BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 31|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 31
Author: Peace (D), et al
Amended: 8/28/00
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 4-0, 1/11/00
AYES: Vasconcellos, Burton, Johnston, Polanco
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
SENATE FLOOR : 26-1, 1/27/00
AYES: Alarcon, Alpert, Bowen, Burton, Costa, Dunn,
Escutia, Figueroa, Hayden, Hughes, Johnston, Karnette,
McPherson, Murray, O'Connell, Ortiz, Peace, Perata,
Polanco, Rainey, Schiff, Sher, Solis, Speier,
Vasconcellos, Wright
NOES: Mountjoy
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 62-14, 8/29/00 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Firearms: delivery and transfer
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This bill makes a number of changes to the
Dangerous Weapons' Control Law, including: authorizing the
State Department of Justice to require that licensed
dealers and sheriff's offices, in smaller counties, report
in a manner and format prescribed by the State Department
of Justice, the date and time of delivery of a handgun to
the purchaser or transferee of that firearm or the person
CONTINUED
SB 31
Page
2
being loaned that firearm until July 1, 2003, and to
require submission of such information after that date;
makes numerous changes to the laws pertaining to firearms,
which meet gubernatorial objections of SB 29, which
Governor Davis vetoed.
Assembly Amendments
1.Provide that Senator Perata and Senator Solis are joint
authors on the bill.
2.Require that any handgun sold, delivered, returned or
transferred by a local law enforcement agency pursuant to
Family Code Section 6389, which prohibits a person
subject to specified protective orders from possessing a
firearm, be entered within ten days into the Automated
Firearms System, as specified.
3.Require that where any agency registered handgun is
transferred or destroyed, that information be entered
within ten days into the Automated Firearms System, as
specified.
4.Correct a chaptering/cross-referencing error which has
the effect of requiring owners of antique handguns to
serialize the same before they may legally transfer
ownership of the same by applying this requirement to
modern handguns (as was originally intended).
5.Delete the prohibition on "ownership" of firearms from
certain prohibitions involving domestic violence in order
to address certain due process and makes conforming
changes.
6.Clarify that guns purchased in "gun-buyback" programs are
not to be recycled to the general public.
7.Mandate a State Department of Justice study on the issue
of how persons who legally acquire guns who subsequently
become prohibited possessors can legally dispose of those
guns.
8.Clarify that returns of firearms by gunsmiths to their
owners will continue to be exempt from certain transfer
SB 31
Page
3
requirements.
9.Double-joins this bill with AB 273 (Scott) and AB 1989
(Dickerson).
ANALYSIS :
Existing Law
1. Provides that a person subject to a domestic violence
restraining order may not own or possess any firearm.
The court may order a person who is the subject of a
domestic violence protective order to relinquish
possession or control of any firearm during the period
covered by the order. Federal law provides that a
person subject to a court order that restrains the
person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an
intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
cannot lawfully receive, posses, ship, or transport a
firearm or ammunition, as specified.
2. Provides that handguns are centrally registered at time
of transfer or sale with the State Department of Justice
(DOJ). DOJ records pertaining to transfers of firearms
not pistols, revolvers, or other firearms capable of
being concealed upon the person are not centrally
registered.
3. Identifies specified exemptions to the current
prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon.
4. Provides for a DOJ Certification of Eligibility (COE).
A COE is a fingerprint-based background check with the
certificate issued annually if the person applying is
not within any category of persons prohibited from
possessing a firearm. The person possessing a COE is
entered into the DOJ system so that if a COE possessor
does fall into a class of persons prohibited from
possessing firearms, the DOJ will be notified of that
fact.
This bill:
1.Requires the Judicial Council to provide notice on all
SB 31
Page
4
protective orders that the respondent is prohibited from
possessing, purchasing, or receiving a firearm.
2.Requires that any handgun sold, delivered, returned or
transferred by a local law enforcement agency pursuant to
Family Code Section 6389, which prohibits a person
subject to specified protective orders from possessing a
firearm, be entered within 10 days into the Automated
Firearms System (AFS), as specified.
3.Adds an additional exemption to Penal Code Section
12026.2 pertaining to the current prohibition against
carrying unloaded handguns in public to include
transportation of a firearm in order to comply with
requirements in law to dispose of those firearms.
4.Requires in all cases where a law enforcement agency, in
accordance of current law, transfers its ownership of a
handgun which is not a nuisance weapon and the firearm is
not being transferred by that agency pursuant to existing
statutes that includes a reporting requirement, within 10
days of the date that the handgun is transferred, the
transaction and its detail shall be reported to DOJ using
an existing computer system.
5.Requires in any case where a law enforcement agency
destroys its non-nuisance-registered handguns, within 10
days of the date the handguns are destroyed, that fact
and its details shall be reported to DOJ using an
existing computer system.
6.Provides that Penal Code Section 12071 relative to
retail licenses and dealers, and subdivisions (c) and (d)
of Penal Code Section 12072 relative to prohibited
transfers, shall not apply to the delivery of a firearm
to a gunsmith for service or repair, or the return of
that firearms to the owner.
7.Declares legislative intent pertaining to procedures for
any person who legally acquires a firearm and thereafter
becomes a member of a class that is prohibited from
possessing that firearm to dispose of a firearm and avoid
criminal liability.
SB 31
Page
5
8.Requires that DOJ conduct a study and make
recommendations to the Legislature regarding the
procedure for disposing or relinquishing possession of
firearms legally acquired firearms to avoid criminal
liability.
9.Makes additional minor changes to existing firearms
statutes.
10.Adds double-jointing language to prevent chaptering
problems with AB 1989 (Dickerson) and AB 273 (Scott).
Comments
(The changes from SB 29 are underlined.)
1. Follow-up Reporting
As currently constituted, DOJ has no means of knowing
whether a person who applied to acquire a handgun at a
gun dealership, after the background check is completed,
actually picked up the handgun without an on-site
inspection of records. As such, DOJ is pre-registering
handguns.
The author notes that other states with transfer schemes
similar to California have follow-up reporting. The
author notes that this part of the bill is the outgrowth
of a five-year bipartisan effort to create a truly
accurate central handgun registry which serves gun
owners, gun dealers and law enforcement. The author and
the bill's supporters assert that the bill is structured
to provide maximum regulatory flexibility to DOJ
consistent with the fee caps and privacy protections
contained in current law. However, unlike SB 29, this
bill mandates that as of July 1, 2003, that DOJ institute
mandatory follow-up reporting.
The author (whose supporters requesting this are gun
dealers) assert that there is no reason why DOJ cannot do
this as a mandate in all cases after that date given the
technology at hand and at the fact that DOJ has developed
an E-Mail system that with minimal cost to all concerned
can simply address this.
SB 31
Page
6
2. Dealer Licensing Issues Involving Estates and the
Security Industry
The author notes that as an accommodation to various
parties. This bill addresses certain problems in dealer
licensing statutes that adversely affect small estates,
law enforcement agencies, and private security firms.
These issues came to light by virtue of AB 295
(Corbett-Wright), Chapter 247, Statutes of 1999.
At one point, AB 295 proposed to require that, generally,
any one who transfers title to more than five handguns in
a calendar year must become a licensed firearms dealer in
California.
At the present time, any person may sell or transfers, or
loans handguns on an infrequent basis without being
required to obtain a firearms dealers license if the
person engages in the infrequent sale, lease, or transfer
of firearms. For pistols, revolvers, and other firearms
capable of being concealed upon the person, "infrequent"
means less than six transactions per calendar year and
"transaction" means a single sale, lease, or transfer of
any number of pistols, revolvers, and other firearms
capable of being concealed upon the person.
While those transactions do not require that a person
obtain a firearm dealers license, those transactions must
still generally be made through a licensed firearms
dealer (or sheriff's department in a smaller county, if a
dealer is unavailable) and are subject to both background
checks and a ten-day waiting period before delivery.
Because of the drafting of the current dealer licensing
statutes, AB 295 pointed out certain problems in current
law which the participants requested the author to
address.
Those issues relate to surviving spouses, law enforcement
agency trade in of weapons when they trade in non
nuisance weapons (nuisance weapons are in their own
exemption under current 12070(b)), and security industry
loans to authorized armed employees.
SB 31
Page
7
As to surviving spouses, it was determined that there is
an anomaly in the law. Currently, when someone dies, the
executor or administrator of the estate initially takes
possession of the firearms without processing the
transaction through a dealer. He or she then disposes of
them in accordance with the usual through dealer
processing requirements.
In the case of a handgun, in order to claim the exemption
upon taking title from the decedent, the executor or
administrator upon taking possession must re-registers
the gun in his or her name with DOJ. There is a DOJ form
that may be downloaded.
When the executor or administrator disposes of estate
firearms, he or she is acting under an "operation of law
transaction", and per Penal Code Section 12070(b)(1),
that executor or administrator is not under the
constraints of the "infrequent exemption" for dealer
licensure standards. He or she can dispose of as many
guns as are part of the estate in whatever manner he or
she chooses to do so and not be subject to dealer
licensure.
In the case of a surviving spouse, the Probate Code
creates an expedited simplified probate procedure for the
surviving spouse to deal with his or her late spouse's
property.
The surviving spouse (like the executor or administrator
of the estate) may take possession of the firearms
without through dealer processing.
In the case of a handgun, in order to claim the exemption
from through dealer processing upon taking title from the
decedent, as is the case with the executor or
administrator upon taking possession, the surviving
spouse must re-registers the gun in his or her name with
DOJ. The same DOJ form referred to above is used here.
When the surviving spouses disposes of estate firearms,
12072(d) applies, as is the case with executor or
administrators. However, unlike the case where the
SB 31
Page
8
executor or administrator disposes of estate firearms in
an orderly manner, the surviving spouse is not acting
under an "operation of law" transaction for dealer
licensure purposes. While the surviving spouse is not
covered solely by the "infrequent exemption" for dealer
licensure standards, he or she is under a 60-day
disposition period set forth in Penal Code Section
12070(b)(3).
As such, the surviving spouse proceeding (which is a
probate proceeding) only has 60 days to dispose of estate
firearms in whatever manner he or she chooses to do so
and not be subject to state dealer licensure. That may
not be practicable in many cases. In addition, the
surviving spouse proceeding is, in fact, a probate
proceeding and the surviving spouse, frequently elderly
women, should have the same considerations afforded them,
as is the case with executors and administrators.
The bill was amended to add to the "operation of law"
transaction list for dealer licensure purposes , guns
disposed of by the surviving spouse where the guns where
received from the corpus of the decedent's spouse estate.
A conforming change was made to Section 12070(b)(3) to
reflect the insertion of surviving spouses into the
"operation of law" definition.
As to the law enforcement agencies, the bill exempts them
from dealer licensure when they sell, transfer, or
deliver firearms to wholesalers, and federally licensed
importers and manufacturers.
Through cross-referencing to an additional nuisance
statute, the bill makes clear that in all cases where
weapons where legally seized under any nuisance statute
that law enforcement agencies which dispose of weapons
are exempt from dealer licensing and processing statutes.
As to security personnel, loans of firearms to authorized
armed employees will be exempt from through dealer
processing and dealer licensing by the security company.
3. Law Enforcement Agency Seizures
SB 31
Page
9
Current statutes require law enforcement agencies to
report firearms and other serialized property that have
been reported stolen, recovered, lost, illegally
possessed, or suspected of having been used in crimes.
When peace officers participate in weapons seizures, they
may be technically violating Penal Code Section 12072(d).
Existing provisions of drug enforcement statutes create
an exemption for peace officers and their agents while
performing their official duties. The police may seize
contraband; however, once that contraband is no longer
used in a criminal trial, it is to be disposed of in
accordance with nuisance statutes.
This bill clarifies that peace officers are exempt from
prohibitions and requirements regarding the sale or
transfer of firearms if the officer, within 24 hours
after coming into possession of a firearm during his or
her official duties, delivers the firearm to the
employing agency. The bill further states that once the
agency takes possession of the weapon as outlined in the
preceding sentence, it shall be entered into the existing
DOJ systems and disposed of in accordance with all
current nuisance statutes.
After SB 29 went to the Governor, the author's office was
contacted by a firearms rights group which pointed out
that, as drafted, SB 29's law enforcement seizure
12072(d) exemption (Proposed PC 12078(a)(7)) did not take
account of situations where law enforcement agencies
legally have to return the gun immediately at the time of
initial seizure. The enrolled bill, therefore, created a
potential glitch. SB 31 addresses this issue by
excluding from its ambit these temporary seizure and
returns.
Last year, the Governor issued Executive Order D-7-99,
which relates to practices of state agencies when they
the dispose of seized (i.e., confiscated/nuisance
weapons and agency acquired weapons).
The Governor's Executive Order called for certain
disposition on non-nuisance weapons which are difficulty
SB 31
Page
10
to accomplish under current law (particularly as to
museums and trading in of weapons).
Specifically, the Executive Order calls for the following
policy as to non-nuisance weapons:
A. returning the firearms to the manufacturer for the
purpose of receiving a discount toward the purchase
of newer weapons; and
B. transfer firearms to a public or private nonprofit
museum if the weapons are curios or have museum
value.
Currently, when a law enforcement agency seizes weapons,
as the California Supreme Court noted in Gubler v.
Commission on Judicial Performance , (1984) 37 Cal.3d 27,
57-59, the weapons may be used internally by a law
enforcement agency, sold to state licensed gun dealers
who recycle them in the normal course of affairs, or
destroy the same. Current processing rules take account
of the same.
However, as to non-nuisance weapons, disposition
procedures are very difficult to accomplish.
Currently, law enforcement agencies can transfer guns
directly to:
A. State licensed gun dealers (Penal Code Section
12072(d) - but if the transaction does not fall
within the infrequent exemption it calls for dealer
licensure by the agency).
B. Other law enforcement agencies (Penal Code Section
12078(a)(2) - there is no dealer licensure issue).
C. Out-of-state federal firearms licensees (Penal
Code Section 12078(f) - but if the transaction does
not fall within the infrequent exemption it calls for
dealer licensure).
D. Federally licensed importers and manufacturers
(Penal Code section 12078(b) - again if the
SB 31
Page
11
transaction is more than infrequent, then the dealer
licensure issue applies).
As such, the museum provision cannot be accomplished as
called for in the Executive Order for the reasons noted
below. In addition, most manufacturers and importers
have contractual relationships with wholesalers so the
Executive Order is not difficult, if not impossible, to
implement.
The Governor's Executive Order was an out growth of a
study he ordered, as well as in response to the recent
shooting at a Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles.
One of the firearms that the gunman used was a handgun
that a small Police Department in Washington State
acquired and subsequently sold to a federal firearms
dealer in Washington State. That weapon ended up in the
hands of the gunman. The tracing of the weapon was very
difficult to accomplish, as the agency was not required
to file a disposition report.
In this state, as a result of legislation enacted in
1997, law enforcement agencies when they acquire handguns
in consensual (non-nuisance transactions register them
with the DOJ pursuant a special procedure as
institutional weapons). When they dispose of the same,
except in very rarer circumstances, there is no
disposition report required to be filed with DOJ.
Reporting is only required now in the following three
circumstances:
A. When the agency transfers weapons to its retiring
officers or when it sells obsolete service weapons to
it sworn officer employees when the agency switches
to a new weapons system (in that case the agency
files the report).
B. When the agency transfers firearms in operation of
law situations.
C. When it transfers gun to state licensed gun
dealers. In such cases, the dealer files an
acquisition report with DOJ pursuant to Penal Code
SB 31
Page
12
Section 12071(b)(18).
This bill (as was the case with SB 29) requires a law
enforcement agency that when in accordance with current
law it transfers its ownership of a handgun which is not
a nuisance weapon and the firearm is not being
transferred by that agency pursuant to existing statutes
that includes a reporting requirement, within ten days of
the date that the handgun transferred, the transaction
and its detail shall be reported to DOJ using an existing
computer system.
In addition, at the recent interim hearing on handgun
registration and licensing, it was noted that when law
enforcement destroys its registered non-nuisance weapons
handguns, it is not required to report the same to DOJ.
DOJ is currently notified when nuisance weapons are
destroyed. This bill imposes that requirement as to
destruction in order to keep the data base accurate.
In addition, the bill exempts from dealer licensure
transfers of firearms by law enforcement agencies to
wholesalers, licensed manufactures, and importers. The
author deleted from the bill proposed amendments to
exempt deliveries of guns to state licensed gun dealers
and out-of-state federal firearms licensees in order to
comply with the Executive Order's tenor.
4. SB 218 Cleanup
Last year, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed
SB 218 (Solis), Ch. 663/99. That legislation created a
procedure whereby persons subject to domestic violence
restraining orders who were prohibited by federal law
from possessing guns acquired before they went into
effect would dispose of the same and, therefore, be in
compliance with state and federal law.
After SB 218 was chaptered, certain concerns were raised
as to it implementation. As a result, rather than having
Senator Solis introduce a new bill to "cleanup" these
issues, as an accommodation to her staff, those issues
are addressed in this bill.
SB 31
Page
13
Specifically, this bill would change Family Code Section
6389 to require that any handgun sold, delivered,
returned or transferred by a local law enforcement agency
pursuant to that section (which prohibits a person
subject to specified protective orders from possessing a
firearm) be entered within ten days into the Automated
Firearms System, as specified, and makes additional
changes to that section.
The intent of that change is to make sure that the
handgun is "registered" in the state automated system,
since it has only been required in the past ten years
that private party transactions occur through a licensed
firearms dealer or a sheriff's department in smaller
counties.
That section does not require a background check of the
recipient before any firearms may be returned to that
person and to determine whether or not the firearm has
been stolen (and whether or not another restraining order
may exist which would prohibit a return of firearms).
In addition, the amendments to the Family Code make
explicit that law enforcement agencies that do these
checks are not thereby not subject to state firearms
dealer licensure requirements. Finally, the amendments
make clear that if the person who is subject to the order
complies with the current procedure on weapons
disposition, he or she is exempt from the prohibition on
weapons possession that would otherwise apply. SB 218
stated that non-compliance invoked the prohibition but
did not make the converse true as well.
5. Mijares Issue Background
In 1997, the Legislature enacted and the Governor into
law AB 78 (Granlund), Ch. 235/97. AB 78 purported to put
into statute in various circumstances exemptions from
otherwise applicable prohibitions on possession, carrying
and transfer of weapons where a person finds it or takes
it from a criminal and promptly transfers the same to a
law enforcement agency.
AB 78 thus in certain circumstances codifies the Mijares
SB 31
Page
14
doctrine (named after People v. Mijares , (1971) 6 Cal.3d
415). The concern has since been raised that placing
so-called Mijares exemptions in certain code sections
implies legislative withdrawal of the same in others.
This bill exempts from "through dealer processing" and
"dealer licensure' the transaction commencing with the
finding or taking possession of a firearm and the
disposition to a law enforcement agency.
In addition, to resolve any ambiguity on the issue in
other circumstances, the bill, in an uncodified section,
states it is not the intent of the Legislature in
enacting the Mijares related provisions to expand or
narrow the application of current statutes and judicial
decisions in other sections of law regarding the doctrine
of "temporary lawful possession": recognized in Mijares .
6. Museums
As noted above, the Executive Order allows transfer of
firearms to Museums. There is no current procedure in a
traditional "through-dealer transaction" where handguns
can legally be registered to an entity (as opposed to a
person). The only circumstance where this is now
possible is as to law enforcement institutional weapons.
This bill creates an exemption from through dealer
processing for law enforcement and private party
transfers to museums if a number of conditions are met.
These include:
A. In the case of a law enforcement agency, the
transaction is made by an authorized law enforcement
representative of a city, county, city and county, or
state or federal government.
B. In all cases, the recipient of the weapon is a
public or private nonprofit historical society,
museum, or institutional collection.
C. The entity receiving the firearm is open to the
public.
SB 31
Page
15
D. The firearm, prior to delivery, is deactivated or
rendered inoperable.
E. In the case of a law enforcement agency, the
firearm is not a nuisance weapon.
F. The firearm may, by other provisions of law, be
sold, delivered, or transferred to the public at
large.
G. Prior to delivery, the entity receiving the
firearm agrees, in writing, that the firearm will not
be restored to operating condition, and will either
remain with that entity or, if subsequently disposed
of, will be transferred in accordance with the
provisions of current law.
H. As to law enforcement agencies, within ten days of
the date that the firearm is sold, delivered, or
transferred to that entity, a complete transaction
report is to be filed with DOJ. As to private
individuals, an enhanced registration report is filed
with DOJ.
7. Antique Issue
In 1998, the Legislature passed, and then-Governor Wilson
signed into law, AB 2011 (Hertzberg), Chapter 911,
Statutes of 1998. Among other provisions, AB 2011
required that, as a condition of transfer, in order to
transfer ownership of a handgun it had to be serialized.
AB 2011 exempted federally defined antiques from this
requirement. This was in AB 2011 throughout its movement
to the Governor's Desk.
As a result of a chaptering "mix-up" at the end of the
1998 session, the erroneous cross-reference in Penal Code
Section 12001 was changed such that the serialization
applies to all handguns (including priceless antiques).
SB 31 corrects the erroneous cross-reference so that the
serialization requirement applies only to modern handguns
(i.e., non-federally defined antiques).
SB 31
Page
16
8. Miscellaneous
This bill corrects an erroneous/out-dated cross-reference
to specified "unloaded locked" container exemptions to an
authorized governmental agency as part of an authorized
voluntary buy-back program.
In addition, the bill adds locked container exemptions,
acquisition of, receipt of, or disposition of, a firearm
by a peace officer while investigating violations of law,
as specified; a person who takes possession of a firearm
after finding it or after taking it from a person
committing a crime against him or her; the sale, loan,
delivery, or transfer of a firearm made by any public or
private nonprofit historical society, museum, or
institutional collection under specified conditions; the
delivery, transfer, or sale of firearms made by an
authorized law enforcement representative of a local,
state, or federal government to a wholesaler under
specified conditions; and the transportation of a firearm
by a person for a specified purpose.
As noted above, this bill amends existing exemptions by
adding several provisions regarding gunsmiths and private
investigators, patrol operators, and alarm companies to
ensure that the specified individuals do not violate
existing law.
Veto Message Pertaining to SB 29
In his September 18, 1999, veto message, Governor Davis
indicated the following:
"While this bill individually may have merit, it must
be considered in concert with the legislation already
signed into law this year.
"Earlier this year, I signed into law five [gun]
bills?.Taken together, this legislation provides
California with the toughest gun-control laws in the
nation - much stronger than federal law?.Law
enforcement agencies must have time to absorb and
enforce the major revisions enacted into law this year.
Additionally, I would like the benefit of feedback
SB 31
Page
17
from law enforcement officials, including prosecutors,
on the effectiveness of these bills before burdening
them with additional responsibilities."
Prior Legislation
SB 29 (1999) - Vetoed by the Governor. Passed the Senate
Floor on 9/10/99 with a vote of 29-6 (NOES: Haynes,
Kelley, Knight, Lewis, Monteith, Mountjoy).
SB 218 - Chapter 662, Statutes of 1999. Passed the Senate
Floor on 9/10/99 with a vote of 23-9 (NOES: Brulte,
Johannessen, Kelley, Knight, Leslie, Lewis, Monteith,
Mountjoy, Wright).
SB 63 - Chapter 908, Statutes of 1998
AB 2011 - Chapter 911, Statutes of 1998
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: Yes
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/30/00)
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, Inc.
California Antique Collectors Association
California District Attorney Assocation (for Contra Costa
County District Attorney)
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
"this bill is the outgrowth of a five-year bipartisan
effort to create a truly accurate central handgun registry
which serves gun owners, gun dealers and law enforcement.
This bill is structured to provide maximum regulatory
flexibility to the DOJ consistent with the fee caps and
privacy protections contained in current law."
NOTE: The California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.
removed their opposition to the bill when the author
accepted their amendments to address their concerns. They
are now neutral on the bill.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Alquist, Aroner, Bates, Battin, Bock, Brewer,
Calderon, Campbell, Cardenas, Cardoza, Cedillo, Corbett,
SB 31
Page
18
Correa, Cox, Cunneen, Davis, Dickerson, Ducheny, Dutra,
Firebaugh, Florez, Gallegos, Granlund, Havice, Honda,
Jackson, Keeley, Knox, Kuehl, Lempert, Longville,
Lowenthal, Machado, Maddox, Maldonado, Margett, Mazzoni,
Migden, Nakano, Olberg, Robert Pacheco, Papan, Pescetti,
Reyes, Romero, Runner, Scott, Shelley, Steinberg,
Strom-Martin, Thomson, Torlakson, Villaraigosa, Vincent,
Washington, Wayne, Wesson, Wiggins, Wildman, Wright,
Zettel, Hertzberg
NOES: Aanestad, Ackerman, Ashburn, Baldwin, Baugh, Briggs,
House, Kaloogian, Leonard, McClintock, Oller, Rod
Pacheco, Strickland, Thompson
RJG:cm 8/30/00 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****