Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

60 seconds.

All right. The Senate Committee on Public Safety will come to order. Good morning. Or I should say afternoon. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163, and the access code is 161-8051. We're holding our committee hearings here in room 2200 in the O Street Building. I ask all Members of the committee be present in room 2200 so we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing.

We have one bill on today's agenda, item SJR 7. Before we hear presentations on the bills, let's establish a quorum. Assistant, please call the role.

Wahab? Here. Wahab here. Ochoa Bogh? Here. Ochoa Bogh here. Bradford? Here. Bradford here. Skinner? Here. Skinner here. Wiener? Here. Wiener here.

All right, a quorum has been established. Since I am the only author, I will now pass the gavel to our Vice Chair in order for me to present. Now, Chair Ochoa Bogh will take over. Thank you.

Good afternoon and welcome, Senator Wahab and Assembly Member Jones-Sawyer. You may begin presenting SJR 7.

Thank you. Good afternoon. We are presenting Senate Joint Resolution 7: Right to Safety Resolution. In the early 90s, California began to introduce a number of gun laws to curb the public health crisis surrounding gun violence. Those laws resulted in California cutting its gun death in half. Our gun death rate is the 44th lowest in the nation and 39% lower than the national average as of 2023.

A recent report from Attorney General Rob Bonta's office stated that if the firearm mortality rate in the rest of the United States had matched California between 2013 to 2022, there would have been nearly 140,000 fewer firearm-related deaths nationwide in that decade alone. Clearly, California has been leading on how to reduce gun deaths, but all of our work, and frankly, our lives, is now at risk.

The 2022 Supreme Court decision in the Bruen case not only limits our ability to enact reasonable restrictions on public carry of firearms, but the decision also impacts our ability to enforce and maintain existing gun laws. Firearms are the leading cause of death for children under the age of 18 in the United States. The United States is seeing an average of one mass killing a week, and they have become so commonplace, the media barely covers them anymore.

I support the Second Amendment and an individual's right to bear arms, but if the Supreme Court is going to dramatically expand the right to buy, own and carry firearms, we deserve basic safeguards to protect us against the violence they can cause. To that end, I believe in the balance provided by the four common sense regulations in this resolution. One, raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. Two, mandating universal background checks. Three, instituting a reasonable waiting period.

And four, barring civilian purchase of assault weapons or weapons of war our nation's founders never foresaw. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans across the political spectrum, including gun owners, support these regulations. The resolution calls for a limited constitutional convention to enact these regulations in the United States Constitution and has been carefully drafted to be nullified, should the scope of the convention go beyond the specified measures.

Prior to introducing my witnesses, I would like for the Chair of Public Safety on the Assembly side to say a few words as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I am proud to join my colleague to present SJR 7: the Right to Safety Amendment. With more than 27,000 people having lost their lives to gun violence this year alone, we are on track to outpace 2021's record of over 48,000 lives lost to gun deaths--a record no country should ever break.

As chair of the Assembly Public Safety Committee, I have worked on solid gun reform policies that Californians not only support, but reforms that have a proven track record of saving lives. We cannot sit idly by while conservative activist judges roll back our work and diminish the ability of this body to keep our community safe.

The Right to Life Safety Amendment activates a real national discussion on gun violence and gives all Americans a voice in determining whether we continue down a road that sees innocent Americans slaughtered by weapons of war, or whether we choose sensible gun safety measures. Unfortunately, several days ago, three Black men were shot and killed in Jacksonville, Florida.

The 21 year-old white gunman had posted racist writings online, had been involved in a domestic violence incident that resulted in a 911 call, and had previously been placed on a 72-hour hold for mental health illness. Yet he was still able to purchase his assault weapon, emblazoned with a swastika--completely legal. Were this constitutional amendment been in place, this shooting may have been avoided. The tragedy has sparked a federal hate crime investigation.

SJR safety will strengthen the Second Amendment and ensure people are safe in every community in America. Florida, the state where this racially motivated massacre took place, does not have universal background checks, as called for in the amendment. Had this been in place, law enforcement authorities would have been aware of the shooter's prior involuntary mental health hold. Florida also does not have a prohibition on assault-style weapons, like the AR-15 used to take innocent lives. The amendment would call for a ban on those weapons.

Finally, Florida allows for people as young as 18 to purchase firearms. The amendment recognizes the danger that comes with firearm ownership, would move this up to 21 years of age. These three common sense measures--plus a waiting period after purchase--if replicated on a national scale, would have worked together to prevent the senseless tragedy that took place. This bold-but-fair resolution calls on other states to join us in protecting some of the most effective ways of reducing gun violence.

When we look at all of the pivotal movements in our country, whether it be civil rights for Black Americans, whether it be for voting rights for women, whether it be for marriage rights for LGBTQ+ and interracial couples, there were people who said each would never happen. Not only did we ignite each conversation, but we did so by having the people drive the conversation in a constructive way.

And ultimately, we achieved these historic feats with the support of the people across all political ideologies who overwhelmingly support these measures. We can, and will, get this done. We legislate because of what is happening right now. Right now we have a serious gun violence problem in America. That is why I'm proud to join my colleague, Senator Wahab and Governor Newsom in advancing the right to safety amendment. Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on the historic SJR 7.

Thank you. I would like to introduce my witnesses. With me today is Bethany Webb, whose family was tragically impacted by the 2011 Seal Beach mass shooting, which occurred in an Orange County hair salon and took the lives of eight people. Bethany's mother is a survivor of the shooting and her sister, Laura, was tragically killed by this senseless act. I'm also joined by Dr. Adam Dougherty, a practicing emergency physician at Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento and a trustee with the California Medical Association.

Available for questions on the Article 5 provisions of this resolution is Professor Tang of UC Davis. And for questions on the Second Amendment, we also have Ari Freilich from the California Department of Justice. I do want to thank my witnesses. And whenever ready.

Perfect. Thank you, Senator Wahab. So now we'll continue with the first witness. Hi.

My name is Bethany Webb. This is my sister, Laura Webb. This is a picture of her at her wedding four months before she was murdered. She was murdered along with eight other people, four of whom were my friends. I had known them for ten years that she had been working there. I was at that shop weekly. And one of our friends, Victoria, who died with her, we knew for 20 years, and one of the kindest people I know.

Laura was not only my best friend, the maid of honor at my wedding, godmother to my children, but somebody who had the right to safety. I am married to a biker. He goes to Cook's Corner every Sunday. Last Wednesday there was a mass shooting there. When you say a biker bar, it's iconic. There's this beautiful ride that you go to through the canyons. But it's family friendly. They have outdoor music and food.

That's two places that I personally have been to hundreds of times that I felt safe at. I have two kids--a 25 year old and a 19 year old--who have never known to go to school without shooter drills. My 19 year old is at school in college. Yesterday there was a shooting at a college. Where's our right to safety? I have family in Arizona. I drive back from Arizona and I have to tell them what kind of fruit I have.

But I don't have to tell them if I have guns from the gun laws in Arizona. California can do all the gun laws that they want to; if we don't have gun laws in the other states. It's like using a sponge to create water and having something underneath it. It doesn't work. I'm begging you, for the safety of us all to give us the right to safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Webb. I'll let you decide who would like to go next.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Dr. Adam Dougherty. I'm an emergency physician at a busy urban hospital here in downtown Sacramento, speaking in favor of SJR 7. While I do not work at a designated trauma center, my hospital is still frequently confronted with shooting victims that arrive suddenly, brought in by friends, or bystanders, that we do our best to stabilize with our limited resources before transferring across town.

Sometimes, it's too late, and I can only begin to describe the collective toll this same story takes on frontline healthcare workers across our state and nation in an already strained healthcare system every day. We have seen every age--from children to the elderly--become victims of gun violence, whether stray bullets, accidental discharge or intentional harm. Just this week, we learned from a study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics that guns killed nearly 5000 children in 2021, a 48% increase since 2018.

And for the second year in a row after the first year ever, guns were the leading cause of death in children, surpassing car accidents, overdoses and cancer. We know that it affects our communities of color and underserved zip codes disproportionately. The same pediatric study found that Black children saw the greatest increase in death rate and nearly half the total deaths were Black.

Emergency departments themselves are now under fire, as we are the primary access point to health care for many high risk individuals. We have seen numerous instances of threats and shootings inside of our very walls. Many hospitals cannot afford uniformed officers on their premises and violence against healthcare workers has become far too common. This public health crisis is only compounded because of the limited access to rehabilitation of the incarcerated and treatment for mental health and substance use disorder. We as healers should not have to fear for our lives on a daily basis.

All the medical community wants is the enforcement of current law to prevent the purchase of firearms by those who are a danger to themselves, and restrict the use of mass killing machines that our forefathers never could have conceived should be protected by the Second Amendment. Thank you.

Thank you, Dr. Dougherty. Now we're going to hear from other witnesses in support of SJR 7 here in room 2200.

Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Moira Topp, on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria and the full city council in strong support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jonathan Muñoz on behalf of First 5 California in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support of SJR 22--I mean 7--SJR 7, here in room 2200? See now, we'll now move on to witnesses in opposition. Do we have any lead witnesses in opposition?

Thank you, Chair and Members. I'm Laurel Brodzinsky, Legislative Director for California Common Cause. Unfortunately, regrettably here in opposition, not on the policy objectives that this resolution seeks to achieve, but on the method of a Constitutional Convention. We really appreciate that there is language in the resolution that tries to limit how this petition calling for a Constitutional Convention can be counted, as well as limiting the issues that that convention could cover. However, we have significant concerns that there are no provisions in the Constitution that would limit a Constitutional Convention once called to a single subject. There simply are not clear legal guardrails in place.

And our only historical precedent of a federal convention was one held in 1787, when the Constitution itself was drafted, and those gathered throughout the rules that were intended to govern their purpose and authority of amending the Articles of Confederation, instead crafting an entirely new document. This historical precedent poses great concern for attempts to limit the scope of any convention in the future and for our basic constitutional, civil rights and liberties which we take for granted.

Additionally, the Constitution does not contain provisions governing the functioning of a convention. It's unknown how delegates would be picked, what rules would be in place to hold them accountable, what would happen in the case of legal disputes, how the American people and states would be represented, and how to limit the influence of big money's special interests during a convention. Given all these uncertainties and the risk of basic tenets of our democracy, we respectfully oppose SJR 7's call for a constitutional convention. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Brodzinsky.

Madam Chair Member. Sam Paredes, representing Guns California, California Rifle and Pistol Association, and a whole lot of other supporters of the Second Amendment as it is in the Constitution right now. The testimony that you just heard, I want to re emphasize that there are no provisions in the Constitution that prevents a so-called "runaway convention," where they can take up any subject matter, which is exactly what the delegates did at the convention to amend the Articles of Confederate Federation.

They came up with a completely separate Constitution and there was nothing that anybody could do. California says that we will withdraw our delegates. Well, then you'd just be no votes. This at a time when--first of all, I appreciate that Legislature is finally taking our suggestion. We have testified on all of these gun bills that have come before you and said they are unconstitutional. If you don't like it, change the Constitution. Thank you for trying.

Thank you for taking our suggestion, because that is the only way that you will find any sort of rationale or acceptance of the unconstitutional laws that this Legislature passes year after year. So there's just absolutely so much in the testimony that was given earlier. They talk about the lives that are tragically lost. The fact of the matter is fact, less than 1% of all deaths in America are done with semiautomatic rifles of any kind. Most of the times it's handguns.

There's no legislation to deal with handguns. Let's talk about Illinois. Illinois has all of the provisions that are being presented in this AJR. They do. Has it stopped the gun crimes in the African American community? No. It is the highest in the nation. All of the laws will not change the hearts of people who are willing to commit crimes. They will always, always be able to get whatever they need to commit their crimes. That's been proven throughout history.

Now you talk about these assault weapons that our Founding Fathers could never imagine. Well, the musket--the squirrel gun that they had--was the assault weapon of the day. They were expected, all citizens were expected to show up to muster for the militia with the same type of arm that the Standing Army had. Those were their assault weapons. And they had semiautomatic, large-capacity guns in existence at that time. Proven.

It went on the search across America with Lewis and Clark and it impressed the heck out of a lot of Native American tribes in history. That's all on the record. We're talking about facts. We're talking about 3 million times.

Sir, we normally give about two minutes. And I'm sorry, it was our mistake for not stating that at the very beginning, but we're almost at three minutes, so if you could just start.

I'm going to wrap it up right now.

Perfect. Thank you.

3 million times a year, lawful citizens use guns to defend themselves. And if we do anything to make it more difficult for them to have whatever they need to defend themselves, you're going to take them out of the category of survivors and put them into the category of victims. For these reasons, this is never going to happen.

It's not. You're not going to get two-thirds of the states. Right now, we have more than half the states are constitutional carry and doing everything they can to get rid of their gun laws. For these reasons, we are in strong opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Paredes. We'll now move forward with any other witnesses in opposition to SJR number 7.

Thank you, Greg Herner on behalf of Safari Club International and the California Coalition in opposition.

Thank you.

Dan Reed with National Rifle Association in opposition. Thank you.

Kimberly Hogan with Convention of States California in opposition.

Thank you.

Elizabeth Rosemaves, a citizen in opposition.

Kathryn Suraci, Sacramento Freedom Coalition, in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, we will now move on to witnesses waiting to testify via the teleconference service. We are limiting the time to ten minutes, so please stay brief. So please just state your name, organization and position so others can have the opportunity to speak. Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition, please press one and zero at this time. We'll be going to line 56. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Crystal Acidos calling on behalf of the Mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, in strong support. Thank you.

Next we go into line 80. Please go ahead.

My name is Jack Marshall. I'm in strong opposition and I'd ask that you guys change gun violence to gun abuse.

Next we go into line 81. Please go ahead.

Yes. My name is Linda Muster. I'm in Placer County. I'm a mother, a grandmother, a great grandmother, and I strongly oppose this bill. Thank you.

Next we're going to line 16. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon, Members. I'm Dora Rose with the League of Women Voters of California. While we support very strong action to address the plague of gun violence we've got to respectfully oppose a constitutional convention which could be used by malevolent forces to upend our democracy in a variety of ways that we would live to regret. Thank you.

Next we're going to line 77. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Chair Members. My name is Sharina Latch. I'm calling from Placer County. I'm a proud mother of three, a gun owner myself and I am in strong opposition of this bill SJR amendment. It's against our constitutional rights and you will not take that from us. Thank you.

Next we go to line 94. Please go ahead.

Hi, there. My name is Andrea Hedstrom and I represent a number of organizations: Goat Farmers For Good Government; Citizens Against the Communist Takeover of California; Parents Against Medical Fascist Tyrants. And I just want to say on record that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I am so--

Thank you so much, ma'am. Opposition. Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Next we go to line 58. Please go ahead.

My name is Steve Rouda and I'm in strong opposition to SJR 7.

Next we go to line 79. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Darren Bedwell. I'm a longtime resident of Sacramento County, and I'm in strong opposition to SJR 7. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 18. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Carlene Ellis and I am a lifelong resident of California, a resident of Sacramento County, a grandmother and a gun owner. And I vehemently oppose this SJR 7. Thank you.

Next we go to line 38. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Dan Scholes. I'm a concerned citizen. I strongly oppose this SJR 7 proposal. Do not want to see a constitutional convention.

Next we go to line 95. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Julia Demlow, representing Women for American Values and Ethics, and we strongly support SJR 7. Thank you.

Next we go to line 78. Please go ahead.

Hi, my name is Sarah Hume and I am strong opposition of SJR 7. Thank you.

Next we go to line 83. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Rory Henley. I'm a lifelong citizen of California and a victim of gun violence and I am blown away by this, and I strongly, strongly oppose.

Next we go to line 68. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Tammy VonBuck. I'm from Los Angeles County and I strongly oppose SJR 7.

Next to go to line 36. Please go ahead.

Hi, good afternoon. This is Dipta Roy from Del Mar, California, in San Diego County, part of the Never Again CA team. I wholeheartedly support SJR 7, and thank you for your courage and humanity.

Next we'll go to line 24, please go ahead.

Madam Chairs. Tim McFay on in strong opposition.

Next we'll go to line 84. Please go ahead.

My name is Elise Hunt-Mackenzie, and I strongly oppose SJR 7.

Next we'll go to line 35. Please go ahead.

I'm Richard Heiler of Folsom, California, a gun robbery victim, and I strongly oppose this.

Next we'll go to line 88. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Pat Hurton, a lifelong resident of California, calling in strong opposition. Thank you.

Next we go to line 25. Please go ahead.

My name is Paulette Studebaker, lifelong California resident, resident of Amador County, in strong opposition of SJR 7. Thank you.

Next we go to line 93. Please go ahead.

I am Rose Ann Sharp, founder of Never Again CA. I'm in Del Mar, California, and we are in strong acceptance and hope that you will pass SJR 7. Thank you for your efforts and making us more safe.

Next we'll go to line 59. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Aaron Thrash from Alameda County and I'm strongly opposed to this measure.

Next we'll go to line 91. Please go ahead.

Hi. Gregory Fuller, Salinas, California. There's plenty of gun violence in this town but I actually am in opposition to SJR 7. I think it's misguided. It's not the way to go. Let's try to get some better legislation as opposed to a convention of states, although conventions of states is something I support.

Thank you very much. Next we'll go to line 76. Please go ahead.

This is Ken Greenwood from Placerville, California. Lifelong firearms owner and supporter of our Second Amendment. This constitutional convention is not the way to do this. Most gun laws fail anyway. Criminals do not obey the law.

Thank you. Next we'll go to line 52. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Dale Hume. I'm a parent of two, and I'm strongly in opposition to this bill.

Line 26 please go ahead.

Hello, this is Miriam Tark speaking on behalf of Mayor Farrah Khan from the city of Irvine. Mayor Khan supports the right to safety resolution. This is a matter of urgency, and Mayor Khan hopes this committee will support the resolution. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 74. Please go ahead.

Andrea Veshawn and Yukaya, Mendocino County. Strongly, strongly opposed to SJR 7.

Next, we go to line 64. Please go ahead.

Mark Rasmussen, Amador County resident and a victim of gun violence, and I strongly oppose SJR 7.

Next we'll go to line 89. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Bob Mackenzie. I'm a lifelong citizen of California and I strongly oppose SJR 7.

Next, we'll go to line 82. Please go ahead.

Hello, this is Katrina Foley, County Supervisor for the county of Orange, representing District 5, where one wife or girlfriend is shot or killed by her domestic partner every six weeks. I urge strong support of SJR Seven, our right to safety. Thank you.

Next, we're going to line 51. Please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Ron Lander. Father, grandfather, son, spouse, active in the military. Please object. I object to SJR 7.

Next, we'll go to line 62. Please go ahead.

My name is Margot Bennett, representing Women Against Gun Violence, a 30 year-old gun violence prevention nonprofit in California. We strongly support this bold action and ask that you vote yes on right to safety, SJR 7. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 69. Please go ahead.

Hello. My name is Nancy Hardwick. I'm a gun safety advocate from Encinitas, California, and I strongly support the right to safety resolution. Thank you for your consideration.

Next, we go to line 97. Please go ahead.

Yes. Can you please state your name, organization they're representing, and whether or not you're in support or opposition of SJR Seven? Next caller. All right, next caller.

Moving on with line 98, please go ahead.

Good afternoon. My name is Alejandra Colon and I am calling on behalf of Orange County Board Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento. I am providing words of support in favor of the Right to Safety Resolution. The foregone safety principles contained in the Right to Safety Resolution are welcomed regulations that can help protect public in a different ways.

Number one, nationwide we have experienced multiple mass shootings by young adults who are legally able to acquire possession of AR 15 style assault rifles and inflict horrific damage in a short amount of time. Having to wait an additional three years to purchase long guns will allow young adults more time to mature, become more.

Thank you very much. Just name, position and organization that you are representing. That's all we're taking at this time. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you for your time.

Next we'll go to line 96. Please go ahead.

Yes, this is Piper Benham from WAVE: Women for American Values and Ethics in Orange County calling in strong support, and I'm deeply grateful for the governor's leadership on this basic public safety issue. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. And just as a note, we are at the ten minute mark, but we only have about eight additional callers on queue. We're going to go ahead and hear those remainder eight that are currently on queue, and stop at that and move forward with discussion at the Dias. Thank you.

Next we'll go to line 99. Please go ahead.

Yes. Hi, my name is Stephanie Sala. I've been a gun owner for over 50 years, and I oppose. If I have a bad guy come in here, then I should be able to protect my family and my property.

Thank you very much, sir. Just name, position, and organization. Thank you for calling. We appreciate your feedback.

Next we'll go to line 15. Please go ahead.

My name is Marshall Peters. I'm from Marion County, Oregon. I oppose this law. People should have the right to protect themselves. Next, we go to line 103. Please go ahead. Your line is open.

Yeah, this is Dan McKinnon from Sacramento. County, and I'm a legal gun owner who opposes this measure.

Next, we'll go to line 104. Please go ahead.

Yeah, this is William Barber, a native Californian living in San Diego, California, standing in opposition for this non starter of an effort.

Next, we'll go to line 106. Please go ahead.

My name is Jeanette Bingo. I live in Platter County and I strongly opposed to this. I am an NRA Member. Thank you.

Next, we'll go to line 107. Please go ahead.

Hello. This is Daniel Hoffman from San Jose and I strongly oppose thank you.

And we'll go to line 97 please, go ahead.

This is Peter Stein from Women for American Values and Ethics in Orange County in strong opposition and sick of the argument that criminals don't follow laws which would imply that we shouldn't bother very...

Sir, just name, position and organization. Thank you, sir. Thank you for calling in. That's it? Okay. All right. We want to thank all the witnesses both here in room 2200 and those on the line that called either in support or opposition for voicing your stands. We'll now bring it back to the dais. Senator Skinner.

Thank you very much. Our vice chair. Acting chair. And I want to appreciate our presenters. Our Chair was the key author of this measure. And I appreciate the concern, the fear that a constitutional convention might be able to be used for purposes other than what this resolution intends.

But I feel the resolution is written in such a way to do everything to prevent that and to stay focused on exactly what its name is, which is to achieve to the ability of states to provide gun safety as their residents want.

And I think we know both from any data that one reviews, from the analysis, the good analysis by the committee staff, by the presentation that was made, that, for example, California's good gun violence prevention laws and gun safety laws have saved lives and it has reduced gun violence in California. It's not eliminated. It there's too many guns at this point in time to eliminate, but it's reduced.

And as again, our author and presenter indicated, the majority of the residents of our country, of Americans, of all of our brothers and sisters across this nation, want the kind of common sense protections that are built into this resolution. And unfortunately, and of course, under the Constitution in General, states have the right to act this way.

But what we have seen this, I feel is so interesting because while our opposition cites continually how the Constitution gives them the right basically to do anything under the Second Amendment, what about our constitutional right? Those of us who support the Second Amendment but want to ensure safety and want to ensure that states can act to achieve safety, our constitutional protections are at risk. And so this constitutional amendment helps ensure that we have our constitutional protections and that states can act.

And what we are seeing, unfortunately, is efforts by Congress and efforts by the current Supreme Court to limit our ability to do so. And so that's why I'm pleased that you brought it to us. I'm pleased the Governor championed this, and I'm happy to move the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Skinner. We do have a motion when the time is appropriate. And Senator Wiener.

Thank you very much. Madam Vice Chair. So, first of all, I want to thank the Governor and the authors for raising this issue because we have a horrific problem on our hands, a national public health disaster relating to the just tidal wave of guns that's come over our country. And we know that the more guns you have, the more gun violence you're going to have. Period. End of story. And there's enormous data for that.

And we have in this country, it is way too easy to get every kind of gun or not enough safety protections. And we see the carnage, as we heard today, in terms of personal impacts, professional observations of what's happening in our emergency rooms throughout this country. We know that it impacts certain communities very disproportionately, including communities of color, LGBTQ people who are at heightened risk of all forms of violence. It's horrific. I have been a consistent supporter of the strongest conceivable gun safety measures.

I've been on this committee for seven years, and I have a very, very consistent voting record in favor of gun safety measures. In my last reelection, I received a 0% rating from the NRA, and I was proud of that rating. I also want to just really take a moment to praise the Governor. Governor Newsom has not just now, but consistently for many years, has been a staunch champion for gun safety, and he's put his money where his mouth is.

He helped lead a significant ballot measure a number of years ago, and he has been absolutely staunch, not just on the legislative and policy front, but just as a national leader and using his platform to never let people forget the horrors that are happening in this country every day. And he's very vocal about that. And I support this Governor, and I particularly applaud his leadership on gun safety. Every single policy that is listed in this proposed constitutional amendment, I support.

I would be happy to go beyond what's listed here. So I fully support the policy here. I also just want to say that the only reason we're here is because a rogue, radical, extremist Supreme Court has basically on its own, rewritten the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment does not say what the Supreme Court says that it says.

And it's outrageous that this court has completely blown up the Second Amendment, turned it into an amendment that was never intended and never written into the Constitution, and that we are now seeing this radical legal agenda striking down gun safety laws across the country, debilitating the ability of government to protect public safety. And so these are my perspectives on this. But I want to explain why I'm not going to be supporting this measure today.

This is not just, "should we amend the Constitution," that's, to me, an easy one, because this all should be in the Constitution, what this resolution, and this is not a non binding resolution where we're going on record saying we support this, this is saying California will go on record as part of the legal process to trigger a constitutional convention. That's what this does. And this will make us one of the states on record doing that. And when you reach a certain threshold, constitutional Convention is triggered.

There is nothing in the Constitution that says that all of the calls for a convention have to be identical. And Common Cause has pointed this out, and there is nothing in the Constitution that in any way guarantees that we can have a Constitutional limited to one topic. I do appreciate the amendments that say it's automatically revoked if the convention goes beyond that, but we have no way of knowing. We're writing a blank slate.

We have no way of knowing if that is in any way enforceable once we have added California to the list of states calling for a Constitutional Convention. And so I am concerned what a Constitutional Convention could do because we know that the same extremists that have completely rewritten the Second Amendment also would like to rewrite reproductive health, access LGBTQ rights. They want to get rid of the separation of church and state. They want to undermine voting rights.

And so for these reasons, I won't be able to support this today. I have enormous respect for the authors and for the Governor. Out of respect for the Governor and for the authors, I will lay off instead of voting no, because I do strongly support this policy and appreciate that the Governor and the authors are elevating these issues. So thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr., or, Senator Wiener, it's been a while here.

Senator Bradford, I want to thank the authors for bringing this measure forward, and I, too, have concerns, but I think my concerns are far outweighed by the benefit of what this resolution would do. And it's a straightforward measure. It simply calls for raising the age from 18 to 21. I mean, you have to be 21 to buy a beer, but you can go buy a gun and you're 18.

I mean, some 18 year olds shouldn't even be driving cars, but we allow them to buy guns, and it mandates a universal background check. Again, if we did thorough background checks in all our states, many of the folks who have purchased guns wouldn't be able to. Just as we saw the mass shooting that happened just last week, the individual there was no background check, and this guy was suffering from mental illness.

And it institutes a reasonable waiting period for a delivery of a firearm because, again, this individual walked in the store, bought the gun that very day, and killed three people the very next day. And it bars folks from owning an assault weapon. Again, a weapon of war, for mass destruction. I don't believe, again, the Founding Fathers ever meant for someone to have a gun that shoots hundreds of rounds in a minute.

So I do have the concerns that Senator Weiner expressed about the broadening of reach that a convention might have. But I'm trusting that we can narrow this and be very specific and intentional about what we're trying to do here. And again, in the United States, we've had over 465 mass shootings already. How many more folks need to lose their lives to guns? It makes absolutely no sense. None whatsoever.

And again, black and brown communities are impacted the most, but they're not the ones that perpetrate the mass shootings. The majority of mass shootings are middle aged white men, and they're going to do everything they can to hold on to their guns, even though they're not the ones losing their lives. Now, if those numbers are reversed, I assure you they would be making every effort to make sure these guns then fall in the hands of all these individuals who are committing these crimes.

So on that note, I will be supporting this measure today. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Bradford. Senator Wahab, I believe you wanted to address some of the points made by Senator Weiner. Is that correct? Do you have any questions so we can I do. Would you like us to have all of them? Yeah, let's do that. All right. So I think we've had really good dialogue today.

I think many of the points that were made are actually some of the concerns that I have as well, including some of the concerns that Senator Weiner mentioned today with regards to the convention being held and what some may have called opening Pandora's Box with regards to the topics that could be addressed at this time. So let me just begin by stating that it's my understanding that currently nothing that, well, except for maybe one of the four points are being made in this resolution.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe out of the four that are currently being proposed for the resolution, three of them of the four are currently unaffected by anything that the Supreme Court has currently weighed on. Is that correct?

On behalf of the Department of Justice, Office of Gun Violence Prevention. My name is Ari Freilich. The four policies contained in here are existing California law. They've been repeatedly reaffirmed by the courts, and this would initiate a process to enact those at the national level.

Okay, so bringing in California. Now, is there anything that prohibits any of the states in the country to be able to enact these laws within their states?

The vast majority of courts have reaffirmed these. There are some outlier courts around the country that in some cases may have at least temporarily obstructed implementation of those. Generally speaking, the answer is no. The vast majority of courts have reaffirmed that these are entirely consistent with the rights and responsibilities in the Constitution.

My understanding is this resolution, as well as this pathway would enact legislation nationally to these life saving gun violence prevention policies in California everywhere to provide stronger protection here as well as elsewhere and reaffirm their validity under the Constitution.

But let me restate my question just so I can have a clear answer. So currently, as it stands with these particular pieces of legislation. There's nothing constitutionally. Well, maybe, perhaps, maybe one, I'm going to assume, but there's nothing that currently prohibits any other state from actually enacting these laws within their states.

I'd say that's generally right. That's correct.

That is correct. So in other words, if this resolution were not to pass, other states across the nation could, if they wanted to enact these laws, there's nothing in the Supreme Court that would actually avoid them or prohibit them from enacting these particular laws.

So I'm going to have to give you a bit of a nuanced answer. The shortest version of this is yes. The vast majority of courts, if you ask them, have consistently, repeatedly, even after brewing reaffirmed, that these are effective, reasonable, and consistent with our historical traditions.

And I would note, in a few months, Supreme Court will be hearing another Second Amendment case where they will be asked whether to overturn an appellate court ruling that found that someone subject to an active domestic violence restraining order because a court found that they had committed acts of domestic abuse, gun violence against a specific protected person. She went into court, got a restraining order.

The Supreme Court will be asked to consider whether to overturn that extreme outlier decision and find that whether that person, the abuser, had a constitutional right to possess firearms. So the two things are true. At the same time, the vast majority of courts have consistently, repeatedly affirmed that states have the power to enact these laws and there are outlier decisions out there that at times have obstructed that progress.

So overall, yes, any state could enact any of these laws. We're still in the process of pursuing and seeing if there's an outlier that's going to be addressed in the future. But that's yet to be determined. But as of right now, these laws could potentially be enacted. So moving on from there, I do want to continue with one I do want to continue with just a statement really quick, just as an observation. So my parents, as you know, are from Mexico.

I had the opportunity to live with my grandparents. And one of the things that I do want to note is that I share the concerns that many individuals feel that we should ban guns and therefore we're going to have a safer society and culture. Well, let me tell you that in Mexico, guns for the average citizen is outlawed. They are not allowed to have a gun.

And I remember, and I'm going to share this with you because I remember my grandfather, he's now passed away, and so I don't have to worry about him. But my grandfather actually hid a gun in his closet. And I remember seeing it as a kid, but he had it hidden because he knew he wasn't allowed to have it.

And I also want to just state for the record that if we look at what's going on in Mexico right now, and who has control over many of these small towns. It is disheartening to see the amount of you think we have problems here. It is horrible in Mexico for many, many community Members who are overwhelmingly suffering from carnage, as was called earlier, from cartels. They're living in utter fear because law abiding people cannot protect themselves.

And it is people who are actually leading these cartels and their personnel which are overwhelmingly taking over many, many communities in Mexico. And people, the average person cannot protect themselves. And I think many of us are following many of the stories of people being killed because the wrong people. It doesn't matter how many laws we have on the record. When we have evil people, when we have bad people doing bad things, they could care less about the laws that we pass.

And it is only law abiding people like you and me who will follow the law that will become vulnerable. So I just wanted to state that because I know there are many, many people that feel that if we ban guns, we're going to have a safer community, a safer state, and a safer country. And I'm just going to point to many countries in Latin America, including Mexico. Senator so, having said that, let me just move forward on making my other points.

So having said that, there's another thing that I wanted to state here for the record. I'm kind of curious, and I'm not sure who would be the right person to answer the following, but I know that in the resolution, you state that you have limited the scope of what the resolution should do. My question is, what power do you have or does the state have in California that will have a binding authority on what could occur? Should a convention actually be called? Because I know that that is part of what was specifically written in, but what authority is there to be able to ensure that that would happen?

Yeah. So. My name is Aaron Tang. I'm a professor of constitutional law at the University of California Davis School of Law. It's a fair question. As Senator Wiener, his remarks indicated as well, this is open territory. We don't have precedent that we can rely on. There's no constitutional ground rules delineating how an Article Five convention would run. So it would cash out through litigation. What would happen is if 34 states voted for SJR Seven style amendments, there'd be a Constitutional convention.

You could imagine a runaway convention, a situation where maybe a right wing group would come and propose an amendment to emasculate the federal government and whoever is running the Constitutional Convention. We don't know. The chair would either allow or disallow it. And then there'd be a lawsuit, right? So suppose the chair agrees and allows the runaway convention, and now you can have any amendment on anything. Abortion rights, on the balanced budget.

California could then sue in federal court and say, SJR Seven does not allow this, and there'd be litigation. I can't tell you how the outcome would I'd be lying if I told you that I had any confidence that the answer would be the limited language would prevail, and therefore just these amendments can be considered? What I can tell you is that even if California loses on that, there would not be a runaway convention.

There's a principle of law, and this probably goes into detail, so I'll stop after I mention it. If other Members want to ask, the.

Audience would love to hear, don't worry.

There's a doctrine called severability. This is a legal analysis, right? Anytime. So suppose a federal court rules against California and says the limiting language is unconstitutional, trying to limit this convention to just gun safety purposes, you can't do that. That's not the end of the case. The next question is what happens to the rest of SJR Seven? There is a settled rule in California. Severability is a state law question, potentially even one the California Supreme Court would decide.

And the question is, what did you all the great states lawmakers intend? Did you intend for the rest of SJR Seven to stay in effect? In other words, allowing a runaway convention even though your limited language was struck down? Or did you mean for the whole thing to go away? If we strike down just the limited language, then there's no call for a convention at all. There's not 34 states. None of the states that have this limited language would count, and there'd be no convention, period.

Everything about severability analysis suggests the latter would be the outcome. The whole convention call would go away because nobody here in the language of itself. You could even put even more explicit language in line with settled California Supreme Court decisions upholding these kinds of non severability clauses. The California Supreme Court has routinely held that this kind of language suggests the whole thing gets struck down. So we can't even count to 34 at all.

Okay, so maybe you would be the right person to answer the following question. Given that 27 of the 50 states have declared themselves constitutional carry and are actively working to divest themselves of statutes that violate the Second Amendment, what are the chances of this resolution moving forward?

I think if you ask right now, in this moment in time, in August 2023, not very high. But the wonderful thing about America is people change their minds. Voters vote. People react to current events. When lawmakers of the national scene don't respond to epidemics of gun violence, they can choose to take things into their own hands and want to do things like amend the Constitution to protect themselves, protect sensible gun safety measures. So right now I don't think there's a high chance.

But the idea as I understand this SJR Seven is not to have a constitutional convention tomorrow. It's to win the shape and shape the hearts and minds of people so that we can start thinking about how we can reach a sensible middle ground in protecting Americans.

So going back again with the four principles that the resolution actually is proposing, any of our states in our country actually can enact those at this time.

I would defer to my colleague here to answer.

Going back again, I'm just reiterating, since he was so up to knowing on that end, I just wanted to make sure that we had it on record. Okay, perfect. Thank you. I think. Let me see if I have anything else here. So another comment that I wanted to make really quick on that end. I know that there's a lot of concerns also with regards as to how do we make our community safer.

And I think one of the concerns that we've auctionally also had quite a bit of discussion on is whether or not it is the guns that make it unsafe or is it the mental health and behavior and cultural societal norms standards in which we're living in that make it unsafe for us. And I think there's also a concern on that end.

And at this time, I'm going to put a little plug on the fact that I was very happy to hear and to know and be part of this Legislature that has been focusing so much on behavioral health. I think we all share that concern as a state. And I'm grateful that the Administration is moving forward on both expanding mental health capacity that we haven't had in the past in order to really start having the resources available in communities to be able to do that.

Because I think that's one area where we as a state have been failing. And so the fact that everybody recognizes that is a huge issue and a concern. I think we're going to move forward because I would bet that many of these individuals that are currently committing many of these crimes, which, by the way, according to what was stated earlier today, less than 1% were actually using some of these what do they call it?

I know what you folks call them, but we have another what is it? Assault weapons. I would like to see any data or the data that exists that reflects on who is actually committing these individuals, especially whether or not behavioral health is actually a component of those individuals committing many of these crimes. As mentioned earlier, I support many of these items that we have here, including in this resolution, because I think it just makes sense. Many of them do. But once again, I do have the concerns that have also been expressed with regards as to where do we go with this Pandora's Box. So having said that, Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

Thank you. Just for the public, I just want to make sure that everyone understands that if you are following with this resolution from line 31, to roughly about 36, it says, resolve that this application is for a limited constitutional convention and does not grant Congress the authority to call a Constitutional convention for any purpose other than those set forth herein.

And that is, this application shall be void if ever used at any stage to consider any constitutional amendments on subjects other than those specified herein and so forth. So I just want to clearly state that that is written in this language. And when we talk about legislation and policy, the sword is definitely mightier I mean, sorry, the pen is definitely mightier than the, you know, Senator Ochoa Bogh, I really appreciate you sharing a little bit about what you experienced growing up and your grandfather's story.

I also have a very similar story. My father was actually murdered via gun violence. And I think that it's important to highlight that. I do support the Second Amendment, but at the same time, there has to be guardrails. And I often say that policy has not caught up to technology, and policy is a little bit slower paced. We have a lot of deliberation and much more.

And with 120 people in the state Legislature, it's often, sometimes difficult to come to some type of agreement on very important matters that affect the lives of so many people. And I'm very proud to say that as of today and it's growing, we have 50% of the entire California state Legislature as co authors of the Senate Joint Resolution of both houses.

And I'm very proud of, you know, when we often talk about the safeguards and what we're trying to do and making sure that we reduce the public health crisis in a wide variety of different types of death. For example, when we talk about the overdoses that are happening, the goal of the state Legislature and much of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have always been focused on removing drugs off the street.

And today we have more guns in the United States than we have in population of human beings. And at a certain point, we need to say we need to curb certain things. And this particular Senate Joint Resolution does support the Second Amendment, but it also puts in the safeguards that are very you know, I just wanted to highlight that.

And we do have an opportunity for California to continue to be a leader on gun safety, not just here in California, but for the rest of the nation. And I specifically just want to say that for all of the people that have experienced gun violence and have been victims of gun violence, I want to go beyond the individuals that have lost their lives or have been wounded.

It is also people like myself who, because of a death of a loved one due to gun violence, their lives are changed forever too. And I am very, very proud of the fact that Governor Newsom has been very bold and. I want to go further than thoughts and prayers. And I thank Governor Newsom for being a man of action with the courage to not only talk the talk, but walk the walk.

And in the United States, we have these rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And we must extend common sense firearms regulation across this country in order to continue delivering on that promise. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Wahab, for your remarks. We have a motion by Senator Skinner. And thank you, Senator Skinner. The motion is the resolution shall be adopted. Assistant, please call the roll.

SJR seven. Wahab aye. Ochoa Bogh no. Bradford aye. Skinner aye. Wiener.

The resolution is out. Thank you, Senator Wahab.

Thank you.

Senate public safety is adjourned.