BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Gloria Romero, Chair A
2007-2008 Regular Session B
3
3
4
AB 334 (Levine)
As Amended June 25, 2007
Hearing date: July 3, 2007
Penal Code
SM:mc
LOST AND STOLEN FIREARMS
HISTORY
Source: Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Prior Legislation: AB 86 (Levine) - Chapter 167, Statutes of
2006
SB 59 (Lowenthal) - 2006, vetoed
AB 1203 (Lowenthal) - 2004, "stolen handgun"
provisions deleted before enactment with other
unrelated firearms provisions
AB 131 (Ortiz) - 1997, failed passage,
reconsideration granted; provisions subsequently
deleted in 1998 and enacted pertaining to food
stamp penalties
Support: California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence (Sponsor); Coalition Against Gun Violence;
Legal Community Against Gun Violence; Los Angeles
County Sheriff's Department; City of Los Angeles;
Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun
Violence; Youth Alive
Opposition:California Association of Firearms Retailers;
(More)
AB 334 (Levine)
PageB
California Outdoor Heritage Alliance; California Rifle
and Pistol Association; California Sportsman's Lobby,
Inc.; Crossroads of the West Gun Shows; Gun Owners of
California, Inc.; Outdoor Sportsman's Coalition of
California; Safari Club International; National
Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
Assembly Floor Vote: Ayes 43 - Noes 34
KEY ISSUES
WITH RESPECT TO HANDGUNS ACQUIRED OR REACQUIRED ON OR AFTER JULY 1,
2008, OR WHOSE OWNER REPORTS OWNERSHIP OF THE HANDGUN FOR THE FIRST
TIME AFTER THAT DATE, SHOULD IT BE AN INFRACTION, PUNISHABLE BY A
FINE OF UP TO $100 ON THE FIRST OFFENSE AND UP TO $250 FOR ANY
SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE, TO FAIL TO REPORT THAT THE GUN IS LOST OR STOLEN
WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS, AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD ANY PERSON WHO TIMELY REPORTS A LOST OR STOLEN GUN, AS
SPECIFIED, BE IMMUNE FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ANY ILLICIT POSSESSION
OR USE OCCURRING THEREAFTER, EXCEPT AS SPECIFIED?
SHOULD THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (DOJ) BE REQUIRED, ON ANY FORM
REQUIRING OR ALLOWING A PERSON TO REPORT HIS OR HER OWNERSHIP OF A
GUN, ALSO STATE THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING LOST OR STOLEN
GUNS?
SHOULD DOJ BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP, ON OR BEFORE APRIL 1, 2008, A
PROTOCOL FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE REQUIREMENTS INCLUDING
REQUIREMENTS THAT PEACE OFFICERS NOTIFY VICTIMS OF THEFT OF THE
REQUIREMENT THAT LOST AND STOLEN GUNS MUST BE REPORTED, AS
SPECIFIED, AND ASSIST VICTIMS, TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE, IN
IDENTIFYING THE MAKE, MODEL AND SERIAL NUMBER OF THEIR HANDGUNS THAT
ARE LOST OR STOLEN?
PURPOSE
AB 334 (Levine)
PageC
The purpose of this bill is to (1) provide that, regarding
handguns acquired or reacquired on or after July 1, 2008, or
whose owner reports ownership of the handgun for the first time
after that date, failure to report that the handgun is lost or
stolen within five working days, as specified, will be an
infraction, punishable by a fine of up to $100 on the first
offense and up to $250 for any subsequent offense; (2) provide
that any person who timely reports a lost or stolen handgun, as
specified, shall be immune from civil liability for any illicit
possession or use occurring thereafter, except as specified; (3)
require that the Department of Justice (DOJ) on any form
requiring or allowing a person to report his or her ownership of
a handgun, state the reporting requirements regarding lost or
stolen guns; and (4) require DOJ to develop, on or before April
1, 2008, a protocol for the implementation of these requirements
which shall include requirements that peace officers notify
victims of theft of the requirement that lost and stolen
handguns must be reported, as specified, and assist victims, to
the extent practicable, in identifying the make, model and
serial number of their handguns that are lost or stolen.
Existing law provides that persons licensed to make, import,
collect, or deal in firearms are required to report the loss or
theft of firearms they possess, to a law enforcement agency.
For example, Penal Code 12071(b)(13) requires licensed dealers
to report losses within 48 hours and Penal Code 12086(c)(3)
requires licensed firearms manufacturers - whether of handguns
or long guns - to report the loss or theft of firearms within 48
hours to specified law enforcement agencies.
Existing law provides that the sale, loan or transfer of
firearms in almost all cases must be processed by, or through, a
state licensed dealer or a local law enforcement agency with
appropriate transfer forms being used. (Penal Code 12072(c)
and (d) and 12084.) In those cases where dealer or law
enforcement processing is not required, a handgun change of
title report must still be sent to the Department of Justice
(DOJ). (Penal Code 12078.)
Existing law provides that, on request, DOJ will register
AB 334 (Levine)
PageD
transactions relating to handguns in the Automated Firearm
System Unit for persons who are exempt from dealer processing or
are otherwise exempt by statute from reporting processes.
(Penal Code 12078(l).)
Existing law requires handguns to be centrally registered at
time of transfer or sale due to various transfer forms centrally
compiled by the DOJ. DOJ is required to keep a registry from
data sent to DOJ indicating who owns what handgun by make,
model, and serial number and the date thereof. (Penal Code
11106(a) and (c).) Law enforcement agencies must promptly
report to DOJ all reports they receive of lost, stolen, and
found property. (Penal Code 11107 and 11108.) DOJ must keep
a centralized and computerized list of all lost, stolen, and
found serialized property reported to it. (Penal Code
11106(a).)
Existing law provides that in addition to the requirements of
Section 11108 that apply to a local law enforcement agency's
duty to report to the DOJ the recovery of a firearm, a police or
sheriff's department shall, and any other law enforcement agency
or agent may, report to the department in a manner determined by
the AG in consultation with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives all available information necessary to
identify and trace the history of all recovered firearms that
are illegally possessed, have been used in a crime, or are
suspected of having been used in a crime. In addition, any law
enforcement agency or agent may report to the Attorney General
pursuant to this section all information pertaining to any
firearm taken into custody, except where the firearm has been
voluntarily placed with the law enforcement agency for storage.
(Penal Code 11108.3.)
Existing law requires that if any person is listed in the
registry as the owner of a firearm through a Dealers' Record of
Sale prior to 1979, and the person listed in the registry
requests by letter that the Attorney General store and keep the
record electronically, as well as in the record's existing
photographic, photostatic, or nonerasable optically stored form,
the Attorney General shall do so within three working days of
AB 334 (Levine)
PageE
receipt of the request, as specified. (Penal Code
11106(c)(4).)
Existing law requires that a "personal handgun importer" - a
person in lawful possession of a handgun who moves to California
after January 1, 1998 - shall either report that ownership to
the Department of Justice within 60 days or shall otherwise
dispose of the handgun, as specified. (Penal Code 12001(n)
and 12072(f).)
Existing law provides that if any weapon has been stolen and is
thereafter recovered from the thief or his or her transferee, or
is used in such a manner as to constitute a nuisance because it
was unlawfully carried or used without the prior knowledge of
its lawful owner that it would be so used, it shall be restored
to the lawful owner, as soon as its use as evidence has been
completed. The lawful owner must identify the weapon and
provide proof of ownership. (Penal Code 12028(c).)
Existing law requires that any person seeking the return of a
firearm in the custody or control of a court or law enforcement
agency must submit specified information, including for handguns
the firearm's make, model, caliber, barrel length, handgun type,
country of origin, and serial number. If the firearm has been
reported lost or stolen to a law enforcement agency, as
specified, the agency shall notify the owner or person entitled
to possession of the firearm. The person seeking return of the
firearm shall be subject to a background check, as specified.
(Penal Code 12021.3.)
Existing law defines "firearm" to include the frame or receiver
of the weapon for a number of provisions of law. (Penal Code
12001(c).)
Existing law excludes from the definition of "firearm,"
for a number of provisions of law, an unloaded "antique
firearm" and uses the federal definition of that term.
(Penal Code 12001(e)(1).)
Existing law requires licensed firearms dealers to post
AB 334 (Levine)
PageF
specified warnings in a conspicuous place on their premises,
such as a warning about penalties for leaving a loaded firearm
where a child obtains it. (Penal Code 12071(b)(7).)
Existing law pertaining to the "criminal storage" of firearms -
both handguns and rifles and shotguns - makes it a crime to
store firearms negligently and where a child (person under 18
years of age) gains access to the firearm(s), as specified.
(Penal Code 12035 and 12036.)
Existing law provides that an infraction is not punishable by
imprisonment; a person charged with an infraction shall not be
entitled to a jury trial and shall not be entitled to appointed
counsel, unless arrested and not released; if no other fine is
prescribed, infractions are punishable by a fine of up to $250.
(Penal Code 19.6 and 19.8.)
Existing law provides that every person is responsible, not only
for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an
injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care
or skill in the management of his or her property or person,
except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of
ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself. The
design, distribution, or marketing of firearms and ammunition is
not exempt from the duty to use ordinary care and skill that is
required by this section. (Civil Code 1714.)
Existing law provides that civil liability for any injury to the
person or property of another proximately caused by the
discharge of a firearm by a minor under the age of 18 years
shall be imputed to a parent or guardian having custody and
control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages, and such
parent or guardian shall be jointly and severally liable with
such minor for any damages resulting from such act, if such
parent or guardian either permitted the minor to have the
firearm or left the firearm in a place accessible to the minor;
the liability imposed by this section is in addition to any
liability otherwise imposed by law. However, no person, or
group of persons collectively, shall incur liability under this
section in any amount exceeding $30,000 for injury to or death
AB 334 (Levine)
PageG
of one person as a result of any one occurrence or, subject to
the limit as to one person, exceeding $60,000 for injury to or
death of all persons as a result of any one such occurrence.
(Civil Code 1714.3.)
Existing law provides for "statutes of limitations" which
require prosecution for crimes to be commenced with set time
periods. While there are numerous exceptions/extensions, the
general rule pertaining to felonies is prosecution must commence
within three years after commission of the offense. For crimes
not punishable by death or imprisonment in the state prison, the
time period is within one year after commission of the offense.
(Penal Code 801 and 802.)
This bill does the following:
Requires that any person who acquires or reacquires
ownership of a handgun, or who reports his or her ownership
of a handgun to the Department of Justice on or after July
1, 2008, and thereafter the handgun is stolen or lost shall,
within five working days after his or her discovery or
knowledge of, or within five working days after the date he
or she should reasonably have known of, the theft or loss,
report the theft or loss to a local law enforcement agency
of the jurisdiction in which the loss or theft occurred, or
in which the person resides.
Makes violations of that reporting requirement an infraction
punishable by a fine not to exceed $100 for a first
violation and by a fine not to exceed $250 for a second or
subsequent violation.
Provides that any person who complies with the reporting
requirement shall be immune from any civil liability for the
illicit use or possession of the firearm occurring after the
theft or loss, unless the person had prior knowledge of the
misconduct or was negligent with respect to the theft or
loss of the firearm.
Provides that no charge may be imposed for submitting a
AB 334 (Levine)
PageH
report pursuant to this section.
Requires DOJ, on any form requiring or allowing a person to
report his or her ownership of a handgun, to state the
reporting requirements regarding lost or stolen guns.
Requires DOJ to develop, on or before April 1, 2008, a
protocol for the implementation of these requirements which
shall include requirements that peace officers notify
victims of theft of the requirement that lost and stolen
handguns must be reported, as specified, and assist victims,
to the extent practicable, in identifying the make, model
and serial number of their handguns that are lost or stolen.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION ("ROCA")
IMPLICATIONS
California currently faces an extraordinary and severe prison
and jail overcrowding crisis. California's prison capacity is
nearly exhausted as prisons today are being operated with a
significant level of overcrowding.<1> In addition, California's
jails likewise are significantly overcrowded. Twenty California
counties are operating under jail population caps. According to
the State Sheriffs' Association, "counties are currently
releasing 18,000 pre and post-sentenced inmates every month and
many counties are so overcrowded they do not accept misdemeanor
bookings in any form, . . . ."<2> In January of this year the
Legislative Analyst's office summarized the trajectory of
California's inmate population over the last two decades:
During the past 20 years, jail and prison
populations have increased significantly. County
jail populations have increased by about 66
percent over that period, an amount that has been
limited by court-ordered population caps. The
--------------------
<1> Analysis of the 2007-08 Budget Bill: Judicial and Criminal
Justice, Legislative Analyst's Office (February 21, 2007).
<2> Memorandum from CSSA President Gary Penrod to Governor,
February 14, 2007.
AB 334 (Levine)
PageI
prison population has grown even more dramatically
during that period, tripling since the
mid-1980s.<3>
The level of overcrowding, and the impact of the population
crisis on the day-to-day prison operations, is staggering:
As of December 31, 2006, the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) was
estimated to have 173,100 inmates in the state
prison system, based on CDCR's fall 2006
population projections. However, . . . the
department only operates or contracts for a total
of 156,500 permanent bed capacity (not including
out-of-state beds, . . . ), resulting in a
shortfall of about 16,600 prison beds relative to
the inmate population. The most significant bed
shortfalls are for Level I, II, and IV inmates, as
well as at reception centers. As a result of the
bed deficits, CDCR houses about 10 percent of the
inmate population in temporary beds, such as in
dayrooms and gyms. In addition, many inmates are
housed in facilities designed for different
security levels. For example, there are currently
about 6,000 high security (Level IV) inmates
housed in beds designed for Level III inmates.
. . . (S)ignificant overcrowding has both
operational and fiscal consequences. Overcrowding
and the use of temporary beds create security
concerns, particularly for medium- and
high-security inmates. Gyms and dayrooms are not
designed to provide security coverage as well as
in permanent housing units, and overcrowding can
contribute to inmate unrest, disturbances, and
assaults. This can result in additional state
costs for medical treatment, workers'
compensation, and staff overtime. In addition,
--------------------
<3> California's Criminal Justice System: A Primer.
Legislative Analyst's Office (January 2007).
AB 334 (Levine)
PageJ
overcrowding can limit the ability of prisons to
provide rehabilitative, health care, and other
types of programs because prisons were not
designed with sufficient space to provide these
services to the increased population. The
difficulty in providing inmate programs and
services is exacerbated by the use of program
space to house inmates. Also, to the extent that
inmate unrest is caused by overcrowding,
rehabilitation programs and other services can be
disrupted by the resulting lockdowns.<4>
As a result of numerous lawsuits, the state has entered into
several consent decrees agreeing to improve conditions in the
state's prisons. As these cases have continued over the past
several years, prison conditions nonetheless have failed to
improve and, over the last year, the scrutiny of the federal
courts over California's prisons has intensified.
In February of 2006, the federal court appointed a receiver to
take over the direct management and operation of the prison
medical health care delivery system from the state. Motions
filed in December of 2006 are now pending before three federal
court judges in which plaintiffs are seeking a court-ordered
limit on the prison population pursuant to the federal Prison
Litigation Reform Act. Medical, mental health and dental care
programs at CDCR each are "currently under varying levels of
federal court supervision based on court rulings that the state
has failed to provide inmates with adequate care as required
under the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The courts
found key deficiencies in the state's correctional programs,
including: (1) an inadequate number of staff to deliver health
care services, (2) an inadequate amount of clinical space within
prisons, (3) failures to follow nationally recognized health
care guidelines for treating inmate-patients, and (4) poor
coordination between health care staff and custody staff."<5>
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison and jail
-------------------------
<4> Analysis 2007-08 Budget Bill, supra, fn. 1.
<5> Primer, supra, fn. 4.
AB 334 (Levine)
PageK
overcrowding crisis outlined above.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
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. When
the new owner commits a crime with the black market gun it is
often traced back to the straw purchaser. The straw purchaser
can then claim he lost the gun prior to the crime, leaving law
enforcement unable to prosecute.
This bill would require a gun owner to report a lost or stolen
hand gun. If the loss is not reported within five days, the
registered owner of the firearm can be fined. This should
significantly curb the ability of criminals to acquire
firearms through straw purchasers.
2. Does the Bill Violate the Fifth Amendment?
The Assembly Public Safety Committee analysis of AB 131 (1997)
(a bill substantially similar to this bill), discussed the issue
of whether all handgun owners will be able to provide the make,
model, or serial number if, for example, the handgun is not
registered with the DOJ because it was lawfully possessed before
the existing transfer laws were enacted.
AB 334 addresses the issue of the owner's ability (or inability)
to report a serial number, make and model by specifying that
such details are not required to comply with the reporting
AB 334 (Levine)
PageL
requirement.
The analysis of AB 131 also discussed the potential that
requiring a person to report loss or theft of a handgun could
expose that person to civil and criminal liability, and might
therefore violate the Fifth Amendment right against
self-incrimination. The analysis mentioned a number of court
decisions pertaining to statutes which require individuals to
provide information about activities when doing so could result
in criminal prosecution of the person reporting the information.
This bill could give rise to this situation where a person
would be required to report the loss or theft of a firearm that
the person obtained illegally.
In Marchetti v. United States (1968) 390 U.S. 39, the United
States Supreme Court granted an individual who was charged with
failing to comply with a gambling registration tax statute a
defense from prosecution based on the Fifth Amendment. In
Marchetti, however, the gambling statute was written in such a
manner so that the only persons required to comply with the
statute were those engaged in illegal gambling activities. As
such, the statute was designed to ferret out and cause the
prosecution of illegal gambling through an ostensible tax
scheme. The statute did not contain any use immunity
provisions.
This bill, by contrast, would require "[a]ny person who acquires
or reacquires ownership of a handgun, or who reports his or her
ownership of a handgun to the Department of Justice on or after
July 1, 2008," whose handgun is lost or stolen after that date
to make a report. Both those in lawful possession of the
handgun, and those not in lawful possession would be required to
make the report or be subject to an infraction. The requirement
also does not differentiate between circumstances of the theft
or loss, whether the weapon was stolen while carried illegally,
for example, versus whether the weapon was lawfully stored at
the person's residence. Therefore, because the statute does not
appear to be designed to identify persons who are in illegal
possession of a handgun before it was lost or stolen, there
would not appear to be any Fifth Amendment defense to failure to
AB 334 (Levine)
PageM
comply.
SHOULD REPORTING STOLEN OR LOST HANDGUNS AS PROPOSED BY THIS
BILL BE REQUIRED?
3. California Registration Requirements
Handgun owners are not required to possess licenses for firearms
under current California law. Penal Code Section 12026(b)
provides that "[no] permit or license to purchase, own, possess,
keep, or carry either openly or concealed shall be required of
any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age
of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state."
However, after April 1, 1994, any person seeking to purchase or
receive from some other type of transfer a firearm was required
to obtain a basic firearms safety certificate after taking a
two- to four-hour course of instruction.
While no license is required, for many years, California has
been a handgun registration state at point of transfer. (Penal
Code Sections 11106(c) and 12072(c) and (d).) This means that
any person who buys a handgun in California must do so through a
licensed gun dealer and must complete a "Dealer's Record of
Sale" form, which contains specific information about the
firearm and the purchaser and is maintained by the state
Department of Justice. (Penal Code section 11106(c).) Since
1998, persons who move to California with handguns are required
to register those handguns with DOJ. (Penal Code Section
12072(f) (2).) Further, any person who wishes to register his
or her handgun may do so pursuant to Penal Code Section
12078(l). However, a person is not required to register a gun
in order to maintain legal possession if he or she acquired the
firearm before these laws were enacted as those provisions were
not retroactive. As a result, there is a group of persons who
legally possess handguns not currently registered. If that
person's handgun is lost or stolen, the person may not be able
to provide law enforcement officials with a serial number for
the handgun. A lost or stolen handgun report without the
specific serial number may not be very useful in tracking a
handgun that may later be used in a crime.
AB 334 (Levine)
PageN
4.Governor's Veto of SB 59 (2006)
SB 59 of 2006 was substantially similar to this bill and was
vetoed by the Governor. The Governor's veto message stated:
While I share the Legislatures 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 ordinances creates
compliance and enforcement problems that erode the
States ability to effectively regulate handguns
statewide.
5. Statements in Support
The City of Los Angeles states:
According to the California Attorney General's office,
"the vast majority of new guns enter the market
legally," however, there is a large illegal gun
trafficking market. People who can purchase guns
legally do so and then sell them to people who are not
allowed to purchase firearms, which is one way that
these firearms end up in the hands of criminals.
AB 334 (Levine)
PageO
These traffickers then claim that the gun was stolen.
Unfortunately, prosecution of these traffickers is not
possible because existing law does not require the
reporting of lost and stolen firearms. Requiring a
gun owner to promptly report lost or stolen firearms
to law enforcement will minimize a barrier to the
effective prosecution of firearms traffickers.
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department states:
In 2006, Deputies working at the Compton Station in
the City of Compton seized 875 weapons, which is about
ten percent of all weapons seized countywide for that
year. Several of the weapons were traced to murders.
Some of the weapons were traced to burglaries or
thefts that occurred in Los Angeles County. Of these
guns that were recovered, only a few dozen were
reported stolen, and the overwhelming majority of the
other weapons were not found in the hands of the
registered owners.
We also discovered that approximately sixteen of the
guns recovered were traced to a store in Sparks,
Nevada. This particular store was responsible for
more than 350 guns recovered nationally by law
enforcement last year, including sixty-five from Los
Angeles.
As our investigation continued, we found out that
people who are referred to as "straw buyers" would
purchase guns legally from a store like the one in
Sparks, Nevada. These "straw buyers" would then sell
or give these guns to people who cannot legally
purchase these deadly weapons, such as gang members,
other criminals, or minors. When the recovered
weapons were traced back to these "straw buyers," they
would simply say the firearm had been lost or stolen
and not reported to law enforcement. Since there was
no control over reporting a lost or stolen firearm,
these nefarious individuals used this gap to shield
their criminal business.
We have only recovered a fraction of the deadly
weapons that have flooded onto our streets from this
dubious method. These guns have been used to
threaten, maim, and kill. We must close this gap.
6. Statements in Opposition
The California Rifle and Pistol Association states:
This bill would impose upon the victim of a theft or a
loss of a handgun substantial fines for not reporting
the theft or loss within five working days of its
occurrence or within five working days of when the
person 'should reasonably have known' of it.
AB 334 would punish the innocent victim and mandate a
'should reasonably have known' standard without
providing any indication of what the term means
relative to the requirements of this bill. Firearms
are not normally used every day like many other
consumer items and they are stored in out of sight
locations where their disappearance might not become
known for a long time. This bill is deficient by not
providing some sort of guidelines relative to what
'should reasonably have known' means the purpose of
(More)
AB 334 (Levine)
PageQ
determining when a violation of this standard has
taken place.
* * * * * * * *
AB 334 would make California's already confusing and
difficult to understand firearms laws even more
difficult for lawful individuals and law enforcement
to comprehend.
The Gun Owners of California, Inc., states:
This bill makes failure to report a stolen or
irretrievably lost firearm a crime. This bill also
applies the same standards to parts of a firearm,
frames and receivers specifically. Who can determine
what is "irretrievably lost?"
This bill requires reporting within five days of the
time one should have reasonably known of the firearm
theft or loss. "Reasonably known" cannot be defined,
is ambiguous and unclear. Theft itself speaks to
secretive, clandestine, unknown, silent and unseen.
* * * * * * * *
This bill makes the victim the criminal. This bill
increases the already cumbersome and burdensome Penal
Code with questionable language.
***************