More Co-Sponsors of H.R. 38.

Update:  New Co-Sponsors of the "Arm Anyone" H.R. 38 Bill (please see below).

Unfortunately, in addition to Rep. Mimi Walters and Ed Royce, now Rep Dana Rohrahbacher and Darrell Issa have joined as Co-Sponsors.  Please let your family and friends know about their support if they live in these Districts.  Check our "OC Elected Contacts" page to find out more about their districts.

Hidden and Loaded Guns Legislation in Congress 2017

                                Concealed Carry Legislation in the 115th Congress

Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC) introduced the first piece of federally mandated concealed carry legislation of the 115th Congress on January 3rd, 2017. The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 (H.R. 38) would create national reciprocity for state concealed carry permits, and is similar, though not identical, to the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015 (H.R. 986), which Rep. Hudson introduced in the 114th Congress. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and has 177 co-sponsors, three of whom are Democrats. (The two Democratic co-sponsors are Henry Cuellar of Texas and Collin Peterson of Minnesota.)

From Orange County Rep Ed Royce (R) from District 39 is a Co-Sponsor of H.R. 38 and so is Rep Mimi Walters (R) from District 45.

H.R. 38 would allow any person to carry a concealed handgun in any state, provided they (i) are not prohibited by federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm; (ii) are carrying a valid photo ID; and (iii) carrying a valid permit/license issued under the law of any other state that allows the person to carry a concealed firearm, or is otherwise entitled to carry a concealed firearm in his/her state of residence (i.e., is a resident of a so-called “Constitutional carry” state).1

H.R. 38 provides that, in the event of arrest or other detention, “presentation of facially valid documents” is prima facie evidence that an individual has a valid permit (and therefore has the right to carry a concealed firearm), and that a person may not be arrested for violating laws related to possession, transportation, or carrying of firearms unless there is probable cause to believe the individual has not complied with the law.

H.R. 38 exempts a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon under the terms of the bill from the federal prohibition on carrying firearms within 1,000 feet of a school zone. The bill also includes a provision to specifically allow a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon to carry that weapon in the National Park System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, on public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management, and on lands administered by the Army Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation.

Position: Brady opposes H.R. 38. Many states have adopted sensible rules and requirements that require safety training and education before a concealed carry permit can be issued. Other states have no requirements related to issuance of a permit and allow concealed carry as a matter of Constitutional right. If H.R. 38 became law, it would supplant strong state concealed carry rules with those that apply in the weakest states, effectively allowing any person with permission to carry in the weakest concealed carry state to be recognized to carry in the strongest state.

H.R. 38 also fails to recognize state laws that have expanded categories of prohibited purchasers to include domestic violence offenders, convicted stalkers, etc. As a result, an individual who may be a prohibited purchaser only under expanded state law in California because of a domestic violence conviction, could qualify for concealed carry in a Constitution concealed carry state that only performs background checks based on the federal categories and the concealed carry would technically be required to be recognized in all states. Obviously this is a perverse result, but it is what would happen if H.R. 38 became law.

1 A “Constitutional carry” state is a state in which a person may carry a handgun without any permit or license. Such a right is typically provided for by statute, rather in the state’s constitution.
 
Talking Points:
• H.R. 38 flouts state law and ensures that the most permissive concealed carry rules become the law of the land. It takes traditional notions of state sovereignty and turns them on their head, saying that the state with the weakest laws should determine the rules for concealed carry in every other state. This is absurd and would be akin to saying that because the speed limit is 85 in a rural, less populous state, any person who has lived in or traveled through the state should be able to drive 85 everywhere in the United States, whether they are in a school drop-off zone, a densely populated city, or a crowd at a parade.

• Law enforcement officers are charged with understanding the law in their state and charged with putting their lives on the line every day in situations with individuals brandishing weapons and putting public safety at risk. The carrying of concealed weapons makes it much harder for law enforcement officers, who must make snap decisions about “good guys” and “bad guys” to quickly discern one from the other and appropriately protect public safety.

• States that have stronger concealed carry rules require gun safety courses, practical training and storage training, among other requirements, that help those seeking to qualify for a concealed carry permit to understand best practices and how to qualify for a permit in a manner that recognizes important public safety considerations. These sensible state legal requirements should not be supplanted by a federal law that eviscerates these standards in favor of no safety or training requirements.

• Approximately 40 percent of gun sales occur
This would be akin to saying that because the speed limit is 85 in a rural, less densely populated state, everyone from that state or who has ever passed through that state should be able to drive 85 everywhere, whether in Manhattan, or Los Angeles, or Washington, D.C. That is not sound policy, and clearly flouts traditional notions of state’s rights. It also puts law enforcement officers at greater risk because they are held liable for enforcing the law and using appropriate force, but when anyone can carry a gun at any time, it makes it much harder for police to identify bad guys from law abiding concealed carry holders, putting everyone at greater risk. H.R. 38 represents an encroachment on state’s rights and undermines appropriate standards for public safety and should be rejected.

CALIFORNIA BILLS HAVE ARRIVED!

California's deadline for submission of bills has now passed and we are beginning to evaluate them in order to establish priorities and positions.  Here is our beginning work with brief summaries.  

Please check back often in "2017-2018 CALIFORNIA BILLS" page for action alerts and more information about these bills as they wind their way through the legislative process.  Your engagement, voice and letters of support or opposition will help us build sound public policy in California.

Content was Printed with Permission from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

2017 California Firearms Legislation Summary 

2/22/2017

Every year, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence tracks and analyzes all firearm-related legislation introduced in the California Legislature. This analysis summarizes the firearm bills that have been introduced this year. This analysis is ongoing and will be revised to reflect subsequent developments. 

For the complete text of each bill, visit: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.  For a full description of existing laws to prevent gun violence in California, visit our summary of California gun laws.  For information on the status of firearm-related bills in other states, visit our 2016 Gun Law Trendwatch reports.

Assembly GVP Bills

AB 7 (Gipson) (Open Carry): This is a placeholder bill that may be amended to restrict open carry of handguns in public in unincorporated areas, rather than incorporated jurisdictions only.

AB 89 (Levine) (Suicide Prevention Training): This bill would, effective January 2020, require first-time applicants for a professional psychology license to receive suicide prevention training. It would also require individuals renewing their license after that date to receive a one-time continuing education course in suicide prevention. 

AB 424 (McCarty) (CCW in Schools): This bill would remove local school districts’ authority to provide written permission for a person to possess a firearm within a school zone.  

AB 736 (Gipson) (Gun dealer enforcement): This bill would authorize DOJ to fine gun dealers for legal violations, as an alternative to all-or-nothing license revocation proceedings, and would also authorize local city and district attorneys to bring civil actions against dealers to impose those fines.

AB 785 (Reginald Jones-Sawyer) (Disarming Violent Hate Crime Offenders): This bill would prohibit individuals convicted of misdemeanor violent hate crimes from purchasing or possessing guns for 10 years.  This bill would also make technical, non-substantive changes to this prohibiting misdemeanor section.  FAX:  (916) 319-2159

AB 1262 (Eduardo Garcia) (Violence Prevention Funding): This placeholder bill may be amended to reauthorize CalGRIP or create an alternate funding stream for community-based violence prevention efforts. 

AB 1525 (Baker) (Firearm Safety Warnings): This bill would require that a warning about the safety risks of firearms and the need to comply with state gun laws be posted on gun dealers’ walls, affixed to the packaging of firearms, published in DOJ’s firearm law guide, and FSC test study materials. It would also raise the minimum passing grade on the FSC test from 75% to 85% and would require FSC test takers to acknowledge receipt of a firearm safety warning and a warning regarding their obligation to sell/transfer firearms through a dealer before they may receive an FSC.

Other Assembly Bills

•  AB 693 (Irwin) (Law Enforcement Training Exceptions): This bill would extend two law enforcement exemptions to students enrolled in the basic POST training course solely for the purposes of participation in the course. It would allow them to receive a firearm without a background check and to possess and receive an LCM provided that they do so only for the purpose of participation in the law enforcement training course. (Requires 55% because partially amends Prop 63).

• AB 757 (Melendez) (CCW Good Cause Requirement): This bill would provide a statutory definition for California’s “good cause” requirement for CCW licenses in a manner that would make this requirement effectively meaningless. Applicants whose “stated cause” is self-defense or crime prevention could not be required to prove that they are uniquely threatened in any manner. California would still be a may-issue state, though.

• AB 1040 (Mathis) (Assault weapon, Machine Gun Permits): This bill would, among other non-firearm-related things, create a default proceed rule whereby people applying for a permit to sell/manufacture/possess assault weapons or .50 caliber rifles, or to possess/manufacture machine guns, would generally be deemed to have that permit if DOJ does not deny their application within 180 days.

• AB 757 (Melendez) (*): Pro-gun Asm. Melendez has this placeholder bill in a section dealing with notifications to prohibited persons.

• AB 1471 (Travis Allen) (Silencers): This bill would create certain exemptions to California’s general prohibition on firearm silences. It would allow federally registered dealers and manufacturers of firearm silencers to sell and transfer them in interstate or foreign commerce to the extent permitted by federal law (note that Congressional Republicans are planning to significantly weaken federal law in this area). This bill would also expand the number of full-time regular peace officers permitted to possess silencers within the course of their duties to include those employed by the Highway Patrol, Dept. of Corrections, and the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife.

Senate GVP Bills

SB 22 (Hill) (Law Enforcement Agency Firearms Accounting): This bill would require law enforcement agencies to adopt written procedures to account for firearms owned by that agency or its employees for official duties. The bill would require that AFS be updated to include records regarding the acquisition of firearms by an agency employee for use within the course of his or her employment and also regarding the loss, theft, or other disposal of their firearms. 

SB 464 (Hill) (Gun Dealer Storage and Security): This bill would place new (but potentially problematic) requirements on gun dealers to secure their inventory and premises from vehicle break-ins by installing certain concrete or hardened steel pillars around the front of their premises and any doors or windows, unless all firearms are locked in a fireproof safe or vault.

SB 497 (Portantino) (One-Firearm Per Month): This bill would extend California’s existing one-handgun-per-month rule to long guns, though it would retain existing law’s exception for private sales/transfers and also exempt the purchase of long guns by licensed hunters. 

SB 536 (Pan) (GVRO Research Data): This bill would direct DOJ to make information relating to GVROs available for research and policy purposes to researchers associated the UC Firearm Violence Research Center, subject to appropriate privacy restrictions. This bill will likely be amended to authorize DOJ to also share this information, at DOJ’s discretion, with other bona fide researchers and public agencies.

SB 785 (Wiener) (Consumer Protection/Gun Industry Immunity): This bill would help civil plaintiffs qualify for an exception to the federal firearm industry immunity law in order to gain legal standing for suits alleging that harm resulted from a violation of a state law “applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms.” This bill would expressly state that the California Civil Code’s consumer protection statutes, including its prohibitions on unfair and deceptive claims about a good or product, are specifically applicable to the sale and marketing of firearms and ammunition.

Other Senate Bills

• SB 710 (Anderson) (Silencers): This bill would generally decriminalize possession of silencers and expressly authorize use of silencers in hunting by lawful gun owners.