Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

We have 16 bills on today's agenda. Nine are on consent. We have at least three Members sitting here right now, so let's establish a quorum assistant. Would you please call roll? Here. Wahab? Here. Ochoa Bogh. Here. Ochoa Bogh. Here. Bradford. Bradford. Here. Skinner. Wiener. All right, a quorum has been established. Now we will be hearing from our first author, and we will do it just out of courtesy to Assembly Member. Give me 2 seconds. Let me actually heart, if you don't mind stepping here.

And when you're ready, the floor is yours. And you will be presenting Bill number 14. Number 14. AB 1412. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 1412 is a simple measure that will allow defendants with borderline personality disorder to be eligible for pretrial mental health diversion programs. Borderline personality disorder affects two to 6% of the world's population, with slightly higher rates among women and younger individuals. People with BPD often experience a co occurring mental health disorder such as anxiety and polar disorder. The State of California currently allows pretrial mental health diversion for anxiety and bipolar disorder, but leaves out borderline personality disorder.

Excluding individuals with BPD from pretrial diversion is baseless and entrenches systemic stigma. Studies show that people with BPD who receive therapy have an 85% lesser chance of engaging in criminal behavior than those who did not receive treatment. AB 1412 will ensure people with borderline personality disorder have access to the critical mental health services they need and aims to reduce recidivism within this vulnerable population. Speaking in support of AB 1412 with me today, I believe, is Leslie Caldwell, Houston. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association.

Thank you, thank you. You will have two minutes. We will be timing individuals. For those of you guys who attend our Public Safety Committee weekly, you guys know that I'd like to run a pretty efficient and fast meeting, so two minutes started.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association, in support of 1412, our state's mental health diversion law has been extremely successful, resulting in quicker resolutions of cases, better outcomes for the individual and our communities, as well as lower recidivism rate. For instance, in Los Angeles County, just one of the PC 10 zero 1.36 diversion programs, mental health diversion has already diverted more than 1500 people within a two year recidivism with a two year recidivism rate of less than 10%.

Borderline personality disorder, however, does not qualify for mental health diversion. This disorder is misunderstood in General. It is important to note that this disorder is serious but treatable. It is not disqualified from other mental health diversion statutes, notably the Veterans Diversion Statute. Thus, a veteran suffering from borderline personality disorder may seek diversion and treatment, but a teacher, teenager, firefighter, blue collar worker, et cetera, cannot.

AB 1412 fixes a nonsensical aspect of current law and thereby provides equal justice for women, men, and youth, regardless of profession or life circumstance. By removing borderline personality disorder from the list of ineligible diagnosis, you bring the mental health diversion statute in line with other diversion statutes. We respectfully request your. I vote.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? No. Seeing none. Do we have anybody in the room that's willing to support, please state your name, your organization, and that you support.

Izzy Swindler, Rochelle Yoder, Anthony Schmelzer, and Lang on behalf of California State Association of Psychiatrists in Support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anybody else in support? Seeing none, we'll move on to lead. Opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we'll move to opposition witnesses in the room.

Seeing none, we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator Would you please prompt the first individual you it Moderator all right, we will move on. We'll now bring the discussion back to Members. Members, do we have any questions, comments, concerns? Senator Ochoa-Bogh?

Yes. Thank you. So good morning, Assembly Member Hart. We haven't had the pleasure to meet. So it's a pleasure to have you here today in public safety.

So I was reading that Governor Brown had originally vetoed a Bill similar to this based on the concerns that. Let's see, what does it say here? Basically said that during the negotiations with the original author of this program and why it cannot be used as insanity defense or dismissal enhancements. This diagnosis, like antisocial personality disorder, was excluded because it is vague and it is likely applicable to virtually every person encountering the criminal justice system.

Virtually every individual committing a criminal offense other than murder, sexual offense, or using a weapon of mass destruction which are excluded from the program could claim to have impairments in self functioning or disinhibition and be eligible for diversion. Have you folks considered, what are your thoughts, first of all, what are your thoughts on that concern that the Governor had with regards to a Bill similar to addressing this particular disorder?

Well, I guess maybe a couple of ways to address that. Borderline personality disorder does respond well to treatment, and so the idea that we'd make those folks eligible for diversion to get the treatment that they deserve, I think, will result in positive outcomes. And the experience in New Jersey supports that. And there are a number of protections in the law currently to make sure that folks that are appropriately diverted are eligible candidates that make sense for that.

In order to be eligible for pretrial mental health diversion, the defendant must suffer from a mental disorder that played a significant role in the Commission of the charged offense. And in the opinion of a qualified mental health expert, the defendant's symptoms motivating the criminal behavior would respond to mental health treatment. And again, this isn't a requirement. This is just opening up the lens so that in the appropriate cases, when judges believe this would be beneficial, it's an eligible process.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Thank you for your time. And I respectfully request an aye vote.

Definitely. Do we have a motion? All right, can we have a roll call?

AB 1412. Motion is do passed to appropriations. Wahab, Aye. Ochoa-Bogh. Bradford, aye. Sikinner. Weiner.

Sorry. I apologize.

Ochoa-Bogh, No.

Okay, thank you. That Bill is on call. Thank you. I'm. Thanks. Do I have a motion for consent? AB 60. AB 256. AB 271. AB 386. AB 925. AB 946. AB 956. AB 1226. AB 1371. All right,

Concent Calendar Wahab, Aye. Ochoa-Bogh, aye Bradford, aye. Sikinner. Weiner.

All right, the consent calendar is on call. We will now move to Assemblymember Lackey. Thank you for your patience.

Assemblymember Lackey is presenting AB 56, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Well, thank you, Senators, and chair, for allowing me to present this meaningful proposal in the form of AB 56. It will provide victims of violent crime with compensation for emotional injuries, making therapies and other forms of care more accessible while these survivors navigate their trauma through an actual recovery process. A prevalent psychological injury that we've all heard of for victim survivors is posttraumatic stress disorder, and each case of PTSD is unique, given a survivor's history and actual circumstance. The severity of these factors could prolong the length of recovery period, which interferes with the stability in their employment and their ability to meet other obligations. There is an immediate need to address trauma, as prolonged exposure to it can lead to serious health issues and lack of access to care can be influential in the development of substance use disorders and behavioral health issues. By providing victim survivors with compensation, we would validate their pain and suffering while covering expenses they incur through no faults of their own. AB 56 prioritizes addressing trauma within our justice system, which means that we'll work to heal our communities for better integration in order to make them whole again. This legislation expedites services to heal toxic stress, which is strategic investment to minimize the cost to our shared health care system by limiting the possibility of issues manifesting later as we reorient, I'm sorry, our criminal justice system, we should look to implement trauma informed policy wherever possible, and I believe this is an impactful step in that direction. And I have Danica. I actually know her very well, usually not on my team, and she's here with me and she's representing Debt Free Justice Coalition, which will provide testimony.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate justice, also, who's a Member of the Debt Free Justice Coalition and the California Restorative Justice Policy Coalition, pleased to be testifying on behalf of AB 56. AB 56 is a step in the direction that California is aspiring to go for true justice and public safety. The terms restorative justice are thrown around in the Capitol a lot, but oftentimes pretty divorced from what it really means. Restorative justice requires identifying what harm has happened, what needs have arisen as a result, and what it will take to meet those needs to repair the harm. While accountability by the person who has caused the harm is an important component of restorative justice, it is also true that sometimes the person who has caused the harm isn't able to repair it on their own. And in those cases, the broader community must provide support to the survivor in order to help them make them whole again. That's what AB 56 does, provides community support in the form of state victim compensation when someone is in need of financial support for emotional harm they have suffered as a result of violence. This is what survivor centered policy looks like, making changes to state law that will meaningfully address the needs that arise when someone's been harmed, not false promises that claim to help survivors in name only, but never actually deliver on that promise. We all have more to do to continue our collective work on survivor support, accountability and public safety. But this is a step in the right direction, and we appreciate the Assembly Member for authoring it. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? All right, do we have any support? Name organization that you support and please line up. We have a couple bills going on.

Natasha Minsker, prosecutors Alliance of California in support.

Thank you.

Glenn Bacchus Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Support.

Mira Morton, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses seeing none, we'll move on to lead opposition. Witnesses seeing none will move to just me too oppos. Seeing none we'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference service, moderator.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 56, you may press one and then zero. That is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition of AB 56. And Madam Chair, no one is queuing up at the moment.

Thank you. Appreciate it. We will now turn over the conversation to Members on this Committee. Do we have any Members that have a comment or a question, concern seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I'm just proud to say that this coalition shows the broad, positive impact that I think victims deserve. And I'm proud to have authored this, and I'm proud for the supporters. I'm very thankful for them.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? All right, can we call roll

AB 56, motion is due, pass to appropriations. Wahab, Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Bradford, Bradford aye. Skinner. Wiener.

That Bill is on call. Thank you. Assembly Member.

Thank you.

All right, so our next Bill will be presented by Assemblymember McKinner, AB 709. Ms. Mckinnon, you have the floor.

Thank you, chair and members of the Committee, I want to start by saying I accept the Committee amendments. I am here to present AB 709, which would allow for the local summary criminal history information to be provided to the Public Defender's Office or government agency. Currently, the law provides for disclosure of local summary criminal history information of the person who is the subject of that information to a public defender or attorney of record when representing the person in a criminal matter. However, there is no provision for disclosure beyond the individual public defender or attorney. Current law inadvertently hinders the disclosure of exculpatory or impeachment evidence required by the United States Supreme Court decision in Brady versus Maryland when quick, high volume disclosures are necessary. AB 709 will allow prosecutors to make Brady disclosures in a much more timely and efficient manner while assisting prosecutors with expediting our constitutional mandated Brady obligations. I have one witness with me today, Daniel Felizzatto from the Los Angeles District Attorney.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Madam Chair, members. Dan Felizzatto, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office, we are pleased to sponsor AB 709. As Assembly Member indicated, when we are required to make Brady notifications, our office not only has to notify the attorney in the instant case where the Brady information arose, but we are then required to notify all other defense attorneys and clients in cases in which that officer may have been involved. In Los Angeles County, this requires us to make literally thousands of Brady and potential Brady notifications each year. When we do this, our Brady Compliance Unit notifies the local branch and area units that are responsible for each of the identified cases for that officer. It's a piecemeal approach that requires supervisors from around the county to make notifications individually to the public defender or the alternate Public Defender's office. In Los Angeles County, the public defender and alternate public defender wind up representing about 85% to 90% of all the necessary Brady notifications. So if AB 709 becomes law, rather than that piecemeal approach, we can send one list of case names, case numbers to the public defender and alternate public defender. They can then notify us which of those cases belong to them. This will tremendously expedite the notification necessary when Brady requires such. AB 709 will make Brady notifications much more timely and efficient. AB 709 will allow prosecutors with expediting our constitutionally mandated Brady notifications. In some cases, timely notifications can result in the immediate release of an individual from custody. Conversely, a delay in making the notification can result in the over detention of an individual. That's why our office is moving AB 709, and we would appreciate the Committee's support.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? No. Thank you. We're going to move on. Can we have the witnesses in support? Name organization that you support.

Leslie Caldwell-Houston California Public Defenders Association, in support

thank you.

Good morning. Glenn Backes, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

thank you.

Mira Morton, on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in Support

Natasha Minsker, prosecutors Alliance of California in Support.

Danica Rodarmel, Initiate Justice in support.

Joshua DuBay, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in support

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses seeing none, can we move on to lead opposition witnesses. Seeing none, we'll move to oppo witnesses here in the room. Seeing none, we will move on to those waiting to testify. Moderator.

Thank you. For in support or opposition of AB 709. You may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for in support or opposition of AB 709. We will go to line 36, your line is open.

Good morning. Chair and Senators Anthony Di Martino, on behalf of Californians for Safety and justice, in support.

Thank you. And, Madam Chair, we have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. We'll now move on to those on the Committee. Senator Ochoa Bogh. Okay. Any comments, concerns, thoughts, questions? Senator Bradford.

Give me an example of how this Bill will apply.

Well, I have my expert here. I'll have him.

Okay. Seeing none. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. Chair and Members, this Bill has been asked bipartisan support, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator, would you like to move? Senator Bradford moves the Bill.

AB 709. Motion is due, pass, as amended, to appropriations. Wahab, Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh, Ochoa Bogh aye. Bradford, Bradford aye. Skinner, Skinner aye. Wiener.

All right, the Bill will be on call. Thank you. All right, we have Assemblymember Ramos presenting AB 791. Assembly Member, if you would like to approach the lectern, the floor is yours. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee Members, today I'm presenting AB 791, a Bill that would amend and current bail provisions to prevent defendants who are facing life without parole or death from receiving post conviction bail. AB 791 is a narrowly crafted measure meant to clarify who can and cannot receive post conviction bail. With me to testify in support of the Bill is Ryan Sherman, on behalf of the Riverside Sheriff's Association, in support.

Thank you. Do you have any other witnesses or just one? Just one. Okay. You will have two minutes. We will time. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Ryan Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association in support of AB 791. As the Assemblyman mentioned, this is a very narrowly drafted Bill. California Penal Code 1272 currently reads, after a conviction of an offense not punishable by death, a defendant who has made application for probation or who has appealed may be admitted bail. However, we're discussing and trying to cover situations where there's a conviction, not just pending cases, but an actual conviction where there was a first degree murder with special circumstances.

And we believe that there's two results. There's either LWAP, life without parole, or death. And currently, death does not provide. If someone is convicted and they're sentenced to death, obviously they don't get a chance to go for bail. We believe that LWAP is the same since the current law requires it to be based on the offense. This is just a little bit of clarity. The Bill started out to be something completely different in the Assembly. It was changed significantly.

And so now we're just trying to clarify current law to make sure that it's the offense that is the exclusionary element. And these defendants that are facing an LWOP have no incentive to return to court for sentencing. And they have every incentive to use extreme violence against the public and law enforcement to avoid capture and to return to custody. And return to custody. And for these reasons, we support AB 791 and respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move on to support witnesses. Me, too.

Mira Morton on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none, we will move on to lead opposition. Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition in the room.

Leslie Caldwell Houston for the California Public Defenders Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Joshua Thubei on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, in opposition.

All right, we will move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference moderator. Please prompt the first individual.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition. In one moment for our first question, here's. And we will go to line 32. Your line is open.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And next we will go to line 37. Your line is open.

Good morning, Madam Chair Member Shane Levine on behalf of the Sheriff Employee Benefit Association of San Bernardino, county, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition. In queue.

Thank you. We will now move on to comments from my colleagues. Senator Ochoa Bogh.

I just wanted to welcome our friend, Member Ramos, from my district here. I know he's been an advocate in working very closely with public safety. And I didn't see the smile this morning, so I just thought I'd say good morning and make sure that you were having a great morning. Thank you for bringing this measure forward, sir.

Thank you so much.

You can always count on Senator Ochoa Bogh to say nice things, right. So, kind words. We will move on. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Just. Thank you. And urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? All right. Senator Ochoa Bogh has moved the Bill forward. Can we call roll.

AB 791. Motion is due. Passed to appropriations. Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh aye. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener. The Bill is on call. Thank you.

Thank you so much. We will be waiting on authors, so hopefully we have a handful of authors. Assembly Member Bryan, Valencia, and Berman will show up soon. Thank you. If anybody in the room has direct contact with any of the authors, please text them right now. Okay, thank you. See, you guys are hustling. We all want to go home. Going home pretty early. Right? Before everybody else starts, let's lift the call on each of the bills.

All the bills are back on call. Thank you.

AB 56. Motion was do pass to appropriations. Current is three to zero. Skinner aye. Consent calendar. Skinner aye. AB 1412. Currently two to one. Skinnerr aye.

You all right? Assembly Member Isaac Bryan has showed up to put you on blast. Right. Just giving him a hard time. Assembly Member will be presenting AB 819, please. The lectern. The floor is yours. Thank.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Also, this is my first time ever testifying to this Committee. So good to be with you all. Grateful to be here to present AB 8119. There are a lot of things that we criminalize on our public transportation system, varying degrees of whether it's effective or not, depending on what it is. But one thing that is wildly ineffective is criminalizing poverty explicitly.

If you evade the fair three times, you can be hit with 90 days in jail and a misdemeanor just for missing the fair, just for being poor. The problem with that is in LA County, if we had decided to buy you a metro pass instead, we could have bought you a metro pass for 37 years with the same amount of money that we would spend putting you in jail for 90 days.

Decriminalizing fair evasion and keeping it a civil infraction so there is still accountability is the right thing to do. It's also received bipartisan support up until this point. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have any witnesses with you?

I do Bubba Fish with streets for all.

Bubba, Bubba, Bubba, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. And thank you so Member Brian. I'm Bubba Fish, co Director of State Policy for Streets for all proud sponsors of AB 819. Currently in California, using transit when you cannot afford the fare can get you charged with a misdemeanor on par with driving under the influence or property theft and a sentence of up to 90 days in jail. An AB 8119 will remove the possibility of those.

The criminalization of fair evasion is an equity and social justice issue. Studies in cities across the country like DC, New York City, Portland, Minneapolis, Seattle and LA have shown that fair enforcement disproportionately targets black, brown and Low income transit riders, and that people of color face harsher penalties when they are stopped. 50% of LA Metro citations are given to black transit riders, despite Black Riders making up 19% of overall ridership.

Several transit agencies, including VTA in Santa Clara County and El Dorado Transit, list their fair evasion penalty as, quote, up to the maximum penalty allowed by law, which means if a user evades fair three times, they can be sentenced with a misdemeanor and spend up to 90 days in jail. Not only does this punishment not fit the crime, the numbers just don't add up, a transit pass costs anywhere from one to $3. Meanwhile, it costs $245 a day to incarcerate someone in LA County Jail.

So the cost of incarcerating someone for 90 days could pay, as Assembly Member Brian said, up to 37 years of LA Metro monthly passes. That's why recently, transit agencies in cities across the country, like DC, have removed criminal penalties for ferry evasion on public transportation. So to directly address any opposition, this Bill does not in any way impact fines and ferry evasion should not be treated also as a proxy for other crimes.

In 2016, this Legislature first stopped criminalizing and incarcerating minors for fairy evasion with SB 882. So the time is now, in our view, to expand this policy to all Californians and stop the criminalization of poverty. We have streets for all. Respectfully urgent, an aye vote and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any other lead witnesses? No. All right, we will move on to me too. Please state your name, your organization and that you support. And you guys know I like it swift Good morning.

Steve Wallach, on behalf of the Alameda Contra Costa Transit District in support.

Thank you. Danica Rodarmel. On behalf of initiate justice and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, in support. Thank you.

Mel Oscar guy for the Greater Sacramento Urban League, in support.

Thank you. Leslie Caldwell Houston. For the California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move on to opposition lead witnesses. Do we have any oppo lead witnesses? Seeing none, we'll move on to meet too Oppose witnesses. Name and that you oppose.

Hello, my name is Shane Reese. I'm the President of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, otherwise known as BART, for our police officer Association. I am opposed to this ABH.

That's it. Thank you. I don't get to speak? No, it's a me too. Okay, sorry. Thank you. Seeing no other opposition witnesses, we'll move on to those waiting to testify via teleconference moderator thank you.

Thank you. For. In support of opposition of AB 819, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero. For supporter opposition of AB 819, we will go to. Line 28, your line is open.

Good morning. Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California, in support. Thank you.

Line 13, your line is open.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez for the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in support.

Thank you. Line 36, your line is open.

Anthony Di Marquillo, on behalf of Californians for Safety and justice in support, thank you.

Thank you. Line 39, your line is open.

Sherry De Moore, on behalf of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice in support, thank you,

Madam Chair. There are no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to Committee Members. Senator Ochobo,

Thank you. Good morning and welcome. We're very friendly here. Thank you. Question for you on the fair evasion. Do we have any data that has been collected to inquire as to what are the primary causes for people to skip paying for the passes?

Yeah, I don't think that data is collected in a causal way, but strong Association with not paying for your fare is not being able to afford it or balancing whether to pay for it versus the other things that you're balancing in your life. And specifically for hourly employees who use transit to ride to work, you're doing the cost calculation of what that hour of work that you haven't worked yet is versus what it costs you to get there. And so it's just a balancing act for many struggling families.

Okay, so we don't have the data that explicitly says what the causes are for variabasion directly. Do we not have in many of the. So I don't live in an area that has a metro. So I'm not speaking from experience, which is why I asked the questions in order to best understand, do we not have programs that actually offer passes for people who are Low income?

There are different types of subsidized program, but public transportation is not free for students. In LA USD, we gave them all tap cards and metro passes so that they wouldn't have this problem before we decriminalized it. But I think for many, there's not a free public transportation option. And so when people are deciding kind of what to spend their limited discretionary income on, something like the fair, which you need, is something that unfortunately, too often is something people don't feel they can afford.

So the only reason I ask sometimes is because when I've traveled to other states and I've actually used them after, I see just people just being, what's the word? I'm looking rambunctious and just kind of running through and jumping over and not paying. I don't know if it's cultural or if it's actually economic.

And that's what I'm trying to figure out, that we make sure that we don't promote a culture in which the practice continues just for the nefarious, just the rambunctious people who are just trying to be funny versus someone who actually has a need. And so that's the only concern I have but other than that, I think you made a really valid argument in your opening. It's one of the most concise but very poignant arguments I have heard here in public safety.

So thank you for making those points. I just want to make sure that, you know, and upon the seat that we want to make sure that policy encourages proper behavior per se, not just given open opportunity for anybody to just be rambunctious.

And I appreciate you, Senator. And I just wanted to let you know that we kept the civil infraction still in there so you can still be given kind of a citation for fair evasion. And I have personal feelings about that, but I think this is a balanced step, just going away with the decriminalizing approach. We won't throw you in jail anymore. You can still get a ticket for jumping the fair. The same, by the way, for what happens with traffic violations or parking violations. Right.

We don't throw people in jail for 90 days and hit them with a misdemeanor for speeding unless it's just like, wildly too fast. As was mentioned in the testimony earlier, you need a DUI to get the same level of punishment for evading the fair just because of poverty. So I did keep the accountability in the civil infractions, and I hope that that's something that you saw as well.

Yeah. Thank you. And thank you, Senator Ochoburg, Senator Wiener.

Thank you. I support this Bill, and I think what you just said is very important. I saw Deborah Allen's letter from BART, and my understanding is BART is not in opposition to this. This was one Director, and so this should be civil. There's no reason for this to be criminal and still can continue to get the $250 fine. You can still continue to get community service. And it doesn't make sense to me to automatically make this criminal. And you're absolutely right.

Someone's speeding over and over again. It's not going to become criminal unless there is something else reckless on top of it. And the other thing I do want to know with respect to BART in particular, BART is bus systems can't do this, but train systems can. BART is in the process of replacing all of its fair gates. It's going to take them too long, several years.

I wish it would do it tomorrow with fair gates that are much, much harder to leap over to avoid fair evasion. And to me, for the systems that can make physical changes to try to cut down on fair evasion, that's the best way to do it. Not to start putting people into county jail and giving them criminal records that can screw up the rest of their lives. So this Bill makes all the sense in the world to me. And I don't know if there's been a motion, but I'm happy to move it.

Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

I just wanted to remind folks it's cheaper to alleviate poverty than to criminalize it. When we take that approach, it costs us all significantly. And again, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Wiener,

AB 819. The motion is due past two. Appropriations. Wahab, aye. Ochoa-Bogh, aye. Bradford. Skinner. Wiener, aye.

All right, thank you. That bill's on call. I'm going to hand it over to Senator Ochoa-Bogh. I will be back shortly.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please lift the calls on the bills that we have on file.

AB 56. Lackey. The motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. Wiener, aye.

Wiener, aye. That bills out. Consent calendar. Wiener, aye. Wiener, aye. AB 56 the Bill is out and the consent calendar has been approved. AB 709 motion is do pass as amended to appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. Wiener aye. 5-0. AB 709 is out with 5-0. AB 791. The motion is do pass to appropriations, current vote is four to zero. Wiener aye. 5-0. 791 AB 791 is out with five to zero. AB 1412 Hart, motion is do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to one. Wiener, aye, four to one? AB 1412 is out with four to one votes.

So, Member Berman, we haven't had the pleasure. I apologize. Please, when you're ready. And this will be item 16 by Assembly Member Berman, AB 1598. Please proceed when you're ready.

AB 1598 would ensure that potential firearm purchasers are aware of both the potential reasons for, as well as the risks of owning and bringing a firearm into their home. There are many reasons why people choose to own firearms, but the data shows that bringing a firearm into the home makes it more dangerous. It is critically important that potential firearm purchasers understand these serious risks so they can make an informed decision and take the appropriate safety measures of a responsible firearm owner. This Bill would expand what is covered in the firearm safety certification test to explicitly include the increased risks of owning and bringing a firearm into the home, as well as know about life saving firearm laws in California. AB 1598 would also require that the Department of Justice create a pamphlet that provides the reasons for and risks of owning a firearm, which would then be handed to firearm purchasers at point of sale. Educating potential firearm purchasers on the increased risks of death by suicide, homicide, and unintentional injury ensures individuals understand the gravity of being a responsible firearm owner. And here with me today is Angela Bayer, the Director of Engagement and Impact at the UC Davis Violence Prevention Research Program and the California Firearm Violence Research Center. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Berman. We'll now continue with witnesses in support.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Angela Bayer and I am the Director of Engagement and Impact at the California Firearm Violence Research Center. I'm here to present my own views as a public health expert. During my two decades working on public health projects to learn about the perspectives of diverse groups of people. I've repeatedly heard people express their need for high quality, easy to understand information to be able to make independent choices about their lives. This includes firearm owners. What do people believe about firearms and safety? First, most people own firearms to protect themselves from other people, including 6 in 10 handgun owners and 2 in 10 long gun owners in California. Second, most people in the US, over 6 in 10 believe that having a firearm in the home makes you safer. Does the evidence confirm what people genuinely believe? No. Evidence shows that, on balance, having a gun in the home makes the gun owner and other household members less safe by increasing their risk of both suicide and homicide. A summary of 16 studies found that people with access to firearms have a three times higher risk of suicide and a two times higher risk of being a homicide victim than those without access. But it's hard to find this information outside of academia and public health circles. Firearm owners and nonowners alike think safety is essential. This Bill would ensure that firearm owners have access to information about the risks of owning and having a firearm in the home, and about gun and domestic violence restraining orders for high risk situations. That information will increase owners awareness of such orders if they become relevant for them and others they know, and will enable owners to make informed, independent, and responsible decisions about their firearms. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Do we have any other lead witnesses in support of AB 1598? Seeing none, we'll continue with the metoo witnesses in support of AB 1598. Please proceed.

Ethan Egler, on behalf of the City of Mountain View, in support.

[unknown] with Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Erin Niemela, representing Giffords, also in support.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line. Let's see. One moment here. Line 51, your line is open.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senators, Andres Ramirez, on behalf of the City of Half Moon Bay and the City of Palo Alto in strong support.

Do we have any other witnesses in support of AB 1598 here in Room 2200 seeing none, we'll continue now with witnesses online through the teleconference service. No, I think we do the online first. We're doing the online first. Right. Telegram fronts for the support. Is that what she was doing? Okay, so now we're going to continue with any lead witnesses in opposition to AB 5098 here. Room 2200, sir.

Madam Chair and members, Sam Perettas representing Gun Owners of California. Although it's laudable for government to want to teach people or talk to people about being safe, unfortunately, this Bill misses the mark. In fact, by putting in a subjective test that the Department of Justice will be requiring people to take as a part of the Firearm Safety Certificate, which is the permission slip from the State of California for people to buy firearms. That is completely contrary to the recent ruling last year from New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin. Any part of a regulation has to be completely objective. It cannot have somebody's opinion. And with all due respect to the research community and all of the people that think about and talk about firearm safety and stuff, many of the statistics that they have developed and they cite are disputed. They're disputed. They forget to mention that the Center for Disease Control, until they were politically required to remove the information, pointed out that 2.5 million people a year use firearms to defend themselves, vast most of the time without ever having to shoot a gun, how does that compare? We hear in the news every day people using firearms in their homes to protect themselves. And this law, this Bill will potentially prevent some of these people from having a gun in the home in order to accomplish that. So because there is no historical analog going back to 1791, where there were laws that said you have to take a test before we, the government, give you permission to exercise your Second Amendment rights. This Bill is unconstitutional. It will not see the light of day. I can tell you right now, when the Governor signs it, because I'm sure he will, there will be an immediate lawsuit in order to prevent this law from going into effect. You cannot go against Supreme Court precedent. Can't do it. And we're going to stand by the Second Amendment, and we're going to stand by the lives of two and a half to 3 million people per year who use guns to successfully defend themselves in their homes, their travels, and their businesses. For those reasons, we are in opposition to this Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Line 44, your line is open.

Thank you, sir. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition here in room 2200, against or in opposition of AB 5098? Seeing none, we'll now continue to witnesses via the teleconference service in opposition or in support for AB 5098. Mr. Moderator, please queue any witnesses that we may have via the teleconference service. And we'll begin.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1598, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition of AB 1598. And we will go to line 41. Excuse me one moment. While I get that back. One moment. Line 41, your line is open. Please go ahead.

Good morning. My name is Steve Rada. I'm a life Member of the NRA, Chairman of the Mendel Lake chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, and a US Navy veteran. And I'm respectfully urging the Committee to oppose Assembly Bill 1598.

Thank you. Line 42, your line is open.

This is Rory Henley with the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California Firearms Policy Coalition, in strong opposition to this Bill.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 43, your line is open.

Good morning. This is Carlene Ellis. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association. I'm also a competitive shooter and I am in strong opposition to AB 1598. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 25, your line is open.

Madam Chair, this is Tim McMahon. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA Member, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next, we'll go. Line 46, your line is open.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Krishna Permal, concerned Citizen. I'm urging the Committee. Please oppose 1598. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 34, your line is open.

Good morning. My name is Samira Watt and as a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, NRA, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners of California, I'm respectfully calling to voice my opposition to AB 1598. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 47, your line is open.

Thank you. My name is Elise Mckenzie. I'm a Member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Armed Women of America. I'm a range safety officer, and I respectfully but strongly oppose AB 1598.

Good morning. My name is Mike Elias. I'm a Member of the California Rifle Pistol Association and its Ventura County Gun Owners chapter. Also a certified range safety officer, and I oppose AB 1598.

Thank you. Line 45, your line is open.

Yes, my name is James O'Brien. I am a lifelong California resident, Member of the CRPA, and also a lifelong Member of the NRA. I am in opposition of Bill 1598. Thank you.

Yeah, my name is Dale Hume. I'm a concerned citizen and father, and I believe in self defense. And I oppose AB 1598. Please.

Thank you. Line 48, your line is open.

My name is Michael Cresto. I'm a Member of the Ventura County Gun Owners Association and the California Rifle and Pistol Association, as well as the NRA. And I oppose 1598.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 35. Your line is open.

Dan Reed, Western Regional Director with National Rifle Association, strong opposition. AB 1598. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. I'd like to move over to comments by my Committee Members. Seeing none. Sorry, Senator Ochoa Bogh go ahead.

Not that quick. Thank you, Member Berman, and welcome. Good morning. I have a question for you. How would you address the concerns by the opposition that this is a duplicative requirement that the Department of Justice is creating in the Safety Certificate Study Guide, and that it is currently, and I'm reading here, and that is already contained in existing law. It says here that DOJ notes in their instructor manual, pursuant to Penal Code Section 31630, Subdivision A, firearm dealers are required to make the Firearm Safety Certificate study guide available to the General public. And it also says that the Department is no longer printing these hard copies and can be fulfilled by providing the following link to the attorney general's website.

Thank you for the question, Madam Vice Chair. And I think your question also kind of answers some of the concerns that were raised by the opposition today. It's important to note that this Bill does not create a new test. California already has a test. And so if folks want to challenge the constitutional validity of that test, they can do that now. They don't have to wait for the Governor to sign this Bill because California already has a test. What this Bill does is this makes sure that we ask questions in that test, that test potential gun buyers knowledge of the risks of homeownership of a firearm. So that's the first point that's really important. And then we want to make sure that prospective buyers or buyers when they're purchasing the gun, get that information in as readily available and clear of a way as possible. And so that's why we think it's important for gun stores to hand that pamphlet to gun buyers so that they have that, as opposed to having the link to the website. I personally think that it's really important that potential gun buyers understand the risks, not so that they don't buy a gun, but so that they take the appropriate safety measures at home with that gun, so that they understand the risks of owning that gun. They understand the data that is very clear, black and white, that shows the risks that were talked about today, that show the risks of that ownership of a gun. So that's why the Bill would require certain questions to be covered and certain information to be more thoroughly explained and that the pamphlet be handed to gun owners in the gun store.

And I think that was the reason for my question, because it says here that it's duplicative requirement that the Department of Justice to create a safety certificate study guide. They already have that. So they already have that in place, the safety certificate study guide. To that point, it's my understanding that you would like to add these studies that, are they done by third parties or are they done by.

Yeah. The data source of the study. Thank you for the question. That's exactly right. So we don't want to create a new study guide. We just want to make sure that certain information is more kind of thoroughly and comprehensively included in that study guide. And there's a lot of third party studies. There's a lot of clear government collected in California. Unfortunately, because of opposition at the federal level, the Federal Government is prohibited from collecting certain amounts of gun data and gun violence data. But here in California, we collect that data, and that's data that we get from local public safety agencies. That's data that we get. It's very quantitative. It is not opinion, it is fact. And we want to make sure that those facts are included in the study guide so that folks know what they're getting into before they do it.

Thank you. Seeing no further conversation, Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Appreciate the questions and respectfully ask for your aye vote

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Senator Wiener? No, I just wanted to make sure she knew.

AB 1598. Berman motion is due, passed to appropriations. Wahab, Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh. Bradford. Skinner, Skinner aye. Wiener, Wiener aye.

Thank you. That bill's on call.

Thank you. So next we have Assembly Member Valencia Introducing AB 1483. Assembly Member, please approach the lectern. The floor is yours.

Thanks, everyone.

Buenos Dias Madam Chair and Senators. AB 1483 brings parity to existing law by closing a gap that allows multiple firearm acquisitions to be made through private party transfers. Specifically, AB 1483 will cap the amount of firearms that an individual may acquire to one per 30 days, the same restriction that already applies for purchases made for new firearms through dealers. Individuals required to surrender firearms will be allowed to transfer more than one and those receiving firearms as part of a will or inheritance through this Bill.

Too many Californians suffer from gun violence. Statistics produced by the California Department of Justice indicate that someone is killed with a gun in our state every 3 hours. As a state, we must close gaps in existing law that may perpetuate firearms getting into the wrong hands. Two other states already do what AB 1483 intends to do. New Jersey and Maryland place similar limitations on acquiring more than one handgun per 30-day period.

Natasha Minsker with the Prosecutors Alliance of California is here to provide testimony and support.

Thank you. Do you only have one witness?

I do.

Okay. And you know, we have two minutes. Thank you.

Natasha Minsker, on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support. Research shows that limiting the number of guns in public circulation directly correlates with reducing gun violence. Research also shows specifically that state laws that limit the number of guns that can be acquired within a 30-day period correlates with reduced involvement of guns in illegal activity. This Bill simply closes a loophole in California law, but a dangerous loophole that allows an individual to potentially acquire an unlimited number of handguns in a 30-day period.

This is a smart public safety measure, and we urge your Aye vote.

Thank you. We'll move on to support witnesses. Me too. Name, organization, that you support.

Madam Chair and Members. Erin Niemela representing Giffords, also in support.

Thank you.

Anna Ioakimedes with the Los Angeles Unified School District, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other support witnesses? Seeing none. We'll move on to lead opposition witnesses. You will have two minutes. Do we have any oppo witnesses? Lead? No. We'll move on to regular Oppo. Me too. Name, organization.

A little quick, ma'am. I am main opposition.

Okay, you have two minutes then.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, again, we are here, and the story is the same. The Supreme Court last year ruled that any gun control law that is being proposed has to be looked at in the light of our Founding Fathers and the drafting of the Second Amendment. If a historical analog does not exist or did not exist in 1791, by definition, that law is unconstitutional and will be overturned.

The fact that the government can, in a way that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense, prevent people from buying multiple firearms, whether it's through private party, whether it's a long gun, a handgun, or whatever, even when people have already owned guns, have already gone through background checks, have already proven that they are not illegal. This Bill, unfortunately, does absolutely nothing to prevent the criminal intended people from acquiring all the firearms that they want, which we all know they can, anytime, anywhere.

This only affects those who would abide by the law. And the government does not have the right to limit people to buying only one firearm per month of any kind. There are lawsuits that are in the pipeline on this, and there will be new lawsuits to make sure that this statute never goes into effect. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none. We'll move on to witnesses waiting to testify via teleconference. Moderator, please prompt the first individual.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1483, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. For support or opposition of AB 1483, we will go to line 25, your line is open.

Madam Chair, this is Tim McMann. I'm the chair of the South Sacramento chapter of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and NRA member in strong opposition.

Thank you. Next will go line 40, your line is open.

Danny Offer with Every Town for Gun Safety, in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next will line 43, your line is open.

Thank you. This is Carlene Ellis. I'm a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Armed Women of America, and I'm a competitive pistol shooter, and I'm in strong opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 50, your line is open.

My name is Richard Heiler, Folsom, California. We already have background checks when people purchase firearms, and therefore, these would be legal purchases.

Support or opposition, sir?

Opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go line 41, your line is open.

Hello? Hello?

Go ahead.

Yeah, my name is Steve Rodda. I'm a Member of the NRA, California Rifle and Pistol Association, and US Navy veteran. And I'm respectfully urging the Committee to oppose Assembly Bill 1483.

Thank you. Line 42, your line is open.

Rory Henley from the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California and Firearms Policy Coalition, in strong opposition.

Line 35, your line is open.

This is Dan Reed, Western Regional Director with the National Rifle Association, in strong opposition to AB 1483. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 54, your line is open.

Good morning again. This is Mike Elias, member of the CRPA, Ventura County Gun Owners, and a certified range safety officer strongly opposing this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll go line 46, your line is open.

Thank you. Krishna Permal, concerned citizen and legal gun owner in strong opposition of 1483.

Thank you. Line 45, your line is open.

Hello, this is Dale Hume from Sanchez County, father and concerned citizen and I'm going to oppose AB 1483.

Thank you. Line 48, your line is open.

My name is Michael Cresto from Ojai, California, member of the NRA, the CRPA, and the Ventura County Gun Owners Association, and I am in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 52, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Tara Hume. I'm an NRA member and a CRPA member and I strongly oppose 1483.

Thank you. Line 34, your line is open.

Good morning again. My name is Samira Watt and I'm a member of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, NRA, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of California, and a certified range safety officer. I'm calling to voice my strong opposition to AB 1483. Thank you.

Thank you. Line 51, your line is open.

James O'Brien, lifelong California resident, member of the CRPA, NRA member, in strong opposition of 1483.

Thank you. Next, we'll go to line 56, your line is open.

Good morning, this is Jim Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee of Legislation of California in support of AB 1483. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

Thank you. We'll move the conversation to Members of the Committee. Committee Members? Seeing. Okay, Senator Skinner.

Thank you for bringing this Bill. I will move it. I have carried some legislation in this arena back when I was in the Assembly trying to deal with the various. Much of it's been passed since. When I first started working on trying to put some reasonable limits on these private transactions, there was not much support. But I think we have come to realize that laws like this and the other things we've put into code are reasonable boundaries on these private transactions. So with that, I support it and I move the Bill.

Thank you. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Appreciate the Committee's time and respectfully ask for a Yes vote.

Thank you. Do we have a motion? Oh, sorry, I didn't hear. Senator Skinner moved the Bill.

AB 1483 Valencia. Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Rolll call].

The Bill is out four to zero. No, I think Senator Bradford also. Yeah, the Bill is out. Yeah. All right, four zero. The Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, we will be lifting our calls.

AB 819, Brian, motion was do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call].

That Bill is out, five to zero.

AB 1480. Oh, no. Sorry. AB 1598, Berman, motion was do pass to appropriations. Current vote is three to zero. [Roll call].

Bill is out, four to zero, and we are adjourned. Quickest meetings, right?