with no rise in "gun violence."
It would appear that the outcome has already been
decided and it only needs to pre-fund an existing
worldview and program at UC Davis--the obvious and
transparent sole-source recipient of this gift of
public monies, to report back with new ways to harass
and burden law abiding citizens who contribute
positively to the public good by being responsible gun
owners, and concealed carry licensees.
Violence, in general, regardless of the form it takes
deserves our careful study. No academic grant,
funding or appropriation should be do narrow in its
requirements as to discourage honest evaluation and
competition by those who view violence and its
deterrence more holistically and have relevant
backgrounds in the social sciences than are allowed
for in SB 1006.
-- END -
SB 1006 (Wolk ) Page
11 of ?