Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

The Senate Public Safety Committee meeting of Tuesday, March 25th, 2025, will now come to order. We are holding our committee meeting here in room 2200 of 1021 O Street, and I ask that all Members of the Committee who are not already present, please come to 2200, so that we can establish a quorum, to begin our hearing.

Good morning, and welcome to fellow Committee Members, and members of the public. I'm State Senator Jesse Arreguin, the newly appointed Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, and I'm joined this morning by my colleague, the Vice Chair, Senator Seyarto, and will be joined by other Members of the Committee shortly.

I want to also take this opportunity to welcome our newly constituted Committee, including our newly elected Senators, and also want to take this opportunity to welcome our new staff Director, Sandy Uribe, who's sitting right to my right, and we look forward to working with you over the next year.

This is the first of five hearings to hear Senate Bills before the May deadline to report bills from policy committees. On our agenda today are 13 bills, but two bills proposed for the consent calendar. And we will take up bills and file order, or if the author is present, we will take them out of order.

One announcement. On today's consent calendar, we have two items. File Item 1, Senate Bill 4, Cervantes, "The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Justice Program."

And File Item 7, SB 229, Alvarado-Gil, peace officers, deputy sheriffs, will entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar when we establish a quorum, unless any Member would like to pull an item from the consent calendar for discussion.

So, given that we have not yet established a quorum, we will meet as a subcommittee and begin our Bill presentations, and at the time that we can establish a quorum, we will call the roll. So, with that, we'll table action on the adoption of the Committee Rules until we establish a quorum.

And we'll begin first with our Bill presentations. As noted, we have 13 bills on file today, and I do not see Senator Ashby present. So, we'll go out of order to File Item 3, SB 15, by Senator Blakespear. I do see Senator Blakespear present. Good morning.

And so, we'll now take up SB 15, and Senator Blakespear, you now may present your bill.

Well, thank you, Chair, and good morning, colleagues. I'm grateful for the opportunity to discuss SB 15. California has the strongest gun safety laws in the nation, but we still have areas where we need to improve. One of these areas is in reducing gun trafficking, which is the intentional movement of firearms into the illegal market, for a criminal purpose.

We have several indicators that this is a growing problem in California. For example, the number of guns recovered from crime scenes, by law enforcement, per capita, has grown by close to 70% over the last decade, according to a UC Davis study.

Additionally, the median time between purchase of a gun and recovery by law enforcement, in connection with the violent crime, has decreased from 15 years to only 4 years. Firearm dealers can, and do, play an important role in stopping gun trafficking, such as by ensuring that customers pass a background check.

However, a small number of dealers are the source of a disproportionate number of guns recovered after a crime. In 2023, 87 dealers accounted for more than 50% of traced gun—crime guns—for an average of nearly 70 crime guns.

This doesn't necessarily mean that those dealers are intentionally providing firearms to criminals, but it does indicate that further investigation is merited. SB 15 would require the Department of Justice to inspect the 10 firearm dealer locations, with the highest percentage of sales, that end up used in a crime.

SB 15 also clarifies that the Department of Justice can remove bad actors from the list of licensed dealers, for up to two years, and also requires dealers to maintain inventory records of all firearms in their possession and annually certify the accuracy of those records.

In an era of federal uncertainty, and the recent closure of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, it is more important than ever that California take action. I have with me today Ethan Murray from GIFFORDS. If the Chair would entertain testimony from him.

Yes, we'll take testimony from support witnesses. Two minutes each. If there are any other witnesses and support, please come forward as well.

And Madam, Madam Senator, are you...?

I'm finished. Yes, thank you.

Yes, sir.

Chair Arreguin, Vice Chair Seyarto, and Members of the Committee, my name is Ethan Murray, and I am here on behalf of GIFFORDS, the gun violence prevention organization, founded by former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, gun owner and gun violence survivor.

We are proud to sponsor SB 15, because it strengthens oversight of the firearms dealers, and helps curb gun trafficking in California. Using a Central California location as example, I want to show how the top 10 provision Senator Blakespear laid out would work in practice.

This location had 69 crime guns traced to it in 2023, with approximately 30% recovered less than one year from its purchase. Based on the percentage of sales that were recovered as crime guns, the dealer would be in the top 10.

A prior ATF inspection revealed eight missing firearms with inspector warning, "They need to find out why they are losing firearms and noting a history of violations." This is exactly the kind of business that warrants increased scrutiny. Looking at the broader picture, firearm dealer oversight has historically fallen to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.

However, the ATF has long struggled with enforcement. Dealer inspections happen only once every seven years, on average. And even when serious violations occur, just 1.6% of dealers lose their licenses. To make matters worse, recent reports suggest that 1,000 ATF agents could be reassigned to the FBI, though the acting Director has denied it.

This uncertainty underscores why SB 15 is essential. It insulates California from further federal inaction, by giving the State Department of Justice Clear Authority to hold firearm dealers accountable. SB 15 is a smart, targeted approach to disrupting gun trafficking, improving oversight, and saving lives. GIFFORDS urges your support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before I proceed with any other witnesses, we have established a quorum, so I'd like to ask the Committee Assistant to please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. Um, are there any other witnesses in support? Please line up to the microphone and please state your name, affiliation, and position, for the record.

My name is Cassandra Whetstone. I'm a Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Thank you.

Yara Judal, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Karissa Ganapathy, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

I'm Liz Russell from Napa. Gun violence survivor, and in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tanya Shardt, from Brady, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in the room? If so, please line up at the microphone.

Okay, we'll now move to lead witnesses in opposition. Are there any lead witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. You'll have two minutes each to address the Committee. Thank you.

There we go. Mr. Chair and Members, it's a pleasure to meet you for the first time, to testify before you and this Committee. My name is Sam Paredes. I represent Gun Owners of California. And I'm authorized to represent the California Rifle and Pistol Association, in opposition to SB 15.

Let me point out a couple of things that were just slightly wrong, given the previous testimony. I am a federally licensed firearms dealer. It hasn't been seven and a half years on the average with any of the dealers that I deal with in the State of California.

The average is probably closer to two years, which is what the California DOJ has been doing. The requirements of this Bill to keep databases and clear records, and inventories and stuff, is already required by state law, by federal law, and a violation of this is a federal felony. So, it's already covered.

And I know that every time that a California DOJ inspector comes to my office to check my books and inventory and do everything that they talk about in this Bill, that is already being done, they use this book in order to check all of the inventory.

They write up reports as to any missing parts, any issues that might be, and they tell you, please have these resolved and let us know when they're resolved. And they get them resolved. And they have the authority to reject people's licenses already.

So, identifying the top 10 providers of gun crime-related guns into the community, California is number 49 on the list of states, with regards to having crime guns traced back to dealers. 49th. We're doing a pretty doggone good job. And this is putting the onus on dealers, saying that if you don't sign this affidavit, and you made a mistake of any kind, you can be charged $1,000 per mistake.

This is more of a fundraising thing for the Department of Justice Office of Firearms, than it is anything to correct any real issues that are happening out there. Should be focusing on crime control, not gun dealer control, because gun dealers are doing a very good job in the state of California, regardless of what is said here.

I know, I are one. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Ma'am. There you go.

Chair Arreguin, Members of the Committee. My name is Keely Hopkins and I'm the State Director for the National Rifle Association, here today on behalf of our members in opposition to Senate Bill 15. As Sam mentioned, FFLs are already very heavily regulated and scrutinized by a complex set of both state and federal law.

Just to operate in the State of California, a firearm dealer must first obtain the following: a federal firearms license, a business license from local government, a seller's permit issued by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, a seller's license issued by a local licensing authority, a certificate of eligibility issued by the DOJ, and being recorded in the DOJ's centralized list of firearm dealers.

In addition to all of these licenses they have to obtain and maintain, FFLs must also follow very comprehensive state and federal laws, in order to remain in operation. These laws already specify the manner in which dealers must keep their records, deliver a firearm, secure and store their inventory, and obtain security measures.

Existing law also already requires firearm dealers to report all firearm purchases and transfers, and to make these records available to law enforcement and the Department of Justice.

So, on top of all of these already existing requirements, SB 15 would now also require FFLs to maintain an additional record of their inventory, in manner that's prescribed by the Department of Justice.

And if they fail to meet just one of these requirements, it will result in a $1,000 fine, and they could have their business shut down for a period of two years. We're concerned about the complexity that these additional requirements will impose, and that the most minor infractions could carry very severe consequences.

The Federal Government and State already have the opportunity to revoke licenses, and there are currently laws in place to punish bad actors.

But what Senate Bill 15 does is create an even more complex system that's going to overly burden the well-intending and law-abiding dealers and potentially put them in jeopardy if they fail to meet the requirements. So, we urge your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. So, we'll now take any other opposing witnesses in the room. If you are in opposition to SB 15, please line up to the microphone. Please state your name, affiliation, and position, for the record. There any other opposing witnesses? Okay, seeing none. I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion.

Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Senator Seyarto.

I'm going to make some comments, and I do have a question on this particular Bill. But my comments—we have three firearm bills on the agenda today. I'm going to be bouncing back and forth.

So, these pretty generally apply to all of them, but specifically this one, right now. A lot of our legislation, as you know, we've been doing this for four years now.

And a lot of our gun legislation is really focused on adding complexity to law abiding transactions, law abiding citizens doing transactions, to just, you know, exercise their Second Amendment rights. Gun violence is a real problem, but one of our issues is that we are not enforcing the laws that we have.

We want to go after gun owners and make more penalties for them, but we have a list of 25,000 people that we know are not supposed to have guns, and yet we don't put the resources towards that, to reduce those guns. And those guns are the ones that are actually being trafficked on, on the underground market.

And so, it seems like every one of our gun bills that we come—because we want—we want to tell these moms that, that, you know, we're doing something. But the problem is, we're not doing something in the right direction to actually curb the gun violence.

Gun violence is an issue that transcends a lot of different problems that we're having in society today. And it's, you know, you know, the, the kids that go to school that are being bullied, and the lack of oversight, and the lack of ability for, for schools to respond to that.

And, you know, so there's a problem in the parenting world, there's a problem in the school world, there's a problem in our criminal justice system, because we're allowing—we're at the same time—as we're talking about this gun violence, we're trying to keep them from going to prison, and at the same time getting, you know, taking aim at people who are not committing crimes, but we're putting them in a position of becoming a criminal for doing—for running—a business that's perfectly legal.

And this complexity just adds—to me—it's adding complexity to a system that already exists.

In other words, it's adding another, another hole to fall in along the way, because you may have checked off all these other boxes that are already existing, but now we add on another layer, and if you miss something in there, boom, you get $1000 fine, or you get your business shut down for two years.

That approach is not going to—it's not doing anything. We can say we're doing something, but it really isn't.

And when I see us taking a stronger stance on apprehending people that are actually trafficking illegal weapons and, and having weapons in the commission of crimes, and having—being—a person on the list of people that are not supposed to have weapons, when I see us starting to take action against those, you know, and we still have a problem, then, you know, we can start looking at the causes of those problems and maybe enforcing rules at school that, that, you know, our bullying rules, and our, you know, when our, when our kids are outcasting other kids and making them feel like they're not, they're—they don't exist.

That's what leads to this mental illness issue that we have, where these kids are coming up and shooting up schools. So, you know, I, you know, I applaud the effort, but it's just not hitting the target that it needs to hit.

And, you know, my question on your Bill in particular is, so what does this do, that's not already being done, to further the, the violence, you know, gun violence, to keep gun violence from happening? How does this do that? By doubling down on, or not really doubling down, but doing the same thing that's already existing?

Because if it's already existing and it's not making an impact, then how does making another law that does the same thing as that law gonna make an impact?

Through the Chair, may I answer? Yes? Well, thank you, Senator Seyarto, for the question. And, you know, you identified a lot of potential bills, including gun safety bills, which I encourage you to promote and bring forward. There are obviously many problems and a lot of different ways to solve them.

I think I would say that if we have a gun dealer that has 70 guns used in crimes in a year, we clearly have a problem. And so, either that, and it's not like there's only one of those in the state. I mean, there were 87 dealers who accounted for more than 50% of trace gun crimes.

So, from my perspective, the State of California can do better to implement our gun laws better. And so, this is one of those laws which, which is to say we do have laws on the books, let's implement them better.

And so maybe at that gun dealer, maybe they're being stolen, maybe they're walking out the back door and being sold, maybe. Who knows what the problem is, but it certainly needs to be investigated, and having the inventory allows us to know that there's a problem. But without having the data, we don't know that there's a problem.

And also, having the DOJ clarifying that they can remove bad actors from the list of licensed dealers, for up to two years, is also a serious consequence. So, you know, the fact that 49 other states might be doing a worse job doesn't, in my mind, has nothing to do with what the State of California wants to do.

I think the State of California should try to be, and is, safer than other places in the nation. And we have an epidemic of gun violence. We should be trying to do what we can, at every level we can, to reduce that. So, this Bill is one of those implementation bills that helps address that.

I don't know if my witness would like to say anything more on that.

Yeah, I think the one thing that I've heard repeated a few times is "$1,000 fine" and "removal of your business for a simple violation." There is a 90-day period to correct any violations. So, that is not an immediate removal from the list for any small violation, just to be clear.

The second thing is, I would say that the clarification that there is the power to remove from the centralized list of dealers for these types of serious violations, is an improvement in a space where the ATF is actively retracting from. So, you're right.

The implementation of our laws could be improved in a host of ways, and your ideas around apps are interesting, and I hope to engage with you on those. But I do see this as a smart, targeted approach. It's not a vast bill. It's targeted at the top 10 crime guns for re-evaluation.

We already have laws in the books that say dealers should be inspected every three years in California. So, this is just a follow-up process, for that for a very targeted location.

Yeah, raising a fee on every dealer is not targeted. And also, the study that you cite, over what period of time was that study done on the guns coming out of....

Which study is this?

The study about the guns that are coming out of various dealers.

The crime gun report.

The crime gun report, yeah.

Over the last two years.

Okay.

So, the 2023 report covered—I believe it was a 10-year period—and then the 2024...

The 12-year period.

Sorry, 12-year. Thank you.

So, it was a long period, and also, it doesn't identify whether these are large volume dealers or small volume dealers, because large volume dealers are naturally going to have more guns that they have sold out there, that have the opportunity to be stolen by Lord knows who breaking into people's houses.

And, and so, they get, they get punished because they have big volume.

That's why it's based off the percentage of sales, so it's not trying to target big value. It's not the gross, the gross number of guns.

Does it take into account demographics of areas where these are being bought and sold?

It does not.

Okay. Because there's, there's that element also. There are some areas that are high crime areas, and we know where those areas are. And so yes, if you have a gun dealership in those areas, naturally there are going to be more problems.

I, I want to interject here. We do have other Members that wish to speak. I want to kind of cut off this back and forth. Senator, if you can please wrap up so we can.

Okay, I'm wrapped up. Thank you.

We have 13 bills on the docket today, so we need to get through them.

I understand.

Okay, we'll go next to Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. First, let me thank everybody who came here today to testify. I really appreciate the, the information. I think part of the challenge that I have is—and Senator Seyarto—and I don't always agree, as a matter of fact, most of the time don't agree.

But Senator, on this Bill, I'm having some issues with the premise, which is that if you're a, um, if you're a gun seller, that, if, if, in fact—well, first let me just say that when I read this, most of—it's my understanding that most of the things in this Bill are things that the AG can already do.

They do inspections, they have the ability to revoke a license for violations of the law. They, they expect accurate record keeping and documentation.

And if, in fact, they think that some of the gun sales are to phony baloney people, there's background paper to support who they sold the gun to, and what kind of background check is done on that, because it comes through the AG's office. So, when I read it, I was saying, well, look at that, AG has a lot of these powers.

And so, and then, the premise upon which the Bill is set, is that, if you're a gun seller and a bunch of your guns end up being used in a crime, that somehow you're responsible for that, after the fact, after you've sold them to persons that you've identified are legally capable of owning a gun, because you go through a process with the AG's office to clear them.

So, I'm, I'm just struggling with this whole idea that, you know, if, in fact, the AG gets a bunch of gun—or sees a pattern—they can make a surprise inspection of a gun dealer, to make sure that they're abiding with the law and following the law.

So, I'm just having a hard time understanding how, um, how we, we flip the script on this. I want to get guns off the street—just no question about it. And um, I get that we don't know what the federal Administration is going to do. Yeah, we just don't know. So anyway, I'll leave it at that.

And just, if you can explain to me, I mean, I want to be able, I want to get guns off the street, but our problem is so big, and I want to tease out what's happening in California from the rest of the country, because we have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.

And the fact that our country is exporting guns to Mexico, to the cartels, should tell you it's a really serious problem that is way beyond what California is doing.

But looking at what we have done, we've set up a whole system in the AG's office to deal with gun violence—and reducing gun violence—and illegal transactions of guns, and so.

Yeah. Well, so, I think the premise of this is that there are more and more guns in crimes. So, that statistic about the number of guns recovered by law enforcement from crime scenes has grown by close to 70% over the last decade. So, we have more and more guns that are ending up in criminality.

And the question is, how is that happening? And, you know, gun trafficking—gun trafficking is the intentional movement of firearms into the illegal market for a criminal purpose. So, gun trafficking is happening from multiple sources. It could be happening from individuals buying and selling, but it's also happening from dealers.

And we know this because we have the data that shows that, if there are certain dealers where 70 guns end up in a crime, to me, that does show that there is a problem.

And so, it's like if you say there's a leaky ship and we don't want to patch this hole because there's another hole over there—we should be patching all the holes. So, so to me, this is the reality of not—if the inventory is not being well maintained, so it's being stolen, that's a problem.

If the employees are able to sell them out the back door, that's a problem. If there's somebody who's involved in other criminal or illegal trades, like drugs or trafficking, and that they are connected to the way they get their weapons through one of these dealers, that's a problem.

So, to me, we should be working on it, and we should be strengthening our system, so that it's clear what role the DOJ has. And it—also that—it's clear that they need to inspect the 10 firearm dealers with the highest percentage of sales. And as Mr. Murray said, to the previous question, it's a percentage of sales.

So, it's not, you know, a raw number, so small and large aren't being compared to each other with raw numbers. And then also just clarifying that they can remove bad actors from the list of licensed dealers.

So, if we do, you know, if you think about like a car dealership, how many cars end up stolen or sold out the back door? Not a lot, because it's so heavily understood where every car is, at every stage in its process.

And so, we do have somewhat of a process of knowing which guns are being sold in the state, where they came from, who they're being sold to, and then those are traced back when they're found in criminality. Where did these come from?

So, to me, it is, it is an issue, and we should do all we can in California to help, to help make it stronger. And I don't know, Mr. Murray, if you want to add anything, if you don't mind, Senator.

Well, let me just say that, that, um, I, I, I appreciate you're getting ready to comment, but let me just say that if, in fact, there's an inspection and they're found to have negligently stored guns, so that they were stolen, or somebody drove a car into the facility, busted the place up, and these, um, uh, crime activity and the guns got stolen, then you could say, um, you could point to that and say, this action, if you colluded with it, put guns on the street and did it illegally. But, to—or—if you were negligent in your storage, then there's problems, right? You can start consequencing the dealers for negligent storage, because we've required that storage be secure.

But, but if in fact you sold those guns to illegal individuals, then you got to go after the illegal individuals that put the guns into the hands of criminals, and maybe they were negligent. I'm just having a hard time seeing this connection all the way back.

I—it's not that I don't want to consequence dealers, if they're doing the wrong thing, by all means take that license away and they can't sell guns for two years.

I'm just trying to make a fair system, and, um, that it actually does what we say it's going to do, without making allusions to, well, we think it's more probable than not that this is the activity that they're involved in. So, I just have a hard time. We have lots of businesses. The, the, the auto dealer is an excellent example.

I mean, you wouldn't—if cars are getting stolen, and it ends up being that the cars that get stolen are a whole bunch of Camaros, you don't go back to the Camaro dealer and go, ah, it's obvious that you've done something that allows your cars to be stolen. You want to make the owners responsible.

So, that's, that's just the challenge I have is. I get the numbers and statistics and all that kind of good stuff. I just want it to be fair. And for people that are running a business, some which may be small businesses, some which may be in bad neighborhoods, for all I know, I just want it to be fair.

So, I don't, that's the only—that was the only issue I had—was the relationship. And are we actually, if this got enacted, are we really, are we just making a statement to the public that we want to be tough, but we really don't get the results that we want?

And in which, and then as a, as an adjunct, we are penalizing otherwise legal gun owners—or sellers.

Yes. Do you mind if I—did you want to say any last thing?

Senator.

Yeah. You want us to stop?

Just, yeah, in order to ensure that we can proceed with, with the rest of our hearing. If you can maybe answer the question. There are other Members that would like to speak as well.

I guess I would just say, you know, it's, you get what you inspect, not what you expect. So, you know, to me, we have a problem. This strengthens the inspection. This doesn't add additional taxes or fees. It clarifies what the DOJ can do for bad actors.

It requires them to inspect the locations with the highest percentage of sales that end up used in a crime inspection—doesn't mean they're going to be fined, or there's a consequence. And if every one of those 70 has some explainable situation, then that will come out.

But, you know, it, it's possible that there, that there is something that's shady is going on in that, and we would want to be able to have the mechanisms to intervene, so that it doesn't continue to happen year after year. So, I think gun violence is an epidemic.

And in California, we're safer because of our strong gun laws, and they need to continue to be strengthened. And where we do have the leaks in the boat, we need to patch them. And so to me, this seems like one of those that needs to be patched.

Senator Caballero.

No, I'm done. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you, Senator.

Senator Perez.

Thank you. You know, I, I appreciated Senator Caballero's comments, and what's funny is, I was going to make comments that were exactly the opposite direction. You know, one of the reasons why I appreciate your Bill, Senator Blakespear, is that I do feel like it creates an accountability structure that exists for many other businesses already.

I think about, you know, I come from a long line of restaurant owners and, you know, I think about health inspections. Right? If you had a case where there was a restaurant that said—had—700 cases of food illnesses, you know, there would be an investigation, not necessarily to blame that restaurant, but to see what happened. Right?

And to see what they may be doing that's causing such a thing to happen. Even within, you know, car dealerships and the auto industry, you know, we have a process. Right? The recall process. We saw last year—actually, not just last year—over the last five years, there's been a dramatic increase in catalytic converters being stolen.

There was also conversations happen, and I did not follow them, about how the infrastructure of cars could be improved and changed, that catalytic converters were not stolen as frequently, so that the business could better design the vehicle to prevent these things from happening. So, you know, I do think it's an important conversation to have.

You know, the fact of the matter is that these are businesses that are selling weapons, and so, they do need to have added, you know, an added sense of security and caution, as they're doing their business. These are also incredibly profitable businesses as well.

And we do need to be mindful because of what can happen, should a weapon end up in the hands of somebody that is a criminal.

And, you know, I do think that there needs to be this added sense of—not just accountability—but, you know, for us to be able to investigate and, not necessarily to make, you know, blame, I mean, as we went over the examples, it isn't necessarily that a business owner could be doing this. Right?

It could be an employee within the business. But to figure out what is going on and to raise this question, and I think is one that's really important. So, I appreciate your Bill and will be supporting it. So, thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay. If not, seeing that debate's concluded. Senator Blakespear, if you'd like to close.

Yes. Well, thank you for the robust discussion and engagement with the substance, and I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Okay, thank you. Before I entertain a motion on SB 15, we do have a quorum, so I'd like to go back to the adoption of Committee Rules. I'll entertain a motion to adopt the Committee Rules. Move by Caballero. Okay. If we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, thank you very much. We now have rules. Okay. So, on SB 15, I'll just note, for the record, the Chair recommends an "Aye" vote on SB 15. I think, as Senator Perez said, you know, most dealers already have systems in place in order to comply with federal requirements, track their inventory already. This is good business practice.

This formalizes and standardizes those practices. I'll note that this Bill is very similar to a Bill that passed out of our Committee last year, SB 1038. And this really is ensuring that, one, we can do the inspections for those dealers that have the largest number of firearms that are being used to commit crimes.

It's, I think, adding to the state's efforts to hold dealers accountable and to get guns off the street. And the Chair's recommended an "Aye" vote on this motion. Is there a motion on SB 15? Moved by Gonzalez.

Okay, thank you. So, if we can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll keep that bill on call so Members can record their vote. Thank you, Senator Blakespear.

Thank you so much.

Okay, I see Senator Ashby in the audience. Good morning. So we're now going to proceed to SB 6 by Senator Ashby.

Good morning, Public Safety Committee. Thank you for having us. Let me see if I can get one in and out quickly here for you. I am here to present SB 6. You okay with me starting, Chair? All right. SB 6 will schedule xylazine as a controlled substance in California, preventing its illicit use while creating guardrails for the drug's continued use in veterinary medicine. Commonly referred to as tranq, or the zombie drug, xylazine is a potent veterinary sedative.

It's intended for large animals, which you'll hear a little more about. But it is increasingly being trafficked in our country for human consumption. According to the DEA, xylazine related deaths have more than tripled between 2020 and 2021, signaling a disturbing and upward deadly trend.

Xylazine is often mixed with fentanyl to prolong the high, creating what has become the deadliest drug combination in the United States of America. SB 6 adds xylazine to California's list of Schedule 3 controlled substances, giving law enforcement the ability to restrict access and curb illicit distribution. Xylazine is not approved for human use.

It is, in fact, called the zombie drug because it renders its user unable to stand upright and creates serious health complications, including dangerous wounds, which often lead to necessitating amputation. Unlike opioids, xylazine overdose can be reversed by Narcan. It cannot be. I'm sorry, let me restate that.

Unlike opioids, xylazine overdoses cannot be reversed by Narcan, which makes them far more difficult to treat in an emergency situation. While the federal government has introduced legislation to address xylazine, there has been no movement on that legislation. California cannot afford to wait. It's crucial that we take steps to protect Californians from the negative impacts of xylazine.

SB 6 ensures that California leads the way in regulating xylazine, protecting access for veterinarians, and preventing its misuse and trafficking in all of our communities. I have with me today, Mr. Chair, two witnesses. First is Dr. Grant Miller, who is speaking on behalf of the California Veterinary Medical Association. And the other is Ms. Moira Topp, who's here on behalf of our sponsor, Mayor Todd Gloria from San Diego.

Thank you. Good morning. You have two minutes to present.

Thank you, Senator Arreguín and Members of the Senate Public Safety Committee. As Senator Ashby mentioned, My name is Dr. Grant Miller. I'm the Regulatory Director at the California Veterinary Medical Association. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of SB 6 today. Also, thank you, Senator Ashby and her staff, for bringing forth this very important public safety measure.

The CVMA is in strong support of SB 6 because it makes aggressive moves to protect the public from xylazine diversion and abuse, while balancing the need for veterinarians to maintain access to the important drug for use primarily in livestock, equine, and wildlife species.

Xylazine commonly is used in veterinary medicine to provide sedation and pain control to livestock and horses. Its use and availability are of paramount importance to animal safety, human safety, and public safety by use with animal control officers who are using it to subdue loose and wild animals under the direction of a veterinarian.

It's also used in zoo medicine to help care for exotic species. It easily ranks among the top 10 medications that are used by large animal doctors on a daily basis. I myself am an equine practitioner. I use it probably in about 75% of my cases to provide very quick and predictable pain control and sedation to horses. Usually within about 45 to 60 seconds of giving it intravenously, the horse is calm. I can then go forward and numb a wound that needs to be cleaned.

I can stick a needle in an arthritic joint that needs to be injected with cortisone without being kicked. So I very much appreciate its predictable use in practice. I don't want to imagine what it would be like for my patients or myself or my colleagues if we didn't have this drug available.

SB 6 will make California a leader in this issue by making xylazine a Schedule 3 controlled substance on our state controlled substance list, and will do so with language to help ensure that veterinarians will be able to maintain vital access to xylazine for its legitimate veterinary practices and procedures. Thank you for your consideration. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Chair and Members, I am Moira Topp, here on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, sponsor of the measure. I think throughout California, we've seen the epidemic of illicit drug use destroying some of our cities. It's heartbreaking. And we've certainly seen what illicit fentanyl has done throughout California, throughout the United States. Xylazine isn't quite there yet, but we think it's important to not wait until it becomes the next fentanyl.

That's pervasive throughout California. Why we think this measure is important. Cities are on the front line of this fight. That's what brought Mayor Gloria to be the sponsor of this measure. We think this is incredibly important. We think it's a measured approach to this. It's not banning it, it's ensuring its appropriate use. But we do think this is a very important measure for the entire state and for cities throughout California. We ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any other support witnesses in the room? If so, please stand at the microphone. State your name, affiliation, and position for the record.

California Police Chiefs Association in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in support.

Good morning. Dylan Elliott on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Usha Mutschler on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association in support.

Good morning. Zach Cefalu on behalf of the League of California Cities in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ryan Sherman with the Riverside Sheriff's Association and the California Narcotic Officers Association and the other POAs listed in the analysis, all in support. Thank you.

Topo Padilla on behalf of Crime Victims United in support.

Thank you.

My name is Mareka Cole with Stop Drug Homicide, and I'm in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California DA's Association, in support.

Okay, is there any other support witnesses? Move on to lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward.

You have two minutes. Thanks.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Greg Gardner. I serve as California State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. DPA works across the US and abroad to enact truly health centered approaches to drugs. DPA appreciates. We truly appreciate the intent of this Bill to look for ways to prevent fatal overdose, to prevent suffering and to.

And to reduce the impacts, the health impacts that prohibition has brought and that other approaches to drugs have brought. DPA opposes this Bill because it would lead to arbitrary heightened criminalization of people who use drugs without providing any benefit or without reducing the presence of the drug in the illicit drug supply.

We all want our loved ones and communities to be safe. But criminalizing drug Xylazine will not prevent overdose deaths. It's not going to prevent suffering and it's not going to reduce the drug's use. We have solutions to these problems that increase access to care and that maintain public safety.

The safest neighborhoods are ones that have housing, health care and social services. They have continuum of care that's available when people need it and is immediately available to be provided. We know that access to comprehensive community based drug checking gives people information they need about what's in a compound and how they can prevent harm.

It allows them to make decisions about their use. We only have about five such programs throughout the state. Additionally, creating drop in centers, expanding naloxone distribution, building a network of peer outreach and street medicine services, improving access to medication treatment are things that we know work and they are working in California right now.

What is not working is criminalization. It hasn't worked with fentanyl, it's not going to work with Xylazine. This will not prevent the dissemination of this drug in the illicit drug supply. We know that. The impacts, however, are going to fall on people who are already suffering the most from addiction and from poverty.

Criminalization creates more instability, trauma and anxiety and it blocks access to jobs. It increases overdose risk and it leads to more dangerous substances. We also know that academics and addiction medicine experts have told us they've cautioned that scheduling Xylazine will complicate the research process.

That will tell us more about the impacts and the ways to address Xylazine in the drug supply. We need that research to occur and we don't need more barriers that are going to be caused through criminalization. If you can please wrap up. Of course we appreciate and support the intent of this Bill to reduce overdose.

But we do ask you to oppose moving this forward.

Thank you very much. Are there any other opposing witnesses in the room. You can please line up at the microphone. And please state your name, affiliation and position for the record. Thank you.

Celia Rogers, registering opposition for Initiate Justice Action. Thank you.

Rodriguez. On behalf of ACLU, California Action in opposition. Thank you. Any other opposing witnesses? Okay. If not, we'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Senator Cavallo and press.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, let me just say I really appreciate what you're. You're trying to do here, and I guess I have a hard time. It's a statement. It's not a question. I have a hard time believing that not having information in the public about Xylazine is good. It just.

I have to agree with the opposition that our whole approach to addiction has been less than stellar. And part of the problem is that it takes resources available when the individual is ready to give up their addiction. And we haven't put the resources into it that we need to part.

Partly because we've been focusing on physical health as opposed to mental health. No question. We've got to do both. But I think to a certain extent, we have to save people from themselves. I can't believe that individuals will take a pill without knowing what's in it. I don't even like taking pills when I know what's in it.

But that's another story. I want us to keep the community safe. And this Bill will get us at least the attention of the public. The more we talk about these kinds of drugs and the fact that they're being used to contaminate other drugs, I think the better it is.

So I'm going to support your Bill today knowing that it doesn't help us reduce addiction, but maybe it'll scare people away from using pills that they don't know what. What's in them. And frankly, it's young people. We're losing our youth to the excitement of trying a pill. So I thank you for bringing this forward. Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you. Senator Perez.

Yes. You know, Senator Ashby, I want to thank you for, you know, bringing this forward. And I think with your intention here, which is, you know, to try to address and prevent people from accessing Xylazine.

I am going to support your Bill, but I do just want to highlight that I think your Bill is part of a whole package of things that we need to do in order to better address this crisis. This is one that's really personal to me.

The whole reason why I ran for office was because I tragically lost my cousin after he accidentally overdosed on fentanyl. I've lost three family Members that way. And it is something that pains me. And I have spent many years since 2018 reflecting on what would have prevented those deaths.

And, you know, had the person that put fentanyl into those drugs been arrested and prevented from doing it, that could have been one way. Had the person that was with any of my family Members had access to naloxone, they would still be here.

Had they had access to testing strips that would have told them that there is fentanyl in those drugs, they would still be here. And I really think that it's going to take a multifaceted approach in order to really get at addressing and ending the opioid crisis that we've seen affect so many.

When I saw Xylazine and the reports on it begin to come up, it was terrifying for me because I still have family Members that live on the streets, and I still have family Members that struggle with opioid addiction.

And at any given moment, I could receive a phone call and that could be it for somebody else that I love. And knowing that there is not a drug that would provide them with recovery because of this, seeing pictures of people experiencing necrosis after using Xylazine and losing limbs, it's painful and it's terrifying.

But, you know, as I mentioned before, I know in addition to this enforcement mechanism, we also need to think about the other components of this. Right? And those that focus on harm reduction are incredibly important, too. And I don't want us to lose sight of that.

If somebody can't access, you know, behavioral health services in order to overcome addiction, how are they supposed to stop? And as somebody that has had so many family Members that have struggled with this, I can tell you, you can love somebody so hard with every fiber of your, and you cannot stop them from using drugs.

You really need those critical health interventions. And there's so much that goes into those very challenges. So, you know, I'll be supporting your Bill, but I do just want to highlight that I want us to continue to work on this and to think about the other methods that we can use to solve this crisis.

Enforcement is an important one, but harm reduction is critical, too. It's what saves lives as well. And we need to approach this issue with a multifaceted approach to really bring solutions and to keep people alive, because that is the goal and that is the purpose at the end of the day.

And as someone that's gone through the horror and the pain of losing somebody in this way, I You know, I'd want nothing else than to make sure that I was protecting other families like mine.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Pacing now. Turn it back over to you, Senator Ashby, to close.

Yeah. First of all, thank you to my colleagues and particularly Senator Perez, for sharing such a personal story. I think fentanyl has touched so many of us, and we want to do something about it. I. You're a new Senator, but you're so smart. This was part of a larger package last year.

Look at you figuring that out with the standalone Bill. It was part of the safer California package that the Senate put forward last year. It was a straggler, didn't quite make it out of the Assembly. So it's back. That's why the number is so small. Six on it.

But it is part of a comprehensive approach that the Senate and many people on this dais put forward last year to try to really comprehensively get at the issues around fentanyl and drug use, how to protect our streets.

That's why you have many, Mayor Todd, Gloria, big city mayor, here represented, and why it was so important to him that we brought it back. Xylazine has no use in humans. None. We're not. We're not. This is not one of those drugs that people use that has some redeeming quality for humans. It has none. Not in humans.

Only in the veterinary space on large animals is this drug of any use. And right now, it is legal for you to have it. It's legal for you to take it. That's not okay. As Senator Caballero said, we at least need to signal to the world, this is bad for you. It's illegal.

I chose Schedule 3 on purpose. That's the lowest level. It's a misdemeanor. Nobody's trying to criminalize anybody for using Xylazine. Trying to help them understand it will kill you. It's impervious to Narcan. So if you were on this. And Fentanyl, Narcan wouldn't help you. So that's very problematic for us.

It is not a kindness for us to leave people on street corners in their addiction. That is not a kindness. And it's also not a reality I think any of us are willing to live with. We ran for these seats because we wanted to make a difference in people's lives. This is not a panacea.

I wish I was smart enough to bring you a panacea for drug use and fentanyl and addiction. And I'll keep trying at It. I think, collectively, we are smart enough to get there. This is one piece of a larger puzzle. And I ask you for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Senator. Note for the record, the chair recommends an I vote on SB6. As the Senator noted, this creates. This contains an exception for the use of dowsing for legitimate veterinary use, but does make it a controlled substance, Schedule 3. It is a misdemeanor for all the purposes.

And this is really intended to address the alarming increase of this dangerous drug on the street. One, to send a message, but also to hold those accountable that are mixing this with other drugs or providing this to individuals that there are consequences. The impacts are catastrophic. We see images of people whose.

The wounds that they get from using this drug. It's terrible. So I think this is one more tool to protect Californians from the impact of this deadly drug. And I thank Senator Ashby for bringing this important Bill forward. And I'll entertain a motion from one of my colleagues moved by Senator Caballero.

[Roll call]

Thank you, colleagues.

We'll keep that bill on call. And so before we go to Senator Rubio, who's been waiting very patiently for two bills, I'd like to move back to the consent calendar since we have a quorum. Consent consists of file item 1, SB 2, Cervantes. Thank you.

File item 1, SB 4, Cervantes, the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Justice Program. And file item 7, SB 229 by Alvarado-Gil, Peace Officers, Deputy Sheriffs. I'll entertain a motion to approve the consent calendar or pull that item from consent. Yes, Senator Caballero. Moved by Senator Caballero to approve consent. All right. Okay, let's please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call so Senator Seyarto can record a vote. Thank you, colleagues. So we'll now go to our next file Item. File item 4, SB 19 by Senator Rubio. Good morning, Senator. And then we'll go to SB 248 after. Okay, so we'll now proceed once again to SB 19. And Senator, you may now present the bill.

Good morning, and thank you so much for this opportunity to present this bill. Today I'm proud to present SB 19, the Safe Schools and Places of Worship Act. As a teacher for 20 years in the classroom, I know that threats against our schools disrupts so much of what we do, not only learning, but it really traumatizes our children and our teachers, and it leaves everyone, the entire community, in fear. And no parent should ever have to wonder if their kids are safe.

And it's happening more and more often, not only schools, but, again, places of worship continue to see a lot of threats, a lot of fear. Just this weekend alone, I toured a temple that was defaced with horrific graffiti on the side. And again, this is something that's just not getting better. It's getting worse. So right now, California is falling short in tackling this issue and protecting schools and those institutions that worship from criminal threats.

SB 19 is critical for several reasons, but this measure really tightens up the law to ensure that our district attorneys and our law enforcement are able to tackle it in a way that we take those threats away from our schools and places of worship. One of the reasons that it falls short is that the law requires someone to make a specific threat to one person, and if they don't name the person, there's nothing we can do. In particular, there's specific threats that are happening today.

For example, in San Diego, a man sent hundreds of emails threatening a mass shooting at elementary schools. But the case was dismissed after such horrific fear because it wasn't directed at one specific person. And what we've learned through some data that we received, that the average cost of each incident, whether it's real or it's a joke, and some kids will do this on a dare, is that each incident is the average of $100,000 to address it.

You can't ignore it because you don't know at the time that it was not a real credible threat. But $100,000, as a teacher, I can tell you those resources can go to after school programs, educational programs, as a community as well. Right now, we're short in funding, and again, 100,000.

Every single, threat is ridiculous that we're not doing more to stop these. And of course, the other aspect is, with so much happening across our country, parents are already keeping their kids home. And as school districts close, we're losing ADA, which is the funding that we receive every time a child is in school.

And when they're out of school, we lose hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, again, this is really important so that we tackle that loophole. What we're having recently, we're have swatting calls and lockdowns. All of these things are becoming common occurrences. And I see it on TV, and I've seen it newspapers.

Most of the time they're dares and they're innocent. But again, public safety, institutions, schools have to take it seriously. And so we cannot continue to ignore this, and law enforcement, enforcement and school officials need our support. This bill is critically important just to deter people from making dangerous calls.

This is not about just public safety, as I mentioned, but it is really about protecting resources for our communities and making sure that people are not always in a state of alarm. With me today, joining me as my witness is Rochelle Beardsley, Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney for the Sacramento County District Attorney's Office. And with that, I'd like to turn it over to my witness. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And good morning, welcome. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Is this on? Good morning, Chair, Committee Members. The California District Attorneys Association is proud to support Senator Rubio's bill, Senate Bill 19. This will make it unlawful to threaten to commit a shooting or other deadly act at our schools, at our places of worship, medical facilities, or public venues, regardless of whether a particular person is identified in that threat. SB 19 criminalizes an offenders true threats that are outside of the protection of the First Amendment.

Currently, we prosecutors rely upon Penal Code Section 422 to prosecute threats of violence on school grounds, places of worship, or other public places. However, Penal Code Section 422 has its limitations. Like the Senator mentioned, it requires proof that the criminal threat cause a specific victim to be in sustained fear.

As you can imagine, these prosecutions are difficult to prove when the offender communicates a threat to commit a violent act at a place where many people could be in harm's way but does not identify a specific target. This requirement has led to major challenges for those tasked with promoting and preserving public safety.

For example, what the Senator mentioned. In 2023, a 38 year old man sent hundreds of emails threatening to commit a shooting at Shoal Creek Elementary School in San Diego. The different emails included the same sentence that read, quote, I'm going to commit mass shootings at the address Shoal Creek Elementary School, San Diego, California.

At the preliminary hearing, where our standard of proof is much lower, the judge dismissed that that charge. Other areas of the state have experienced similar situations. Due to my time limits, I'm going to refrain from giving you examples at this moment, but I can provide them if you need them.

Like this proposed legislation, federal law does not require proof of a targeted victim's fear in its prosecution of a communication of a criminal threat. The United States Supreme Court has long recognized that some types of speech are so dangerous that they are not entitled to protection by the First Amendment.

Far too often, threats are made to shoot up a place or an event causing fear, trauma, and disruption to the community because of the grim reality that mass shootings can and do occur in California and countrywide. Currently under Penal Code Section 422, these threats are not illegal because a specific person is not named.

Someone, for example, could threaten to shoot up this building. And without a specific person targeted or identified, I could not prosecute that as a 422. Senator Rubio, under your measure, law enforcement will be able to properly act upon and investigate terror causing events while also holding accountable those who make such threats. Californians should not have to live in fear, and those who make those threats should not be able to avoid the consequences of their actions. For these reasons, CDAA is proud to support Senate Bill 19. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other lead witnesses in support? Okay, we'll go to any other support witnesses in the room. If you'd like to, please line up at the microphone. Please state your name, affiliation, and position for the record.

Chair and Members, Jonathan Feldman again, California Police Chiefs Association, proud co-sponsor. Thanks to the author.

Thank you.

Good morning. Zach Cefalu with the League of California Cities in strong support. Thank you.

Hello. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

Good morning. Ryan Sherman with the California School Police Chiefs Association and a bunch of the other POAs listed in the analysis in support. Thank you.

Okay, unless any other support witnesses, we'll now go to any lead witnesses in opposition. We'll take two lead witnesses in opposition for two minutes each, and then we'll take any other opposing witnesses thereafter. Hi. Good morning.

Okay, we'd like to start this on.

Yes, it is. All right. Perfect.

Good morning, chair and Members. My name is Kevin Baron Maturano. I'm a Youth Policy Fellow for Fresh Lines for Youth. I'm here today to speak against SB19 because I know firsthand what happens when youth are criminalized instead of supported. When I was in middle school, I struggled.

I come from a mixed status family, and language barriers made it even harder for me and my parents to navigate school. I made mistakes. I got behavior referrals, and before I knew it, I had a reputation. Instead of getting support, I got harassment every day. School resource officers targeted me every day.

I was just a kid, but I felt like a criminal. It wasn't because I was a bad kid. It was because my school wasn't meeting my needs. It got so bad that I didn't even want to go to school and stopped attending. SB19 will only make this worse.

It allows police intervention for what's perceived as a threat, even if it's just a joke, a mental breakdown, or expressing yourself through art. And like every punitive policy, it will target black and brown students the most. But beyond the harm for youth, this Bill will also waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

California already spends over half $1.0 million a year to incarcerate just one young person. Just one. Meanwhile, schools are underfunded, mental health resources are stretched thin, and youth programs struggle for support.

Instead of spending money locking up kids for things that can be resolved without police intervention, why aren't we investing in what actually helps, like counseling, mentorship and education? I know firsthand that support works. When I finally got connected with a mentor, everything changed.

I found a program called Homies for Justice with a grassroots organization based in Oakland and have been able to transform myself into the person I am today. Fortunate for myself, I was introduced to restorative healing before I ended up as another statistic to the system. Now I've graduated from high school, currently attending college, and.

And something I've been able to learn through making mistakes. I know that if SB19 would be around when I was younger, I might not be here today. This Bill doesn't make school safer. It just pushes more youth out of school and into the system. If we truly care about youth, let's invest into support, not punishment.

Let's say no to SB19. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning, Margo George. On behalf of the California Public Defenders Association and also the San Francisco Cisco Public Defender's Office, I would echo Kevin's comments. You know, I think we live in very painful times where all kinds of mentally ill people are taking their frustration out, as well as young people on the schools, churches.

And then we also have the added dimension of white supremacist attacking synagogues and churches. But SB19 will not make us safer. It's not necessary. As pointed out in the analysis that you have, there are already approximately 10 different sections of the penal code that this conduct could be charged under.

And in terms of the San Diego incident, I would just add to that. Yes, the case was discharged at the preliminary hearing. It was apparently a mentally ill vet. However, it was immediately recharged. He was held to answer, and he remains in jail to this day awaiting trial.

So the District Attorney was able to use existing law to move forward and prosecute that conduct.

We, as public defenders have represented numerous people who are mentally ill and suffer from vets who suffer from PTSD and have been charged under the current law for basically making comments that they thought about getting a gun and shooting themselves or staff.

Another man who was in his 50s, was off his medication and said that he was going to blow up the building where he was. And his friend called the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Mental Health called the police, and they arrested him and he was charged.

So the law is adequate already to deal with this kind of behavior. SB19 will not make us safer. If it would, it would be, you know, a solution, but it's not. And so, on behalf of CPDA and San Francisco Public Defenders, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to any lead witnesses in opposition. If you can, please sign up and please state your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Tan Tran. Ella Baker, Center for Human Rights and respectful opposition.

Rogers, on behalf of Initiate Justice Action. In opposition.

Nedrick Miller. All of us and none. Sacramento. Strong opposition.

Aubrey Rodriguez with ACLU California Action and strong opposition.

Liz Bloom Gutierrez, on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union, Local 148. In opposition.

Gregory Kramer, on behalf of Disability Rights California. In opposition.

Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. In strong opposition. Angela Matthews, policy advisor with Central Valley. Movement Building, in strong opposition.

Thank you. Are there any other lead witnesses in opposition or witnesses in opposition? Rather, I'll bring it back to the Committee. For any questions or comments, we'll go to Senator Gonzalez and Senator Caballero.

Thank you very much. Can you hear me? Okay. All right. Thank you. Senator Rubio, I know that there is certainly a problem to be solved here with your Bill, and I certainly agree with that.

I will certainly support the Bill today, but I do agree with the opposition as well that there are no mental health support and youth supports, which I think is of great concern. So big question for you. How do you respond to the opposition?

How do you look forward to working with the opposition, especially as it pertains to mental health youth and, you know, ensuring that we are not having an influx of young men or women of color being incarcerated or getting misdemeanors or felonies due to this issue. We have to have this balance.

And so I look forward to those conversations.

Well, thank you for your comments. This is something that I think we can all understand clearly. We don't want to over incarcerate. We don't want to harm those that have mental health issues. Well, let me start with me again. As a teacher.

Currently I have a Bill that is going to bring programs to our elementary school so we can start educating our kids, since, you know, since they're young, to talk about mental health issues. We want to just, you know, our kids are not trained or taught that it's okay to talk about their feelings.

And so I have a Bill currently going through the system that's going to bring mental health education to our elementaries. We did that last year for our high schools. We're trying to bring it to elementary to ensure that we start a little younger.

But also, I know a comment was made that when a call is made that, you know, we're going to target people of color, you know, I don't disagree that there's, you know, numbers are there, but when some, someone makes a call and public safety responds, we don't know what color they are.

All we know is that people are in fear, they're in panic. And, you know, I know I also heard the statement that we don't need this law and, you know, that we can do without it. But, you know, I have to, again, I have to speak as a teacher.

Every time there's a shooting, my fear and what happens to me, you know, and I think of other shootings from like Sandy Hook, Stoneman, Stoneman High School, Parkland, going back to Columbine. There were signs. There's signs.

And I often think that when a child makes a threat or a young man or an adult, if there's mental health issues, they're already crying out for help and we cannot do anything about it if we don't have a way to bring them in and figure out what the need is.

One of the things that I wanted to do in this Bill specifically Was to ensure that minors that are 18 and under didn't get caught up with the felony.

So this one specifically, specifically says that if they're 18 or under, they can't get more than a misdemeanor for these sort of threats that perhaps turn out not to be serious threats, but something has to be done. I could go on listing all the schools that have had shootings, mosques, churches. I mean, people die all the time.

And so I always feel like we can't sacrifice one side for the other and vice versa. So I think it has to be done in a way that's respectful of what we're trying to do here as legislators. But when I hear things like, what are we doing about mental health services? I think it's up to us.

We're the legislators, and some of us have been here for a long time, have tried, have tried programs, and we're constantly fighting, fighting for resources. I can speak for myself.

So many programs that I want to bring to schools, and maybe this is a way we can all join hands and push for policies that do help our students. And every time we push for something and it dies, it makes me sad.

So I'll continue to push for those bills that will educate, that will ensure not only what I do, not only educate our students, but parents.

You know, the issues that I've been bringing up constantly, not only as I talk to the media and other people, is talk to your child about making these threats out of a dare, out of a joke. These are serious threats.

So I want to just mention that I did talk to some of the Das and Rob Bonta's office. They have so many programs right now in place. Rob Bonta has a gun violence prevention program that he does up and down the state. I talked to several Das across the state.

They also have programs, one in particular called gift Gun violence information for teens to help. And the. We also have academies where they educate. So we're trying to tackle it in many ways.

Again, not with the thought in mind to over incarcerate or harm innocent children or people that have mental health issues, but it's about how do we capture these individuals that are already crying out for help and figure out how to keep the majority safe. So I hope that I've answered your question.

Thank you.

I hope that we could potentially include and uplift some of those programs so there is more education in our schools and work with the organizations, whether they're in opposition or not, to be able to ensure that these threats are serious and that folks, both students, parents, Guardians know that these threats are very serious and what the repercussions might be.

But we also need to balance that with ensuring that there could be diversion programs and other elements that could be less, you know, penalizing for, for especially those that are 18 and younger.

So thank you for that, and I look forward to working with you on this, but I will support it today, but have a lot of questions moving forward.

Senator Caballero, thank you.

Mr. Chair. Thank you very much for being here today and for giving us your testimony. I think it's important for us to hear about second chances and about the things that made a difference in people's lives. So I really appreciate it.

So let me, let me just riff a little bit off of what Senator Gonzalez said, is that, you know, when I read through this, it basically just takes 422 and applies it to schools and places of worship and then makes a couple of tweaks.

One is that it creates a misdemeanor for juveniles, which I think is a good thing. And I think 422 should have misdemeanor for juveniles as well. Just as a way of, if you're going to get in and mess with 422, you might as well make it consistent.

But the purpose of that would be then to create an opportunity for a diversion program so that someone can do a mental health analysis to determine what's really going on. Is it family stuff that's creating this stress and tension?

Is it something that's going to require a little bit more serious intervention and to set up the kinds of diversion that really make a difference in a young person's life. A mentor, maybe a programming or management program, you know, whatever it is that the probation Department thinks is important, because 422 is always accused of being very vague.

But the court cases that have come out that have included schools and churches that were not specific to an individual, the courts extended 422 significantly. So what I hear you saying is you want to make it clear that that's the intent, because maybe in some instances the courts dismissed the case because it went through a preliminary hearing.

But I think technically there's a way to, to work the two together so that you're creating an opportunity for young people to make a mistake, to get angry, make a threat that could be credible.

I mean, I just have to say that the instances where there's been an announcement that there's a threat and there's been a lockdown, or students have been asked not to come to school or churches it's really disturbing and it really affects the communities in ways that are, that make people insecure about going to public places.

So I appreciate what you're doing with this Bill. I will support it today. And I encourage you to consider some of the options of including a diversion as a possible solution if in the evaluation of the DA and the judge, that that's an appropriate remedy.

And also the defense attorney, the defense attorneys are going to like it, but it's whether it's a judge or the DA, I think that's part of what needs to be discussed as well. So thank you very much for bringing this forward.

Senator Perez.

Thank you. I did have a couple of questions and wanted actually to hear the witnesses. I know you said that you had some examples that you didn't share.

So, you know, I looked through the analysis and I had noticed that at least in Section 2, it did highlight that two cases in particular where courts have upheld convictions or juvenile adjudications based off of current law.

So it has, you know, one example with a young man, a high school student, where, you know, he's threatened to bring a firearm to campus. You know, that did not happen. Then, as stated that he had been using drugs such as Xanax.

You know, he tried to challenge that, but the appellate court disagreed with his contentions and affirmed that. And then another case that was also with a high school student where the conviction was upheld.

So just to kind of better understand examples, I heard the opposition kind of speak a little bit more to the San Diego case in particular, that actually further on that this individual ended up, that you had mentioned ended up ultimately being arrested and is now, you know, in jail or prison, whatever it may be.

So would love to hear about the need that you see for the Bill and, and hear more details around that. And then after that, I have a couple more questions.

Thank you. Senator, the, the need for the Bill is one, it does cap the violations committed by a juvenile. Right. At a misdemeanor. Right now, 422. If I prosecute a juvenile under the current statute, 422, I can file a felony. It's a wobbler. I can file a felony or a misdemeanor.

This Senator Rubio's Bill would cap it at a misdemeanor. Capping it at a misdemeanor provides a wide range of diversion options. Right. We have court misdemeanor diversion that judges can offer to a defendant without, or a juvenile or minor, what we call them in juvenile court, without my acquiescence, without the Prosecutor's position.

In addition to that, if you want to talk about mental health diversion, like if these are cries for help, right. Under California law, we have penal code Section 1001.36. That's mental health diversion. It's been on the books for 34 or five years now. And 422s are not an excludable offense. What does mental health diversion do?

Someone who's charged with a misdemeanor or felony, frankly, can file for mental health diversion. The only requirement is that they've been diagnosed with a disorder that's listed in the DSM 5 within the last five years, either prior to the offense or after the offense. And then they're included into the program. And again, 422s are not excludable.

They don't even have to enter a plea. They get outpatient treatment in the community with mental health support that is paid for. It's not, they don't have to pay for it. And they, and after they're done with their program, again out of custody, their case is dismissed. I mean, and it's.

So we do have those things in place in California, in addition to the myriad of diversion programs that we offer here in Sacramento. In terms of other examples, this Bill would basically change the loophole. Like Senator Caballo was talking about.

Instead of having to name a specific person, like I'm going to come to Senate Public Safety and I'm going to use my gun and shoot Rochelle Beardsley from the DA's office. I, I don't have, I, it doesn't have to be that specific, but it does have to be a specific threat. Right.

So all it, so if, if, if this, under this Bill, if I said, hey, I'm going to send a public safety and I'm going to wreak havoc or I'm going to commit violence, that would cover it.

I don't have to name a specific person just as long as somebody is here's the threat and believes or perceives that to be an actual violent threat. So that's, that's the only loophole that it changes. And that in Alameda County. A couple examples.

Senator, suspect emailed multiple threats to commit violence at UC Berkeley causing a campus wide, campus wide fear. Authorities were unable to pursue charges under the 422 because the suspect, again, didn't name a specific individual. And it, it doesn't stop just at schools or, or mosques or places of worship. We're talking about hospitals, too.

It would close the loopholes for hospitals in 2021 in Orange County. Bomb threat targeting Mission Hospital, Mission Viejo forced patients to be relocated, delaying critical surgeries and emergency care. That suspect was later found, but prosecution under 422 hampered because, again, no specific threat on a specific person. Right.

So it is closing that particular loophole, but we still have the elements in place. I hope that answers your question.

No, that's incredibly helpful. And I appreciated you mentioning the cap on the violations to a misdemeanor, particularly for youth that are under 18. I did notice, too, that it looks like it no longer would make it so that a minor could be charged with a strike.

So it would just keep it to a misdemeanor, which I think is a positive. Right. As was noted before, as well as by some of my colleagues, unfortunately. And, you know, Senator Rubio knows this very well.

I do feel like there's been this dramatic increase in bullying that we've seen in our schools and just violence amongst our young people. And. And we can get into, you know, why that is, and, you know, certain leaders using language that I think has really kind of ignited, unfortunately, some ugly language, you know, on school campuses.

But it is quite scary and concerning. So as someone who's worked in a classroom, sometimes these kids say things that are absolutely absurd and they don't mean it, and they're doing it to get attention. And when you dig a little bit deeper, you figure out that there's stuff going on at home.

And so having some flexibility there, I think is really important. So I appreciate that you're removing the stuff strike. I appreciate that it's capping those violations to a misdemeanor, because I do think we have to approach our young people with more discretion. Right.

Someone who's under 18 and doesn't have that same developmental ability to make decisions and to understand, you know, me making a statement because I went through my first breakup, or I'm really angry and I'm emotional, the kind of impacts that it could have on other people around me.

So I do think that that's important, and I appreciate what you've done there. The final thing that I wanted to ask about was just the piece around, including. And I apologize, I lost track of this. The piece around, including churches. I think if.

For places of worship that can still be charged and prosecuted under a hate crime if place of worship is targeted. And so. But the. The goal.

And I guess so this would make it so that if a place of worship is targeted, a specific individual doesn't have to be named, but even if they're trying to target the church, like, and they just say the church or the congregation, then it just clarifies that. That they can. They can better be. Better be held accountable.

So is there. Does it make any change there? It'll still be considered a hate crime. Right. So it would be charged under both or. How does that kind of affect what the current law is?

The hate crime statutes are even, I think, more difficult for a prosecutor to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. I have to get in someone's head. It is helpful when someone's saying, I hate Asian people, and then I try to kill an Asian person. That is. That would be a stronger case.

But even, like, I've prosecuted hate crimes in the gangs and hate crimes unit for years, and the hate crimes are probably the most difficult crimes to sustain convictions on. I prosecuted the freeway shooter in highway I5 who shot. Tried to kill 4 different carloads of folks, black and brown people only.

And he would yell before he shot, hey. Racial epithet. I did not get him. I could not convict him of the. Of the hate crime. Yeah, we have the calcium. Yeah, I did. It's. And he's. Frankly, he was sentenced to a long period of incarceration because I convicted him of the attempted murder. But I.

The jury didn't return the hate crime allegations. And of course, he's out now. But. Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you answering those questions. That's really helpful. And especially the piece around. Around minors and some of the changes that you've made here. So thank you.

Thank you.

Senator, any other questions or comments from Committee Members? If not Senator Rubio, you may close.

Thank you. And I really appreciate this discussion. And I want to just be really clear that I am not unsympathetic to special needs and people with disabilities. You know, I have a brother who is special needs who did make a threat when he was a child, and there were some serious consequences.

However, one of the things that came out of that is that my parents were truly aware of the need to have a conversation with my brother. And it just brings a little bit more awareness. I can tell you. Years of education, I could see a child when they're crying out for help, but it's not always as obvious.

And so the reason I think this is important because we spend so much time now on lockdowns and practicing. We used to be doing a lot of fire drills and earthquake drills, and it's transitioned to now every time we're having these lockdown drills, and we still have to talk to our students about guns. And the dangers.

And so I just wanted to say that I understand when kids make an innocent mistake, but it was so important for me to cap that charge to a misdemeanor, because right now it's a wobbler. That means they could be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor. And this way we get them help.

And so the intent is just keep people safe, educate people, and continue to provide services to those that truly need it as it pertains to mental health services. And with that, I ask respectfully for an I vote.

Thank you so much, Senator. Before I entertain a motion, I'll just know for the record, I am recommending an I vote on this Bill, but I do want to encourage the author to consider what Senator Caballero said today. You know, this. This would be a misdemeanor for juvenile.

But to look at how we can build in a juvenile diversion as one aspect of the implementation of this law, for many of the reasons that were stated today. But, you know, the alarming increase in threats to schools and to places of worship is a serious issue.

And threats that don't specify a particular individual do not allow prosecutors to charge in those instances. I appreciate you bringing this forward, and I do encourage an I vote on this Bill. So I'll entertain a motion on SB19. Move by Caballero. Please call the roll.

SB19. Rubio motion is due. Pass to Appropriations. Araguin. Yes. Aye. Searto. Aye. Caballero. Caballero. I. Gonzalez. Gonzalez. I. Perez. Wiener.

Okay, we'll keep that Bill on call. Thank you. Senator Rubio, don't go anywhere because you're on your next Bill. And colleagues as we proceed. Given the length of our agenda today, we'll do our best to get done by 12, but we may have to recess the hearing, come back at 1:30, so.

And as we are proceeding with the discussion, want to ensure a robust discussion. I certainly respect all the comments and questions that people have asked, but want to make sure we can get through the rest of our agenda expeditiously. So we'll move now to SB248 and Senator Rubio, turn it back over to you to present.

Thank you. Ask my witnesses to come forward. Thank you. Thank you so much for allowing me to present my second bill here today. I know it's been a long morning already. Today, I'm proud to present 248, an important bill that will promote responsible gun ownership and reduce gun violence.

First and foremost, SB248 makes no changes to firearm purchases or ownership in California, it remains the same. Owning a firearm comes with a lot of responsibility.

And what we intend to do is just to ensure that we get information out to people, if they choose to read it, about how to keep themselves safe, their family and their community. Whether it's preventing a child from accessing a loaded gun or making sure a domestic violence survivor knows their legal options, education is key.

There is no harm with extra education. So SB248 takes a very simple proactive approach to reducing gun violence by ensuring that new gun owners receive educational materials on responsible ownership, secure storage and prevention on gun related tragedies.

This bill will require the California Department of Justice to send a letter to gun purchasers during already existing 10 day waiting period. This letter will include important information including best practices for safe firearm storage, information on reducing risk of suicide and domestic violence, which is in the rise. They keep rising.

In these recent years, we see an increase not only in suicide attempts, but domestic violence shooting. I do a lot on domestic violence and I can share with people the danger is now while they're in the relationship. It's when they leave where guns are used to prevent that individual from leaving the unhealthy relationship.

So again, we want to make sure that we educate it also to be very clear, this is about safety information for those that need it. People can choose not to read the letter if they choose not to. No one's going to force them. But for those that need it, it's important to have it at their fingertips.

I'm so proud that this bill is supported by a coalition of organizations dedicated to reducing gun violence, including the Brady Campaign, Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety.

And today, joining me to speak in support of the bill is Tanya Schardt, Senior Counsel and Senior Director of State and Federal Policy for the Brady Campaign, and Reverend Jason Bense of the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer. And I hope I say it right, Guesstimate Lutheran Churches of Sacramento.

So if I may turn it over to my guest speakers.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Still morning and you have two minutes to present. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Good morning. My name is Tanya Schardt. I'm Senior Counsel, Senior Director of State and Federal Policy at Brady. And I'm here to urge support for SB248. As you all know, gun violence is a public health epidemic that requires a multifaceted approach to prevention.

More than any state in the past two decades, California has taken strong action to prevent gun violence and save lives. And it has worked. Our gun death rates in California are 40% less than the national average. That's those are lives that we can count saved.

SB248 builds on this legacy, providing information and tools and resources for those bringing firearms into their homes. So often people bring a gun into their home because they believe it will keep them or their families safe. And to that end, it is so important for them to understand the risks and how to reduce them.

For example, to understand the importance of secure storage of firearms. It's also important for them to understand the complex systems of state and federal laws and how to comply with them, and to have information and resources to prevent gun suicide should the need arise.

Similarly, new residents in the state need this information to understand the laws and resources available in California. This bill is not aimed at disincentivizing gun ownership. Rather, it provides information that will prevent unintentional shootings where so often children are the ones harmed.

Gun trafficking, gun suicide, domestic violence, and it will empower gun owners with relevant education and tools. This is common sense. I thank Senator Rubio for her leadership and I urge support for this bill.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is the Reverend Jason Bense, and I'm a pastor in the Arden Carmichael area of Sacramento serving the Lutheran Church of Our Redeemer and Gethsemane Lutheran Church. I'm also part of the local chapter of Brady United Against Gun Violence. I speak today in support of SB248.

The community I serve is no stranger to gun violence, threats of violence, domestic violence, poor mental health and suicide. The public social teaching of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America is that multiple forms of trauma result from armed threats and shootings. Not only do such threats harm physically, but they traumatize spirits, families, communities and the social order.

The policy before you is about education and information. People bring guns into their homes for many reasons, but most often because they want to protect themselves and the people they love.

This bill offers an attempt at education and resources for peace and safety by preventively considering an awareness of domestic violence resources and tools, mental health, restraining orders, and compliance with existing gun laws. Firearms are the leading cause of death of children and teens in this country.

If one life can be saved by a few sheets of paper, it is worth all the cost in my estimation. I urge your support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Any of those support witnesses, please come forward. State your name, affiliation and position for the record.

Good morning, Chair and members. Rebecca Marcus, representing the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law. Thank you.

Thank you.

Cassandra Whetstone, volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support.

Yara Judal, volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Karissa Ganapathy, a volunteer with Moms Demand Action and in support.

Ethan Murray, state policy attorney, with Giffords in support.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses? Okay, if not, we'll go to any lead witnesses in opposition, please come forward. You have two minutes.

Each, right?

Yes, each. Correct.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman and Members, Sam Peredis, representing Gun Owners of California and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Now, it is plain and clear that there's a whole lot of educating that's going on right now.

When somebody buys a gun, any gun, and they have to go to a dealer within 5ft of the register, there are 11 signs within with letters 1 inch tall that cover everything that's in this Bill. So when they are making the purchase, that information is available to them. And let me read you the last two warning.

If you are or a loved one is experiencing distress or depression or is contemplating suicide, please call 988. The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Access to a firearm. This is another sign in the home.

Significantly increases the risk of suicide, death, injury during domestic violence disputes and the unintentional death and traumatic injury to children, household Members and guests. That is one form of education that is available to everybody who buys a gun.

Secondly, just at random, I went ahead and collected the owner's manuals, which is something that gun buyers are much more likely to read. That also includes all of the safety information required by California State law. They say so in their owner's manuals. So they are already getting this information.

Now, you are talking about sending out a piece of mail to every gun buyer. We're looking. According to the Department of Justice, in the last couple of years, it's well over 1.5 million guns sold. The average mail cost is about $2.50 per mail package. I'm in the direct mail business.

So the staff time, the postage, the printing, the delivery, all of that stuff, $2.5 on average times 1.5 million in the next year and a half. Now, this Bill says that, zero, you who need this education are going to have to pay for this education by getting being charged fees by the Department of Justice.

So how fair is that? You get the information twice, it is complete, and then you have to pay to get another piece of information that is going to go in the trash. So for these reasons and a whole lot of other common sense things, we are in strong opposition to this Bill. Thank you, sir.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, My name is Keely Hopkins and I'm the state Director for the National Rifle Association here today. And I'll. So while we are in opposition, I do want to note that NRA certainly supports firearm owners being aware of gun laws and gun safety.

In fact, that's a large portion of what NRA does. We have a network of over 125,000 instructors that provide training to hundreds of thousands of individuals each year about the safe, ethical and responsible firearm ownership. Our concern with Senate Bill 248 is with the type of information that will be included in the letter.

We want to make sure that the information presented is done so in an unbiased manner and then also question whether this is an effective use of the dealer's record of sale account. The DOJ, as Sam mentioned, already has a firearm law pamphlet that dealers make available to firearm transferees.

They also already have a firearm risk pamphlet that existing law requires dealers to provide. But Senate Bill 248 would now require DOJ to develop yet another piece of literature, and this time in the form of a letter. The author's stated intent is to reduce gun violence.

And if we're wanting to reduce gun violence and the criminal misuse of firearms, there are certainly better ways to utilize our resources than sending a letter. The Committee Bill analysis noted that there was a study conducted in Los Angeles in 2007 on a similar program that also sent a letter to gun owners.

And the reduction of gun violence or straw purchases were not the stated impacts of sending the letter. So as Sam mentioned, with the unknown costs it will take to develop this letter and mail it out, it seems that money could be better spent on different programs. So we encourage your opposition.

Thank you very much. Any other opposing witnesses in the room, please come forward. Okay. Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the Committee for discussion. Any discussion. Senecioto.

Question for the author. Is anything that's going to be in this pamphlet not already available in five seconds on the Internet?

Well, that's assuming that people have the Internet and not everyone has access. But, you know, one of the goals, and my hope is that, you know, the ability to send a letter gives flexibility to update on current laws, which change very often.

I can tell you personal experience of bills that I passed that I'm still having a hard time the judges understanding and using it for victims of domestic violence. So I think education never hurts. We're talking about, you know, lives saved.

And I know it may seem a little cumbersome, but at the end of the day, a piece of paper can save many lives. And those that want to use it, we should allow them to take the information.

Right. So it is available out there for people that are going to, that are interested in looking at gun safety, especially gun safety for their kids. And it's much more readily available than going through and getting a letter in the mail that's going to cost the state Money.

And that's, you know, it's one of the things that we keep piling on costs and all these little hidden costs, and then we make cuts in programs that are desperately needed, like Casa and things like those.

And so we have to weigh out if the information is already available to just about anybody, because just about everybody has their cell phone, we give them away. And so it just seems to me if the stores, you know, the dealers, they don't even need to do that. But all I did was Google gun safety.

Boom, there it is.

And so, you know, I just think it's available, and I think it's a redundancy that we don't need to be expending money on, because in our shortened budget year, you know, we have budget issues that we, you know, we really need to find things that are a lot more productive or effective to accomplish what we want to accomplish.

And I don't know this accomplishes any more than we can already accomplish, but it just spends another million and a half or $2 million. And so I'm not a big fan of spending that money for something we can get readily.

No, I appreciate that, but if I may, through the chair, I think a letter from the DOJ gives flexibility. Again, things change very rapidly in terms of laws that come out of this building, and just information that is that it's in flux, and just updating and giving current time information is just helpful.

And again, I understand the 2 dol cost, but when we think of lives, I just think that $2 is minimal to be able to save a human being.

The DOJ has problems updating their website, much less sending out letters. And that's, you know, for me, that's not an effective way to spend money. Thank you, Senate Press.

Yeah. I just wanted to say, Senator Rubio, I really appreciate your Bill. I think that it makes sense. You know, I. I understand. Unfortunately, folks do not necessarily, you know, look up all of the laws that surround owning a firearm and aren't necessarily keeping up with those things.

And so many of those things are constantly changing as well. So, you know, as someone that wants to promote, you know, gun safety, especially for those that own firearms, I think that this is a good way to make sure that we're getting information into people's hands. I do understand, obviously, it comes with some costs associated with that.

But I think more than anything, I appreciate the goal of your Bill, which is to encourage, you know, safe firearm ownership and make sure that people are up to date on the laws surrounding owning a firearm and how to best protect, practice, safety and when owning a firearm.

Thank you, Senator Caballero.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, first of all, let me just say that, that what I appreciate is that this is, this doesn't require DOJ to send the information to every firearm purchaser. So it's, that's certain individuals.

And if you're asking them to set up a new system to be able to send out letters, it's going to cost significantly more than 250 a letter. But, but that's not my, it's not my concern today. Today that my, my issue is dealing with public, public safety.

The issue about cost is appropriations, and then that does become my concern.

So one of the recommendations that I would make is that you consider other ways of getting this information to these individuals that is going to be less expensive than to set up a whole system of pulling out and identifying the individuals who are firearm importers, California residents who bring guns in from out of state, individuals who acquire a firearm as a gift, bequest, or via interstate succession.

Those are real specific categories. And I think getting them the information is important because they, they didn't stand at the counter that you were speaking to necessarily, and they may not have gotten the information.

So I will support your Bill today, but urge you to consider other ways of communicating with them that may not require the DOJ, first of all, to come up with the regulations necessary and then to plug into a system that may not identify these particular individuals separately from those that purchase guns in the state.

So, so I'm going to support your Bill today, but thank you.

Any other questions or comments?

No, thank you, Mr. Chair.

Okay. Unless there's any further discussion, I'll bring back to center Rubio to close.

Thank you so much. You know, it is an important discussion, so thank you for engaging. One of the things that I always say is, you know, multiple ways of getting information is, is not bad. So I'll just share real quickly.

One time I went to a hospital and they were talking to a teenage girl and they were giving her like, 10 pamphlets. And one of them was like, you need to feed your child.

And sometimes we think it's common sense, right, to feed a child and they had to give her everything from don't use drugs and feed your child. So this is one of those that I think when people buy guns, sometimes it's not as obvious and just reiterating safety procedures, best practices, you know, it's just, it could only help.

So thank you for your discussion here today, and I respectfully ask for an I Vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Before we entertain a motion, I'll just say for the record, my recommendation is an eye on SB248, but do want the author to consider the suggestions around other ways of being able to provide the information, whether electronically.

I know there are a number of pamphlets that DOJ already produces and whether those could also be incorporated any sort of communication. But thank you for bringing this forward. More. More education is important to create a safer California. And I'll entertain a motion move by Caballero.

[Roll call]

We'll keep the bill on call. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you.

Okay. Senator Umberg's been waiting very patiently. Good morning, Senator. We'll go now to File Item Six: SB 28, and ask are there any witnesses in support? Please come forward as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present SB 28, which carries out the mandate of Proposition 36, at least in part. One of the most effective ways of dealing with long-term public safety issues is to treat those with substance abuse disorder, and that's what this bill is trying to do, is to, again, carry out the mandate of Proposition 36 by doing several things. One is that if you are eligible for a felony mandated--or treatment-mandated felony, that you have, irrespective of where you may live in California, you have the opportunity to seek treatment.

Number two is to basically allow the courts that have collaborative courts that meet certain standards to use those courts. They don't have to create a new court to be able to fulfill the mandate of Proposition 36, and it's also to ensure best practices.

A bill that was enacted last year, SB 910, established sort of a baseline for drug treatment courts, which included a number of different provisions in terms of accountability, drug testing, frequency of visits with the court, those kinds of things to say that now those standards will be applied should this bill be signed now rather than in 2026. With me is Ms. Marika Cole, and with that, I rest my case.

Okay, thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. I'm in support of this bill, SB 28, because it's so critical to identify those that have substance use disorders to get the help that they need. People with substance use disorders that go undiagnosed have a tendency to not use the right frame of mind, you know, to follow the laws, but if it's mandated and supported in the courts, and given the choice to, you know, go and get help, then I think that it will eliminate a lot of unnecessary incarceration.

I do believe that there are standards put in place for those that are convicted with felonies and misdemeanors and having the ability to go and get treatment and the courts recognizing that in all the counties and offering that, that that's something that's much-needed on the wake of Prop. 36, and it gives that treatment program the standards--everyone should follow the same standard--and recognizing that substance use disorder is a real problem that can be solved.

So, no further witnesses.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on to any support witnesses in the room. If you can please come forward and state your name, affiliation, and position for the record.

Thank you. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support.

Good morning. Skyler Wonnacott with the California Business Properties Association, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, California DA's Association, in support.

Good morning. Amer Rashid with the County Behavioral Health Directors Association of California with a support if amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses? Okay. If not, we'll move on to lead witnesses in opposition. I will take two lead witnesses in opposition, and you'll have two minutes to address the committee on SB 28.

No? There we go. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Anthony DiMartino, and I am the Director of Government Affairs for Californians for Safety and Justice. I'm here today in respectful opposition of SB 28. While we agree with the Senator that more resources and thinking on this issue is needed to correctly implement Proposition 36, we disagree that this bill is the correct vehicle.

We are concerned that this bill's approach prioritizes forced conformity and sharing the already limited resources of treatment courts. This will inevitably result in an overburdened system that is neither cost-effective or reflective of the new solutions that voters called for when they approved Proposition 36 in November.

I want to be very clear in describing the current landscape of Proposition 36 implementation, as the gravity of what we are seeing is an important part of this dialogue. In the most recent Proposition 36 informational hearings in both the Senate and the Assembly, the message from the panelists was clear.

Additional resources are needed to be able to effectively implement Prop. 36. Last week, the Judicial Council shared with the Legislature their Prop. 36 survey results from 49 counties representing 98% of the state's population. According to the survey, there will be on average 25,000 cases annually that are now felonies because of Prop. 36.

Prop. 36 cases are often more complicated and the case processing time is higher than the other cases. Fifty-five percent of the file charges have been drug related so far and caseloads are projected to increase by the thousands. This is a significant shift.

Proposition 36 relies on the availability of new treatment pathways, not repurposing existing state and local treatment capacity to meet the needs of a different population. The initiatives provisions outlining the nature of the treatment programs available for defendants pleading guilty to PC 11395 are lengthy and allow for treatment programs tailored to the specific needs of each defendant.

Notably, the provisions do not include any reference to treatment courts as avenues for providing this treatment. While we recognize that courts statewide are working hard to build out treatment programs in line with the provisions, we are concerned that creating a clear pathway for the use of treatment courts to meet these needs may result in outcomes not in line with the intent of Prop. 36.

Treatment courts today serve as potential interventions for people with treatment needs facing a variety of different criminal charges. The potentially significant influx of referrals from these cases, a small subset of the statewide--

Wrap it up. Thank you.

As Judge Cooper, a supervising judge of Collaborative Court shared in his testimony last week, treatment courts are not a perfect fit for 11395 cases and cannot effectively be integrated. We urge the Legislature to focus on new--on creating new solutions with new resources for treatment-mandated felonies.

Thank you. Did you want to finish with a minute and a half? Thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you, Vice Chair and members of the committee. My name is Grey Gardner. I serve as State Director for the Drug Policy Alliance. We oppose SB 28 respectfully because it would require a massive investment in the courts.

It would divert funding from the--from actually providing more treatment into providing more supervision through the courts. We intended, or voters purportedly intended Prop. 36 to provide more treatment. This bill would not--by steering more people into drug courts--provide any more treatment.

Not a single additional residential bed, not a single additional access to outpatient counseling, medication treatment; it's not going to provide any more treatment, but it is going to require a massive investment in drug courts, which are very small and they are very specifically tailored to high-risk individuals. They're not tailored to people with simple possession charges.

We don't have a whole lot of information about the effectiveness of drug courts in California specifically right now. There's a lot that's said about them being evidence-based but in California, you don't know the outcome results. Generally, what we've read is that outcomes are about 50% completion.

If you have 50% completion in drug courts, you are going to have a massive additional investment in county jails and prisons. So we're steering a lot of people into drug courts that are not a good fit, as was said before for this population. That's been said by the courts. The judges have expressed significant concern about this.

The last thing I'd like to say, Vice Chair, is that, you know, Prop. 36 was intended or is certainly being played out to provide--to address--it's bringing a lot of people into the system, into the criminal system who are unhoused, and having all of those people moved into the drug courts is going to be very impractical.

Drug courts require a lot of hearings. We've heard about the standards that are going to be applied and they're going to be accelerated by this bill. The frequency of hearings is a lot, and it's, I submit to you, virtually impossible for somebody that is unsheltered to manage drug court in an effective way.

And they are not presently, I submit to you, getting a great deal of service out of that. It's going to be very hard for people to leave behind their belongings every time they go into court. So I submit to you that this is not the effective way to implement Prop. 36.