BILL ANALYSIS
Bill No: AB
1196
SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION
Senator Dean Florez, Chair
2007-2008 Regular Session
Staff Analysis
AB 1196 Author: Gaines
As Introduced: February 23, 2007
Hearing Date: June 12, 2007
Consultant: Art Terzakis
SUBJECT
State Fire Marshal: flamethrowing devices
DESCRIPTION
AB 1196 exempts a person from an existing prohibition on
the use and possession of a flamethrowing device provided:
1. The person is regularly employed by or a paid officer,
employee, or member of a fire department, fire protection
district, or firefighting agency of the federal
government, the state, a city, a county, a city and
county, district, public or municipal corporation, or
political subdivision of this state.
2. The person is on duty and acting within the course and
scope of his/her employment.
3. The flamethrowing device is used by the fire
department, fire protection district, or firefighting
agency in the course of fire suppression.
EXISTING LAW
Existing law requires the State Fire Marshal (SFM) to adopt
regulations governing the possession and use of
flamethrowers. Existing law also prohibits the possession
or use of a flamethrower without a valid permit issued by
the SFM and provides that a violation of these provisions
AB 1196 (Gaines) continued
Page 2
is a crime. In addition, existing law authorizes the SFM
to impose fees in amounts sufficient to cover the costs
incurred in the administration and enforcement of these
provisions.
Existing law defines "flamethrowing device" as any
non-stationary and transportable device designed or
intended to emit or propel a burning stream of combustible
or flammable liquid a distance of at least ten feet.
BACKGROUND
Purpose of AB 1196: This measure seeks to rectify an
oversight in current law by exempting firefighters who use
flamethrowers in the scope of their work from having to
obtain a permit from the SFM.
The author's office states that without this exemption, all
firefighters would be
required to apply for an annual permit issued by the SFM.
Each of the more than 900 fire protection jurisdictions
throughout the state that employs more than 30,000 paid
firefighters would be required to maintain these
requirements for use during emergency
firefighting operations. The author's office notes that
obtaining a permit for the vast number of firefighters
statewide (over 5,000 in the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection alone) would be costly and
time consuming.
In 2003, legislation was enacted (SB 238 - Perata, Chapter
499, Statutes of 2003) to, among other things, classify
flamethrowers as destructive devices and restrict the use
and possession of flamethrowers by requiring an operator to
obtain a destructive device license issued by the
Department of Justice (DOJ). SB 238 did provide an
exemption that allowed firefighters to use flamethrowers
within the scope of their employment without having to
obtain a license.
After SB 238 became operative, entertainment companies
(theme parks, movie, television, and touring productions)
raised concerns over the "simplicity" of obtaining this
license. They argued that having to obtain a license from
AB 1196 (Gaines) continued
Page 3
DOJ added unnecessary
costs (in terms of time and money) to law-abiding,
reputable entertainment companies already beset with a
myriad of rules, regulations, fees, and taxes. As a result
of the new
requirement, entertainment companies had to obtain a
license from DOJ to operate a destructive device and a
permit from SFM under the state's fireworks laws to operate
pyrotechnics. They argued that the new requirement
provided an additional reason
for the entertainment industry to move its operations
outside of California.
In 2004, legislation was enacted (SB 1781 - Knight, Chapter
496, Statutes of 2004) to delete flamethrowers from the
definition of destructive devices and require the SFM to
adopt regulations governing the possession and use of
flamethrowers. This statutory change was intended to
consolidate the regulation of pyrotechnic operators and
their use of flamethrowers under one state agency.
The proponents of AB 1196 contend that SB 1781 of 2004
erroneously omitted the exemption contained in the 2003
legislation (SB 238) that allowed all firefighters to use
flamethrowers within the scope of their employment without
having to obtain a permit.
AB 1196 is intended to correct this inadvertent drafting
error that could arguably hinder firefighting operations
and result in increased fire loss statewide.
PRIOR/RELATED LEGISLATION
SB 1781 (Knight) Chapter 496, Statutes of 2004. Simplified
the regulatory process for flamethrowers by providing SFM
(instead of DOJ) with the authority to issue permits.
Also, prohibited the use or possession of such device
without a valid permit, made violation of the prohibition a
crime and authorized the SFM to impose fees to cover
administrative costs and enforcement of the law.
SB 238 (Perata) Chapter 499, Statutes of 2003 . Classified
"flamethrower" as a destructive device and required
operators of destructive devices to obtain a destructive
device permit issued by the DOJ. Also, exempted various
groups including firefighters while on duty and acting
AB 1196 (Gaines) continued
Page 4
within the scope and course of their employment.
SUPPORT: California Department of Forestry and Fire
protection
OPPOSE: None on file as of June 7, 2007.
FISCAL COMMITTEE: Senate Appropriations Committee
**********