Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety

All right. Good morning, everybody. I'd like to call the Assembly Public Safety Committee to order. I'd like to begin with some. Actually, before we begin with housekeeping items. I see that we have a quorum. Madam Secretary. Conduct the Roll.

[Roll Call]

And I see that our Vice Chair is with us as well. Thank you, Mr. Alanis. Thank you, Mr. Ramos. Okay, now to the housekeeping items. There are some General rules of conduct before we start today's hearing.

Please note that in order to facilitate the goal of conducting a legislative hearing and as we proceed with the witness and public comment today, throughout the entire duration of the hearing, I want to ensure that everyone understands that the Assembly has rules to ensure that we maintain order and run an efficient and fair hearing for everybody involved.

The Committee will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of today's legislative proceedings. Please be aware that violations of these rules may subject you to removal or other enforcement actions. Next, I'd like to mention that we have the off calendar. The following items have been pulled by the authors.

Item number eight, Assembly Bill 1019 by Assembly Member Flora entitled enhancing law enforcement activities Sub Account identification of unidentified human remains. That has been pulled as well as item number 12, Assembly Bill 1118 by Assembly Member Chen entitled criminal Procedure Search warrants. And lastly, item number 30, Assembly Bill 1488 by Assembly Member Flora entitled self defense.

Next we have the adoption of today's proposed consent calendar. We have the following items on consent calendar and then Members, I will be hoping to see a motion. We have seven items on consent calendar. Item number one, Assembly Bill 354 by Assembly Member Michelle Rodriguez entitled Commission on Peace Officer Standards and training.

Item number four, Assembly Bill 651 by Assembly Member Brian entitled Juveniles Dependency Incarcerated parent. We have item number 15, Assembly Bill 1140 by Assembly Member Connolly entitled single Occupancy Cell Pilot program. Assembly. Sorry. Item number 19, Assembly Bill 1195 by Member Quirk-Silva entitled Juveniles Incarcerated Parent visitation.

We have item number 20, Assembly Bill 1210 by Assemblymember Lackey, entitled post Release Community supervision. We have item 21, Assembly Bill 1213 by Assembly Member Stephanie entitled restitution priority. And lastly, we have item 28, Assembly Bill 1387 by Assembly Member Quirk Silva entitled Mental Health Multidisciplinary Personnel team. Do I have a motion? Okay, Motion by Nguyen. Second by Alanis.

[Roll Call]

Okay. Consent calendar is passed, adopted. Thank you. And next we'll be going to our first item. Up today we have Assembly Member Gabriel. I believe you're going to take. Is it 1127 or 468 first. Okay. So we'll be hearing Assembly Bill 1127. Colleagues, this is item number 13 in your agenda packet. Assemblymember Gabriel, you know the drill.

You'll have five minutes to present as will any witnesses here today testify in support. And your time will begin once you start speaking. Yes, some Member Gabriel, would you give me just a minute before you get started?

[Background Noise]

Okay, thank you very much. Assemblymember Gabriel, before you get started, just wanted to mention that for today's hearing, we will be hearing all of the bills in sign and order with standing Member committees presenting their bills towards the end of the hearing. We appreciate everyone's patience.

And as I just mentioned to Assemblymember Gabriel, authors will have five minutes to present and main witnesses will have combined time of five minutes for each side as that is the Committee's standing practice. We now turn to item number 13, Assembly Bill 1127. Assembly Member Gabriel, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Colleagues. I want to start by accepting the Amendments and thanking Mr. Chair, and the Committee for your thoughtful feedback and assistance.

Today, I'm pleased to be presenting AB 1127, which will protect communities from mass shootings and gun violence, by encouraging gun manufacturers to prevent the conversion of their firearms into dangerous automatic weapons. Automatic weapons are exceptionally lethal and capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute. They are illegal in California.

Unfortunately, some semi-automatic firearms feature a dangerous design element that allows conversion to fully automatic weapons, through the attachment of a cheap and easy to use device known as a switch. Recent statistics have shown that over the past dates—past decade—automatic weapons have become increasingly prevalent.

Law enforcement agencies from across the nation have reported triple and quadruple digit increases in the number of switches and firearms equipped with switches that have been seized.

While law enforcement has been working diligently to get these illegal weapons off of our streets, gun manufacturers have refused to fix this deadly design element that enables the easy conversion to automatic weapons. It's worth noting that most handgun designs don't have this issue.

And the Committee Amendments I'm accepting today make it unmistakably clear that this Legislation focuses on a limited few designs that are exceptionally easy to modify. AB 1127 will prohibit the sale of semiautomatic handguns that feature these specific design elements and component decisions that render them so easily convertible into automatic weapons.

Certain actors in the gun industry have known about this issue for decades and they have done nothing about it, and this Bill would change that. This commonsense Legislation will ensure that the gun industry is held accountable and that we are doing everything we possibly can to protect our communities from mass shootings.

AB 1127 contains a clear exemption for law enforcement agencies and enjoys support from a broad coalition of gun violence prevention organizations and some incredible community advocates. As parents and as lawmakers, we cannot stand idly by why our schools and communities are threatened by these illegal guns.

We know that there is an easy solution to this problem, and so—and by fixing it, we can keep dangerous weapons off our streets, save lives, and make California safe for all of our children. I'm very pleased to have with me today to testify in support of this bill, Greg Lickenbrock, a Senior Firearms Analyst at Everytown for Gun Safety, and Deborah Grimes, an Activist with Moms Demand Action.

Thank you, and I respectfully request your "Aye" vote.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of this Legislation. My name is Greg Lichtenbrock and I am the Senior Firearms Analyst for Everytown for Gun Safety. Before joining Everytown, I spent a decade working in the gun industry as a magazine editor.

I tested hundreds of firearms, attended media events and training courses, and met people working at every level of the industry. I've also worked extensively with Glock and its products.

Glock switches are tiny third-party devices that cost as little as $25, are easily 3D printed, and can be installed on the back of a Glock's slide, the top half of the gun, in seconds. Once in place, a switch allows a shooter to hold down the trigger and fire dozens of shots in the blink of an eye.

Glock pistols are extremely easy to convert into machine guns because they use a cross-shaped or cruciform trigger bar that provides surface area for a Glock switch to contact, and I provided some photos to help here.

Each time the gun's slide returns forward, the Glock switch's leg, or protrusion, impacts the trigger bar and pushes it downward, causing the gun to fire. As long as the shooter depresses the trigger and the gun has ammunition, it will continue firing.

The only conventional handguns that have this problem are those that use Glock-style trigger bars, including Polymer 80 Ghost Guns.

Other pistols made by the largest manufacturers, including Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, Springfield Armory, and others, would require extensive engineering to convert into machine guns because their trigger bars are broken into smaller, disparate components that are shielded from interference.

Glock has reportedly known about this problem since around 1987, when the man who invented the first switch showed his design to the company's founder. But Glock has publicly insisted that it cannot fix the problem, despite Glock switches being used in a dozen mass shootings nationwide, including right here in Sacramento.

In 2024, the ATF noted that police had recovered 31,000 machine gun conversion devices, a number that includes switches, in the past five years. This Bill is a smart, targeted approach to making it harder for criminals and others intent on harm to obtain fully automatic weapons. Thank you.

My name is Deborah Grimes, and I'm here to speak in support of AB 1127. I'm the local Group Leader of Sacramento Moms Demand Action, but I'm better known as Najee's mom. My husband Gregory and I are impacted survivors. Our son, Najee, was shot and killed just a couple of blocks from here on the 4th of July, 2022.

While Najee's case was high profile and featured on America's Most Wanted, what most people do not know is that there were actually five victims of gun violence that tragic night. Najee was the only person who died. He was vitally hit multiple times, at close range, without provocation. It happened so fast, he never saw it coming.

Bullets flew everywhere. The shooter chose to enhance his assault by dressing up his pistol with a switch to convert his firearm to a lethal semiautomatic weapon. One bullet was not enough. In an instant body spell, witnesses say the barrage of gunfire sounded like fireworks. Remember, it was the 4th of July. Sadly, they were mistaken.

The availability of an accessory slapped onto a pistol, solely to increase the rapid function of a trigger pull, is atrocious. People are maimed and lives are lost. There is no upside to this enhancement feature. Losing our only child nearly killed me. We stand here today trusting their future families can avoid this debilitating experience.

We plead for the approval of AB 1127, without hesitation. Thank you all.

Assemblymember Gabriel, thank you for your presentation. Thank you both for your testimony. And, ma'am, thank you very much for sharing your story, and I'm very sorry for your loss. Thank you. Next, we'll be turning to hear from other members of the public who'd like to be heard on the matter.

Please line up, and we will be asking for only your name. If you happen to be part of an organization, please tell us that as well. And, of course, your position on the matter, which I assume will be support. We can get started when the first speaker is ready.

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

Claire Senchyna, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action and a survivor of gun violence. In support.

Liz Durazo, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action, survivor of gun violence, in support.

Deborah Hamilton. Oh, thank you. I'm with Moms Demand Action. I'm a gun violence survivor, and I am in support.

Sabrina Alfin. I'm a Volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I'm in support of this Bill.

Emmy MacRae, a Volunteer with Students Demand Action, in support of this Bill.

Haley Asen, a Volunteer with Moms Demand Action, in support.

Kim Manfredi, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

Jillian King, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action. In support.

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

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

Mary Lou Rossetto, Volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and former Police Officer, in support.

Hi. Megan Simmons with Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel, on behalf of Initiate Justice, in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes, for Prosecutors Alliance Action, in support.

Wonderful. I think we have more folks coming in. Again, name, organization, and position, please.

Diana Honig. I'm a resident of Orenda, here in support.

My name is Kathleen Humphrey. I'm a Volunteer with Moms Demand Action, and I'm here in support of this Bill.

Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, in support.

Good morning. Jamie Minor, on behalf of Giffords, pleased to support. Thank you.

Okay, is there anyone else here hoping to be heard in support? Okay, I don't see any affirmative answer. So, next, we'll be going to witnesses hoping to testify in opposition. Do we have anyone here? Okay, we do.

Once you both get seated and start speaking, you, as well, will have a total of five minutes to present to the Committee.

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Keely Hopkins and I'm the State Director for the National Rifle Association, here today in opposition to Assembly Bill 1127. Assembly Bill 1127 unnecessarily bans one of the most popular semiautomatic pistols with the reported intent of restricting them from being converted into machine guns.

Devices that are designed to convert semiautomatic firearms to fire automatically, the so-called auto switches or Glock switches, are already prohibited under federal law. Assembly Bill 1227—or 1127—goes beyond this prohibition to outright ban the sale or transfer of these semiautomatic pistols.

Federal law defines a machine gun as any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can easily be restored to shoot, automatically, more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. This also includes any part designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.

Firearms that shoot automatically meet the definition of this. However, even the mere part designed and intended for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun is, itself, a machine gun, absent any other part of the firearm. Therefore, possession of an auto switch, even without the accompanying firearm, is possession of a machine gun and is already illegal.

Those found in possession of an auto switch face up to 10 years imprisonment, and violent criminals who possess or use an auto switch during the commission of a crime face staggering penalties under federal law.

While the alleged intent of this Bill is already covered under federal law, the only remaining purpose is to villainize one of the most popular semiautomatic pistols and outright ban it here in California. We urge your opposition.

Mr. Chairman, Members. Sam Paredes representing Gun Owners California. It's a pleasure to testify before you as a new member for the first time. I don't know how much you like it, but—first of all, Glock, the single most popular firearm for self-defense in the world, especially here in California and the United States. They are ubiquitous.

The issue of—so, the Supreme Court in the Bruin and the Heller decision, Cayetano, and then Bruin, came and said that anything, any firearm, that is in common use for lawful purposes is protected by the Second Amendment and cannot be banned.

That's the first reason this thing is going to go to court, immediately, if it is signed by the Governor. Secondly, the author criticizes Glock for doing nothing about this issue. In fact, they did so with their generation for Glocks. They modified them so the Glock switches could not be applied and all of them in the future.

The problem is, the State of California prevents Glock from selling Generation 4, 5, and now 6, in the State of California because of the unreasonableness of the roster.

If they take the Gen 3, convert it to Gen 4, so that a Glock switch cannot work, they would have to reapply for another position on the roster, which they cannot do, because the design does not lend itself to some of the requirements that, that are needed in the roster.

So, it is the State of California that is preventing Glock and many clones. There are lots of companies, including Ruger, some of the biggest name companies, that clone the Glock. They're also included.

And, and, and lastly, I mean, if you know anything rudimentary about firearms, you know that there is no such thing as a semi-automatic pistol that cannot be converted into full auto, period.

So, this Bill could be looked at as an outright ban on semiautomatic handguns in the State of California and is an issue that is certainly challengeable in the courts.

For these reasons, and, and the fact that the State of California has lawful gun owners by the neck and will do nothing to the criminals who misuse these guns, we are unalterably opposed to this Bill and hope you will vote "No." Thank you.

All right, thank you both very much for your testimony today. Next, we'll hear from anyone else who'd like to be heard in opposition to the Bill. So, if you can line up over here on this side of the wall, and, again, name, organization and position, please.

Rick Travis, California Rifle Pistol Association. Stand in opposition.

Good morning. David Bullock, on behalf of Legal Gun Owners in the San Fernando Valley and Ventura County. We are in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, final call. Anyone else liking to be heard on the Bill? Okay. Seeing no response. We'll now turn it over to the Committee for questions or comments. Would anyone like to get us started? I'll just pitch one question out.

Assemblymember Gabriel, as the author of the Bill, we heard some critique of the intention and scope of the Bill, in the course of opposition testimony. Do you have any response to the opposition?

Yeah, thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Just two points. I mean, first, and I'll turn it over to my technical witness if folks have further questions, I think the opposition witness was meaning to talk about the Fifth Generation Glocks where they've done a little minor modification to try to prevent this issue, thereby acknowledging it.

It's very clear that it's a very easy fix to continue to overcome that. And so, there's still this problem remains, and we continue to see this in law enforcement seizing Glock switches, seizing guns that have been converted. There isn't really any real impediment to that.

And I can have the—if you want to get into it, with the firearm expert who's written for every gun magazine on the planet that people buy and read and appreciate, he can explain the physics and the mechanics of that. But I think it is undisputable that this issue exists.

On the issue of the constitutionality, I think the Committee Analysis lays out in a very thoughtful way why, even under Justice Scalia's opinion in the Heller decision, this would be on firm constitutional footing. And so, obviously, the industry would be free to challenge it in the courts, if it wanted to.

But I think that we're—there's a lot of reasons that we feel confident under Bruin, and the other Supreme Court precedent, that we are on firm constitutional footing here. And then, the third, just, just to the question about that this is somehow broadly intended, I think the Committee—the amendments we're taking in Committee today—put that to rest.

We are very clearly focused on one specific problem. This is a commonsense gun safety Bill. It is narrowly focused. It is narrowly targeted.

You've heard the witness testify today that there are many other manufacturers out there, SIG Sauer, Smith and Wesson, and others, who are producing firearms that do not have this design element that cannot be so easily converted into weapons that cause the type of terrible destruction that Deborah described.

So, I think the Committee Analysis does a great job of knocking down all of those arguments, and particularly, with the amendments we're taking today, I feel like we're in a good place.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel. Vice Chair, I believe you have some questions.

Just real quick, now that we're talking about automatic guns being, or semi-automatics being brought to automatic. So, if I can talk to your expert, opposition talked about how any gun could be made into an automatic gun. What is, what would your explanation—or what would you say about that?

That may be true, but it would require extensive engineering, and we don't see every semiautomatic firearm showing up at crime scenes. We're seeing Glock and Glock-style pistols converted into machine guns at crime scenes. That's not just for me. That's from the ATF.

And I'm assuming that's because it's easier, because you just have to buy a little switch to do that.

That's correct. You can modify the gun in less than a minute.

So, now if the semiautomatic gun is modified into automatic, would that then fall under this Bill?

Yes.

So, essentially, every gun manufacturer could fall under this Bill?

No, that's not what I said, sir. The way that the text has been amended, it specifically addresses Glock-style pistols that can be modified with Glock switches. It does not touch other classes of firearms. It does not touch 90% of the handgun market.

Okay. And Mr. Author, I know that the opposition also said that there was possibly another gun that was also mentioned in there. Sam, if you can, what was the name of the other one?

The other firearms that have duplicated are Staccato, Ruger, on and on. Major manufacturers have adopted the style of gun that Glock makes, once the patents were expire and many of them are virtual duplicates.

Okay. Do you have any on that?

I think, you know what, just to build off what the experts said, this is very focused on one specific element here, which is this Glock-style trigger bar. And so, we have put in a lot of effort and thought and intention in crafting the amendment and saying what's excluded from this, to make sure that it's crystal clear.

And that's what my testimony is saying here today—that we are not targeting the market broadly, that we are targeting this specific design element. And the issue here, what makes it so deadly, is that it's so cheap, it's so easy, and it's so quick to be able to convert this particular style of weapon.

And so, that is a design element that is directly resulting to deaths on our streets, as you have heard. So, we are—we have worked very hard with technical experts, with Committee, to craft this language in a way that focuses on that specific issue.

And so, one more thing, and if your expert wants to answer it. So, is this the prevention of any Glocks being sold in California after this, if this bill's passed?

I think the, oh.

No, go ahead.

I think the hope here is that Glock will do what it should have done decades ago, which is make very minor modifications to its design, so that they can continue to sell into this market. But we can also have confidence that there aren't going to be what we've seen, which are these nonstop illegal conversions of their weapons.

So, we have all the confidence in the world that Glock can update its design elements. They know that this is an issue. All the other manufacturers are doing this. So, we want them to do the same thing to protect our communities.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Vice Chair. Are there any other questions or comments from Committee Members? Okay, we have a motion by Nguyen. Is there a second? A second by Sharp-Collins. Before we go to a vote, Assemblymember Gabriel, I'll give you a chance to close.

Yeah, I just want to thank everybody for the robust discussion. I particularly want to thank the amazing advocates here who continue and consistently show up to try to protect our kids, protect our communities. And on their behalf, I would respectfully request an "Aye" vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Gabriel. I will just say Chair is recommending an "Aye," Colleagues, on this vote, I appreciate the author for bringing the Bill forward.

I share your commitment to public safety, and I appreciate the taking of the amendments, which I do—while I understand they will not fully satisfy the opposition, I do think the amendments substantially clarify the scope of the Bill and what it applies to and what it does not. So, thank you to the author. We'll conduct the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that will remain on call. We'll let you know the outcome, Assemblymember Gabriel. Thank you, everyone, for your participation today. Assemblymember Gabriel, we're not done with you just yet. I believe you have Item Number—Number 2. This is Assembly Bill 468. We'll give you a moment to settle and then we'll let you present on that matter.

Yeah. Okay.

All right. Assemblymember Gabriel, are you ready to present AB468?

I am, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, and thank you again. Let me start by accepting the proposed Committee amendments. And let me thank you, Mr. Chair, for your very thoughtful assistance and feedback here. I really appreciate it.

And I am pleased today to presenting AB468 bipartisan legislation that will provide law enforcement with better tools to protect communities during fires and other natural disasters. During the recent Southern California wildfires, all of us were moved by the incredible bravery of our first responders who worked diligently to keep our community safe.

At the same time, we also witnessed individuals who sought to take advantage of this tragedy and further victimize our communities. I know from personal experience that when my community of Encino was under mandatory evacuation, many residents were deeply concerned about the safety of their homes and property, which created further anxiety about following lawful evacuation orders.

Looters, and particularly those who impersonate emergency personnel, create chaos and confusion. They endanger residents and first responders. They divert critical emergency resources, and they victimize communities that have already suffered devastating harm. Among other important changes, this bill will provide prosecutors better tools to address looting and impersonation of emergency personnel.

It will close existing loopholes that can hinder prosecution, particularly in cases involving theft from damaged structures or vehicles left behind in a disaster zone. This legislation will also increase peace of mind for impacted communities by extending protections to homeowners during the rebuilding process.

By closing loopholes, providing stronger deterrence and better protecting communities during the recovering and rebuilding process, AB468 will make clear that we cannot and we will not tolerate behavior that endangers public safety or puts our brave first responders at greater risk.

This legislation was developed in close consultation with firefighters and emergency response professionals and is supported by a coalition that includes the California Professional Firefighters, the California Fire Chiefs, the California Fire Districts Association, the California Police Chiefs Association, the mayors of San Francisco, San Diego and Sacramento, the League of California Cities, and district attorneys from Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Clara, Ventura and Riverside.

I'm pleased to have with me today to testify in support of this Bill Trevor Jamison, President of Sacramento area firefighters local 522. And we also have with us Michelle Contoys with the Ventura County District Attorney's Office, who's available for any technical questions. Again, I want to thank the Committee for their Thoughtful assistance and respectfully request your.

aye vote on this bill.

And both of you may testify. Once you start, you'll have a combined total time of five minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members of the Committee. My name is Trevor Jamison, and I'm the President of Sacramento area Firefighters and a Member of the Executive board of the California Professional Firefighters. I am pleased to be here today and support AB468.

I would like to thank Assemblymember Gabriel for his leadership on this issue and thank the Committee for their Consideration. I am a firefighter here in Sacramento, and I have sworn an oath to protect my community and the residents of California. The public trust is critical for me to do my job.

Whether it is a medical emergency in a home, an active fire or other emergency. It is critical that when I arrive on scene, people trust me and I can quickly move to remedy the situation. During the Los Angeles fires, thousands of firefighters from various agencies supported the mission of protecting life and property.

While firefighters were spending 244872 hours straight attempting to put the fire out and evacuate residents, there were reports of some individuals looting evacuated homes while impersonating firefighters and other emergency response personnel. This action cannot be tolerated. AB468 provides a measured approach to ensure that people who commit those crimes are held accountable.

Individuals impersonating emergency response personnel also present new dangers for emergency responders. For example, if someone is in full turnout or with an engine at a home down the street, we may think they are mitigating the fire spread that allows us to initiate fire attack in another part of the neighborhood.

But it turns out those individuals were impersonating firefighters to loot, and we could be at risk because we are under the impression those resources were down the road initiating fire attack. For the safety of our communities and fellow firefighters, we respectfully request your aye vote.

The other witness is just here for technical.

Zero, okay. All right. Thank you very much. Next, we'll hear from any other persons who'd like to be heard in support of the Bill. If you'd like to be heard in support, please line up. State your name, organization and position, please.

Mr. Chairman, Members Dan Filizado, on behalf of the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members Obed Franco here on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California in support.

Good morning. Thank you. Michelle Contoyce, Ventura County Deputy District Attorney. I'm here today on behalf of Eric Nazarenko, Ventura County's District Attorney and the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Good morning. Zach Saflutha, League of California Cities, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Ross Buckley, on behalf of Sacramento Mayor Kev Mccarty, in support.

Good morning. Moira Topp on behalf of San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. In support.

Brandon Epp on behalf of the Los. Angeles County Sheriff Robert Luna in support.

Morning chair Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association support. Chair Brian Sherman with Riverside Sheriff Association in support. Okay. Seeing no one else hoping to speak in support, we'll next turn to witnesses in opposition. Do we have anyone here? Looks like we do.

So once you are seated and start speaking, you'll have a combined total time of 5 minutes. Feel free to take your time and get settled.

Good morning. Leslie Caldwell, Houston, a volunteer on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association in opposition to AB 468. I know I'm here before you weekly as an advocate attorney, but today I want to start my statement. As a survivor of a fire, the 1991 Oakland firestorm wherein 3,000 houses burned down, including mine.

I'm also the aunt of a young man who lost his home in the Eaton fire in Altadena. I've been evacuated from my current home and my sister has been evacuated from her current home twice. I cannot begin to describe the devastation of the loss of one's home, let alone an entire neighborhood. But I can tell you this.

We do not need government action taking over moves on looting. We need warning systems. We need the government to step up and take care of the elderly and the disabled in these evacuation zones. These are the people that died, the people that didn't get warning, the people that couldn't get out.

This is what we need the government to do. I'd like to note that my brother is a firefighter, so I'm sympathetic to that side of the argument as well. So often when faced with financial shortages, we see state and local governments cutting essential services, firefighters and police. This has got to stop.

As an attorney, let me say to you, I understand that you feel you must do something, but this Bill is not the answer. The evacuation zone definition is too broad as it will allow these penalties to apply indefinitely and is outside an actual evacuation area to include areas that are just under warning of possible evacuation.

The creation of new crimes, a new enhancement and increased punishment are unnecessary and inappropriate. As the prosecutor in any given county can charge crimes that are currently on the books. Increased punishment and more crimes are not the answer to our problems. The list of personnel in the new crime of impersonation is impossibly overbroad.

I ask you, as a citizen, a fire survivor and a career long advocate in public defender's office, please Vote no on this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. I am Imani Turner. I'm a Member of SC Justice Group, a Pasadena local community organization of women with incarcerated loved ones fighting to end mass incarceration. I have family Members who are directly impacted by the LA wildfires and I uniquely understand the ways that system impacted communities experience criminalization and face unseen inequities and climate crisis.

I'm here to speak in opposition to AB468. Last fall SC canvassed 1,352 Altadena residents and learned that 65% of them opposed the increased criminalization in Prop 36 after the Eaton Fire. Myself and other SC Members made wellness calls to 538 of our Altadena neighbors in 12 days and provided community resources.

So far we've analyzed trends from 137 of the 538 conversations. Not a single person that we spoke to was concerned with looting, theft, robbery or stealing. 0%. We also know that black homeowners and tenants are being racially profiled and evacuating and returning to Altadena to remove what's left of their belongings.

They are being stopped and accused of looting. That's why I'm here testifying against AB468 which would further criminalize our communities when what we need is for elected officials to invest in community solutions rooted in equity and care in rebuilding Altadena.

The residents we spoke to and the over 100 women with incarcerated loved ones from Essie who are in the immediate area of the Eaton fire want speedy reconstruction, environmental protection and hazardous waste removal prioritized. They also want elected officials to improve the government's infrastructure for emergency preparedness specifically around fire prevention measures, emergency warning and evacuation notification systems.

We need your support to prevent further criminal criminalization of our communities and instead focus on offering the care wildfire survivors need at this moment. On behalf of SC Justice Group and our neighbors in Alt to Dina, I urge the Public Safety Committee to vote no on AB468.

Thank you all very much for your testimony today and for the presentation. Assembly Member now to hear from others in opposition. Name, organization and position, please.

AAMI on behalf of Initiate Justice Action and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office. We appreciate the Committee amendments but remain in respectful opposition.

Natasha Minskier Smart Justice California we appreciate the Committee amendments. We do remain opposed. We remain willing to work with the author on further amendments to address the over breadth and the serious concerns around racial profiling. Thank you.

Good morning. Claire Simonich, Vera Institute of Justice we appreciate the Committee amendments Appreciate continuing to work with the author, but remain concerned about the bill and in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Samelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. We appreciate the amendments and I still are in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kelly Walters, Staff Attorney with Legal Services. For Prisoners with Children. We also appreciate the amendments, but remain in opposition.

Danica Rudarma, on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union - Local 148, and Initiate Justice in opposition.

Good morning [unintelligible] with the California alliance for Youth and Community justice in strong opposition. Thank you.

Indigo Byers with SC Justice Group. We strongly oppose this bill.

Bruce Salady here with Initiate justice and SE Justice Group. And strongly in opposition.

George Prabthu on behalf of ACLU California Action. We remain in opposition.

Thank you. Tana Opliger, on behalf of the Justice to Jobs Coalition. In opposition.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget, in opposition.

Good morning. Efrain Ortiz, on behalf of Initiated Justice in strong opposition.

All right, final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard on the Bill? Okay. Seeing no affirmative response, we'll now go to questions and or comments from Committee Members. We'll start with Dr. Sharpe-Collins.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Member Gabriel, for bringing forth the bill.

I do want to thank all of you guys for your testimony and also you guys bringing up some of the good points as far as the stats, as well as the issue of the racial profiling solutions, dealing with equity and care, and then also improving community services that's being provided.

I do have three questions for you in regards to this particular Bill, the first one being your sentence enhancement for looting in an evacuation zone while impersonating emergency personnel carriers. It actually carries a penalty of up to three years, but the existing crime of impersonating a peace officer while committing a felony is only one year.

So I am concerned about this misalignment and was wondering if you, the author, will be willing to review increases to penalties for consistency with the existing law.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you so much for that question, Dr. Sharp Collins. And I want to tell you that the answer is yes. But then let me maybe, if that's okay, just give you a moment to help you understand my thinking on this. So obviously impersonating emergency personnel under any circumstances is something that puts the community at risk.

But doing so in an evacuation zone in an area where there is an active emergency, where people are relying on people like the firefighters to come and protect them, we think imposes much greater harm on the community. It creates confusion, it undermines the trust that people need to have in their emergency personnel. In those moments.

And so, part of the way that I actually think about this Bill and I had this conversation with the chair, then we were talking about it, is I think about it in terms of the analogy of the enhancements that we have for hate crimes.

So we have two different types of conduct that we will actually provide different options for penalties depending on the circumstances. So if you beat somebody up, if you commit an assault, we have one range of penalties available.

If you beat somebody up because they're gay or they're black or they're disabled or because of their religion, then we offer prosecutors the opportunity to seek increased punishment, because we know that that act not only hurts the person you beat up, it actually impacts the broader community.

And so in this situation, when you're impersonating an emergency personnel during or looting from a house during a wildfire in an area that's under mandatory evacuation, you're not just hurting the person that you may be taking property from. You're actually hurting the broader community.

And so we feel in that situation, because there's a harm to the broader community, that there should be the option for the prosecutors, under the appropriate circumstances, to. To. To seek an increased penalty.

But still throughout, that you are willing to have a conversation about the penalties.

To make it consistent with 100%. And I. And I want to. You know, I hope folks recognize we had some really productive conversations with the Committee staff, with all of stakeholders and advocates on all this. As you know, this is the First Committee, and all of these bills are always a work in progress. And so we are.

We want to create the strongest, most thoughtful, most equitable Bill possible. And so we're willing to have conversations with anybody in pursuit of that goal.

Okay? Because I come from a district and particularly a community, I grew up in southeast San Diego, where we too often get a lot of enhancements put on us.

And so I am concerned about the enhancement process, and I would appreciate it if you continue to have dialogue to review that, because I find it to be a little excessive as far as three years, and then you have the one year.

But moving to number two, though, this Bill will actually create the crime of trespass with the intent of people to commit larceny. Now, this means that a person's mere presence in the area, as you were just talking about, would be a trigger to find alleged intent.

So given the rapid media coverage of looters and people that are currently filing into homes to take goods only for them to be revealed as the black lawful owner of the residence. And I want to state that people were returning to their homes, but they were the actual homeowners.

And so that has me concerned about another tool to enforce discrimination. And I'm saying that especially at a time where emotions are running high and any lawful residents might, for some in these cases, they lost everything.

So they had no way to even prove that it was their home or even to approve that it was them solely based on their ID or for trying to identify him.

So I would like you, the author, to commit to working with advocates on this piece and hopefully it is in a condition to where I can support it once it returns. But this is a huge red flag. Some people have lost everything and cannot prove that this is where they supposed to be.

So I'm just, I'm just wondering if you would be committed to working with advocates on this piece.

You have, you have my absolute personal commitment to that. I think it's an important flag and we want to make sure that we get that right.

I will tell you that came from very specific examples that we were given actually by the Ventura County District Attorney's office of issues with wildfires where they were unable to prosecute people who were close.

Clearly they are committing crimes, stealing from burned down structures, but because of some of the ways of the elements of the law and what's required to prove certain things. But I understand the point you're raising. We want to get it right. And I think that the issues that I've talked about with activists there are real.

And so you have my absolute personal commitment to continue those conversations, to try to make sure that that piece is as strong as it can be.

Okay. Because I just have to state it. Racial profiling is real. And regardless of any of the legislation that have been passed over the years, and I've been a part of some of them in my previous role, it still exists. And this is still.

This component here is one of them that's going to continue to increase the racial profiling. No matter how hard we have tried, it's still happening. And so just remember that emotions are running high in these types of situation and sometimes they may not be able to prove.

I think that's exactly right. I've been really proud in my time in the Legislature to support the Racial justice act and dozens of other pieces of legislation to try to address those issues and to support a lot of really important criminal justice reforms that we as a Legislature have done over the past couple of years.

So I know that that's a real issue and I think it's one that we ought to be mindful of as we craft any piece of legislation. Again, this is the First Committee where there's a lot of pieces to this Bill. We're trying to iron out all the kinks here.

But you have my, my absolute personal commitment to work on that issue.

Okay. And finally, I have a concern about the definition of the evacuation zones. I do believe that we need to make sure that evacuation zones are kept safe and clear so emergency personnel can do their job.

But I also think that there is a plain, to me that there is plain English, meaning of evacuation zones and so specifically the area to be evacuated. So this Bill seems to go further, including the principal residents under the reconstruction even after the order is lifted. That's also another concern for me.

So I think that this goes a little bit too far. And I would encourage you to have a little bit more discussion on how to right size this rather than significantly penalize others by having some penalty increases.

Because if the evacuation zone is lifted, and I'm, you know, I've obviously returned to my residence and done some things, I don't think that the current definition of evacuation zones and it being lifted warrants the extensive penalties.

I appreciate that. I think what we're trying to figure out there and still working through on is, you know, the colleagues of ours who represent the areas that were burned down have very strong feelings about protecting those communities during the rebuilding process.

And a lot of those areas are going to be sparsely populated probably for some amount of time. People are going to spend a lot of money to bring in building materials to try to rebuild homes and damage structures, and they want to have some certainty that they're going to be protected.

And so it's a very emotional moment, as you know, for those communities going through the rebuilding process. So that's been a specific request of some of our colleagues who represent those areas.

And so I'm trying to figure out how do we, how do we write that in a thoughtful way that will give them, those communities the sense that they will be protected during the rebuilding process? So that's the, that's the balance that we're trying to strike there.

And when you're talking about communities, which, which communities are you referring to? Meaning have you spoken to all communities that were impacted by the fires? Are you highlighting specific.

I have, I have had the opportunity to speak to both folks. In fact, I'm talking about the Eaton fire and the, and the Palisades fire. Those are the, those are the fires where I've spoken to folks.

And I know, for example, that I was talking to someone the other day that was telling me that apparently folks are going through the rubble of homes in Altadena and there are some very historic tiles there that are of value.

And people are taking historic tiles out of the rubble of homes in Altadena in a way that is, I think, despicable for the folks that live in those communities and that have already suffered enough. So we're trying to be mindful of community input from all of the different folks.

We understand that there's different needs from different communities, but we did get a strong sense that people wanted to be protected during the rebuilding process.

Okay. All right. Thank you for answering the questions. I just want us to be mindful that as we continue to push for policy, policy should be looked at things from an equitable lens. It also should be pointed out that there's no one size fit all model approach to anything that we do.

And as we continue to move forward, make sure that we are speaking to everyone that is going to be impacted by this.

And please be sure to consider some of the high impacts that can come with these types of impact enhancements and impact that it will have on the families, not only just the person, but the actual families as well. This is a whole family process, and so you never know who was coming into these communities.

But I get where you're going, but these are some of my top concerns. And I have a couple more that we could talk about later on. But, Chair, I'll turn it back over to you or any other Members of the Committee to ask some questions, but please keep those things in mind as you move forward.

Yeah. Can I. Mr. Chair, just for a moment? Yes. I say I'm happy to continue conversations with you offline. And I actually appreciate all the feedback we've received from advocates on all sides of this, including those that are opposed. I think that's how we make good public policy, is that we're mindful of all these things.

And when you enter an issue like this, that's got a lot of pieces and that's complicated in a lot of ways. So I welcome the feedback. Again, this is the First Committee and there's a lot here, so we're trying to work through all of that.

But I appreciate that and I appreciate you flagging these points because I think there are things that if we're going to make good, thoughtful, smart policy in this area, that we have to take into consideration all those things. So I just want to appreciate you.

For that and thank you, and you are absolutely welcome. My last Point is that right now, the way this is, I feel as though that this is victimizing the victims.

Thank you very much, Assemblymember. Next we'll go to our Vice Chair and then I am keeping a list. So we have a few more questions, but will go next to Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I want to thank the author for bringing this bill as well.

You know, I, I understand and can relate with, for the most part with the opposition's points that they're making as far as having early warning systems and also working on other things to work on fire prevention, which I think is another thing that we're working on on another note. So I get that point. But.

But for somebody who's actually had the team, while I was at Orville, I was at paradise, you know, I got to see the other fires in the aftermath.

Now as an Assembly, to be in these zones and to evacuate people and tell them that they need to leave their house and then for one thing to have to protect. Now that house falls on those that do it. And I used to be one of those.

And I remember when we were in Oroville when we evacuated because the Oroville dam, I'm sorry, it was Yuba City, you know, it. There was a lot of looters that came in that came in from nowhere that were taking advantage of these communities that were asked to leave.

And so I think what you're doing with this Bill is trying to make a deterrent with these increased penalties. These are already laws on the books. I know you're not making anything new for a law. This is something that exists already. We're just trying to increase it for those that do it in these areas.

So I appreciate that and I'll be fully supporting this and I'll move the Bill. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion. I'll hold that. Is there a second? I'll second that. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. We're going to continue with the discussion. I'll just note, I think it was motion by Alani, second by Harib. We'll give it to Wynn.

Give it to win.

How about a second by Harbin, a third by Wynn. There you go. Next I had Assemblymember Harabiden, followed by Assembly Member Gonzalez.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to thank the author for bringing this bill and all the work that you have done on it. And we have discussed this bill at length and we're going to continue to discuss it.

But I will just say personally representing the Altadena area that went through the fires, the looting that happened was a real issue. It was an issue that my constituents were talking to me on a daily basis about. And I will tell you, we are all about and we are always focused on deterrence.

And deterrence in this case came in the form of the National Guard and setting up boundaries in the Palisades and in Altadena with armed military personnel. And oftentimes that's not going to be the case and you're not going to have those types of resources, nor do I think you need that in all cases.

But in times when a disaster occurs and you don't have that type of deterrence, there needs to be some clarification in the, there is some ambiguity here in the law as to when a structure is damaged and when looting like this happens. And I appreciate your Bill clarifying this.

I do think on the emergency personnel and the impersonation of emergency personnel, we want to deter that at all costs. And I know that you're going to continue working with the other side on perfecting this Bill and that's what we're all going to try to do.

But really appreciate personally you taking this Bill on bringing it to this Committee and working it through, hopefully, to making it law. I think a lot of the victims of these fires appreciate it and a lot of future victims of future disasters will appreciate it. So thank you for all your work.

Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Gonzalez.

Just, just a question for, for the. Author of the witnesses. So I, I understand that this is obviously related to evacuation zones, which is not just limited to wildfires. Correct.

And this is more of a tool as a safeguard to tell folks not to do it, especially in person, the impersonating piece, because we see how many fires are not new, clearly emergency evacuation zones for California are not new. But how many of these cases are. You seeing when this does happen?

Yeah, I think this is an issue that was raised directly with us by, you know, first responders in Los Angeles County.

And I think you probably, if you're watching the press conferences, heard Sheriff Luna talk about it, you heard the Police Chief talk about it, you heard the supervisors and the mayor talk about it, that it would be, you know, that there would be zero tolerance for any of this.

And so I'm trying to remember, and I apologize to some Member, I can't remember off the top of my head, but when we did the press conference introducing the Bill, they asked that question. I think it was somewhere in the dozens, I don't remember several dozen folks who had been charged and arrested with this.

But as you remember, there were cases of multiple people who were arrested dressed in the attire of firefighters, even those crazy people who somehow managed to get a fire truck and go into the zone. And so, you know, as the. As we heard from the witness. Right.

I mean, the idea that firefighters look up the hill and they see people who look like firefighters and they're up there and they make some assumptions about what they're doing to protect lives and property in that area. So it was a real issue we saw both anecdotally and in terms of the.

In terms of the charging numbers as well.

No, I agree with that. I'm just curious, just in terms of when we. When we talk about how much is this happening? And obviously not limited to just fires, but the reality is that firefighters have to put 23 safeguards in place.

The safeguard of the house, the safeguard of their livelihood, and the safeguarding of them that place them being, you know, taken advantage of. And so I'm in support of this Bill. I appreciate that. But I think it sends a message that. Not to take advantage of people in that. But I do want to piggyback on.

The comments of my. My colleague, Ms. Sharp Collins, on the piece of that, to work on that, especially for communities of color. But I appreciate the Bill coming forward. Yeah, thank you very much. I appreciate that point.

All right, thank you. Assemblymember Gonzalez, are there any other questions or comments from Committee? Okay. Assemblymember Harbidium will give you a chance to close. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Assemblymember Gabriel, just. You both look so darn tall and handsome. I don't know. Assemblymember Gabriel, it's up for you.

That's the. This is the best compliment I'm gonna get all day, so. Well, thank you again. Let me just. Let me just end where I began, which is to thank you, Mr. Chair, for your. All the time you took to work through all of these issues to help us think about all of this.

And, you know, again, to me, this is to piggyback on what Mr. Harbinian said. You know, I literally had conversations about this exact issue at Encino Little League this weekend with people in my community. We were talking about what a crazy beginning of the year it's been and everything that we lived through.

And I remember, you know, during the moment of those fires, when so much is happening, there's, you know, it's hard to figure out what you can do in.

As elected official, one of the things that you can do is encourage people to follow the instructions of the firefighters, of the police, of the first responders, of the emergency personnel, to amplify those messages.

And we heard from so many people and we were even talking about it this weekend who were worried about follow of those evacuation orders because of their concerns about all of this. And so to me, this is a modest step. It closes some loopholes. I think the fire chief described it as a measured approach.

I really think that's what it is. That's hopefully going to protect communities across California as we go through these disasters. And unfortunately, we know that as devastating as these fires are, they're not going to be the last. We know that and we've seen that in communities all across the state.

And so on behalf of the firefighters and the first responders who have so bravely protected us, respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Assemblymember Gabriel Chair is recommending an eye as amended. I just had a brief explanation I wanted to offer and then of course, we'll do the role. First of all, I want to thank the author, who I know Assembly Member Gabriel quite well. He is collaborative, he is open minded.

I absolutely take you at your word, sir, that you want to get this issue right. I appreciate you taking the amendments, as we talked about, offline. Having been a prosecutor, I think all too often there's a cry for new tools or more tools when there are in many cases adequate tools to prosecute this sort of conduct.

I think the six points of concession that we reached in the course of our conversations do substantially strengthen the Bill. And I also want to uplift and echo every single point that Assembly Member Sharp Collins made here today. I agree with her wholeheartedly.

With that said, the one thing I wanted to flag for you, Assemblymember, I know we've talked about it, is for future purposes of the conversation on item on page number six of the staff analysis. I do have ongoing questions about the enhancement for false impersonation.

And I take you at your word that you'll look closely at the proposed 123 enhancement and how that relates to other enhancements codified in the law, specifically penal code Section 667.17, penal code Section 12022 subdivisions A1 and A1B, as well as penal code Section 6679, subdivision A.

With all of that said, I know this has been it's been a lot of work. I couldn't imagine no better author to carry and champion this initiative. And in all my time I've known you, when you give your word that you're going to continue working on something. I know that you can take that to the bank.

So for today, I will be recommending an I. Colleagues. And let's conduct the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, that measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome. Assemblymember Gabriel, thank you very much for being here. Bright and Alan, thanks for all the time. Okay, do we have Assemblymember Kolra in the room? I do not see Assemblymember Kolra. So next we will go to Assemblymember Celeste Rodriguez. We have two items.

Assemblymember, did you want to begin with 1187? 1187.

Okay. Colleagues, this is item number 18 on your agenda, Assembly Bill 1187. Assembly Member, once you begin speaking, you'll have five minutes to present, as will your witnesses.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. I first would like to thank Committee staff for their analysis, and I accept the Committee amendments. California has one of the most comprehensive systems of regulating firearm purchases and possession, yet it currently does not require either training or education to obtain a firearm safety certificate.

A firearm certificate is required to purchase a gun in California. Under current law, an applicant for a firearm safety certificate must simply pass a 30 question, multiple choice and true or false examination with a score of at least 75%. According to the Department of Justice, someone is killed with a firearm every three hours in California, and Californians who live with a handgun owner are more than twice as likely to die from homicide.

Gun violence is one of the five leading causes of death among Americans age 1 through 64, and yet, compared with other major causes of death and injury, the federal government has invested far less in research to prevent gun violence. California must continue to pave the way in firearm safety policies. A study found that nearly 40% of all gun owners never received any training.

AB 1187 is a common sense measure that will require an applicant for a firearm safety certificate on or after July 1, 2027 to complete an eight hour training, including a one hour live fire shooting exercise. The training will cover the safe transportation, handling, and storage of firearms, basic fundamentals of shooting firearms, state and federal laws related to self defense, possession, and storage, and mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearm violence.

The training must be supervised by firearms instructors certified by the DOJ. Colleagues, the policy in front of you has been proven effective. The State of Connecticut currently requires a firearm safety training, including a live fire shooting component, to obtain a firearm permit. This bill makes no changes to the current exemptions provided under the firearm safety certificate requirements.

Under existing law, valid hunting license carriers, active or honorably retired law enforcement officers, military personnel, carry concealed weapons license holders, and others are exempt from obtaining a firearm safety certificate. AB 1187 also addresses a loophole in current law by requiring a personal firearm importer who moves into the state to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 60 days in addition to filing a new resident report of firearm ownership to the California DOJ. A firearm is a lethal weapon and this responsibility must not be taken lightly.

Driver's ed classes, a written exam, a behind the wheel test are required to obtain a driver's license in the State of California. Why does the State of California require more extensive training to obtain a driver's license than it does to acquire a firearm safety certificate? Speaking in support of 1187 with me today are Steve Lindley, Senior Policy Advisor with Brady Campaign, who is formerly with the California DOJ's Bureau of Firearms, and Dr. Marion Leff, member of Brady Sacramento.

All right, thank you. For the record, we do have a motion by Harabedian and a second by Gonzalez. Thank you for the presentation, Assembly Member. We'll now hear from the witnesses. Five minutes, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Steve Lindley, and I am a 28 year law enforcement veteran and former Chief of the California Department of Justice Bureau of Firearms. I'm here on behalf of Brady United and in support of AB 1187.

Essentially, this bill mandates additional training to receive a firearm safety certificate, which is needed to purchase a firearm in California. This additional training consists of 8 hours of range and live fire as part of the firearm safety certificate process, half of which is what is required for CCW here in California. And I'm having difficulty.

Gotta lick your finger.

No kidding. All right. It is common sense that those who purchase a firearm should be properly trained on how to handle and store firearms and should participate in some sort of firearm training. According to the National Rifle Association safety and education website, safety and is not only critical in handling firearms, but in everyday life.

Also, in June 2022, Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the NRA, wrote in a statement, for over 150 years, the National Rifle Association has been the nation's leader in leading voice in the call for responsible, law abiding gun ownership and firearm education training.

Finally, according to the NRA's safe gun handling rules, at the NRA, firearm education and safety is paramount. Brady agrees with the NRA and the NRA statements regarding firearm training and education. Several other states already require training for gun purchases or possession, including Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Maryland. It is time for California to do the same. Thank you for the opportunity to talk today, and I ask for your aye vote.

Good morning, Chair Schultz and Members of the Committee. My name is Marion Leff, and I'm here representing grassroots chapters of Brady United. Thank you for allowing me today to testify in strong support of AB 1187, and thank you for all that California legislators have done historically to decrease gun violence morbidity and mortality in our state.

It has not gone unnoticed. I'm a retired family physician, 38 years in practice in Sacramento. I spent most of my career training and educating family medicine residents. Keeping people healthy and well is a primary function of the job. It takes training to do the job.

I and these physicians are not strangers to the senseless devastation of gun violence, whether in the hospital or the emergency department or caring for victims in our offices where we confront the aftermath impacting loved ones. It is just for these reasons, so often preventable with education and training, that I am passionate about gun violence prevention.

I enthusiastically champion use of gun violence restraining orders and asking parents whether their child's playmate's home is free of guns that are not locked and stored. Together, all your incredible work passing laws has made a difference. California's gun death rate is 40% lower than the national average.

So quite frankly, I was astonished to learn that the state does not require gun purchasers to undergo training on safe gun handling, including live fire training, which can help gun owners prevent injury and death. It's not enough to pass the written test to obtain a driver's license, you must also pass the live driving test.

It's not enough to ace a medical exam. Would any of you like to be treated by a doctor who had not touched a patient? Simply stated, it is common sense that if you want to purchase a gun, a lethal weapon, that you receive training on the safe handling of firearms, on the laws you are required to follow, on how to properly store the gun, and important hands on live fire training.

This type of training provides tools ensuring that the potential gun owners are well equipped to keep themselves and their families safe. Certainly, some gun owners take it upon themselves to seek out training, but data shows that nearly 40% of all gun owners never received any training, which highlights the need for standardized requirements.

Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in this country. Sit with that fact for a moment. Yet this is not inevitable, but preventable. AB 1187 is a common sense, reasonable bill to reduce gun violence and increase gun safety. I thank Assemblywoman Rodriguez for her leadership and urge your support.

Thank you both very much for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from other members of the public regarding their support for the bill. Name, organization, and position, please.

Good morning. Rebecca Marcus on behalf of one of the co-sponsors, the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law. Thank you.

Hello. Megan Simmons from Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund in strong support.

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

Michelle Contois, Ventura County Deputy District Attorney, here on behalf of California District Attorneys Association in support. Thank you.

Okay, just doing a final call for anyone else who'd like to be heard in support of the bill. Okay. Seeing no one, we'll next go to witnesses in opposition. Once you're all up here and seated, you'll have five minutes collectively to present. We might need to do a little shuffling of the chairs there, but we can make room for everybody.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Rick Travis, Legislative Director for the California Rifle Pistol Association. We're the oldest trained organization—firearms—celebrating 150 years of firearm safety here in California.

Assembly Bill 1187 is written as demonstrative of a misunderstand of the process—the existing California—to purchase a firearm, range availability to the public, or transfer of ownership. Currently, the Law guides the purchaser to take a Firearm Safety Certificate Test, based on the June 2020 California Department of Justice Firearm Safety Certificate Study Guide.

The California DOJ requires extensive firearms knowledge and federal firearms license dealers. The administrative tests provide information on suicide prevention, safe firearms storage laws, and provide demonstrations already in the status quo.

One of the concerns we have is, someone moving to California will most be unlikely to know what this is about and then, therefore, would be guilty of a crime. There's no provision for how one would know anything about this Law moving into the state.

The individual under this law would be required to take an eight-hour course and a one-hour live fire course, prior to receiving their FSC as an applicant. It is against the Law to obtain a firearm in California without an FSC.

The author is creating a scenario where a first-time purchaser will be unable to complete the Firearms Range Training, due to the lack of a firearm. Due to California's policies and laws, we simply do not have enough ranges to accommodate what this Bill is asking for, thus creating more unsafety for those currently required, under CCWS, to go through training every two years.

I'll point out, also, that, in the stats given by one of the witnesses, that 18- to 24-year-olds are not children and so, that stat does not hold. The FSC is not a license.

It is proof of passing a California DOJ test required to purchase, transfer, or receive a firearm. The Legislature is singling out a constitutional right when allowing people to compare that to a driver's license, which is a privilege. The Supreme Court has upheld—this is a constitutional right in numerous cases.

Also, the comparison to medicine—as a former paramedic, I will just ask this question of everybody here at the dais.

If this is about safety, then why is the Legislature not demanding that every citizen get trained about the risk of medical malpractice when purchasing state-mandated health insurance, which costs—which cost—more than 10 times the lives of Californians than firearms, per the Center for Disease Control.

Mr. Chair and Members, Sam Paredes, representing Gun Owners California. I hope that we we, we lay it to rest at this Committee hearing that there is a significant difference between driving a car and owning a gun. Number one, driving a car in America is a privilege.

We have the right to travel, but the means of travel are not protected by the Constitution. The right to bear arms is protected and shall not be infringed. Like it or not, that's the Constitution. So, please put on your reality hats and try to understand this.

There are approximately 2.8 million gun buyers that have to renew their Firearm Safety Certificate. Understand that you have to renew it every five years. And 370,000 first-time gun buyers that have to apply for an FSC when they buy their first firearm. There are 451 recognized shooting ranges in the State of California.

Between one third and one half are private. So, that comes to approximately 7—and most of those ranges are not located in urban or suburban areas, but in rural areas.

But if you were to average the number of Firearm Safety Certificate applicants with the number of ranges, assuming that they're all available, public and private, that's 7,028 applicants, per range, per year. 7,000. With eight hours of training, that means 56,224 hours of training per range.

Clearly, the State of California does not have sufficient number of instructors, certified by the Department of Justice. We know that, just in dealing with 100,000 concealed carry weapons permit holders. Now you're asking them to go magnitudes higher than this and shoot at ranges. And I want to close with this to understand.

The average half hour on a range is $25. The average cost of the course that you are requiring, which was pointed out here as being similar to the CCW, is $150 across the state. So, you're going to make people take $150 course, before they are allowed to exercise their Second Amendment right to purchase a firearm.

This Bill is wrongheaded. Will be challenged. This is exactly what the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division of the United States is looking at, as infringements on the Second Amendment rights. So, for those reasons we are opposed.

Thank you. I understand we have three witnesses. However, you have exhausted the five minutes allotted, but you're welcome to remain nearby, in case there are technical questions—you'd like to respond to anything.

We're also going to see if we can get a chair pulled up here so we can have someone else—or thank you very much. We'll play musical chairs. We'll get it done. Next, we're going to hear from other members of the public who are in opposition to the Bill. Please come forward with your name, organization, and position, please.

Hi Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Mark Hanley, on behalf of California Waterfowl and Delta Waterfowl, in opposition. Thanks.

Good morning. Keely Hopkins, State Director for the National Rifle Association, here today in opposition.

Okay, one more call. Anyone else like to be heard on the matter? Okay, no affirmative response. Let's next go to Committee questions or comments. Would anyone like us—like to begin? All right, Assemblymember Rodriguez—oh, Assemblymember Gonzalez.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and I was just looking up a couple of statistics and look, I think the reality here is, it's just asking for a valid Firearm Safety Certificate and include the copy of the valid Firearm Safety Certificate with your report. That's it. Very simple.

And so, I don't think that that's necessarily wrong, because the comparison between weapons and cars—they're both deadly, they're both deadly, at the end of the day, they both can be seen as deadly. But to your point about the cost, no training courses are required to even—for this particular, kind of—a valid Firearm Safety Certificate, with the exception of Carrying Permits.

And to the part of the cost, there are more hurdles to become a Notary Public and a basic First Aid CPR, for those certificates. The cost for Notary Public is between $30 and $200, and the cost for a basic First Aid CPR Certificate is $19.95 to $79.95.

I don't think those costs are bad. So, my point to you is, the cost, I think, is probably fair. Lives are not. So, with that, I'm in full support of the Bill, but I do have to disagree with you, respectfully, on those points.

Haven't read the Bill, sir.

All right, thank you. Assemblymember Gonzalez. Are there any other questions or comments? Assemblymember Rodriguez, I just want to know, there was some points that were made in the course of opposition testimony. Do you or your witnesses—witnesses have any response to the points that were raised?

No. Thank you and thank you to my witnesses for providing testimony today.

Okay, thank you very much.

I do have closing remarks.

Just about to do that. I was gonna say we do have a motion and a second from prior. So, with that, Assemblymember Rodriguez, if you'd like to close.

Yes. California has one of the lowest rates of firearm mortality in the country, because our firearm safety policies work. We rank 44th, out of 50 in the country, of firearm deaths. Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, and Connecticut have lower firearm mortality rates, and five out of six of these states have training requirements on the books.

Firearm training does not infringe on our Second Amendment rights, but ensures the safe and responsible handling of firearms. I respectfully urge your "Aye" vote on AB 1187. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Assemblymember. Colleagues, Chair is recommending an "Aye," as amended. I want to thank the author for taking the amendments which would carve out the misdemeanor penalty, as originally contemplated.

Clarifies that Penal Code Section 1700, the definition of personal firearms importer, is the definition that will apply in this Bill and makes other technical clarifying changes. With that, Chair is recommending an "Aye." Given that we have a motion and a second, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, that measure will remain on call. Thank you all very much. And Assemblymember Rodriguez, don't go too far, because next, we will be hearing for our Assembly Bill 1424. This is Item Number 29 on today's agenda. Again, this is Assembly Bill 1424. Assemblymember Rodriguez, once you begin, you'll have five minutes.

And if you're a witness testifying in support, now would be the time to come on up.

Thank you, chair and committee members. I am pleased to also be presenting today AB 1424, which seeks to protect the health and safety of employees and persons incarcerated inside our state correctional facilities.

Assemblymember Rodriguez, I'm gonna restart your time there. If anyone else needs to exit the room, please do that right now. So what we're having a little trouble hearing up here from the dais, so everyone good? Anyone need coffee? Because Assemblymember Gonzalez can get that for you. All right, we got Assemblymember Ramos. All right, thank you, everybody.

Assemblymember Rodriguez, we're restart your time and if you all can. I know it's tough in tight quarters, but just whatever we can do to keep the ambient noise level to a minimum, that'd be great. Thank you, everybody. Assemblymember.

Thank you. I am pleased to present AB 1424, which seeks to protect the health and safety of employees and persons incarcerated inside our state correctional facilities. California continues to face wildfires, heat waves, severe storms and floods. Many California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facilities are located where extreme weather and natural disasters are not uncommon.

In fact, a study showed that CDCR is highly susceptible to climate hazards because they are located near remote areas and have an aging infrastructure and population. A UCLA report identified eight facilities that were prone to excessive heat and revealed that 24 California State prisons sit within five miles of fire hazard zones.

Incarcerated people are especially vulnerable to climate hazards because they are entirely reliant on CDCR for preparedness, response and recovery. There is no oversight when it comes to CDCR emergency evacuations and safety plans. AB 1424 will ensure that CDCR implements climate resiliency measures inside their facilities.

Specifically, this bill will require CDCR to install temperature monitoring systems, permit increased access to showers and personal fans without counting towards incarcerated persons daily appliance, limit during extreme heat, and add shade structures to every yard.

The bill will ensure adequate emergency preparedness by requiring CDCR to establish an emergency response and evacuation plan for each facility every five years. Safety is paramount as this bill requires medical staff to establish a protocol for documenting any heat related illness.

AB 1424 requires the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to submit proposed regulations to Cal/OSHA. Pardon me, Cal/OSHA Standards Board regulating minimum and maximum indoor temperatures for all people who work and live inside these facilities. Speaking in support of AB 1424 with me today are Kellie Walters and Alissa Moore with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

Good morning chair and members of the committee. My name is Kellie Walters. I am a Staff Attorney with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. LSPC is a proud co sponsor of AB 1424 which will provide crucial health and safety protections for incarcerated people and incarcerated workers impacted by climate change.

California is at the forefront of climate change and and the impacts of climate change on incarcerated people are a daily persistent threat that impacts their health and safety.

A 2023 Ella Baker Center report on climate and prisons found 66% of incarcerated people experience extreme heat events, 45% faced wildfires or smoke exposure, 40% endured extreme cold and 14% faced flooding. Of these climate issues, extreme heat was the most frequently cited concern.

The same EBC report found 87% of people incarcerated reported no shade in recreation yards, 60% never had access to air conditioned rooms during heat waves and 47% had no increased access to showers during hot days.

The report further found that the state was unprepared to respond to a large scale climate emergency, putting not only incarcerated people at risk but entire communities where these prisons are located.

Lack of coordination in past emergencies such as the 2005 flooding of Orleans Parish Prison, the 2020 Oregon wildfires and widespread impacts of North Carolina prisoners from Hurricane Helene last year illustrates the dangers of poor planning for incarcerated people.

More recently, the 2020 fires near Solano State Prison and California Medical Facility, which were bordered by an evacuation zone, and the 2023 Tulare Lake flooding which impacted 7,000 people at CSP Corcoran and the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility.

These demonstrate the need for critical legislation. California's prisons were excluded from the indoor heat standard, leaving incarcerated workers and all prison workers like guards and nurses, unprotected from the heat.

AB 1424 is a common sense approach to address the issues by requiring protections for all corrections workers, incarcerated or not, immediate relief during hot and cold periods, more frequent updates to emergency plans and a working group to monitor CDCR's progress towards these goals with regular updates to the Legislature.

In conclusion, AB 1424 is a vital step to ensure that incarcerated individuals are protected from the growing impacts of climate change. By implementing proper emergency preparedness and worker protections, this bill will reduce risks, improve living conditions and save lives. We respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you and you have about three minutes remaining.

Good morning Chairman Schultz and members of the committee. My name is Alissa Moore. I'm the Reentry Specialist with LSPC. All of us are none. Thank you Assemblymember Rodriguez for introducing this very important legislation. Climate change on July 6th in 1997, when I was initially incarcerated, it was a sweltering 96 degrees in Chowchilla.

If you compare that to July 6th of 2024 in Chowchilla, it was 111 degrees outside, with the temperature inside the cells often reaching 5 to 10 degrees hotter than the outside tent, a huge difference that has thus far gone unaddressed and unrecognized.

Adrienne's story On July 6, 2024 the news of Adrienne Boulware's death, a mother, grandmother and loved community member, began to spread. Obviously, with no formal information disclosed to her family or the public, the information about what caused Adrienne's death was non existent on a public level and on an official level.

But the people who were there recounted the horrific story which LSPC meticulously documented. Adrienne reported to staff that she felt like she was on fire from the inside out. Next, Adrienne reported that she was dizzy and weak. Next, she reported her breathing was labored to no avail. Sadly, with her last breath, Adrienne pleaded for medical assistance.

Her pleas fell on the deaf ears of CDCR correctional officers who did nothing until she became unconscious. Truly, let's not act like this is the first inclement weather death inside of the California Department of Corrections, and the blatant disregard for the incarcerated lives hasn't long been an issue.

So at this time I ask that we not turn a blind eye to the fact that there are countless whom have perished in carceral settings due to rising temperatures and inclement weather events regardless if those deaths have been recorded, recognized or publicized.

The inclement weather in truth has exacerbated many pre existing condition health conditions and elevated some to critical ending in death for many. An anonymous incarcerated individual stated the temperature in any given room depends where your room is located.

Rooms at the end of the four hallway housing block end rooms are issued blankets as per CDCR policy in cold weather. But there are no such like accommodations made in CDCR when they have already admitted that these rooms are a completely different temperature than other rooms. What does CDCR do to combat the heat for incarcerated people?

As CDCR tells anyone that will listen, they do take regular temperature readings inside the housing units at timed intervals. But do they really? What happens is an officer walks halfway down the hall and takes a temperature in the middle of a hall and records that number 30 seconds. Which is inaccurate depiction at best and probably falsified.

So in closing, LSPC, all of us are none would ask that you not let Adrienne's death be in vain and that you recognize that Californians incarcerated in the California State Prison system are routinely subject to these, what I would say unlivable and unsurvivable conditions for many.

And having served several decades inside the California State Prison system, I can tell you this is true. I have watched people become ill due to these conditions and get sicker and sicker and die. And this is costing Californians billions.

I'm sorry. Thank you. That's your time. Appreciate your testimony though, both of you. With that, we'll next hear from other members of the public who'd like to support the bill. Please come forward with your name, organization and position. Please.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston for the California Public Defenders Association. In support, support.

Shervin Aazami on behalf of Initiate Justice Action. We did not get a letter in on time, but are in strong support.

Yarrow Neubert on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. In support.

Good morning. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice in support.

Good morning. Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Good morning. Katie Dixon on behalf of the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. In support.

Good morning. Rachel van Geenhoven on behalf of Worksafe in support.

Good morning. Tyrique Shipp with the Anti Recidivism Coalition in support.

Good morning. Manuel Galindo with All of Us are Known Orange County in support.

Sandhya Kripalani with RestoreHER US.America in support.

Good morning. Lawrence Cox All of Us or None headquarters. Strong support.

Good morning chair and members Jeronimo Aguilar here on behalf of Legal Services for Prisoners or Children. Proud sponsor and support. Thank you.

Norma Orozco, Communication Workers of America Local 9415 in support.

Jared Villery with the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Isabella Suleiman with the Anti Recidivism Coalition in support.

Eddie Carmona, Director of Campaigns for PICO California and strong support.

Good morning. Stephanie Jeffcoat with Families Inspiring Reentry and Reunification 4 Everyone in strong support.

Hi. Ari Vasquez with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in strong support.

Daniella Dain with All of Us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners of Children in strong support.

Sylvia Hagan I'm from Paradise. I'm in strong support.

Good morning. Dawn Davidson with LA Long Beach chapter of All of Us or None and Prison from the Insight in strong support.

Good morning. My name is Nateel Sharma and I'm a policy fellow with LSPC and I'm in full support.

Israel Villa with the California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice in strong support.

Shayla Wilson on behalf of La Defensa in support.

George Parampathu on behalf of ACLU California Action and support. Thank you.

Jay Vasquez on behalf of Communities United For Restorative Youth Justice. Strong support. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Bernice Singh with All of Us or None Sacramento and an outside organizer with Initiated Justice. I support

Hi, I'm Stuart. I support everything and everything. I support. I support.

My name is Jadzia Farquharson. I'm from Pollock Pines California and I'm in support.

Josh Pynoos Anti Recidivism Coalition and strong support.

Shayna Hahn with the Anti Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Kent with Anti Recidivism Coalition. Support.

Felicia Auerbach with Anti Recidivism Coalition. Strong support.

Dilpreet Sidhu with the Anti Recidivism Coalition. And in strong support.

Hector Isas with the Anti Recidivism Coalition and strong support.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California. Strong support.

J. Dixon. C.H.A.N.G.E.S. Strong support.

Jonathan Laba, Pacific Juvenile Defender Center in support.

April Grayson, Sister Word Freedom Coalition in strong support.

Okay, final call. Anyone want to be heard in support of the bill? All right. Seeing no affirmative response. Is there anyone here to testify in opposition to the bill? Seeing no response. Anyone else want to be heard on the bill? Seeing none. We'll go to committee. Questions or comments? Would anyone like to get us started?

Dr. Sharpe Collins. Oh, I apologize. There is one person coming forward. Are you testifying in opposition? Okay. Yes. So you'll have five minutes once you begin speaking.

I appreciate that time, but it won't be necessary. Chair Schultz, and good day. I'm from the. My name is David Bullog. I'm from the SFV Alliance. And even though the San Fernando Valley does have no correctional facilities that I know of, we do think that this. This effort is very important.

And we do know from living in the San Fernando Valley how the temperatures get. And we can all. I think we can appreciate that. But where we have an issue with this Bill is 7471a.

It directs the Corrections Department to install temperature monitoring systems, prioritizing sensors that continuously measure and transmit data in all living quarters, work area and recreational space. Just based on that, we feel that the bill will not make it through appropriations because of that expense that will take.

And I don't know if the assemblymember has taken that into account, how expensive that will be. So we do wholeheartedly support this bill and the efforts that she's trying to make with this, but we ask her to remove that. So we oppose unless amended.

All right, thank you very much, sir. Just one final call. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition to the bill?

Okay. No affirmative response. Thank you for your testimony, sir. Back to Committee questions or comments. Dr. Sharp-Collins, please.

I just had a comment. I wanted to thank the author, Assembly Member Rodriguez, for bringing forth this bill. And I'm saying that because we know that climate change is real. Okay. We know that some people say it's not, but it is. And so the US, we've been having a lot of issues pertaining to global warmings. And we know for a fact that prisons have been slow on downright, or they've been literally unwilling to respond to the increase in unbearable conditions.

So I appreciate you shedding light on this situation and letting people know that this is something that is harmful to individuals taking certain medications or people who are living with certain high blood pressures or people who are living with diabetes and et cetera. So I truly appreciate you guys bringing forth and sharing the testimonies there. And with that, you have my full support with this bill. Thank you.

All right, any other questions or comments? Okay, we have a motion by Sharp-Collins. Is there a second? Thank you, Assembly Member Ramos. Okay, we have our motion and second. Assembly Member Rodriguez, would you like to close? Yes.

I want to give Alissa an opportunity to comment to the opposition, and then I'll be closing.

I would just like to say that it doesn't even take a successful lawsuit to this cost that the gentleman is mentioning. A lawsuit doesn't even have to be successful to cost as much as it costs to put in those electronic monitoring systems because we're all human and documenting them with a pencil and paper can easily...

Oh, I forgot to do it. Let me just put this temperature at this time. Or let me put nothing at all. So again, one successful lawsuit, and a lawsuit doesn't even have to be successful to be highly costly to the citizens of California. And I think the medical costs that we are incurring to treat these individuals is far more than the cost of putting in an electronic temperature monitoring system.

Great point. Thank you. Anything else, Assembly Member Rodriguez?

Thank you so much. I'll just add that we all know how challenging any bill going to Appropriations is going to be, so I look forward to your advocacy and getting through that as well. We must not wait for the next extreme weather event to claim the life of another person in our custody in our state facilities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote to provide immediate relief to people who live and work inside CDCR institutions. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much, Assembly Member. Chair is strongly recommending an aye on the bill. I appreciate the Assembly Member for carrying the piece of legislation. Appreciate all the testimony that we heard today. Appropriations can be a tough place, but I don't think they've met Assembly Member Rodriguez, so I have full confidence you go to bat for it. We have a motion and a second. Let's call the roll.

On AB 1424 by Assembly Member Celeste Rodriguez, the motion is do pass to the Labor and Employment Committee. [Roll Call]

Okay, measure remains on call. We'll let you know the outcome, Assembly Member. Thank you, everybody. Next, we have Assembly Member Kalra back. And I believe, Assembly Member, you wanted to take 1258 first?

Yes.

Okay. So, colleagues, we will be taking up item number 23. This is Assembly Bill 1258. Assembly Member Kalra, you know the drill. Five minutes for you, five minutes for your witnesses.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1258 is a simple bill that would extend the sunset date of the Young Adult Deferred Entry Program until January 1, 2029. The program authorizes selected counties, Butte, Nevada, and Santa Clara to allow young adults between 18 to 25 years of age who have committed a non-violent felony to voluntarily enter into the program that will offer age appropriate services in the juvenile system.

In 2023, AB 58, which I also authored, extended the sunset date for this program, and counties wishing to continue using the program were required to submit a report by December of 2024. AB 1258 will extend the sunset date for selected counties as mentioned, Butte, Nevada, and Santa Clara, to continue using this program.

Studies have shown that young adults are still undergoing significant brain development that could lead them to make impulsive decisions that could result in a felony conviction, jeopardizing any opportunities for them in the future. The report submitted by Santa Clara County illustrates that this program has been effective with age appropriate services and has seen a reduction in recidivism. This program aims to reduce reoffending rates among young adults and is beneficial for both participants and the community as a whole.

By extending the sunset date by 3 years, AB 1258 can continue offering this program to give young adults the best opportunity to receive age appropriate services as the state continues to evaluate the short and long term impacts on young adults. Here to testify in support is Judge Erica Yew with the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Hello. Good morning and thank you, Members, for allowing me to be here. My name is Erica Yew. I'm a judge in Santa Clara County. I've been a judge there for over 23 years. I've been the judge in charge of the Young Adult Deferred Entry of Judgment calendar.

Oh, sorry. This Young Adult Deferred Entry of Judgment calendar since 2017. And I'm the immediate past President of the California Judges Association. I won't add too much to the report that you received from our probation department, but we're really proud of this program. And Santa Clara County has the largest number of young adults who've gone through it.

We have an 85.8% success rate, where young adults have been able to graduate. We have achieved the ability to lower recidivism rate, particularly for the Latino population, or Latinx population, which is actually the largest demographic reflected by the hundreds of young adults who participated in this program. You've read that we provide total wraparound assistance with housing, which is so important because San Jose actually has the highest number of 18 to 24 year olds who are unhoused per capita in the nation.

We provide case management, parenting information, drug and alcohol counseling, mental health services, psychiatric services, and quite a large population of our 18 to 20 year olds, we go to 21 actually in our county, are parenting infants and toddlers. So we also provide diapers, you know, educational toys, parenting books, a whole slew of things.

I just want to tell you about a couple of the young adults who've gone through our program. One is a young man who wanted to be a real estate agent, but if he did not successfully graduate, he would have had a felony conviction because all the young adults participating have felony charges. They leave with often their felony reduced to a misdemeanor before the case is dismissed, which is better for their record.

And they also leave with something really precious, which is arrest relief, because that means when their record's searched, unless you're applying for a law enforcement job, for example, no one can even see they were arrested for this charge. Which that arrest or the felony conviction would prevent them from certain government benefits, from obtaining housing, public housing and even private housing, because landlords are doing background searches, and really prevent them from getting jobs so that they can't elevate themselves and their children and their lives.

So I'll tell you about two of our young people. One kind of went through the whole program without a glitch. He wanted to be a real estate agent. He, as part of his community service, we asked him to prepare a video for all the other young adults going through the program about how to be a good tenant so that they wouldn't have evictions on their record, which again impact their credit history and their ability to be housed.

After he graduated, he moved out of state to work for his mother's real estate business. But he so loved this program and felt it was so important to his life that it made such a change for him that he actually came back to California so I could perform his wedding ceremony because it saw he felt like this changed his life. The other is a happy ending, but a sadder case.

A young woman who was trafficked. She had also told us she was held in a warehouse and gang raped. She was severely addicted to all sorts of illegal drugs and she had mental health trauma and she was unhoused for periods of time. She was in and out of treatment facilities, but we stuck with her.

There were points where her public defender, her probation officer, and her youth counselor all wanted to exit her from the program, but we stood by her and she was able to graduate. She got in into junior college. She was working, she was testing clean for a long period of time. So we were so proud of her.

And she told us if it weren't for this program, she doesn't know where she would be. And I actually don't think she would still be on this earth. So we really would appreciate your support for this bill, especially the extension of three years, which would give us time to kind of continue to do the work.

I'm happy to answer questions, and I sincerely want to thank all of you, Members. Thank Assembly Member Kalra's excellent staff, who are Erika and Erika, and thank Assembly Member Kalra who's made a hat trick today because he got three Erica's in this room. So thank you.

All right, thank you very much, Assembly Member. And thank you, your honor, for being here to testify in support of the bill. Next, we'll hear from others hoping to speak in support. Name, organization, position.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Danielle Sanchez. The Chief Probation Officers of California were pleased to sponsor this original bill a number of years ago. We thank Assembly Member Kalra for carrying it. We ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Juvenile Court Judges of California, a section of the California Judges Association. Pleased to support. Thank you.

Lesli Caldwell-Houston, California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Yarrow Neubert, California Public Defenders Association, in support.

Morgan Zamora on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Wonderful. Thank you all. Anyone else hoping to speak in support? Seeing no affirmative response. Is there anyone hoping to testify in opposition? I see no response. Anyone else hoping to speak or be heard on the matter at all? Okay, seeing no response, we'll go to Committee questions or comments. All right. Assembly Member Kalra, would you like to close?

I just want to express my gratitude to Judge Yew, who's been a fervent advocate, not just for this program, but for all our youth in our county, as I think you can tell. And we really appreciate the Chair's recommendation. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, colleagues, I am recommending an aye, enthusiastically. Seems like a great program. And by the way, I don't know if you coordinated your colors today, but that is... That is really fantastic. I'm getting a kick out of that. All right, can we get a motion? Motion by Sharp-Collins and a second by Ramos. Okay, let's conduct the roll.

On Assembly Bill 1258 by Assembly Member Kalra, the motion is do pass to the Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

All right, that measure will remain on call. We'll let you know the outcome. You're noticing the theme today, right? Everything's on call. Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. And Mr. Kalra won't be going too far because next up we have item number three. This is going to be Assembly Bill 622.

I'm just going to make a quick programming note because we have other Assembly Members in the room. After this, I have Assembly Bill 1160 by Assembly Member Wilson. Then we'll hear Assembly Bill 1344 by Assembly Member Irwin. And then I have, based on who's present in the room, Assembly Bill 923 by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva. So that's the on deck order, if you will. Assembly Member Kalra, floor is yours.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. AB 622, the Rehabilitation Recognition Act, reaffirms CDCR's authority to issue credits that would allow people with an indeterminate sentence who have demonstrated extensive rehabilitation to advance their minimum eligible parole date and be eligible to go before the Board of Parole Hearings.

Under existing law, individuals with an indeterminate life sentence, such as seven to life or 25 to life, can earn credits for good conduct and completing rehabilitative programming. These credits allow individuals to advance their minimum eligible parole date, which only, which will only make them eligible for parole.

Being eligible does not guarantee release, and these individuals undergo a rigorous assessment from the Board of Parole Hearings to determine they do not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society if released from prison. In 2024, the Board of Parole Hearings approved only 14.4% of cases that were scheduled for a hearing and many were not scheduled for a hearing.

So it's actually a very small number that were that were approved. Furthermore, individuals with indeterminate sentences who are approved for parole have exhibited the lowest recidivism rate. According to CDCR's latest recidivism report, these individuals had a re-conviction rate of less than 3% compared to the average of 41%. The recidivism rate for a crime against a person was less than 1/2 of 1%.

Despite the success of credit earning programs, recent litigation has resulted in CDCR being unable to release people with indeterminate sentences who had already earned earlier parole eligibility dates with credits and were approved for release by the Parole Board. This is contrary to current legal processes and has created unnecessary costly delays in parole.

AB 622 clarifies that CDCR is permitted to issue credits as they have done for years, which encourages rehabilitation, ensures fairness in the parole process, and reduces wasteful spending. The money that is being spent to continue holding individuals found suitable for parole is money that could instead be invested in victim support.

This bill is in line with the recommendation from the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code and will help ensure that individuals who have been deemed suitable for parole are not unnecessarily incarcerated past their parole date. Here to testify in support are Heather MacKay, an attorney with Prison Law Office, and Nikki Arredondo, a directly impacted family member.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Heather MacKay, I'm an attorney at the Prison Law Office, and we've been working on prison issues for over 50 years. We support this bill because it avoids wasting money and promotes public safety by letting CDCR release people who have proven that they're fully rehabilitated.

In 2016, a strong majority of the voters voted in favor of giving CDCR authority to set its own credit earning rules. This was a rational solution to California's extreme prison overcrowding and overspending, which had caused a budget crisis and unconstitutional conditions but had not improved public safety.

Since that time, CDCR has been allowing people with life terms to advance their parole hearing dates through credit earning. But even when a person's hearing is advanced, they're released only if the Parole Board finds them suitable, and in most cases that decision is also reviewed by the Governor due to litigation claiming that the law is unclear, a court order has paused CDCR's ability to advance parole dates.

And as a result, about 120 people who have been found suitable for parole are still being held in prison, and that number is growing. This is devastating for those who have worked hard to earn a parole grant, and it's also costly to the state. Estimates are it could cost 50 million in the next few years for holding these people in prison and recalculating their release dates. And in some years, people are being held for many years after their parole grant. Moreover, CDCR's credit policy has been extremely effective. Our State Supreme Court has observed that credits promote rehabilitation.

Good conduct credits motivate people to abstain from the violence, drug trafficking, and gang activity that are common inside prison. Programming credits encourage people to develop skills to succeed in our communities. Learning vocations like computer literacy, auto mechanics, carpentry, earning a high school or college diploma, anger management classes, addiction recovery.

Data shows that recidivism rates have dropped and that people who are in programming credits are even less likely to reoffend. The average 3 year recidivism rate for everyone released from CDCR is about 39%. But for people who earn all three types of programming credits, the rate drops down to 15%.

People whose release must be approved by the Parole Board have the lowest recidivism of all. Less than 3% commit any new crime and less than half a percent commit a felony against a person. And again, people with life terms are never released unless they prove that they will not endanger public safety, which is a very high bar. We urge an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Public Safety Committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak today. My name is Nikki Arredondo. I come to you as a directly impacted family member of a loved one who's release from CDCR is being delayed despite having been found suitable for parole.

This is due to the lack of clarity in the law regarding his ability to earn good conduct and rehabilitative achievement credits. My husband was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole and has been incarcerated for nearly 17 years for his involvement in a carjacking. His time incarcerated has been transformational. However, that transformation has not come easy.

My husband has had to overcome countless obstacles. No matter his struggles, he remained determined to become the best version of himself. His rehabilitative journey was initially incentivized by the fact that his efforts would be recognized and he could go before the Parole Board sooner. But what started out as an incentive soon became a way of life.

He began to internalize all the programming and education he participated in and he started to lead by example. All of his efforts were ultimately recognized when he was found suitable for parole on January 15, 2025. The day my husband was found suitable for parole was one of the happiest and most memorable days for all of us.

The preparations for his homecoming began immediately. From clothes to essentials to securing transitional housing, you name it, we had it all taken care of. One of the biggest joys was the fact that our granddaughter, who's here today with us, would never have to visit grandpa in a prison visiting room.

Sadly, this joy and excitement was shattered when we learned of the litigation which overturned all of his programming and achievement credits and has delayed his release until December of 2027. To say we are devastated is an understatement. Despite all of this, my husband remains focused and his programming has not wavered.

This bill would ensure that the opportunity for rehabilitation remains tangible for everyone incarcerated and will provide relief for those who have already been found suitable for parole and are eagerly awaiting their transition into the community. For these reasons, I respectfully urge you to support AB 622, the Rehabilitation Recognition Act. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you both very much for your testimony, and thank you, Assembly Member Kalra, for the presentation. Next, we'll hear from others in support.

Shervin Aazami on behalf of Initiate Justice Action, a proud co-sponsor, and the San Francisco Public Defender's Office in strong, strong support.

Eric Harris, Disability Rights California, strong support.

Antoinette Ratcliffe with Initiate Justice. Proud co-sponsors in strong support. Thank you.

Kristina and Oakley Sanchez from Riverside, California in strong support.

Danica Rodarmel on behalf of the LA Public Defenders Union Local 148 and the GRIP Training Institute in strong support.

Andony Corleto, Vera Institute of Justice, in strong support. Thank you.

Jared Villery with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition, strong support.

Lily Harvey, Prison Law Office, strong support.

Good morning again. Katie Dixon with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners in support. Thank you.

Yarrow Neubert, California Public Defenders Association in support.

Efraín Ortiz with Initiate Justice. Proud co-sponsors in strong support.

Elle Chen on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in strong support.

Sandra Velasco in strong support.

Norma Orozco, Communication Workers of America Local 9415, in strong support, and Ella Baker Center.

Stephanie Jeffcoat again with FIR4E in strong support.

Manuel Galindo on behalf of All of Us or None Orange County, strong support.

Lesli Caldwell Houston for California Public Defenders Association in support.

April Grayson, Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition, in strong support.

Simelia Rogers, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. Proud co-sponsor in support.

Morgan Zamora, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in strong support.

Good morning. Ed Little on behalf of Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor in strong support, and Debt Free Justice California in support. Thank you.

Nateel Sharma with LSPC, All of Us or None, in strong support.

Ari Vazquez with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support.

James Clark, directly impacted family member, strong support.

Jose Bernal, Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, strong support.

Isabella Suleiman with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition in strong support.

Faith Lee with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're proud to support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Keely O'Brien with Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Dax Proctor, Californians United for Responsible Budget. Proud co-sponsor in support.

Tyrique Shipp with the Anti-Recidivism Coalition in strong support.