Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. Welcome to Public Safety Assembly. Before we begin, I'd like to read, all witness testimony will be in person. There will be no phone testimony options for this hearing. You can find information on the Committee's website, assembly.ca.gov/committees.

We do not have a quorum just yet, but we will start as a Subcommitee. The following Senator names I have in this order are Becker, Blakespear, Portantino, Umberg, Min, and Cortese.

So if Mr. Becker's here, he can begin his testimony now, and as soon as we get a quorum, we'll call roll and then be able to vote on your item. Whenever you're ready, Mr. Becker.

Do you have witnesses?

Thank you.

I do, yeah.

Are they here?

They are here.

Do they want to come to the table?

Absolutely. Have my witnesses come on up when you--chance. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm here today to present SB 474, the BASICs Act, basic, affordable supplies for incarcerated Californians. As detailed today in the San Diego Union-Tribune, this bill limits markups for items sold in prison canteen stores to no more than ten percent above the price paid to vendors. In the canteen, there are things sold like food, hygiene products, health supplements, and stationery, among other items.

Canteen items, however, are marked up an average of 65 percent above the cost to the vendor, and they can be marked up over 200 percent above the cost of the average consumer. For example, in February 2023, price lists from San Quentin show Aquafresh sensitive toothpaste being sold in the canteen for $5.50, yet it sells for $1.83 at Walgreens, a markup of over 200 percent. These markups make many products inaccessible and economically drain over 30 million dollars a year from predominantly low income families of color.

Given the minimum wage in prisons is eight cents an hour, or roughly twelve dollars a month, markups can take an exorbitant amount of an incarcerated person's income. According to a 2020 report by Impact Justice, 60 percent of incarcerated people surveyed said they could not afford canteen purchases, and the Ella Baker Center reported nearly two in three families with an incarcerated family member were unable to meet their family's basic needs, including food and housing, due to the financial burdens of incarceration.

We named the bill the BASICs Act because incarcerated people should not have to choose between the basic necessities of food, hygiene products, or health supplements. Last year, we took an enormous step as a legislative body, eliminating one big burden causing families to go into debt, which was prison phone calls, and now we've got a chance with this act to remove another huge burden on the families of incarcerated Californians. Everyone deserves access to basic necessities. Everyone deserves affordable supplies.

Everyone deserves to know that their loved ones have everything they need to care for themselves. With me today to testify are Isa Borgeson with Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, and Monea Hill, a loved one of two incarcerated family members.

Okay, you have five minutes altogether by the way you want to split it up. Could you just give me one indulgence because there may be people waiting. I forgot to mention the items that were pulled off calendar just in case people arrived here. Item Number Six: SB 89, Ochoa Bogh, has been pulled by the author, Item Number 12: SB 268, Alvarado-Gil, pulled by author, Item Number 24: SB 690, Rubio, pulled by author, and Item Number 26: SB 796, Alvarado-Gil, pulled by author.

Just in case anybody's here, I don't want you to sit through the whole Committee meeting. So whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Chair and Committee. My name is Isa Borgeson, and I'm the campaign manager at the Ella Baker Center. We're a proud co-sponsor of Senator Becker's SB 474 bill. This bill would reduce exorbitant markups on essential food and hygiene items sold in California's prison canteens. I hope this Committee will consider the unprecedented support we've received from people in prison for this bill. Over 1,600 letters from incarcerated community members.

Because of inadequate food and hygiene provisions in state prisons, most incarcerated people rely on canteen purchases to meet their basic needs, but with the 65 percent markup and prison wages as low as eight cents an hour, essential items like toothpaste and body wash are out of reach for many. As a result, family members, primarily Black and brown women already struggling to keep up with the cost of incarceration, are forced to take on this burden.

In fact, each year, overpriced canteen items economically drain 80 million dollars from low income families in California. It is unacceptable for incarcerated people and their loved ones to fund the Department of Corrections operating expenses and staffing costs through high markups on essential goods. I'd like to share a brief testimony from Steve Warren, an EBC inside fellow who's currently incarcerated at San Quentin. 'Try to imagine working full time, only to receive $12.80 each month.

'I use my earnings to purchase necessities from the prison canteen, but the items I need to survive are too costly to afford. A case of soup cost $10.80. My deodorant, $3.60. Laundry soap, $2.40. Overpriced canteen items forced me to become a financial burden to my family. Passing SB 474 would give us incarcerated people a sense of dignity and help relieve our loved ones who work hard to support us.'

I'll close by just saying that California's 65 percent markup is one of the highest in the country. We're second only to Alabama, and I think that we have the opportunity today to provide overdue financial relief for justice-involved families, ensuring equitable access to basic necessities that incarcerated people truly need to survive. I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. You may begin.

Hi. My name is Monea Hill. Hi. My name is Monea Hill. I'm the Executive Director of Dee Hill Foundation, which is located in Long Beach, along with my husband, who is serving LWAP in Solano State Prison. I also have a son at Pelican Bay State Prison. I'm here today to plead with you to vote in favor of SB 474 to lower the high markups of canteen items in state prisons. The prices CDCR charges the men and women in prison is ridiculous and outrageous.

Not only is it unfair to the incarcerated population who need canteens to survive with extra food and personal hygiene, it is also unfair to the families who are the ones that end up paying these high prices. My husband has been incarcerated for 18 years and my son has been imprisoned for eight and a half years. I'm their only support system, sending 200 each month per person, and they only receive 100 of it because they have restitution.

There are times that I have to choose not to pay one of my bills or credit card in order to make sure they have funds for canteen. Every month the prices go up. If SB 474 becomes law, it will help me and hundreds of many other families save money to support our loved ones for a successful reentry. At least I know I will be saving hundreds of dollars a month.

I come to you today to urge you to please say yes to SB 474 and release a financial burden of thousands of Californians. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support?

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defender's Office and San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support.

Thank you, Name and organization. Thank you.

Eric Harris. Disability Rights California. Support.

Thank you.

Glenn Backes for the Friends Committee on Legislation in support.

Thank you.

Sue Kim from Uncommon Law in strong support.

Thank you.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California Action in support. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler at the City and County of San Francisco in support. Thank you.

CCWP in strong support.

Felony Murder Elimination Project in strong support. Thank you.

Lizzie Buchen, Prosecutors Alliance of California, Initiate Justice, Transformative In-Prison Workgroup and GRIP in support.

Thank you.

Alesha Monteiro from California is United for Responsible Budget in strong support.

Thank you.

Claire McNeil with the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in strong support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Now are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee for comments or questions.

I just have one question. Senator, as far as this budget goes, do we know exactly where it goes to or what it helps, what to provide for the inmates?

Let me turn that over to the witness.

Sure. The profits from the revenues from canteen sale purchases go into the Inmate Welfare Fund which funds several things. The vast majority of the funds for the Inmate Welfare Fund are used to support the operating costs of the canteen. A large majority of that is staffing costs for CDCR staff who work the canteen. There's also a small amount in the tune of a few million that goes towards supporting very important in prison programs and that funding is scheduled to end coming from the Inmate Welfare Fund, actually by 2025.

But a vast majority of it goes towards CDCR operating expenses and staffing costs associated with running the canteen. About 30 million dollars a year is how much is going right now, and the estimated appropriations is 27 million dollars.

Okay, and just to follow up, so the Inmate Welfare Fund, will this hurt other programs in the prison or will this hurt other inmates that may need to also maybe get these items to survive? I'm curious.

Well, I'll just comment, and we have an appropriation to cover it. That's the point. These are important things to fund, but we shouldn't fund them on the backs of the families of incarcerated Californians. So we want to fund it out of the budget directly itself.

Yeah, exactly. We're in coalition with many organizations, including formerly incarcerated folks who are providing these in prison programs. We believe in the importance of these rehabilitative in prison programs and we've talked to those coalitions and those organizations who are receiving funding, and they have named to us that they also believe that it's not right for that money to be coming from incarcerated folks and their family members. It should be coming from the General Fund.

Thank you. I'll be supporting this. I was just curious. I didn't want to hurt another program. I'm sure my other Committee Members don't as well.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

Thank you. Any other comments? You may close, Mr. Becker.

Yeah, thank you. Thanks for the question and the support. We have--the prison budget today is, I don't know, it's roughly 14, 15 billion dollars, and we believe we can be able to find the money to cover this without causing additional debt burdens and hardship on the families of incarcerated Californians. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I believe we have a quorum. Yes, we have a quorum. Let us establish quorum so we can vote.

Jones-Sawyer? Here. Alanis? Here. Bonta? Bryan? Lackey? Here. Ortega? Here. Santiago? Jackson? Here. Quorum's present.

Quorum's present, and I forgot to mention that Assembly Member Jackson is here substituting for Assembly Member Zbur. You've closed. Is there a motion? Motion is a bipartisan first and second. So thank you for bringing this. I know at the local level, the jail level that we were looking at this, the funds weren't necessarily spent on the inmates in jail and there have been some training and some trips that were done that we thought were a little inappropriate, so making sure that these funds aren't overcharged is really important.

But most important, that the question that the Assembly Member, I think, is apropos that we make sure that those funds go back to the people that are spending the money. So with that, Chair is recommending an aye vote. Call the roll.

On SB 474 by Senator Becker, the motion is 'do pass to the Appropriations Committee.' Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta? Bryan? Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Santiago? Jackson? Aye. Jackson, aye.

That measure passes. Thank you. Ms. Blakespear. Senator.

SB 452?

SB 452.

Item Number 19.

Item Number 19. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Thank you. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. SB 452 prohibits the sale or transfer of a semiautomatic pistol that is made after July 2027 unless it has been verified as a microstamping enabled pistol. In 2021, only 40% of gun crimes in California were solved by law enforcement. The majority of homicides remain unsolved. Microstamping will allow law enforcement to more effectively identify and trace gun crimes through intentional markings.

The California Legislature passed microstamping requirements in 2007, but the firearm industry has been reticent to embrace this. SB 452 ensures this technology is incorporated into guns manufactured on or after July 2027. This Bill is co sponsored by Governor Newsom, The Brady Campaign, and Moms Demand Action. And here with me in support, I have Tanya Schardt, who's the Senior Counsel and Director of State and Federal Policy for Brady. Thank you.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Good morning. My name is Tanya Schardt, and I'm Senior Counsel and Director of State and Federal Policy at Brady. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB 452. Microstamping technology utilizes lasers to engrave markings onto the firing pin of a firearm. When a gun is fired, these markings are stamped onto the cartridge. And when a cartridge is recovered at a crime scene, law enforcement has access to the make, model, and other identifying information about the gun.

In 2007, California made a forward thinking decision to invest in microsamping, a tool that, if implemented, would increase community trust in law enforcement by relying on a tool that does not infringe on privacy rights, unlike some video and audio surveillance systems, and which allows law enforcement to rely on objective data for evidence as opposed to more biased alternatives. Importantly, this tool is available; it's reliable, feasible, and inexpensive.

And yet, while micro stamping has been the law of California, for some time, and the industry has admitted that they can do it. The industry has functionally boycotted the implementation of the technology. Perhaps they do not have an interest in any law enforcement. Or perhaps they do not have an interest in preventing crime. Or perhaps they do not want transparency regarding the source of crime guns. Unfortunately, without this tool, most shootings go unsolved, encouraging cycles of retaliatory violence, and distrust in law enforcement.

This is even more true in communities of color. A year long investigation based on data obtained from 22 cities showed that law enforcement's clearance rate for crimes when they involved a victim of color was only 21% for firearms assaults versus 37% for white victims. SB 452 is an innovative piece of legislation that will work to ensure microstamped guns are finally introduced into the Golden State.

This Bill will do so by creating three pathways for the technology to be incorporated: through gun manufacturers if they choose to finally implement this technology, through state licensed vendors, and, alternatively, through the California Department of Justice. Long term, this will help state and local law enforcement solve crimes, break cycles of gun trafficking, and increase trust in law enforcement. Long term, this will reduce gun violence.

Thank you so much to Senator Blakespear and all of the Bill sponsors for their strong leadership on this Bill and to the Committee. I urge you to vote in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses?

No.

Okay. Thank you. Anyone else in support? Name and organization?

My name is Liz Russell, and I am a volunteer with Moms Demand Action in Napa, California. I am also a survivor of gun violence, and I urge you to support SB 452. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Becky Rena. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Jillian King, volunteer, Moms Demand Action. I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Ermalita Bruce, volunteer for Mom's demand action, and I support this Bill.

Thank you.

Laura Lane, on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety, in support.

Julie Chapman, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Thank you.

Connie Campbell, Moms Demand Action. In support.

Yara Judal, Moms Demand Action, and I support.

Shireen Miles, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Mary Lou Rossetto, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, former peace officer. In support.

Thank you.

Bridget Jacobowitz, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Claire Senchyna, in honor of my son Camilo, killed by senseless gun violence, I support.

Thank you.

My name is Leslie Lew. I'm a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I support.

Dan Owens, San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association and San Diegans Against Crime. In support.

Thank you. Now, are any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Mr. Salzillo.

Morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. In opposition to SB 452. As the witness stated, the technology is just not available in any meaningful form, irrespective of why or who has chosen not to make it available. That's sort of an immutable reality as we sit today, and unclear that that will change by the effective date of this Bill. The way the Bill is written, it would limit law enforcement's ability. There's no law enforcement exception.

It would limit our ability to acquire new firearms unless they were manufactured prior to the bill's effective date. So we're effectively building in a requirement that when, for whatever reason, a law enforcement agency has to acquire a new platform, whether the guns are outdated or we just need new ones or different ones, we're going to be in this box of only being able to use things that were manufactured before the effective date if there are no guns with the microstamping technology available.

This is all wrapped up in the Unsafe Handgun Act pending litigation. As the witness and the author said, this has been on the books in some form or fashion for the better part of two decades in California, and we haven't gotten there yet. There was a Bill last session that attempted to use law enforcement as sort of a prod to the industry to produce and to make available guns that are microstamping enabled and that did not make it through. We think this hampers law enforcement's ability to acquire the resources it needs to do their jobs.

The performance of the firearm is not only crucial to the law enforcement agency and peace officers, but different performance characteristics may be favored by some agencies over others. This is important when considering whether or not sufficient choices will exist in the market by the time the Bill takes effect. And again, even more important given the history related to microstamping requirements. So for these reasons, respectfully, we're in opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Committee, Chair, Rick Travis. Good morning to all of you. I'm with the CRPA, Gunowners of California, and the National Rifle Association. We're opposing this Bill for a few reasons. Obviously, we want to see firearm safety, but there's a couple of things I want to make sure everybody on the Committee understands. When this is done, it is only covering a semiautomatic pistol and when those casings without marking fall to the floor, anybody's been to a range knows that those are rarely available for anyone to pick up.

And my fear is because we have people that go there, they don't pick up their own brass. Anybody could pick up that brass, drop it at any crime scene, and it's going to finger that person for being at the crime scene, even though they weren't there. We know that people in crimes, families, gangs, others find ways to cover their own tracks. And this is providing a vehicle that never existed before.

We're going to be back in these chambers arguing about new laws and new ways to restrict, which is going to further make it so people flat out don't want to go to the range. When they don't go to the range, they're not maintaining skill sets that keeps them safe. And so this body of Legislature is constantly trying to look for firearms enthusiasts to become safer and more productive. And this is going to go in the reverse of that.

Secondly, in Boland v. Bonta, our own Attorney General did not pursue the microstamping. He backed out of that part of the case and left it basically mute. We feel that at this point, that with the inventor saying it doesn't work, with the numerous flaws in the technology that exist, that this Bill is not going to do anything to make this safer. In fact, it's going to do the opposite for those reasons we oppose.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition? Yes, sir.

Thank you, Chair, Members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Michael Finley, Director of Government Relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We are the National Trade Association for America's firearm manufacturers, retailers, and ranges. Our name was invoked a couple times within the testimony, and I would say this, that the technology simply does not exist as it was portrayed by the proponents of this Bill. It's a free market system.

If any of that technology was feasible right now, any manufacturer could do it and profit from the State of California. It simply does not exist. In fact, there was a UC Davis study within last decade that showed that it was easily defeatable and that the technology is not ready. Another thing that I'd like to point out is there are very considerable legal issues with this Bill.

It is a single source encumbered by a patent and it is still currently held by a gentleman in the East Coast, in Connecticut, named Todd Lizotte. So those are things that I would bring to the Committee. Even if somebody wanted- a company wanted to do so, they would have to deal with that patent issues on that one. For those reasons, we are strongly against this Bill. The technology simply just does not exist.

What you would do is you would eliminate the ability for us to sell firearms within the State of California for both law enforcement and for citizens trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee for comments or questions. Ms. Ortega.

First of all, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. I think it's a great step and our overall goal to not just continue to provide thoughts and prayers to families, but actual concrete tools and legislation that will get to real action. I do want to ask that- they keep mentioning this technology does not exist. Do you mind answering or responding to that?

Sure, absolutely. The technology does exist. In fact, the industry has admitted in a lawsuit that they can do this.

They just have been unwilling to comply because they haven't had an obligation to do that. I'd also noted it is unencumbered by patent. It is not tied up in any patent issues. It is freely available for everyone to use. This Bill creates an opportunity for DOJ to establish the standards that will be used within the State of California. And finally, this isn't creating an environment where there won't be guns for sale because it's creating three pathways for firearms to be microstamped.

If the industry refuses to comply and the manufacturers do not want to sell microstamped guns to the dealers, the dealers will have two options. They'll be able to go to licensees within the state to get the gun manufactured, or they'll be able to go directly to the Department of Justice. This is because we believe that the industry will continue to boycott this. We believe in the technology. It is successful 90% of the times where the current technology is only successful 1.5% of the time in terms of identifying the firearm used in a crime using a casing.

The last thing I'll mention is when you talk about shell casings and people picking them up and taking them to a crime scene, casings are already used by law enforcement. That isn't happening now. There's no reason to believe that wouldn't happen in the future if microstamping technology was utilized. Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

So, this technology that does exist, I have never seen it. Have you seen it actually personally? Do we have any examples, or can you show us anything?

Absolutely. We did actually a demonstration in New Jersey. I'm happy to share the YouTube video with you. Law enforcement was there. They were able to see a casing drop to the floor, and then that casing used to trace a firearm immediately. And I'll note that that was a firearm that had been microstamped almost a decade ago, and it still worked perfectly.

Okay, and the way they identify the microstamping, is there like some kind of like when dogs get chipped or something like that? There's something to do that or is it something that could be done with the naked eye? Is this something that departments have to buy?

So the departments will have to utilize technology, but again, I think this is technology they're already using as part of NIBINs. They'll need a microscope. The microstamping pin will imprint on the casing a code that will allow them to then trace the firearm the same way that they trace a firearm that's recovered in crime. Unfortunately, most of the time, firearms are not left at crime scene, but casings are.

So this is a huge tool for law enforcement to be able to solve crimes in a space that they haven't been able to do before.

And for firearms that already exist, how easy is it for them to have this technology applied to those guns?

So removing and replacing a firearm firing pin is not something that I think a layperson can do, which is part of the reason I think microstamping firing pins is important and it can't be undone that easily. This Bill is proactive, so it'll be for any firearms manufactured after a certain date. And eventually, the idea is that with time, most or all of the firearms or handguns will be microstamped in the State of California. But it does not apply retroactively to firearms that are already in circulation.

And for opposition, do you guys have a response for that at all?

Thank you through the chair. I don't disagree with that the technology is available, but the reality is, for whatever reason, policy, economics, whatever, the industry has not chosen to adopt this. And so, as a practical matter, law enforcement, as you well know, needs tools to do its job. They need vehicles, they need firearms, they need handcuffs, uniforms, things like that.

This is effectively saying in one part, this is not just a law enforcement Bill, but this is saying you have to use something that currently isn't available in the marketplace, irrespective of the reason it's not available. It's like saying you need to drive a blue car, and there are no blue cars for sale. And so by putting that in the statute, it creates a situation where we have the inability to have the tools to do our job. That's the bottom line for CSSA. Thank you.

With all due respect to the proponents of the Bill, it's like Elon Musk. He has a semi car or electric semi truck right now. Right, but can it carry the payload that it's needed? No. But yeah, you can build one. And in a demonstration, you can make it look good. But over time, and through testing and through wear and tear and the criteria that is put in the Bill, can the technology withstand it? No, you can make anything do something one time.

But the criteria of the Bill is to say, hey, this technology needs to be implemented. It needs to be reliable. It needs to do the function pretty much every single time that you pull the trigger with it. And that simply does not exist. The UC Davis study is pretty conclusive on that. Unreliable, right. Markings are half markings on it. In our written testimony, we've provided examples, pictures of the study, and it's UC Davis. It's not the industry that did this independent of this.

So as much as Brady and Giffords like to come up and say that the technology does exist. Yeah, I guess you can make a flying car exist. Right. But, mandating that everybody use a flying car right now. It's just that technology, quite frankly, does not exist right now to use it on a mass production basis. And that's kind of where we are right now with it. And another thing that I would say to that is, yeah, the patent there is a profit.

So it's going to increase the cost of every firearm. So anybody participating or anybody exercising their Second Amendment rights is going to have to spend more. Law enforcement is going to spend more on every ammunition that they buy, every firearm that they purchase. And it's going to be a really big added cost. And that's something that we didn't bring as well. Thank you.

Okay. Ms. Ortega. Go ahead.

With all due respect to the person who just spoke, if Elon Musk can send himself to space, I think we can figure out a way to make this work. It just- we're in California. We are the innovation state of the world. So this argument that this technology does not exist or is not possible or will not work if we don't try it, I just don't understand it.

And again, if you are going to use Elon Musk as an example, if he can send himself to space, I think we can do this here in the State of California. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? So you may close. And what I would ask, because I think we all have a concern about whether or not law enforcement will be able to get their hands on whatever equipment they need to be able to do their jobs. I thought you mentioned that if you needed to obtain certain equipment, you can get it through the Department of Justice. I think the California Department of Justice.

And so either in your closing, if you can address that, because obviously that is a real concern that we make sure that law enforcement has the tools they need to combat crime here in California?

Yes. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to address some of the points as well. So with all due respect to the opponents, I think there is a bit of hyperbole that is coming into these arguments against it. This technology is not like a flying car. All of the requirements for pistols, semiautomatic pistols, are made after July 2027. That's four years from now. So every gun, every piece of the law enforcement material that they currently are using will still be in use.

It's not as if we're taking away the guns that law enforcement is already using. And I don't believe that there's any world where law enforcement does not have guns. It's just not a reality that we are going to be having our law enforcement departments not having the guns and the pistols that they need to be able to do their jobs. It's important to just recognize that.

I think that that is just way outside the bounds of anything that would be possible or realistic for us to expect. And we set goals, for example, zero emission vehicles sold in this state at a certain year and then we work toward those goals. So this is really very modest and not nearly as ambitious as many of the other goals that we already have in the state.

It's also important to note that law enforcement is solving individual crimes where this will link the gun to the bullet, and that will help solve an individual crime, but it will also help solve these larger crimes of being able to say, if a large number of the guns used in crime are coming from a certain store or dealer, law enforcement will be able to track that back because we know that there are many guns- most guns start out in legal ownership.

And so being able to trace gun sales, to say, if a large amount of guns are entering the criminal market from a particular store, having the ability to trace that back is really important. And I also just want to say that this notion that casings are going to be scraped up at a range and then thrown down at a scene of a crime is really, truly quite absurd. Currently, law enforcement solves a lot of crimes by fingerprints.

So do people go and scrape up what was in the trash- that people touched all of the papers and the napkins in the trash and throw them at a crime scene? No.

I mean, these are things that, of course this can happen on an individual- in some individual capacity, but this is not something that is widely going to make it so that law enforcement is somehow unable to solve these crimes. This will unquestionably make it easier for them to do that. And I think it's important to remember that because we can think that we're headed off into the wild west here, but really, that's just not the case.

So I want to just thank the Chair for coming back to the notion that the California Department of Justice will be able to do this. So there will always be a market. It won't have to be from gun manufacturers. The fact that gun manufacturers have been unwilling to create this doesn't mean that we shouldn't create it in an alternative path. And that's why there are three paths to creating this micro stamping technology.

So with that, I just want to make sure that- Would you like to say anything else? My lead witness?

No, I just wanted to thank everybody so much.

Okay, thank you. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, thank you. I'm probably the only person on this Committee that's been dealing with this since I got elected in 2012. Think about it. If we had had this in in 2012, 10 years ago, about microstamping, where would we be right now? If someone said, let's not use those big bulky things called cell phones that were in a briefcase. Everybody in here would not have a cell phone right now. There was a time where car manufacturer said no two seatbelts because it was too expensive.

Just a problem. Same with catalytic converters. The technology and putting them on was just too cumbersome. And look where we are now. I know the problem back then, and it sounds like it is now. The gun manufacturers just refused to do microstamping. That's the bottom line. They just refuse to do it, in blatant opposition to what could be something very useful for everybody. It's not a function of they can't do it. Just that they won't do it. And that's the problem.

And so, like you said, Senator, we make goals about zero emission and making a cleaner environment. This is one of those things where at some point we're going to have to just say, let's go ahead and get this done once and for all. And so hopefully, this is the beginning of it, at least here in California. And hopefully we put enough safeguards in there so that people who need to do their job are able to do it. So, Chair is recommending an aye. Is there a motion?

Call the roll.

On SB 457 by Senator Blakespear. The motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Alanis, no. Bonta? Bryan? Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Ortega? Ortega, aye. Santiago? Jackson? Jackson, aye.

It needs two more. It's on call.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

And while we're here, let's do the consent calendar before Mr. Jackson leaves. Consent calendar. Item number two, SB 46, Roth, control substances treatment. Item number four. SB 67, Seyarto, control substances overdose reporting. Item number eight, SB 97, Wiener, criminal procedure, habeas corpus. Item number 13, SB 281, McGuire, crimes, aggravated arson. Item number 14, SB 309, Cortese, correctional facilities, religious accommodations. And finally, item number 20, SB 464, Wahab, criminal law rights of victims and witnesses of crimes. Is there a motion and there's a second. Call the roll.

On the consent calendar. Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Bonta? Bryan? Lackey? Lackey, aye. Ortega? Ortega, aye. Santiago? Jackson? Jackson, aye.

Consent calendar is adopted. And Mr. Portantino, you may begin whenever you're ready.

Didn't want to sit till I was given permission.

Oh, you have two. Two items.

SB Two, we'll start with.

And item number one and item number 16, two and SB 368 whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair and Committee Members, I'd like to begin by accepting the proposed Committee amendments outlined in the analysis. Thank you for working collaboratively with my staff and folks to get us where we are today. SB Two will implement various improvements to the California's existing concealed carry weapons regime in response to the recent United States Supreme Court decision in New York Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin.

I'm proud to say that Governor Newsom and Attorney General Bonta are sponsoring SB Two, and so we have been working very closely with the Attorney General's Office. SB Two helps strengthen our state law by ensuring those carrying firearms in public are responsible, law abiding citizens who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. Let me say that again. I think That's probably the most critical piece. Folks will complain later that we are going after law abiding citizens.

What we're doing is defining law abiding citizens to make sure that there's a distinction between those who should have guns and those who shouldn't have guns. And so it's important to make that point. We are ensuring those carrying firearms in public are responsible, law abiding citizens. Protecting children and young adults from gun violence by setting a minimum age requirement of 21. It is not partisan to say you have to be 25 to rent a car. Let me say that again.

It's not partisan to say you have to be 25 to rent a car. Why is it partisan to say you have to be 21 to purchase a gun? Think about that. Advancing safety through stronger training requirements about the proper handling, loading, unloading and storage of firearms. Imagine that. Ensuring training. We're creating safeguards for the public by identifying certain sensitive places where guns may not be carried. I don't believe you need a gun to go to your daughter's AYSO soccer game.

Additionally, SB Two will also promote due process by allowing anyone whose application is denied to receive a hearing before a judge of a Superior Court for an additional layer of review. This new procedures will ensure that we're consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Bruin. Only law abiding and responsible applicants for a CCW license will be authorized to receive one. Gun violence inflicts a terrible toll on our communities. Last year, nearly 20,000 people were killed in gun related homicides in the United States.

To put that in perspective, it's enough people to fill 40 wide body seven, seven, seven planes. And sadly, the numbers keep rising. And the problem is not just illegal guns. At least 76% of the guns used in mass shootings over the past 35 years were obtained legally. There is ample evidence showing that increased public carrying of firearms leads to more violence. The notion that having more guns leads to safety is contradicted by the facts.

The more guns we have in carrying in public, in houses, the more death we have. And the facts bear that out. Adding guns increases the chance that otherwise nonlethal interactions such as road rage and disputes over talking on a cell phone at a movie theater turn deadly. And more people carrying firearms leads to more thefts of firearms, up to 35% more firearms in public places, and creates challenges for law enforcement.

The DOJ consulted with public safety experts and prominent scholars across the nation to ensure that this measure is constitutional and is consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in Bruin. So, as you can tell, I'm passionate about this because I think many of the arguments opposing this are specious because the facts, data, and science contradict many of those arguments.

So this morning, I have here to testify Liz Russell, a survivor of gun violence, Candice Chung from the DOJ, and Michael Redding is here from the DOJ to answer any technical questions. And so when appropriately, obviously, I'm going to ask for a strong bipartisan aye vote on SB two.

Thank you. So the three of you have five minutes, or wherever you want to split it up, go for it.

Thank you. My name is Liz Russell. I'm a mother of nine and a half year old twins, a volunteer leader with California Moms Demand Action, and a Senior Survivor fellow with Everytown for Gun Safety. On the morning of March 9, 2018, my life changed forever. I was gathered with my work colleagues and program residents of the Post 911 Veterans Treatment Program that I worked at for a going away party for myself and a coworker.

15 minutes into the party, a former resident who had been dismissed from the program three weeks prior walked into the room with a 308 caliber Jp Enterprises LRP, seven semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun while donating ear protection and eye protection and an extra bandolier of armor ammo across his chest. Instantly, I thought my life was over and that my children would grow up without their mother. I am grateful that he let myself, three of my colleagues, and the four veterans in the room live that day.

But I will never get over him killing the three Clinicians, one of whom was a dear friend of mine who was six months pregnant at the time, before killing himself for the first year after the shooting, going about my daily life was a struggle. I feared crowds in public places, wondering if I could get away if the shooting happened. Being startled by someone unexpectedly coming up behind me sent me into a panic.

I couldn't interact with fellow school parents or peers of any kind in almost any setting because I didn't know how to go on with my daily life after living through such a traumatizing tragedy. I am far from alone in having experienced a shooting in my workplace.

And I am far from alone in growing fear that it could happen to any one of us at any time when we are out shopping, attending a concert, playing with our kids at the park or a playground, or just trying to live. Things that my pregnant friend and work colleagues can no longer do because of a gun in a place it didn't belong. The thought that just about anyone could be carrying a firearm in places like that because of the Bruin decision, is not freedom.

We are not helpless to stop this from happening. However, gun violence is now the leading cause of death of children in America. And all told, we are losing 45,000 Americans annually to this public health crisis. We must do everything we can to change that. SB Two is an important part of the solution to make our own state safer from gun violence, and I urge you to support it today.

Three minutes left. Go.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Candice Chung. I'm a legislative advocate with the Office of Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Pull the mic closer so we can hear you.

Thank you. Who's pleased to co sponsor this Bill with Governor Gavin Newsom. As mentioned by the Senator, this Bill is critical to strengthening California's concealed carry weapons laws. In response to the Supreme Court's decision in Bruin, SB Two will create a uniform statewide standard that uses clear, objective criteria to assess applicants to ensure that concealed carry weapons permits are not issued to a dangerous individual. Just as important, it sets out gun free zones to allow Californians to gather, learn, and worship and safety.

With SB Two, California seeks to follow the roadmap that was set forth by the Bruin Court. It contains evidence based restrictions endorsed by Bruin and based on real world data. This Bill wasn't drafted in a vacuum. It was drafted with the input of a wide array of stakeholders, including gun violence prevention groups, law enforcement, hunting clubs, and transportation organizations.

The end result, we feel, strikes the appropriate balance between respecting law abiding residents rights to keep and bear arms and the public's equally weighty interest in having safe streets. Let's be clear. SB Two is about the ability to carry guns in public. Since Bruin, we have seen a roughly 40% increase in the number of CCW applications. That means more guns in grocery stores, more guns in cafes, in the mall. A 2022 study found that right to carry laws increased firearm violent crimes by 29%.

Simply put, more guns in more places means more people will die at the hands of firearms. That's unacceptable. SB Two is a common sense measure to safeguard our communities, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me is Michael Redding, who is a Special Assistant Attorney General who can answer any technical questions you may have.

So you don't need that extra minute.

Exactly. Michael Redding, special assistant. Nothing else to offer at this time, but exactly. Happy to answer any question.

All right. Thank you. Are there any others in support? Any others in support? Name and organization, please.

Good morning. Tanya Shardt on behalf of Brady, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Laura Lane, on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety in support.

Becky Rena Moms Demand Action volunteer. In support.

Jillian King. Moms Demand Action. For support.

Melita Bruce volunteer at Moms Demand Action in support.

Mary Lou Rossetto volunteer Moms Demand Action in support.

Julie Chapman with Moms Demand Action. And also with the Women Democrats of Sacramento County, in support.

Connie Campbell. Moms Demand Action. In support.

I'm Lesley Liu, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I support.

I'm Yara Jidal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and I support.

Shireen Miles. Volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Clare Senchyna, volunteer with the Everytown Survivor Network, Moms Demand Action, and Camilo's mom, in support.

Bridgette Jakubowitz, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. And public school teacher. And I support.

Melissa Lovato on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

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

Glenn Backes for Friends Committee on Legislation in support.

Joanne Scheer for Felony Murder Elimination Project in support.

Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association, in support.

Erin Niemela, representing Giffords, in support.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles, in support.

Carlin Shelby on behalf of the City of Palo Alto, in support.

Rebecca Gonzales, volunteer for the Brady Campaign Sacramento Gold Country chapter in support.

Priscilla Quiroz here, on behalf of the City of Los Angeles and City of Santa Monica, in support.

Alexis Rodriguez of the California Medical Association, in support.

Moira Topp on behalf of the mayor of San Diego, Todd Gloria and the full City Council in support.

Lizzie in Prosecutors Alliance of California. In support.

Okay, witnesses in support. Any witnesses in opposition?

Could you allow for them to have a seat? Yes, go ahead.

Alright. I'm ready to start talking. Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members respectfully, in opposition to the bill. I think a lot's been said. I know a lot's been said. And there are a lot of different questions and points that can be made about gun regulation and gun control strictly.

This is not, to me, a broad question of gun control, but what we're looking at is, in this circumstance, the government process of a person asking the government if they can carry a concealed weapon, which is laid out. There's this notion that you just get a CCW. There have been background checks, and there continue to be background checks. Law enforcement, in most cases it's the sheriff, sometimes it's the chief of police.

But in every case, the law enforcement leader puts his or her name on that license and says, I am confident that you have been trained and that you should be able to exercise your right to carry a concealed firearm. They put their name on that. If that person then does something, it comes back on them, right? So they're careful in those efforts. The assertion that more guns in public lead to more violence, to me, it does not take into effect who is carrying the gun.

A person who intends to break the law, whether it's to shoot someone or to rob a convenience store with a gun or without a gun, is not going to go to their local sheriff and say, Sheriff Jones-Sawyer, I'm telling you that I would like to carry a gun in public. They're not going to say they're going to rob the store, I think, but they're not going to seek a CCW. That's just the reality of it.

The people who are going to break the law are not going to choose to follow this law simply because the Supreme Court decided Bruen last year. When we talk about data about safety and gun violence and things like that, are there data that indicate that people who are licensed to carry concealed in California have committed or are committing gun crimes? We don't have any evidence of that. If there is, it is sparse at best, and we have not seen any of that from the proponents.

I think we've worked with the proponents to try to make some realistic changes to the proposed statute, and they've taken some of our changes, and we appreciate that. But in reality, to address Bruen, which struck down the Good Cause requirement, a bill could have been offered that just simply eliminated the words Good Cause effectively. I'm exaggerating a little, but only a little. That's really all that had to happen because that's the constitutionally infirm piece. There are still background checks. There are still requirements.

You still have to tell law enforcement what guns you're going to carry. This fails to resolve long standing issues of not being able to record joint ownership. So if a person and her husband both want to carry concealed and they only collectively own one firearm, they cannot both carry that firearm concealed. They have to be separately registered firearms. And so this will in fact create or it will continue the proliferation of additional firearms, which I don't think this Committee wants.

Being able to carry concealed will be severely restricted by this bill. And in the interest of letting other folks say, I'll just end with that and say that with much respect to the author and opponents, we are opposed.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Rick Travis on behalf of CRPA, California Rifle Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, National Rifle Association. To the author's comments when he was presenting SB 2 this morning. There are a few things I would point out.

You can look to a county such as Orange County that when Sheriff Hutchens was there and took office, there were only 200 CCWs and over 3 million people. Much of the rhetoric that has been pushed forward was that the more people with firearms under a concealed carry permit, the more crimes, the more danger to society. We now sit at almost 24,000 CCWs just 10 years later when she changed the rules for there. And you know what? There has been not an increase in crime.

In fact, the CCW holders in Orange County, as an example, to go through the background checks that were discussed, haven't committed the crimes. In fact, the FBI has said that CCW holders are the safest firearm holders, including more so than our own law enforcement because of the train that they go through. This idea that we're going to have an okay corral situation, Mr. Speaker, because someone gets a CCW is completely unfounded. When you look at the idea of creating gun free zones.

We can look to all the heinous crimes going back to Aurora, Colorado, where those people have testified that they went to places that were gun free zones. And yet the FBI will tell you, over the last decade there are over 300,000 times every year that somebody with a firearm has stopped crimes, not shot somebody, not just the fact that they were able to use a firearm to stop until law enforcement got there.

That's 300,000 more potential lives at a minimum that could end up in the very position we're trying to stop with a piece of legislation like this. For these reasons, and one last thing, too, on law enforcement with people with firearms. I respect the DOJ, but I think you need to go to one of your other law enforcement agencies in the state, and that's the Wardens. Game Wardens have the highest interface with people with firearms just by the nature of the work that they do, Mr. Speaker.

And yet Game Wardens will tell you over and over, I go to their annual conferences, that licensed hunters, not poachers, licensed hunters with firearms are some of the safest people they ever work around. And that is the agency that deals with the entire state, every culture, with people with firearms. And that does not coincide with some of the things that were said in support of this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Michael Findlay with National Shooting Sports Foundation. I don't have anything else to add to this other than we are in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition? Name an organization, please.

Or organizations?

Organizations.

Sheriffs. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association in opposition. Also representing an opposition today the Police Officer Associations of Arcadia, Burbank, California Reserve Peace Officers, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, and Upland. And also the Deputy Sheriff's Associations of Monterey and Placer County, all in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Julius Mc Christian representing the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lieutenant Julio De Leon from the Riverside Sheriff's Office on behalf of the Sheriff's Office of Chad Bianco, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC and Highway Patrol Association in opposition.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Bringing it back to the Committee for questions or concerns. Ms. Ortega?

Just want to thank the witness for sharing her story. I know how difficult it can be to share with the world such a tragedy, and again, you know, trying to lead the way here in California to prevent more instances like this is our goal. And I also want to thank the Senator know moving this piece of legislation, and I will be supporting it.

Thank you. Anyone else? You may close.

Just thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, and all of the advocates, both for and against, for being part of this very important conversation. And I think it's important for people to remember the mass gun violent tragedies that we have in this country are a uniquely American phenomenon. Other industrialized countries don't have the shootings that we have here, and it is directly related to the proliferation of weapons that are saturated through our country. Other countries have mental health crises.

They have similar issues, but they don't have gun violence. The Supreme Court clearly said we can have a set standard to regulate concealed carry permits. The Supreme Court said you can have restricted places, as the DOJ outlined. This bill didn't just appear. It is something that all of us have been working and crafting to ensure that it stands constitutional muster and protects Californians from further gun violence. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

And thank you for trying to bring this back again. I know I was on the floor when we were trying to get it through before. Testimony has been interesting this time. My name's been invoked as Sheriff Jones-Sawyer, which I don't know if that ever happened, but another witness said, Mr. Speaker, which I know will not happen. And so if it makes out of this Committee, we'll see what happens as we move forward. Chair is recommending an aye. Is there a motion? Call the roll.

On SB 2 by Senator Portantino. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer?

Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Bonta? Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Ortega? Ortega, aye. Santiago? Jackson?

Bills on call, needs two more. And we now have Mr. Umberg. Senator... Senator Umberg.

Second bill.

Oh, I'm sorry, you have another bill? I jumped the gun. I'm sorry, Senator. Hopefully this one, hopefully it's 368.

I was going to say, you can't let my roommate cut in front of me. You actually could. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee amendments as discussed with the Committee, and thank your Committee staff for working with my staff.

SB 368 is a comprehensive firearm safety package that would expand sensible firearm safety laws. It prohibits firearm stores and dealers from raffing off inventory items, accessories, and firearms to anyone, whether it is purchased a raffle ticket or not. This came to light in the City of Burbank, in my district, where there was a rally for gun safety. A rally. Burbank has a very high concentration of gun stores, the second highest concentration in the country per capita.

And across the street from the rally, one of the gun stores decided to do a free raffle to attract customers, to sort of make a counter-statement. And frankly, I just don't think gun stores should be offering raffles to bring more people in and having giveaways. And I appreciate the folks in Burbank for highlighting this issue. In 2019, SB 172 expanded laws around those who are in crisis or having suicidal thoughts to allow them to turn in their firearms to a family member or law enforcement.

I was proud to have authored that bill. This bill goes one step further by providing that these individuals the option of voluntarily turning in their firearm to a dealer for safe storage. Again, sometimes somebody might actually be more comfortable going to their gun dealer to get the gun out of the house.

And so we think the dealers who profit from selling guns should have skin in the game with providing a safe haven for somebody to transfer their gun, and it's voluntary to the individual, and we think it can save a life down the road. Lastly, this bill will also extend the 10 year prohibition on owning a firearm by 10 additional years if a person is found to violate the prohibition.

So if during your time of your prohibition, you violate it, there should be a prudent extension of that. It only makes sense if you're proving to the world that you're irresponsible. We should take that to heart, that you're being irresponsible, and there should be an extension. So, by taking these steps, we'll be supporting the mental health needs of individuals, keeping the public safety, and enacting common sense gun legislation.

With me today, I have Sarah Henry from the City of Alameda and Tiffany Mok from the California Federation of Teachers, and we have does Irwin even need...

The legend. I know.

The legend, the myth, the man, in person, Irwin Nowick, who is here as well for technical assistance. So we're going to go to Sarah and Tiffany first, and then Irwin will bat cleanup.

We still only have five minutes, Irwin.

That's why Irwin is last.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee. My name is Sarah Henry, and I'm the Communications Director and Legislative Affairs Officer for the City of Alameda. I'm here today in support of SB 368, which will require a licensed firearm dealer to accept a firearm for storage in order to prevent it from being used to attempt suicide.

The City of Alameda is a strong supporter of gun safety and common sense gun laws and policies that improve the physical and mental well being of our residents. The city considers SB 368 a common sense measure that has the potential to save many lives across the state and in our local community. According to the California Department of Public Health, there were 1710 suicides by firearm in 2019 alone.

Something must be done to prevent these unnecessary and heartbreaking deaths. By requiring licensed firearm dealers to accept a firearm for storage from an individual to prevent it from being accessed to use or attempt suicide, SB 368 provides a vital mechanism for individuals who may be experiencing a mental health crisis to temporarily separate themselves from their firearms and seek the help they need to move through the crisis and return to stability.

Currently, however, licensed retailers are not required to accept and temporarily store firearms during a mental health crisis. As we all know, guns are lethal and, unfortunately, rarely allow second chances. For these reasons, the City of Alameda is pleased to support SB 368 and respectfully request your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Tiffany Mok, representing CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. We are proud to support SB 368 as we believe that there should be an end to gun violence, particularly for kids and our students. It is one of the leading causes of death, as you all know, and it shouldn't be. This is a simple measure that allows someone who wants to voluntarily have their gun stored safely in another location to do so.

We have research that shows that when guns are not accessible to those who are experiencing a mental health crisis, who are just feeling like they shouldn't have it, that this does lower suicide rates in areas that we have seen in research. For those reasons, we're proud to support and thank you.

Thank you.

I'm here in my individual capacity, though Treasurer Ma knows what I do, and I'll talk to Members about the data breach issue if they want to. In terms of this specific bill, the three components. The first component, which is called the Hannah-Beth Jackson Extender, was originally proposed by Vice President Harris when they were trying to figure out a way to continue the prohibition without having people with a felony. So that's where the extender came from. And it's passed this Committee like, three times.

Once in the Alejo bill, once in the Jackson bill, and once in the Leno bill. And they got pulled out for other reasons. Secondly, on the raffle piece. All the raffle piece does is make it a condition to deal with licensure that they follow the current state constitution, which prohibits raffles saved by nonprofits. Nonprofits are protected under this bill. Third, on the storage piece, I'm aware of the liability stuff that was mentioned in the analysis. We're working through that.

But the notion that gun dealers don't have a responsibility to serve the public is inconsistent with the private party transaction rules. Under the private party transaction rules, which the NRA actually helped create in 1988 and insisted upon, there are must serve and fee caps imposed.

Because if you're going to say that you're in this business, you have a responsibility here, and it's much safer to store a gun with a dealer than to store it under 172 at somebody's house, even though it's under the lock and key. But we are working through the storage issue. And with that, I will close. And I was under five minutes, I would note.

Yes, you were. Any others in support? Any others in support? Are there anyone in opposition?

You're solo this time. Okay. So you have five minutes.

I am. Thank you, Mr. Chair, not Mr. Speaker. Sorry about the promotion earlier. For the record, my name is Michael Findlay. I am the Director of Government Relations for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. We're America's trade association for firearm manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, retailers, and arranges. And being in California today seems pretty political, doesn't it? It seems kind of different. You can feel it in the room.

And the sponsor of the bill mentioned something earlier, and he mentioned bipartisanship. And I want to extend the olive branch to the sponsor of the bill. We have programs. This is a problem. Suicide is a problem. And we need to do everything that we can to make sure that the number one cause of firearm deaths, that we do something about it. So the National Shooting Sports Foundation has worked with the VA. We've worked with the American Foundation on Suicide prevention.

We mandate, and we send out pamphlets, and we put together a program to talk about this issue, and they're in every one of our members' stores because it is an issue. We do grants. We've worked with the VA in terms of voluntarily making sure that firearms for the past 30 or 40 years, we led the way in making sure that locks were provided.

And I'd like to work with a sponsor on this with our current programs to mandate something, to tell somebody, hey, if somebody comes in within crisis, and you as an FFL, have to store that, I mean, let's think about it rationally. Let's think about it right now from a common sense perspective. So what happens when that FFL returns that firearm? What happens if something bad happens? Who's that on? How do you determine that?

Are our FFLs now having to be trained and determine when somebody comes in, they say, you know what? I'm out of crisis. Please return my firearm. Can we say no to that? What happens if something bad happens? Not only is that on their conscience, but what if their family decides, hey, Cabela's, you know, you've got deep pockets. You should have known. Even though we didn't have any training, we're not psychologists. We want to do the right thing. We're people. We're in the community.

Small mom and pops for people. But now a clerk who's making minimum wage has returned a firearm, and next thing you know, something bad happens. He's had no training whatsoever, and this is on us. And now we're the bad guys again. We want to work with the other side. I think we oftentimes get demonized. Everybody likes to look at the firearms industry, and they like to say, you know what? You guys are all about profits. You guys really don't care about the communities that you're in.

But we do. By and large, the majority of our members are ranges and retailers, and they are small mom and pop stores with a handful of employees. They're ingrained within their communities. They know their customers. And this is why we are the first line of defense when it comes to suicide. When a person is in crisis, time and space is the number one thing that we need to do.

So training them to see and sense that and to contact law enforcement and appropriate mental health professionals as opposed to putting that burden on us, businesses that have never gone through that training is something that I think is way more appropriate. Now, I know you might not like the messenger here, and I know in this day and age, bipartisanship doesn't really happen, but I hope you hear my words, and I hope you know that we do care. We really do.

And if you put this in place, I think it will lead to unintended consequences. And everybody can pat their backs and say, you know what? We did something, shock went up. But you won't. You'll have made it worse. And with that, we're strongly against this bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there anyone else in opposition? Name and organization?

Rick Travis, California Rifle Pistol Association. We're coming up on our 150th anniversary. And for those of you that may not know us, other than people that back firearms in California, the first two words for 150 years have been Be Safe. We were the first organization to bring firearms safety, and yet we're often away from the table. And we will make the same thing. On the subject of suicide, we work very diligently with the people who are the end users to make sure that that doesn't happen. And we would love to work with the author, and we'll reach across on that, but for the way this is currently set up, we're in opposition.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? With that, we'll bring it back to Committee for any questions, comments. Seeing none, you may close.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just adding a couple statistics. Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the US. Fourth leading cause for males under 65, and 7 out of 10 veteran deaths are suicide.

Gun related homicides rose 52%, and aggravated assaults rose by 64% in 2021. The situation is dire. So to have safeguards in place of when a gun holder gets those rights back and to have the gun store have skin in the game seems prudent to me. And gun owners, gun stores sell the gun initially. They know that when that gun leaves that store, violence might follow it. They know that when they sell it.

So certainly having them take it back when somebody wants to give it back, again, seems prudent. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank everybody for the conversation.

Is there a motion and a second? Chair's recommending an aye. Call the roll.

On SB 368 by Senator Portantino. The motion is do pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee. Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Bonta? Bryan? Aye. Bryan, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Ortega? Ortega, aye. Santiago? Jackson?

Measures on-call needs two more.

Thank you. I will yield my seat to Senator Umberg.

Item number 15, SB 359. Umberg, corrections recidivism reports. Whenever you're ready to begin, Mr. Umberg.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, special thanks to consultant Cheryl Anderson for her hard work on the Bill this afternoon. I believe we're all going to vote on a budget that provides for $14,109,389,000 for the Department of Correction.

What I believe we need to do is we need to collect the data to determine the most efficient use of those resources, one of the most expensive parts of our budget. And that's what SB 359 is about. We require an analysis of credits, credits that are provided to those who are incarcerated to determine what is most effective and what is least effective in terms of the awarding of credits.

Mr. Chair, you and I shared stories about how credits are provided way back in the day when I was elected in 1990. Soon thereafter, I was appointed as the Chair of the Select Committee on Prison Operations for reasons that I still don't understand. But in any event, I was, and I saw that there was a program at Chino State Prison, a diving program, and I thought, "this is nuts", that we are training prisoners to be scuba divers. And what possible benefit could that be State of California?

How could that possibly provide for public safety? So I went to Chino to look at the program. I believe it still exists today. It turns out it wasn't a scuba diving program. What it was was an industrial diving program. And it required quite a rigorous training to be admitted. Very few were admitted. And once admitted, the course was extremely rigorous to train those who were incarcerated to become industrial divers. And afterwards, they almost all received jobs paying in the six figures. And guess what? Guess what?

The recidivism rate was about 6%, which is far, far, far lower than any other program, any other credit that we provide. So it turns out I was wrong. My wife thinks that's a fairly common occurrence, but it turns out I was wrong in terms of the credits and that I thought that this was some foolishness. Turns out it wasn't foolishness.

But what we need to do is we need to figure out, I think, the relationship between credits specifically, but also some other variables and what that means in terms of recidivism. Your staff, Mr. Chair has provided some excellent feedback in terms of the items that weren't originally covered that we have amended the Bill. So, for example, the variable as to how much attention an individual inmate gets in terms of his or her rehabilitative process, That's a variable that's now included. It's part of the requisite study.

The issue of racial inequity, we know that that exists. What is the difference? What is the difference when two inmates or more are provided similar credits or treated similarly in the outcomes, or if they are treated similarly? That's now incorporated in the Bill into the study. What post-release availability is there for other rehabilitative programs? That's now incorporated and required in the study. The concern was that inmates not be identified by name and I think that's a very valuable suggestion. That's also incorporated.

So what this does is simply directs this point directs the Department of Corrections to do this analysis. I am aware that the Department of Corrections has contracted with PPIC to do a study focused on programs, which is important. We should know that as well. This focuses primarily, almost exclusively on credits and how those credits relate to potential recidivism. Other than myself, I have no other witnesses, but I urge aye vote.

Motion to move the Bill.

Any other witnesses in support?

Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC in support.

Thank you. Any witnesses? We've got one more.

Todd Riebe, Amador County District Attorney on behalf of CDA in support.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee for questions or comments. Seeing none. Oh, Mr. Bryan.

Thank you, Senator. And we have been to prison together, and so I know that your-

You may want to explain that.

No explanation needed, the Senator knows.

In fact twice.

And I know that your goals and intentions, especially as you laid out, are noble. This is the kind of work I did prior to being in legislation, creating regression analysis, controlling for omitted variables, trying to find the strongest causal inference that we could between something and a particular outcome.

I have high skepticism of CDCR being able to compile that data and do kind of the requisite analysis needed to determine whether the linkage between somebody's recidivism has anything to do with the credits or the unemployment rate more broadly, or the time of year they were released or where they were released to, or parole conditions and variations in parole.

I mean, I could think of like, 50 additional variables that I think a number of academics could control for and think about in a setting that I don't know that I trust the Department to do. I certainly don't know that I would want to give them more money to do something that I don't know that I trust that they can do.

And so for those reasons, I'm deeply just trying to grapple with this because I know where you're coming from and I think this is something that you and I can work on if it's not successful this cycle. And I'd like to, but I just wanted to make sure that you heard those thoughts from me because I want to support the work that you are trying to do.

I struggle deeply with the way that this is set up and then the kind of authority and autonomy it gives the department to have control in that process.

Okay. Any other comments? You may close.

So, Assembly Member Bryan. Yes. We were in prison twice together, as a matter of fact, and I understand and take heed of your concerns.

I think there are a number of variables, and I'm not a scientist, but I do think we need to take into consideration and control for the variables plus others that you've suggested. In terms of CDCR. I have no passion for CDCR doing the study. The issue, of course, is whatever data is collected, whether it's by PPIC or by RAND or by whatever organization, it comes from the Department of Corrections.

And I don't think there's any way to get around the Department of Corrections being engaged and involved. And I'm willing to certainly take an amendment to have, for example, LAO do the study. I do believe it should be some state institution, and maybe it's a sad commentary on whatever, that we don't trust the Department of Corrections, but ultimately we do have to trust them to provide the data. So if someone is more comfortable if the chair is more comfortable, if you're more comfortable with LAO doing it.

It is my view, though, that is a state responsibility and the state should do the study. And that the study as I mentioned, I'm particularly interested in credits, but all these things should be analyzed. We're spending a tremendous amount of money, and the issue is incredibly important. With that, I urge an aye vote.

Okay. We discussed it, and I have a study looking exactly into that. It's been going on for years now.

There are at least three members of this Committee that sit on public safety budget that are extremely, extremely frustrated at the lack of participation, at the lack of cooperation, at the outright disrespect for the legislature that CDCR has had, where we've asked for information, budgetary information, and they've shown up. "They", meaning CDCR, and have not given us the information, and basically flaunted their noses at us and said, "we'll get around to it when we get around to it". That is what the real flaw.

You've never sat on that Committee. I've been on Public safety budget for 10 years asking for the same information. I would guess you will not get your answer from CDCR. That's how frustrated I am. That's why I cannot let CDCR be in charge of getting information. They will stonewall you and you will get frustrated, and you'll be where I am at right now. I don't know if it's management, I don't know what's going on over there because they won't let us know what's going on there.

That's why we wanted an outside group doing it and doing the study. As the Assembly Member said, if you're talking about regression analysis and doing the kind of causal relationship data that you need to collect, I'm not even sure we can do it internally. We may have to get people from the outside to come and help, and that's why we just can't give it to CDCR. It would be a waste of time, it would be a waste of money,

and it's the most frustrating thing I've ever experienced in my entire life. And until they're able to cooperate with the legislature, I'm not even certain we get the information we need, and maybe that's part of it. They don't want to give us the information. At some point, I'm hoping that we can get to a point where we can go inside the department and really find out information that you want to know,

I want to know, Mr. Bryan, everybody wants to know so we can make sure that whatever the R in CDCR is really working. And the only way we're going to find out is getting true, accurate data, but most important, being able to analyze it and unfortunately, right now I can't see CDCR being able to be cooperative with that.

May I respond, Mr. Chair?

No, that was it, sorry. We don't have a lot of time, definitely.

[Roll Call]

That measure fails.

Mr. Chair, can I request reconsideration?

Yes. All right. With no objection. No objection. Unanimous consent.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members.

Mr. Rubio's here, Mr. Cortese beats you by half a second.

Item number seven, SB 94 Cortese. Recall resentencing special circumstances.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. I appreciate you allowing me to present SB 94, which would allow judges the ability to review life without parole sentences for individuals who have served at least 25 years of their sentence and were sentenced for offenses with special circumstances committed before June 5 of 1990. These cases represent a very narrow population that consists of the most elderly individuals behind bars.

Many of these individuals have shown decades of exemplary behavior, participated in extensive positive programming, have devoted themselves to becoming positive members of society. Additionally, research conclusively demonstrates that there is little risk for elderly individuals to reoffend or recidivate upon release. According to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's California Static Risk Assessment Tool, 88% of people serving life without parole have been assessed with the lowest risk score on that scale. Elderly inmates eligible for parole under SB 94 face three levels of intense evaluation.

The judge, the Parole board, and then the Governor would, of course, need to agree that the individual is fully rehabilitated. Statistically, the Parole Board is far more likely to deny parole than granted. The Board only grants parole to about 16% of petitioners inmates who demonstrate their complete rehabilitation under the Parole Board's. Severe scrutiny would then advance to the Governor's review.

We have recently crossed amendments that exclude persons convicted of a crime that resulted in the death of a peace officer, a sex offense in conjunction with a homicide, or of more than two homicides from eligibility under this Bill. So those are completely exempted out. This Bill simply creates a process for the judicial review of cases that have not been looked at in decades. With us today to testify in support, we have Susan Bustamante representing the California Coalition for Women Prisoners, and Natasha Minsker representing Smart Justice. Thank you. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready. Five minutes.

Okay. My name is Susan Bustamante and I am a survivor. I am a survivor of violent crime and I am a survivor of an unjust system. I was molested by my father from the age of 12 to 18. I believe that is how I learned to be a victim and keep my mouth shut. When I was 19, I met my husband and married quickly because he thought he loved me. Sadly, he was a war vet who suffered PTSD and violent rages. He abused me for five years.

It was terrifying. In 1980, my brother killed my husband. I did not ask him to kill my husband. I did not participate in the murder. However, my brother was dead by the time the case came to trial, leaving only me for the District Attorney to target. I was brought to trial in 1987 and convicted under the felony murder special circumstances. Not only had I not killed my husband.

I was not allowed by the court to discuss mitigation based on my over 13 years as a victim of violence, first by my father and then by my husband. It was not allowed by law at the time. I had a two day trial. At the age of 32, I was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, sentenced to die in prison. I was separated from my young daughters. It was heartbreaking.

In prison, I met many women in the same situation that I was. Victims of violent crime themselves, then sentenced to the violence of LWAP, incarceration without end. They are geriatric now, living a walking death sentence, breaking down and getting sick after 31 years. I was blessed with a commutation by Governor Brown. Knowing that my sisters in prison are still suffering violence and injustice motivates me to be here today.

I want them to have hope that they are not forgotten and that there will be a process to prove that they deserve to live free and not be left to die in prison. That is what SB 94 does. It provides hope. It provides a path to justice. I want to thank Senator Cortese for giving us hope. I want to thank those of you on the Committee who will support us today. Thank you for listening. Please vote yes.

Thank you. Are you okay?

Yes. Thank you. Natasha Minsker on behalf of Smart Justice California. SB 94 empowers judges to address sentences that are out of date in light of California's current sentencing laws and to recognize redemption and rehabilitation when it happens. This Bill applies to a small number of people who were sentenced for events that occurred in the in 70s or the 80s. In the 30 to 40 years since these sentences were imposed, California's sentencing law has changed significantly.

We now recognize as a factor in mitigation, that a person who has been a victim of sexual violence, human trafficking, or intimate partner violence should have that considered in their sentencing. We now recognize that youth should be treated differently in our criminal courts. We now recognize that racial bias must be addressed in the criminal courts. Many of the sentences all of the sentences imposed that SB 94 impacts were imposed before these laws were in place.

And so we have people condemned to die in prison who, if they were sentenced today, would receive a very different sentence. SB 94 also recognizes that people change, that people sentenced to die in prison and given no hope, have made an effort to change. And through their hard work, their deep reflection, and often their prayer, they have transformed. Finally, SB 94 reflects and recognizes our faith in judges.

In judges being the people to look at the individual facts and circumstance of a case and decide what is the just and fair sentence to impose. Under this Bill, the judge will have full discretion, full discretion to leave the life without parole sentence in place or to choose a sentence of life with the hope of parole. Those are the only two options, and it's worth emphasizing that this is a three step process.

If the judge resentences the person, they would then go to the parole board for review, a process that takes about 10 months. And if the parole board finds them suitable for parole, they would then go to the governor's office before ever being granted parole. SB 94 applies to a small number of people who range in age from 53 to 87.

This Bill has guardrails to ensure that community safety is considered at every step and provides a fair process and an opportunity for all parties to be heard. We urge you to believe that redemption is possible and to support SB 94. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in support? Name and organization?

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Support. I was asked to read these names into the record. SAU State Council, Drug Policy Alliance, Californians for Safety and Justice, Equality California, Friends Committee on Legislation and Initiate Justice. All in support.

Thank you.

Good morning again. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Lizzie Buchen. Uncommon Law and Prosecutors Alliance of California in support.

Melissa Cosio with Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Rebecca Gonzales, National Association of Social Workers, California Chapter, in support.

Hi, I'm Kelly Savage-Rodriguez with California Coalition for Women Prisoners, a former LWOP. And I have a list of a couple other organizations. Human Rights Watch National LWOP Leadership Council, FUEL Families United to End LWOP, Law Enforcement Action Partnership, then the Arc, FAM, and Centers for Employment Opportunities are in support. Thank you.

Joanne Shearer in support of Felony Murder Elimination Project. We're a proud sponsor of this Bill and we're in full support. Thank you.

April Grayson from the Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, proud co sponsor. We ask for I vote today. Thank you.

Alicia Montero with Californians United for a Responsible Budget, proud co sponsor and support.

Monet Hill, founder and Director of D Hill Foundation, along with my husband, who is serving LWOP. We support it SB 94.

Duke Cooney on behalf of ACLU California action in support.

Nasser Eid on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Jeronimo Cuauhtemoc, policy analyst with Legal Services for Prisoners With Children in strong support. Thank you.

Esteban Nunez with the Anti Recidivism Coalition, a proud co sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Are there witnesses in opposition?

Yes. Whenever you're ready.

Okay. Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Lauren Pettigrew, and I'm with Crime Victims United. Only criminals convicted of the most heinous murders would benefit from SB 94. They are guilty of first degree murder in at least one of the 22 special circumstances. Examples include murder involving rape, torture, multiple victims, murder because of race or religion, even murder of a Legislator. Because of the severity, the law mandates a minimum sentence of life without parole. This is a voter enacted law.

Victims and families were promised by a judge that the killer would never be released and they will never have to fight for justice to a parole board. I'm one of those families. My brother was a victim of a special circumstance murder, and his killers are serving life without parole. SB 94 does not apply to cases after 1990 because of the difficult two-thirds vote needed to overturn the California voters.

Instead, SB 94 feels like a stepping stone towards eliminating every life without parole sentence and getting the sponsor's son who murdered my brother out of prison. Who does this help? Killers like Michael H, who murdered his pregnant wife and mother of four to cash out on life insurance policy in 1981. Michael's death sentence was recently overturned because of his traumatic childhood. He is 71 and serving life without parole.

Another killer, Kenneth R, kidnapped and murdered six year old Jeffrey in 1981, and in 1986, kidnapped and murdered another six year old boy, Miguel. The murders were recently solved through DNA. Both families waited 40 years for justice. SB 94 allows killers to petition after 25 years, meaning Kenneth could spend more time free from punishment than in custody. At Kenneth's hearing, the judge will not review what he did to those little boys.

The judge will only be presented with sympathetic information about his difficult childhood and his advancing age. What about the victims childhoods that he stole and their young age? The author is under some misconception about inmates aging out of committing crimes. That is a fantasy. Newspapers are full of stories of parolees in their 50s, 60s and 70s committing horrific acts. There is no age limit on evil.

If this Bill passes, families will have to fight to be resentenced, will have to fight at a resentencing hearing, possibly two times over the next six years, then spend the rest of their lives reliving the whore of opposing parole, face to face with these killers. It only ends when the killer is released or dead. Sadly, the victims probably have no idea about this Bill. Recent amendments cherry picked out two special circumstances and made some of the murderers who have multiple victims ineligible.

People like Charles Manson or someone who tortured and stabbed two toddlers to death would still be eligible to file an SB 94 petition. SB 94 states that if these cases were tried today, the life without parole sentence would not be imposed. That is false. Beneficiaries of this Bill will be giving leniency that current convicted murderers do not get today, because of Penal Code 1385.1, a prisoner's sentence is about justice and real punishment on which we should be able to depend on. Victims have a constitutional right to finality. I ask that you do not let this Bill move forward.

Thank you.

Yes, sir, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Todd Rebie and I'm the District Attorney of Amador County, speaking on behalf of CDA in opposition to SB 94. Despite recent amendments, SB 94 continues to bypass the will of the people of California who voted to prohibit the dismissal of special circumstances in 1990. With Proposition 115, SB 94 continues to impose substantial and necessary impacts upon an already overwhelmed judicial system.

Worse, SB 94 limits access and extends the wait time for people who have committed far less serious crimes to seek resentencing. SB 94 continues to do nothing to weed out those people who have demonstrated at least some factors of redemption and rehabilitation from those who have done nothing or next to nothing. SB 94 continues to retraumatize the families of murder victims with up to three resentencing hearings for people they were promised would never get out, opening old scars and psychological wounds.

SB 94 continues to ignore the will of a unanimous jury, the sentencing judge and appellate courts who reviewed all the evidence and applied all the applicable laws in sentencing the petitioner and reviewing their case. SB 94 continues to claim that it is necessary when petitioners sentenced to LWOP already have the appeal process, the writ process, the resentencing process by Penal Code Section 1170(d)(1), and the clemency process. Lastly, SB 94 is unbalanced in its Administration of the law, completely ignoring victims and their families. In fact, if you look at that Bill, you won't find the word victim anywhere, not once. For these reasons, CDA urges this Committee to vote no on SB 94. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? Name and organization, please.

My name is Ethan Lee; I'm with the California Family Council and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you, sir.

Chairman Members Jonathan Belbin with the California Police Chiefs Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Good morning. Patrick Espinosa on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and San Diego District Attorney Summer Stefan in opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Corey Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Sharon Pettigrew. My son, David Pettigrew was murdered. And I strongly oppose SB 94.

Thank you.

Daniel Munzer, I'm the family of a murdered victim, and I strongly oppose.

Thank you, sir.

Nancy Rooney of San Francisco, family member of a murder victim, and I strongly oppose.

Thank you, ma'am.

Alexis Taylor, Sacramento, friend of murder victim, strongly opposed.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Carl London, on behalf of Crime Victims United in opposition to this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dan Owens, San Diego Deputy Beauty District Attorneys Association in San Diego, against crime standing with victims in opposing the Bill.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff Association, also representing the police officer associations Arcadia, Burbank, Claremont, Corona, Culver City, Fullerton, Marietta, Newport Beach, Nevada, Palos Verdes, Pomona, Riverside, Santa Ana, Upland, the California Reserve Peace Officers Association and the deputy sheriff associations in Monterey and Placer County. All in opposition. And today, also in opposition, the office of Placer County District Attorney Morgan Geyer. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC and the California Association of Highway Patrol in opposition, thank you.

Thank you. Any others in opposition? We'll bring it back to Committee for Mr. Lackey.

Yes, if I could. This question is for Mr. Rigby. SB 94 states that proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs greatly in favor of dismissing the special circumstance unless the court finds that the petitioner is currently an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety. What is the technical definition of unreasonable risk of danger standard? And how could it be proven in court?

I believe it's an 1170 of the penal code, and what it says is 1170.18. And it lists a small category--

Speak into the mic.

Which we refer to as super strikes.

So that everybody can hear you.

Sorry. If we can't prove that they're likely to commit them, it's very difficult to overcome that presumption, that burden. Now, certainly they've committed one of those with a murder, but albeit it's been broken up by at least 25 years. So at least we have that going. If you're trying to stop a release and you can also take a look at institutional behavior, you can also take a look at their programming. Have they committed any other crimes since they've been incarcerated?

But you're right, it is a very difficult burden for the prosecution and for victims and victims' families to overcome that burden by showing that there are current unreasonable risk of danger to public safety as defined.

So it's quite unlikely. Senator Cortese, LWOP inmates are exempt from many rehabilitation programs, as you know. And now, all of a sudden, isn't it possible that we'll be sending people to the parole board, and likely even released, who have spent at least 25 years without any rehabilitation treatment?

Well, thank you for the question, Assembly Member. The way that the Bill actually works. The process actually works is step one would be a petition to a judge qualifying that individual that you're speaking of to begin the parole process, to get into the process of parole hearings. At which point, as you aptly point out certain rehabilitation programs in our prison system, which is a system predicated on the possibility of rehabilitation. Those programs would then take effect.

One of the problems that we have right now is that we have inmates. And you heard Ms. Bustamante talk about that, who are in CDCR, who essentially have no possibility of even getting into basic rehabilitation programs like work programs and other kinds of programs that would be available. So we think it's a good thing that inmates in certain circumstances, if a judge feels that that's appropriate under the circumstances, would now be eligible for those very programs that you're pointing out.

I find this to be very disheartening, and it shows the imbalance that we've come to and this consideration and the over focus on offenders. We hear a lot about the talk of change, and it refers only to offenders because it dismisses victim consideration. What hasn't changed and doesn't have the ability to change is the finality of many of these offenses, including death. And I find this to be an imbalance in our consideration. And I think it's unfair. And I'm just tired of it.

I'm tired of it. And I think that the citizens of this great state and country are also tired of it. And I think that we need a more balanced consideration. Everybody, this is extreme. We're talking about life without the possibility of parole. That was the sentence. What changed in the victim's world? You tell me what changed in the victim's world, and I'll say very little, especially if they are no longer alive.

So I find this to be an unreasonable proposal, and it will go without my support.

Mr. Allenys.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, for the author, Senator, how did you come up with the set of circumstances of those that were ineligible for this Bill?

Know, we've worked on a different version of this Bill that was, I guess one way to put it would be more broad in the last two year session. And frankly, it was brought to our attention that the exemptions around peace officers, certain public officials, was important. It was very important to people. People here in the legislature weren't ready to proceed even with a basic petition for consideration around those particular circumstances.

So essentially, in the last two year session, the predecessor to this Bill, we amended out those provisions, or I stood on the fore and committed to doing that. And in this Bill, we've now done the same thing.

Thank you. And obviously, some of the Member Lackey, and I coming from law enforcement, appreciate that portion. But I also want to thank those that came up who were victims or families were becoming victims that came up and spoke here today. I also want to address that. What about their families? Are they not as good as a police officer that was killed or all the other circumstances? This is a big thing that comes up to all these victims.

And I'm sure if more people knew about this, they would be flooding the hallways to be here and testify that they're in opposition of this. But one thing I also want to point out with the law enforcement portion for a peace officer to be killed. It used to be a death sentence. But California, we changed that. So now it is life without parole.

And for the families that got that life without parole, not even for law enforcement, just for any circumstance that happened, that was the sentence that was okay at the time. And unfortunately, or fortunately, that's what they had to deal with. But I see this as us re victimizing families again with our own system, with our own government. One other thing I want to point out, and I'm sorry, I'm not really asking you questions with CDCR.

Is there actually, I guess this is a question, how do we plan to maybe ask them or prepare them if this Bill does go forward to have programs available for people who have life without parole? Because I'm assuming CDCR isn't providing those programs, because why should they? These people aren't going to come out anyways. They're not going to need to be rehabilitated. So is there a plan for that?

Yeah, those programs exist when there is the possibility of parole. Currently, I think that's what Mr. Lackey was pointing out and what this Bill does or would do is that upon in those rare cases where a judge would allow a change from LWOP to life with parole, That's the difference. That's what the Bill allows. In those rare circumstances where a judge would say, this person now, after 25 years, at 55, 60, 70 years old, whatever the case may be, is now eligible for parole.

It isn't really a rehabilitation program for somebody with LWOP any longer. It's just the rehabilitation program for somebody who now has a sentence of life with parole. And those programs exist now, so it makes them eligible. And I don't know what good it does to anyone, with all due respect to every horrible tragedy that's occurred, to deny somebody who's in for life the opportunity in a rehabilitative system to participate in rehabilitative work while incarcerated. But, that's the idea with that.

It's not something That's really emphasized in the Bill, but that's the way that would work. As to your comment or question about finality, obviously we heard the first witness today talk about having her sentence commuted. It was an LWOP sentence in states across the United States, I believe all 50 states, but don't quote me on that. But in places like Florida, for example, governors commute sentences. Governors from both political parties commute sentences.

So finality is not something that exists fundamentally as has been put forward in any sentence. We had a witness here today that testified that she was in for LWOP. She had a particularly, I think, unusual set of circumstances that had a judge been allowed at some point to consider her petition, judge may have come to the same or similar conclusion.

A judge would not have been able to commute her sentence or release her, but he would have been able to say, you're at least eligible for parole hearings now, and Ms. Bustamante would have been able to engage in rehabilitation programs and start going through the parole process. And should the parole board count her as one of the 16% that they grant parole to, she would then have the opportunity to get before the Governor.

So it would have done in three steps for Ms. Bustamante what she was so fortunate to be the beneficiary of, to use somebody's word, in one step with a Gubernatorial commutation. But either way, I get it from a victim's standpoint, there is no finality in the without parole part there. But that is our system. And I think people have said here in the hearing today, That's not our system, but it is, in fact, our system.

So we are creating a three step process that simply allows judicial discretion where at sentencing time, none occurred. Ms. Bustamante's facts, once a jury decided that under the special circumstances sentencing scheme that she was guilty of the crime, the judge had no power, no ability to alter that to with parole, even though she had, by her own testimony, a significant, if not almost nonexistent actual role, factual role in what happened.

Again, in the rare circumstance that somebody can get a petition granted, we don't even know the judge is going to grant the petition, get the petition granted, get before the judge, and have the judge look at a set of facts like that and say, I think we need to start getting you before a parole board. We think that should happen. But nobody here is judging that anyone should be released in terms of authorship of this Bill.

Nobody here by any means is judging that these most heinous and horrible circumstances with perpetrators who have offended, where judges are extraordinarily unlikely to be sympathetic, that that should be changed. And nobody's changing the special circumstances law here in this Bill. We're just saying allow that step of a pre petition and a hearing at a judicial level to see if parole makes sense.

Okay, I may have one more question of the opposition. Lauren, I'm sorry for your circumstances while you're here, were you ever maybe notified by CDCR? Did you ever know that there would be any hearings or anything like that in your circumstances?

So because all three people that are convicted of first degree murder, special circumstance that killed my fellows, they all received life without parole, I'm not registered to be notified about a parole or release for any of them. So if this Bill were to go into effect, all those people for the cases, those people before 1990 or earlier, none of them are registered to be notified.

So they're not going to even know that there's a parole board hearing because they were told they would never be paroled or released. I'm not registered. I don't think that they would be.

One second. So, Mr. DA, do you have a solution to that on your end, maybe for the victims?

Well, it's a regulation that the Office of Victim Survivor Rights and Services within CDCR has. It's a regulation that they've imposed that you have to be registered in order to be notified of an upcoming hearing, which they have the right, under the California Constitution, under Marsy's ought to attend. It's a post sentencing hearing. So they have that right. But again, and Lo and I think very eloquently stated the dilemma. They were told they were never going to get out.

They got life without the possibility of parole. There was no reason to register. And more than 25 or more years have passed tracking them down. We would need more time to do that. And that would come down to the victim witness offices located within the District Attorney's offices or in nonprofits within some counties to do that.

And we would have to get around that regulation, which is the subject of another Bill, I believe it was SB 412, to get around the draconian time limits that they have so we could notify victims that, hey, this is happening. You have the right to be there. You have the right to say your piece.

And do you think your office has the resources to follow up with all that?

Wow. All the DA's offices are struggling statewide with the number of prosecutors recruiting and retaining. It's a problem with defense attorneys, with public defenders as well. So I would have to say we would try the best that we could to make it a priority and we would get the job done, but we would have to have some release from CDCR on these draconian time limits that they impose.

Thank you. And Senator, I'm sure you know where I'm leading to if you want to.

I just wanted to get on the record because I'm not sure if it was clear coming the fact that, number one, we're sympathetic absolutely to victim notification and victim rights to be at a post conviction hearing. I wanted to ask Ms. Minsker to just explain the amendment we've done thus far.

And certainly if the District Attorney or somebody else has something else that we can put in as an augmented notification process that's very consistent with the intent of the Bill, nobody's trying in this Bill in any way, shape or form to get around victims participation in hearings or victims rights. We respect those deeply, as well as the dilemma they find themselves in.

SB 94 has been amended. The Bill, in print, reflects this language, that any proceeding under this Bill is considered under Marsy's law in the California Constitution to be a post-release proceeding, and that the provisions of the Constitution must be followed. The Bill now specifically states what that means, that the District Attorney must notify the victims that have requested notification, and also that the court must give victims an opportunity to be heard.

This, again, is for victims who requested to be notified, but at the time, they don't even think that there's going to even be something to request because it's life without parole.

Well, as Senator Cortese has said, all of these cases are also subject to Governor action through commutation. And so it's really an individual choice. Some of the victims have registered because they know that there is the possibility of Gubernatorial action and some have not. And it really reflects the diversity of range of victims' views. I will say that we're absolutely, as Senator Cortese said, the Senator remains open to discussion.

So if there are specific language related to victim notification or participation that would address these concerns, absolutely, the Senator is open to hearing those suggestions.

Well, I think it would only be fair that in the Bill that there is something written that you have to at least make some kind of intent to find and seek out these victims, to notify them, instead of just leaving it blank, like, zero, they should come to us. Again. Like I pointed out, I'm sure we would have had a long line of victims here opposing this, but not everybody knew about that. So I would suggest at least maybe adding that to your Bill as well. Thank you.

Ms. Ortega.

Just had a quick question for the author. Does this Bill automatically let anyone out of prison?

No.

Can you elaborate more?

This Bill allows someone on LWOP to petition for a judicial hearing which may or may not be granted based on the merits of the petition. If granted, it then becomes the discretion of the judge whether to take any action on the petition. And the only remedies available for that judge, the only action available, would be, in effect, to change LWOP to life with the possibility of parole. So, no release. The judge can't release anyone under this Bill.

Mr. Bryan.

Thank you, Senator, for bringing this, and thank you for that question. I'm going to follow the same line of questioning. So this does not require the judge to do anything. Let's say the judge does resentence to life with the possibility of parole. Does that automatically release anybody?

No. And as a matter of fact, as I noted in the presentation, I think currently the parole board qualifies about 16% total of those that go before the parole board for hearings for potential release. And even they can't release that has to go to the Governor for ratification. As we saw recently with Sirhan Sirhan, that did not happen. Now. He was not LWOP. He was obviously eligible for parole from day one, as I understand it. But the point being that the Governor has the final say. So there's literally, in this case, checks and balances. From the judicial side to the administrative parole hearing side, to the executive branch. Three levels of checks and balances.

Let me make sure that I've got this process correctly. Somebody has been sentenced to LWOP after nearly three decades. Two and a half decades. They could then petition the courts. Only then the courts would hear it if they had special circumstances in the petition or things that added clarity to the case.

For example, as was mentioned in the testimony and victim being written in the Bill, if they were a victim of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, human trafficking or anything of that, the judge could then after finding all of these things out, reviewing all the cases, reviewing all the data from the Department, decide to resentence life without the life without the possibility of parole to with parole, which then you would then petition to the parole board or to have your parole date.

They only hear 16% of people who petition to the board. They then could approve you to be released, but then has to be confirmed by the Governor, who has shown the current Governor to not always do that. That would be the only way to eventually come home after at least 25 years.

That's right. And because these are pre-1990 crimes, in most cases, as I think Ms. Minsker said in her testimony, just doing the math, you're dealing with an age group that is essentially 53 years or older. Right now. We don't know when petitions would be heard. Bill obviously wouldn't take effect until 2024.

Obviously, just as an actuarial issue, people are going to get older and older and older under this Bill, because this Bill doesn't have any provision for moving beyond 1990 crimes and crimes committed before 1990. And That's the same whether or not there's a late conviction or a subsequent conviction or not. I'm just talking about the age of these defendants. So if you're convicted today and you're 71 years old, you've got 25 years to go on a pre-1990 crime. So now you're 96.

And 96, you can petition the judge and say, I qualify for a hearing. The judge may not even agree with that. If he does, then everything you said in your recap would take place at 96 years old, maybe 97 by the time the hearing occurs, that individual can begin rehabilitation and getting before the parole board.

I don't know how you can be more measured in this approach. And I don't know how we account for situations like Ms. Susan and many, many others without these potential options, this one having many, many safeguards by many, many stakeholders. I'm happy to support today and thank you for bringing it before us.

Thank you. Is there any more comments or questions you may close, Mr. Cortese?

First of all, I want to thank everyone for the discussion and for the great points some of you have offered up, including the opposition testimony. Things that we're willing to keep looking at. We've looked and amended, looked and amended to try to make sure that we aren't having any unintended consequences here.

Again, on the victim's notification issue, we would like to do whatever is within the scope of this Bill or perhaps follow with another Bill if it has to be a separate scope to deal with a more affirmative notification process. It's not something that we created with the Bill, obviously, but we understand how that works in some tension with the Bill. That said, I appreciated some of Bryan's comments that the Bill is measured. We've worked on it a long time.

We've taken in this kind of debate and discussion and input now with some version of this Bill over the last two and a half years, literally Member by Member by Member through the Senate and the Assembly Committee by Committee by Committee. And aside from the notification issue, which, again, we're happy to tackle further, I don't know how much more measured we could be to allow this balance of checks and balances. So folks do not get the possibility of parole who shouldn't?

But to allow folks that are like or witness Ms. Bustamante, to have that opportunity. And if one person per year, per decade needs and deserves that opportunity because of the underlying circumstances of the case, this Bill will provide that opportunity, but not to others. And That's what we'd like you to consider. Thank you. and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Evidently, it was a lively discussion and a lot went on, and I want to thank you for being here today. It takes a lot of courage to come before this Committee, and you brought to light something that I think Mr. Cortese is going to take to heart about notification. This is probably the fourth or fifth time notifying victims has been a concern by victims bringing it to us. So I think that's something we not think I know That's something we need to really work on that. Is there a motion? Call the roll.

On SB 94 by Senator Cortese. The motion is do passe to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure passes.

Thank you all very much.

I believe Senator Amen is here. Item number 11, SB 241.

Number 11, SB 241.

Okay, we're going to get to item 11, SB 241. Senator Min. You have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. I'd like to start by just saying we are accepting the Committee's amendments. SB 241 would require firearm dealers and their employees to complete regular training that covers federal and state laws governing the sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition, including how to recognize indicators that an individual may intend to use a firearm for fraudulent activity, unlawful purposes or self harm, for theft and burglary prevention.

Rules of self handle, firearm handling and storage, and other reasonable business practices to deter gun trafficking or the unlawful use of firearms. Access to guns has been repeatedly shown to be a critical driver of chronic violence. And as we all know, while illegal guns are often behind crimes, they often begin as legal firearms, initially sold by dealers and then subsequently funnel into an illegal market.

While gun dealers are considered first in line to maintain the secure and lawful transfer of firearms, there's currently no training requirements for gun dealers and their employers on how to engage in responsible business practices or to recognize signs of illegal activities. We have similar training requirements for food handlers, for Responsible Alcoholic Beverage Dispensing, and for other practices under California's Division of Occupational Health and Safety specific to different types of industries.

SB 241 would put requirements in place for training, and obviously, guns and ammunition can result in awful things happening. This would establish guardrails at the point of sale and bring gun dealers under the umbrella of professional training practices to promote responsible gun ownership and prevent fraudulent activity. I have with me today Tanya Schardt, Senior Counsel and Director of State and Federal Policy with the Brady Campaign to testify in support of SB 241.

Thank you. You have five minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Tanya Schardt here from Brady in strong support of SB 241. We train food handlers, bartenders, we require hotel and motel workers and transportation workers to be aware of possible human trafficking. And yet, gun dealers who play a critical role in preventing gun violence in our communities are not trained. They act as gatekeepers. And their conduct has a direct bearing on whether guns are diverted to the illegal market or into the hands of those who should not have them.

And yet, neither dealers nor their employers are required to have regular, substantive training to prevent dangerous sales and gun trafficking, which outlines their obligation to engage in responsible business practices and to comply with state and federal law.

This would simply require that they be trained on things, including federal and state laws governing the sale and transfer of firearms and ammunition, how to recognize and identify straw purchasers and other fraudulent activities, and how to recognize and identify indicators of someone who might be high risk, how to prevent theft or burglary of firearms and ammunition.

Not only is this training common sense because it will benefit public health and safety, but it will also provide tools to the dealers and their employees to ensure that they are acting reasonably and in compliance with the law. This legislation is critical to curbing dangerous sales, preventing guns from being diverted into the criminal market, and reducing the likelihood of straw purchases, theft, burglary and loss of inventory. Long term, this will save countless lives, and we respectfully request your support for SB 241. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support?

Sorry. Here as a volunteer with the Brady Campaign Sacramento Chapter in support.

Lizzie Buchen, Prosecutors Alliance of California, in support.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in support.

Liz Russell with Moms Demand Action and gun violence survivor in support.

Becky Rena Moms Demand Action volunteer, in support.

Jillian King, volunteer, Moms Demand Action, in support.

Julie Chapman, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Yara Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action in support.

Georgine Redmond, volunteer for Moms Demand Action in support.

Clare Senchyna, volunteer, Moms Demand Action, Everytown Survivor Network, survivor of gun violence, support.

Ermilita Bruce, Moms Demand Action volunteer, I support.

Kim Howard, volunteer with Moms Demand Action for support. Thank you.

Mary Lou Rossetto, volunteer, Moms Demand Action in support.

Bridgette Jakubowicz, volunteer with Moms Demand Action and public school teacher in support.

I'm Leslie Liu, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I'm in support.

Thank you. Anyone here in opposition, come on up to the table.

Thank you. Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. It's good to see you again. Been here all day. For the record, my name is Michael Findlay, Director of government relations with the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Again, we are the National Trade Association for America's firearm manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, retailers, and ranges. I said this earlier to Senator Portantino when he had a very similar Bill and I want to say this to the sponsors as well. We'd like to extend the olive branch and work together on this.

No one wants to see a prohibited person or a person that shouldn't have a firearm obtain a firearm. We have put together programs that are designed specifically to stop the things outlined in this Bill. One of our programs, for instance, is "Don't lie for the other guy". It's designed to train retailers and their employees about how to stop people who come in and potentially are doing a straw purchase for somebody else.

We also have our Operation Secure Store, where we work with specialists, we work with consultants, work with the ATF, Department of Justice on the federal level, to educate retailers and ranges on how to make sure that their stores are safe so that once again, firearms don't fall into the hands of those who should not have them.

We also have a program where we partner with the ATF, where we match the reward on any information leading to the arrest of those perpetrators who burglarize a store and steal firearms. So, again, I want to extend the olive branch to the Senator and the sponsors of this Bill and say, we're willing to work with you and do things that matter. There are a couple of issues with this Bill. Definitions matter, and one of them is handling with it.

You say in there that employees that handle firearms will be subject to this training. Handling is a very broad definition, especially in California, given the recent redefinitions of precursor parts and how that is defined as firearms. So if you're a janitor and you're moving around grips, you're moving around anything, you're subject to training, it's very unclear on that. The Department of Justice, while they are an enforcement agency, do they have the expertise to put down these programs in place?

And the indicators, quite frankly, that one of the witnesses testified to, it's not based in science. One of them, for instance, is if you come into a gun store with one or more people, That's an indicator that you might be their first raw purchase. That's not based in science, and that's not what the ATF and what our training does when we give it to every one of our members, it's very detailed.

It's based upon science and years and years worth of both experience in the industry as well as working with our federal law enforcement agencies. This doesn't have that. Another one is if you're on a communication device, it's an indicator.

So if you go in there and you're trying to get some advice for what's the best type of shotgun for duck hunting, because I haven't done that before and I want to know the difference between these two different brands, all of a sudden this Bill would say, you know what, employee--you have to flag them as potential straw purchase and would trigger reporting requirements on it.

There's a lot of things I think, it's a good intention Bill, but I think we can work together and do a voluntary incentive-based programs. Instead of just saying, "You have to do this, do this, do this," which we constantly see. Why don't we work together? Why don't we say, "Okay, these are our programs that we have." For instance, when we worked with ATF and we said, "You're going to put out a reward to find out who made these thefts, we will match it."

We match those rewards from ATF out of our own pockets. What about things like that approaches as opposed to, hey, there's a janitor in your store. He's going to move a couple of grips around and all of a sudden he's going to need this training that he doesn't really handle, sell firearms, but all of a sudden he's going to be subject to the fees associated with that, the time that it takes, and it's going to be a barrier to entry for employment.

These are all real issues. And I know it's real easy just to sit here and especially in California and just say, "You know what? We're just going to do this, this and this and you know what, the gun industry, they'll just have to live with it because of whatever." I'm telling you. We're willing to work with you. We have on the federal level, we do in other states. But instead of just making it a California approach, we take just knowledge from the DOJ in California.

Why don't we work with the other 49 states, knowledge that we've accumulated there and on the federal level, work together and do a voluntary Senate-based program-

Your five minutes.

Okay, great. Again, for the definitions in this Bill and other things, we're willing to work with the Committee, the sponsor, as well as the proponents of this Bill.

But to do something in a mandatory fashion with unclear definitions, with quite frankly, indicators that aren't backed within science is just going to do more harm than it is good so for that or the industry is against this Bill. And thank you for your time. Thank you.

Move the Bill.

So opposition, any other name and organization? Opposition? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee Members for questions or comments. Seeing none. You may close Mr. Min.

If I could just take a moment to respond to the comments raised, the questionnaire that we're requiring, the training we're requiring has not been developed yet so we'd be happy to work, and I'm sure the DOJ would be happy to work with anybody to help develop the best questions that could be asked. So I think a lot of your testimony, sir, was really premature as far as our ability to pass federal legislation.

Obviously this body does not have authority to pass legislation on behalf of all 50 states and so we're passing laws only that affect California. I just want to take issue with one statement that you made, sir, which is that you said that we should adopt a voluntary incentive-based program for training. I just take issue with that. We have a gun crisis in this country. We know that gun violence is outrageously high. We have more deaths by exponentially higher factor than any other civilized country.

We need to take steps to reduce that gun violence. I owe that to my constituents. I think the members that support this Bill, that supported the Senate, recognize that same obligation we have to our constituents to try to reduce gun violence. So look, we have a problem, this, it's not going to solve the gun violence problem, but it will help and it is completely consistent with other aspects of law that we have around food handling, around a whole bunch of other stuff.

So with that, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion. Chair is recommending an aye call.

[Roll Call]

That measure passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Archuleta is next.

Item 22, SB 602.

Item 22, SB 602. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Assembly Members. Thank you for being here today. And this bill is probably a very light bill compared to what you've been hearing all day. So let me start off once again by saying thank you. And today I'm presenting Senate Bill 602, which will help our local governments deal with public nuisance and graffiti issues by extending the operating time frame for trespassing letters of agency from 30 days to 12 months.

The bill also extends the time frame for these letters from 12 months to three years if the property is closed to the public and posted as being closed, as well as authorizes electronic submissions of these letters. Cities and their law enforcement agencies are currently required to obtain an updated letter every 30 days from property owners to continue trespassing abatement. However, it can be difficult for local governments to obtain letters of agency in a timely manner from unresponsive or absentee property owners.

The results in police departments having to detect and put valuable staff hours and time and resources for this administrative purpose instead of doing the things that we asked them to do and keeping California safe. Senate Bill 602 will improve peace officers responsive capabilities and provides more convenient and accessible mechanisms for property owners to participate in efforts to keep our cities clean and safe. The purpose of this bill has received unanimous support, bipartisan support, and has no opposition.

With me today, I have Jason Gonsalves on behalf of the City of Bellflower in my district and Lieutenant Julio De Leon with the Riverside Sheriffs, to testify on behalf of the Bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Paul Gonsalves, Jason Gonsalves's younger, better looking brother here on behalf of the Cities of Bellflower, who's the sponsor of the bill, but also the Cities of Paramount, Lakewood, Wildomar, Rosemead, Banning, Hawaiian Gardens, Norwalk, and Whittier, all in support of the bill. The Senator did a great job. I really have nothing else to add to it. I know it's been a long day, so we'll just respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Committee. My name is Lieutenant Julio De Leon. I'll also keep it short. On behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianco from Riverside County, we are pleased to support SD 602, provides law enforcement a valuable tool to enhance public safety of our residents by allowing law enforcement to enforce mismanage trespass laws on private property on behalf of and with the consent of an absent owner.

This bill also standardizes what is commonly referred to as the trespass letters throughout the state and makes them more accessible to property owners by allowing them to submit those requests electronically. SB 602 does not create a new crime, does not increase any criminal or civil penalties. It just enhances the current system that we currently have on the books.

What it does do, it extends validity of time for the letters one year to three years, allowing us more time to administer those letters and to keep those letters on file. And it lessens the burdens on business owners and property owners, and it helps mitigate fire dangers by allowing us to enforce trespassing on private property. This does not apply to public property. It does not apply to any publicly owned property.

It only applies, strictly applies, to people who own vacant lots or vacant properties and where the owners are absent. So, on behalf of Sheriff Chad Bianca and Riverside County Sheriff's Office, we ask for your aye votes today. Thank you.

Any witnesses in support?

Good morning. Sharon Gonsalves on behalf of the Cities of Corona and Eastvale. In support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Priscilla Quiroz on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in support.

Jean Hurst on behalf of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, in support.

Michelle Rubalcava on behalf of the City of Paris, located in Riverside County, in support.

Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee Members for any comments or questions. Ms. Bonta.

Thank you Senator, can you speak to the fact that there seems to be a pattern that these types of citations end up leading to pretty significantly citations for unhoused people?

I'm sorry. Would you repeat that a little louder?

Can you speak to the fact that these trespass letters, at a fairly high rate, end up resulting in citations to unhoused people?

Well, here's the situation. Let's assume there's an abandoned building, and it's fenced off. There's a posted sign no trespassing. But the owner of the property obviously is negotiating to sell it, and I want to kind of go through that. And there is a letter posted. When they transfer property, they'll have to start over again.

So that was a question that came up, and I know you didn't ask it, but the letter of agency has to be reinstated, so we got to do it again, so it doesn't go over automatically. That's one thing. The other thing is the fact that because of the fact that I think you might be concerned about the homeless situation or vagrants and so on.

As the law enforcement has mentioned, it is there to protect the community from graffiti and so on, and to be able to allow someone to post and not have to go back every 30 days and continue doing it. So that is the purpose of the bill, and overall, it keeps the communities safer and cleaner. And there are other issues that take place in the community that we're all working on, homelessness and so on. So this has nothing to do with that.

Well, I think there was a report issued by the ACLU that essentially found that 67 of the trespass letters where there were 97 citations issued to unhoused people and 67 resulted from trespass letters of authorization. So there seems to be a pretty high correlation between the issuance of a trespass letter and the ability to essentially then cite unhoused people. So I think that there is a correlation between at least between those.

Well, this also is going to be used to help our people in my communities and your communities to find out who is homeless and who's out there, because then this way, we can have access to them. So it has a positive effect as well, not just the negative. But it also, with all the new housing that we're trying to build, we don't want anyone to be into these properties in an unsafe situation. So we're trying to keep it open, safe for everyone.

Anyone else? You may close.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I think what the Assembly Woman is getting to is making sure that we don't criminalize people who are homeless or houseless

Yes.

And that we don't use this law to perpetuate that. And if there were off ramps or if you were moving people to shelters, you were moving people to places where they can get the help or drug rehabilitation. I think that's kind of where we're getting at, that they don't end up in jail or create a record that makes their houselessness even worse. I think that's what's going. So I would going to vote for it now, but I would seriously ask you to address that in some way, shape, or form as it moves forward.

Yeah. And let me add, I will, in the communities that I serve and all of us serve, we're all working hard to work with the homeless. And the City of Bellflower, who is a sponsor, Whittier, you heard the City of Rosemead. All of them are joining together to help our needy, homeless and work with them. So having the statistics, additional data, we're going to use it, and we're going to use it on a positive.

We have a call to roll.

On SB 602 by Senator Archuleta, the motion is do pass. Jones-Sawyer? Aye. Jones-Sawyer, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Bonta? Not voting. Bonta, not voting. Bryan? Bryan, aye. Lackey? Lackey, aye. Ortega? Santiago? Santiago, aye. Jackson? Jackson, aye.

That measure passes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Committee Members.

Senator Wiener. We're giving you can you ask her for cutsies. No. Can you ask her for cutsies? He has double referred.

He has a double referral.

Yeah. No, the two of you, two of you need to. Yeah, we can do rock, paper, scissors, but I...

Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'm here to present Senate Bill 58 and I want to thank you and your committee staff for working with us. I'm happy to accept the amendments to delay implementation on the decriminalization of facilitated and supportive uses of these substances until a framework and guardrails are formulated. As we've discussed with the committee, we are working and we'll continue to work with the Health Committee, which is the second referral here to flesh out those requirements.

So again, thank you and we're happy to accept the amendments and we'll continue to work collaboratively, of course. Colleagues, SB 58 decriminalizes the possession and personal use of specified amounts of five naturally occurring psychedelic substances psilocybin, psilocyn, DMT, mescaline, and ibogaine, only for people 21 years and older. This is a narrower version of the bill that passed out of this committee last year that also included MDMA and LSD.

We have removed those from the bill and the bill passed out of this committee last year did not have limits on quantity. We placed those limits in the bill in Assembly Health last year and we've maintained them in this new bill. To be clear, SB 58 does not authorize the sale or commercialization of these substances, nor does it permit their use by minors. It applies to 21 and older. This bill simply ensures that people are no longer arrested or prosecuted for possessing or using these substances.

SB 58 is sponsored by the Heroic Hearts Project, a veteran service organization that works with combat veterans to ensure they have effective access to mental health treatment. They typically have to send veterans to other countries to receive psychedelic therapy for their mental health challenges instead of being able to do so here in California because we have criminalized these substances. These substances have significant healing potential and there is growing research showing that potential.

Had the war on drugs not started in the sixties and seventies we would probably be in a much much dramatically more advanced state around psychedelics. But the war on drugs which criminalizes possession and use among other things shut everything down and we lost 40 or 50 years as a result and we're trying to reverse some of that damage. The research also indicates that these substances are not addictive and that is also something to take into account.

So colleagues, I just want to also note the context here that several other states have decriminalized possession and use of these substances including Oregon and Colorado. We actually have several studies coming out of Colorado in particular indicating that post decriminalization of psychedelics, they did not see any increase in emergency room visits or other health problems. They did not see any increases in crime as a result of the decriminalization. Obviously, any substance can have negative impacts, anything and psychedelics are no exception.

I know we'll be hearing today something about that and anytime someone has a bad experience and potentially dies that is a horrible horrific tragedy. But the evidence around psychedelics, especially some of the studies that I know we've distributed show that especially in the Colorado experience that ER visits, crime does not go up as a result and a lot of people benefit. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify are Jason Moore-Brown, who is a US Army veteran with Heroic Hearts Project, and Dr. Nathaniel Mills, a licensed clinical psychologist, and clinical director for the Sacramento Institute for Psychotherapy. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, members. Good morning or almost good afternoon. My name is Jason Moore-Brown. I live in Placer County with my beautiful wife and five children. I have a nice house on a nice piece of property. I've got a master's degree in an obscure area of study. I am a mostly successful entrepreneur. I'm a decorated army officer and a combat veteran. And I tell dad jokes that my wife and kids laugh at sometimes.

In spite of all of my accomplishments, I am still stuck fighting a war that began for me and hundreds of thousands of other service members with the invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003. I served with distinction as an army officer from 2000 to 2008. I deployed three times fighting the global war on terror. My first deployment to Iraq began on April 3, 2003. When I left a year later, I had successfully conducted over 300 combat missions in one of the most heavily contested parts of the country. Statistically, I should have been killed 15 times. During this deployment, I lost six soldiers from my unit and hundreds of others were injured and killed in our battle space. Within a week of returning to the States, one of my soldiers committed suicide. And six weeks later, we lost another to suicide.

As traumatic as that is, nothing has impacted my life more than knowing that I gave orders that some of my soldiers followed to their deaths. That guilt still haunts me to this day more than any of the combat and death I participated in and or witnessed. After leaving the army in 2008, I tried to address my trauma with traditional therapy, with an experimental form of transcranial magnetic stimulation, which did help, exercise, diet, and unfortunately, like a lot of veterans, I addressed my issues with drugs and alcohol.

Some things helped, some things did, and consequently, I have been torturing myself and my family on a lot of levels for the better part of 15 years. This past February, though, I was sent with Heroic Hearts, a nonprofit founded by combat veteran Jesse Gould and the sponsor of SB 58, with six other veterans on a retreat center in Latin America where we had access to plant medicines not readily available nor legal in the US. They've been sending veterans on retreats like this since 2017.

It took me four days of travel, a grant from Heroic Hearts, thousands of dollars of my own, to find a healing that I've been in search of for over a decade. It's almost half my life. It was well worth it. No other treatment has come close to what I experienced in Latin America. Not even close. For context, just this year, I completed a PTSD program with the VA. It took me six months to get into their program. Six months. This is 2023.

I got out of the army in 2008. The program was very helpful to me and to a lot of other veterans, but there are a lot of veterans that can't wait six days to get treatment, let alone six months. The veteran suicide epidemic is still real. According to the VA's most recent report, 6146 veterans committed suicide in 2020. That's just 2020. How many of those lives might we have saved if they had access to plant medicine in the US without the fear of prosecution?

SB 58 is a bill that addresses mental health issues, specifically in communities like mine, veteran communities. But at the end of the day, the suicide epidemic is still so real and relevant, especially to the family members that have lost veterans to suicide, that it really is a public safety issue. And it's a public health issue that needs to be addressed. California is a leader in that area, and it's progressive.

And I hope that you guys will all think of not only my story but the stories of all the family members that have had to suffer, the know, having a veteran come home from combat only to lose them weeks, days, months, maybe even years later, to suicide. And the benefit of these plant medicines is real. I appreciate your time and your consideration. Thank you.

All right, we've got a minute and a half.

Thank you very much. My name is Dr. Nathaniel Mills. I'm a licensed clinical psychologist, clinical researcher, and I've come here today to share with you that psychedelic medicine represents the single most important breakthrough in the treatment of mental health in our lifetimes. We as a society are hurting. One in five of us has experienced a diagnosable anxiety disorder within the past year. 21 million adult Americans in the United States experience major depression.

I'm sure many of us here in this room have experienced anxiety and depression and needed treatment. 47,646 Americans ended their lives last year. We heard a lot about that earlier. We need help. But sadly, the help that's available to us isn't very helpful. Our best estimate suggests that SSRIs, like Paxil, Prozac, Zoloft, the mainstay prescription treatments for depression and anxiety, account for only 2% of change in symptoms. 2%. Now, that may sound shockingly low, but it's consistent with what I've heard from my own patients.

Never in the past 20 years of my clinic have I had somebody come to me and say, Dr. Mills, an SSRI changed my life. I'm cured. But I have lost count of the number of times that I've had people come to my office and say, Dr. Mills, I recently had an experience with a psychedelic, and I think I'm cured.

I've heard patients say that my experience with this plant medicine has been the single most profound and meaningful experience of my life, on par with the birth of my first child. I don't want to drink anymore. I'm ready to get back to work. I'm not sad. I'm not depressed. I am cured. I've heard this countless times about psilocybin and ayahuasca, and I began, I've never heard that about an SSRI. These anecdotal experiences are also consistent with the science.

Psychedelic therapies have been shown to account for 52% of remission of symptoms in PTSD, 63% of remission of symptoms in depression. 63% compared to 2%. That is huge. That is a game changer. And not only are these medicines effective, but they're also safer than most antidepressants out on the market. These medicines outlined in this bill are naturally self-limiting. They're not addictive, even in animal studies. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others in support of the bill? Name and organization.

Mr. Chair and members. Anthony Molina on behalf of New Approach Advocacy and the Law Enforcement Action Partnership, in support. Thank you.

Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association, in support. Thank you.

My name is Dr. Doucet. I'm an Oakland-based immigrant and a Doctor of nursing practice who's been doing public health work with psychedelic use for the last decade. I support SB 58 because I was arrested for psilocybin.

Thank you.

And you need to change the laws. Thank you

Eric Harris. Disability Rights California, in support.

Rebecca Gonzalez, National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, in support.

Lizzie Buchen, Smart Justice California, and Initiate Justice, in support.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the City of West Hollywood, in support. Thank you.

Okay, now, witnesses in opposition.

Good almost afternoon, Assembly Members. My name is Susan Segue and I am new to legislative advocacy, certainly on the state level and I formed the California Coalition for Psychedelic Safety and Education with others as a result of the death of my 21 year old child after the use of Psilocybin. They were a student, a very accomplished aerialist and was accepted at University of California, Davis. Two months after their death, a life truly cut short.

I think they took the Psilocybin in hopes of a therapeutic benefit as the public information suggests, and as I believe after a severe adverse reaction, my child jumped from a bridge to their death. This is not conjecture on our part. They videotaped the entire trip on their iPhone and we can see the adverse reaction when it happened. Before their death, our child was able to buy the Psilocybin in Oakland. I have seen the bag of the mushrooms where they have been purchased.

No instructions were given, no information on the potential for adverse effects, no recommendation to not do it alone. We get more from aspirin and vitamins and I'm not alone. Since my child's death in December, I came to know five other moms who have lost their children to Psilocybin and DMT, and three more last week.

And yet I want everyone here to know that I am propsychedelic use and appreciate their potential for healing benefits and I want to see them used, but I want to see them used safely. The amendments proposed would not have presented my child's death or any of the others. There's no evidence that psychedelics are responsible for even a small portion of drug arrests and we agree we want to see the end to drug war policies.

However, we believe the Californians deserve a safe and responsible policy framework and approach. This Bill provides no safeguards or public information, no medical framework and no protections for vulnerable individuals such as those suffering from mental health conditions in every state but California, the legislatures are either convening advisory boards or committees to study the issue or are simultaneously putting in place a regulatory framework to create guardrails.

We have provided to you letters from experts in the areas of substance and psychedelic use and they are medical and psychiatric and clinical trial experts from UCSF and Stanford and I urge you to look at all of those letters. One of the key issues we have learned from these experts is that the two most impactful factors in predicting an increase in use of substances and an increase in harms from those substances are the ease of access and perception of decreased risk.

Decriminalizing the psychedelics will increase both of these factors without putting in the regulatory framework and the safeguards with them at the same time. This is especially true for young people and these young people and other individuals like the veterans that you all have talked about, are at the greatest risks for adverse consequences and need protections outlined in our amendments. And so I really urge you to oppose this Bill unless it is further amended.

And we are willing to work with the author and the sponsors on those amendments because we do want to see these substances available. But we also believe that in the same time we need to protect people from arrest. We also need to protect the users with proper safeguards, guardrails, and a regulated framework. Thank you.

Thank you.

Very briefly, Beth Parker, also with the California Coalition of Psychedelic Safety and Education, and I'm a healthcare attorney and the aunt of the same child who committed suicide as a result of Psilocybin. I just wanted to emphasize that we submitted letters from four psychiatrists and professors at UCS and Stanford, as well as two PhDs and principal investigators of clinical trials going forth at UCSF.

All of those urge that you oppose unless this is amended and at the same time put in place a regulatory framework, public education, training of first responders, and data tracking. The research right now, although promising, is nascent. It is just begunning, and they are documenting harms such as psychosis, violence and even death, as our family unfortunately experienced. They also show contraindications and exclude from those studies categories of people, those with psychiatric backgrounds or suicidal ideation, cardiac issues and the like.

And all of that must be taken account before we just open the doors and decriminalize substances which are currently undergoing clinical trials and will most likely be approved by the FDA within the next few years once they approve it to be safe and effective and the guardrails are put in place. So with that, again, as Susan said, we urge that you oppose it.

We are willing to work with the author's office and the sponsor to get in place an appropriate regulatory framework at the same time we do narrow decriminalization.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of the City of Beverly Hills, in respectful opposition.

Dan Owens, San Diego Deputy District Attorneys Association and San Diego's against crime, in opposition.

Mr. Chairman Members, Cory Salzillo on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association in opposition.

Todd Riebe Amador County District Attorney on behalf of the California District Attorneys Office Association. In opposition. Thank you.

Ethan Lee, on behalf of the California Family Council, I vehemently oppose this Bill.

Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen in Opposition as well as San Francisco POA. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to bring it. Hi.

Sorry we took a little break and we missed the support line. My name is Nara Dahlbacka. I'm here from Lake County and I'm the Vice Chair of the Lake County Democratic Central Committee. I'm here speaking on behalf of the Alameda County Central Committee, the Lake County Central Committee, and a Coalition of Domestic Violence and PPD Survivors urging your strong support of SB 58.

Thank you now we'll bring it back to Committee Members for Mr. Lackey.

Yeah, just a real brief comment that I think that this bill's path of legalized first and see what happens is way too dangerous and I will not be supporting this pathway.

Thank you. Anyone else?

One I want to thank the witnesses for being here. My older brother is a combat veteran. When he said statistically I should have died 15 times, That's just incredibly powerful.

And I just want to thank you for coming up to the Capitol and sharing that testimony on behalf of this Bill. I think legalized and decriminalized, there's nuance there as well. And I think the author has worked on this for many, many years. It's left this Committee before. I'd like to see it leave today. Proud co author motion to move the Bill.

Yes. So I have a couple questions for the author. I know you mentioned that crime did not go up in Oregon.

Colorado.

The study's from Colorado.

I'm sorry.

It was from Colorado. Okay, so that did not go up. Do you know about so the opposition brought up deaths. Did you see a suicide thing go up or anything like that? As far as research went?

Yeah and by the way, I've met with our opposing witnesses. One of them is a neighbor of mine. And we'll continue to have that engagement. As I said at the beginning and as I've expressed, just to lose one's child in any form and particularly like this is just a horrific tragedy. And I just want to publicly say I'm so sorry for your horrific loss. So the studies and we have the studies, I think we distributed them.

We're happy to send to you after the hearing to there, I think, two that I'm aware of out of Colorado, and they talked broadly about health impacts, emergency room visits, crimes, et cetera. And there was no indication of an increase. And we're happy to send those studies over to you. As I indicated at the beginning, with any substance, there are risks. I'm not here to say that these substances can never be harmful to anyone or no one can ever have a bad reaction.

We also know that a large number of Americans I don't know what the exact number is. I suspect it's in the millions. But whatever the number is, a large number of Americans are using psychedelics today, right now, and have been for many, many years. We criminalized it in the 70s. Didn't stop the use. People have been using mushrooms and ayahuasca people have been using the substances that aren't in this Bill. Molly and LSD, they didn't stop. They kept using it.