BILL ANALYSIS �
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SJR 7|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 445-6614 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: SJR 7
Author: Padilla (D), et al.
Amended: As introduced
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE : 5-2, 6/14/11
AYES: Hancock, Calderon, Liu, Price, Steinberg
NOES: Anderson, Harman
SUBJECT : Large capacity magazine
SOURCE : Author
DIGEST : This resolution adopts findings and declarations
expressing the support of the California Legislature for
H.R. 308 and S. 32, which would ban large capacity
magazines.
ANALYSIS : Current law provides that, except as
specified, commencing January 1, 2000, any person in this
state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured,
imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or
exposes for sale, or who gives, or lends, any
large-capacity magazine is punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison
for 16 months, two or three years. (Penal Code �PEN]
Section 32310)
Current law provides that, upon a showing that good cause
exists, the Department of Justice may issue permits for the
CONTINUED
SJR 7
Page
2
possession, transportation, or sale between a licensed
firearms dealer and an out-of-state client, of
large-capacity magazines. (PEN Section 32315)
Current law provides that, except as specified, any
large-capacity magazine is a nuisance and is subject to an
injunction against its possession, manufacture or sale, and
is subject to confiscation and summary destruction. (PEN
Section 32390)
This resolution makes the following findings and
declarations:
1. Large capacity ammunition magazines have been used in
numerous mass shootings, including in Tucson on January
8, 2011, Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007, Fort Hood on
November 5, 2009, Columbine High School on April 20,
1999, San Francisco at 101 California Street on July 1,
1993, and the Long Island Railroad on December 7, 1993.
In total, 91 people died and 114 were injured in these
attacks.
2. According to Tucson law enforcement, large capacity
ammunition magazines increased the lethality of the
Tucson attack on January 8, 2011. The shooter was able
to rapidly fire at least 30 shots from one ammunition
magazine, hitting 19 people, including United States
Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and killing six
others, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge.
3. The attack was limited to the capacity of the shooter's
ammunition magazine; when it was empty the shooter was
stopped while attempting to reload another large
capacity ammunition magazine. A large capacity
ammunition magazine enabled the shooter to fire more
than three times the rounds of a standard ammunition
magazine.
4. Ammunition magazines containing more than 10 rounds were
banned under the Federal Assault Weapons Act, which
Congress did not renew in 2004.
5. Only six states and the District of Columbia currently
CONTINUED
SJR 7
Page
3
limit the capacity of ammunition magazines.
6. On January 18, 2011, United States Representative
Carolyn McCarthy introduced H.R. 308, the Large Capacity
Ammunition Feeding Device Act, and on January 25, 2011,
United States Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced S. 32,
the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act, both
of which prohibit the transfer, possession, and import
of large capacity ammunition magazines.
7. The Legislature of the State of California hereby
supports H.R. 308, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding
Device Act, introduced by United States Representative
Carolyn McCarthy and S. 32, the Large Capacity
Ammunition Feeding Device Act, introduced by United
States Senator Frank Lautenberg.
8. The Legislature urges the President and the Congress of
the United States to enact the Large Capacity Ammunition
Feeding Device Act.
FISCAL EFFECT : Fiscal Com.: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 6/14/11)
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, California Chapters
City of Stockton
Legal Community Against Violence
Violence Prevention Coalition of Orange County
Women Against Gun Violence
OPPOSITION : (Verified 6/14/11)
California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc.
National Rifle Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author:
"California currently bans the manufacture, sale, and use
of large capacity magazines, as well as five other
states, and the District of Columbia. However, a ban at
the federal level is necessary to ensure these magazines
do not come from other states. We should support the
federal efforts to reinstate the prohibition on large
CONTINUED
SJR 7
Page
4
capacity magazines without delay to protect public
safety.
"Senate Joint Resolution 7 would formalize California's
support for H.R. 308 and S. 32 'The Large Capacity
Feeding Device Act.' The Federal act would ban large
capacity magazines for guns and rifles. In 1994 Congress
passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act,
more commonly known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
This Act included a ban on large magazines. In 2004
however, Congress failed to renew the Act, which ended
the ban on large magazines.
"Civilians have no need to own or use large capacity
magazines; large capacity magazines are not necessary for
hunting or self-defense. Standard hunting rifles are
usually equipped with no more than a five-round magazine
and a standard pistol magazine holds six to 10 rounds.
Large capacity magazines enable shooters to injure or
kill many people quickly before reloading. A
well-trained shooter armed with a semi-automatic pistol
and large capacity magazines can fire at a rate of more
than six rounds per second, or about 30 rounds every five
seconds.
"On January 8, 2011, in Tucson, Arizona, Jared Lee
Loughner used his Glock pistol equipped with a 30-round
large capacity magazine to kill six people, including a
9-year-old girl and a federal judge. Nineteen others
were injured, including U.S. Representative Gabrielle
Giffords. The shooter used a large capacity magazine to
rapidly fire 31 bullets. He was only stopped when
attempting to reload. The large magazine enabled
Loughner to fire three times the amount of bullets as a
regular magazine."
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : The National Rifle Association
states:
"H.R. 308/S. 32 would severely violate the fundamental,
individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
It would also put honest Americans at risk of
prosecution:
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second
CONTINUED
SJR 7
Page
5
Amendment protects the fundamental, individual right
to keep and bear arms for self-defense, especially
arms that are commonly owned.4 Firearms designed to
use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are among
the most commonly owned self-defense firearms today.
For example, 40 percent of self-defense uses of
firearms are accomplished with semi-automatic
handguns. Most semi-automatic handguns are able to
use magazines that hold more than 10 rounds; many are
designed specifically to use such magazines.
Private citizens choose magazines that hold more
than 10 rounds for the same reason police officers
do: to improve their odds in defensive situations.
One-third of aggravated assault and robbery victims
are attacked by multiple offenders, according to the
Department of Justice. Sometimes, criminal
attackers-particularly those who are under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, or who are heavily
clothed-do not stop when struck by a single bullet.
And many shots fired at criminals miss their mark.
For example, in gunfights with criminals, the police
miss more often than they hit.
H.R. 308 would put tens of millions of Americans
at risk of prosecution. Because virtually no
existing magazines bear any markings that show when
they were made, H.R. 308 would require that magazines
made after the ban be marked to distinguish them from
pre-ban magazines. However, the bill's "grandfather
clause" for possession of pre-ban magazines would
only create an affirmative defense-forcing defendants
to prove that they possessed the magazines before the
ban. This nearly impossible requirement is a major
difference from the 1994 ban, which put the burden of
proof on the government."
RJG:kc 6/14/11 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****
CONTINUED
SJR 7
Page
6
CONTINUED