Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. Violation of that prohibition is a crime. Existing law exempts from that prohibition a firearms transaction where neither of the parties is a firearms dealer if the transaction is completed through a dealer. Existing law prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering a handgun to a person whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun that does not fall within an exception to the 30-day prohibition. A violation of that delivery prohibition by the dealer is a crime.

This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms. The bill would delete the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition and instead would exempt from that prohibition the transfer of a firearm conducted through a licensed firearms dealer if the firearm is being transferred by bequest or intestate succession, the purchase of a firearm that is not a handgun or a finished frame or receiver by a licensed hunter, and the purchase of a firearm from a nonprofit entity conducting an auction or similar event, as specified. The bill would make additional conforming changes and technical, nonsubstantive changes.

By expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would incorporate changes to Sections 26835 and 27535 of the Penal Code proposed by both this bill and SB 894, which would become operative only if both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2017, and this bill is chaptered last.

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.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. Violation of that prohibition is a crime. Existing law exempts from that prohibition a firearms transaction where neither of the parties is a firearms dealer if the transaction is completed through a dealer. Existing law prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering a handgun to a person whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun that does not fall within an exception to the 30-day prohibition. A violation of that delivery prohibition by the dealer is a crime.

This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms. The bill would delete the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition and instead would exempt from that prohibition the transfer of a firearm conducted through a licensed firearms dealer if the firearm is being transferred by bequest or intestate succession. succession, the purchase of a firearm that is not a handgun or a finished frame or receiver by a licensed hunter, and the purchase of a firearm from a nonprofit entity conducting an auction or similar event, as specified. The bill would make additional conforming changes and technical, nonsubstantive changes.

By expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. Violation of that prohibition is a crime. Existing law exempts from that prohibition a firearms transaction where neither of the parties is a firearms dealer if the transaction is completed through a dealer. Existing law prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering a handgun to a person whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun that does not fall within an exception to the 30-day prohibition. A violation of that delivery prohibition by the dealer is a crime.

This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms. The bill would delete the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition. prohibition and instead would exempt from that prohibition the transfer of a firearm conducted through a licensed firearms dealer if the firearm is being transferred by bequest or intestate succession. The bill would make additional conforming changes and technical, nonsubstantive changes.

By expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. Violation of that prohibition is a crime. Existing law exempts from that prohibition a firearms transaction where neither of the parties is a firearms dealer if the transaction is completed through a dealer. Existing law prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering a handgun to a person whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun that does not fall within an exception to the 30-day prohibition. A violation of that delivery prohibition by the dealer is a crime.

This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms. The bill would delete the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition. The bill would make additional conforming changes and technical, nonsubstantive changes.

By expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, subject to exceptions, prohibits a person from making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period. Violation of that prohibition is a crime. Existing law exempts from that prohibition a firearms transaction where neither of the parties is a firearms dealer if the transaction is completed through a dealer. Existing law prohibits a firearms dealer from delivering a handgun to a person whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun that does not fall within an exception to the 30-day prohibition. A violation of that delivery prohibition by the dealer is a crime.

This bill would make the 30-day prohibition and the dealer delivery prohibition described above applicable to all types of firearms. The bill would delete the private party transaction exemption to the 30-day prohibition. The bill would make additional conforming changes and technical, nonsubstantive changes.

By expanding the scope of existing crimes, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 1674

Author:(Santiago)

As Enrolled Ver:July 1, 2016

2/3 vote

Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.

SUMMARY: Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, and makes other conforming changes.

The Senate amendments double join this bill with SB 894 (Jackson) of 2016 to avoid chaptering out issues.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period.
2. Exempts from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:
   1. Any law enforcement agency;
   2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
   3. Any state or local correctional facility;
   4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
   5. Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
   6. Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
   7. Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
   8. Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
   9. Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ);
   10. The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
   11. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission- certified training.
3. Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified.
4. Provides that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
   1. A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $50;
   2. A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100; and,
   3. A third violation is a misdemeanor.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Department of Justice (DOJ): One-time costs of about $350,000 (Special Fund*) to modify the various firearm databases impacted by this measure. Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 (Special Fund*) annually.
2. Firearm purchase violations: Potential non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and incarceration offset to a degree by fine revenue for infraction and misdemeanor violations of the prohibition on purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period.
3. Sales tax revenue: Unknown, potentially significant loss of sales tax revenue (General Fund) due to the expansion of the 30-day single purchase restriction to include all firearms, including long guns.

*Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS) Account – Staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with an estimated reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end Fiscal Year 2016-17. Current revenues to the DROS Account are potentially insufficient to cover the costs of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the costs of this measure.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill prohibited any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, and makes other conforming changes.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any data collection and analysis to the contrary, this perception has held for several decades, and has resulted in current law in California which limits new handgun purchases to one per month per person.

"Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact, examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns.

"It should be noted that in mass shooting cases, analysis shows that nearly 80% of shooters (including those in San Bernardino) obtained their guns legally.

"Long guns are a significant piece of California's gun trafficking problem, as well. Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice's (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns.

"A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multi-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

"Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital importance to me. In April 2014, one person purchased 144 long guns in California in one single transaction. It is mind boggling that a person (no matter their intentions) could purchase as many rifles or shotguns they want at any given time. It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.

"AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month. This includes both purchases of used guns and new long guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they should be treated no differently. In fact, California already maintains parity between these types of guns in both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations."

GOVERNOR'S VETO MESSAGE:

I am returning Assembly Bill 1674 without my signature.

This bill generally prohibits the purchase of more than one firearm within any 30-day period. It should be noted that California already bans the purchase of more than one handgun per month.

While well-intentioned, I believe this bill would have the effect of burdening lawful citizens who wish to sell certain firearms that they no longer need.

Given California's stringent laws restricting gun ownership, I do not believe this additional restriction is needed.

Analysis Prepared by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003612

(Without Reference to File)

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 1674

Author:(Santiago)

As Amended Ver:June 22, 2016

Majority vote

Original Committee Reference: PUB. S.

SUMMARY: Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, and makes other conforming changes.

The Senate amendments double join this bill with SB 894 (Jackson) of the current legislative session to avoid chaptering out issues.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period.
2. Exempts from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:
   1. Any law enforcement agency;
   2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
   3. Any state or local correctional facility;
   4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
   5. Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
   6. Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
   7. Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
   8. Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
   9. Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ);
   10. The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
   11. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission- certified training.
3. Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified.
4. Provides that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
   1. A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $50;
   2. A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100; and,
   3. A third violation is a misdemeanor.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. Department of Justice (DOJ): One-time costs of about $350,000 (Special Fund*) to modify the various firearm databases impacted by this measure. Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 (Special Fund*) annually.
2. Firearm purchase violations: Potential non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and incarceration offset to a degree by fine revenue for infraction and misdemeanor violations of the prohibition on purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period.
3. Sales tax revenue: Unknown, potentially significant loss of sales tax revenue (General Fund) due to the expansion of the 30-day single purchase restriction to include all firearms, including long guns.

*Dealers' Record of Sale (DROS) Account – Staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with an estimated reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17. Current revenues to the DROS Account are potentially insufficient to cover the costs of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the costs of this measure.

AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill prohibited any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, and makes other conforming changes.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any data collection and analysis to the contrary, this perception has held for several decades, and has resulted in current law in California which limits new handgun purchases to one per month per person.

"Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact, examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns.

"It should be noted that in mass shooting cases, analysis shows that nearly 80% of shooters (including those in San Bernardino) obtained their guns legally.

"Long guns are a significant piece of California's gun trafficking problem, as well. Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice's (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns.

"A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multi-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

"Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital importance to me. In April 2014, one person purchased 144 long guns in California in one single transaction. It is mind boggling that a person (no matter their intentions) could purchase as many rifles or shotguns they want at any given time. It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.

"AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month. This includes both purchases of used guns and new long guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they should be treated no differently. In fact, California already maintains parity between these types of guns in both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations."

Analysis Prepared by: Gregory Pagan / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003564

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1674

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/14/16

AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning

NOES: Anderson, Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/20/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 44-33, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period, as specified; and deletes from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.

Senate Floor Amendments of 6/22/16 exempt additional parties from the prohibition on making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period, as specified; and also include chaptering amendments.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Penal Code § 27535(a).)
2. Exempts, in Penal Code Section 27535(b), from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:
   1. Any law enforcement agency;
   2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
   3. Any state or local correctional facility;
   4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
   5. Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
   6. Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
   7. Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
   8. Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
   9. Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ);
   10. The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
   11. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission-certified training.
3. Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified. (Penal Code § 27540(f).)
4. Provides, in Penal Code Sections 27590(e)(1)-(3), that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
   1. A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $50;
   2. A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100; and,
   3. A third violation is a misdemeanor.

This bill:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period.
2. Deletes from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.
3. Adds the following exemptions to the one firearm a month prohibition:
   1. A transaction completed through a licensed firearms dealer pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 28050) if both of the following conditions apply:
      1. The transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate.
      2. The transferee is a person acquiring ownership of the firearm by bequest or intestate succession from the estate.
   2. The purchase of a firearm that is not a handgun or a finished frame or receiver by a person who has been issued a valid hunting license by the state.
   3. The purchase of a firearm that is not a handgun acquired at an auction or similar event conducted by a nonprofit public benefit or mutual benefit corporation to fund the activities of that corporation or local chapters of that corporation.

Background

According to the Senate Public Safety Committee analysis of AB 202 (Knox, Chapter 128, Statutes of 1999), which created the one-handgun-a-month law in California:

The State of Virginia enacted a “one-handgun-a-month” law in 1993 (before the Federal Brady Bill, which required at least a five day waiting period plus a background check for states without such requirements). That state had weak restrictions on handgun sales and it has been stated that gun traffickers from New York City routinely traveled to Virginia to purchase quantities of weapons to take back for illegal sale in other states. Purchases of more than one handgun per 30-day period in Virginia is allowed upon completion of an "enhanced" background check when the purchase is for lawful business or personal use, for purposes of collectors, bulk sales and purchases from estates, to replace a lost or stolen weapon, and similar situations.

Virginia repealed this law in 2012. But, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law – which was in effect from 1993 to 2012 and prohibited the purchase of more than one handgun per person in any 30-day period – significantly reduced the number of crime guns traced to Virginia dealers. Virginia initially adopted its law after the state became recognized as a primary source of crime guns recovered in states in the northeastern U.S. After the law’s adoption, the odds of tracing a gun originally acquired in the Southeast to a Virginia gun dealer (as opposed to a dealer in a different southeastern state) dropped by:

• 71% for guns recovered in New York;
• 72% for guns recovered in Massachusetts; and
• 66% for guns recovered in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined.

(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summary/ [footnotes omitted].)

NOTE: See Senate Public Safety Committee analysis for additional background.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• DOJ: One-time costs of about $350,000 (Special Fund*) to modify the various firearm databases impacted by this bill. Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 (Special Fund*) annually.
• Firearm purchase violations: Potential non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and incarceration offset to a degree by fine revenue for infraction and misdemeanor violations of the prohibition on purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period.
• Sales tax revenue: Unknown, potentially significant loss of sales tax revenue (General Fund) due to the expansion of the 30-day single purchase restriction to include all firearms, including long guns.

* Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) Account – Staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with an estimated reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end FY 2016-17. Current revenues to the DROS Account are potentially insufficient to cover the costs of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the costs of this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/23/16)

California Academy of Family Physicians

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

City of Long Beach

Coalition Against Gun Violence, A Santa Barbara County Coalition

Courage Campaign

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Rabbis Against Gun Violence

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles

Women Against Gun Violence

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/23/16)

California Rifle and Pistol Association

California Waterfowl Association

Deputies of the Mono County Deputy Sheriff’s Association

Firearms Policy Coalition

Glenn County Rangeland Association

Gun Owners of California

National Rifle Association of America

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Several individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state:

In 1999, legislation (AB 202) was enacted that limits purchases of handguns from licensed firearms dealers in California to no more than one per person per month. AB 202 provided a number of exemptions, including private party transactions. The purpose of the bill was to curb the illegal flow of handguns by taking the profit out of selling guns from bulk purchases on the black market. AB 1674 applies existing law under AB 202 to all firearms, including long guns (rifles, shotguns, and lower receivers), and removes the exemption for private party transfers. Under AB 1674, firearms will not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser had made another application to purchase a firearm.

It stands to reason that a person buying large quantities of guns at one time may be acting as a straw purchaser or gun trafficker. Moreover, firearms acquired this way are frequently used in crime. In fact, an ATF study of tracing data demonstrated that 22% of all handguns recovered in crime in 1999 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. A similar study found that 20% of all handguns recovered in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. Additionally, a University of Pennsylvania report found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multiple-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

The California Brady Campaign believes that handguns and long guns should be subject to the same laws. Sixteen years ago, it was thought that handguns made up an overwhelming share of crime guns, but the data shows that is no longer the case. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Additionally, DOJ has found that over the last three fiscal years, nearly half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons through the Armed Prohibited Persons System are long guns.

Over the past ten years, Californians have annually purchased more long guns than handguns, including 534,469 long guns in 2013. These long guns include legal weapons that have military-style features and a mechanism, such as a bullet button, to allow for the rapid exchange of magazines and lower receivers, which can be assembled into military-style weapons. Limiting multiple-gun sales within a short period of time for such weapons, which are more lethal than handguns, is clearly in the interest of public safety.

The Department of Justice began to retain records of long gun purchases on January 1, 2014. An analysis of the transaction data from the period January 2014 through June 2015 shows that 81.9% of long guns were sold as a single long gun purchase within a 30-day period. Clearly, the vast majority of long gun purchasers will not be impacted by AB 1674. However at the opposite end of the spectrum, an individual purchased 177 long guns in two transactions within a one month period (April 2014). Furthermore, sales to single individuals ranging from 5 to 54 long guns per month occurred on 1,787 occasions, totaling 12,090 guns. Department data also shows that when multiple long guns are transferred in a sale, it is more than twice as likely that lower receivers are included. The largest bulk sale of long guns in one month to an individual (177 long guns) was composed entirely of lower receivers, which can be built into illegal assault weapons and sold on the black market.

Preventing the flow of illegal guns is important to public safety regardless of whether the firearm is a handgun or long gun, or purchased new from a dealer or through a private party transaction. Limiting firearms sales to one gun per month is a recognized strategy to reduce gun trafficking and keep firearms out of dangerous hands.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Firearms Policy Coalition:

AB 1674 would additionally ban the timely, lawful transfer of private property between individuals (through licensed firearm dealers, no less) by eliminating the ability for a law-abiding California gun owner to sell, trade, or loan their firearms if the intended buyer or transferee has already initiated any kind of acquisition within the past 30 days.

Despite recent amendments of June 22, AB 1674 makes it virtually impossible for a widow(er) to dispose of a collection at fair-market value as it could take years to line up the hundreds of individual buyers—each one requiring a face-to-face interaction.

Bizarrely, the recent amendments also exempt those with a hunting license, however if one were to exercise the exemption it would limit the purchaser to only buying non-handguns and those firearms that aren’t “finished frames or receivers”—or said another way the only legal definition of firearm is the only thing you can’t buy.

This type of legislation will only fuel the underground economy as people seek to dispose of a collection—or build one, no longer feeling bound by illegible, frenetic and overreaching laws.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and California’s law-abiding residents are not second-class people. AB 1674 must be rejected for its moral and policy flaws if not for its blatant constitutional infirmities.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 44-33, 6/1/16

AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Cooley, Dahle, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dodd, Hadley, Rodriguez

Prepared by:

6/24/16 14:33:51

**** END ****

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 1674

Author:

:

Vote:

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/14/16

AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning

NOES: Anderson, Stone

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-2, 6/20/16

AYES: Lara, Beall, Hill, McGuire, Mendoza

NOES: Bates, Nielsen

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 44-33, 6/1/16 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT:

SOURCE: Author

DIGEST: This bill prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period, as specified; and deletes from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Penal Code § 27535(a).)
2. Exempts, in Penal Code Section 27535(b), from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:
   
   1. Any law enforcement agency;
   2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
   3. Any state or local correctional facility;
   4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
   5. Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
   6. Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
   7. Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
   8. Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
   9. Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the California Department of Justice (DOJ);
   10. The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
   11. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission- certified training.
3. Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified. (Penal Code § 27540(f).)
4. Provides, in Penal Code Sections 27590(e)(1)-(3), that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
   1. A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $50;
   2. A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100; and,
   3. A third violation is a misdemeanor.

This bill:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period.
2. Deletes from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.

Background

According to the Senate Public Safety Committee analysis of AB 202 (Knox, Chapter 128, Statutes of1999), which created the one-handgun-a-month law in California:

The State of Virginia enacted a “one-handgun-a-month” law in 1993 (before the Federal Brady Bill, which required at least a five day waiting period plus a background check for states without such requirements). That state had weak restrictions on handgun sales and it has been stated that gun traffickers from New York City routinely traveled to Virginia to purchase quantities of weapons to take back for illegal sale in other states. Purchases of more than one handgun per 30-day period in Virginia is allowed upon completion of an "enhanced" background check when the purchase is for lawful business or personal use, for purposes of collectors, bulk sales and purchases from estates, to replace a lost or stolen weapon, and similar situations.

Supporters of limits on purchases of handguns assume that the Virginia limits and the limits in this bill would only affect a very small proportion of legitimate handgun purchasers. A family of two adults could still purchase 24 handguns a year under the provisions of both this bill and the Virginia law.

Virginia repealed this law in 2012. But, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence:

Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law – which was in effect from 1993 to 2012 and prohibited the purchase of more than one handgun per person in any 30-day period – significantly reduced the number of crime guns traced to Virginia dealers. Virginia initially adopted its law after the state became recognized as a primary source of crime guns recovered in states in the northeastern U.S. After the law’s adoption, the odds of tracing a gun originally acquired in the Southeast to a Virginia gun dealer (as opposed to a dealer in a different southeastern state) dropped by:

• 71% for guns recovered in New York;
• 72% for guns recovered in Massachusetts; and
• 66% for guns recovered in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined.

(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summary/ [footnotes omitted].)

Other states that have limits on the number of firearms that can be sold in one month include:

• California: California law prohibits any person from purchasing more than one handgun within any 30-day period. In addition, a licensed firearms dealer may not deliver a handgun to any person following notification from the California Department of Justice that the purchaser has applied to acquire a handgun within the preceding 30-day period...
• District of Columbia: A person may not register more than one handgun in the District during any 30-day period. Since every handgun must be registered, this amounts to a purchase and sale limitation of one handgun per 30-day period. . .
• Maryland: Maryland prohibits any person from purchasing more than one handgun or assault weapon within a 30-day period. Under limited circumstances, a person may be approved by the Secretary of the Maryland State Police to purchase multiple handguns or assault weapons in a 30-day period. Maryland also penalizes any dealer or other seller who knowingly participates in an illegal purchase of a handgun or assault weapon. . .
• New Jersey: New Jersey prohibits licensed firearms dealers from knowingly delivering more than one handgun to any person within any 30-day period. With limited exceptions, no person may purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. New Jersey requires a handgun purchaser to obtain a separate permit for each handgun purchased, and present the permit to the seller. The seller must keep a copy of each permit presented.

(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summary/[footnotes omitted].)

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• DOJ: One-time costs of about $350,000 (Special Fund*) to modify the various firearm databases impacted by this bill. Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 (Special Fund*) annually.
• Firearm purchase violations: Potential non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and incarceration offset to a degree by fine revenue for infraction and misdemeanor violations of the prohibition on purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period.
• Sales tax revenue: Unknown, potentially significant loss of sales tax revenue (General Fund) due to the expansion of the 30-day single purchase restriction to include all firearms, including long guns.

* Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) Account – Staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with an estimated reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end FY 2016-17. Current revenues to the DROS Account are potentially insufficient to cover the costs of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the costs of this bill.

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/21/16)

California Academy of Family Physicians

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

City of Long Beach

Coalition Against Gun Violence, A Santa Barbara County Coalition

Courage Campaign

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Rabbis Against Gun Violence

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles

Women Against Gun Violence

One individual

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/21/16)

California Rifle and Pistol Association

California Waterfowl Association

Deputies of the Mono County Deputy Sheriff’s Association

Firearms Policy Coalition

Glenn County Rangeland Association

Gun Owners of California

National Rifle Association of America

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Peace Officers Research Association of California

Several individuals

ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state:

In 1999, legislation (AB 202) was enacted that limits purchases of handguns from licensed firearms dealers in California to no more than one per person per month. AB 202 provided a number of exemptions, including private party transactions. The purpose of the bill was to curb the illegal flow of handguns by taking the profit out of selling guns from bulk purchases on the black market. AB 1674 applies existing law under AB 202 to all firearms, including long guns (rifles, shotguns, and lower receivers), and removes the exemption for private party transfers. Under AB 1674, firearms will not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser had made another application to purchase a firearm.

It stands to reason that a person buying large quantities of guns at one time may be acting as a straw purchaser or gun trafficker. Moreover, firearms acquired this way are frequently used in crime. In fact, an ATF study of tracing data demonstrated that 22% of all handguns recovered in crime in 1999 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. A similar study found that 20% of all handguns recovered in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. Additionally, a University of Pennsylvania report found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multiple-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

The California Brady Campaign believes that handguns and long guns should be subject to the same laws. Sixteen years ago, it was thought that handguns made up an overwhelming share of crime guns, but the data shows that is no longer the case. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Additionally, DOJ has found that over the last three fiscal years, nearly half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons through the Armed Prohibited Persons System are long guns.

Over the past ten years, Californians have annually purchased more long guns than handguns, including 534,469 long guns in 2013. These long guns include legal weapons that have military-style features and a mechanism, such as a bullet button, to allow for the rapid exchange of magazines and lower receivers, which can be assembled into military-style weapons. Limiting multiple-gun sales within a short period of time for such weapons, which are more lethal than handguns, is clearly in the interest of public safety.

The Department of Justice began to retain records of long gun purchases on January 1, 2014. An analysis of the transaction data from the period January 2014 through June 2015 shows that 81.9% of long guns were sold as a single long gun purchase within a 30-day period. Clearly, the vast majority of long gun purchasers will not be impacted by AB 1674. However at the opposite end of the spectrum, an individual purchased 177 long guns in two transactions within a one month period (April 2014). Furthermore, sales to single individuals ranging from 5 to 54 long guns per month occurred on 1,787 occasions, totaling 12,090 guns. Department data also shows that when multiple long guns are transferred in a sale, it is more than twice as likely that lower receivers are included. The largest bulk sale of long guns in one month to an individual (177 long guns) was composed entirely of lower receivers, which can be built into illegal assault weapons and sold on the black market.

Preventing the flow of illegal guns is important to public safety regardless of whether the firearm is a handgun or long gun, or purchased new from a dealer or through a private party transaction. Limiting firearms sales to one gun per month is a recognized strategy to reduce gun trafficking and keep firearms out of dangerous hands.

ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION: According to the Firearms Policy Coalition:

AB 1674 seeks to limit, chill, and, and ration a fundamental, individual right by making it a crime to even apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally-protected firearm more than once every thirty days.

As the shooting sports experience historic growth form participation by more and more law-abiding people across all social, racial, gender, and financial lines, Assemblymember Santiago would respond by creating an artificial market cap on the very instruments protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In spite of a total lack of controlling regulations on the possession, transfer, and use of firearms in the production of movies and television, Hollywood, however, would be exempt from this scheme, leaving only “regular citizens” to comply with AB 1674.

AB 1674 would additionally ban the timely, lawful transfer of private property between individuals (through licensed firearm dealers, no less) by eliminating the ability for a law-abiding California gun owner to sell, trade, or loan their firearms if the intended buyer or transferee has already initiated any kind of acquisition within the past 30 days.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and California’s law-abiding residents are not second-class people. AB 1674 must be rejected for its moral and policy flaws if not for its blatant constitutional infirmities.

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 44-33, 6/1/16

AYES: Alejo, Atkins, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Quirk, Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Rendon

NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Arambula, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Cooley, Dahle, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Medina, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk

NO VOTE RECORDED: Dodd, Hadley, Rodriguez

Prepared by: Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /

6/22/16 15:15:15

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No: AB 1674 Hearing Date: June 14, 2016

Subject: Firearms: Transfers

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 202 (Knox) – Chap. 128, Stats. of 1999

AB 532 (Knox) – Failed passage on Assembly Floor, 1997-98

Support: California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence; City of Long Beach; Coalition Against Gun Violence, A Santa Barbara County Coalition; Women Against Gun Violence; Rabbis Against Gun Violence; Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles; San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility; California Academy of Family Physicians; Courage Campaign; Friends Committee on Legislation of California; One individual

Opposition: California Rifle and Pistol Association; California Waterfowl Association; Deputies of the Mono County Deputy Sheriff’s Association; Firearms Policy Coalition; Glenn County Rangeland Association; Gun Owners of California; National Rifle Association of America; National Shooting Sports Foundation

Assembly Floor Vote: 44 - 33

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to: (1) prohibit any person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period, as specified; and, (2) delete from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.

Existing law prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Penal Code § 27535(a).)

Existing law exempts from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:

• • Any law enforcement agency;
    
  • Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
    
  • Any state or local correctional facility;
    
  • Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
    
  • Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
    
  • Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
    
  • Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
    
  • Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
    
  • Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the DOJ;
    
  • The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
    
  • A community college that is certified by the Commission on POST to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission- certified training. (Penal Code § 27535(b).)
    

Existing law prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified. (Penal Code § 27540(f).)

Existing law provides that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:

• • A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of fifty dollars ($50);
    
  • A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred ($100); and,
    
  • A third violation is a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 27590(e)(1)-(3).)

This bill prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period.

This bill deletes from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private party transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, as specified.

RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION

For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:

• 143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
• 141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
• 137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.

In December of 2015 the administration reported that as “of December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February 2015.” (Defendants’ December 2015 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity, and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. (Defendants’ December 2014 Status Report in Response to February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state must stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the “durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population therefore will be informed by the following questions:

• Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison population;
• Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;
• Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
• Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
• Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Legislation

According to the author:

Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any data collection and analysis to the contrary, this perception has held for several decades, and has resulted in current law in California which limits new handgun purchases to one per month per person.

Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact, examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns.

It should be noted that in mass shooting cases, analysis shows that nearly 80% of shooters (including those in San Bernardino) obtained their guns legally.

Long guns are a significant piece of California’s gun trafficking problem, as well. Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns.

A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multi-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital importance to me. In April 2014, one person purchased 144 long guns in California in one single transaction. It is mind boggling that a person (no matter their intentions) could purchase as many rifles or shotguns they want at any given time. It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.

AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month. This includes both purchases of used guns and new long guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they should be treated no differently. In fact, California already maintains parity between these types of guns in both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations.

2. History of One-Handgun-a-Month Law

According to the Senate Public Safety Analysis of Assembly Bill 202 (Knox, of 1999), which created the one-handgun-a-month law in California:

The State of Virginia enacted a “one-handgun-a-month” law in 1993 (before the Federal Brady Bill, which required at least a five day waiting period plus a background check for states without such requirements). That state had weak restrictions on handgun sales and it has been stated that gun traffickers from New York City routinely traveled to Virginia to purchase quantities of weapons to take back for illegal sale in other states. Purchases of more than one handgun per 30-day period in Virginia is allowed upon completion of an "enhanced" background check when the purchase is for lawful business or personal use, for purposes of collectors, bulk sales and purchases from estates, to replace a lost or stolen weapon, and similar situations.

Supporters of limits on purchases of handguns assume that the Virginia limits and the limits in this bill would only affect a very small proportion of legitimate handgun purchasers. A family of two adults could still purchase 24 handguns a year under the provisions of both this bill and the Virginia law.

Virginia repealed this law in 2012. But, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence,

Virginia’s one-gun-a-month law – which was in effect from 1993 to 2012 and prohibited the purchase of more than one handgun per person in any 30-day period – significantly reduced the number of crime guns traced to Virginia dealers. Virginia initially adopted its law after the state became recognized as a primary source of crime guns recovered in states in the northeastern U.S. After the law’s adoption, the odds of tracing a gun originally acquired in the Southeast to a Virginia gun dealer (as opposed to a dealer in a different southeastern state) dropped by:

• 71% for guns recovered in New York;
• 72% for guns recovered in Massachusetts; and
• 66% for guns recovered in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts combined.

(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summary/ [footnotes omitted].)

Other states that have limits on the number of firearms that can be sold in one month include:

California: California law prohibits any person from purchasing more than one handgun within any 30-day period. In addition, a licensed firearms dealer may not deliver a handgun to any person following notification from the California Department of Justice that the purchaser has applied to acquire a handgun within the preceding 30-day period. Finally, firearms dealers must conspicuously post in their licensed premises a warning, in block letters at least one inch in height, notifying purchasers of these restrictions.

District of Columbia: A person may not register more than one handgun in the District during any 30-day period. Since every handgun must be registered, this amounts to a purchase and sale limitation of one handgun per 30-day period. . .

Maryland: Maryland prohibits any person from purchasing more than one handgun or assault weapon within a 30-day period. Under limited circumstances, a person may be approved by the Secretary of the Maryland State Police to purchase multiple handguns or assault weapons in a 30-day period. Maryland also penalizes any dealer or other seller who knowingly participates in an illegal purchase of a handgun or assault weapon. . .

New Jersey: New Jersey prohibits licensed firearms dealers from knowingly delivering more than one handgun to any person within any 30-day period. With limited exceptions, no person may purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. New Jersey requires a handgun purchaser to obtain a separate permit for each handgun purchased, and present the permit to the seller. The seller must keep a copy of each permit presented.

(http://smartgunlaws.org/multiple-purchases-sales-of-firearms-policy-summary/[footnotes omitted].)

3. Argument in Support

The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence state:

In 1999, legislation (AB 202) was enacted that limits purchases of handguns from licensed firearms dealers in California to no more than one per person per month. AB 202 provided a number of exemptions, including private party transactions. The purpose of the bill was to curb the illegal flow of handguns by taking the profit out of selling guns from bulk purchases on the black market. AB 1674 applies existing law under AB 202 to all firearms, including long guns (rifles, shotguns, and lower receivers), and removes the exemption for private party transfers. Under AB 1674, firearms will not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser had made another application to purchase a firearm.

It stands to reason that a person buying large quantities of guns at one time may be acting as a straw purchaser or gun trafficker. Moreover, firearms acquired this way are frequently used in crime. In fact, an ATF study of tracing data demonstrated that 22% of all handguns recovered in crime in 1999 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. A similar study found that 20% of all handguns recovered in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. Additionally, a University of Pennsylvania report found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multiple-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

The California Brady Campaign believes that handguns and long guns should be subject to the same laws. Sixteen years ago, it was thought that handguns made up an overwhelming share of crime guns, but the data shows that is no longer the case. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Additionally, DOJ has found that over the last three fiscal years, nearly half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons through the Armed Prohibited Persons System are long guns.

AB 1674 (Santiago)

Over the past ten years, Californians have annually purchased more long guns than handguns, including 534,469 long guns in 2013. These long guns include legal weapons that have military-style features and a mechanism, such as a bullet button, to allow for the rapid exchange of magazines and lower receivers, which can be assembled into military-style weapons. Limiting multiple-gun sales within a short period of time for such weapons, which are more lethal than handguns, is clearly in the interest of public safety.

The Department of Justice began to retain records of long gun purchases on January 1, 2014. An analysis of the transaction data from the period January 2014 through June 2015 shows that 81.9% of long guns were sold as a single long gun purchase within a 30-day period. Clearly, the vast majority of long gun purchasers will not be impacted by AB 1674. However at the opposite end of the spectrum, an individual purchased 177 long guns in two transactions within a one month period (April 2014). Furthermore, sales to single individuals ranging from 5 to 54 long guns per month occurred on 1,787 occasions, totaling 12,090 guns. Department data also shows that when multiple long guns are transferred in a sale, it is more than twice as likely that lower receivers are included. The largest bulk sale of long guns in one month to an individual (177 long guns) was composed entirely of lower receivers, which can be built into illegal assault weapons and sold on the black market.

Preventing the flow of illegal guns is important to public safety regardless of whether the firearm is a handgun or long gun, or purchased new from a dealer or through a private party transaction. Limiting firearms sales to one gun per month is a recognized strategy to reduce gun trafficking and keep firearms out of dangerous hands.

4. Argument in Opposition

According to the Firearms Policy Coalition:

AB 1674 seeks to limit, chill, and, and ration a fundamental, individual right by making it a crime to even apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally-protected firearm more than once every thirty days.

As the shooting sports experience historic growth form participation by more and more law-abiding people across all social, racial, gender, and financial lines, Assemblymember Santiago would respond by creating an artificial market cap on the very instruments protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In spite of a total lack of controlling regulations on the possession, transfer, and use of firearms in the production of movies and television, Hollywood, however, would be exempt from this scheme, leaving only “regular citizens” to comply with AB 1674.

AB 1674 would additionally ban the timely, lawful transfer of private property between individuals (through licensed firearm dealers, no less) by eliminating the ability for a law-abiding California gun owner to sell, trade, or loan their firearms if the intended buyer or transferee has already initiated any kind of acquisition within the past 30 days.

The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and California’s law-abiding residents are not second-class people. AB 1674 must be rejected for its moral and policy flaws if not for its blatant constitutional infirmities.

-- END –

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular Session

AB 1674 (Santiago) - Firearms: purchases

This bill meets the criteria for referral to the Suspense File.

Bill Summary:

AB 1674 would extend the existing prohibition on the application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period to the purchase of any firearm (handgun or long gun). This bill would delete the existing exemption for private party transactions through a licensed firearms dealer and instead exempt from that prohibition the transfer of a firearm conducted through a licensed firearms dealer if the firearm is being transferred by bequest or intestate succession.

Fiscal Impact:

• Department of Justice (DOJ): One-time costs of about $350,000 (Special Fund*) to modify the various firearm databases impacted by this measure. Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 (Special Fund*) annually.
• Firearm purchase violations: Potential non-reimbursable local costs (Local Funds) for enforcement and incarceration offset to a degree by fine revenue for infraction and misdemeanor violations of the prohibition on purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period.
• Sales tax revenue: Unknown, potentially significant loss of sales tax revenue (General Fund) due to the expansion of the 30-day single purchase restriction to include all firearms, including long guns.

*Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) Account – Staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced, with an estimated reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end FY 2016-17. Current revenues to the DROS Account are potentially insufficient to cover the costs of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the costs of this measure.

Background:

Existing law prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Penal Code (PC) § 27535 (a).) However, existing law provides for numerous exemptions from the 30-day purchase prohibition, as follows:

• Any law enforcement agency.
• Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties.
• Any state or local correctional facility.
• Any private security company licensed to do business in California.
• Any person who is properly identified as a full-time paid peace officer, as defined, and who is authorized to, and does, carry a firearm during the course and scope of employment as a peace officer.
• Any motion picture, television, or video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves the use of a firearm.
• Any person who may claim an exemption from the waiting period set forth in PC § 27540.
• Any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer.
• Any person who is licensed as a collector and the regulations issued pursuant thereto, and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the DOJ.
• The exchange of a handgun where the dealer purchased that firearm from the person seeking the exchange within the 30-day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement.
• The replacement of a handgun when the person’s handgun was lost or stolen, and the person reported that firearm lost or stolen prior to the completion of the application to purchase to any local law enforcement agency of the city, county, or city and county in which the person resides.
• The return of any handgun to its owner.
• A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to present the law enforcement academy basic course or other commission-certified law enforcement training. (PC § 27535 (b).)

Existing law provides for the following penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period:

• A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $50.
• A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100.
• A third or subsequent violation is a misdemeanor.

Under existing law, each application to purchase a handgun in violation of the 30-day purchase prohibition is deemed a separate offense. (PC § 27590(e)(1)-(4).)

Proposed Law:

This bill would extend the existing prohibition on the application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period to the purchase of any firearm (handgun or long gun) within any 30-day period. Additionally, this bill:

• Deletes the existing exemption from the 30-day purchase prohibition for any transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer.
• Adds an exemption from the 30-day purchase prohibition for the transfer of a firearm conducted through a licensed firearms dealer if both of the following conditions apply:
  • The transferor is an executor or administrator of an estate.
  • The transferee is a person acquiring ownership of the firearm by bequest or intestate succession from the estate.
• Makes additional conforming changes and technical, non-substantive changes.

Prior Legislation: AB 202 (Knox), Chapter 128/1999 prohibited any person from applying for more than one concealable firearm within a 30-day period, and prohibited the delivery to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one concealable firearm within 30 days.

AB 532 (Knox) 1997 would have made it a misdemeanor to take title to more than one concealable firearm in a 30-day period. AB 532 would have made it an alternate felony/misdemeanor for a dealer to deliver a handgun after being notified that a person was attempting to take title to more than one handgun in a 30-day period. AB 532 failed passage on the Assembly Floor.

Staff Comments: The DOJ has indicated one-time costs of about $350,000 to modify the various firearm databases impacted by this measure. Ongoing costs are estimated to be less than $10,000 annually. All costs would be funded through the DROS Account, however, staff notes the DROS Account is structurally imbalanced with an estimated reserve balance of less than $1 million by year-end FY 2016-17. Current revenues to the DROS Account are potentially insufficient to cover the costs of this bill in conjunction with the numerous other legislative measures requiring funding from the DROS Account, should they be enacted. As a result, an appropriation from an alternate fund source, potentially the General Fund, may be required to support the costs of this measure.

To the extent the provisions of this bill have the effect of reducing the number of firearms sold due to the purchase restriction of no more than one firearm (handgun or long gun) within any 30-day period, there would be an impact to both local and state sales tax revenues. The impact to sales tax revenue cannot be estimated with certainty and would be dependent on numerous factors including but not limited to the purchasing decisions of consumers and the potential marketing response by retailers.

-- END --

(Without Reference to File)

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 1674

Author:(Santiago)

As Amended Ver:May 31, 2016

Majority vote

SUMMARY: Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, and makes other conforming changes. Specifically, this bill:

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period.
2. Exempts from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:
   1. Any law enforcement agency;
   2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
   3. Any state or local correctional facility;
   4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
   5. Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
   6. Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
   7. Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
   8. Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
   9. Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ);
   10. The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
   11. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission- certified training.
3. Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified.
4. Provides that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
   1. A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $50;
   2. A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of $100; and,
   3. A third violation is a misdemeanor.

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one-time Department of Justice (DOJ) costs of $350,000 (Dealers' Record of Sale Account) to analyze and modify the various databases impacted by this bill.

COMMENTS: According to the author, "Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any data collection and analysis to the contrary, this perception has held for several decades, and has resulted in current law in California which limits new handgun purchases to one per month per person.

"Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact, examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns.

"It should be noted that in mass shooting cases, analysis shows that nearly 80% of shooters (including those in San Bernardino) obtained their guns legally.

"Long guns are a significant piece of California's gun trafficking problem, as well. Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice's (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns.

"A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multi-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

"Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital importance to me. In April 2014, one person purchased 144 long guns in California in one single transaction. It is mind boggling that a person (no matter their intentions) could purchase as many rifles or shotguns they want at any given time. It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.

"AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month. This includes both purchases of used guns and new long guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they should be treated no differently. In fact, California already maintains parity between these types of guns in both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations."

Analysis Prepared by: Gregory Pagan/ PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003151

Date of Hearing: April 13, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Lorena Gonzalez, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1674

Author:(Santiago) – As Amended Ver:April 6, 2016

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, and repeals the private party transaction exemption to the prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period. However, AB 1674 makes exemptions for firearms transferred through bequest or intestate succession if specific conditions are met.

FISCAL EFFECT:

One-time Department of Justice (DOJ) costs of $350,000 (Dealers ‘Record of Sale Account) to analyze and modify the various databases impacted by this bill.

COMMENTS:

1. Background. Current law prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. However, several exemptions are provided, including any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer. Also, current law prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified. These restrictions do not currently apply to long guns (rifles and shotguns).
2. Purpose. According to the author, "Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any data collection and analysis to the contrary, this perception has held for several decades, and has resulted in current law in California which limits new handgun purchases to one per month per person.
   
   "Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact, examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns.
   
   Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns.

"AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month. This includes both purchases of used guns and new long guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they should be treated no differently. In fact, California already maintains parity between these types of guns in both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations."

AB 1674 includes a process for firearms, not prohibited firearms, transferred by bequest or intestate succession if the receiver meets specified criteria and the transfer is registered with DOJ.

1. Support. The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence states, “It stands to reason that a person buying large quantities of guns at one time may be acting as a straw purchaser or gun trafficker. Moreover, firearms acquired this way are frequently used in crime. In fact, an ATF study of tracing data demonstrated that 22% of all handguns recovered in crime in 1999 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. A similar study found that 20% of all handguns recovered in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. Additionally, a University of Pennsylvania report found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multiple-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.”
2. Opposition. The Firearms Policy Coalition argues, "AB 1674 seeks to limit, chill, and ration a fundamental, individual right by making it a crime to even apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally-protected firearm more than once every thirty days.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and California’s law-abiding residents are not second-class people. AB 1674 must be rejected for its moral and policy flaws if not for its blatant constitutional infirmities.”

1. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 202 (Knox), Chapter 128, Statutes of 1999, prohibited any person from applying for more than one concealable firearm within a 30-day period, and prohibits the delivery to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one concealable firearm within 30 days.
      
   2. AB 532 (Knox) of the 1997-98 Legislative Session would have made it a misdemeanor to take title to more than one concealable firearm in a 30-day period. In addition, AB 532 would have made it an alternate felony/misdemeanor for a dealer to deliver a handgun after being notified that a person was attempting to take title to more than one handgun in a 30-day period. AB 532 failed passage on the Assembly floor.

Analysis Prepared by: Pedro R. Reyes / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 1, 2016

Chief Counsel: Gregory Pagan

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30-day period, deletes from the existing prohibition related to the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period an exemption for a private part transfer through a licensed firearms dealer, and makes other conforming changes. Specifically, this bill:

EXISTING LAW:

1. Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one handgun within any 30-day period. (Pen. Code, § 27535, subd. (a).)
   
2. Exempts from the above 30-day prohibition any of the following:
   
   1. Any law enforcement agency;
      
   2. Any agency duly authorized to perform law enforcement duties;
      
   3. Any state or local correctional facility;
      
   4. Any private security company licensed to do business in California;
      
   5. Any person who is a peace officer, as specified, and is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of employment;
      
   6. Any motion picture, television, video production company or entertainment or theatrical company whose production by its nature involves a firearm;
      
   7. Any authorized representative of a law enforcement agency, or a federally licensed firearms importer or manufacturer;
      
   8. Any private party transaction conducted through a licensed firearms dealer;
      
   9. Any person who is a licensed collector and has a current certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ);
      
   10. The exchange, replacement, or return of a handgun to a licensed dealer within the 30-day period; and,
       
       
       
   11. A community college that is certified by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) to present law enforcement academy basic course or other commission- certified training. (Pen. Code, § 27535, subd. (b).)
       
3. Prohibits a handgun from being delivered when a licensed firearms dealer is notified by the DOJ that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser has made another application to purchase a handgun and the purchase was not exempted, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 27540, subd. (f).
   
4. Provides that the penalties for making more than one application to purchase a handgun within any 30-day period is as follows:
   
   1. A first violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of fifty dollars ($50);
      
   2. A second violation is an infraction punishable by a fine of one hundred ($100); and,
      
   3. A third violation is a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 27590, subd. (e)(1)-(3).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "Historically, policymakers have believed that the bulk of gun violence has been perpetuated by handguns. Absent any data collection and analysis to the contrary, this perception has held for several decades, and has resulted in current law in California which limits new handgun purchases to one per month per person.
   
   "Recent data collection efforts in the state and elsewhere have begun to refute this theory, however. In fact, examining forensic data collected from the mass shootings that have occurred in the United States throughout the last 30 years, shows that 72 (exactly half) of the weapons used in those crimes were long guns: rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic versions thereof. Of the 11 mass shootings in California, nearly the same is true: 12 long guns were used along with 16 handguns.
   
   "It should be noted that in mass shooting cases, analysis shows that nearly 80% of shooters (including those in San Bernardino) obtained their guns legally.
   
   "Long guns are a significant piece of California’s gun trafficking problem, as well. Over the past ten years, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns, including 538,149 guns in 2013. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Automated Firearms Systems (AFS) database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Furthermore, DOJ has found that half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons are long guns.
   
   "A 2007 University of Pennsylvania report to the National Institute of Justice found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multi-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.
   
   "Reducing gun violence is an issue that is of vital importance to me. In April 2014, one person purchased 144 long guns in California in one single transaction. It is mind boggling that a person (no matter their intentions) could purchase as many rifles or shotguns they want at any given time. It is past time for us to treat long guns the same as handguns – they hold equal powers of destruction and create major problems for law enforcement, and society in general, when they fall into the wrong hands.
   
   "AB 1674 will limit purchases of guns to one per month. This includes both purchases of used guns and new long guns. With data showing compelling evidence that long guns are used in crimes at similar rates to handguns, they should be treated no differently. In fact, California already maintains parity between these types of guns in both background checks and sale records. AB 1674 takes the remaining step by creating parity in purchase limitations."
   
2. Argument in Support: The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence states, “ In 1999, legislation (AB 202) was enacted that limits purchases of handguns from licensed firearms dealers in California to no more than one per person per month. AB 202 provided a number of exemptions, including private party transactions. The purpose of the bill was to curb the illegal flow of handguns by taking the profit out of selling guns from bulk purchases on the black market. AB 1674 applies existing law under AB 202 to all firearms, including long guns (rifles and shotguns), and removes the exemption for private party transfers. Under AB 1674, firearms will not be delivered whenever the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that within the preceding 30-day period the purchaser had made another application to purchase a firearm.

“It stands to reason that a person buying large quantities of guns at one time may be acting as a straw purchaser or gun trafficker. Moreover, firearms acquired this way are frequently used in crime. In fact, an ATF study of tracing data demonstrated that 22% of all handguns recovered in crime in 1999 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale. A similar study found that 20% of all handguns recovered in crime in 2000 were originally purchased as part of a multiple sale Additionally, a University of Pennsylvania report found that a quarter of all guns used in crime were purchased as part of a multiple-gun sale and that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.

“The California Brady Campaign believes that handguns and long guns should be subject to the same laws. Sixteen years ago, it was thought that handguns made up an overwhelming share of crime guns, but the data shows that is no longer the case. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into the Department of Justice’s Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns. Additionally, DOJ has found that over the last three fiscal years, nearly half the illegal firearms recovered from prohibited persons through the Armed Prohibited Persons System are long guns.

“Over the past ten years, Californians have annually purchased more long guns than handguns, including 534,469 long guns in 2013. These long guns include legal weapons that have military-style features and a mechanism, such as a bullet button, to allow for the rapid exchange of magazines and lower receivers, which can be assembled into military-style weapons. Limiting multiple-gun sales within a short period of time for such weapons, which are more lethal than handguns, is clearly in the interest of public safety.

“The Department of Justice began to retain records of long gun purchases on January 1, 2014. An analysis of the transaction data from the period January 2014 through June 2015 shows that 81.9% of long guns were sold as a single long gun purchase within a 30-day period. Clearly, the vast majority of long gun purchasers will not be impacted by AB 1674. However at the opposite end of the spectrum, an individual purchased 177 long guns in two transactions within a one month period (April 2014). Furthermore, sales to single individuals ranging from 5 to 54 long guns per month occurred on 1,787 occasions, totaling 12,090 guns.

“Preventing the flow of illegal guns is important to public safety regardless of whether the firearm is a handgun or long gun, or purchased new from a dealer or through a private party transaction. Limiting firearms sales to one gun per month is a recognized strategy to reduce gun trafficking and keep firearms out of dangerous hands. The California Brady Campaign Chapters stand in strong support of AB 1674 and thank you for introducing this important measure.”

1. Argument in Opposition: The Firearms Policy Coalition argues, "AB 1674 seeks to limit, chill, and, and ration a fundamental, individual right by making it a crime to even apply for the otherwise lawful purchase of a constitutionally-protected firearm more than once every thirty days.

“As the shooting sports experience historic growth form participation by more and more law-abiding people across all social, racial, gender, and financial lines, Assemblymember Santiago would respond by creating an artificial market cap on the very instruments protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“In spite of a total lack of controlling regulations on the possession, transfer, and use of firearms in the production of movies and television, Hollywood, however, would be exempt from this scheme, leaving only “regular citizens” to comply with AB 1674.

“AB 1674 would additionally ban the timely, lawful transfer of private property between individuals (through licensed firearm dealers, no less) by eliminating the ability for a law-abiding California gun owner to sell, trade, or loan their firearms if the intended buyer or transferee has already initiated any kind of acquisition within the past 30 days.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right and California’s law-abiding residents are not second-class people. AB 1674 must be rejected for its moral and policy flaws if not for its blatant constitutional infirmities.”

1. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 202 (Knox), Chapter 128, Statutes of 1999, prohibited any person from applying for more than one concealable firearm within a 30-day period, and prohibits the delivery to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one concealable firearm within 30 days.
      
      
      
   2. AB 532 (Knox) of the 1997-98 Legislative Session would have made it a misdemeanor to take title to more than one concealable firearm in a 30-day period. In addition, AB 532 would have made it an alternate felony/misdemeanor for a dealer to deliver a handgun after being notified that a person was attempting to take title to more than one handgun in a 30-day period. AB 532 failed passage on the Assembly floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Coalition Against Gun Violence
Women Against Gun Violence
Youth Alive

Opposition

National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc.
Firearms Policy Coalition
Gun Owners of California

Analysis Prepared by: