Assembly Floor Vote Coming Soon

 ACTION ALERT  September 5, 2019

AYE on SB 61 (Portantino)

Please Contact Your California State Assembly Members and tell them to help stop gun trafficking by voting Yes on SB 61

RE: SB 61 (Portantino) – Semi-automatic centerfire rifle transfers

Summary: SB 61 will help curb gun trafficking by capping the number of new semi- automatic centerfire rifles that can be purchased in one month. The bill will also eliminate the hunting license exception that allows those under age 21 to purchase a semi-automatic centerfire rifle.

Existing Law: California law prohibits selling handguns to anyone under age 21 and prohibits, with exceptions, licensed firearms dealers from selling or transferring a long gun to a person under 21.  Additionally, since 2000, new handgun purchases from licensed firearms dealers in California have been limited to no more than one per person per 30-day period. This helps curb the illegal flow of handguns by taking the profit out of selling guns from bulk purchases on the black market. SB 61 extends this provision to semi-automatic centerfire rifles.

ATF Reports show that firearms acquired in large quantities at one time are frequently used in crime i A University of Pennsylvania study found that guns purchased in bulk were up to 64% more likely to be used for illegal purposes than guns purchased individually.ii

Long guns are increasingly used in crime in California. Of the 26,682 crime guns entered into DOJ’s Automated Firearms Systems database in 2009, 11,500 were long guns.iii Since 1999, Californians have typically purchased more long guns than handguns every yeariv and these long guns include high-powered semi-automatic rifles.

Semi-automatic centerfire rifles are frequently the weapon of choice for mass shooters. The weapons used in the recent shootings at a Garlic Festival in Gilroy and at a synagogue in Poway, California were semi-automatic centerfire rifles.

An analysis of Cal DOJ transaction data from the period January 2014 through June 2015 shows that 81.9% of long guns were sold as a single long gun purchase within a 30-day period.v The vast majority of long gun purchasers will not be impacted by the cap under SB 61. However, at the opposite end of the spectrum, an individual purchased 177 long guns in two transactions within a one month period (April 2014).vi

Brady California believes handguns and semi-automatic centerfire rifles should generally be subject to the same laws. SB 61 furthers Brady California’s goal to limit the flow of dangerous weapons into the wrong hands.

___________________________________________
i Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, Crime Gun Trace Reports (1999) National Report 40 (Nov. 2000) and
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, U.S. Department of the Treasury, Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative, Crime Gun Trace Reports (2000) National Report 50 (July 2002).
ii Koper, Christopher S.; Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, Univ. of Penn., Crime Gun Risk Factors: Buyer, Seller, Firearm, and Transaction Characteristics Associated with Gun Trafficking and Criminal Gun Use -- A report to the National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice (2007). https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221074. pdf.
iii Data provided by the California Department of Justice, April 6, 2010.
iv California Department of Justice, “Dealer’s Record of Sale (Calendar Year Statistics),” http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/dros_chart.pdf?.
v Data provided by the California Department of Justice, November 3, 2015.
vi Data provided by the California Department of Justice, November 3, 2015.

ACTION ALERT FOR AB 1669

September 3, 2019

CALL YOUR STATE SENATOR AND URGE URGE A YES VOTE ON AB 1669 TO HELP FUND AND ENFORCE CALIFORNIA'S GUN LAWS

Funding for Firearm Enforcement Programs

To further Brady’s core goal to keep firearms out of dangerous hands, Brady California is in strong support of AB 1669. The bill reconfigures and raises the Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) fee to fund regulatory and enforcement activities related to the sale, purchase, manufacturing, lawful or unlawful possession, loan, or transfer of firearms.

Under existing law, the DROS fee is charged by Cal DOJ for most firearm transfers to pay for the background check process, firearm-related enforcement activities, and other reporting requirements. Although the DROS fee may be increased annually by the California Consumer Price Index (CPI), the fee has not been raised since 2004. Had the fee been raised with the CPI, it would be approximately $26 today.

AB 1669 will raise the DROS fee from $19.00 to $32.19. The new fee will be split between two accounts: 1) $1 fee on each firearm purchaser to fund non-regulatory costs associated with mental health-related reporting and other notifications and 2) $31.19 on each firearm purchaser to fund, upon appropriation by the Legislature, firearm-related regulatory and enforcement activities. AB 1669 allows future fee increases no more than the CPI, but the fee cannot exceed the reasonable cost of regulation to Cal DOJ.

As new gun laws have been enacted, the workload has increased for CAL DOJ, even as gun sales, and collecting the associated fees, have recently declined. Cal DOJ estimates that a $13.19 fee increase, to be narrowly spent on key enforcement programs and statutory requirements, would enable Cal DOJ to meet its current obligations.

Additionally, AB 1669 will update existing law by applying gun show regulations for firearm dealers to ammunition vendors so that gun show regulations are consistent with the Safety for All Act (Prop 63), which was enacted by California voters in 2016.

As part of our mission to reduce firearm injury and death, Brady California has worked to enact many of the laws that have increased the duties of Cal DOJ.

We know that these laws are important as California’s firearm mortality rate has declined by 55 percent since 1993 —almost four times the decrease in the rest of the nation. Even more lives can be saved if Cal DOJ has adequate and stable funding to fully implement and enforce California’s strong gun laws.