BILL ANALYSIS
AB 334
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 25, 2007
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Mark Leno, Chair
AB 334 (Levine) - As Introduced: February 13, 2007
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 4-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill creates an infraction, punishable by a fine of up to
$100 for a first offense, and a fine of up to $250 for a
subsequent offense, to fail to report a stolen or lost handgun
to law enforcement within five working days of the time the
person should reasonably have known of the theft or loss of the
gun. The bill applies to persons who acquire the gun(s) in
question after July 1, 2008.
The bill specifies that nothing in this statute shall be
construed to prevent local governments from passing stricter
ordinances.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Negligible state costs to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to
track and list additional lost or stolen serialized property -
current law requires DOJ to maintain a list of lost, stolen
and found serialized property, which includes guns - and to
develop an implementation protocol.
2)Minor local law enforcement costs, offset by minor fine
revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . Proponents contend stolen handguns are a
significant source of arms for criminals and that the lack of
a mandatory reporting law in California hinders tracking and
prosecution. (Currently only Michigan, New York and Rhode
Island, and the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, require
AB 334
Page 2
reports on lost or stolen guns.) A 2003 report by the Johns
Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, which addresses
the role of gun theft in arming criminals and the importance
of mandatory theft reporting policies, cites surveys of gun
owners that suggest some 500,000 guns are stolen annually from
private citizens nationwide. Data from a 1997 national survey
of incarcerated criminals indicate the prominent role theft
plays in arming criminals. When asked how they obtained a gun,
almost 20% reported stealing it or buying it from a fence.
According to the author, "This bill seeks to limit the ability
of straw purchasers to supply guns to criminals who cannot
legally own firearms. Often, criminals who are not eligible to
own a gun contact a 'straw purchaser' who can legally purchase
a firearm. This straw purchaser buys a gun, and then sells the
gun on the black market to the person who cannot legally own a
gun."
2)Opponents , primarily gun-related organizations, contend this
bill places an undue burden on those who have suffered the
loss or theft of a gun.
3)Prior Legislation .
a) SB 59 (Lowenthal, 2006) was similar to AB 334, passed
this committee 11-5, and was vetoed. The governor stated:
"While I share the Legislature's concern about the criminal
use of lost or stolen weapons, the ambiguous manner in
which this bill was written would make compliance with the
law confusing for legitimate gun-owners and could result in
cases where law-abiding citizens face criminal penalties
simply because they were the victim of a crime, which is
particularly troubling given the unproven results of other
jurisdictions in California that have passed similar
measures.
"In addition, this bill may have undesirable legal
consequences as it allows local governments to pass ordinances
that differ from State law, thereby leaving law-abiding
citizens with the task of navigating through a maze of
different or conflicting local laws depending upon the
jurisdiction they are in. A patchwork of inconsistent local
AB 334
Page 3
ordinances creates compliance and enforcement problems that
erode the States ability to effectively regulate handguns
statewide."
b) AB 1232 (Lowenthal, 2003-2004) was also similar and
passed this committee 18-1. The relevant provisions were
amended out of the bill in the Senate.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081