BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1196|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1196
Author: Gaines (R)
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE GOVERNMENTAL ORG. COMMITTEE : 8-0, 6/12/07
AYES: Florez, Denham, Battin, Maldonado, Negrete McLeod,
Vincent, Wiggins, Yee
NO VOTE RECORDED: Wyland
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 72-0, 5/10/07 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Flamethrowing devices
SOURCE : California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
DIGEST : This bill exempts firefighters who use
flamethrowing devices in the scope of their employment from
having to obtain a permit from the State Fire Marshal to
possess or use flamethrowers.
ANALYSIS : 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 is a crime. In addition, existing law
CONTINUED
AB 1196
Page
2
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.
This bill 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.
Comments
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.
SB 238 (Perata), Chapter 499, Statutes of 2003, among other
things, classified flamethrowers as destructive devices and
restrict the use and possession of flamethrowers by
requiring an operator to obtain a destructive device
AB 1196
Page
3
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
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 this bill contend that SB 1781 of 2004
erroneously omitted the exemption contained in SB 238, that
allowed all firefighters to use flamethrowers within the
scope of their employment without having to obtain a
permit. This bill 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
AB 1196
Page
4
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
within the scope and course of their employment.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/26/07)
California Department of Forestry and Fire protection
(source)
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Adams, Aghazarian, Arambula, Bass, Beall, Benoit,
Berg, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Brownley, Caballero, Charles
Calderon, Carter, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De
Leon, DeSaulnier, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Eng, Evans,
Feuer, Fuller, Gaines, Galgiani, Garcia, Hancock,
Hayashi, Hernandez, Horton, Houston, Huff, Huffman,
Jeffries, Jones, Karnette, Keene, Krekorian, La Malfa,
Laird, Leno, Levine, Lieber, Ma, Maze, Mendoza, Mullin,
Nakanishi, Nava, Niello, Parra, Plescia, Portantino,
Price, Richardson, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Smyth, Solorio,
Spitzer, Strickland, Swanson, Torrico, Tran, Villines,
Walters, Wolk, Nunez
NO VOTE RECORDED: Anderson, Dymally, Garrick, Lieu, Sharon
Runner, Ruskin, Soto, Vacancy
TSM:do 6/26/07 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****