BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 819
Page 1
Date of Hearing: July 6, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 819 (Leno) - As Amended: April 14, 2011
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote: 5-2
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill specifies that the Department of Justice (DOJ) may use
existing gun purchaser fees (known as the dealer record of sale
(DROS)) for costs associated with its firearms-related
regulatory and enforcement activities regarding possession , in
addition to costs associated with the explicitly referenced
sale, purchase, loan, or transfer, of firearms.
This bill also makes a series of findings and declarations,
including:
1)"A Dealer Record of Sale fee is imposed upon every sale or
transfer of a firearm by a dealer in California. Existing law
authorizes the DOJ to utilize these funds for firearms-related
regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale,
purchase, loan, or transfer of firearms pursuant to any
provision listed in Penal Code Section 16580, but not
expressly for the enforcement activities related to
possession." (Penal Code Section 16580 references possession
issues.)
2)"Rather than placing an additional burden on the taxpayers of
California to fund enhanced enforcement of the existing armed
prohibited persons program, it is the intent of the
Legislature in enacting this bill to allow the DOJ to utilize
the Dealer Record of Sale Account for the additional, limited
purpose of funding enforcement of the Armed Prohibited Persons
System."
FISCAL EFFECT
SB 819
Page 2
Significant ongoing increase in the use of existing DROS fees,
in the range of $1 million.
This bill does not appropriate funds or raise a fee. It
explicitly authorizes the use of DROS funding for an additional
purpose. According to DOJ, the sponsor of this bill, upon
passage of this bill, DOJ will pursue a Budget Change Proposal
(BCP) for the 2012-13 budget bill to fund Armed Prohibited
Persons System (APPS) efforts from the DROS fund. DOJ estimates
that BCP will request about $1 million for special agents to
assist other agents and local law enforcement in APPS sweeps.
In addition, DOJ states it will seek one-time funds of about
$500,000 for APPS DOJ task forces.
Currently there is a DROS reserve of about $5.5 million. This
assumes a one-time $11.5 million budget transfer to the GF.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author's intent is to clarify that DOJ may use
existing department resources to help enforce the APPS to keep
guns out of the hands of the more than 18,000 persons who are
on California's Prohibited Armed Persons File due to mental
illness, felony convictions, or gun-related convictions.
According to the author, "It is in everyone's interest to
ensure that firearms are not in the possession of prohibited
persons. However, law-abiding firearms owners have a
particularly strong interest in this to help avoid gun
ownership from becoming strongly associated with the random
acts of deranged individuals. Moreover, the purpose of the
bill is to strengthen enforcement of existing guns laws. A
prospective gun owner pays a fee to determine whether he or
she is eligible to purchase a gun (background check), it makes
sense that the fee should apply to enforcement when those same
individuals become "ineligible" due to criminal behavior or
mental illness. Accordingly, there is a very close nexus
between the DROS fund and the bill's intended purpose.
Moreover, the bill is aligned with gun advocates' stated
interest in heightened enforcement of existing gun laws and
the alternative would be to place this additional burden on
the tax payer at large."
2)DOJ's Armed Prohibited Persons System , the only such system in
SB 819
Page 3
the nation, has identified 18,700 prohibited persons and
36,300 guns associated with these persons (June 2011
statistics). The APPS maintains information about persons who
are, or will be, prohibited from possessing a firearm
subsequent to the legal acquisition or registration of a
firearm or an assault weapon. The APPS also provides
authorized law enforcement agencies with inquiry capabilities
to determine the prohibition status of a person of interest.
3)Supporters , including a list of law enforcement agencies, cite
the growing list of prohibited persons and the
underutilization of APPS, largely due to a lack of state and
local resources. While disarming prohibited persons is largely
a local law enforcement responsibility, local law enforcement
welcomes DOJ's intent to assist them via task forces and
sweeps.
4)Opponents , generally gun enthusiasts, object to using DROS
fees for what they see as expansive purposes.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081