Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid sellers permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law.

This bill would authorize the Department of Justice to impose a civil fine not exceeding $500 for a breach of those prohibitions, and a civil fine not exceeding $2,000 for a breach of those prohibitions when the licensee has received written notification from the department regarding the breach and fails to take corrective action, as specified, or the department determines the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence.

Existing law, subject to exceptions pertaining to specified gun shows or events, requires a firearms dealer to conduct business only in the buildings designated in the dealers license.

This bill would, in addition, commencing January 1, 2018, prohibit a firearms dealer license from designating a building that is a residence, as defined, as a building where the licensees business may be conducted. The bill would also provide that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding where the business of the licensee may be conducted.

The bill would require a licensee to ensure that its business premises are monitored by a video surveillance system that, among other requirements, visually records and archives footage of (1) every sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, in a manner that makes the facial features of the purchaser or transferee clearly visible in the recorded footage; (2) all places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred; (3) the immediate exterior surroundings of the licensees business premises; and (4) all parking areas owned or leased by the licensee. footage. The bill would also state that these requirements do not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding video surveillance of the business premises of the licensee.

Under existing law, a firearms dealer or licensee means a person who has a valid federal firearms license, has a regulatory or business license, has a valid sellers permit issued by the State Board of Equalization, has a certificate of eligibility issued by the Department of Justice, has a license granted by a duly constituted licensing authority of any city, county, or city and county, and is among those recorded in the centralized list of licensed firearms dealers kept by the Department of Justice. Existing law regulates licensed firearms dealers and provides that a license is subject to forfeiture for a breach of specified prohibitions in existing law.

This bill would authorize the Department of Justice to impose a civil fine not exceeding $500 for a breach of those prohibitions, and a civil fine not exceeding $2,000 for a breach of those prohibitions when the licensee has received written notification from the department regarding the breach and fails to take corrective action, as specified, or the department determines the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence.

Existing law, subject to exceptions pertaining to specified gun shows or events, requires a firearms dealer to conduct business only in the buildings designated in the dealers license.

This bill would, in addition, commencing January 1, 2018, prohibit a firearms dealer license from designating a building that is a residence, as defined, as a building where the licensees business may be conducted. The bill would also provide that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding where the business of the licensee may be conducted.

The bill would require a licensee to ensure that its business premises are monitored by a video surveillance system that, among other requirements, visually records and archives footage of (1) every sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, in a manner that makes the facial features of the purchaser or transferee clearly visible in the recorded footage; (2) all places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred; (3) the immediate exterior surroundings of the licensees business premises; and (4) all parking areas owned or leased by the licensee.

The bill would, commencing January 1, 2018, require a licensee to obtain a policy of commercial insurance that insures the licensee against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises, in the amount of $1,000,000 per incident, as specified. The bill would also provide that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding insurance pertaining to the licensees business.

Date of Hearing: April 19, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PRIVACY AND CONSUMER PROTECTION

Ed Chau, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2459 (

Author:McCarty) – As Amended Ver:April 13, 2016

SUBJECT: Firearms dealers: conduct of business

SUMMARY: Requires a licensed gun dealer (licensee) to have a video surveillance system and to record the facial image of each gun buyer, prohibits a licensee from doing business out of his or her home, and gives the Department of Justice (DOJ) authority to impose fines for violation of the bill. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a licensee from designating a building that is a residence, as defined, as a place where the licensee’s business may be conducted.
2. Requires a licensee to ensure that its business premises are monitored by a video surveillance system that has a camera that visually records and archives color footage or every sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, in a manner that makes the facial features of the purchaser or transferee clearly visible in the recorded footage.
3. Requires the video surveillance system to operate and record continuously, without interruption, whenever the licensee is open for business.
4. Requires the video footage to be retained by the licensee for at least three years.
5. Specifies that stored video images may only be made available as follows:
   1. In the course of an inspection of a licensee, law enforcement may view the stored images to the extent necessary to verify that the video surveillance system is in proper working order and that the licensee is in compliance with this bill;
   2. To the licensee and employees of the licensee;
   3. To law enforcement by search warrant or voluntary relinquishment by the licensee; and,
   4. To any other individual pursuant to a court order or lawful discovery.
6. Requires the video surveillance system to be inspected weekly, maintained in proper working order at all times, and if the system becomes inoperable, the system must be repaired or replaced within 15 calendar days.
7. Requires a licensee to post a sign in a conspicuous place at each entrance to the premises that states in at least one-inch block letters: “THESE PREMISES ARE UNDER VIDEO SURVEILLANCE. YOUR IMAGE MAY BE RECORDED.”
8. Requires a licensee to submit an annual certification to DOJ that its video surveillance system is in proper working order.
9. Permits DOJ to impose a civil fine of up to $500 against a licensee for a violation of these provisions and permits a fine of up to $2,000 for breaches when the licensee previously received written notification from the DOJ regarding the breach and failed to take corrective action, or the DOJ determines that the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence.
10. Specifies that a violation of the bill subjects a licensee to license forfeiture.
11. Specifies that this bill does not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on licensees on where business may be conducted.
12. Defines “residence” to mean any structure intended or used for human habitation, including, but not limited to, dwellings, condominiums, apartments, rooms, motels, hotels, timeshares, and recreational or other vehicles in which human habitation occurs.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Defines a firearms dealer “licensee” as a person who:
   1. Has a valid federal firearms license;
   2. Has any regulatory or business license, or licenses, required by local government;
   3. Has a valid seller’s permit issued by the State Board of Equalization;
   4. Has a certificate of eligibility issued by DOJ;
   5. Has a license issued by a city or county, as required by Penal Code (PC) Section 26705; and
   6. Is properly registered in DOJ’s centralized list of licensees. (PC 26700)
2. Requires a licensee to conduct business only in the buildings designated by the business license, except that a licensee may do business at:
   
   1. A gun show or event, as long as the show or event is not conducted from any motorized or towed vehicle, and if the licensee complies with all applicable local laws, regulations and fees;
   2. A gun auction;
   3. Outside the building designated in the license, if the firearm is being donated for the purpose of sale or transfer at an auction or similar event; or
   4. If the firearm is being delivered to the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm, then the licensee may conduct business at the building designated in the license, the places specified in (a) through (c) above or the home, the business or the private property of the purchaser, transferee or person borrowing the firearm. (PC 26805)
      
3. Requires, with specified exceptions, all transfers of firearms to be conducted through a licensed dealer. When a person buys any type of firearm, the dealer is required to obtain personal identification information from the buyer and to report this to DOJ on the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) form. This allows DOJ to perform a criminal history check on the buyer to determine if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm. In the case of handguns, DOJ retains that information, which becomes part of the Automated Firearms System (AFS) database. (PC 11106(b)(1))

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose of this bill. This bill is intended to prevent illegal gun sales in California by requiring gun dealers to videotape all gun sales, prohibiting gun sales in homes, and giving DOJ the authority to impose fines for violation of the bill. This measure is sponsored by the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
   
2. Author’s statement. According to the author's office, “As a local elected official, I authored successful measures to crack down on illegal gun and ammunition sales. As a State Assemblymember, I am proud to author AB 2459, which I believe will have a strong impact statewide in the effort to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Recording gun transactions will provide another tool in the tool box for law enforcement to go after illegal gun sales.”
3. Limited resources to oversee gun sales. Law enforcement has limited resources to oversee the more than 2,300 licensee in our state. A 2010 Washington Post report found that, due to limited staffing, the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) could only inspect gun dealers once per decade on average. A recent New York Times investigative report, “How They Got Their Guns,” found that, since 2009, 15 mass shootings were committed with legally purchased firearms. A study by ATF found that 60% of legally purchased weapons found at crime scenes came from 1% of gun dealers. Later studies have estimated that 90% of legally purchased guns used in the commission of a crime were from 5% of gun dealers. In 2014, 2,935 Californians were killed by firearms.

Proponents of the bill contend that many gun sales are so called “straw sales” whereby a person prohibited from purchasing a gun uses a third party, often a family member or friend, to legally purchase the gun. These sales are technically legal, but when recorded becomes obvious that the purchaser has no interest in purchasing the gun for themselves. In two academic studies, undercover researchers found that at least 20% of California gun dealers were willing to conduct an illegal “straw purchase” even when the dealer knew the gun would be used by a prohibited person. Though these transactions are a leading source of guns used during crimes, they often appear legal on paper.

Proponents of the bill contend that another source of legally purchased guns is the residential dealer: licensed dealers who sell weapons out of their homes. To date, over 60 cities and counties in California have banned this practice, recognizing the potential for abuse and lack of adequate oversight.

1. Video surveillance and privacy issues. California law requires gun sales to be conducted through a licensee, and when a person buys a gun, the dealer must collect personal information from the buyer and report this to DOJ. DOJ in turn conducts a criminal background check on the buyer to determine if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm. This bill would prohibit sales from occurring in homes and would require licensee to have a video surveillance system on their business premises that records every single sale in a manner that captures, in color, the facial image of each buyer on camera. The bill requires gun dealers to have the surveillance system recording at all times during business hours and to keep the video footage on file for at least three years.

The bill’s video surveillance provisions along with the prohibition on sales in a licensee’s home, called “kitchen table” dealers, are designed to eliminate sales to illegal traffickers and “straw purchasers” who buy guns for others who cannot pass a background check. Opponents of the bill contend that gun sales are already highly regulated and that video surveillance would be costly and burdensome with little additional benefit.

Proponents contend that video recording is a common practice in all types of retail stores and provides safety and security for both store employees and customers. Proponents contend that given the number of deaths in California that stem from straw purchases and other illegal gun sales, video surveillance of gun sales is in the public’s best interest – even if it means less privacy for gun customers.

1. Recent amendments. In an effort to address the concerns of opponents, the author recently amended the bill to eliminate or narrow certain provisions.
   
   Those amendments eliminated a provision that would have required a licensee to obtain liability insurance and narrowed the videotaping requirement by requiring only one security camera. The bill also reduced the retention time period for the video footage from five years to three and clarified that it only requires the camera to record when the dealer is open for business. Finally, AB 2459 requires the video footage to be kept confidential with specific exceptions for law enforcement, and clarifies that the bill does not apply to “gunsmiths” who are not licensed guns dealers.
2. Arguments in support. The bill’s sponsor, the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, states “AB 2459 will bring transparency and accountability to gun dealers in California so that they are not a source of illegal guns. Under the bill, irresponsible or 'bad apple' gun dealers could be identified and either reformed or shut down. The bill requires gun dealers to videotape all gun sales and conduct business from a commercial store front. Additionally, the bill will enable better enforcement of state law by the California Department of Justice (DOJ)."

The Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles states that the bill, “will reduce easy access to firearms and will help to end the gun violence epidemic in California. Over 8,000 Californians are injured or killed by guns every year and guns are commonly used in crime. According to the California Department of Justice, in 2014 there were 1,169 firearm murders in California, 13,546 armed robberies involving a firearm, and 15,801 aggravated assaults involving a firearm. Many criminals who may be prohibited from purchasing a firearm are able to acquire guns through illegal trafficking channels. ATF Trace Reports show that about 70% of guns recovered by law enforcement in California and traced had been sold by a firearm dealer in California.”

The Coalition Against Gun Violence adds, “[AB 2459] will provide transparency for all gun transactions, deter illegal activity, and improve enforcement of existing law. AB 2459 contains reasonable measures that will help curb the flow of illegal guns into communities throughout California. The bill will reduce gun crime and save lives.”

1. Arguments in opposition. The National Rifle Association states in opposition, “These changes would do nothing more than put law-abiding firearms dealers out of business. Dealers in California already have to deal with strict federal and state requirements on those engaged in the business of dealing in firearms, including background check and record keeping requirements.”

The Pawnbroker’s Association opposes the bill and has requested an exemption from the bill for pawnbrokers, stating that “the costly upgrades and ongoing costs to retain video may be appropriate for an establishment in the business of selling guns to the public [but] in our business model, a pawn pledger may pledge a gun for a pawn loan. We believe that good public policy dictates that simply holding a gun as collateral for a loan does not trigger the responsibilities of a gun dealer for public safety.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition states that this bill “requires that the customer’s face be clearly recorded. These are the same customers who have already provided a Firearm Safety Certificate (or License to Carry), proof of residence, valid government photo identification and submitted to one of the nation’s most stringent background checks. How does recording facial features of the most already positively identified customers of any industry in the nation serve the public interest?”

1. Related legislation. AB 2229 (Grove) Eliminates the 10-day waiting period for persons previously determined by the DOJ to not be prohibited from possessing a firearm and the person possesses a firearm, is authorized to carry a concealed firearm, or possesses a valid Certificate of Eligibility. AB 2229 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
2. Prior legislation. AB 809 (Feuer), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2011), expanded reporting requirements for gun sales and required firearms dealers to keep a register or record of information about their gun sales.
3. Double-referral. This bill was double-referred to the Assembly Public Safety Committee where it was heard on April 13, 2016, and passed 5-2.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (co-sponsor)

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (co-sponsor)

All Saints Church

Cleveland School Remembers

Coalition Against Gun Violence

Courage Campaign

International Health & Epidemiology Research Center

Laguna Woods Democratic Club

League of Women Voters of California

Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento Chapter

Rabbis Against Gun Violence

Sacramento Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility

San Francisco Bay Area Physicians for Social Responsibility

Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles

Violence Prevention Coalition of Orange County

Women Against Gun Violence

Youth ALIVE!

Opposition

California Pawnbroker’s Association

California Sportsman’s Lobby

Crossroads of the West

Firearms Policy Coalition

National Rifle Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Outdoor Sportsmen’s Coalition of California

Safari Club International, California Chapters

Analysis Prepared by: Jennie Bretschneider / P. & C.P. / (916) 319-2200

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Gabriel Caswell

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2459

Author:(McCarty) – As Introduced Ver:February 19, 2016

SUMMARY: Imposes duties and responsibilities upon firearms retailers as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits the Department of Justice (DOJ) to impose a civil fine of up to $500 against firearms dealers for a breach of specified prohibitions. Additionally, provides for a fine of up to $2,000 for breaches when the licensee previously received written notification from the DOJ regarding the breach and failed to take corrective action, or the DOJ determines that the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence.
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a firearms dealer license from designating a building that is a residence, as defined, as a building where the licensee’s business may be conducted.
3. Provides that the provisions of this bill would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding where the business of the licensee may be conducted.
4. Requires a licensee to ensure that its business premises are monitored by a video surveillance system that, among other requirements, visually records and archives footage of the following:
   1. Every sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, in a manner that makes the facial features of the purchaser or transferee clearly visible in the recorded footage;
   2. All places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred;
   3. The immediate exterior surroundings of the licensee’s business premises; and
   4. All parking areas owned or leased by the licensee.
5. Specifies that the video footage must be maintained and stored for not less than 5 years.
6. Requires, commencing January 1, 2018, a licensee to obtain a policy of commercial insurance that insures the licensee against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises, in the amount of $1,000,000 per incident, as specified. Provides that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding insurance pertaining to the licensee’s business.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that, in general and subject to exceptions, the business of a firearms licensee shall be conducted only in the buildings designated by the business license; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (a).)
   
   1. Provides an exception that a person licensed, as specified, may take possession of firearms and commence preparation of registers for the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms at any gun show or event if the gun show or event is not conducted from any motorized or towed vehicle. A person conducting business shall be entitled to conduct business as authorized at any gun show or event in the state, without regard to the jurisdiction within this state that issued the license provided the person complies with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the waiting period specified, and all applicable local laws, regulations, and fees, if any; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (b)(1).)
      
   2. Provides an exception for a person licensed as specified may engage in the sale and transfer of firearms other than handguns, at specified events, subject to the prohibitions and restrictions contained in those sections; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (c)(1).)
   3. Provides an exception for a person licensed, as specified, who may also accept delivery of firearms other than handguns, outside the building designated in the license, provided the firearm is being donated for the purpose of sale or transfer at an auction or similar event specified; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (c)(2).)
      
   4. Provides that a firearm may be delivered to the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm at one of the following places: (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (d).)
      
      1. The building designated in the license;
         
      2. The places specified as express exemptions; and
         
      3. The place of residence of, the fixed place of business of, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by, the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm.
2. Provides a person conducting specified firearms business shall publicly display the person's license issued, or a facsimile thereof, at any gun show or event, as specified in this subdivision. (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (b)(2).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "As a local elected official, I authored successful measures to crack down on illegal gun and ammunition sales. As a State Assemblymember, I am proud to author AB 2459, which I believe will have a strong impact statewide in the effort to keep guns out of the wrong hands."
   
2. Background: According to the background submitted by the author, "Law Enforcement has limited resources to oversee the more than 2,300 licensed gun dealers in our state. A 2010 Washington Post report found that, due to limited staffing, ATF could only inspect gun dealers once per decade on average. These limitations, combined with weak state and federal laws related to gun dealers, allow many bad actor gun dealers to evade accountability.

"A New York Times article 'How They Got Their Guns,' brought to light the fact that since 2009, 15 mass shooting were committed with legally purchased firearms. This discredits the notion that only illegal firearms are used in the commission of these heinous acts. A study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, found that 60% of legally purchased weapons found at crime scenes came from 1% of gun dealers. Later studies have estimated that 90% of legally purchased guns used in the commission of a crime were from 5% of gun dealers. In 2014, 2,935 Californians were killed by firearms.

"Many of these gun sales were so called 'straw sales' whereby a person prohibited from purchasing a gun uses a third party, often a family member or friend, to legally purchase the gun. These sales are legal on paper, but when recorded becomes obvious that the purchaser has no interest in purchasing the gun for themselves. Video recording is a common practice in all types of retail and provides safety and security for both store employees and customers.

"In two academic studies, undercover researchers found that at least 20% of California gun dealers were willing to conduct an illegal 'straw purchase;' even when the dealer knew the gun would be used by a prohibited person. Though these transactions are a leading source of guns used during crimes, they often appear legal on paper without security cameras to visibly capture the sale. California gun dealers also reported 1,797 firearms 'missing' from their inventories from 2012-2015. Without security cameras monitoring dealers’ premises and sales counters, law enforcement has few tools to investigate whether these firearms were misplaced, stolen, or illegally trafficked to criminals.

"Another source of legally purchased guns are residential dealers, which are licensed dealers who sell weapons out of their homes. To date, over 60 cities and counties in California have banned this practice, recognizing the potential for abuse and lack of adequate oversight."

1. Content of the Bill: This proposed legislation basically implements four changes to existing law for the stated purposes of cutting down on straw purchases in California.
   1. Imposition of Civil Fines for Violations of Rules Related to Grounds for Forfeiture of a License to Sell Firearms: The bill proposes new fines related to violations of rules imposed upon licensees. The fines suggested are up to a $500 civil fine for simple violations, and up to $2,000 fines for violations when the licensee previously received written notification from the DOJ regarding the breach and failed to take corrective action, or the DOJ determines that the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence. The grounds for forfeiture include a wide range of conduct, including the following: properly displayed license, proper delivery of a firearm, properly displaying firearms, prompt processing of firearms transactions, posting of warning signs, safety certificate compliance, checking proof of California residence, safe handling demonstrations, offering a firearms pamphlet, and many more.
   2. Requiring Gun Dealers to Install Security Cameras to Monitor and Videotape their Premises and Sales: The sponsor and author have indicated that the requirement to install video surveillance cameras in businesses that sell firearms will discourage straw purchases and illegal activities. The fact that purchasers and sellers are being recorded while sales are being conducted will arguably shed light on transactions. Retailers are opposed because it places an overly-burdensome expense on the business to maintain a security camera system, and retain and store the footage captured. The footage must be maintained for not less than five years. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union objects to this provision on grounds of a violation of privacy.
   3. Prohibiting Gun Dealers from Selling Weapons from their Homes: The author's intent in this provision is to push firearms transactions into lawful places of business, where they are more likely to be legitimate. The sponsor believes that by permitting the sale of firearms from a private residence that illegal transactions such as straw purchases are much more likely. There is a legislative history to this provision. AB 988 (Lowenthal), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session stated that no licenses to sell firearms could be granted to sell firearms out of residential buildings. AB 22 (Lowenthal), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session, prohibited the retail sale of firearms from a residential dwelling with specific exceptions. Both bills failed passage on the Senate floor. This bill would cover specialty gun smiths, and those concerns were brought up in the prior legislative sessions in which this provision was considered.
   4. Requiring Gun Dealers to Carry Liability Insurance: According to the sponsor, 31 localities have enacted this provision of law (including San Francisco and Los Angeles). Gun dealers would be required to carry insurance of at least a million dollars to insure them for their liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises. The Federal "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
2. Argument in Support: According to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "On behalf of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, I strongly urge you to support AB 2459 (McCarty), legislation the Law Center is co-sponsoring to help ensure that firearms dealers operate responsibly in California. Founded by lawyers after an assault weapon massacre at a San Francisco law firm in 1993, the Law Center provides legal expertise in support of gun violence prevention to federal, state, and local legislators nationwide.

"AB 2549 would bring increased security, transparency, and accountability to gun sales in California by requiring gun dealers to comply with a set of responsible business practices and by authorizing DOJ to fine irresponsible dealers for illegal conduct.

"ATF data confirms that firearms dealers are the leading source of guns on the black market, responsible for 'nearly half of the total number of trafficked firearms' uncovered in ATF investigations. Though stolen firearms are also a major source of black market guns, 4.5 times as many are obtained from gun dealers as are stolen from any source. According to ATF, gun dealers’ 'access to large numbers of firearms makes them a particular threat to public safety when they fail to comply with the law.' On average, ATF trafficking investigations implicating a gun dealer involved over 350 black market guns per investigation, and over 550 guns in cases in which the dealer was the sole trafficker. In the wrong hands, every one of those weapons poses a significant threat to public safety.

"Unfortunately, federal law enforcement has limited resources to oversee the more than 2,300 licensed gun dealers in our state. A 2010 Washington Post investigation found that, due to limited staffing, ATF could only inspect gun dealers once per decade on average. These limitations, combined with weak state and federal dealer laws, allow too many bad apple gun dealers to evade accountability for allowing dangerous people to access deadly weapons. Although California has enacted some laws to regulate gun dealers, stronger oversight is necessary to help law enforcement detect and prevent gun dealer practices that endanger our communities.

"Numerous California cities and counties have already enacted laws to promote responsible gun sales. AB 2459 would extend these best practices statewide by:

1. "Requiring gun dealers to sell weapons out of commercial storefronts instead of their homes. Existing law permits gun dealers to sell large firearm inventories out of private residences, locations that are more accessible to children and burglars but less accessible to law enforcement oversight than commercial storefronts. Home-based dealers threaten the safety and character of their communities, as neighbors and local law enforcement are often unaware that significant quantities of weapons are flowing in and out of their residential streets. As a 2012 Pinole City Council Planning Commission concluded, “The safety of residents in close proximity to home-based firearm and ammunition sales poses concerns about the negative influence of such home occupations on children, the possible increase in violence and/or criminals in residential neighborhoods, trafficked firearms, and the frequency of federal and state inspections to adequately regulate these business operations once established.” In upholding Lafayette’s residential dealer ban, a California Appeals Court similarly noted that, “because dealerships can be the targets of persons who are or should be excluded from possessing weapons, it is reasonable to insist that dealerships be located away from residential areas[.]” California law generally prohibits individuals from operating liquor establishments out of a private residence, and restricts the use of residential property by businesses ranging from barbers and cosmetologists to funeral parlors. Businesses that sell deadly weapons to the public should be held to a similar standard. Fifty-nine cities and counties in California have already enacted laws specifically prohibiting residential gun dealers and 58 others have enacted generally applicable laws that indirectly do the same.
2. "Requiring gun dealers to install security cameras to monitor their premises and sales. This provision would help detect and prevent theft and illegal conduct and curb the flow of guns to the black market. In two academic studies, undercover researchers found that at least 20% of California gun dealers were willing to conduct an illegal 'straw purchase,' even when dealers knew the gun was being purchased for a prohibited person such as a felon. Though straw purchases are a leading source of crime guns, they often appear legal on paper without security cameras to visibly capture the sale. California gun dealers also reported 1,797 firearms 'missing' from their inventories from 2012-2015. Without security cameras monitoring dealers’ premises and sales counters, law enforcement has few tools to investigate whether these firearms were misplaced, stolen, or illegally trafficked to criminals. Five local governments in California have already enacted this type of law and responsible businesses regularly install and maintain security camera footage without significant cost or administrative burden.
3. "Requiring gun dealers to carry liability insurance. This provision would help ensure that people injured by negligent conduct receive compensation for their injuries. To be clear, this provision would not create any new liability for gun dealers, just as a law requiring drivers to carry car insurance does not create liability for roadway accidents. However, this bill would ensure that a gun dealer would be covered for valid claims if the business is found civilly liable for negligence under existing law, in cases ranging from a slip-and-fall in the dealer’s store to an employee’s negligent sale of a firearm to a visibly drunk or unstable individual. Because insurance is generally cheaper for responsible businesses, just as car insurance is cheaper for good drivers, this requirement would also incentive responsible behavior over time. Thirty-one localities in California have already enacted this law.

"Finally, AB 2459 would provide DOJ with discretion to fine gun dealers for violations of the law without permanently revoking a dealer’s license to sell firearms. Under existing law, DOJ’s enforcement powers are essentially all-or-nothing: when it discovers a significant legal violation, DOJ must either revoke a dealer’s license or let the dealer continue to operate. As a result, too many irresponsible dealers face no accountability for illegal conduct; conversely, gun dealers may also fear that they will lose their license based on correctable errors. This bill would provide DOJ with tools to craft a more balanced approach to incentivize compliance and improve public safety.

"AB 2459 is consistent with the Second Amendment. Although gun lobbyists frequently argue that any and all gun safety laws violate the Second Amendment, legislation like AB 2459 is clearly constitutional. When the Supreme Court recognized an individual Second Amendment right in District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia made clear in writing for the Court that 'nothing in [the Court’s] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.' This legislation proposes to do just that, placing common sense qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms by requiring gun dealers to comply with a set of responsible business practices. As such, these requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment. See Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36792, *15-18 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to an Alameda County law regulating the location of firearms dealers).

1. Argument in Opposition: According to The Firearms Policy Coalition, "AB 2459 (McCarty) is a measure that will jeopardize public safety by shutting down a significant portion of the businesses that serve as agents of the state, providing the only lawful means in California to conduct firearms transactions.

"This measure seeks to completely outlaw the lawful business operations of Federal Firearms Licensees who do not operate out of a traditional commercial facility. AB 2459 does this by pre-empting all cities, counties and their respective zoning, planning and business license and revenue ordinances. By defying California’s traditional local control doctrine, AB 2459 robs over 500 local elected bodies of their ability to decide what is best for their communities.

"This measure also mandates retailers to use security cameras down to a level of nuance that is disturbing in its Orwellian fascination with completely lawful and moral activities, requiring the constant recording of 'All places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred, including, but not limited to, counters, safes, vaults, cabinets, shelves, cases, and entryways.'

"AB 2459 also requires that the customers face be clearly recorded. These are the same customers who have already provided a Firearm Safety Certificate (or License to Carry), proof of residence, valid government photo identification and submitted to one the nation's most stringent background checks. How does recording the facial features of the most already positively identified customers of any industry in the nation serve the public interest?

"The additional data storage requirement is also vexing. Storing high quality data from potentially hundreds of camera angles on-site for 5 years minimum (and up to 10) may require the consultation or employ of technology professionals and hundreds or thousands of hard drives in order to comply with this bizarre mandate that seeks to make the state a voyeur in every nook and cranny of a firearms store.

"Should a staffer pick up and move a box of ammunition without Big Brother catching every pixel, the retailer will be punished by the state. While it may sound perverse to film your own staff who have been vetted by the employer and the California Department of Justice, AB 2459 demands that all lawful, moral and mundane activity be recorded at the retailer's expense---'for transparency.'

"Requiring that retailers potentially violate their lease agreements by placing camera equipment outside of buildings or in parking lots may not be feasible for all retailers, but it's unlikely they will be able to comply with AB 2459 at any rate.

"The final portion of the measure is difficult to articulate our opposition to, given it mandates a product that does not exist. AB 2459 mandates a form of insurance-- a policy that covers the criminal acts of second, third and fourth parties, even if the retailer is in fact the victim of a crime, such as theft or kidnapping. While an amazing fantasy put in print for trial lawyers, even they know that should it ever exist, it would immediately put all insurers and retailers alike out of business.

"To summarize, AB 2459 is a clear case of 'be careful what you wish for.' The retailers and small businesses that AB 2459 seeks to either outlaw or run out of the state are the ONLY means for over 38 million Californians to comply with the state’s overwhelmingly complex firearms laws. By eliminating trusted local businesses either by prohibition or by outrageous mandates, the demand for over 1 million firearms annually in California will not go with them. When there is a dearth of available options, the market will find other avenues.

"Firearms retailers are agents of the state, who process private party transactions (often at a loss) in accordance with state law, to serve the state's interest in conducting background checks and firearms registration. By shutting them down, the state risks being unable to adequately service the million of firearms lawfully transacted annually in California and therefore risks a self-created black market.

"We therefore urge the Chair and the committee to reject this measure that usurps local control and harms the state’s public safety interests."

1. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 988 (Lowenthal), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session, stated that no licenses to sell firearms could be granted to sell firearms out of residential buildings. Failed passage on the Senate Floor.
   2. AB 22 (Lowenthal), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session, prohibited the retail sale of firearms from a residential dwelling with specific exceptions. Failed passage on the Senate Floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sponsor)

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Cleveland School Remembers

Coalition Against Gun Violence

Courage Campaign

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Laguna Woods Democratic Club

Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF Bay Area)

Rabbis Against Gun Violence

Violence Prevention Coalition

Women Against Gun Violence

Youth Alive

Opposition

American Civil Liberties Union

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees

California Pawnbroker's Association

California Sportsman's Lobby

Crossroads of the West Gun Shows

Firearms Policy Coalition

National Rifle Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California

Safari Club International

Analysis Prepared by:

Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

Date of Hearing: April 5, 2016

Counsel: Gabriel Caswell

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

, Sr., Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY: Imposes duties and responsibilities upon firearms retailers as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Permits the Department of Justice (DOJ) to impose a civil fine of up to $500 against firearms dealers for a breach of specified prohibitions. Additionally, provides for a fine of up to $2,000 for breaches when the licensee previously received written notification from the DOJ regarding the breach and failed to take corrective action, or the DOJ determines that the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence.
2. Prohibits, commencing January 1, 2018, a firearms dealer license from designating a building that is a residence, as defined, as a building where the licensee’s business may be conducted.
3. Provides that the provisions of this bill would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding where the business of the licensee may be conducted.
4. Requires a licensee to ensure that its business premises are monitored by a video surveillance system that, among other requirements, visually records and archives footage of the following:
   1. Every sale or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, in a manner that makes the facial features of the purchaser or transferee clearly visible in the recorded footage;
   2. All places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred;
   3. The immediate exterior surroundings of the licensee’s business premises; and
   4. All parking areas owned or leased by the licensee.
5. Specifies that the video footage must be maintained and stored for not less than 5 years.
6. Requires, commencing January 1, 2018, a licensee to obtain a policy of commercial insurance that insures the licensee against liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises, in the amount of $1,000,000 per incident, as specified. Provides that these provisions would not preclude or preempt a local ordinance that places additional or more stringent requirements on firearms dealers regarding insurance pertaining to the licensee’s business.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that, in general and subject to exceptions, the business of a firearms licensee shall be conducted only in the buildings designated by the business license; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (a).)
   
   1. Provides an exception that a person licensed, as specified, may take possession of firearms and commence preparation of registers for the sale, delivery, or transfer of firearms at any gun show or event if the gun show or event is not conducted from any motorized or towed vehicle. A person conducting business shall be entitled to conduct business as authorized at any gun show or event in the state, without regard to the jurisdiction within this state that issued the license provided the person complies with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the waiting period specified, and all applicable local laws, regulations, and fees, if any; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (b)(1).)
      
   2. Provides an exception for a person licensed as specified may engage in the sale and transfer of firearms other than handguns, at specified events, subject to the prohibitions and restrictions contained in those sections; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (c)(1).)
   3. Provides an exception for a person licensed, as specified, who may also accept delivery of firearms other than handguns, outside the building designated in the license, provided the firearm is being donated for the purpose of sale or transfer at an auction or similar event specified; (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (c)(2).)
      
   4. Provides that a firearm may be delivered to the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm at one of the following places: (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (d).)
      
      1. The building designated in the license;
         
      2. The places specified as express exemptions; and
         
      3. The place of residence of, the fixed place of business of, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by, the purchaser, transferee, or person being loaned the firearm.
2. Provides a person conducting specified firearms business shall publicly display the person's license issued, or a facsimile thereof, at any gun show or event, as specified in this subdivision. (Pen. Code § 26805, subd. (b)(2).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, "As a local elected official, I authored successful measures to crack down on illegal gun and ammunition sales. As a State Assemblymember, I am proud to author AB 2459, which I believe will have a strong impact statewide in the effort to keep guns out of the wrong hands."
   
2. Background: According to the background submitted by the author, "Law Enforcement has limited resources to oversee the more than 2,300 licensed gun dealers in our state. A 2010 Washington Post report found that, due to limited staffing, ATF could only inspect gun dealers once per decade on average. These limitations, combined with weak state and federal laws related to gun dealers, allow many bad actor gun dealers to evade accountability.

"A New York Times article 'How They Got Their Guns,' brought to light the fact that since 2009, 15 mass shooting were committed with legally purchased firearms. This discredits the notion that only illegal firearms are used in the commission of these heinous acts. A study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, found that 60% of legally purchased weapons found at crime scenes came from 1% of gun dealers. Later studies have estimated that 90% of legally purchased guns used in the commission of a crime were from 5% of gun dealers. In 2014, 2,935 Californians were killed by firearms.

"Many of these gun sales were so called 'straw sales' whereby a person prohibited from purchasing a gun uses a third party, often a family member or friend, to legally purchase the gun. These sales are legal on paper, but when recorded becomes obvious that the purchaser has no interest in purchasing the gun for themselves. Video recording is a common practice in all types of retail and provides safety and security for both store employees and customers.

"In two academic studies, undercover researchers found that at least 20% of California gun dealers were willing to conduct an illegal 'straw purchase;' even when the dealer knew the gun would be used by a prohibited person. Though these transactions are a leading source of guns used during crimes, they often appear legal on paper without security cameras to visibly capture the sale. California gun dealers also reported 1,797 firearms 'missing' from their inventories from 2012-2015. Without security cameras monitoring dealers’ premises and sales counters, law enforcement has few tools to investigate whether these firearms were misplaced, stolen, or illegally trafficked to criminals.

"Another source of legally purchased guns are residential dealers, which are licensed dealers who sell weapons out of their homes. To date, over 60 cities and counties in California have banned this practice, recognizing the potential for abuse and lack of adequate oversight."

1. Content of the Bill: This proposed legislation basically implements four changes to existing law for the stated purposes of cutting down on straw purchases in California.
   1. Imposition of Civil Fines for Violations of Rules Related to Grounds for Forfeiture of a License to Sell Firearms: The bill proposes new fines related to violations of rules imposed upon licensees. The fines suggested are up to a $500 civil fine for simple violations, and up to $2,000 fines for violations when the licensee previously received written notification from the DOJ regarding the breach and failed to take corrective action, or the DOJ determines that the licensee committed the breach knowingly or with gross negligence. The grounds for forfeiture include a wide range of conduct, including the following: properly displayed license, proper delivery of a firearm, properly displaying firearms, prompt processing of firearms transactions, posting of warning signs, safety certificate compliance, checking proof of California residence, safe handling demonstrations, offering a firearms pamphlet, and many more.
   2. Requiring Gun Dealers to Install Security Cameras to Monitor and Videotape their Premises and Sales: The sponsor and author have indicated that the requirement to install video surveillance cameras in businesses that sell firearms will discourage straw purchases and illegal activities. The fact that purchasers and sellers are being recorded while sales are being conducted will arguably shed light on transactions. Retailers are opposed because it places an overly-burdensome expense on the business to maintain a security camera system, and retain and store the footage captured. The footage must be maintained for not less than five years. Additionally, the American Civil Liberties Union objects to this provision on grounds of a violation of privacy.
   3. Prohibiting Gun Dealers from Selling Weapons from their Homes: The author's intent in this provision is to push firearms transactions into lawful places of business, where they are more likely to be legitimate. The sponsor believes that by permitting the sale of firearms from a private residence that illegal transactions such as straw purchases are much more likely. There is a legislative history to this provision. AB 988 (Lowenthal), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session stated that no licenses to sell firearms could be granted to sell firearms out of residential buildings. AB 22 (Lowenthal), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session, prohibited the retail sale of firearms from a residential dwelling with specific exceptions. Both bills failed passage on the Senate floor. This bill would cover specialty gun smiths, and those concerns were brought up in the prior legislative sessions in which this provision was considered.
   4. Requiring Gun Dealers to Carry Liability Insurance: According to the sponsor, 31 localities have enacted this provision of law (including San Francisco and Los Angeles). Gun dealers would be required to carry insurance of at least a million dollars to insure them for their liability for damage to property and for injury to or death of any person as a result of the theft, sale, lease or transfer or offering for sale, lease or transfer of a firearm or ammunition, or any other operations of the business and business premises. The Federal "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (PLCAA) is a United States law which protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S. based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligence when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.
2. Argument in Support: According to The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "On behalf of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, I strongly urge you to support AB 2459 (McCarty), legislation the Law Center is co-sponsoring to help ensure that firearms dealers operate responsibly in California. Founded by lawyers after an assault weapon massacre at a San Francisco law firm in 1993, the Law Center provides legal expertise in support of gun violence prevention to federal, state, and local legislators nationwide.

"AB 2549 would bring increased security, transparency, and accountability to gun sales in California by requiring gun dealers to comply with a set of responsible business practices and by authorizing DOJ to fine irresponsible dealers for illegal conduct.

"ATF data confirms that firearms dealers are the leading source of guns on the black market, responsible for 'nearly half of the total number of trafficked firearms' uncovered in ATF investigations. Though stolen firearms are also a major source of black market guns, 4.5 times as many are obtained from gun dealers as are stolen from any source. According to ATF, gun dealers’ 'access to large numbers of firearms makes them a particular threat to public safety when they fail to comply with the law.' On average, ATF trafficking investigations implicating a gun dealer involved over 350 black market guns per investigation, and over 550 guns in cases in which the dealer was the sole trafficker. In the wrong hands, every one of those weapons poses a significant threat to public safety.

"Unfortunately, federal law enforcement has limited resources to oversee the more than 2,300 licensed gun dealers in our state. A 2010 Washington Post investigation found that, due to limited staffing, ATF could only inspect gun dealers once per decade on average. These limitations, combined with weak state and federal dealer laws, allow too many bad apple gun dealers to evade accountability for allowing dangerous people to access deadly weapons. Although California has enacted some laws to regulate gun dealers, stronger oversight is necessary to help law enforcement detect and prevent gun dealer practices that endanger our communities.

"Numerous California cities and counties have already enacted laws to promote responsible gun sales. AB 2459 would extend these best practices statewide by:

1. "Requiring gun dealers to sell weapons out of commercial storefronts instead of their homes. Existing law permits gun dealers to sell large firearm inventories out of private residences, locations that are more accessible to children and burglars but less accessible to law enforcement oversight than commercial storefronts. Home-based dealers threaten the safety and character of their communities, as neighbors and local law enforcement are often unaware that significant quantities of weapons are flowing in and out of their residential streets. As a 2012 Pinole City Council Planning Commission concluded, “The safety of residents in close proximity to home-based firearm and ammunition sales poses concerns about the negative influence of such home occupations on children, the possible increase in violence and/or criminals in residential neighborhoods, trafficked firearms, and the frequency of federal and state inspections to adequately regulate these business operations once established.” In upholding Lafayette’s residential dealer ban, a California Appeals Court similarly noted that, “because dealerships can be the targets of persons who are or should be excluded from possessing weapons, it is reasonable to insist that dealerships be located away from residential areas[.]” California law generally prohibits individuals from operating liquor establishments out of a private residence, and restricts the use of residential property by businesses ranging from barbers and cosmetologists to funeral parlors. Businesses that sell deadly weapons to the public should be held to a similar standard. Fifty-nine cities and counties in California have already enacted laws specifically prohibiting residential gun dealers and 58 others have enacted generally applicable laws that indirectly do the same.
2. "Requiring gun dealers to install security cameras to monitor their premises and sales. This provision would help detect and prevent theft and illegal conduct and curb the flow of guns to the black market. In two academic studies, undercover researchers found that at least 20% of California gun dealers were willing to conduct an illegal 'straw purchase,' even when dealers knew the gun was being purchased for a prohibited person such as a felon. Though straw purchases are a leading source of crime guns, they often appear legal on paper without security cameras to visibly capture the sale. California gun dealers also reported 1,797 firearms 'missing' from their inventories from 2012-2015. Without security cameras monitoring dealers’ premises and sales counters, law enforcement has few tools to investigate whether these firearms were misplaced, stolen, or illegally trafficked to criminals. Five local governments in California have already enacted this type of law and responsible businesses regularly install and maintain security camera footage without significant cost or administrative burden.
3. "Requiring gun dealers to carry liability insurance. This provision would help ensure that people injured by negligent conduct receive compensation for their injuries. To be clear, this provision would not create any new liability for gun dealers, just as a law requiring drivers to carry car insurance does not create liability for roadway accidents. However, this bill would ensure that a gun dealer would be covered for valid claims if the business is found civilly liable for negligence under existing law, in cases ranging from a slip-and-fall in the dealer’s store to an employee’s negligent sale of a firearm to a visibly drunk or unstable individual. Because insurance is generally cheaper for responsible businesses, just as car insurance is cheaper for good drivers, this requirement would also incentive responsible behavior over time. Thirty-one localities in California have already enacted this law.

"Finally, AB 2459 would provide DOJ with discretion to fine gun dealers for violations of the law without permanently revoking a dealer’s license to sell firearms. Under existing law, DOJ’s enforcement powers are essentially all-or-nothing: when it discovers a significant legal violation, DOJ must either revoke a dealer’s license or let the dealer continue to operate. As a result, too many irresponsible dealers face no accountability for illegal conduct; conversely, gun dealers may also fear that they will lose their license based on correctable errors. This bill would provide DOJ with tools to craft a more balanced approach to incentivize compliance and improve public safety.

"AB 2459 is consistent with the Second Amendment. Although gun lobbyists frequently argue that any and all gun safety laws violate the Second Amendment, legislation like AB 2459 is clearly constitutional. When the Supreme Court recognized an individual Second Amendment right in District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Scalia made clear in writing for the Court that 'nothing in [the Court’s] opinion should be taken to cast doubt on . . . laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.' This legislation proposes to do just that, placing common sense qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms by requiring gun dealers to comply with a set of responsible business practices. As such, these requirements are consistent with the Second Amendment. See Teixeira v. County of Alameda, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36792, *15-18 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to an Alameda County law regulating the location of firearms dealers).

1. Argument in Opposition: According to The Firearms Policy Coalition, "AB 2459 (McCarty) is a measure that will jeopardize public safety by shutting down a significant portion of the businesses that serve as agents of the state, providing the only lawful means in California to conduct firearms transactions.

"This measure seeks to completely outlaw the lawful business operations of Federal Firearms Licensees who do not operate out of a traditional commercial facility. AB 2459 does this by pre-empting all cities, counties and their respective zoning, planning and business license and revenue ordinances. By defying California’s traditional local control doctrine, AB 2459 robs over 500 local elected bodies of their ability to decide what is best for their communities.

"This measure also mandates retailers to use security cameras down to a level of nuance that is disturbing in its Orwellian fascination with completely lawful and moral activities, requiring the constant recording of 'All places where firearms or ammunition are stored, displayed, carried, handled, sold, or transferred, including, but not limited to, counters, safes, vaults, cabinets, shelves, cases, and entryways.'

"AB 2459 also requires that the customers face be clearly recorded. These are the same customers who have already provided a Firearm Safety Certificate (or License to Carry), proof of residence, valid government photo identification and submitted to one the nation's most stringent background checks. How does recording the facial features of the most already positively identified customers of any industry in the nation serve the public interest?

"The additional data storage requirement is also vexing. Storing high quality data from potentially hundreds of camera angles on-site for 5 years minimum (and up to 10) may require the consultation or employ of technology professionals and hundreds or thousands of hard drives in order to comply with this bizarre mandate that seeks to make the state a voyeur in every nook and cranny of a firearms store.

"Should a staffer pick up and move a box of ammunition without Big Brother catching every pixel, the retailer will be punished by the state. While it may sound perverse to film your own staff who have been vetted by the employer and the California Department of Justice, AB 2459 demands that all lawful, moral and mundane activity be recorded at the retailer's expense---'for transparency.'

"Requiring that retailers potentially violate their lease agreements by placing camera equipment outside of buildings or in parking lots may not be feasible for all retailers, but it's unlikely they will be able to comply with AB 2459 at any rate.

"The final portion of the measure is difficult to articulate our opposition to, given it mandates a product that does not exist. AB 2459 mandates a form of insurance-- a policy that covers the criminal acts of second, third and fourth parties, even if the retailer is in fact the victim of a crime, such as theft or kidnapping. While an amazing fantasy put in print for trial lawyers, even they know that should it ever exist, it would immediately put all insurers and retailers alike out of business.

"To summarize, AB 2459 is a clear case of 'be careful what you wish for.' The retailers and small businesses that AB 2459 seeks to either outlaw or run out of the state are the ONLY means for over 38 million Californians to comply with the state’s overwhelmingly complex firearms laws. By eliminating trusted local businesses either by prohibition or by outrageous mandates, the demand for over 1 million firearms annually in California will not go with them. When there is a dearth of available options, the market will find other avenues.

"Firearms retailers are agents of the state, who process private party transactions (often at a loss) in accordance with state law, to serve the state's interest in conducting background checks and firearms registration. By shutting them down, the state risks being unable to adequately service the million of firearms lawfully transacted annually in California and therefore risks a self-created black market.

"We therefore urge the Chair and the committee to reject this measure that usurps local control and harms the state’s public safety interests."

1. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 988 (Lowenthal), of the 1999-2000 Legislative Session, stated that no licenses to sell firearms could be granted to sell firearms out of residential buildings. Failed passage on the Senate Floor.
   2. AB 22 (Lowenthal), of the 2001-2002 Legislative Session, prohibited the retail sale of firearms from a residential dwelling with specific exceptions. Failed passage on the Senate Floor.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sponsor)

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Cleveland School Remembers

Coalition Against Gun Violence

Courage Campaign

Friends Committee on Legislation of California

Laguna Woods Democratic Club

Physicians for Social Responsibility (SF Bay Area)

Rabbis Against Gun Violence

Violence Prevention Coalition

Women Against Gun Violence

Youth Alive

Opposition

American Civil Liberties Union

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees

California Pawnbroker's Association

California Sportsman's Lobby

Crossroads of the West Gun Shows

Firearms Policy Coalition

National Rifle Association

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California

Safari Club International

Analysis Prepared by: