Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by not more than one year in county jail, to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law establishes certain exemptions to this prohibition, including, among others, exemptions for sales to specified law enforcement agencies and other specified government agencies for use by specified employees and sales to specified peace officers.

Existing law imposes certain vehicle storage requirements on specified persons who obtain an unsafe handgun. A violation of those provisions is a crime.

Existing law specifies that the sale of an unsafe handgun to certain specified entities, including county probation departments, and members of those entities, is only authorized if the handgun is to be used as a service weapon by a peace officer who has successfully completed the basic course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and who qualifies with the handgun, as specified, at least every 6 months. Existing law also provides that this training requirement may be satisfied by completion of the firearm portion of a training course prescribed by POST, if that training was completed before January 1, 2021.

This bill would instead authorize a peace officer employed by a county probation department and using an unsafe handgun as a service weapon to satisfy the above-described training requirement by completion of the firearm portion of a training course prescribed by POST.

Because the bill would expand the application of the crime of improperly storing an unsafe handgun in an unattended vehicle to additional persons, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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

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

Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by not more than one year in county jail, to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law establishes certain exemptions to this prohibition, including, among others, exemptions for sales to specified law enforcement agencies and other specified government agencies for use by specified employees and sales to specified peace officers.

Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by not more than one year in county jail, to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law establishes certain exemptions to this prohibition, including, among others, exemptions for sales to specified law enforcement agencies and other specified government agencies for use by specified employees and sales to specified peace officers.

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

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 879 (Patterson) - Firearms: unsafe handguns

Bill Summary:

AB 879 allows the sale or purchase “unsafe handguns” (non-roster handguns) for use as a service weapon by sworn members of a county probation department, if the officer has completed specified firearms training.

Fiscal Impact:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports a fiscal impact of $275,000 or less (General Fund). DOJ notes implementation of this bill will be dependent upon the appropriation of funds and the department will be unable to absorb the costs to comply with or implement the requirements of the bill within existing budgeted resources. The estimated expenditures for this bill cannot be funded from the Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) Account. Current revenues are insufficient to cover the increased cost of this bill. As such, for the DOJ to fully fund the associated costs inherent with the mandates of this bill, a General Fund appropriation is required.

DOJ indicates that, beginning January 1, 2026, AB 879 would require DOJ’s CJIS Division to perform system updates and modifications to the DROS Entry System and DROS, to add a new exemption group. The Hawkins Data Center within the CJIS Division would require the following resources to implement the mandates of AB 879:

• Business Analyst Consultants – FY 2025-26. The consultants would gather requirements, conduct joint application development sessions, update documentation, and test the impacted firearms applications functionality.
• Developer Consultants – FY 2025-26.The consultants would make necessary coding changes to the impacted firearms systems.
• Information Technology Specialist (ITS) I – 12-months, Limited-term effective 1/1/2026. The ITS I would perform the following duties: Participate in joint application development sessions, review business requirements; use cases, create test cases, and test data. Conduct functional testing for all affected systems, report defects, and prepare weekly status reports. Conduct regression testing.

DOJ further indicates that, to implement the mandates of AB 879, the Division of Law Enforcement, Bureau of Firearms within the DOJ would require the following resources in FY 2025-26:

• 40 hours of overtime for a Crime Analyst Supervisor in the Firearms Records Unit, Automated Firearms System (AFS) Team to create and review Business Requirements to ensure migration of new PC 32000 (b)(8) exemption reason from DES and DROS systems to AFS DROS records and enhancement of AFS Special Search and add and modify workflows. Review Functional Requirements, attend Joint Application Development sessions, and User Acceptance Testing .
• 40 hours of overtime in the Customer Support Center for two Associate Governmental Program Analysts to create and review Business Requirements and Functional Requirements, and attend Joint Application Development sessions, and User Acceptance Testing.
• 40 hours of overtime in the ECU for a CA I to create and review Business Requirements and Functional Requirements, and attend Joint Application Development sessions, and User Acceptance Testing.
• Additionally, the BOF would require a one-time funding for 20 hours of Deputy Attorney General (DAG) consultation during the Business Requirements phase at an hourly rate of $228. (See Staff Comments)

Background:

Existing law requires DOJ to maintain a roster listing all of the firearms that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory and determined not to be unsafe handguns, and may be sold in this state, as specified.

SB 15 (Polanco), Chapter 248, Statutes of 1999, made it a misdemeanor for any person in California to manufacture, import for sale, offer for sale, give or lend any “unsafe” handgun, with certain specific exceptions. An “unsafe” handgun means any handgun not listed on the DOJ’s “not unsafe handgun roster” (Roster). Some newer model firearms are not yet fully compliant with California’s laws and, as a result, are technically considered “unsafe” and not listed on the DOJ’s Roster. Specified law enforcement agencies may legally purchase newer model weapons that might not be listed on the Roster, but are still safe to operate. Penal Code section 32000 lists exemptions for authorized peace officers to purchase non-roster handguns in their official capacity.

In 2016, AB 2165 (Bonta) exempted specified peace officers, including probation, who have completed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) firearms training course as required in Penal Code 832, from the state prohibition of the sale or purchase of a non-roster firearm.

In 2020, AB 2699 (Santiago) expanded the unsafe handgun exemption to sworn officers within various state departments, including the California Horse Racing Board, the State Department of Public Health, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, Investigators at the Department of Business Oversight. AB 2699 also required all officers who are permitted to use off-roster or “unsafe handguns” in California to complete the full Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Basic Training Academy. As a result, AB 2699 did not reflect the training that probation completes both through POST and the BSCC STC program. Thus, county probation employees were inadvertently omitted from the existing exceptions that allow other peace officers to use and purchase off-roster handguns. Probation officers undergo the same firearms training as other peace officers, which includes the firearms modules from the POST Basic Academy.

Proposed Law:

This bill clarifies probation’s inclusion in Penal Codes’ list of exemptions for authorized peace officers to purchase non-roster handguns. This bill allows a county probation officer to use an off-roster handgun as a service weapon if the officer has completed specified firearms trainings.

Staff Comments: DOJ indicates that this bill would result in fiscal impact because the department would be required to update and modify its DROS systems to include a new exemption group. However, in 2020, when multiple agencies were added to the exempted list by AB 2699 (Santiago), the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis indicates “one-time costs in the thousands of dollars for DOJ to configure an existing information technology infrastructure to maintain a database of specified unsafe handguns.”

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 879 Hearing Date: June 10, 2025

Subject: Firearms: unsafe handguns

HISTORY

Source: Chief Probation Officers of California

Prior Legislation: SB 377 (Skinner), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2024

AB 669 (Lackey), failed in Senate Public Safety, 2021

AB 2699 (Santiago), Ch. 289, Stats. of 2020

AB 1794 (Jones-Sawyer), held Sen. Appropriations, 2019

AB 1872 (Voepel), Ch. 56, Stats. of 2018

AB 2165 (Bonta), Ch. 640, Stats. of 2016

AB 892 (Achadjian), Ch. 203, Stats. of 2015

Support: Monterey County Probation Association; Sacramento County Probation Association; San Diego County Probation Officers Association; San Joaquin County Probation Officers Association; San Luis Obispo County Probation Peace Officers Association; San Mateo County Probation Detention Association

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 69 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to authorize the sale or purchase of a handgun that does not appear on the Department of Justice (DOJ) roster of not unsafe handguns for use as a service weapon by sworn members of a county probation department, provided that the sworn member of the department has satisfactorily completed specified firearms training.

Existing law sets forth a definition of “unsafe handgun” for both revolvers and pistols, which applies to the provisions listed below.

• A revolver meets the definition of “unsafe handgun” if it 1) does not have a safety device that causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge, 2) does not meet the firing requirements for handguns, as specified, or 3) does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns.
• A pistol meets the definition of “unsafe handgun” if 1) it does not have a positive manually operated safety device, as specified, 2) it does not meet the firing requirement for handguns, 3) it does not meet the drop safety requirement for handguns, 4) it does not have a chamber load indicator, 5) it does not have a magazine disconnect mechanism if it has a detachable magazine, or 6) it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters used to identify the pistol, as specified (see more below). (Pen. Code § 31910, subds. (a), (b).)

Existing law requires DOJ, on and after January 1, 2001, to compile, publish, and thereafter maintain a roster listing all of the pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined not to be unsafe handguns, and may be sold in this state, as specified. The roster shall list, for each firearm, the manufacturer, model number, and model name. (Pen. Code, § 32015, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that DOJ may charge every person in California who is licensed as a manufacturer of firearms, as specified, and any person in California who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into California for sale, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person in California, an annual fee not exceeding the costs of preparing, publishing, and maintaining the roster of firearms determined not be unsafe, and the costs of research and development, report analysis, firearms storage, and other program infrastructure costs, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 32015, subd. (b)(1).)

Existing law provides that a person in this state who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, and that other specified violations may be punished by specified civil penalties. (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (a).)

Existing law sets forth several exemptions to the penalties above, including for the manufacture or importation into this state of a prototype handgun for the sole purpose of testing of that handgun to determine whether it is prohibited, as specified, for the importation or lending of a handgun by employees or authorized agents of entities determining whether such a weapon is prohibited, for firearms listed as curios or relics, and for the sale or purchase of a handgun that is sold to or purchased by specified law enforcement agencies, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (b)(1)-(4).)

Existing law exempts from the penalties set forth in Penal Code § 32000, subdivision (a), the sale or purchase of a handgun for use as a service weapon, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of several specified entities, including county probation departments, for use by, or sold to or purchased by, sworn members of those entities who have satisfactorily completed the basic course of training offered by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) or, before January 1, 2021, have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the POST, and who, as a condition of carrying that handgun, complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every six months. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(6).)

Existing law exempts from the penalties set forth in Penal Code § 32000, subdivision (a), the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of several other specified entities for use as a service weapon by the sworn members of those entities who have

satisfactorily completed the basic course of training offered by the POST or, before January 1, 2021, have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the POST, and who, as a condition of carrying that handgun, complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every six months. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(7).)

Existing law provides that a licensed firearms dealer shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to the exemptions set forth in Section 32000, subdivision (b)(6)-(7), and a person who is not exempt from the penalties specified in Penal Code Section 32000. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (c)(1).)

Existing law provides that a person who obtains or has use of an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption set forth in Section 32000, subdivision (b)(6)-(7) shall, when leaving the handgun in an unattended vehicle, lock the handgun in the vehicle’s trunk, lock the handgun in a locked container and place the container out of plain view, or lock the handgun in a locked container that is permanently affixed to the vehicle’s interior and not in plain view, as specified. (Pen. Code, 32000, subd. (c)(2).)

Existing law requires the DOJ to maintain a database of unsafe handguns obtained pursuant to several of the exemptions to the penalties in Penal Code Section 32000 described above, and provides that a person or entity that is in possession of an unsafe handgun obtained pursuant to those exemptions shall notify the DOJ of any sale or transfer of that handgun within 72 hours of the sale or transfer, as specified. (Pen. Code, 32000, subd. (e)(1)-(2).)

This bill removes county probation departments from an existing exemption to prohibitions relating to the sale, import and transfer of unsafe handguns, and instead sets forth a standalone exemption for the sale or purchase of an unsafe handgun for use as a service weapon, if the handgun is sold to or purchased by a county probation department for use by, or sold to or purchased by, sworn members of the department who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by POST.

This bill specifies that as a condition of carrying that unsafe handgun, a sworn member of a county probation department shall complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every three months.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the Author:

AB 879 restores and adds clarity around the ability for probation officers to be equipped with non-roster handguns, just like other law enforcement agencies, ensuring they have the same tools for officer and community safety, interoperability, and effective collaboration in emergency situations, task forces, and related duties. It’s about making sure they have the tools to do their jobs and in their work alongside other officers to protect community safety.

1. California Unsafe Handgun Law Generally

In 1999, the Legislature passed SB 15 (Polanco, Ch. 248, Stats. of 1999), also known as the Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), which made it a misdemeanor for any person in California to manufacture, import for sale, offer for sale, give, or lend any unsafe handgun, with certain specific exceptions. SB 15 defined an "unsafe handgun" as a handgun that (1) does not meet a specified “drop safety” test, (2) does not meet specified firing tests, and (3) does not have a requisite safety device.^[1] The law also required DOJ to compile and publish a roster listing all of the handguns and concealable firearms that they deem “not unsafe” and which are certified for sale in the state.^[2] A subsequent reform, enacted in 2003, added new design safety requirements for semiautomatic pistols.^[3]

In 2007, the Legislature enacted AB 1471 (Feuer, Ch. 572, Stats. of 2007), which made microstamping capability a prerequisite for any semiautomatic pistol not already designated a safe handgun to be placed on the DOJ roster. That measure defined microstamping capability as “a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the pistol, etched in 2 or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol, and that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired.^[4] AB 1471 delayed implementation of the microstamping prerequisite until January 1, 2010, “provided that the Department of Justice certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions.” On May 17, 2013, the DOJ certified the microstamping technology required by AB 1471.^[5] In 2020, the Legislature passed AB 2847 (Chiu, Ch. 292, Stats. of 2020), which required microstamp markings in just one place on the interior of a firearm.^[6] And in 2023, the Legislature passed SB 452 (Blakespear, Ch. 253, Stats. of 2023), which modified and strengthened the microstamping requirement by removing it from the UHA altogether and, beginning in July 2028, prohibiting licensed firearm dealers from selling, offering, exchanging, giving or otherwise transferring a pistol unless it has been verified by the DOJ as a “microstamping-enabled pistol.”^[7]

For a new handgun to be added to the DOJ roster, it must undergo rigorous testing by a DOJ-certified laboratory to ensure that it meets the strict requirements laid out above. But not all provisions of the unsafe handgun statute are clearly tied to consumer safety. For example, handguns for which “the annual maintenance fee is not paid” can also be removed from the certified roster, and thereby be declared unsafe. Moreover, a previously certified handgun can be removed from the roster if a manufacturer goes out of business because the proprietor retired.^[8] Even in cases where a handgun passes all testing requirements, DOJ is authorized to mandate retesting for the handguns of that model at a laboratory of its choosing if it is has reason to believe that the model does not comply with the law. If a model fails but a “similar” of that model has been approved, the similar model can be de-rostered without testing. Relatedly, should the model that failed then get successfully retested and reinstated, DOJ is nevertheless permitted to keep the similar model off the roster despite never testing it for safety.^[9]

1. Law Enforcement Exemptions and Effect of This Bill

California’s unsafe handgun law also contains a tiered exemption scheme for specified law enforcement entities, set forth in Penal Code Section 32000, establishing three groups of entities that are subject to varying prerequisites for purchase, eligibility to purchase for personal use, and restrictions on resale of un-rostered handguns. The first, most permissive tier of exempt law enforcement entities and individuals includes the DOJ, police departments, sheriff’s officials, marshal’s offices, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, and the military or naval forces of the United States or California. Sworn members belonging to these entities may purchase non-roster handguns for personal use and may generally sell or transfer the non-roster handgun to any firearm eligible purchaser at a licensed firearm dealer.^[10] Sworn members belonging to the second tier of exempt law enforcement entities,^[11] which includes county probation departments, are permitted to purchase non-roster handguns solely for use as service weapons, as long as they have completed specified training, and may only resell the firearms to sworn members of exempt agencies.^[12] The third exemption tier is similar to the second in most respects except that individual members of the exempt entities may not purchase non-rostered firearms directly, and may only use such firearms purchased by the entities themselves.^[13]

AB 2699 (Santiago), Ch. 289, Stats. of 2020 was the most recent measure modifying California’s tiered system of exemptions from the state’s unsafe handgun law. AB 2699 added greater restrictions and limitations on the acquisition and usage of unsafe handguns by law enforcement agencies. As a compromise, additional law enforcement entities were added to the list of agencies that could acquire and use non-rostered firearms but additional limitations were placed on those agencies. These limitations included that the sale of a un-rostered handgun to an agency is only authorized if the handgun is to be used as a service weapon by a peace officer who has successfully completed the basic course prescribed by POST and who completes a live-fire qualification with the handgun at least every six months. AB 2699 also required the DOJ to account for and maintain a database of unsafe handguns obtained pursuant to the law enforcement exemptions in Penal Code Section 32000, and authorized the DOJ to levy civil penalties for failure to report the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun pursuant to those exemptions.^[14]

According to the Author and sponsor of the bill, the Chief Probation Officers of California, the impetus behind this bill is a drafting error in AB 2699 that included probation officers in the second tier of exempted entities, which, as stated above, must have completed a POST basic training course. Negotiations regarding AB 2699 failed to take into account that probation officers are not POST certified. Rather, the training requirements for county probation officers are mandated through the Standards and Training for Corrections Division of the Board of State and Community Corrections (STC and BSCC, respectively). Accordingly, this bill removes county probation departments from the exemption tier requiring sworn members in that tier to complete a POST basic course, and creates a standalone provision providing that sworn members of county probation departments are not subject to the prohibition against the purchase or sale of non-rostered handguns, provided that the purchase or sale is for use as a service weapon and the sworn members using such firearms have satisfactorily completed a POST firearms training course. The bill also requires sworn members of probation departments who use non-roster firearms to complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every three months.

Existing law permits law enforcement entities in the first exemption tier – which, again, includes DOJ, police departments, sheriffs’ departments, CDCR, CHP, and a few others – to purchase non-roster handguns for personal use and, via a licensed firearm dealer, sell or transfer non-roster handguns to any otherwise non-prohibited firearm purchaser. Effectively, this means that members of these agencies may sell non-roster handguns to the public. Sworn members of entities that fall into the second or third exemption tier may only resell or transfer non-roster firearms to sworn members of other exempt agencies, or to the agencies themselves.^[15] Existing law also requires sworn members of entities in the second and third exemption tier to adhere to certain safety precautions when leaving a non-roster firearm unattended in a vehicle, and requires DOJ to maintain a database of non-roster firearms obtained and transferred by entities and sworn members in all three exemption tiers. This bill essentially creates a new standalone exemption tier for county probation departments, but does not include cross references to that new tier in the provisions described in this paragraph. Consequently, the bill creates an unintended consequence by allowing sworn members of county probation departments to resell non-roster firearms to the public and exempting them from the unattended vehicle requirements described above. In addition, the bill does not expand DOJ’s mandate to collect and maintain information on non-roster firearm acquisitions and transfers to county probation departments, creating an unnecessary and likely unintended gap in unsafe handgun data. The Author and Committee should consider amending the bill to address these issues.

1. Argument in Support

According to the bill’s sponsor, the Chief Probation Officers of California:

In 2016, AB 2165 (Bonta) was enacted and, among other provisions, authorized specified peace officers, which included probation, who have completed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) prescribed firearms training course as required in Penal Code 832, to be exempt from the state prohibition relating to the sale or purchase of a non-roster firearm. As stated in the AB 2165 analysis…“These categories of peace officers participate in mutual aid situations, task forces, sting operations and arrests—all high-risk situations require that these officers be properly armed. It is imperative that we provide the statutory basis for the parity between agencies that has existed since the creation of the roster."

In 2020, AB 2699 (Santiago) was enacted which changed requirements for all peace officers to complete the POST basic course, rather than the longstanding requirements that peace officers complete the statutorily required POST certified PC 832 firearms and arrest course and inadvertently did not reflect the training that probation completes both through POST PC 832 but also training through the BSCC STC program. Probation officers undergo the same firearms training as other peace officers through PC 832, which includes the firearms and arrest modules from the POST Basic Academy. Additionally, probation departments complete live-fire qualifications on a quarterly basis.

Departments often use a certain model of a firearm as it contributes to uniformity in training. Further, some counties purchase and train on the same firearm so that when there are instances such as an active shooter incident, fires, evacuations, and other emergency response efforts, officers are trained and can use firearms interchangeably. The interoperability, training, and specific functionality of non-roster firearms becomes critical in situations where probation is responding to an incident, serving in mutual aid coordination, or serving in taskforces with other law enforcement. This proposal would restore clarity and language pertaining to Probation’s existing inclusion in Penal Code 32000 list of state exemptions for all authorized peace officers to purchase non-roster handguns while maintaining all of the other applicable requirements around non-roster use that currently exist.

-- END –

1. Pen. Code, §§ 31900, 31905, 31910 ↑

2. Pen. Code, § 32015 ↑

3. SB 489 (Scott, Ch. 500, Stats. of 2003) requires that for a new semiautomatic center-fire pistol firearm to be added to the roster it has to be equipped with a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect (if it has a detachable magazine). ↑

4. Penal Code § 31910(a)(6)(A). ↑

5. Bureau of Firearms Information Bulletin 2013-BOF-03: Certification of Microstamping Technology Pursuant to Penal Code Section 31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A) ↑

6. AB 2847 also required that for every safe new gun introduced in California, three unsafe guns on the roster that had been ‘grandfathered’ in would be removed from the roster. ↑

7. Pen. Code, §§27531 – 27534. ↑

8. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 4070, subd. (c)(1).) ↑

9. Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 4073 ↑

10. “State Exemptions for Authorized Peace Officers – Non-Roster Handgun Exemptions.” Department of Justice Official Website. Accessed 14 March 2023. https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/exemptpo ↑

11. See Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (b)(6), which includes several state agencies, such as the Departments of Parks and Recreation, Alcoholic Beverage Control, Motor Vehicles, Fish and Wildlife, as well as several other entities like school (k-12 and college) police officers, specified park rangers, coroners, fraud inspectors, and others. ↑

12. Ibid; The training requirements and restriction to purchase for use as a service weapon were added by AB 2699 (Santiago, Ch. 289, Stats of 2020) , discussed in the following paragraph. ↑

13. Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (b)(7). ↑

14. Penal Code §32000, subds. (a)(2)-(3), (e). ↑

15. Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (c). ↑

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 879

Author:(Patterson) – As Amended Ver:March 24, 2025

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

SUMMARY:

This bill allows a county probation officer to use an off-roster handgun as a service weapon if the officer has completed specified firearms trainings.

To use an off-roster handgun as a service weapon, a probation officer must complete the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training and must complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by the officer’s employer at least once every three months.

FISCAL EFFECT:

No significant state costs.

COMMENTS:

Generally in California, no handgun may be manufactured, offered for sale, purchased, or otherwise exchanged unless the handgun model has passed safety tests and been certified by the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Firearms. Handgun models that are certified by DOJ are placed on the roster of certified handguns and may be manufactured and sold in California, subject to other firearm purchase requirements. A handgun that has not been certified by DOJ is referred to as an unsafe or off-roster handgun and may not be sold in California. However, certain law enforcement agencies and individual peace officers are exempt from these restrictions and may make handgun purchases that are not permitted for other consumers. Law enforcement agencies and individual peace officers often purchase off-roster handguns for both personal and professional use.

This bill permits a peace officer employed by a county probation department to use an off-roster handgun as a service weapon, provided the employee has met certain training requirements. As described in more detail in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, it appears that county probation employees were inadvertently omitted from the existing exceptions that allow other peace officers to use and purchase off-roster handguns.

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

Date of Hearing: April 22, 2025

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Authorizes a peace officer employed by a county probation department to use an unsafe handgun as a service weapon as long as the county probation employee has satisfied defined training requirements. Specifically, this bill:

1. Exempts county probation department personnel from the prohibition on the sale or purchase of an unsafe handgun (i.e., a handgun not on the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) safe handgun roster) for use as a service weapon, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by a county probation department for use by, or sold to or purchased by, sworn members of the department who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
2. Requires that a county probation department member complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every three months.

EXISTING LAW:

1. States that a person who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state for sale, keeps for sale, offers or exposes for sale, gives, or lends an unsafe handgun shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year. (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (a)(1).)
2. Establishes that the prohibition on unsafe handguns shall not apply to the manufacture or importation into this state, of a prototype handgun when the manufacture or importation is for the sole purpose of allowing an independent laboratory certified by the DOJ to conduct an independent test to determine whether that handgun is prohibited and, if not, allowing DOJ to add the firearm to the roster of handguns that may be sold in this state. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(1).)
3. States that the prohibition on unsafe handguns shall not apply to the importation or lending of a handgun by employees or authorized agents of entities in determining whether the weapon is prohibited, as specified. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(2).)
4. Establishes that the prohibition on unsafe handguns shall not apply to the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, the DOJ, a police department, a sheriff’s official, a marshal’s office, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of the California Highway Patrol, any district attorney’s office, any federal law enforcement agency, or the military or naval forces of this state or of the United States for use in the discharge of their official duties. This section does not prohibit the sale to, or purchase by, sworn members of these agencies of a handgun. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(4).)
5. Exempts defined personnel from the prohibition on the sale or purchase of a handgun for use as a service weapon, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities for use by, or sold to or purchased by, sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the POST basic course or, before January 1, 2021, have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the POST, and who, as a condition of carrying that handgun, complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every six months. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(6).)
6. Exempts defined personnel from the prohibition on the sale or purchase of a handgun, if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, any of the following entities for use as a service weapon by the sworn members of these entities who have satisfactorily completed the POST basic course or, before January 1, 2021, have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a training course prescribed by the POST, and who, as a condition of carrying that handgun, complete a live-fire qualification prescribed by their employing entity at least once every six months. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (b)(7).)
7. States that a licensed person shall not process the sale or transfer of an unsafe handgun between a person who has obtained an unsafe handgun pursuant to an exemption and a person who is not exempt. (Pen. Code 32000, subd. (c)(1).)
8. Requires the DOJ to maintain a database of unsafe handguns, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (e)(1).)
9. States that a person or entity that is in possession of an unsafe handgun shall notify the DOJ of any sale or transfer of that handgun within 72 hours of the sale or transfer. This requirement shall be deemed satisfied if the sale or transfer is processed through a licensed firearms dealer. A sale or transfer accomplished through an exception to is not exempt from this reporting requirement. (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (e)(2).)
10. Establishes that the DOJ shall provide notification to persons or entities possessing an unsafe handgun regarding the prohibitions on the sale or transfer of that handgun. Thereafter, the DOJ shall, upon notification of sale or transfer, provide the same notification to the purchaser or transferee of any unsafe handgun sold or transferred pursuant to those provisions. (Pen. Code, § 32000, subd. (e)(3).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “AB 879 restores and adds clarity around the ability for probation officers to be equipped with non-roster handguns, just like other law enforcement agencies, ensuring they have the same tools for officer and community safety, interoperability, and effective collaboration in emergency situations, task forces, and related duties. It’s about making sure they have the tools to do their jobs and in their work alongside other officers to protect community safety.”
   
2. Effect of the Bill: This bill would return to county probation officers who have satisfactorily completed the firearms portion of a POST-certified training course the ability to use a non-rostered handgun.
   
   There are understandable reasons for not allowing certain groups of people to access certain firearms. Even peace officers, who are subject to and complete comprehensive training before being authorized to carry a firearm, can make mistakes in handling firearms. They have lives outside of their lives on duty, where they are bringing firearms home, often to homes with children, where a single moment of forgetfulness or carelessness with a firearm can lead to tragic and deadly consequences. But, firearm ownership is a unique part of American life and certain roles create an understandable need for people in those roles to be sufficiently armed.
   
   This bill would authorize county probation officers to access the same types of firearms as sworn members of similarly situated departments at the state and county levels. County probation officers had this authorization prior to AB 2699’s (Santiago) passage in 2020. Given the lack of attention and analysis on this issue, it appears perhaps county probation officers were unintentionally carved out from the non-roster handgun exempt list as a result of how the training requirements were described in the bill. This bill would return the authorization county probation officers had just five years ago.
3. “Unsafe Handguns”: The California Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale: This bill would exempt county probation officers from the prohibition against the purchase, use, transfer, or sale of, among other things, unsafe handguns. California’s handgun roster was developed in an attempt to enforce commonsense product safety requirements for handguns and thereby, protect California consumers. (See Pen. Code, §§ 31900-31910 [for product safety requirements and testing].) California’s handgun roster clearly directs which handguns are generally permitted for sale, but whether the roster is a truly accurate reflection of the relative safety of handguns is not as clear.

Handguns that fail product safety tests are not rostered as certified safe and for sale to most consumers in California. These product safety tests, including installation of a safety device, drop tests, and firing tests (Pen. Code, §§ 31900-31905) present objective, measurable criteria against which any manufacturer who wishes to sell in California can design and modify its products. But not all provisions of the unsafe handgun statute are clearly tied to consumer safety. For example, handguns for which “the annual maintenance fee is not paid” can also be removed from the certified roster, and thereby be declared unsafe. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 4070, subd. (c)(1).) A previously certified handgun can also be removed from the roster if a manufacturer goes out of business because the proprietor retired. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 4070.)

Even in cases where firearms pass all testing requirements, DOJ is authorized to mandate retesting for the same models, at a laboratory of its choosing, if it is has “reason to believe” that the model does not comply with the law. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 11, § 4073.) If a model fails but a “similar” of that model has been approved, the similar model can be de-rostered without testing. (Ibid.) Relatedly, should the model that failed then get successfully restested and reinstated, DOJ is nevertheless permitted to keep the similar off the roster despite never testing it for safety. (Ibid.)

Furthermore, while courts appear skeptical of microstamping, (see Boland v. Bonta (2023), 662 F.Supp.3d 1077, 1081), SB 452 (Blakespear) recently defined a semiautomatic pistol without microstamping as an unsafe handgun beginning on January 1, 2028. The Boland court gutted almost exactly the same requirement from AB 2847 (Chiu), which became law in 2020. Decided four years prior to Bruen, (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1) the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found California’s handgun roster constitutional, applying intermediate scrutiny to the unsafe handgun law because the court found the law dealt with commercial sales of arms, not individual possession or use, which would have triggered strict scrutiny analysis at the time (and the “national historical tradition” test, following Bruen). (See Pena v. Lindley (2018) 898 F.3d 969.) Most laws, approximately 70% according to one study, do not survive constitutional review using a strict scrutiny analysis.^[1]

As noted by the Chief Probation Officers Association of California (CPOC), probation personnel undergo a variety of training, including the firearms modules from POST Basic and a litany of additional modules from their Standards for Corrections and Training program (SCT), including Criminal Justice System and Process, Field Contacts, Legal Foundations and Liability, Crisis Communication and De-escalation, Field Searches, Booking and Evidence, Gangs, Community Supervision, Domestic Violence, Use of Restraints, Signs and Symptoms of Substance Abuse, Trauma, Interventions and Resources, among many others.

This bill would permit county probation officers, who all complete POST firearms training modules and POST-style training with quarterly live-fire tests before being authorized to carry a firearm anyway, to access these types of firearms.

1. Legislative History: SB 15 (Polanco), Chapter 248, Statutes of 1999, made it a misdemeanor for any person in California to manufacture, import for sale, offer for sale, give, or lend any unsafe handgun, with certain specific exceptions. SB 15 defined an “unsafe handgun” as follows: (a) does not have a requisite safety device, (b) does not meet specified firing tests, and (c) does not meet a specified drop safety test.
   1. Required Safety Device: The Safe Handgun Law requires a revolver to have a safety device that, either automatically in the case of a double-action firing mechanism or by manual operation in the case of a single-action firing mechanism, causes the hammer to retract to a point where the firing pin does not rest upon the primer of the cartridge or in the case of a pistol have a positive manually operated safety device.
   2. Firing Test: In order to meet the “firing requirements” under the Safe Handgun Law, the manufacturer must submit three unaltered handguns, of the make and model for which certification is sought, to an independent laboratory certified by the Attorney General. The laboratory shall fire 600 rounds from each gun under certain conditions. A handgun shall pass the test if each of the three test guns fires the first 20 rounds without a malfunction, and fires the full 600 rounds without more than six malfunctions and without any crack or breakage of an operating part of the handgun that increases the risk of injury to the user. "Malfunction" is defined as a failure to properly feed, fire or eject a round; failure of a pistol to accept or reject a manufacturer-approved magazine; or failure of a pistol's slide to remain open after a manufacturer approved magazine has been expended.
   3. Drop Test: The Safe Handgun Law provides that at the conclusion of the firing test, the same three manufacturer's handguns must undergo and pass a "drop safety requirement" test. The three handguns are dropped a specified number of times, in specified ways, with a primed case (no powder or projectile) inserted into the handgun, and the primer is examined for indentations after each drop. The handgun passes the test if each of the three test guns does not fire the primer. (Pen. Code, §§ 31900-31910.)

In 2016, AB 2165 (Bonta) exempted peace officers, including probation officers, who have completed the POST-prescribed firearms training from the state prohibition relating to the sale or purchase of a non-roster firearm.

In 2020, AB 2699 (Santiago) further modified California’s rostering of handguns by adding additional limitations on their acquisition and usage by defined law enforcement agencies. Additional law enforcement entities were included on the list of agencies that could acquire and use non-rostered firearms but additional limitations were placed on all agencies that were authorized to use these handguns. These limitations included any sale of a non-rostered handgun to an agency is only authorized if the handgun is to be used as a service weapon by a peace officer who has successfully completed the basic course prescribed by POST and who qualifies with the handgun at least every six months.

Proponents of the bill, including CPOC, have noted that supporters of reauthorizing county probation personnel have consistently cited the potential cross-training opportunities being lost for county probation officers unable to handle a non-roster handgun, even during training exercises where multiple exempt entities are participating. Loss of those training opportunities could be a strain on smaller counties where these opportunities are not plentiful, but are otherwise essential, and in public safety preparedness in counties across the state.

Previous analyses have also noted the requirements detailed in AB 2699 failed to take into account that probation officers are not POST-certified.^[2] Though they complete the same firearms modules as POST-certified officers, the Board of State and Community Corrections’ (BSCC) SCT program operates the training requirements for county probation officers. This drafting oversight removed county probation officers from those defined as exempt from handling a non-roster handgun and this bill would undo that oversight.

1. Unintentional Firearms Incidents: From 2016-2022, in California, the incidence rate of firearms where the injury intent was noted as “unintentional” has stayed relatively stable, having remained between 7-12 injuries per 100,000 person-years during that time period.^[3] Like many other public safety metrics, the unintentional firearm injury rate peaked at 12 injuries per 100,000 person-years during the pandemic in 2021, while it hit a low of 7.1 injuries per 100,000 person-years in 2018.^[4]
   

Intent is meant to capture the reason for the incident. Intent in these studies include unintentional (accidental), suicide/self-harm, homicide/assault, undetermined, and legal intervention/war operations.^[5] Intent is recorded by coroners or medical examiners for fatal injuries and clinicians and hospital staff for non-fatal injuries.^[6] Interestingly, for non-fatal injuries, coding guidelines from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services state that when the injury intent is unknown, the coders should default to unintentional intent.^[7]

It is reasonable to suggest that non-fatal unintentional firearm injuries are likely over-reported and non-fatal assault firearm injuries are likely under-reported due to this coding standard. With the relative stability of these incidents, specifically over the past 5-7 years, reauthorizing county probation personnel to carry non-roster handguns seems unlikely to negatively impact the rate of unintentional firearms incidents.

1. Argument in Support: According to one of the bill’s sponsors, the Chief Probation Officers of California, “Penal Code 32000 sets forth the state exemptions for authorized peace officers to purchase non-roster handguns in their official capacity. Non-roster firearms are only available for purchase by law enforcement departments and are designed to address the needs and practices of a peace officer performing their duties including functionality around the most up to date technology, aspects that can be individualized to the officer, and other functions important in emergency situations.

“In 2016, AB 2165 (Bonta) was enacted and, among other provisions, authorized specified peace officers, which included probation, who have completed the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) prescribed firearms training course as required in Penal Code 832, to be exempt from the state prohibition relating to the sale or purchase of a non-roster firearm.

“As stated in the AB 2165 analysis…’These categories of peace officers participate in mutual aid situations, task forces, sting operations and arrests—all high-risk situations require that these officers be properly armed. It is imperative that we provide the statutory basis for the parity between agencies that has existed since the creation of the roster.’

“In 2020, AB 2699 (Santiago) was enacted which changed requirements for all peace officers to complete the POST basic course, rather than the longstanding requirements that peace officers complete the statutorily required POST certified PC 832 firearms and arrest course and inadvertently did not reflect the training that probation completes both through POST PC 832 but also training through the BSCC STC program. Probation officers undergo the same firearms training as other peace officers through PC 832, which includes the firearms and arrest modules from the POST Basic Academy.”

1. Related Legislation:
   1. SB 15 (Blakespear), would authorize the Department of Justice to remove a person from the centralized list who has willfully failed to comply with specified licensing requirements or who failed to remedy violations discovered as a result of an inspection. SB 15 is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   2. SB 248 (Rubio), would require the DOJ to mail to any person involved in a firearms transaction a letter that includes information relevant to firearm ownership, such as how to legally relinquish a firearm and resources regarding gun violence restraining orders. SB 248 is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 669 (Lackey), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have exempted sales to or purchases by to, or purchases by, a county probation department and sworn members thereof who have completed specified firearms training prescribed by POST and who complete the above-described live-fire qualification at least once every 3 months. AB 669 was held in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
   2. AB 1478 (Chiu), of the 2021-2022 Legislative Session, would have required those microscopic characters to be imprinted in 2 one or more places on the interior of the pistol, provided that the department certifies that the technology used to create the imprint is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions. AB 1478 was held in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   3. AB 2699 (Santiago), Chapter 289, Statutes of 2020, exempts from the prohibition on unsafe handguns, the sale of a handgun to, or the purchase of a handgun by, additional specified entities. AB 2699 would also provide that this training requirement would be satisfied by completion of other specified POST training before January 1, 2021.
   4. AB 1794 (Jones-Sawyer), of the 2019-2020 Legislative Session, would have made the prohibitions on unsafe handguns inapplicable to the sale or purchase of a handgun if the handgun is sold to, or purchased by, additional specified entities or for use by sworn members of those entities, including the California Horse Racing Board and the State Department of Public Health. AB 1794 was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Chief Probation Officers' of California (CPOC) (Sponsor)

Opposition

None submitted.

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Winkler, Fatal in Theory and Strict in Fact: An Empirical Analysis of Strict Scrutiny in the Federal Courts (2006) Vanderbilt Law Review, at p. 815 <https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol59/iss3/3/> [as of Apr. 16, 2025]. ↑

2. Senate Public Safety Committee, AB 669 (Lackey) Committee Analysis (2021). ↑

3. California Firearm Injury Dashboard (Feb. 2, 2024) California Department of Public Health <https://skylab4.cdph.ca.gov/firearm-injuries/> [as of Apr. 10, 2025]. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

7. Id., at fn. 1. ↑