Existing law prohibits a person who is convicted of a felony offense from subsequently owning or possessing a firearm. Existing law also prohibits a juvenile who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of specified serious or violent offenses from subsequently owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony.

Existing law authorizes certain juvenile records to be sealed upon order of the court and to subsequently be destroyed. Existing law requires a juvenile record that has been ordered to be sealed, and that contains a sustained petition making a person ineligible to own or possess a firearm, to not be destroyed until the person is 33 years of age.

This bill would further prohibit a juvenile who, on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, from subsequently owning or possessing a firearm for life. The bill would also exempt the records of those persons containing the petition that renders them so ineligible from destruction.

By expanding the application of an existing crime, 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.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular Session

AB 2518 (Davies) - Firearms: prohibited persons

Bill Summary:

AB 2518 establishes a lifetime firearm prohibition for juveniles adjudicated a ward of the court for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter.

Fiscal Impact:

• Costs (General Fund) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), possibly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to add this bill’s firearm prohibition to the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS). (See staff comments.)
  
• Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate violations of the firearms prohibition established by this bill. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual court costs will depend on the number of violations, prosecutorial discretion, and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
  
• Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to incarcerate people convicted for a violation of the firearms prohibition established by this bill. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.

Background:

In juvenile court, the final disposition of a criminal case is called an adjudication. Under existing law, a juvenile who is adjudicated a ward of the court for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter may not own or possess a firearm until they reach the age of 30. An adult convicted of these offenses may not own or possess a firearm for the rest of their life. This bill institutes a lifetime firearms prohibition for a juvenile adjudicated a ward of the court for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter. In other words, a person who commits these offenses as a juvenile may never legally own or possess a firearm in California.

Proposed Law:

This bill states a person who, on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudicated a ward of the court because the person committed murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, shall not own, possess, or have custody or control of a firearm. This bill also prohibits the destruction of juvenile records that contain a sustained petition for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, making a person ineligible to possess, own, or have custody or control of a firearm.

Related Legislation:

• AB 2629 (Haney) would prohibit any person who is determined to be incompetent to stand trial on a misdemeanor offense from possessing or owning a firearm. AB 2629 is pending in this Committee.
• AB 2519 (Maienschein) would prohibit a defendant who is charged with an offense that would prohibit them from possessing a firearm if convicted of the offense from possessing a firearm until they successfully complete diversion. AB 2519 is pending in this Committee.
• AB 2739 (Maienschein) would require a firearm, as specified, that is used in the commission of a crime, to be surrendered to law enforcement even where the defendant is granted diversion, if the crime would require the firearm to be surrendered if the defendant had been convicted of the crime. AB 2739 is pending on this Committee’s Suspense File.
• AB 178 (Ting), Chapter 45, Statutes of 2022, allocates $40 million to the Judicial Council to support a court-based firearm relinquishment program to ensure the consistent and safe removal of firearms from individuals who become prohibited from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition pursuant to court order.
• SB 129 (Skinner), Chapter 69, Statutes of 2021, allocates funds to DOJ to disburse to local sheriffs’ departments for APPS enforcement operations, and outlined reporting requirements for participating sheriffs’ departments.

Staff Comments:

Existing law requires the DOJ to maintain a “Prohibited Armed Persons File,” also known as the APPS program. APPS went into effect in December 2006. California is the only state in the nation with an automated system for tracking firearm owners who might fall into a prohibited status. The purpose of APPS is to disarm individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing a firearm. These individuals include convicted felons and persons convicted of certain misdemeanor offenses for domestic violence, individuals suffering from mental illness, and others. APPS tracks subjects who lawfully purchased firearms, but then illegally retained their firearms after falling into a prohibited category. The APPS program is designed to ensure that a firearms owner does not have a criminal history, mental health issues, or any issued restraining order.

The DOJ has long been working to seize the guns and ammunition of persons on the APPS list, but constant flow of new additions to the list coupled with budget and staffing shortfalls has rendered this a Sisyphean effort. DOJ has anticipated that the list will continue to grow as the Legislature adds new categories of persons to the list. This bill would invariably add individuals to APPS, requiring additional initial reviews of new matches by DOJ and ultimately requiring additional investigation and seizure operations. The APPS backlog has been a well-known and continuously discussed issue dating nearly to its creation. According to the most recent DOJ report, DOJ allocates 76 special agent positions to APPS enforcement, and only 53 of those positions are filled. Those 53 individuals are primarily responsible for removing firearms from the 24,509 prohibited persons in the APPS database as of January 2022. In 2021, the DOJ Bureau of Firearms investigated approximately 6,663 individuals who the APPS database identified as armed and prohibited persons.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Aisha Wahab, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

Bill No: AB 2518 Hearing Date: June 18, 2024

Subject: Firearms: prohibited persons

HISTORY

Source: Author

Prior Legislation: AB 178 (Ting, Ch. 45, Stats. of 2022)

SB 129 (Skinner, Ch. 69, Stats. of 2021)

SB 73 (Wiener, Ch. 537, Stats. of 2021)

SB 94 (Committee on Public Safety, Ch. 25, Stats. of 2019)

AB 809 (Feuer, Ch. 745, Stats. of 2011)

Support: Arcadia Police Officers' Association; Burbank Police Officers' Association; California Coalition of School Safety Professionals; California District Attorneys Association; California Narcotic Officers' Association; California Police Chiefs Association; California Reserve Peace Officers Association; California State Sheriffs' Association; Claremont Police Officers Association; Corona Police Officers Association; Culver City Police Officers' Association; Deputy Sheriffs' Association of Monterey County; Fullerton Police Officers' Association; Los Angeles School Police Management Association; Los Angeles School Police Officers Association; Murrieta Police Officers' Association; Newport Beach Police Association; Novato Police Officers Association; Palos Verdes Police Officers Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC); Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association; Pomona Police Officers' Association; Riverside Police Officers Association; Riverside Sheriffs' Association; Santa Ana Police Officers Association; Upland Police Officers Association

Opposition: ACLU California Action; California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; California Public Defenders Association

Assembly Floor Vote: 61 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to prohibit a juvenile who, on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of murder, attempted murder or voluntary manslaughter, from subsequently owning or possessing a firearm for life. The bill also exempts records relating to that firearm prohibition from record destruction requirements.

Existing law prohibits any person who has been convicted of a felony from owning, purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm, a violation of which is punishable as a felony. (Penal Code, § 29800.)

Existing law provides that persons convicted of specified serious or violent misdemeanors are prohibited from possession of firearms for a period of 10 years and that a violation of that prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor with imprisonment up to one year or as a state prison felony. (Penal Code, § 29805 (a).)

Existing law includes within the list of misdemeanors triggering a 10 year firearm prohibition the crimes of stalking, sexual battery, assault with a deadly weapon, battery with serious bodily injury, brandishing a firearm of deadly weapon, assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, battery on a peace officer, corporal injury to spouse, cohabitant or fellow parent, child abuse, elder abuse, unsafe storage of a firearm, and threats of bodily injury or death, among other misdemeanors. (Penal Code, § 29805 (a).)

Existing law requires any person subject to a firearm prohibition based on a conviction of a felony or specified misdemeanor to relinquish any firearms they own, possess or have under their control or custody within 48 hours if the defendant is out of custody or within 14 days if the defendant is in custody. (Penal Code, § 29810 (a).)

Existing law provides that persons with the knowledge that they have an outstanding warrant for any of the specified serious or violent misdemeanors that result in a 10-year prohibition are guilty of a crime if they possess a firearm while the warrant is outstanding. A violation is punishable as a misdemeanor, with imprisonment up to one year, or as a state prison felony. (Penal Code, §§ 29805 (a), 29851.)

Existing law prohibits a person that is subject to specified restraining orders related to domestic violence from possessing or owning a firearm and punishes a violation of the prohibition as a misdemeanor with a maximum sentence of one year in the county jail. (Penal Code, § 29825.)

Existing law contains an exception to the 10-year firearm ban based on a conviction of specified misdemeanors for individuals who took the firearm from someone committing a crime against them and delivered it to law enforcement. (Penal Code, § 29850.)

Existing law authorizes specified peace officers who have been convicted of a specified misdemeanor subject to a 10-year firearm prohibition to petition for relief. In deciding the petition, a court must consider the petitioner’s continued employment, the interest of justice, any relevant evidence, whether the petitioner is otherwise not prohibited, and the totality of the circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 29855.)

Existing law permits any person convicted of a specified misdemeanor, before that misdemeanor was added to the list of misdemeanors triggering a 10-year prohibition, to petition for relief. In deciding the petition, a court must ensure the petitioner is not otherwise prohibited, and may consider the interest of justice, any relevant evidence, and the totality of the circumstances. (Pen. Code, § 29860.)

Existing law requires the Attorney General to establish and maintain an online database to be known as the Prohibited Armed Persons File; the purpose of which is to cross-reference persons who have ownership or possession of a firearm on or after January 1, 1996, as indicated by a record in the Consolidated Firearms Information System, and who, subsequent to the date of that ownership or possession of a firearm, fall within a class of persons who are prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. (Penal Code § 30000 (a).)

Existing law provides that a juvenile who was convicted of or alleged to have committed specified offenses and is subsequently adjudged a ward of the juvenile court shall not own, or have in possession or under custody or control, a firearm until the person is 30 years of age or older, a violation of which is punishable as a misdemeanor. (Penal Code § 29820.)

Existing law provides that, except as otherwise provided, any minor who is between 12 years of age and 17 years of age, inclusive, when he or she violates any law of this state or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this state defining crime other than an ordinance establishing a curfew based solely on age, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. (Welf. and Institutions Code, §602, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that any minor who is under 12 years of age when they are alleged to have committed specified serious and violent offenses is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court. (Welf. and Institutions Code, §602, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that if a person who has been alleged or found to be a ward of the juvenile court satisfactorily completes one of several specified probation terms, the court shall order the juvenile wardship petition dismissed, and shall order sealed all records pertaining to the dismissed petition, as specified. (Welf. and Institutions Code, §786, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that in the situation above, the court shall direct the appropriate agency or official to seal its records and specify a date by which the sealed records shall be destroyed.  If a record contains a sustained petition rendering the person ineligible to own or possess a firearm until 30 years of age, then the date the sealed records shall be destroyed is the date upon which the person turns 33 years of age. (Ibid.)

This bill provides that a person who, on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court because the person committed murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter shall not own, possess or have custody or control of a firearm.

This bill provides that if a record related to a juvenile wardship petition contains a sustained petition rendering the person ineligible to own or possess a firearm pursuant to the prohibition above, then the sealed records shall not be destroyed.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the Author:

Gun Violence is an epidemic that has caused turmoil for both communities and law enforcement agencies for far too long. California has some of the toughest firearm laws on the books in the nation, but common-sense reforms are still needed. We need to ensure the rights of law-abiding firearm owners are protected while going after the convicted criminals or individuals who use a gun in a commission of a crime.

1. Juvenile Wards of the Court

In California, if a juvenile court finds that a minor has violated any law or ordinance, or engaged in other specified conduct, it may adjudge the minor to be a ward of the court, which means that the court assumes primary responsibility for the control and treatment of a minor, and may limit control of the minor by their parents. In 2018, the Legislature enacted SB 439 (Mitchell, Chapter 1006, Statutes of 2018) which established 12 years of age as the minimum age for which the juvenile court has jurisdiction and may adjudge a person a ward of the court. However, existing law provides an exception to this general minimum age of jurisdiction for a minor under 12 years of age who is alleged to have committed any of the following offenses is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court: murder; rape by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury; and sexual penetration by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury.^[1] The purpose of SB 439 was to keep young children out of the juvenile justice system and to employ developmentally appropriate, non-criminal responses to their behavior.

Juvenile courts have an array of options with regard to managing wards of the court, including placing the juvenile on one of several types of probation, placement away from home, and even committing the juvenile to the Office of Youth and Community Restoration (formerly DJJ). A wardship may last for a specified period of probation or until further order of the court. Probation for juveniles who are wards of the court may involve unsupervised probation, where the minor remains at home but must abide by specified conditions, or, if the ward has committed specified offenses, supervised probation involving visitation by a probation officer.

Existing law contains several provisions governing the circumstances in which a person may seek to seal juvenile records, meaning they cannot be accessed again without a court order. These statutes are often unwieldy and apply to several different circumstances depending on the nature of the underlying charges, whether probation or diversion was granted, and whether the juvenile completed probation. Additionally, in some instances, the law grants a person of record the right to file a petition to seal records, and in other cases, the law mandates a court order juvenile records to be sealed.^[2] As a general matter, juvenile court records must be destroyed when the person of record reaches the age of 38 unless good cause is shown for maintaining those records. The person of record may also petition to have records retained by other agencies destroyed, and the request must be granted unless good cause is shown for retention of the records. When records are destroyed pursuant to these provision, the proceedings “shall be deemed never to have occurred.”^[3]

1. Firearm Possession Prohibitions for Criminal Convictions and Effect of This Bill

Existing state and federal law contains a myriad of prohibitions on the possession and attempted purchase of firearms by certain individuals. Under both state and federal law, all felony convictions lead to a lifetime prohibition. California law goes further and imposes a 10-year prohibition on the possession and purchase of firearms for individuals convicted of numerous misdemeanor offenses that involve either violence or threat of violence as well as certain firearm-related crimes. Additionally, a person may be prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a protective order or as a condition of probation. If a person communicates to his or her psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably-identifiable victim or victims, the person is prohibited from owning or purchasing a firearm for five years, starting from the date the psychotherapist reports to local law enforcement the identity of the person making the threat. If a person is admitted into a facility because that person is a danger to himself, herself, or to others, the person is prohibited from owning or purchasing a firearm for five years. Individuals under domestic violence restraining orders are also subject to a prohibition on firearm possession and purchase for the duration of that court order.

As is the case with most other provisions of California criminal law, the rules are different with regard to juvenile offenders. Under existing law, a juvenile who has been convicted of one of several drug-related offenses or has been alleged to have committed one of several enumerated serious, violent and firearm-related offenses, and is subsequently adjudged a ward of the court is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years old.^[4] A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor. This bill modifies that prohibition to a lifetime ban for an individual who, on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court because they committed murder, attempted murder or voluntary manslaughter. Additionally, whereas existing law would see them destroyed, this bill requires the preservation of sealed records related to petitions rendering persons subject to this lifetime prohibition. The Committee should consider the fundamental question at issue in this bill and raised by several of the groups in opposition: Is a lifetime ban on firearms an appropriate collateral consequence for conduct during one’s youth, even if the crime is egregious, or is a ban until the age of 30 (i.e. existing law) sufficient?

1. Argument in Support

According to the California Police Chiefs Association:

I write to inform you of our support of AB 2518, which would apply existing statutory penalties for those adults convicted of heinous crimes such as murder, attempted murder and manslaughter and make them applicable to juveniles convicted of those same offenses thereby prohibiting them from owning or possessing a firearm for the rest of their life. According to the Monterey Herald in 2014, while walking to work, 28-year-old man Andre Jacob was murdered by known gang members. One of his assailants was a juvenile, who due to our state’s penalty structure, upon his release from prison, will be able to once again be able to purchase a firearm, despite his violent past and conviction. More recently, in December 2023, a Fresno County 14-year-old killed his parents and attempted to kill his younger sister as well. If and when he is convicted of these crimes, at the age of 30 and upon release, he will be able to purchase a firearm. Existing law ensures any juvenile, upon their 30th birthday and regardless of crime committed, may walk-in to any firearm store and legally purchase a firearm. AB 2518 would ensure violent criminals, regardless of age, who commit murder, attempted murder or manslaughter are ineligible to own or possess a firearm upon their release from prison.

1. Argument in Opposition

According to the California Public Defenders Association:

We recognize the terrible tragedies that result from gun violence, but this bill does nothing to address those issues. Moreover, because the primary purpose is rehabilitation, youth in juvenile court, are not accorded the same right to jury trial that individuals charged with the same offenses in adult proceedings have. In some jurisdictions, prosecutors routinely overcharge murder, attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter that will later be proven at a jury trial to be an assault in the case of an attempted murder or even an involuntary manslaughter. Minors are not accorded this same right. Minors have the right to a bench trial or trial in front of a judge. In other words, based on exactly the same facts minors are more likely to have sustained adjudications for these charges than an adult facing the same charges with the right to a jury trial. This is a crucial difference.

California has over the last decade realized that youthful indiscretions and mistakes should not have eternal consequences. Youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court must have an opportunity to move past their juvenile records rather than face lifelong collateral consequences. Among many other laws, we have increased the ability to seal juvenile records, elevated the opportunity for courts to dismiss strike allegations for offenses committed as youth, and provided special youthful offender parole processes for the serious offenses that are prosecuted in adult court. These and other laws recognize that youthful mistakes do not and should not forever define or limit a young person’s life. A ban on possession or use of a firearm until the age of 30 is certainly a sufficient collateral consequence. Any illegal use or possession of a firearm after age 30 is still punishable as a crime, but the punishment should not be made harsher because of youthful mistakes. Perhaps, most crucially AB 2518 by eliminating record sealing could foreclose youth in these categories from employment, housing and educational opportunities.

-- END –

1. Welfare and Institutions Code § 602 ↑

2. See Welfare and Institutions Code §§781, 786 and 786.6 ↑

3. Welfare and Institutions Code §826. ↑

4. For the full list of offenses for which a juvenile is subject to this prohibition, see Welfare and Institutions Code § 707, subd. (b), and Penal Code §29820, subd. (a). ↑

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2518

Author:(Davies)

As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Prohibits any juvenile adjudicated a ward of the court, as specified, for the crimes of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter from owning, possessing, or having custody of a firearm.

Major Provisions

1. States that any person, who on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudicated a ward of the court because the person committed murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, shall not own, possess, or have custody or control of a firearm.
2. Prohibits the destruction of juvenile records that contain a sustained petition for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, making a person ineligible to possess, own, or have custody or control of a firearm.

COMMENTS

EXISTING LAW:

1. States any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in existing law pertaining to violent use of a firearm, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (Penal Code, Section 29800, subsection. (a)(1).)
2. Provides any person who has two or more convictions for violating existing law pertaining to brandishing a firearm and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (Penal Code, Section 29800, subsection. (a)(2).)
3. States any person who has an outstanding warrant for any offense listed in this subdivision and who has knowledge of the outstanding warrant, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (Penal Code, Section 29800, subsection. (a)(3).)
4. States any person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city, city and county, or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county. (Penal Code, Section 25850, subsection. (a).)
5. States any weapon, used in the commission of a crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony, shall be surrendered to one of the following
   1. The sheriff of a county.
   2. The chief of police or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county.
   3. The chief of police of any campus of the University of California or the California State University.
   4. The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. (Penal Code, Section 18000, subsection. (a).)
6. Clarifies that a finding that the defendant was guilty of the offense but was insane at the time the offense was committed is a conviction for the purposes of surrendering a firearm to law enforcement. (Penal Code, Section 18000, subsection (c).)

According to the Author

"Gun Violence is an epidemic that has caused turmoil for both communities and law enforcement agencies for far too long. California has some of the toughest firearm laws on the books in the nation, but common-sense reforms are still needed. We need to ensure the rights of law-abiding firearm owners are protected while going after the convicted criminals or individuals who use a gun in a commission of a crime.

"AB 2518 is a common-sense measure that will accomplish this goal by closing a loophole in current law that allows individuals convicted of the worst crimes, such as murder, from ever owning a firearm again, regardless of what age they were convicted. If these crimes result in the loss of a firearm if someone is convicted over the age of 18, there is no reason it should not apply to someone who commits the same crime, even as a minor."

Arguments in Support

According to California District Attorneys Association: "Your bill creates a lifetime prohibition of owning or possessing a firearm if a juvenile becomes a ward of the court for the commission of a murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter. AB 2518 would also amend Welfare and Institution Code section 786 to prohibit the sealing of juvenile records for youth who have sustained petitions for crimes listed in subdivision (a)(1) of 786. AB 2518 will improve public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of youth who have committed very serious and violent crimes."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the ACLU California Action: We recognize the terrible tragedies that result from gun violence. Still, AB 2518 does nothing to address those issues. Over the last decade, California has realized that youthful indiscretions and mistakes should not have eternal consequences. Youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court must have an opportunity to move past their juvenile records rather than face lifelong collateral consequences.

"Among many other laws, we have increased the ability to seal juvenile records, elevated the opportunity for courts to dismiss strike allegations for offenses committed as youth, and provided special youthful offender parole processes for the serious offenses that are prosecuted in adult court. These and other laws recognize that youthful mistakes do not and should not forever define or limit a young person's life. A ban on possession or use of a firearm until the age of 30 is certainly a sufficient collateral consequence. Any illegal use or possession of a firearm after age 30 is still punishable as a crime, but the punishment should not be made harsher because of youthful mistakes."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. Costs (General Fund) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), possibly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to add this bill's firearm prohibition to the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS). Costs will likely decrease after APPS is updated but DOJ may incur ongoing workload costs in identifying people subject to this prohibition and enforcing it.
2. Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate violations of the firearms prohibition established by this bill. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual court costs will depend on the number of violations, prosecutorial discretion, and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor's 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
3. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incarcerate people convicted for a violation of the firearms prohibition established by this bill. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst's Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.

According to the LAO, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

VOTES

ASM PUBLIC SAFETY: 7-0-1

YES: McCarty, Alanis, Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Ting, Wilson, Zbur

ABS, ABST OR NV: Reyes

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Jim Patterson, Pellerin, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Ta

UPDATED

VERSION: February 13, 2024

CONSULTANT: Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003374

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2518

Author:(Davies) – As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2024

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

SUMMARY:

This bill institutes a lifetime firearms prohibition for a juvenile adjudicated a ward of the court for the crimes of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter.

Specifically, this bill:

1. States a person who, on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudicated a ward of the court because the person committed murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, shall not own, possess, or have custody or control of a firearm.
2. Prohibits the destruction of juvenile records that contain a sustained petition for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, making a person ineligible to possess, own, or have custody or control of a firearm.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (General Fund) to the Department of Justice (DOJ), possibly in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to add this bill’s firearm prohibition to the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS). Costs will likely decrease after APPS is updated but DOJ may incur ongoing workload costs in identifying people subject to this prohibition and enforcing it.
2. Costs (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) to the courts to adjudicate violations of the firearms prohibition established by this bill. A defendant charged with a misdemeanor or felony is entitled to no-cost legal representation and a jury trial. Actual court costs will depend on the number of violations, prosecutorial discretion, and the amount of court time needed to adjudicate each case. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a need for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The Governor’s 2024-25 budget proposes $83.1 million ongoing from the General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
3. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties and the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to incarcerate people convicted for a violation of the firearms prohibition established by this bill. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions, the length of each sentence, and whether each sentence must be served in county jail or state prison. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO) estimates the average annual cost to incarcerate one person in state prison is $133,000. Although county incarceration costs are generally not considered reimbursable state mandates pursuant to Proposition 30 (2012), overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from 2011 public safety realignment.

According to the LAO, the General Fund faces a structural deficit in the tens of billions of dollars over the next several fiscal years. 

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

We need to ensure the rights of law-abiding firearm owners are protected while going after the convicted criminals or individuals who use a gun in a commission of a crime. AB 2518 is a common-sense measure that will accomplish this goal by closing a loophole in current law that allows individuals convicted of the worst crimes, such as murder, from ever owning a firearm again, regardless of what age they were convicted. If these crimes result in the loss of a firearm if someone is convicted over the age of 18, there is no reason it should not apply to someone who commits the same crime, even as a minor.

1. Background. In juvenile court, the final disposition of a criminal case is called an adjudication. Under existing law, a juvenile who is adjudicated a ward of the court for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter may not own or possess a firearm until they reach the age of 30. An adult convicted of these offenses may not own or possess a firearm for the rest of their life. This bill institutes a lifetime firearms prohibition for a juvenile adjudicated a ward of the court for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter. In other words, a person who commits these offenses as a juvenile may never legally own or possess a firearm in California.

This is an area of law that is actively litigated both within the state and nationally. As described in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, the 30-year firearms prohibition for juveniles that currently exists in California has been upheld by the courts. However, courts have also recognized that there are limits to the constitutionality of the state’s ability to prohibit felons from possessing firearms. Since those cases were decided, the U.S. Supreme Court has significantly changed the standard for determining whether a firearm restriction is constitutional. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a court should uphold a restriction on someone’s right to bear arms only if there is a tradition of similar regulation in U.S. history. (NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) 142 S.Ct. 2111.) In that case, the court struck down a New York law that required someone who wanted a concealed carry firearm permit to show “proper cause” for the permit and found the regulation was not sufficiently grounded in the historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Kimberly Horiuchi

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Kevin McCarty, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2518

Author:(Davies) – As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2024

SUMMARY:

Prohibits any juvenile adjudicated a ward of the court, as specified, for the crimes of murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter from owning, possessing, or having custody of a firearm. Specifically, this bill:

1. States that any person, who on or after January 1, 2014, is adjudicated a ward of the court because the person committed murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, shall not own, possess, or have custody or control of a firearm.
   
2. Prohibits the destruction of juvenile records that contain a sustained petition for murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter, making a person ineligible to possess, own, or have custody or control of a firearm.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States any person who has been convicted of a felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, or of an offense enumerated in existing law pertaining to violent use of a firearm, or who is addicted to the use of any narcotic drug, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).)
   
2. Provides any person who has two or more convictions for violating existing law pertaining to brandishing a firearm and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(2).)
   
3. States any person who has an outstanding warrant for any offense listed in this subdivision and who has knowledge of the outstanding warrant, and who owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control any firearm is guilty of a felony. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(3).)
   
4. States any person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when the person carries a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city, city and county, or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of an unincorporated area of a county or city and county. (Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (a).)
   
5. States any weapon, used in the commission of a crime, whether a misdemeanor or felony, shall be surrendered to one of the following:
   
   1. The sheriff of a county.
      
   2. The chief of police or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county.
      
   3. The chief of police of any campus of the University of California or the California State University.
      
   4. The Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. (Pen. Code, § 18000, subd. (a).)
      
6. Clarifies that a finding that the defendant was guilty of the offense but was insane at the time the offense was committed is a conviction for the purposes of surrendering a firearm to law enforcement. (Pen. Code, § 18000, subd. (c).)
   
7. Provides that any officer to whom a weapon is surrendered, except upon the certificate of a judge of a court of record, or of the district attorney of the county, that the retention thereof is necessary or proper to the ends of justice, shall destroy that weapon and, if applicable, submit proof of its destruction to the court. (Pen. Code, § 18005, subd. (a).)
   
8. Makes concealed carry of an explosive substance other than fixed ammunition, a nuisance subject to surrender of a firearm. (Pen. Code, § 19190.)
   
9. Makes the unlawful carrying of a concealed dirk or dagger a nuisance, subject to surrender to law enforcement. (Pen. Code, § 21390.)
   
10. States any firearm owned or possessed by a felon, as specified, or used in the commission of any misdemeanor, any felony, or an attempt to commit any misdemeanor or any felony, is a nuisance and must be surrendered to law enforcement. (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1).)
    
11. States a judge in the superior court in which a misdemeanor is being prosecuted may, at the judge’s discretion, and over the objection of a prosecuting attorney, offer diversion to a defendant. (Pen. Code, § 1001.95, subd. (a).)
    
12. States if the defendant has complied with the imposed terms and conditions, at the end of the period of diversion, the judge shall dismiss the action against the defendant. (Pen. Code, § 1001.95, subd. (b).)
    
13. States any person who is convicted, on or after January 1, 2019, of a misdemeanor domestic violence, and who subsequently owns, purchases, receives, or has in possession or under custody or control, any firearm is guilty of a public offense, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison, by a fine not exceeding one $1,000, or by both that imprisonment and fine. (Pen. Code, 29805, subd. (b).)
    
14. Prohibits a juvenile adjudicated for a Welfare and Institutions Code section 707, subdivision (b) pertaining to serious or violent offenses from possessing or owning a firearm unit the person is 30 years of age. (Pen. Code, § 29820, subd. (a).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author’s Statement: According to the author: “Gun Violence is an epidemic that has caused turmoil for both communities and law enforcement agencies for far too long. California has some of the toughest firearm laws on the books in the nation, but common-sense reforms are still needed. We need to ensure the rights of law-abiding firearm owners are protected while going after the convicted criminals or individuals who use a gun in a commission of a crime.

“AB 2518 is a common-sense measure that will accomplish this goal by closing a loophole in current law that allows individuals convicted of the worst crimes, such as murder, from ever owning a firearm again, regardless of what age they were convicted. If these crimes result in the loss of a firearm if someone is convicted over the age of 18, there is no reason it should not apply to someone who commits the same crime, even as a minor.”

1. Surrender of a Firearm: Penal Code section 18000 requires the surrender of all firearms deemed to be a nuisance, and section 29300, subdivision (a), states that any weapon possessed, owned or controlled by a convicted felon constitutes a nuisance. Under prior law, persons convicted of a felony were automatically required to surrender all weapons to law enforcement following their conviction.
   
   Section 29810 provides that in a felony case, a defendant must be advised at the time judgment is rendered of the prohibition against owning a firearm, and must be given a form to facilitate transfer of any firearms they own or possesses. In other words, when a defendant is convicted of a felony and is, going forward, prohibited from owning firearms, they must be given the opportunity to avoid violating section 29300, subdivision (a), by transferring the firearms to a third person, including law enforcement, at the time judgment is rendered. That person, as an agent for the defendant, may then transfer title to the firearms or facilitate their sale.

Former Penal Code section 12021, subdivision (e) prohibited any individual who has committed certain violent and or serious crimes while a juvenile and who is subsequently determined to be a ward of the state as a result of a violent and or serious crime from possessing a firearm until they are 30 years old. This bill would prohibit possession forever. That provision was recast by SB 1080 in 2010 as Penal Code section 29820, subdivision (a)(1)(A).

1. Second Amendment: This provision was expressly authorized as constitutional by People v. Villa wherein the court held a juvenile’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed by a firearm prohibition:

That the state has the power, notwithstanding the Second Amendment, to limit the right of certain juveniles to possess firearms based on conduct that would be a crime for an adult does not transform such a person's juvenile adjudication into a criminal conviction. Rather, we merely recognize that the logic for recognizing an exception to the Second Amendment for certain adult criminals extends to certain juvenile offenders as well. (People v. Villa (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 443, 449.)

However, existing law states a juvenile adjudicated for 707(b) offense is only prohibited from possessing a firearm until 30 years of age. This bill appears to prohibit a juvenile from possessing a firearm forever if convicted of murder, presumably^[1] pursuant to Penal Code section 187, attempted murder likely pursuant to Penal Code sections 664 and 187, and voluntary manslaughter, pursuant to Penal Code section 192, subdivision (a).

In People v. Villa, the court ruled on whether District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, 595 prohibited firearms prohibition following a conviction for specified serious or violent felonies. The Villa court found the restriction consistent with the Heller decision:

In Heller, the high court addressed the constitutionality of a District of Columbia law prohibiting the possession of all firearms in the district. (District of Columbia v. Heller, supra, 554 U.S. at p. 647].) The court analyzed the district's law in light of the Second Amendment and found that an individual has the right to keep and bear firearms. (Internal citation omitted.) However, the court recognized this right is not limitless and provided a brief non-exhaustive list of exceptions to the rule of Heller, including the state's ability to prohibit felons from possessing firearms. (Emphasis added) (171 L.Ed.2d at pp. 659–660, 678.) Further, the court did not address whether this right is applicable to states or if it applied only to the federal government and left this as an open question. (Emphasis added.) (People v. Villa (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 443, 447.)

More recently, however, the Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1 refined its Second Amendment analysis holding that only restrictions that would have been in place at the time the Second Amendment was drafted in 1791 or when the 14th Amendment^[2] applied the Second Amendment to the states in 1868. Otherwise, if the restrictions were not contemplated in 1791 or 1868, they are likely invalid.

“After holding the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, ‘[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Heller, supra, at 626, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. ‘From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.’ Ibid. For example, we found it ‘fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.’ Id., at 627, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637…That said, we cautioned that we were not ‘undertak[ing] an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment” and moved on to considering the constitutionality of the District of Columbia’s handgun ban. (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, 21.)

The United States Supreme Court is now reviewing the case of Rahimi v. United States related to the constitutionality of civil prohibitions on firearms ownership. (certiorari granted United States v. Rahimi (2023) 143 S.Ct. 2688.) This is the first case taken up by the Supreme Court after its decision in Bruen. The Solicitor General argues that the Second Amendment allows Congress to disarm persons who are not law-abiding, responsible citizens. Rahimi’s counsel counters that there is no historical tradition of any similar restriction, and so the prohibition is unconstitutional. On November 7, 2023, the Court heard oral arguments in the case. The justices’ questioning seemed to suggest that they would uphold the law. (See Amy Howe, Justices appear wary of striking down domestic-violence gun restriction, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 7, 2023, 5:47 PM).^[3]

Although the Rahimi case deals with domestic violence restraining orders, the inquiry principally revolved around prohibiting firearm possession based on a civil proceedings. It is unclear as to whether this restriction is the type contemplated by the framers of the Constitution, but given the standard expressed by Bruen – which largely abandoned the existing legal standards for other Bill of Rights violations – is so strange in the application, litigation seems inevitable.

1. Arguments in Support: According to California District Attorneys Association: “Your bill creates a lifetime prohibition of owning or possessing a firearm if a juvenile becomes a ward of the court for the commission of a murder, attempted murder, or voluntary manslaughter. AB 2518 would also amend Welfare and Institution Code section 786 to prohibit the sealing of juvenile records for youth who have sustained petitions for crimes listed in subdivision (a)(1) of 786. AB 2518 will improve public safety by keeping firearms out of the hands of youth who have committed very serious and violent crimes.”
2. Arguments in Opposition: According to the ACLU California Action: We recognize the terrible tragedies that result from gun violence. Still, AB 2518 does nothing to address those issues. Over the last decade, California has realized that youthful indiscretions and mistakes should not have eternal consequences. Youth who are adjudicated in juvenile court must have an opportunity to move past their juvenile records rather than face lifelong collateral consequences.

“Among many other laws, we have increased the ability to seal juvenile records, elevated the opportunity for courts to dismiss strike allegations for offenses committed as youth, and provided special youthful offender parole processes for the serious offenses that are prosecuted in adult court. These and other laws recognize that youthful mistakes do not and should not forever define or limit a young person’s life. A ban on possession or use of a firearm until the age of 30 is certainly a sufficient collateral consequence. Any illegal use or possession of a firearm after age 30 is still punishable as a crime, but the punishment should not be made harsher because of youthful mistakes.

1. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 2629 (Haney) prohibits any person who is determined to be incompetent to stand trial on a misdemeanor offense from possessing or owning a firearm. AB 2629 is pending hearing in this committee today.
      
   2. AB 2739 (Maienschein) Requires a firearm, as specified, that is used in the commission of a crime, to be surrendered to law enforcement even where the defendant is granted diversion, if the crime would require the firearm to be surrendered if the defendant had been convicted of the crime. AB 2739 is pending on the Assembly floor.
      
   3. AB 2759 (Petrie-Norris) Revises the exemption in existing law pertaining to the issuance of a protective order or restraining order and the relinquishment of a firearm to clarify and expand the court’s obligations in making determinations as to sown peace officers carrying a firearm either on or off duty. AB 2759 is pending on the Assembly floor.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 178 (Ting), Chapter 45, Statutes of 2022, allocates $40 million to the Judicial Council to support a court-based firearm relinquishment program to ensure the consistent and safe removal of firearms from individuals who become prohibited from owning or possessing firearms and ammunition pursuant to court order.
      
   2. AB 1594 (Ting), Chapter 98, Statutes of 2022, authorizes DOJ, local governments and survivors of gun violence to file a civil action in a California court for damages against a gun manufacturer, importer or dealer that violates firearm industry standards of conduct, as specified.
      
   3. SB 129 (Skinner), Chapter 69, Statutes of 2021, allocates funds to DOJ to disburse to local sheriffs’ departments for APPS enforcement operations, and outlined reporting requirements for participating sheriffs’ departments.
      
   4. SB 94 (Committee on Public Safety), Chapter 25, Statutes of 2019, requires DOJ to send an annual report to the Legislature detailing information related to APPS including the number of individuals in the database, firearms removed, number of staff enforcing APPS, and information regarding collaborative task forces with local law enforcement agencies.
      
   5. AB 809 (Feuer), Chapter 745, Statutes of 2011, requires the DOJ to collect and retain firearm transaction information for all types of firearms, including long guns.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California District Attorneys Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs' Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)

Opposition

ACLU California Action

California Attorneys for Criminal Justice

California Public Defenders Association

Analysis Prepared by:

Kimberly Horiuchi / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. This bill does not specifically cross-reference specific code sections. ↑

2. The Court ruled individuals are constitutionally entitled to bear arms – not just “well regulated militias.” (N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, 17 [“In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”].) ↑

3. https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/11/justices-appear-wary-of-striking-down-domestic-violence-gun-restriction ↑