Senate Standing Committee on Public Safety

Good morning. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Senate Committee on Public Safety for Tuesday, March 17, 2026. I'm Senator Jesse Arreguín, the Chairman of the committee, joined by Vice Chairman Kelly Seyarto. And we do not yet have a quorum, but we will begin our hearing to begin with bill presentations from authors. Once we're able to establish a quorum, we will call the roll and take action on bills.

Just a few announcements as we start today's hearing. File item 1, SB 891 by Senator Cervantes is on the consent calendar. And the way we'll conduct public comment is we will give two minutes for principal witnesses in support and opposition that have been designated either by the, by the bill sponsor or opposition witnesses who provided written written comments in the official record.

After which time, we will take general public comment from members of the public, and your public comment will just be limited to state your name, your organization or what city you're from, and your position on the bill. We will not take any other comments.

We welcome your comments in writing. We do review all written comments that are submitted through the portal, and thank you for joining us today for this hearing. So with that, we'll begin with file item 2, Senate Bill 936 by Senator Blakespear. Good morning. Senator, whenever you would like to begin.

Okay. Well, thank you very much, Chair. Hello, members. Good morning. I'm happy to present today SB 936. SB 936 takes a measured approach to addressing the dangerous rise of nitrous oxide misuse in California. Nitrous oxide has become a popular recreational drug among youth, but it can have deadly consequences, especially for those who choose to drive while intoxicated by it.

In particular, it can cause impaired brain function, loss of motor control, asphyxia, or death, and repeated exposure has been linked to long term neurologic damage. To be clear, nitrous oxide does have several important legitimate uses, such as an engine propellant in the automotive industry, laughing gas for dental procedures, and as a culinary component in restaurants and coffee shops.

And my legislation would not impact that. What SB 936 would do is prohibit the retail sale of nitrous oxide canisters that are larger than eight grams while preserving legitimate uses in medical, dental, culinary, and automotive settings.

Currently, large tanks labeled for, quote, culinary use are widely available through retail shops, often with flavored varieties and branding that appeal to young consumers. And Chair, I have brought in an example that I would like to show here of what you can purchase locally here in Sacramento called Hotwhip. And this is a nitrous oxide canister that is clearly from its marketing indicated that it is being sold to children. And there is a, there's a convenient way to access it.

So you just access the nitrous oxide in this big container. And so this is what we would not prohibit for sale, these large containers that are clearly marketed. This one is watermelon Hotwhip. These also come in bubble gum, vanilla cupcake, and tropical punch. The widespread use of nitrous oxide as a drug is dangerous to individuals and to public safety.

While under the influence of nitrous oxide, drivers are impaired and can get into traffic incidents that can easily become deadly. In one incident in my district, a local officer responded to a multi vehicle crash. And after guiding two people affected by the crash off the roadway, he checked on the driver, who had consumed nitrous oxide prior to the crash.

A second driver, allegedly driving under the influence of alcohol, crashed into the stopped vehicles, killing both the initial driver and the responding officer. These incidents are not isolated. Across California, emergency department visits related to nitrous oxide increased 246 percent between 2018 and 2023.

For these reasons, several local jurisdictions, including one of the two counties I represent, Orange County, and the cities of Contra, of Costa Mesa and Newport Beach, have already restricted the retail sale of these nitrous oxide tanks.

SB 936 builds on these local efforts by establishing a statewide standard for nitrous regulations. The bill does not ban it outright and it does not affect the standard eight gram whipped cream charges that are commonly used in culinary settings. It also does not create new possession crimes or further criminalize Californians who consume nitrous.

Instead, it reduces access for non-legitimate uses. SB 936 is sponsored by the Rural County Representatives of California, the National Stewardship Action Council, Orange County, and San Diego's District Attorney Summer Stephan. And with me today in support, I have Supervisor Madeline Cline from Mendocino County and James Fontaine, a narcotics expert with the San Diego District Attorney's Office.

Great. Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee, and whoever would like to start.

Good morning, Chair Arreguín and Committee Members. My name is James Fontaine. I am the Chief of the Major Narcotics Division at the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and a 26 year prosecutor. Our district attorney, Summer Stephan, is a proud co-sponsor of Senate bill 936. Nitrous oxide has been used and abused for over 250 years.

What's changed is its availability, the mechanism of its delivery, and its popularity. The small eight gram chargers have been replaced by large tanks of flavored nitrous oxide being sold out of smoke shops and convenience stores, not for any legitimate culinary purpose, but for the sole purpose of getting people high.

The the harms, there are very real harms associated with the misuse of nitrous oxide. Harms to the direct users include hypoxic brain injuries, nerve damage, incontinence, and in rare cases paralysis and even death. The harms are not limited to the direct users.

I reviewed every case prosecuted by my office between 2015 and 2025 where nitrous oxide was either charged or was meaningfully involved. We had 118 cases. 74 of those cases happened just in 2025 alone. So that's 63 percent of our cases involving nitrous oxide happening just last year. Vehicles were involved in over seventy percent of our cases.

The cases ranged from a father losing consciousness and crashing into a fence, grabbing his two children ages two and four, and fleeing from the scene. To a young man losing control of his car, ignoring request to stop inhaling while driving, crashing, and ending the life of his 17 year old passenger.

To what the Senator just mentioned, a crash on a local freeway that took the life of a 19 year old driver and the 25 year old police officer who responded to the scene. And I could go on and on. The common denominator, large tanks of flavored nitrous oxide. These are real events with real people suffering significant, sometimes tragic, fatal consequences.

SB 936 seeks to intervene before tragedy strikes, and it does that by imposing measured and reasonable restrictions on those containers and devices most commonly involved in the cases we're seeing in San Diego County and undoubtedly causing harm throughout the rest of the state. We respectfully urge you to vote aye on Senate Bill 936. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'm Madeline Cline, Mendocino County Supervisor. So local activism spearheaded the conversation around nitrous oxide in Mendocino County. In 2022, a group of teens from the youth leadership coalition took it upon themselves to advocate for Ukiah City Council to pass an ordinance banning the commercial sale of nitrous oxide canisters.

During my first year as Supervisor, a group of constituents came forward with dozens and dozens of whippets canisters that had been littered across our valley. The large quality, quantity of canisters, coupled with multiple incidents happening directly outside of retail locations that were selling these flavored nitrous oxide canisters, led to the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors directing staff to prepare an ordinance to ban the sale of such nitrous oxide canisters.

We've heard overwhelmingly from the community that action is needed. We cannot keep allowing retailers to sell this misleading and addictive product to our residents, often aimed at kids and young adults. Especially for the youth, limiting this access is essential.

Our neighbors in Humboldt County, one of the first to ban the commercial sale of nitrous oxide, have experienced several tragic and devastating losses in their community. Just eight months ago, 19 year old Anisha Gutshall was killed two miles south of Fortuna.

The driver was huffing on nitrous oxide, passed out, crossed the double yellow, and hit a large truck head on. She was killed instantly, and he lived. The car exploded because it had the medium sized tanks in the back seat of the car. DUI crashes and fatalities are being reported all across our state.

Recent incidents happening in Humboldt County, Santa Cruz County, Sonoma County, Sacramento County, just to name a few. These are young adults, mothers, children, teachers, community leaders alike, all taken too soon. SB 936 is a balanced approach for protecting community members and the environment. Thank you very much to Senator Blakespear for your leadership on this issue, and we humbly ask for an aye vote on SB 936.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for SB 936? Please approach your microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

And, Chair, there was a handout that I'm not sure if if it's been distributed. It has? Okay. Great. Okay. Great.

Mr. Chair and Members. Jolena Voorhis on behalf of the League of California Cities in strong support.

John Kennedy here today on behalf of RCRC at the Rural Counties as a sponsor of the measure, and also me too-ing on behalf of Zero Waste Marin, Del Norte Solid Waste Management Authority, and Californians Against Waste. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Heidi Sanborn with the National Stewardship Action Council. We're co-sponsors of the bill, and we strongly urge your support.

Good morning. Amy Jenkins on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors, proud co-sponsors of this bill, pleased to support. And also here on behalf of the California Cannabis Operators Association in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning. Josh Gauger on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors, and the Urban Counties of California in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Jack Yanos on behalf of Workology in support.

Good morning. Patrick Espinoza on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association in support.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 936? If not, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to the bill.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action. We are opposed to SB 936 unless it is amended to take a regulatory approach. This is not a radical idea. Just two months ago, this committee considered a bill that would criminalize kratom.

In that instance, every single member of this committee other than Senator Cortese, who wasn't on the committee at that time, voiced support for a regulatory public health approach. Following this committee's lead, we strongly urge the legislature to amend SB 936 out of the penal code and to instead directly regulate businesses.

For example, California's approach to regulating flavored tobacco products imposes civil fines and retail license consequences for businesses that failed to comply with the regulatory framework. In so far as the sponsor's comments were about retailers and marketing, the proper avenue for the intent of SB 936 is direct regulation of those retailers, not criminalization of individuals.

I must note that the word retail or retailers does not appear in the bill. Lastly, SB 936's current criminalization is exceptionally broad. Among its provisions, the bill would criminalize or make it a crime to sell, distribute, or offer any device that is capable of holding nitrous oxide.

This broad language risks treating household items like Ziploc bags as illegal drug paraphernalia. There's no need to go after Safeway and soccer moms for a problem that can be solved by retail regulations of smoke shops. For these reasons, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill 936, please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Okay. Seeing no one else, that completes our testimony. I'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Senator Caballero, and then the Vice Chair.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I heard the bill last... Was it last year or last month or whenever we, the kratom discussion. Yeah. Time is all relative. And part of the challenge in that discussion was that we had testimony in support of a regulatory framework for kratom and opposed.

And it was conflicting. And so it called upon this committee to make an evaluation as to whether that particular product had any beneficial use, which is way beyond what the what the committee is, does. And so I guess I'm having a hard time with this Ziploc bag explanation. Can... So let me just also say that I really appreciate the testimony here today.

The consequences of using this product irresponsibly, is really what it amounts to, is grave. And I think there has been the canister is probably the best evidence of the enticement for young people to use it. It looks like it'd be fun. Right? It's a party thing. And that's really scary.

So I really appreciate the the youth coming forward and saying we don't we don't want this because they're in the best age group to tell us what's going on in the in the community and how we can protect them, keep them safe. So can can you address that Ziploc bag issue?

And are you anticipating any any amendments that might address the issue that's been raised by the ACLU? I'm not talking about the regulatory process because I really don't think we, in this instance, it's necessary. But I am concerned about other products and never heard of the product being put in a zip bag. I'm just wondering.

I mean, so we are happy to and are already working to narrow the language so that it's clear that it doesn't include things like Ziploc bags. I mean, the truth is that that's somewhat of an absurd suggestion because it is a gas.

So, like, the idea that you're gonna put, you know, put this into a bag and that somehow that's, I mean, that's just not something that's happening in the real world, I guess. So, but we don't want anybody to be concerned about, you know, creep into other areas. This is very specifically aimed at prohibiting the retail sale of these.

And, you know, these are available, you can see them in the window of smoke shops. And they are being marketed directly to people who are walking by, to kids. And so this it's very specific in saying that we don't want the retail sale of these, that you could just walk in and buy this. And so that's what this bill is doing.

And also, I'll just say that there's nobody who would go to jail under this bill. You know, it's a series of escalating fines. And so, you know, it's important to contextualize it. And if you wanted any more on the criminal civil, I think the District Attorney could probably answer that too if you were interested.

No. I'm fine. I just, I I just couldn't imagine somebody putting a gas into a bag as an alternative method. And quite frankly, that little point you could put on it is it makes it frightening. It's pretty clear it's been meant it's meant to be used for personal use. So I have no further questions. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. And and thank you for tackling this issue because it is a growing problem. When you put a nitrous oxide gas into your lungs, it displaces the oxygen. That's what it does. And so for however long that's happening, you become hypoxic. And when you're hypoxic, your brain doesn't function right.

And so since this is being targeted to our kids, this is a growing public safety issue, and it's entirely appropriate for us to address that. And once we've addressed it, as far as the criminal part of it, if people know that this is what it's doing to kids, and they're still selling them that item, then they certainly deserve to have some kind of prosecution for trying to injure our kids.

You know, sometimes adults are dumb enough to do it themselves, but sometimes kids don't know that when they're breathing the stuff in, it's displacing their oxygen. It's taking the place of oxygen and the molecules won't, the the the molecules won't be carrying oxygen to the brain and things like that.

So I think this is this is something that is entirely supportable. I don't think it infringes on anybody's rights, and I think it's gonna keep our kids, one more thing that we have to do to keep our kids alive. And so, therefore, we'll be supporting supporting this when the time comes. And again, I appreciate you bringing it up and appreciate the witness's testimony. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Senator Blakespear, for bringing this bill forward. This bill's been do refer, do refer to Public Safety and Business Professions and Economic Development. Today, we're dealing with the penal code provisions and the criminal penalties. B&P will look at the the licensing piece. And this bill does actually include a regulatory approach.

It includes provisions that would allow for the suspension of a license id somebody is found to be in violation of this law. I think that's important. We did move a bill forward in January by Senator Umberg. I think this is a much more comprehensive law that focuses on the sale and distribution and not the possession.

But I do wanna raise one issue that Senator Wiener had raised. He's unfortunately not here at this time. Around the the word giveaway, and just thinking about that then, whether that may implicate people that are using or possessing nitrous. So just given that he raised that issue, I just wanna put that into the record.

But I think this is absolutely critical for the many reasons stated by you and by your witnesses. Just the significant public health risk and the fact this is being specifically marketed to kids is reason why we have to pass this today. And so my recommendation is an aye. I'll turn it back over to you to close.

Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the the good conversation today and to my witnesses for coming and to the ACLU for your engagement. I just have two final points I wanna make. One is that it's not just that people are deeply impaired and shouldn't be driving. It's also that it's deep, it is seriously addictive. This is like crack cocaine.

And when I've talked to other people who have had family members involved, things just escalated completely out of control in ways that were unpredicted because of the, because of how highly addictive it is. And the other thing I want to mention is that these canisters are very difficult to deal with on the waste side. So this cost, for sale $31.99.

But it costs over $60 for municipalities to manage the waste on the back end. And so, you know, that's one of the reasons that we have so many of the environmental sponsors because of the concerns about this the waste product that's created here that's not being dealt with. So it's just a further need for this bill. And with that, I thank you very much for your support.

Thank you very much. We do not yet have a quorum, but when we do, we'll entertain a motion. And thank you very much, Senator. Okay. Thank you. I see we have our next author, Senator Padilla, here.

Okay. We'll now proceed to file item three, SB 941 by Senator Padilla. And if there are any principal witnesses, if you can please join us here at the table. Alright. And Senator Padilla, whenever you're ready, you may.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. I'm very pleased to present SB 941 which, to make this brief, applies the framework of this committee supported, as familiar with SB 474, which limited markup for commissary facilities within state prison facilities to 35% above cost to avoid exploitation of people who often rely on those services and goods in an institutional setting.

This bill would apply that to the private, for-profit entities under contract to the Federal Government currently, which house detainees seeking asylum or who are in immigration enforcement processes. And what we know from studies conducted, most recently by UCLA, that we have a significant problem with exploitation. We have markups for various necessary products in these settings by folks who are held in detention to as much as 300% above cost.

So, this basically mirrors that framework. It prevents that, in these settings. These types of facilities in the state boundaries of California are 100% under private contract by the Federal Government. Obviously, the Federal Government will retain preeminent jurisdiction over operations and security issues, but as they are operating within the state's boundaries, we have the ability to set conditions with respect to commercial activity occurring there. And how that may, you know, impact that setting from a safety and security and well-being standpoint of the people being housed there even temporarily.

Often, these costs are also passed on to families and others who are related to folks who are in this status, because they pick up the difference when they're not meeting their basic needs or being exploited by this loophole. So, this bill seeks to close that. I'm happy to have with me today, Mr. Chairman and members, Elena Junghi Vermullen—I think I may have messed that up, but I appreciate you—who is a Skadden Fellow with the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice.

Thank you, Senator. Hi. Good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, chairs and members of the Public Safety Committee. My name is Elena Junghi Vermullen, and I'm an Immigration Attorney at the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, here to testify regarding the deep harm caused to California families by exploitative commissary prices. When ICE detains a Californian, a parent, a loved one, caretaker, provider is ripped from a working class California family. One such person, Pavel, detained in the Imperial Regional Detentional Facility, shares the impact of detention. "Even though we are detained, our bills, banks, and taxes do not wait for us."

"We still need to find ways to pay for our family's rents, mortgages, and loans, or risk service cancellations, evictions, and foreclosures." Commissary describes products sold in ICE custody, commodified necessities that people in for profit immigration detention centers in California must buy with funds sent from family or the $1 a day they earn working in the facility. When detained people have no other way to procure what they need, it's easy for companies to economically exploit them. Inflated commissary prices force additional expenses on already vulnerable Californian families. My client, Fernando, is a green card holder and father of two US citizens detained in Imperial.

He explains, additional expenses come in the form of hyper expensive essentials, including basic hygiene products and weather appropriate clothing that the facility and ICE deprive us of. Facilities do not provide us with essentials like deodorant, floss, or soap. Pavel reflects that painkillers, anti-infection cream, band aids, and necessary health care items are only provided by the medical unit upon sick call requests that take days to process. To have these items available when they're actually needed, they have to be purchased from the commissary. Fernando and Pavel have been working in detention.

For a day's work, they are paid $1. It takes four days of work to save up for deodorant for $4—$3.84—$7 to save up for a four-ounce bottle of shampoo at $6.96, days to pay for a six-ounce jar of peanut butter for $6.67, and eighteen days to save up enough for an eight-ounce jar of instant coffee priced at $18. Outside for detention—outside detention—for the same products, deodorant is $1.34 less, shampoo $4.61 less, peanut butter $5.93 less, and coffee $12.58 less. SB 941 would limit the corporate exploitation of California's families. In Fernanda's words, the current absence of limits on commissary prices means we have to depend on our already struggling families after being taken away from them.

I was the sole provider for my family, and now I have to ask them for help with no end in sight. Just as we have passed legislation to limit unconscionable commissary costs in prisons, we must have the same standard in for-profit detention facilities. I urge you to vote in favor of SB 941. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for Senate Bill 941? Please just take your name, organization, position on the bill.

Liz Blum Gutierrez registering op—support—in, on behalf of Smart Justice California.

Hi. Good morning. Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

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

Good morning. Elizabeth Kim, in support, on behalf of Initiate Justice. Thank you.

Candace Chung, on behalf of Attorney General Rob Bonta who's a proud co-sponsor of the bill and in support.

Thank you.

George Paramthu, on behalf of ACLU California Action, in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Manuel Pazarreguin with the California American Policy Center in strong support.

Jackie Gonzales, Immigrant Defense Advocates, proud co-sponsor. Thank you and strong support.

Evan Fern with Disability Rights California, in support.

Good morning. Tramir Washington with Disability Rights, in strong support.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other members of the public wishing to express support for SB 941? Seeing no one else. Are there any principal witnesses in opposition to Senate Bill 941? Seeing none. Is anyone wishing to express opposition to Senate Bill 941? And seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? Senator Caballero.

I appreciate you bringing forward this bill, and I'd like to be added as a co-author at the appropriate time. Thank you for being here today.

Are there any other questions or comments? I do not co-author bills that come through policy committee until they're heard, but I strongly support this bill. As you had noted, this bill's on a prior bill, Senate Bill 474, to ensure that that applies to these, private, federal detention facilities. It's outrageous what's happening. I, I really appreciate you bringing this forward.

I would love to be added as a co-author at the appropriate time as well. And I'll turn it back over you to close.

Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman and members. I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate.

Thank you, senator. We do not yet have a quorum, but we'll entertain a motion when we establish a quorum. And thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here.

I see Senator Gonzalez here. We miss you on this committee. So, we will now proceed.

Believe it or not, I miss you all too.

Oh. File item five, SCR 118 by Senator Gonzales. And if there are any principal witnesses Yes. You are welcome to join us up here at the table.

She actually is my neighbor, which I love.

So Oh, wow. Yes.

Okay. Senator Gonzalez, whatever you'd like to

Thank you, mister chair, and good morning, chair and members. I'm here to present, Senate Concurrent Resolution 118 which urges a full and transparent release of unclassified files related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation in order to advance accountability and public trust. Over young 1,000 young women and children were abused by Epstein and his associates dating back to the early nineteen nineties, including a constituent of mine, which I'll share very soon. In order to provide justice, transparency, and accountability to survivors, Congress passed HR 4405 which required the US DOJ to publish all unclassified records, documents, and and communications related to the investigation and prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein by December 192025. Unfortunately, the DOJ has only released 3,500,000 of the 6,000,000 files.

It's about 50% and failed to appropriately redact survivors' names and photos, further traumatizing them. In fact, when I met with one of my constituents who is in the files and is a victim and survivor, she said most profoundly that the the government knows more about my body than I do. Every delay and every redaction made for political convenience, rather than legitimate legal reason, is another denial of justice to real people. And SCR 118 will voice California's commitment to justice and supporting survivors. I do have, a dear neighbor and friend, testifying in support, Kate Buck, the CEO of the Coalition Abolish Slavery and Trafficking LA.

But if I could, mister chair, I'd also like to read a statement from my, constituent. Her name is Annie Farmer. Absolutely. She was an Epstein survivor who was 16 when she was abused by Jeffrey Epstein. After so many decades of the government's failures in the Epstein case, Senator Gonzalez's resolution her resolution makes it clear that predators should not be protected by our government, but should be prosecuted.

I urge lawmakers across the country to do the same and denounce those that engaged in the trafficking and abuse of so many women and girls and commit to holding them accountable to the fullest extent of the law. We must also ensure the Department of Justice stops obstructing and violating the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which passed with near unanimous bipartisan support and provides true transparency that survivors and the American public have long deserved. That's once again Annie Farmer, a constituent of my district. I ask for your aye vote, and I'll hand it off to my witness.

Good morning. You have two minutes to address the committee.

Thank you. Good morning, chairs and Senate public safety members. My name is Kay Buck, and I'm the CEO of CAST, Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. We're headquartered in Los Angeles, but I have a team across the whole state. We're also the nation's largest comprehensive service provider to survivors of human trafficking, and we're here today in support of Senate Resolution 118.

At CAST, we work with nearly 1,500 survivors each year who have taught us that exploitation only thrives when systems fail. Too often, our everyday decisions, what we ignore, what we excuse, what we normalize or choose not to question, help reinforce these systems. The Epstein files are not just a scandal. They reflect a profound human rights failure. And so we ask, what happens to survivors when these systems that are actually designed to protect them instead cause them further harm?

California has been a leader in anti trafficking efforts since 1998, and now we have this incredible opportunity to set a global standard by making clear that we believe survivors, that we will fearlessly prioritize their dignity over those who abuse them with their unchecked power. This moment demands our courage and a call to action for transparency because that is what accountability is. It's transparency. We urge you all to stand with survivors, to stand with us, and support this resolution today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. There any other members of the public wishing to express support for SCR 118? You can please approach the microphone and state your name, organization, and position on the bill. Anyone else wishing to express support? Is there anyone wishing to express opposition to SCR 118? Okay. Seeing no one, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Senator Caballero?

Appreciate the author for bringing this forward. I think this is really important. California needs to stand up, on behalf of, victims and survivors all over the world. So thank you so much. Appreciate it.

Vice chair Seyarto.

Alright. Thank you very much for attempting to try to address this issue. It is an important issue. The exploitation of our kids has been an issue for a long time. And the Epstein files have been an issue for a long time in the Federal Government.

The problem that we're having is is, you know, was mentioned in your your opening about the release of three and a half million and they're still going through the other two and a half million files. And when they did, they did so in a manner that wound up making mistakes. And that's what happens when you hurry. And so what I'm hearing is hurry up and not make mistakes. And the problem is that's what's gonna happen when you hurry through document after document.

A lot of times, we have problems going through just the documents we get, and they're this thick. Can you imagine 6,000,000 of them? And I can't. The other problem with this is as the two main perpetrators of this were held accountable, there are a lot of other people who participated. But unfortunately, we also have social media that have put out things that we don't know what's true and what's not true.

We don't know what's a a a criminal association versus a social association before they even knew that the person was associate. And and when I'm reading the the SCR, there seem to be indications that we know and we don't know yet. We don't know it all yet. And believe me, when we do know it all, I will be the first one to say, okay, these people need to go to jail. Now, the other part of this is, you know, we we are really concerned about this, but in the six year this is my sixth year on public safety.

Two in the assembly and now, my fourth year in this one. We have had bills that have tried to hold people who are abusing 16 and 17 year olds accountable. And it took three years to get one of those bills through and it was only because one of my colleagues that that sponsored the bill made such a such a fuss in the media that it became really uncomfortable for the people who were protecting the people that were perpetrating these type of things, this type of human trafficking on 16 and 17 year olds because we didn't want to recognize them as minors. That kind of that kind of contradictory argument to me, it it tells me that this this becomes more of a political thing than it does about the actual issue of human trafficking. We are trying desperately to address the human trafficking and hold people accountable for who for for for the human trafficking that they are involved in.

We also have to make sure that we get it right. We can't ruin people's lives who weren't really involved in something. But at the same time, people that do participate in in this type of behavior need to be held accountable. And so on that part, I agree with that the effort to hold people accountable. But unfortunately, in in this SCR, you're implicating that people are doing things that you don't know whether they did or not.

And neither do I. I have no idea when I look through. With AI and all of the different things that are available to people's dispose at people's disposal, they can put anything together. So there is a process that's gonna have to go through, and they're it seems like they're trying to go through it. It's never gonna make everybody happy on either side of the aisle.

But it needs to be gone through the appropriate way. And we have so many issues in California that we need to be focused on, including this one. That I for me, that's where I wanna spend my energy. I'm not gonna spend my emotional energy on on things that, number one, I have no personal control over. But number two, I don't have all the facts.

And so that this this kinda lands in that that arena for me. And and therefore, I'm gonna be laying off when the time comes because I just don't feel like this is a good use of our time at this time. Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Gonazalez for bringing this resolution forward. This is important for the legislature to take action on because so many Californians were victims of Jeffrey Epstein and his associates. And we wouldn't be in this situation if the administration was transparent and was releasing these documents. But there have been many delays and attempts to obfuscate.

And I think it's important that this information be made widely available and that there's accountability for the crimes that have been committed. And I do agree that there's a lot that we have to do to prevent human trafficking and to hold those people who are engaged in traffic accountable, which is why we have taken steps over the last several years as the vice chair noted, to strengthen criminal penalties and provide more resources for victims. And I I see this as aligned with those efforts, which is why I will be voting for the resolution today. Turn back over to you. You're close.

Thank you, mister chair. And I couldn't agree with you more. You said my closing for me, but I will say, you know, this is why I brought, CEO Buck from Cast LA here is because we we want to ensure that we are combating human traffic trafficking. I think that's exactly the goal here. But when a constituent who has been victimized and

is a survivor of this comes to you and says, I want you to do everything in your power as long as you have a title to do something, to say something, to be upfront and outspoken, you do it. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We don't have a quorum yet, but at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion.

Absolutely.

It is Senator Becker here. Okay. Great. So we will go back to file item four, Senate bill 1009 by senator Becker. Good morning. If there are any principal witnesses, you can please join us here at the table. And, Senator, whenever you're ready

Okay. Good morning, chair and members. Today, my first bill presentation of 2026. Alright.

Excited. For too long, California's juvenile justice system has relied on locked doors and high walls as our first response to youth behavior rather than our last resort. SP 1,009 is a common sense reform that updates this outdated model to better reflect what we know today about brain science, public safety, and fiscal responsibility. The data shows that off that young people with existing behavioral and mental problems often deteriorate in detention, not improve. It disrupts education, severs family ties, and counterintuitively increases the risk of future trouble.

Estimates show that about 41 percent, by the way, of kids that end up in juvenile hall are for nonviolent offenses. By requiring clear and convincing evidence that detention is an immediate and urgent necessity, this bill ensures that we no longer are setting our kids up for cycle of incarceration before they even reached adulthood. Oh, the lights are on a bouquet. This bill isn't just about compassion, it's about systemic efficiency. Incarceration is our most expensive and least effective tool for rehabilitation.

By prioritizing community based alternatives such as counseling and supervision, we're investing in solutions that reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars. This bill stops treating our children like quote unquote criminals in training and starts treating them like the future of our state. It brings transparency to our courtrooms and accountability to our justice system. Again, this bill this bill is not about, and will not allow dangerous people to be released. This is the fact that right now, while we have evidentiary standards say for adults, which by the way for pretrial detention is clear and convincing evidence, we just don't have an evidentiary standard for youth.

That's just the fact we don't have an evidentiary standard for youth. So this is just setting an evidentiary standard for youth. It's not less restrictive than the one for adults. It's not more restrictive. We're just setting the same standard of clear and convincing evidence.

This bill brings transparency to our courtrooms, accountability to our justice system, ensuring that every child is given a fair chance to succeed within their community. With me today, testify in support and offer technical assistance, Eric Arias with the Yolo County Public Defender's Office and Xochitl Larios.

Good morning. You each have two minutes to address the committee. Whoever would

like to start. Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. My name is Eric Arias, and I'm a youth defender at the Yolo County Public Defender's Office and a member of the legislative committee of the California Youth Defender Center, a cosponsor of this bill. It is widely recognized that youth detention carries significant harms.

Detention can traumatize youth, worsen educational and employment outcomes, and promote continued involvement in the justice system. Because of those consequences, the legal standards governing when a youth may be detained are incredibly critical, and yet, they contain several gaps. SB 1009 was developed to address those gaps, and in doing so, relied on well established, pre existing principles. The sponsor's goal was simple, to ensure that the principles guiding detention decisions are clear, consistent, and reflect the understanding that detention must remain the exception, not the rule, as the California Supreme Court expressed over fifty years ago. We recognize that there are situations where youth may need to be detained or subject to a custodial commitment.

SB 1,009 simply requires that those decisions be made with care and reflect an intervention that's appropriate to the youth's needs. This bill supports that approach by clarifying an evidentiary standard, requiring clear and convincing evidence ensures attention decisions are supported by a meaningful level of certainty. The California Supreme Court has already recognized the standard as appropriate for adult bail decisions. And And given the well recognized harms of detention, I find it difficult to justify holding a youth to a less demanding standard. SP 1,009 ensures that judges are considering considering commitments to juvenile halls, camps, or ranch consider less restrictive means that are consistent with the youth's needs and public safety.

These principles aren't foreign to judges. They already apply them when it comes to electronic monitoring and commitments to a secure youth treatment facility. Importantly, SB 1009 does not change the information the judge can rely on or the evidentiary rules, including the use of hearsay when making those decisions. It simply brings coherence and uniformity to our attention decisions, ensuring that, these decisions are made carefully, consistently, and in line with long recognized principles. And for those reasons, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Good morning, chair and members of committee. My name is Xochitl Larios. I was born and raised in South Hayward, California.

I wish I could say that I grew up in a stable home, but I didn't. At the age of seven, I was in and out of the foster care system, and by the age 12, I entered the juvenile justice system. Despite that, I was working hard to build a future. At 17, I was already at a continuation high school, a certified lifeguard and a swim instructor. I was teaching children and adults how to swim and felt really proud to teach.

Then I was arrested in 2017. I was detained for more than 200 days at the Alameda County's Juvenile Justice Center, waiting for my case to be decided, not because I was found guilty. During those 200 days, everything I worked for began to fall apart. I lost my job and never got to say goodbye to my students. I was pulled out of school and separated from my two little sisters.

AB While my classmates graduated surrounded by family and friends, I graduated into inside a detention facility. After the ceremony, I went back to a cell and I cried. At the end of it all, my charge was reduced to a misdemeanor and I was released into 12. But the but that but the damage was already done. I had to rebuild my life from the bottom.

Do you know how hard it is to feel institutionalized and go from a constructive environment to an unconstructed environment? It is really, really hard. My story shows why young people should remain in their respected communities while awaiting adjudication when it's safer to do so. SB 1009 recognizes that young people grow stronger when they remain connected to their communities. You can't heal, grow, and thrive in a cage, but you can in your community. Thank you for listening to my story.

Thank you very much. We'll now, take any me too testimony from anyone else in support of SB 1009. Please state your name and organization. This is from the bill.

Liz Blum Gutierrez on behalf of the LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148 and Smart Justice California in strong support.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

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

George Brampton, on behalf of ACLU California Action, and the San Francisco Public Defenders, in support. Thank you.

Keyan Bliss on behalf of Anti Police Terror Project in support.

Elizabeth Kim on behalf of Initiate Justice in strong support. Thank you.

Zoe Fisher with California Youth Defender Center, co prod co sponsor of this bill and strong support. Also registering support on behalf of the following organizations, East Bay Community Law Center and Child Poverty California, Fair Chance Project, Families Inspiring Reentry and Reunification for Everyone, Families United to End Life Without the Possibility of Parole, and Freedom for Youth. Thank you.

Good morning. Jonathan Laba, also with California Youth Defender Center, proud cosponsor and here to add support from the following organizations. Friends Committee on Legislation of California, GLIDE Foundation, Hayward Burns Institute, In Our Care San Mateo County, Interval Community Solutions Institute, Jesse's Place Organization, and Justice to Jobs Coalition. Thank you.

Manuel Pazarreguin with the California American Policy Center in strong support.

Evan Fern with Disability Rights California in support.

Good morning. Andrew Lassen with the California Youth Defense Center, also in support. Also in support is La Defensea, Legal Aid at Work, Milpa Collective, Peace and Justice Law Center, Restore 180 Restoring Hope California, Rubicon Programs, San Francisco Pogue Defender's Office, Silicon Valley Debug, Sisters Warriors Freedom Coalition, Starting Over Inc, Starting Over Strong, Success Stories Program. Thank you. Good morning, Committee.

Jay Vasquez. On behalf of Communities United for Youth Justice, proud cosponsor, strong support. Also in strong support, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, the California Youth Justice Project, Change Parallel Project, Place for Grace, Underground Grit, Universidad Popular, Unlocked Futures, Urban Peace Institute, Urban Peace Movement, Viet Voices, Youngsters for Change, Youth Alliance, Youth Empowerment, Youth Ford, Youth Leadership Institute, and Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you.

Daphne Ghazani on behalf of the National Center for Youth Law, in strong support.

Rose LaValle on behalf of Fresh Lifelines for Youth, proud cosponsor and proud support.

Good morning. Colin Ford, also with Fresh Lifelines for Youth and registering support for A New Path, A New Way of Life Reentry Project, Alliance for Opportunity, Alliance for Boys and Men of Color, Anti Police Terror Project, Arts for Healing and Justice Network, Back to the Start, and Brotherhood Crusade.

Akashly Galvez Torres with Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice in support. Also in support, California Alliance for Youth and Community Justice, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice, California Youth Connection, Californians for Safety and Justice, Californians United for a Responsible Budget, Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, Children's Advocacy Institute, Coalition of California State Tribes, Community Interventions, Community Works West, and Courage California.

Good morning. Laura O'Connor for Compassionate California. Strong support also from the Good Life Pledge, Inspired Collaborations, and the Full Spectrum Group. Thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone else wishing to express support for Senate Bill 1009? Seeing no one else, we'll take up to two principal witnesses in opposition. And you may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Danielle Sanchez on behalf of the Chief Probation Officers of California in opposition to SB 1009 today. While CPAC agrees both in mission and practice that detention should be a last resort, probation, the communities we serve, and the courts must have certainty and enough time to ensure that we can appropriately gather the information necessary for courts to make this level of a determination and that these decisions in a ground—are grounded in a way that reflect the uniqueness presented by juveniles who commit crime and the, the threat to public safety in these instances. This bill does not account for the type and scope of information that would be required to be investigated to look at less restrictive options and the circumstances around the particular case, with enough time for the courts to meet the determination of a clear and convincing standard in light of these timelines and processes for detention hearings.

Accordingly, we're deeply concerned that the bill's unintended consequences include youth being returned to unsafe home environments or other determinations that we, again, have not had the time to take a look at and for the judges to look at the various alternatives and the public safety needs. It is important to note that probation, along with many partners of the courts, counties, and additional stakeholders have done significant work over the last decade to use evidence-based practices which has resulted in a 70% decline in juvenile detention rates. But it is equally important to note that where juveniles are being detained, that these offenses, for youth who are charged and adjudicated for, are statistically the most serious and violent felony offenses.

Following the closure of DJJ, the rate of youth felony arrests for violent offenses increased by nearly seventy percent. Despite the intent language that the bill seeks to align with the adult system, it should be noticed that the state has made a a very focused public policy decision that juveniles and adults should be treated differently in numerous aspects with regards to crimes.

There obviously are various ways in which the two systems differ. One example just being that adults can be released to their own responsibility in certain cases. Youth have to be returned to a parent or guardian or other placement. And so, there are a whole host of things that have to take place when deciding our less restrictive options available. So, in practical concern, in practical terms, the concern is that this would require prioritization of community placements over community safety by inhibiting the court's ability and time to make safe and appropriate detention decisions and could result in youth with the most serious offenses being released.

So, for those reasons, we ask for your no vote today.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Patrick Espinoza on behalf of the California District Attorneys Association, and CDA respectfully opposes SB 1009. CDA supports efforts to reduce unnecessary youth detention and to expand effective community-based interventions. However, SB 1009 would substantially limit judicial discretion and at both detention and disposition in ways that may undermine public safety and the rehabilitative goals of juvenile court.

SB 1009 establishes a presumption of release and requires courts to find by clear and convincing evidence that detention is warranted. Detention hearings occur at the outset of proceedings, often with limited but rapidly evolving information. Imposing a heightened evidentiary standard at the early stage will restrict court's ability to respond appropriately in cases involving escalating conduct, victim intimidation, and repeated failures on supervision.

The bill further prohibits detention in juvenile hall unless the court finds that a less restrictive alternative is unsuitable. While alternatives are appropriate in many cases, their availability varies significantly among counties. Courts and probation departments cannot order programs that lack capacity or don't exist.

SB 1009 risk creating uneven statewide outcomes driven by resource disparities rather than individualized risk assessments. In addition, SB 1009 narrows the principal detention basis to protection of the person of another rather than protection of the person or property of another. This change may limit the court's ability to detain youth engaged in serious or repeated property related offenses that pose ongoing harm to victims and communities.

The requirement that courts reconsider detention upon request without requiring a material change in circumstance is also likely to generate repeated court hearings and additional burdens on already strained courts and probation resources. And finally, by requiring clear and convincing evidence that a less restrictive alternative disposition is unsuitable before removing a ward from parental custody, the bill raises a threshold for placements that may be necessary to ensure accountability, structure, and access to appropriate treatment.

And for those reasons, the California District Attorneys Association urges a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to SB 1009? Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We don't have an official opposed position, but we do, want to register our concerns. We appreciate the author's goal of reducing unnecessary youth detention. I think that's something of, a goal that we share.

Our concern is with implementation. SB 1009 significantly expands the responsibility placed on county probation departments to supervise youth in the community and document alternatives to detention, but it does not address the staffing resources or program capacity counties will need to carry out those responsibilities effectively. And our concern is that without these adequate resources, the counties may increasingly rely on contracted providers to deliver services that have traditionally been provided by trained probation staff.

I'm sorry to interject. We were just taking me too testimony, but since you're a tweener, I'll.

Thank you. I'm almost up. I'll wrap up.

So, to deliver services that have traditionally been provided by trained probation staff, which can create inconsistencies in supervision and accountability, and for these reforms to succeed, counties must have the workforce and infrastructure necessary to support youth and families safely in the community, and respectfully urge consideration of implementation resources to ensure these goals can be achieved. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone wishing to press opposition to SB 1009? Seeing no one else, we'll bring it back to the committee for questions or comments. Any questions or comments? Senator Caballero.

Well, first, let me, say that thank you for the testimony here today. And particularly, the, the personal testimony because it's always it's always hard when the system doesn't work and prejudices people. And I know what that's like, having worked as an attorney for, for over 25 years. But I also wanna kind of align my comments with the comments from AFSCME right now. I think there's a bigger there's a bigger issue.

There's one issue which is detention before there's a final decision on, on the proceeding. And then there's, detention afterwards, which is, designed for rehabilitation. That's what it—that's the juvenile justice system is, is different than the adult system. As an adult, you're expected to understand what the law is and to follow it. And what's interesting is we, we've made the age at which the brain is fully formed from 18 to now 27 or 28.

I always forget what the number is, as it keeps, every year, it seems like it goes a little bit further. So, that there's this recognition that that, at least until that point, impulses are difficult to control in in young people. And sometimes in—because of situations way beyond their control, it becomes harder and harder. So, so, I think part of the challenge for me is I think there's a sweet spot eventually in this bill. But it, it—I'm concerned with taking away the discretion of a judge, and I and I understand how it didn't work in your case.

So, you know, I feel, I'm really sorry that happened because I saw that happen, in other instances as well. But, but the workload, I mean, it's not a workload issue. It has to do with where are we putting our resources, so that we get the best outcome. And the best outcome is to finish these cases as quickly as possible. Why it took 200 and seventy days, I have no idea.

And, and how, frankly, the attorneys in charge of the case didn't recognize that a quick resolution was better than just letting it sit around and having you sit in detention facility where there was no purpose. It's what's not furthering your life, is, is, is a concern. But I do think there's a sweet spot where you can determine, on a on a rotating basis, you can—you can change this. I think the system works except for in these unusual circumstances. But if somebody is sitting in detention, you have the right to ask for a speedy hearing. And there may be a way to change the, the analysis to a clear and convincing once a certain amount of time has passed so that it becomes a question of what has the prosecution put together at this point.

Right? And what is the danger that you see, much more like an adult kind of bail hearing, so that the in the, the juvenile in detention, can get out and, and proceed with their life. And I probably would make it for the older, the older youth because a 10-year-old is not gonna get out. And, and I've gone into juvenile hall and seen 10-year-olds in custody, and it breaks your heart. But something's going on when you have to have a young child in custody as opposed to sending them to the social services to find a placement that's less restrictive.

In other words, I don't—I, I think there's a way to get there. I don't see it happening right now because it is a huge shift away, from a, a system that gives a judge discretion to a clear and convincing, which then ties the hands of the judge, in making an, an evaluation. And you know this as an attorney that it's, it's harder to meet that kind of standard than it is. And I, the, the, the—I wanna make sure we're protecting the public. And I was a defense attorney, but I also I saw a number of instances where the message just didn't get through to, to young people, that what they're what they were doing illegal in the community was really serious and dangerous and, and was hurting people.

And, and that's why we do detention because we wanna protect the public and we also wanna protect the public that this—the youth from themselves as well. And, and that gets to the brain science is that—the brain science shows that youth are less likely to make, decisions based on good facts because they're youth, and they're still developing their sense of right and wrong and the sense of community and the sense of family.

And so, we wanna protect them as well as society. So, I have, I have a problem with the with the way the bill is structured right now. I'm willing to consider it sometime down the road, but I'm not sure today that I'm in—I feel comfortable unless there's some meeting of the minds about where to go.

Because the the two sides seems, seem, seem far apart at this point.

Thank you. Vice Chair Seyarto.

I do apologize. I have a committee that starts in about ten minutes, and I'm wanted in another committee. So, I'm, I'm, I'm—apologize if I miss your comments. I'll check-in with you later before we're done.

Okay. We will be asking you to return to vote once we establish a quorum. I know we're working on it. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Alright. Thank you. I have some similar concerns as, as my colleague has stated already. We have two problems here. One of them is the system itself.

We need more investment in that system. The system needs to work the way it need it's supposed to work, so that it is helping people that are essentially given the time out, whether they're adults or they're, they're juveniles. But especially in the juvenile section, we don't know why they're there. And, you know, I, I heard one comment, you know, this would allow them to get back into the community where they came from.

A lot of times, the community where they came from is why they're there in the first place. And, and I have—I served 23 years of my career in a in a pretty challenging environment. And you do, you, you got to see what real life looks like. And real life looks like if somebody goes to a juvenile hall for a crime that their friends committed with them and their friends don't want to be implicated, when they get out, they eliminate that person. It's that simple.

And then, we go you know, as a paramedic, you go in and you're, you, you have to try and save somebody that's been shot. Stuff like that happens out there. And, and, so, there are a lot of cases where you need to do the investigating to see where are they going back into, and that takes time. What environment at home has enabled this person to get to the point where they're in juvenile hall? And, and that again, how, how does this bill allow for the time that it takes to investigate, to ensure that the home environment is not one of the major problems.

Because if it is, what happens to the 14 or 15 year old? They don't wanna be home. They don't—they're not gonna be detained to get help. They wind up in the street, you know. You see that in the Covenant House commercials all the time.

These young people in the street. There's a reason they're in the street, because they don't wanna be home and they have no place to go. So, I, I think this is Kinda getting into an area where we're trying to fix something because the system itself is not adequate to help. But certainly, putting them right back into the environment that got them there in the first place is not the answer either. And so, that's my struggle with this bill.

And, you know, I'm—I've been an advocate on both the juvenile and the adult systems that we need to make the appropriate investments in the court systems and in the probation systems and in the in the detention systems to accomplish the goal of helping people right the ship. Whatever ship they—whatever rail they went off on, we need to get them back on. And, and there's a lot of failures in that. And some of our bills are more about not having them be part of that part than it is about actually helping them, because they're gonna wind up exactly—they're just gonna wind up back again because they're being put back in the environment that that got them in there in the first place.

So, that's my concerns with the bill.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Becker, for bringing this bill forward. I will be supporting it today. And so, I want to note that existing law already requires the court to order the release of a minor from custody, unless there are specific circumstances, including the consideration of public safety risk.

So, what this bill will do, as you had stated, is establish the same evidentiary standard in these cases, and really, at the core of it is to ensure that minors are not locked up, unless there's a clear and convincing evidence that it's truly necessary. You know, in my comp talking to people in Alameda County, which I represent, around what what is happening on the ground, there have been arbitrary sentences that have been handed down that are not consistent. Some minors getting stronger sentences for lesser crimes. And we know that detention can increase recidivism, harm mental health, disrupt educational progress, and make outcomes worse. This bill does not eliminate detention, but makes sure that for serious risks, there's consideration of that as well as expanding more effective community-based alternatives.

I do wanna however just address the fact that we don't have enough good community-based alternatives. That's a separate policy conversation. We need to make sure that we're investing in the housing placements and wraparound services to make sure that young people when they are released that they have supportive environments. That's not something for this committee to address today, but certainly something for us as a legislature to talk about. But at the end of the day, this is really just ensuring that minors are not in custody longer than they have to be, especially if there are effective community-based alternatives that are available.

And just recognizing the, the significant harm impact that that having minors in custody create on the long-term success of, of minors in our state. So, we have work to do on building out that infrastructure of housing supports and wrap around services, but I will be supporting the bill today. I'll turn it back over to close.

Thank you. I'll just, just—somewhat longer close because we, we heard some comments here. But the, and I just wanna say a couple of things—one, for, thank you for your for your point, Chair, there about, the wraparound services. And I just wanna say that, you know, there are good people in the system.

There are good people in the probation officer and DA's Office, the judge, and trying to make the right decisions. And that was true also 10, 20, 30 years ago. We have good people trying to make the right decisions for youth. So, this bill I'd say is almost more of a restriction of our values and of our intent to some extent. Right?

There is some there's judicial discretion today. There'll be Jewish—judicial discretion with this bill. But even what we heard from the probation officers, while I appreciate the, the great work, to have a 70% decline in detention, it, that proves also that we were detaining way too many youth before. Right? So, it's great we've had decline, but if you listen to the DAs and I've talked to many, and, and the public defenders, for sure, I met the public defenders, we are detaining too many, still, today.

And so, this bill is really that statement of saying, great, we're moving the right direction. Let's—maybe it's time now to have an evidentiary standard that we haven't had before. And I think, you know, hopefully most of us can agree, it's actually a good one. The, and I will say, and and, you know, we'll continue conversations with folks who have concerns, members, and opposition.

I would say even in, in before even putting this bill forward, I, I ran it by several DAs including from red relatively red counties, and who, who were, who were actually supportive of the goals of this bill. So, a little surprised to hear the, the opposition, but, you know, we'll be, we'll be engaging with them. And, and what I wanna make sure is, we're not, we're not turning down good policy. We're not holding more youth for, you know, "practical concerns," because I, I did hear some of the, you know, practical concerns, disparities around counties, you know, enough probation officers.

Those are problems we need to fix those problems, but the youth shouldn't suffer. And I think we can agree if, you know, the estimates are right, say, you know, 40 percent are nonviolent offenders, do we necessarily want those folks in there in juvenile hall with the violent offenders. Right? Is that the—and, and in detention rather than, you know, in their in their communities.

So, you know, again, I just wanna address that some of the concerns, not all of them, but really more in the practical, you know, side of this. So, you know, we do believe there's enough time and by the way, again, judges still have discretion. And if someone comes in for a serious a serious charge, the judges are probably more likely, probably more likely than maybe some of us would like and some of the public defenders would like to say, yeah, we should have restrictive detention. And again, it's clear that if someone's a threat to themselves or threat to the community, absolutely, that detention could be warranted and under this bill, you know, could be implemented. So, with that, I do look forward to continued conversations.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We don't have a quorum yet. So, at the appropriate time, we'll entertain a motion on the bill. Thank you all for being here. And we are still working on getting members here, correct, Sergeants?

Okay. Okay. We'll now proceed to file item six, Assembly Bill 46, by Assembly Member Nguyen. And if there are any principal witnesses in support, if you can... We're only gonna take two principal witnesses. Okay. Great. Thank you. And I'll turn over to you, Assembly Member, to present on AB 46.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. First, I wanna thank you as the Chair of Senate Public Safety and the Chair of Assembly Public Safety for working together on this and the staff, the committee staff on both sides coming together to be able to present where we stand today on this bill.

I presented here last year on this, and we're bringing back what I feel like is a much stronger and balanced approach. I also wanna thank CDAA, our Sacramento District Attorneys, and several other DAs who've joined on as co-sponsors.

But also Smart Justice, who came to the table and worked with us for hours and hours and weeks and months at a time so that we had something that was strong enough to present to us here today that would not only still keep mental health diversion programs in place.

But also put some guardrails in place so that our judges have the opportunity to deny the mental health diversion program should they feel that it is a threat to public, that it is a public safety risk. So AB 46 strengthens traditional discretion and makes clear that judges may deny diversion when public safety is at risk.

In 2022, in the Whitmill versus the People, the court of appeals interpreted the current law in a way that led courts to grant diversion even when judges may have concerns about public safety. When courts themselves point out that the current language limits their discretion and leads them to grant diversion even when there's a public safety at risk, it shows that the current law needs to be more clear.

And that's what we have today. Because judges shouldn't feel forced into decisions when they believe public safety may be at risk. Victims and communities deserve confidence that public safety risks are fully considered when diversion decisions are made. We need a justice system that supports rehabilitation but not at the expense of safety and accountability, which is why AB 46 is necessary.

It puts community safety as a priority when preserving diversion as an important tool for rehabilitation. And I just wanna be clear because this has come to our office several times. I'm sure it's come to your office several times. We are not trying to end the diversion treatment. This does not dismantle the programs.

It simply just puts guardrails around it. It empowers judges to do their job. It reflects more than a year's work of collaboration amongst stakeholders among both houses to get it to where we're at today. And I'm proud, I'm proud to where it stands as of right now. Here to testify is Placer County DA Morgan Gire and crime survivor Amanda Ortiz.

Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you for joining us today, and you'll have two minutes to address the committee.

Good morning, Chairs. My family is very thankful to have been invited here today. There are no words strong enough to express the trauma and the anguish that's engulfed my family following the senseless and utterly preventable murder of my beloved Robert James. Robert James was a splendor of laughter and love. His spirit was radiant.

His heart could melt, his smile could melt your heart. Today, his absence has been replaced with unfathomable grief in the hearts of his parents, his grandparents, and his six year old daughter, his uncles, aunts, cousins, families, and many other people he has touched.

Everyday, my family struggles to move forward, and everyday, we collapse under the weight of the permanent sadness, emptiness, depression, anxiety, in our hearts stemming from Robert James' death. But we stand here today to lend our voices in support of necessary change to the mental health diversion law that robbed my nephew of his life.

Make no mistake, my nephew's murder was utterly and absolutely preventable without the direct aid of the state by releasing my nephew's violent killer who was a repeat offender and giving him the opportunity to prey on the community again.

We are not against programs, but we are against programs that lack complete transparency, accountability, and fail to keep the community safe. Robert James' parents made the unbelievably painful decision to remove him from life support after being shot in the head and deemed brain dead.

They did that so Robert James could be an organ donator in an attempt not to let his life be in vain. The following day was Robert James' 25th birthday. We had a celebration of life for him on his birthday and watched his six year old daughter sing happy birthday to her dad. We as a family beg you to bury this law before another family has to bury their loved ones. Thank you very much for listening.

Thank you. I think on behalf of all of us on the committee, we express our deepest condolences for your loss, and thank you for being here today. Sir.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Morgan Gire. I'm the District Attorney of Placer County. Thank you for the opportunity today. Thank you to Assembly Member Nguyen, Sacramento County DA Thien Ho, and the cosponsors of this bill. AB 46 seeks to restore balance and common sense into the current mental health diversion scheme that is out of balance.

It allows courts the discretion to analyze and assess the treatment plans, and more importantly to assess public safety by determining whether or not an individual poses a substantial risk to physical injury to someone else. Currently, the system limits the discretion on the court. And as the Assembly Member pointed out in the Whitmill, the appellate courts have ruled courts are bound by the presumptions of mental health diversion suitability and eligibility.

And because of that, the state now is dealing with across each county horrific and tragic examples. One that you just heard, that are occurring throughout the state. Just by way of a few examples, in in my county currently, we're in currently a murder trial for someone who was granted mental health diversion after a violent elder assault.

In Stanislaus County, mental health diversion was granted for a violent carjacking. That person later went on to kill his girlfriend with a vehicle. In Santa Clara, mental health diversion was granted, and a man later stabbed three people, and ran over four, killing two. Santa Barbara County, Los Angeles County, Butte County, we all have the same stories.

And these are not anomalies. These are not one offs. These are happening with regularity because of the current structure of the mental health diversion scheme. AB 46 is this needed fix. Those of us in the criminal justice system support and appreciate the intent of mental health diversion. But in its practice, it needs some accountability and some guardrails.

Those are provided in AB 46 by allowing judges the discretion to assess those individualized treatment plans and to assess public safety. It restores that balance that judges are supposed to do as a hallmark of their functions when they preside over criminal cases. AB 46 is this common sense balance that restores it to mental health diversion, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any me too testimony from anyone else in support of Assembly Bill 46. If you can please approach the microphone, state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Good morning. Rochelle Beardsley, Sacramento County District Attorney, proud co-sponsor and in strong support. Thank you.

Hi. Stephanie Herrera, Empower and Resilience Project, in support.

Catrina Ranum, Justice Beyond the Courtroom, in full support.

My name is Shelley Catanyag. I live in Davis, California. I used to live in Sacramento, California. And at that time, my husband, his name is, was, was Dennis. He was murdered by someone that was out on of custody on the mental health diversion program.

My husband worked for Sacramento County, was working with the public, and was murdered by a complete stranger to him at 3pm in the public. So I strongly support this bill, AB 46, and I just hope that that would help increase public safety and that this devastation would not have to happen to another family.

Thank you. Once again, if you can please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

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

We're not not taking extemporaneous testimony at this time. We're just asking to state your name, organization, and position on the bill. We thank you for being here.

My name is William Dunn, resident of Sacramento, and I strongly support this bill.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Judith Dunn, resident of Sacramento County. I strongly support this bill. Thank you.

Patrick Espinoza on behalf of the San Diego County District Attorney's Office, a proud co-sponsor in support.

Sonia Martinez-Satchell, member of Voices for Victims, in strong support.

Daniel Bravo in strong support. Thank you.

Lester Current in support of the Robert James family.

James Ortiz, support. Thank you.

Thank you all for being here. Anyone else who wishes to express support for AB 46? Seeing no one else, we'll now take up to two principal witnesses in opposition to AB 46. And once again, in order to be recognized as a principal witness, you would have submitted your opposition formally through the portal. And Public Defenders, yes. And ACLU, yes. You did submit your opposition.

Good morning. Margo George on behalf of the California Public Defenders Association. First I wanna say I'm so sorry for your loss. That's truly a tragedy. I was an Alameda County Deputy Public Defender for over thirty years. And for almost thirty of those years, I spent almost every day working with Californians suffering from mental illness.

I was assigned to the mental health unit for part of that time, but it didn't matter where I was assigned because the criminal legal system has become the de facto mental health system for the state. Case after case, I had mental, I had families ask me to help their child or brother or wife to get counseling for their mental illness.

Many times, these families were the victims of their loved ones' mental delusions. I wanna share one story about the father who begged me at every court appearance to get the son who had stabbed him out of custody and into counseling.

The father broke down crying in open court when the district attorney demanded prison. That father and mother had tried over and over again to get help for their son before the stabbing only to be turned away. That family story is not unique.

It was representative of a failure to treat individuals suffering from mental illness and their families with the care that they deserve and that we want for our own loved ones. What these families want is more access to mental health care and an assurance that when a judge handles a case involving mental illness they can consider each case individually to decide if court ordered treatment is the best possible outcome.

Using the mental health diversion statute, California has been doing exactly that. Under its guidance, judges are permitted but not required to consider years long court supervised treatment as one way of resolving a case. Courts have used that discretion carefully. They have denied petitions for diversion in 96 percent of the cases. Only four percent have received treatment.

Los Angeles is a successful case study. They've embraced this opportunity for change and invested hundreds of millions of dollars into programming and supervision for mental health diversion candidates. The results have been incredible.

Over the past seven years, Los Angeles public defenders have watched men and women arrested while living in a cardboard box talk about how after two years in the diversion program, they are now medicated, living in their own apartment, employed, and reunited with the family they hadn't spoken to in a decade.

I'm sorry to interrupt. If you can please wrap up.

Discretion already exist in AB... Excuse me, in the diversion statute. AB 46 is not thoughtful and is not based on the data. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. George Parampathu speaking on behalf of ACLU California Action in respectful opposition to AB 46. This bill would effectively prevent courts from offering diversion. Under our current laws, a court can only grant diversion if a defendant has been diagnosed with a mental disorder. That disorder was a significant factor in the commission of the offense.

A treatment program is available, and the defendant can be safely treated in the community. As the legislature debates AB 46, we should keep in mind the following facts about the current system. A judge is never required to grant diversion. In fact, as the public defender has said, judges grant diversion in less than four percent of cases. If you are charged with murder, you are not eligible for diversion.

If you are charged with rape, you are not eligible for diversion. If you are charged with committing a sexual act against a child or most other offenses requiring PC 290 registration, you are not eligible for diversion. If a judge finds that you'd be at risk of committing certain violent felonies in the community, you are not eligible for diversion. Despite what some claim, our current laws are strict.

Only allowing judges to address root causes of crime in a subset of cases. We should not further restrict judges ability to offer treatment to those who need it. These programs are one of the most effective public safety tools we have. Graduates of LA's mental health diversion program have a nine percent likelihood of reoffending.

In contrast, individuals leaving our state prisons have a 42 percent chance of reoffending. The end result of AB 46's limit on diversion will be that Californians with mental health conditions will languish in our prisons without treatment before they are released into our communities without support. This does not promote public safety. For these reasons, we are in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll now take any me too testimony from anyone else in opposition to Assembly Bill 46. Please state your name, organization, and position on the bill.

Liz Blum-Gutierrez on behalf of Vera California, LA County Public Defenders Union Local 148, and the San Francisco Public Defender in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Malik Bynum on behalf of the County Behavioral Health Directors Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

John Skoglund with the County of Los Angeles in respectful opposition.

Keyan Bliss on behalf of Anti Police Terror Project and Decarcerate Sacramento in opposition.

Eric Henderson on behalf of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in respectful opposition. Thank you for your work on the bill, but we're still respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to express opposition to AB 46? Seeing no one else, I'll bring it back to the committee for any questions or comments. Vice Chair Seyarto.

Thank you very much. And thank you for the bill. You're trying to address an issue that a lot of us have concerns about, and that's how when we pass bills that are supposed to to help people that somehow other people use it to game the system.

And I'm gonna use drunk driving as a perfect example. And especially for higher profile people, if they get popped drunk driving, the thing you read in the paper the next day is, oh, I recognize I have a problem and so I'm going to the treatment and I'm gonna do treatment and get better.

They're not alcoholics. They made a stupid decision to to drink and drive. That doesn't make them an alcoholic. It means they use bad judgment, and they need to be held accountable for the bad judgment. But if they go the other route, all they have to do is go to a class and it gets knocked down to a misdemeanor and pretty soon they're off scot free.

That's gaming the system. And this can be used the same way, and it is used the same way. For Pete's sake, if I got arrested for something, I would say, oh, yeah. I'm, yeah. Bring the mental health personnel, answer the questions the right way.

Anybody can be put into the category of having a mental illness. I would just, I would offer that anybody that commits any crime has got some kind of mental illness and, it not be, it might not be schizophrenia or something like that. But they certainly have really bad judgment and they don't really care about other people.

And so somehow we have to reel back in that discretion across all types of crime. Not just the people that are out there murdering other people, but other people that have a propensity to to commit crimes against other people, their property, their persons, their whatever. Because obviously, they don't have a problem with it.

And that's all this bill does. It tries to reel that back in and make it so that the people that are getting mental health diversion are actually people that should be getting mental health diversion and not just as a way to get out of being held accountable for your bad acts. So I'll be supporting your bill today. I think it's a great bill, and I appreciate it.

Well, thank you, Assembly Member, for bringing this bill forward today. And I wanna thank you for being here. And once again, I'm so terribly sorry for the the tragic loss that your family has endured. It's senseless and unacceptable.

And I think our goal is, one, to make sure that people continue to who are not posing a public safety risk and who would benefit from diversion and treatment that they're able to get connected to the treatment because we don't need more people locked up in our county jails and our state prisons who need care and treatment.

But when somebody poses a significant risk to public safety, that needs to be factored into the determination about whether someone is suitable for diversion so that more families don't experience the loss that you endured. I want to thank the author for all the work that's been done over the past year.

Working not just with prosecutors, but also with Smart Justice and really hearing their concerns. And when this was before our committee last summer, you know, I encouraged you to to sit down with opposition and, you know, hear their concerns and see if there's a path forward.

And I think this bill, very thoughtfully, still ensures that in lots of cases, judges have the discretion to refer people to diversion, but changing the standard so that you're considering the risk of public safety. Because what I've heard from judges and from district attorneys is that the current statute is very restrictive in that unless you commit a super strike offense, judges feel like they do not have the discretion to deny diversion if they think somebody poses a public safety risk.

And no doubt that there are people that do commit violent crimes that could benefit from treatment, but we've also seen the really terrible consequences that have happened when these people have been released back into the community.

So I think this strikes a reasonable balance and ensures that we can continue to, in many cases, with the discretion and the and the fact determination of each specific case to grant diversion except when it proposes substantial undue risk to physical safety because we need to balance those things. And so I thank you very much for the work, the partnership, and bringing forward this bill. And with that, I'll turn over to you to close.

Great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those words, and thank you, Senator Seyarto, for supporting this as well. And I do wanna give thanks to our witnesses today for having the courage to speak out and share one story. One story of hundreds, one story of probably thousands up and down our state in every single one of our district that we are going to see come forward.

More will come forward from this. And as you had mentioned, this is a balanced approach. This is us all coming together to the table and finding out what's best to ensure that mental health diversion programs are still in place because mental health diversion programs do work.

They work for some, and some should be allowed to be able to go through the program. But for others who are going to pose a public safety threat, that's where we need to take a look at. And when you have DAs up and down the state telling us that the way the law is right now doesn't work and that we need to do something to fix this, to ensure that the language is more clear because it is not clear.

That's where we get to step in and we get to do something. I've heard opposition talk about the percentage that have been denied or have been approved. But what I'm hearing from the other side that those that have been approved are reoffending, reoffending in a situation where it becomes a tragedy and a child is lost. That's one story. I've heard so many more stories similar to that.

And so as a legislator, as a state of California, we need to be that role model and take that step forward, which is why I'm so proud that we all came together to figure out how this can work for us here and how we can continue to protect the community because it is our job to be able to ensure that the community is safe. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote whenever the time is appropriate and you have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much, Assembly Member. We're thank you to our witnesses for being here today. We do not have a quorum at this time. We are working to... I know that there's some Members in the Energy Committee. I need to go and vote in the Energy Committee too. So once we establish a quorum, we'll entertain a motion on this bill. And we have one more bill to present, that's mine. So I'll turn it over to the Vice Chair.

Alright, everybody. Next up on the docket is Sb 948. Welcome, Senator Arreguin, and you may present your bill.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. I'd like to begin by accepting the committee amendments, which make clarifying and technical changes for the record. I'm pleased to present before you today Senate Bill 948 which strengthens firearm safety by requiring individuals seeking to obtain a firearm safety certificate, which is already current state law, to complete a comprehensive and meaningful training on firearm safety, transport, and live fire shooting.

Additionally, new California residents will be required to register their firearms to the Department of Justice within sixty days and obtain a valid state fire safety certificate. Under current state law, firearm applicants are required to pass a Department of Justice administered written exam to obtain a valid fire safety certificate.

However, new California residents are not currently required to register their firearms with the state when moving into California. I also want to emphasize existing exemptions will remain in place. Active or retired police officers, federal officers, law enforcement agents, who are already exempt under current law will continue to be exempt. Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm related incidents, especially those involving children. By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and community safe.

And I just wanna call attention to the analysis and just say for the record that I think there are some suggestions that, committee staff had raised, namely, for people that are importing firearms, provide a little bit more time, for them to complete the, the fire safety certificate. That's something we'll consider if this bill moves out of committee today. And certainly, one is call attention to the, the fact that the number of states, have established these requirements already, including Oregon, New Jersey, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Maryland.

And Maryland in particular, their, their, law was the subject of a federal court case in which the court had ruled that their, training requirements, were, consistent with, the second amendment and with certain, federal law. And so, this is building on work that's already being done in other states.

And just recognizing that if you undergo this training so that you can safely handle a firearm, safely store a firearm, we're gonna reduce the number of incidents where kids and other people are being shot. We're gonna reduce the gun violence. We're gonna ensure that people are operating their firearms safely.

With me to testify in support of the bill, is Rebecca Marcus representing Brady and also Ally Lindley representing Team Enough, a high school and college student group that's part of Brady. And we also have Steve Lindley from Brady who can assist with any technical questions.

Alright. Thank you. Each of the witnesses, you have two minutes each.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Ally Lindley, and I'm the Founder and President of Team Enough Chapter in Temecula. Team Enough is the Brady Campaign's youth-led initiative that works to educate young people about gun violence and mobilize them to take meaningful action to prevent it. Firearms, by design, are dangerous. Responsible gun owners exercise precautions to ensure their weapons are not used to cause preventable injuries and death. California has a strong system of gun related regulations designed to prevent such tragedies.

However, these regulations can only be effective if gun owners are informed about what is required of them. Senate Bill 948 will require additional training and education to obtain a firearm safety certificate, which is required to purchase a firearm in California. This additional training and education consists of eight hours of live range firearm training as part of the firearm safety certificate process. It is common sense that those purchasing a firearm should be properly trained in how to use, handle, and store firearms and should participate in firearm training. Firearm safety is crucial and safety training used to be at the forefront of everyone's minds when handling deadly weapons.

According to the National Rifle Association's gun safety rules, at the NRA, firearm and education safety is paramount. Brady and TNF agree with the NRA statements regarding firearm training and education, and we look forward to your support in this final requirement as part of the California firearm safety certificate process. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today, and I ask for your aye vote.

Good job. Thank you. Next.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Rebecca Marcus. I have the privilege to be the lobbyist for both cosponsors of the bill, Brady Campaign, as well as the Consumer Protection Policy Center at the University of San Diego School of Law. CPPC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan academic and research center that has monitored and participated in legislative matters for the past four decades.

As I said, we're proud cosponsors of SB 948 which will ensure Californians remain responsible and law-abiding firearm owners. Between 2016 to 2021, there were over 69,000 gunshot wound incidents that resulted in death or required urgent medical attention in California.

Of those Incidents, 31% were from unintended and accidental shootings. Beginning in 2020, firearms surpassed vehicle accidents as the number one cause of death for children in the U.S. Further, most accidental firearm injuries among children occur within the home, with two thirds of the shooters having been playing with or showing the firearm to others when it was discharged and shot a child. Current law requires a person to obtain an FSC before they can purchase or receive a firearm within California with certain exemptions, the—as the senator mentioned.

They instruct Californians on state firearm laws, safe storage practices, suicide prevention, and proper handling instructions. However, there are no requirements for people moving into the state with firearms to obtain an FSC or to require a resident to complete an FSC if they receive a firearm in another state. We're just closing this loophole.

Additionally, we would like to mention this bill is concurrent with the requirements under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin. Under Bruin, narrow objective and definite standards firearms safety courses are permitted to ensure only those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, responsible and law abiding.

For these reasons mentioned, we respectfully request your aye vote. I've also been asked by my colleagues at Everytown Moms Demand Action and Giffords to voice support of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony this morning. At this time, we'll take me too's, in support of the bill. Just come into the microphone. State your name, your position, and who you represent. Thank you.

Steve Lindley, representing Brady Campaign and the Brady Campaign Chapters in California, in support.

Thank you. Anybody else? Okay. At this time, I'll bring up the opposition. The primary witnesses for opposition, we can come up and have a seat over on that side. Thank you. Each of you have two minutes. They did a great job adhering to that, so.

Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Adam Wilson on behalf of Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, also authorized to speak on behalf of California Rifle and Pistol Association. SB 948 is a misguided piece of legislation that masquerades as gun safety, but in reality, it wreaks an insurmountable barrier to exercising a constitutional right. This bill will transform California's existing FSC into a de facto licensing scheme, mandating an eight-hour training course.

SB 948 disproportionately harms women, people of color, and lower socioeconomic populations who often reside in high crime neighborhoods where police response times are slowest. This bill slaps them with an estimated cost of around $400 for the required course, plus additional costs for travel, ammunition, and range time. This isn't safety. It's a financial wall placed in front of minorities and low-income citizens who would be begging the government for permission to defend themselves. Self-defense is not a luxury, but a necessity and a right.

SB 948 is a modern day poll tax on the second amendment, and there's also the constitutional issues. At its core, SB 948 raises serious constitutional concerns. SCOTUS is clear that the Second Amendment protects the right of citizens to keep and bear arms and that governments cannot impose bur burdens that effectively turn that right into a privilege. You may hear the argument that the phrase well-regulated authorizes mandatory training requirements. However, well-regulated historically referred to a properly functioning militia, not citizens being required to complete government mandated classes.

And while SCOTUS judges have acknowledged that some training requirements connected to public carry licensing may be permissible, that discussion was in the context of concealed carry permitting, not simple possession or purchase. You may also hear that other states have adopted similar policies, but the fact that other states have enacted laws does not make them constitutional, particularly after the Supreme Court's decision in Bruin, which requires firearm regulations to be consistent with the nation's historical tradition. Several of the laws, cited by proponents, were passed before Bruin and are still facing active legal challenges. We also doubt, we also doubt criminals will be enrolling in gun safety courses prior to committing crimes.

We ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. My name is Clay Kimberling, and I am the California State Director for the National Rifle Associations Institute for Legislative Action, respectfully testifying in opposition to Senate bill 948. While I echo many of the concerns of my associate here, especially when it comes to financial barriers and range access of sort, I'd also like to bring the committee's attention to the part that affects people moving into the state of California. As provided, new residents moving into the state that already lawfully owned firearms would have to acquire a firearm safety certificate to be filed with their report to the DOJ within sixty days.

It's important to note that almost a 115,000 new gun owners are estimated to move into the state every year. And on the outset, the practical realities of relocating, can—cannot—be overstated. I mean, new residents are managing new employment obligations. They're trying to find new schools for their kids, find new housing.

And whether they move into the state on a on a new job, a new military assignment, or family obligations such as helping a sick or elderly family member, lawful firearm owners would now have to search out an instructor, pay for the class after moving is already expensive, and take eight hours out of their day, which in a very, very short period of time for simply wanting to continue to practice their constitutional right to keep and bear arms in a new state.

It's critical to point out that these firearms the individuals are bringing into the state are already lawfully possessed. They were purchased legally, and in many cases, they have been owned responsibly for years or even decades. The act of moving into the state of California does not change these facts. Rather, this bill presumes that lawful gun owners, simply by virtue of moving here, require remedial instruction from the state to practice a constitutional right. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote and thank you for your consideration.

Alright. Thank you very much. And at this time, we'll take me too's in opposition. Anybody would care to come up and state their opposition to the bill, they can come up, state their name, organization they represent, and their opposition. Okay. So, that ends that. Everybody has done a fabulous job of presenting your opinions on this. We will not be voting because we don't have anybody here yet. And you may close, Mr. Arreguin.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Just to the last opposition witness, and thank you for your comments, we are committed to looking at that period in which somebody does come into the state or is importing a farm to the state to providing additional time. I think that's a reasonable point that you would raise and that the committee staff would raise in their analysis. But this is closing a loophole that currently exists where people that are purchasing a firearm who are California residents have to go through this process.

If you're bringing a gun into California, you should have to go to the same process as well. But certainly, open to discussing that and discussing what a reasonable time frame would be. Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Alright. Thank you very much. We're done. Sergeants, we need some people.

So there's this long debate over renewable energy. Oh. No way. Okay. We're gonna take a five minute recess, while we wait to establish quorum. .

[Roll Call]

Okay. We have a quorum. Thank you very much. Okay. We have already had bill presentations. So I'll entertain a motion on consent Moved the consent. Moved by Seyarto, which is, SB 891. If the committee system could please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call. I'll entertain a motion on SB 936. So moved. Moved by, vice chair Seyarto. Roll call, please. And the motion is, do pass to business professions and economic development.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you. Moving now to five item three, SB 941. I understand a motion by Padilla. We're by Senator Weiner. Motion is do passed to judiciary.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that bill on call. Thank you. Moving now to file item four s b 10 o nine, Senator Becker. I'll entertain a motion on that bill.

So moved.

Moved by Senator Reyes. Thank you. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill has enough votes, but we'll keep it on call. Moving now to item five, SCR 118 by Senator Gonzales. I entertain a motion moved by Senator Weiner. The motion is to pass to the floor.

[Roll Call]

We'll keep that on call. Thank you. Moving out of file item 6 AB 46 by Assembly Member Nguyen. I'll only tune a motion.

Okay. Moved by vice chair Seyarto. The motion is do passed to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that billing call. Thank you. And, lastly, we'll move to file item seven, SB 948 by myself, or entering a motion. Moved by Senator Reyes. Thank you. The motion is do passed as amended to the committee on appropriations.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We'll keep that phone call as well. Thank you, colleagues. We'll take a five minute recess, then we'll close the roll. Thank you. First on the consent calendar, SB9891 by Cervantes. If you can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out on a vote of Six to zero. Six to zero. Okay. Moving out of file. Item two, set of bill 936 by Blake Spear. You can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out on a vote of six to zero. Moving now to file item three, SB 941 by Padilla.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out on a vote of six to zero. Moving now to item four, SB 1009 by Senator Becker.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is out on a vote of four to one. Two to one. Thank you. Moving now to file item five, SCR 118 by Senator Gonzales. You can please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bill is on a vote of five to zero. Moving now to item six, AB 46 by Assembly member Nguyen.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bills out on a vote of five to zero. And lastly, moving now to file item seven SB 948 by myself.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That bills out on a vote of Five to zero. Five to one. Sorry about that. Okay. That completes our agenda for today. With that, the committee on public safety is now adjourned.