Categorized as: Legislative Updates

Selling Firearms? ATF Rule 2022R-17 goes active on Monday, May 20, 2024

ATF Rule 2022R-17 goes active on Monday, May 20, 2024. Anyone selling firearms needs to understand this new Rule.

ATF’s New Rule on what it means to be “engaged in the business of firearms dealing” begins next week. Are you ready? Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the implementation of ATF Rule 2022R-17, which right now is set to become effective Monday, May 20th. Right now, the only glimmer of hope is the matter of Texas v. ATF, which right now is on an expedited review and there is a possibility that a preliminary injunction could be issued. But if not, the life for many who buy and sell firearms as a hobby is about to end as they know it. So learn what all of this means and arm yourself with education today.

Please note that Apple Valley Gun Club is sharing this for informational/educational purposes only; we are not attorneys.

Read the verbiage of the ATF Final Rule here: https://www.atf.gov/firearms/final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms

May 2024 Legislation/Litigation Report

May 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

May Focus

On April 10, 2024, the U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland, signed ATF’s final rule 2022R-09 “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act Conforming Regulations. The regulatory definition of “Engaged in the Business” as a Dealer in Firearms is changing, amending ATF’s regulations in title 27, Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”), part 478. The final rule implements the provisions of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (“BSCA,” effective June 25, 2022), which broadened the definition of when a person is considered “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms (other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker). The Final Rule “clarifies” that definition. It will be published in the Federal Register and will be effective 30-days from publication.

This final rule incorporates BSCA’s definitions of “predominantly earn a profit” and “terrorism,” and amends the regulatory definitions of “engaged in the business as a dealer other than a gunsmith or pawnbroker” and “principal objective of livelihood and profit” to ensure each conforms with the BSCA’s statutory changes and can be relied upon by the public.

The final rule clarifies when a person is “engaged in the business” as a dealer in firearms at wholesale or retail by:

  1. clarifying the definition of “dealer,” and defining the terms “purchase,” “sale,” and “something of value” as they apply to dealers;
  2. adding definitions for the term “personal collection (or personal collection of firearms, or personal firearms collection),” and for “responsible person”;
  3. setting forth conduct that is presumed to constitute “engaging in the business” of dealing in firearms, and presumed to demonstrate the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” from the sale or disposition of firearms, absent reliable evidence to the contrary, in civil and administrative proceedings;
  4. clarifying that the intent to “predominantly earn a profit” does not require the person to have received pecuniary gain, and that intent does not have to be shown when a person purchases or sells a firearm for criminal or terrorism purposes;
  5. clarifying the circumstances when a person would not be presumed to engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, including as an auctioneer, or when purchasing firearms for, and selling firearms from, a personal collection;
  6. addressing the procedures former licensees, and responsible persons acting on behalf of such licensees, must follow when they liquidate business inventory upon revocation or other termination of their license; and
  7. clarifying that licensees must follow the verification and recordkeeping procedures in 27 CFR 478.94and Subpart H, rather than using an ATF Form 4473 when firearms are transferred to other licensees, including transfers by a licensed sole proprietor to that person’s personal collection.

There is also a change to Title 18 U.S.C. 922 which include certain specified juvenile offenses as disqualifying and individual to own or possess a firearm. It also changes the language regarding mental issues to include events occuring at 16 years of age, or older.

Please note that the text of the final rule as signed by the Attorney General has been published, but the official version of the final rule will be as it is published in the Federal Register. The rule will go into effect 30 days after it is published in the Federal Register.

To get a copy of the actual final regulation: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/docs/ruling/atf-final-rule-definition-engaged-business-dealer-firearms/download

The California Office of the Attorney General, Bureau of Firearms, has published a Notice of Proposed Rule Making regarding added requirements for California Licensed Firearm Dealers’ annual renewal on the Department’s Centralized List of Firearms Dealers. This includes requirements for sales tax documentation and certification that the video and audio recording equipment, required starting January 1, meets regulatory requirements. The 45 day comment period began April 26 and closes June 11 at 5:00 PM. You can find the Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and instructions for submitting comments, at:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/dealervid

Legislation

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices and is properly engaged so as to render it inaccessible by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Passed By the Senate and ordered to the Assembly. April 29, 2024, referred to Assembly Committee on Public Safety.

SB 1253, as introduced, Gonzalez. Firearms: firearm safety certificates.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, prohibit a person from possessing certain firearms without the possession of a valid, unexpired firearm safety certificate. A violation of this prohibition would be punishable as an infraction. This bill would require any person moving into the state with a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 120 days after arriving in the state. The bill would allow a person with an expired certificate a 60-day grace period in which to renew the certificate. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify certificate holders in a timely manner when their certificates are expiring.

Referred to the Committee on Public Safety and passed as amended on April 2. Referred to Appropriations.

SB 1160, as amended, Portantino.  Firearms.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it a misdemeanor to openly carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in a public place. Existing law generally makes that crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to 6 months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000. Existing law, if the exposed and unloaded handgun is being carried in a public place or public street in an incorporated city, makes that crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or by a fine not to exceed $1,000 if the handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that person and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun.

This bill would extend that increased punishment to also apply if the person with immediate possession of the handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun is not listed with the Department of Justice as the registered owner of that firearm, as specified.

April 9, with author’s amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.

WAS: AB 3067, as introduced, Gipson. Residential property insurance: firearms.

NOW: AB 3067 Interscholastic athletics: California Interscholastic Federation: notice of sanctions.

 

This bill would have required an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy.

The bill was gutted and amended to no longer include any mention of firearms. Instead, it now encourages CIF to publicize sanctions imposed on school for rules violations by posting on their web page.

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

(2) Existing law requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector. Existing law requires a collector who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

This bill would instead require the person to electronically submit these reports. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.

(3) Existing law exempts certain other transactions from the requirement to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and does not require these transactions to be reported to the Department of Justice, including, without limitation, sales, deliveries, or transfers of firearms between importers and manufacturers of firearms, transfers of firearms to a gunsmith for repairs, loans of a firearm to a hunter, loans of a firearm to a person attending a police academy, and temporary transfers of a firearm for safekeeping, as specified. Existing law allows a person transferring or receiving a firearm pursuant to one of these provisions or a person moving out of state with a firearm to report that information to the department.

This bill would require a report submitted pursuant to this provision to be submitted electronically and would prescribe the information to be included in the report. The bill would require the department to establish a fee for submission of this information, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified. The bill would make the filing of any false information pursuant to this provision a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department, upon receipt of this information, to examine specified records to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The bill would make other conforming changes.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(5) This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.

April 17, 2024, amended and re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.

AB 3014, as introduced, Irwin. Restrictions on firearm possession.

Existing law authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to 5 years, subject to renewal for additional one- to 5-year periods, if the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of self-harm or harm to another in the near future by having a firearm and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another. Existing law also allows a gun violence restraining order to be issued on an ex parte basis for up to 21 days. Existing law allows a petition for these gun violence restraining orders to be made by a law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member, employer, coworker, or teacher, as specified, of the subject of the petition.

This bill would additionally authorize a district attorney to request that the court issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon if the person is admitted to a mental health facility and the mental health professional who is treating the person determines that the person is a danger to themself or others and requires the professional to report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of the person, as specified. Existing law authorizes a law enforcement agency to temporarily confiscate any firearm or other deadly weapon that the person possesses while the person is admitted, as specified. Existing law requires the confiscating law enforcement agency to initiate a petition in the superior court within 30 days of the person being released from the facility for a hearing to determine whether the return of the firearm or other deadly weapon would be likely to result in endangering the person or others, as specified.

This bill would additionally allow a mental health practitioner to report the identity of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon to a district attorney and would additionally authorize a district attorney to file the petition to determine if the person should continue to be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate. Referred to Senate Rules Committee.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm, and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

March 11, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety. March 19, passed by Committee on Public Safety and referred to Appropriations.

SB 1019, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: destruction.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered.

This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website.

By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety. March 19, passed by Committee on Public Safety and referred to Appropriations.

AB 851, as amended, McCarty. Firearms: Urban gun free zone pilot program.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law exempts certain persons from this prohibition, including peace officers and persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

This bill would authorize the City of Sacramento to establish a pilot program that would, until January 1, 2029, declare a specified area of the city to be a gun free zone. The bill would, in addition to any other applicable offense, make possession of a firearm within this area punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would provide specified exemptions.

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would, upon completion of the pilot program, require the city to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1047, as amended, Maienschein. Firearms purchase notification registry.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. Existing law, subject to exceptions, imposes a 10-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, during which time a background check is conducted by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposed recipient of the firearm is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to a registry that would advise a licensed behavioral health clinician of the person’s attempt to purchase a firearm during the 10-day waiting period. The bill would, at the time of registration, require the registrant to list the email address of a licensed behavioral health clinician and would require the department, as soon as practicable but within the 10-day waiting period, to provide notice by email to the provided address that the registrant is in the process of purchasing a firearm, the registrant voluntarily added their name to the registry, and the purpose of the registry is for a third party to potentially intervene and prevent the registrant from purchasing a firearm.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 29, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 2842, as introduced, Papan. Firearms.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity under specified circumstances, including as part of a “gun-buyback” program, be destroyed.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency that contracts with a third party for the destruction of firearms or weapons to ensure that the contract for those services prohibits the sale of any parts of, or attachments to, the firearm or other weapon, as specified.

March 19, 2024, amended and referred to Committee on Public Safety.

SB 8, as amended, Blakespear. Firearms liability insurance.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm, as specified, to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop a written test required for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate. Existing law makes the violation of specified requirements with regard to firearms a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2025, require a person who owns a firearm to obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of that firearm, including, but not limited to, death, injury, or property damage. This bill would require a person to keep written evidence of coverage in the place where a firearm is stored.

The bill would also require the Insurance Commissioner to set the minimum coverage for a policy required by the bill and to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate under rule 56.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. Existing law, with additional exceptions, makes it a crime to, among other things, overwork, cruelly beat, or overload an animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above-described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

April 2, 2024, passed by Committee on Public Safety as amended. Referred to Appropriations.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

(2) Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

March 4, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety.

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices and is properly engaged so as to render it inaccessible by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

January 29, 2024, passed by the Senate (Ayes 27, Noes 9). Ordered to the Assembly and held at desk.

SB 1038, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms.

(1) Existing law, as enacted by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm that the person owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 5 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, as specified.

Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act.

This bill would amend Proposition 63 by requiring a person to report the loss or theft within 2 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.

(2) Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.

This bill would require the department to inspect the 25 firearm dealer locations in the annual report that are the source or origin of the most firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified.

(3) Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements, that every dealer keep a record of electronic or telephonic transfers of firearms.

This bill would require a firearm dealer to annually certify their inventory to a local law enforcement agency in their jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would authorize a city attorney or county counsel to impose a civil penalty on a person who violates this provision in the amount of $3,000 per day for the first violation, $5,000 per day for a 2nd violation, and $10,000 per day for a 3rd and subsequent violation, as specified.

(4) Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, a firearm dealer to report an acquisition of a firearm to the Department of Justice, as specified.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, remove specified exceptions to those provisions.

March 19, passed Committee on Public Safety and referred to Committee on Judiciary.

AB 1507, as introduced, Gallagher. Firearms: state property.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other things, requiring transactions of firearms to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law generally makes a violation of the requirements relating to the sale, lease, or transfer of a firearm a misdemeanor.

Existing law, except as specifically exempted, prohibits an officer, employee, operator, lessee, or licensee of the 32nd District Agricultural Association, as defined, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the OC Fair and Event Center, as specified.

Existing law, except as exempted, prohibits a state officer or employee, or operator, lessee, or licensee of any state-owned property, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on state property, as specified.

This bill would additionally exempt events hosted by a youth sport shooting organization, a youth hunting organization, or a nonprofit conservation organization.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1982, as amended, Mathis. Firearm safety certificate: exemptions.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate, with specified exemptions, including active or honorably retired members of the armed forces, as specified, where individuals in those organizations are properly identified. Under existing law, proper identification includes the Armed Forces Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that the individual is an active or honorably retired member of the armed forces.

This bill would additionally include the Veteran Health Identification Card issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs as proper identification for the above provisions.

March 18, 2024, passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

January 25, 2024, passed by the Assembly (Ayes 56, Noes 6). In Senate and assigned to Committee on Rules.

SB 1472, as introduced, Limón. Firearms: determination of eligibility.

Existing law prohibits specified persons from purchasing or possessing a firearm including persons convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanor offenses, persons subject to certain court orders, and persons with certain mental health determinations. Existing law requires a person purchasing or receiving a firearm to undergo a background check to determine that they are not so prohibited. Existing law also provides a procedure by which a person may request a determination of eligibility from the Department of Justice before attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that law.

February 29, 2024, referred to Committee on Rules.

SB 587, as introduced, Roth. Firearms.

Existing law requires any person producing or operating a gun show, as specified, to obtain a certificate of eligibility from the Department of Justice. Existing law prescribes various requirements and prohibitions regarding the operation of a gun show. Existing law provides that the provisions regulating gun shows to not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms to a law enforcement agency, as specified.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that exemption.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

For information on bills in the California legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

Litigation

Van Der Stok v Garland is a challenge to the ATF rules change regarding frames and receivers, filed by the Firearm Policy Coalition. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the ATF rule change in February, saying they had overstepped their statutory authority. The government petitioned the Supreme Court arguing that the 5th circuit wrongly ruled in FPC’s favor. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari and will hear the government’s appeal during this session.

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve) a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a lower court order that prevented the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court ruling declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 have not taken effect due to the district court’s order, although he other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta is scheduled April 11, 2024, in front of a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The audio, and possibly the video, of this hearing will likely be streamed online.

Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven-judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case will be returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction. The district court has not yet acted on the case, and we are waiting for a hearing date or issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Boland V Bonta, a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Nguyen v Bonta, is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one in thirty limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed 30 days to facilitate an appeal. This is a very positive step on a long path.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

April 2024 Legislation/Litigation Report

April 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

April Focus

California Department of Justice has proposed substantial changes to the CCW “Emergency Regulations” for DOJ Certification of CCW instructors.

After receiving more than 2,000 comments regarding the new requirements to apply for certification, most expressing concern that the regulations were too restrictive, the DOJ has proposed adding additional acceptable training pre-requisites.

As originally drafted, section 4410 requires applicants to provide a training certificate from one of the following programs: (1) Bureau of Security and Investigative Services (BSIS), Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California-Firearm Training Instructor; (2) Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), State of California-Firearms Instructor or Rangemaster; or (3) Authorization from a State of California accredited school to teach a firearm training course.

In the new “Emergency Package”, dated 25 March, the Bureau of Firearms (BOF) proposes to expand the list of qualified training programs to include the following: (1) POST Concealed Carry Tactics Instructor; (2) California Highway Patrol (CHP) or California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)-Firearms Instructor, Weapons Instructor, or Rangemaster; or (3) National Rifle Association (NRA)-Law Enforcement Instructor or Basics of Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructor. Basics of Personal Protection Outside the Home Instructors must additionally be both an NRA Certified Pistol Instructor and Personal Protection in the Home Instructor.

The proposed change will allow a much wider pool of applicants for DOJ certification and should provide more access to CCW training for initial and renewal applicants.

Please note that this training requirements is one of several pre-requisites that applicants must meet to apply for DOJ CCW Instructor certification. NRA CCW Instructor certification and USCCA certifications are not in the expanded list.

SB 1253, as introduced, Gonzalez. Firearms: firearm safety certificates.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, prohibit a person from possessing certain firearms without the possession of a valid, unexpired firearm safety certificate. A violation of this prohibition would be punishable as an infraction. This bill would require any person moving into the state with a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 120 days after arriving in the state. The bill would allow a person with an expired certificate a 60-day grace period in which to renew the certificate. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify certificate holders in a timely manner when their certificates are expiring.

Referred to the Committee on Public Safety and passed as amended on April 2. Referred to Appropriations.

 

Legislation

SB 1160, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms: annual registration of firearms.

This bill would require every firearm in the state, except those specifically exempted, to be annually registered with the department. The bill would require the registrant to annually pay a fee, as specified, to be deposited into a special fund that is continuously appropriated to the department for the express purpose of carrying out the administration and enforcement of the firearm registry. The bill would require the department to establish and maintain a system for the annual registration of firearms and would require the department to make registration information available to other law enforcement agencies, as specified. The bill would require the department to make reasonable efforts to notify firearms dealers, firearm owners, and the general public regarding registration requirements.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing April 2. The bill was pulled from consideration just before the hearing at the request of the author. It appears unlikely to return without amendments, but nothing is final.

AB 3067, as introduced, Gipson. Residential property insurance: firearms.

Existing law generally regulates residential property insurance, including homeowners’ insurance and renters’ insurance.

Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, distribution, transportation, and importation of specified firearms. Existing law requires persons who obtain firearms to have familiarity with those firearms, including the safe handling and storage of firearms. Existing law requires a purchaser or receiver of a firearm to hold a valid firearm safety certificate.

This bill would require an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy. The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the Legislature beginning on January 1, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report.

March 11, 2024, referred to Committee on Insurance.

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

(2) Existing law requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector. Existing law requires a collector who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, as prescribed by the department, describing the firearm and providing personal information.

This bill would instead require the person to electronically submit these reports. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.

(3) Existing law exempts certain other transactions from the requirement to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer and does not require these transactions to be reported to the Department of Justice, including, without limitation, sales, deliveries, or transfers of firearms between importers and manufacturers of firearms, transfers of firearms to a gunsmith for repairs, loans of a firearm to a hunter, loans of a firearm to a person attending a police academy, and temporary transfers of a firearm for safekeeping, as specified. Existing law allows a person transferring or receiving a firearm pursuant to one of these provisions or a person moving out of state with a firearm to report that information to the department.

This bill would require a report submitted pursuant to this provision to be submitted electronically and would prescribe the information to be included in the report. The bill would require the department to establish a fee for submission of this information, as specified. The bill would also authorize the department to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified. The bill would make the filing of any false information pursuant to this provision a crime punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the department, upon receipt of this information, to examine specified records to determine if the transferee is prohibited from possessing a firearm.

The bill would make other conforming changes.

(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(5) This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.

April 2, 2024, amended and re-referred to Committee on Public Safety. Amendments are in blue.

AB 3014, as introduced, Irwin. Restrictions on firearm possession.

Existing law authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to 5 years, subject to renewal for additional one- to 5-year periods, if the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of self-harm or harm to another in the near future by having a firearm and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another. Existing law also allows a gun violence restraining order to be issued on an ex parte basis for up to 21 days. Existing law allows a petition for these gun violence restraining orders to be made by a law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member, employer, coworker, or teacher, as specified, of the subject of the petition.

This bill would additionally authorize a district attorney to request that the court issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon if the person is admitted to a mental health facility and the mental health professional who is treating the person determines that the person is a danger to themself or others and requires the professional to report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of the person, as specified. Existing law authorizes a law enforcement agency to temporarily confiscate any firearm or other deadly weapon that the person possesses while the person is admitted, as specified. Existing law requires the confiscating law enforcement agency to initiate a petition in the superior court within 30 days of the person being released from the facility for a hearing to determine whether the return of the firearm or other deadly weapon would be likely to result in endangering the person or others, as specified.

This bill would additionally allow a mental health practitioner to report the identity of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon to a district attorney and would additionally authorize a district attorney to file the petition to determine if the person should continue to be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon. The bill would make other conforming changes.

March 11, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm, and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

March 11, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety. March 19, passed by Committee on Public Safety and referred to Appropriations.

SB 1019, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: destruction.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered.

This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website.

By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety. March 19, passed by Committee on Public Safety and referred to Appropriations.

AB 851, as amended, McCarty. Firearms: Urban gun free zone pilot program.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law exempts certain persons from this prohibition, including peace officers and persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

This bill would authorize the City of Sacramento to establish a pilot program that would, until January 1, 2029, declare a specified area of the city to be a gun free zone. The bill would, in addition to any other applicable offense, make possession of a firearm within this area punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would provide specified exemptions.

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would, upon completion of the pilot program, require the city to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1047, as amended, Maienschein. Firearms purchase notification registry.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. Existing law, subject to exceptions, imposes a 10-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, during which time a background check is conducted by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposed recipient of the firearm is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to a registry that would advise a licensed behavioral health clinician of the person’s attempt to purchase a firearm during the 10-day waiting period. The bill would, at the time of registration, require the registrant to list the email address of a licensed behavioral health clinician and would require the department, as soon as practicable but within the 10-day waiting period, to provide notice by email to the provided address that the registrant is in the process of purchasing a firearm, the registrant voluntarily added their name to the registry, and the purpose of the registry is for a third party to potentially intervene and prevent the registrant from purchasing a firearm.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 29, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 2842, as introduced, Papan. Firearms.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity under specified circumstances, including as part of a “gun-buyback” program program, be sold or destroyed.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation prohibiting the resale of confiscated firearms and firearms obtained through buyback programs, in whole or in part, in California.

This bill would require a law enforcement agency that contracts with a third party for the destruction of firearms or weapons to ensure that the contract for those services prohibits the sale of any parts of, or attachments to, the firearm or other weapon, as specified.

March 19, 2024, amended and referred to Committee on Public Safety.

SB 8, as amended, Blakespear. Firearms liability insurance.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm, as specified, to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop a written test required for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate. Existing law makes the violation of specified requirements with regard to firearms a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2025, require a person who owns a firearm to obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of that firearm, including, but not limited to, death, injury, or property damage. This bill would require a person to keep written evidence of coverage in the place where a firearm is stored.

The bill would also require the Insurance Commissioner to set the minimum coverage for a policy required by the bill and to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate under rule 56.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. Existing law, with additional exceptions, makes it a crime to, among other things, overwork, cruelly beat, or overload an animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above-described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

April 2, 2024, passed by Committee on Public Safety as amended. Referred to Appropriations.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

(2) Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

March 4, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety.

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices and is properly engaged so as to render it inaccessible by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

January 29, 2024, passed by the Senate (Ayes 27, Noes 9). Ordered to the Assembly and held at desk.

SB 1038, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms.

(1) Existing law, as enacted by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm that the person owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 5 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, as specified.

Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act.

This bill would amend Proposition 63 by requiring a person to report the loss or theft within 2 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.

(2) Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.

This bill would require the department to inspect the 25 firearm dealer locations in the annual report that are the source or origin of the most firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified.

(3) Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements, that every dealer keep a record of electronic or telephonic transfers of firearms.

This bill would require a firearm dealer to annually certify their inventory to a local law enforcement agency in their jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would authorize a city attorney or county counsel to impose a civil penalty on a person who violates this provision in the amount of $3,000 per day for the first violation, $5,000 per day for a 2nd violation, and $10,000 per day for a 3rd and subsequent violation, as specified.

(4) Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, a firearm dealer to report an acquisition of a firearm to the Department of Justice, as specified.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, remove specified exceptions to those provisions.

March 19, passed Committee on Public Safety and referred to Committee on Judiciary.

AB 1507, as introduced, Gallagher. Firearms: state property.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other things, requiring transactions of firearms to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law generally makes a violation of the requirements relating to the sale, lease, or transfer of a firearm a misdemeanor.

Existing law, except as specifically exempted, prohibits an officer, employee, operator, lessee, or licensee of the 32nd District Agricultural Association, as defined, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the OC Fair and Event Center, as specified.

Existing law, except as exempted, prohibits a state officer or employee, or operator, lessee, or licensee of any state-owned property, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on state property, as specified.

This bill would additionally exempt events hosted by a youth sport shooting organization, a youth hunting organization, or a nonprofit conservation organization.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1982, as amended, Mathis. Firearm safety certificate: exemptions.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate, with specified exemptions, including active or honorably retired members of the armed forces, as specified, where individuals in those organizations are properly identified. Under existing law, proper identification includes the Armed Forces Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that the individual is an active or honorably retired member of the armed forces.

This bill would additionally include the Veteran Health Identification Card issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs as proper identification for the above provisions.

March 18, 2024, passed by the Assembly and ordered to the Senate.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

January 25, 2024, passed by the Assembly (Ayes 56, Noes 6). In Senate and assigned to Committee on Rules.

SB 1472, as introduced, Limón. Firearms: determination of eligibility.

Existing law prohibits specified persons from purchasing or possessing a firearm including persons convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanor offenses, persons subject to certain court orders, and persons with certain mental health determinations. Existing law requires a person purchasing or receiving a firearm to undergo a background check to determine that they are not so prohibited. Existing law also provides a procedure by which a person may request a determination of eligibility from the Department of Justice before attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that law.

February 29, 2024, referred to Committee on Rules.

SB 587, as introduced, Roth. Firearms.

Existing law requires any person producing or operating a gun show, as specified, to obtain a certificate of eligibility from the Department of Justice. Existing law prescribes various requirements and prohibitions regarding the operation of a gun show. Existing law provides that the provisions regulating gun shows to not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms to a law enforcement agency, as specified.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that exemption.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

For information on bills in the California legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

Litigation

May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve) a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed a lower court order that prevented the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court ruling declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 have not taken effect due to the district court’s order, although he other provisions are in effect while being challenged.

A hearing on May v Bonta is scheduled April 11, 2024, in front of a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The audio, and possibly the video, of this hearing will likely be streamed online.

Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven-judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case will be returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction. The district court has not yet acted on the case, and we are waiting for a hearing date or issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Boland V Bonta, a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.

Nguyen v Bonta, is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one in thirty limit unconstitutional. The order has been stayed 30 days to facilitate an appeal. This is a very positive step on a long path.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

March 2024 Legislation/Litigation Report

March 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

March Focus

Nguyen v Bonta, is a challenge to California’s one gun per thirty days purchase rationing. Judge William Q. Hayes of the US district court for California’s southern district granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, declaring the one in thirty limit unconstitutional. The order is still to be drafted and has been stayed 30 days to facilitate an appeal. This is a very positive step on a long path.

Two particularly troublesome bills!

SB 1160, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms: annual registration of firearms.

Existing law requires the sale or transfer of any firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law requires a licensed firearms dealer to record specified information regarding each firearm sale or transfer and to submit that information to the Department of Justice. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain keep and maintain this and other specified information relating to firearms within the state. This bill would require every firearm in the state, except those specifically exempted, to be annually registered with the department. The bill would require the registrant to annually pay a fee, as specified, to be deposited into a special fund that is continuously appropriated to the department for the express purpose of carrying out the administration and enforcement of the firearm registry. The bill would require the department to establish and maintain a system for the annual registration of firearms and would require the department to make registration information available to other law enforcement agencies, as specified. The bill would require the department to make reasonable efforts to notify firearms dealers, firearm owners, and the general public regarding registration requirements.

This bill would specify that registration shall not be deemed evidence that the registrant is lawfully permitted to own or possess the registered firearm nor that they are the lawful owner of the firearm. The bill would also, consistent with existing federal law, prohibit the use of certain federal records in establishing or enforcing the registry. This bill would prohibit possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of which would be punishable as an infraction.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing April 2.

AB 3067, as introduced, Gipson. Residential property insurance: firearms.

Existing law generally regulates residential property insurance, including homeowners’ insurance and renters’ insurance.

Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, distribution, transportation, and importation of specified firearms. Existing law requires persons who obtain firearms to have familiarity with those firearms, including the safe handling and storage of firearms. Existing law requires a purchaser or receiver of a firearm to hold a valid firearm safety certificate.

This bill would require an insurer, by January 1, 2026, to include questions on an application for homeowners’ or renters’ insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessory structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy. The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the Legislature beginning on January 1, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report.

Referred to Committee on Insurance.

For information on bills in the California legislature: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml

 

Legislation

AB 3064, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms: safety devices.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile, publish, and maintain a roster listing all of the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet the department’s standards for firearm safety devices, and therefore may be sold in this state.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, authorize the department to charge each entity that manufactures or imports into the state for sale any firearm safety device listed on the roster, an annual fee, as specified. The bill would additionally require that any device newly added to the roster have certain information engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device. The bill would also require any entity seeking to list a device to comply with specified business standards.

This bill would provide a process by which a device that has been removed from the roster for nonpayment of the fee, to be relisted. The bill would also provide a process for a device model that is identical to a listed model except for certain cosmetic differences to be listed without testing. These processes require the submission of certain statements signed under penalty of perjury.

By expanding the offense of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would also require the manufacturer of any device listed on the roster that becomes subject to a product recall, as specified, to notify the department, as specified. The bill would authorize the department to remove the device from the roster if the manufacturer fails to provide this notice.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 2/3 of the membership of each house of the Legislature.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety. May be heard in committee March 18.

AB 3014, as introduced, Irwin. Restrictions on firearm possession.

Existing law authorizes a court to issue a gun violence restraining order to prohibit a person from purchasing or possessing a firearm or ammunition for a period of one to 5 years, subject to renewal for additional one- to 5-year periods, if the subject of the petition poses a significant danger of self-harm or harm to another in the near future by having a firearm and the order is necessary to prevent personal injury to the subject of the petition or another. Existing law also allows a gun violence restraining order to be issued on an ex parte basis for up to 21 days. Existing law allows a petition for these gun violence restraining orders to be made by a law enforcement officer, or an immediate family member, employer, coworker, or teacher, as specified, of the subject of the petition.

This bill would additionally authorize a district attorney to request that the court issue a temporary emergency gun violence restraining order. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon if the person is admitted to a mental health facility and the mental health professional who is treating the person determines that the person is a danger to themself or others and requires the professional to report to a local law enforcement agency the identity of the person, as specified. Existing law authorizes a law enforcement agency to temporarily confiscate any firearm or other deadly weapon that the person possesses while the person is admitted, as specified. Existing law requires the confiscating law enforcement agency to initiate a petition in the superior court within 30 days of the person being released from the facility for a hearing to determine whether the return of the firearm or other deadly weapon would be likely to result in endangering the person or others, as specified.

This bill would additionally allow a mental health practitioner to report the identity of a person prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon to a district attorney and would additionally authorize a district attorney to file the petition to determine if the person should continue to be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other deadly weapon. The bill would make other conforming changes.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety. May be heard in committee March 18.

SB 1002, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: prohibited persons.

Existing law prohibits a person who has been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted to a designated facility, or who has been certified for intensive treatment after having been admitted to a designated facility, because the person is a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, from owning a firearm for a period of 5 years after the person is released from the facility, or for the remainder of their life if the person has previously been taken into custody, assessed, and admitted one or more times within a period of one year preceding the most recent admittance. Existing law requires the facility to submit a report to the Department of Justice containing information that includes, but is not limited to, the identity of the person and the legal grounds upon which the person was admitted to the facility. Existing law allows a person who is prohibited from owning a firearm pursuant to these provisions to request the court for a hearing to reinstate the person’s right to own a firearm, and requires the facility to provide a person subject to the prohibition with the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” informing the person of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing.

This bill would, among other things, instead require the 5-year prohibition to commence on the date that the facility makes the above-described report to the Department of Justice, and would require the Department of Justice to, within 7 days of receipt of the report from the facility, notify a person subject to the above-described provisions of the firearm prohibition and their right to request a hearing to reinstate their right to own a firearm. The bill would require a person subject to the firearms prohibition to relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility, as specified, and would require the “Patient Notification of Firearm Prohibition and Right to Hearing Form” to include information on the relinquishment requirement.

Existing law also prohibits a person who has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of specified crimes and a person who has been placed under conservatorship by a court because the person is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder or impairment by chronic alcoholism from purchasing or receiving, or attempting to purchase or receive, or having possession, custody, or control of any firearm or any other deadly weapon.

This bill would require the court to inform the above-described persons, and their conservator, if applicable, of how the person may relinquish any firearm, ammunition, or firearm magazine in the person’s possession, custody, or control according to local procedure, and the process for submitting a receipt to the court to show proof of relinquishment.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing March 19.

SB 1019, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms: destruction.

Existing law requires the destruction of certain firearms, in the possession of a law enforcement agency, that have been confiscated, seized, abandoned, unclaimed, or surrendered.

This bill would specify that destruction of a firearm means destroying the firearm in its entirety by smelting, shredding, crushing, or cutting all parts of the firearm, including any attachments. The bill would also require every law enforcement agency, as defined, to develop and maintain a written policy regarding the destruction of firearms and shall make that policy available on its internet website.

By requiring local law enforcement agencies to follow specified requirements for destruction and to create and maintain a written policy on firearm destruction, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing March 19.

AB 851, as amended, McCarty. FirearmsFirearms: Urban gun free zone pilot program.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria including, among other things, the applicant is of good moral character and has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law exempts certain persons from this prohibition, including peace officers and persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.

This bill would authorize the City of Sacramento to establish a pilot program that would, until January 1, 2029, declare a specified area of the city to be a gun free zone. The bill would, in addition to any other applicable offense, make possession of a firearm within this area punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would provide specified exemptions.

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would, upon completion of the pilot program, require the city to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature, as specified.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1047, as amended, Maienschein. Firearms purchase notification registry.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. Existing law, subject to exceptions, imposes a 10-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, during which time a background check is conducted by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposed recipient of the firearm is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to a registry that would advise friends and family members a licensed behavioral health clinician of the person’s attempt to purchase a firearm during the 10-day waiting period. The bill would, at the time of registration, require the registrant to add up to 5 list the email addresses of family or friends address of a licensed behavioral health clinician and would require the department, as soon as practicable but within the 10-day waiting period, to provide notice by email to the provided addresses address that the registrant is in the process of purchasing a firearm, the registrant voluntarily added their name to the registry, and the purpose of the registry is for a third party to potentially intervene and prevent the registrant from purchasing a firearm.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 29, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as misdemeanor or a felony, a misdemeanor, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would allow a person registered on the list to file a petition in Superior Court requesting to have their name removed from the registry. The bill would require the court to hold a hearing and order removal of the person’s name if they establish by a preponderance of the evidence that they are not at elevated risk of suicide.

This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list.

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 2842, as introduced, Papan. Firearms.

Existing law requires that a weapon acquired by a specified governmental entity as part of a “gun-buyback” program be sold or destroyed.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation prohibiting the resale of confiscated firearms and firearms obtained through buyback programs, in whole or in part, in California.

May be heard in committee March 17.

SB 8, as amended, Blakespear. Firearms liability insurance.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm, as specified, to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop a written test required for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate. Existing law makes the violation of specified requirements with regard to firearms a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2025, require a person who owns a firearm to obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of that firearm, including, but not limited to, death, injury, or property damage. This bill would require a person to keep written evidence of coverage in the place where a firearm is stored.

The bill would also require the Insurance Commissioner to set the minimum coverage for a policy required by the bill and to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate under rule 56.

SB 902, as introduced, Roth. Firearms: public safety.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.

Existing law, with certain exceptions, makes it a crime to maliciously and intentionally maim, mutilate, torture, wound, or kill a living animal. Existing law, with additional exceptions, makes it a crime to, among other things, overwork, cruelly beat, or overload an animal.

This bill would provide that any person convicted of a misdemeanor violation of the above-described crimes, on or after January 1, 2025, may not, within 10 years of the conviction, access a firearm as described above, and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime. Because a violation of these provisions would be a crime, and because this bill would expand the application of the crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committee on Public Safety and set for hearing April 2.

AB 2739, as introduced, Maienschein. Firearms.

(1) Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would additionally require a weapon carried unlawfully for those crimes to be surrendered to law enforcement if the defendant is granted diversion for the underlying crime.

(2) Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm, as specified and except as exempted. Under existing law, a handgun carried in violation of this provision is a nuisance and is subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Existing law also prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in public, as specified and except as exempted, and openly carrying an unloaded handgun in public, as specified and except as exempted.

This bill would deem any firearm carried in violation of either of these provisions to be a nuisance and subject to forfeiture and destruction, as specified.

Referred to Committee on Public Safety. May be heard in committee March 18.

SB 53, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: storage.

Existing law generally regulates the possession of firearms, including imposing storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms.

This bill would, beginning on July 1, 2025, prohibit a person from keeping or storing a firearm in a residence owned or controlled by that person unless the firearm is stored in a locked box or safe that is listed on the Department of Justice’s list of approved firearms safety devices and is properly engaged so as to render it inaccessible by any person other than the owner, as specified. The bill would make a first violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a second or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promptly engage in a public awareness and education campaign to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. The bill would additionally prohibit a person convicted under these provisions from owning, purchasing, receiving, or possessing a firearm within one year of the conviction, as specified. The bill would make a violation of this provision punishable as a misdemeanor or felony. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

January 29, 2024, passed by the Senate (Ayes 27, Noes 9). Ordered to the Assembly and held at desk.

SB 1253, as introduced, Gonzalez. Firearms: firearm safety certificates.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor.

Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature to require persons who obtain firearms to have a basic familiarity with those firearms including the safe handling and storage of those firearms. Existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature not to require a firearm safety certificate for the mere possession of a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop and periodically update a study guide and written test for a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires an applicant to pass the written test to obtain or renew a firearm safety certificate. Existing law authorizes a fee of $25 to obtain or renew a firearm safety certificate. Existing law provides that a firearm safety certificate shall expire 5 years after the date of issuance.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2026, prohibit a person from possessing a firearm without the possession of a valid, unexpired firearm safety certificate. A violation of this prohibition would be punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill would require any person moving into the state with a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 60 days after arriving in the state. The bill would allow a person with an expired certificate a 60-day grace period in which to renew the certificate. The bill would also require the Department of Justice to notify certificate holders in a timely manner when their certificates are expiring.

February 29, 2024, referred to the Committee on Public Safety. Set for a hearing April 2.

SB 1038, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms.

(1) Existing law, as enacted by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm that the person owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 5 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, as specified.

Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act.

This bill would amend Proposition 63 by requiring a person to report the loss or theft within 2 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.

(2) Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.

This bill would require the department to inspect the 25 firearm dealer locations in the annual report that are the source or origin of the most firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified.

(3) Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements, that every dealer keep a record of electronic or telephonic transfers of firearms.

This bill would require a firearm dealer to annually certify their inventory to a local law enforcement agency in their jurisdiction, as specified. The bill would authorize a city attorney or county counsel to impose a civil penalty on a person who violates this provision in the amount of $3,000 per day for the first violation, $5,000 per day for a 2nd violation, and $10,000 per day for a 3rd and subsequent violation, as specified.

(4) Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, a firearm dealer to report an acquisition of a firearm to the Department of Justice, as specified.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, remove specified exceptions to those provisions.

February 14, 2024, referred to Committees on Public Safety and Judiciary. Scheduled for hearing March 19.

AB 1507, as introduced, Gallagher. Firearms: state property.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other things, requiring transactions of firearms to be completed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law generally makes a violation of the requirements relating to the sale, lease, or transfer of a firearm a misdemeanor.

Existing law, except as specifically exempted, prohibits an officer, employee, operator, lessee, or licensee of the 32nd District Agricultural Association, as defined, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on the property or in the buildings that comprise the OC Fair and Event Center, as specified.

Existing law, except as exempted, prohibits a state officer or employee, or operator, lessee, or licensee of any state-owned property, from contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition on state property, as specified.

This bill would additionally exempt events hosted by a youth sport shooting organization, a youth hunting organization, or a nonprofit conservation organization.

January 31, 2024, died in committee. February 1, 2024 filed with the Chief Clerk pursuant to rule 56.

AB 1982, as amended, Mathis. Firearm safety certificate: exemptions.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate, with specified exemptions, including active or honorably retired members of the armed forces, as specified, where individuals in those organizations are properly identified. Under existing law, proper identification includes the Armed Forces Identification Card or other written documentation certifying that the individual is an active or honorably retired member of the armed forces.

This bill would additionally include the Veteran Health Identification Card issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs as proper identification for the above provisions.

February 16, 2024, re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.

AB 1252, as amended, Wicks. Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Under existing law, the Department of Justice is responsible for carrying out several functions related to the sale, delivery, and transfer of firearms, including maintaining a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms and inspecting firearms.

This bill would establish, within the Department of Justice, the Office of Gun Violence Prevention. This bill would further establish, within the Department of Justice, a Commission to End Gun Violence. This bill would require the commission, within one year of its creation, to issue a public report discussing the implementation, coordination, and effectiveness of gun violence prevention laws and programs, as specified.

January 25, 2024, passed by the Assembly (Ayes 56, Noes 6). In Senate and assigned to Committee on Rules.

SB 1472, as introduced, Limón. Firearms: determination of eligibility.

Existing law prohibits specified persons from purchasing or possessing a firearm including persons convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanor offenses, persons subject to certain court orders, and persons with certain mental health determinations. Existing law requires a person purchasing or receiving a firearm to undergo a background check to determine that they are not so prohibited. Existing law also provides a procedure by which a person may request a determination of eligibility from the Department of Justice before attempting to purchase or receive a firearm.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that law.

February 29, 2024, referred to Committee on Rules.

SB 587, as introduced, Roth. Firearms.

Existing law requires any person producing or operating a gun show, as specified, to obtain a certificate of eligibility from the Department of Justice. Existing law prescribes various requirements and prohibitions regarding the operation of a gun show. Existing law provides that the provisions regulating gun shows to not apply to the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms to a law enforcement agency, as specified.

This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to that exemption.

February 1, 2024, returned to Secretary of the Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

AB 2691, as introduced, Quirk-Silva. Firearms.

Existing law requires any firearm sold, transferred, or manufactured in this state to include certain firearm safety devices and the packaging of any firearm and any descriptive material that accompany any firearm to bear a label with a specified warning statement. Existing law makes a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine on the first offense, a fine and prohibition from the manufacturing or selling of firearms in this state for 30 days on the second offense, and a permanent prohibition from the manufacturing or selling of firearms in this state on the third offense.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to these provisions.

May be heard in Committee March 16.

 

Litigation

Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven-judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel has been scheduled for March 19, 2024.

Miller v Bonta was heard by the US District court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger Benitez, who again found elements of California’s “assault weapons” restrictions unconstitutional. On October 28, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of that decision. Currently the restrictions in California Penal Code section 30515 remain in effect. The three-judge panel set to hear this case has pended it to the Duncan v Bonta case which will be heard by an “En Banc” panel of eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit. Duncan v Bonta deals with a different second amendment topic but may set precedent on how to decide second amendment cases in the Ninth Circuit.

Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel reversed the district court denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case will be returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction. The district court has not yet acted on the case, and we are waiting for a hearing date or issuance of the preliminary injunction.

Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is now pending appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

 

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

February 2024 Legislation/Litigation Report

February 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

February Focus

Rhode v Bonta challenges the Prop 63 rules on ammunition purchases. Judge Roger Benitez has ruled background checks to purchase ammunition is unconstitutional. This is Judge Benitez’s final ruling and grants a permanent injunction against enforcing the ammunition background checks in Penal Code sections 30352 and 30370(a) through (e). The judge also enjoined enforcement of “anti-importation” provisions found in Penal Code sections 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a).  Judge Benitez did not issue a stay of his ruling pending appeal.

There was a period, called “Freedom Week 2.0” by some, when the ammunition background checks and the prohibition on purchasing out of state purchases, were not in effect. That period has ended.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2 to 1 decision consisting of one sentence, did stay Judge Benitez’s ruling, pending further appeal.

Proposition 63 was a ballot initiative passed in 2016. This lawsuit was originally heard by Judge Benitez and a preliminary injunction was granted, then appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and on to the US Supreme Court. After the NYSRPA v Bruen decision the Supreme Court remanded this case (and others) back to the Ninth Circuit, the Ninth circuit remanded it back to Judge Benitez to re-evaluate the merits of this case considering the Supreme Court guidance in the NYSRPA v Bruen decision.

 

Litigation

Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven-judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did and was granted a stay. A hearing has been scheduled in March, 2024.

Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster was remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Bruen.

On March 31 the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of California, has issued a preliminary injunction against the state enforcing three of the six requirements for semi-automatic pistols to be added to the roster. The judge ruled that requiring a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or microstamping for a pistol to be included in the roster are unconstitutional. In addition, the judge ruled that the “one on/three off” provision is unconstitutional. This preliminary injunction would prevent the state from enforcing California Penal Code section 31910 (b)(4) to (b)(7). The injunction was stayed to allow the state time to appeal, and the Ninth Circuit granted a stay on appeal.

Boland v Bonta is a lawsuit challenging the California handgun roster imposed as part of the Unsafe Handgun Act.

Judge Cormac J. Carney, of the US Central District Court for California on March 20 issued a preliminary injunction against the state enforcing three of the six requirements for semi-automatic pistols to be added to the roster. The judge ruled that requiring a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or microstamping for a pistol to be included in the roster are unconstitutional. This preliminary injunction would prevent the state from enforcing California Penal Code section 31910 (b)(4) to (b)(6).

Judge Carney stayed his order 14 days to allow the state to appeal. The appeal was filed, but only appealed the injunction against the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. The finding in the injunction against microstamping was not appealed. The Ninth Circuit did order a stay of this preliminary injunction with regard to the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect but did not stay the injunction against enforcing microstamping.

Note that these preliminary injunctions did not strike down the roster; they only said specific criteria were unconstitutional. Since these are preliminary injunctions the cases have not been completed or decided on the merits. These two preliminary injunctions do mean that two judges have ruled, among other things, that it is likely the plaintiffs (our side) will prevail when the cases are completed.

Miller v Bonta

The US District court for the Southern District of California, Judge Roger Benitez, again found elements of California’s “assault weapons” restrictions unconstitutional. On October 28, 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an administrative stay of that decision. Currently the restrictions in California Penal Code section 30515 remain in effect. The three-judge panel set to hear this case has pended it to the Duncan v Bonta case which will be heard by an en-banc panel of eleven judges of the Ninth Circuit, which deals with a different topic but may set precedent on how to decide this case.

Legislation

AB 29, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure Internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to the California Do Not Sell List. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The bill would make it a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor, to transfer a firearm to a person who is validly registered on the California Do Not Sell List. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would allow a person, after seven days, to request removal from the list. No sooner than 21 days after receiving the request for removal of a voluntary waiver of firearm rights, the department shall remove the person National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

The bill would require the State Department of Public Health to create and distribute informational materials about the California Do Not Sell List to general acute care hospitals and acute psychiatric hospitals. The bill would specify that a person presenting in a general acute care hospital or acute psychiatric hospital who is at a substantially elevated risk of suicide should be presented with these informational materials. The bill would specify that any suicide hotline maintained or operated by an entity funded in whole or in part by the state should generally inform callers on how to access the California Do Not Sell List Internet-based platform.

Held in submission by the Appropriations Committee.

AB 851, as amended, McCarty.  Firearms: Urban gun free zone pilot program.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law exempts certain persons from this prohibition, including peace officers and persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

This bill would authorize the City of Sacramento to establish a pilot program that would, until January 1, 2029, declare a specified area of the city to be a gun free zone. The bill would, in addition to any other applicable offense, make possession of a firearm within this area punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would provide specified exemptions.

By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would, upon completion of the pilot program, require the city to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature.

AB851 Exclusions:

(a) Possession of a firearm within a private residence by, or with the consent of, the owner or resident of that property.

(b) Possession of a firearm within a private business by, or with the consent of, the owner of the property or business.

(c) Possession of a firearm by any peace officer described in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of Title 3 of Part 2.

(d) Possession of a firearm by a licensed private patrol operator, armored car operator, or alarm operator, or licensed employee thereof, that is also licensed to carry a firearm and, within the course of business, is present within the gun free zone established pursuant to this division.

(e) Possession of a firearm by a licensed common carrier or an authorized agent or employee thereof when the firearm is being transported in conformance with applicable federal law.

(f) Possession of an unloaded firearm in a secure container that is fully enclosed and locked by a padlock, key lock, combination lock, or similar locking device, or within the locked trunk of a vehicle.

(g) The otherwise lawful possession of a firearm in a vehicle being operated on public roads.

Held by Committee on Public Safety

 

AB 1047, as amended, Maienschein. Firearms purchase notification registry.

Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer. Existing law, subject to exceptions, imposes a 10-day waiting period for delivery of a firearm, during which time a background check is conducted by the Department of Justice to determine if the proposed recipient of the firearm is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm.

This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a secure internet-based platform to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to a registry that would advise a licensed behavioral health clinician of the person’s attempt to purchase a firearm during the 10-day waiting period. The bill would, at the time of registration, require the registrant to list the email address of a licensed behavioral health clinician and would require the department, as soon as practicable but within the 10-day waiting period, to provide notice by email to the provided address that the registrant is in the process of purchasing a firearm, the registrant voluntarily added their name to the registry, and the purpose of the registry is for a third party to potentially intervene and prevent the registrant from purchasing a firearm.

From the committee on Public Safety recommending “do pass”. Referred to the Appropriation Committee and held under submission.

SB 8, as amended, Blakespear.  Firearms liability insurance.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm, as specified, to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to develop a written test required for the issuance of a firearm safety certificate. Existing law makes the violation of specified requirements with regard to firearms a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified.

This bill would, commencing on January 1, 2025, require a person who owns a firearm to obtain and continuously maintain in full force and effect a homeowner’s, renter’s, or gun liability insurance policy specifically covering losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of that firearm, including, but not limited to, death, injury, or property damage. This bill would require a person to keep written evidence of coverage in the place where a firearm is stored.

The bill would also require the Insurance Commissioner to set the minimum coverage for a policy required by the bill and to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage.

At the Senate Committee on Insurance where a hearing was set for January 10, 2024, but then postponed.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

Breaking News – January 31, 2024

Breaking News Today (shared by member David Smith)
Rhode v Bonta challenges the Prop 63 rules on ammunition purchases.
Judge Roger Benitez has ruled background checks to purchase ammunition is unconstitutional. This is Judge Benitez’s final ruling and grants a permanent injunction against enforcing the ammunition background checks in Penal Code sections 30352 and 30370(a) through (e). The judge also enjoined enforcement of “anti-importation” provisions found in Penal Code sections 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a).
The Judge did not issue a stay of his ruling pending appeal, so we will see if the case is appealed and whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals grants a stay.

January 2024 Legislation/Litigation Report

January 2024 Legislation/Litigation Update

January Focus

A letter from Sheriff Dicus: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/SB2-Letter-from-the-Sheriff.pdf?x20231

Information on SB2 from SB Sheriff’s Department: https://wp.sbcounty.gov/sheriff/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/Senate-Bill-2-Information.pdf?x20231

May v Bonta challenging the “sensitive places” provisions of SB2, resulted in a Preliminary Injunction. At a hearing December 20, Judge Cormac J. Carney, of the US District Court for the Central District California has enjoined the state from enforcing the new provisions that would have severely restricted concealed carry. The injunction was stayed by the Motions Panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then the stay was lifted by the Merits Panel. Some of the “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 are not in effect due to the injunction.

Emergency Regulations Implementing SB2

The proposed Emergency Regulations include new requirements for the instructors who can teach the mandatory training for CCW, both new applications and renewals. NRA, USCCA and other organizations who train and certify firearms instructors are no longer acceptable to the DOJ for CCW training. Basically, only trained police instructors will be recognized. The proposed text is copied below.

Another provision requires the issuing agent to verify that the CCW applicant is the recorded owner of all firearms listed on their license. Previously, for example, a husband and wife could list the same firearms on both of their licenses. Starting January 1, only the recorded owner may list a specific firearm.

  • 4410. CCW DOJ Certified Instructor Qualifications and Applications.

(a) CCW DOJ Certified Instructor applicants must have a valid Certificate of Eligibility (COE) issued pursuant to Penal Code section 26710 and California Code of Regulations, title 11, section 4030 et seq.

(b) Applicants must be at least 21 years old. Applicants shall provide a copy of a valid California driver license or California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, demonstrating the applicant is 21 years of age or older. Applicants with a federal non-compliant California driver license or identification card shall also comply with section 4045.1.

(c) Initial and renewal applications must be completed and submitted on the Concealed Carry Weapon Program DOJ Certified Instructor Application, Form BOF 1034 (Orig. 01/2024), hereby incorporated by reference. Initial applicants must submit a copy of their training certification from one of the following:

(1) Bureau of Security and Investigative Services, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California-Firearm Training Instructor;

(2) Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST), State of California Firearms Instructor or Rangemaster; or

(3) Authorization from a State of California accredited school to teach a firearm training course.

(d) Within six months before submitting their application, initial and renewal applicants must pass a live-fire shooting qualification course on a firing range.

  • 4431. Reviewing the Automated Firearms System.

(a) For purposes of Penal Code section 26162, the licensing authority shall review the Automated Firearms System (AFS) to determine if the CCW license applicant is the recorded owner of the particular pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person reported in the application for a CCW license or the application for the amendment to a CCW license.

(b) The serial number of the firearm and the CCW license applicant’s name, date of birth, and identification number (from California driver license, California identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles, social security card, or military identification) must match an entry in one AFS record. [Edited for length.]

Link to Emergency Regulations on the Attorney General web site:

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ccwl

 

Litigation

B&L Productions, INC., d/b/a Crossroads of the West v Newsom

In the United States District Court for the Central District of California on the 30th of October, Judge John W. Holcomb issued a Preliminary Injunction against the state enforcing a ban on gun shows found in California Penal Code sections 27573 or 27575.

The 32nd District Agricultural Association must make available the next available date for a gun show and must allow the Plaintiff Crossroads of the West to reserve dates for gun show events (and to hold such events) at the Orange County Fairgrounds as the 32nd DAA would any other event promoter who has previously held events at the Orange County Fairgrounds.

Defendants request to stay Judge Holcomb’s order pending appeal was denied.

Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did and was granted a stay. A hearing has been scheduled in March, 2024.

Renna v Bonta on the California Unsafe handgun roster was remanded back to the trial court for reconsideration in light of Bruen.

On March 31 the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw, Chief Judge of the US District Court for the Southern District of California, has issued a preliminary injunction against the state enforcing three of the six requirements for semi-automatic pistols to be added to the roster. The judge ruled that requiring a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or microstamping for a pistol to be included in the roster are unconstitutional. In addition, the judge ruled that the “one on/three off” provision is unconstitutional. This preliminary injunction would prevent the state from enforcing California Penal Code section 31910 (b)(4) to (b)(7). The injunction was stayed to allow the state time to appeal, and an appeal has been filed.

Boland v Bonta is a lawsuit challenging the California handgun roster imposed as part of the Unsafe Handgun Act.

Judge Cormac J. Carney, of the US Central District Court for California on March 20 issued a preliminary injunction against the state enforcing three of the six requirements for semi-automatic pistols to be added to the roster. The judge ruled that requiring a loaded chamber indicator, a magazine disconnect, or microstamping for a pistol to be included in the roster are unconstitutional. This preliminary injunction would prevent the state from enforcing California Penal Code section 31910 (b)(4) to (b)(6).

Judge Carney stayed his order 14 days to allow the state to appeal. The appeal was filed, but only appealed the injunction against the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect. The finding in the injunction against microstamping was not appealed. The Ninth Circuit did order a stay of this preliminary injunction with regard to the loaded chamber indicator and magazine disconnect but did not stay the injunction against enforcing microstamping.

Note that these preliminary injunctions did not strike down the roster; they only said specific criteria were unconstitutional. Since these are preliminary injunctions the cases have not been completed or decided on the merits. These two preliminary injunctions do mean that two judges have ruled, among other things, that it is likely the plaintiffs (our side) will prevail when the cases are complete.

Miller v Bonta and Rhode v Bonta still awaiting a decision in Judge Benitez’ court.

Miller v Bonta is the challenge to the “assault weapon” ban, and Rhode v Bonta is the challenge to the state requiring background checks for ammunition purchases.

Judge Benitez indicated that he wants to see these cases completed at the trial court level in a timely manner. He questioned the value of the state bringing in testimony from experts in “history and tradition” and rejected this testimony. The judge indicated that he was not sympathetic to the state trying to delay the process or confuse any of the issues.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith