New Gun Legislation

2014 Annual Gun Law State Scorecard

Posted on Friday, December 12th, 2014

As the second anniversary of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary approaches, the Law Center is proud to release our 2014 Gun Law State Scorecard, grading each state on its gun laws and analyzing trends in gun legislation nationwide.

99-laws-site

In the past two years, states have seen historic and unprecedented progress in adopting gun laws to help keep communities safe from gun violence. A total of 99 new laws strengthening gun regulations have passed in 37 states nationwide since December 12, 2012, and 10 states have made major overhauls to their gun laws. 2014 was a remarkable year for smart gun laws, with California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order law, Washington State’s successful ballot initiative for universal background checks, and seven states adopting legislation to keep guns out of the hands of domestic violence abusers, and look forward to building on this positive momentum in 2015.

Find out how your state did and learn how to improve your state’s grade at gunlawscorecard.org.

MEMO: California’s New Gun Violence Restraining Order Law

Posted on Thursday, October 30th, 2014

Introduction
On September 30, 2014, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law AB 1014, a bill to allow concerned family members or law enforcement officers to petition a court for a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO). In situations where there is sufficient evidence for a judge to believe that an individual poses a danger to self or others, the GVRO will temporarily prohibit the individual from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and allow law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in the individual’s possession. The new law, modeled after California’s existing domestic violence restraining order laws, goes into effect on January 1, 2016.1

AB1014 was introduced in response to the tragic shooting in Isla Vista in May 2014. The shooter there had exhibited warning signs of impending violence, yet no legal mechanism was available to his parents or law enforcement to take preventive action. Under California law, a variety of dangerous people are prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition, including domestic abusers, as well as persons who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility “as a result of a mental health disorder” which makes them a danger to themselves or others. AB 1014 expands these protections by restricting access to firearms or ammunition by persons who exhibit dangerous or threatening behaviors, but who are not otherwise prohibited from possessing them.

Overview of the Three Types of GVROs
AB 1014 establishes three types of GVRO: a temporary emergency GVRO, an ex parte GVRO and a GVRO issued after notice and hearing. The law requires the Judicial Council to prescribe the form of the petitions, orders, and other relevant documents, and promulgate instructions for applying for all GVROs. When bringing a petition for any type of GVRO, the petitioner must describe in the petition the number, types, and locations of any firearms and ammunition presently believed to be in the subject of the petition’s possession or control. When any GVRO is issued, the presiding court is authorized—but not required—to issue a warrant instructing law enforcement to search and remove all firearms in the individual’s possession.

  • Temporary Emergency GVRO: Only a law enforcement officer may seek a temporary emergency GVRO by submitting a written petition to or calling a judicial officer to request an order at any time of day or night.
    • Standard for Issuing a Temporary Emergency GVRO: A temporary emergency GVRO may be issued if a law enforcement officer asserts, and a judicial officer finds, there is reasonable cause to believe that a person poses an immediate and present danger of injury to self or others by having a firearm in his or her possession and less restrictive alternatives have been ineffective, inadequate, or inappropriate.
    • Duration of a Temporary Emergency GVRO:  A temporary emergency GVRO is effective for 21 days from the date of issuance. A law enforcement officer may bring a petition for either an ex parte GVRO or more permanent GVRO (issued after notice and hearing) if he or she believes an extended restriction on a person’s access to firearms and ammunition is warranted.
  • Ex Parte GVRO: An immediate family member2 or law enforcement officer may request an ex parte GVRO.  Unlike a temporary emergency GVRO, a petition for an ex parte GVRO may only be brought during normal court hours.
    • Search of Firearm Ownership Records: Before a hearing to issue an ex parte GVRO, the court must ensure that a search of available databases and records is conducted to determine if the subject of the order owns a firearm.
    • Evidence for the Court’s Determination:The affidavit supporting a petition for the order must set forth the facts establishing the grounds for the petition. The court may consider the testimony from the petitioner and any witness for the petitioner before issuing the ex parte order.The court must consider the following types of evidence to determine whether to issue an ex parte GVRO:
      • Recent3 threat of violence or act of violence directed at another
      • Recent threat or act of violence directed toward himself or herself
      • Recent violation of a protective order of any kind
      • A conviction of a violent offense
      • A pattern of violent acts or threats within the past 12 months
      A court may also consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence, including, but not limited to, evidence of any of the following:
      • The unlawful and reckless use, display, or brandishing of a firearm
      • The history of use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against another person
      • Any prior arrest for a felony offense
      • Any history of a violation of any protective order
      • Documentary evidence, including, but not limited to, police reports and records of convictions, of either recent criminal offenses that involve controlled substances or alcohol, or ongoing abuse of controlled substances or alcohol
      • Evidence of recent acquisition of firearms, ammunition, or other deadly weapons
    • Standard for Issuing an Ex Parte GVRO: A court may issue an ex parte GVRO against a person if the petitioner shows good cause to believe there is a substantial likelihood that the subject of the petition will, in the near future, cause personal injury to self or others by owning or possessing a firearm, and an ex parte GVRO is necessary to prevent such injury because less restrictive alternatives have been deemed ineffective, inadequate, or inappropriate.
    • Duration and Hearing for an Ex Parte GVRO: An ex parte GVRO may be ordered without a hearing and remains effective for 21 days. The court must provide a hearing for the restrained person within the 21-day effective period to determine whether a more permanent GVRO is warranted or if the order is no longer necessary and the firearms should be returned to the subject of the order.
  • GVRO after Notice and Hearing: At the hearing subsequent to issuing the ex parte GVRO, the court may consider further evidence and testimony from the restrained person seeking to terminate the order, the petitioner who sought the ex parte GVRO, and any witnesses produced by the petitioner to determine whether to issue a GVRO for one year. The evidentiary requirements and standard of review are similar to those required for an ex parte GVRO.
  • Surrender of Guns for all GVROs: A person who is served with a GVRO is required to immediately surrender all firearms and ammunition in his or her possession. If a law enforcement officer is serving the order, all firearms and ammunition in the restrained person’s possession must be immediately surrendered to the law enforcement officer. The law enforcement officer must also take custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight. If someone other than a law enforcement officer is serving the order, the respondent must either surrender his or her firearms to the local law enforcement agency or sell them to a federally licensed firearms dealer within 24 hours of receiving the order.
  • Search Warrant for all GVROs: A court issuing any kind of GVRO is authorized to issue a search warrant instructing law enforcement officers to perform a search for any firearms or ammunition in the person’s possession.
  • Reporting Requirements for all GVROs: The court must electronically notify the California Department of Justice (DOJ) and local district attorney within one court day of issuing a GVRO. The court must notify DOJ when the GVRO has been dissolved or terminated within five court days. DOJ must then note the updated status of any GVRO within fifteen days of receiving notice. The court must also notify the district attorney of the jurisdiction when a GVRO has been issued as well as when it has been dissolved or terminated.
  • Protections for Cohabitants:  Firearms and ammunition may not be seized pursuant to a warrant if they are owned by someone other than the subject of the GVRO and stored so that the subject doesn’t have access to them.  Also, a gun safe owned solely by someone else may not be searched without the owner’s consent.
  • Return of firearms after any GVRO Terminates or Expires: If the restrained person’s firearms are surrendered to law enforcement (instead of being sold to a dealer), law enforcement must retain the firearms or ammunition for the duration of the order and return them to the restrained person when the order expires, terminates, or dissolves.
  • Penalty for False Petitions:  The bill creates a misdemeanor penalty for any person who files a petition for a GVRO that contains statements the person knows are false, or with intent to harass the subject of the petition.

Legal Issues

  • Second Amendment: The GVRO process does not violate the Second Amendment. In the landmark case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to keep a firearm in the home for self-defense. 554 U.S. 570, 679 (2008). However, the Supreme Court stated that the Second Amendment is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” and  made clear that a variety of laws are permissible under the Second Amendment, including those prohibiting firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill. Id. at626.
    In California, the courts have specifically held that “the state may ensure that firearms are not in the hands of someone who may use them dangerously” and dangerous people may be prohibited from possessing firearms consistent with their Second Amendment rights, as long as they are afforded adequate due process. See City of San Diego v. Boggess, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1494 (2013); People v. Jason K., 188 Cal. App. 4th 1545 (2010). In 2013, an Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a similar gun violence restraining order law against a Second Amendment challenge and ruled that the state may restrict access to firearms by dangerous persons in the interest of public safety and welfare. Redington v. Indiana, 992 N.E.2d 823 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). AB 1014 provides a mechanism to do exactly that&mdsash;keep deadly firearms out of the hands of dangerous persons in the interest of public safety and welfare.
  • Due Process: The procedures for obtaining temporary emergency and ex parte GVROs provide sufficient due process to protect Californians’ important constitutional rights. The law provides for a temporary (21 day) or a more permanent GVRO, which is effective for one year. However, the more permanent (one year) GVRO will only be issued after a full hearing before a judge. At this hearing, the burden is on the person bringing the petition for the order to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the named person poses a substantial likelihood of causing harm to self or others by possessing firearms or ammunition. If this burden is not met, the person may then regain the right to possess firearms or ammunition. In addition, the named individual may seek another hearing to terminate the order during the one-year period of its duration. Similar procedures are in place in the domestic violence restraining order context and courts across the nation have uniformly upheld these procedures. See, e.g., Nollet v. Justices of the Trial Court, 83 F. Supp. 2d 204 (D.C. Mass. 2000); Blazel v. Bradley, 698 F. Supp. 756 (W.D. Wis. 1988); Baker v. Baker, 494 N.W.2d 282 (Minn. 1992).

 

Nothing contained in this document is intended as legal advice to any person or entity and should not be regarded as such. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence and its attorneys provide general information about gun laws to interested groups, individuals and legislators. Law Center attorneys do not represent clients and do not form attorney-client relationships. You should not consider communications with the Law Center or its attorneys to be confidential unless we have agreed to such confidentiality.

Copyright 2014 by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

All rights reserved. Unauthorized use or distribution is prohibited.

  1. Connecticut and Indiana have enacted similar laws; however, in those states, only law enforcement may seek to remove firearms from dangerous individuals. California is the first state to adopt a law enabling immediate family members to bring a petition for a GVRO. []
  2. “Immediate family member” is defined as “any spouse, whether by marriage or not, domestic partner, parent, child, any person related by consanguinity or affinity within the second degree, or any other person who regularly resides in the household, or who, within the prior six months, regularly resided in the household.” Cal. Pen. Code § 422.4. []
  3. “Recent” is defined as within six months prior to the date the petition is filed. []

2014 California Firearms Legislation: Important Gun Safety Bills on the Governor’s Desk

Posted on Monday, September 1st, 2014

CA State Capitol Building

The Law Center is tracking numerous gun violence prevention measures that have made their way through the California Legislature this year.  The Law Center supports four bills that are currently on the Governor’s desk to improve public safety, including AB 1014, which would create a new “Gun Violence Restraining Order” procedure.  The Governor has already signed two gun safety bills into law and four bills introduced to weaken the state’s gun laws were defeated in the legislature earlier this year.

The complete text of all California bills can be found at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.  For a full description of existing laws to reduce gun violence in California, visit our summary of California gun laws.

For more information on the status of bills in other states, visit our 2014 summary of gun bills nationwide.bills-signed-into-law

AB 1964 (Dickenson): Closing the “Single-Shot Exemption” Loophole –  California law requires that all semiautomatic handgun models sold in the state be certified as not unsafe by the Department of Justice after meeting certain required safety standards.  Prior law included an exception for so-called “single shot” pistols that could be temporarily modified to not fire on a semiautomatic basis in order to circumvent California’s safety standards.  AB 1964 closes that loophole by clarifying that the unsafe handgun law applies to semiautomatic pistols that have been temporarily or permanently altered so that they will not fire in a semiautomatic mode.

Law Center Position:  Support

Status: This bill was signed by the Governor on July 18, 2014.

AB 1591 (Archadjian):  Court Notifications – Under current law, courts are required to notify the California Department of Justice if they make a determination about a person’s mental state which would prohibit him or her from possessing a gun under California law.  AB 1591 will speed up this process by requiring such notifications to be made within one court day.

Law Center Position:  Support

Status: This bill was signed by the Governor on July 18, 2014.pending-legislation

AB 1014 (Skinner): Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) – This bill, which is modeled on California’s existing domestic violence restraining order laws, would establish a procedure to allow concerned family members or law enforcement officers to petition a court for a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO). In situations where there is sufficient evidence for a judge to believe that an individual poses a danger to self or others, the GVRO would temporarily limit the individual from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition and would allow law enforcement to remove any firearms or ammunition already in his or her possession. To avoid the potential for abuse of this new procedure, the bill would create penalties for anyone who files a petition intending to harass the named individual or knowing that any of the information provided in the petition is false.

Law Center Position:  Support

Status:  This bill passed the California Legislature on August 29, and is now on the Governor’s desk.

READ MORE »

Victory in California: Governor Brown Signs Two New Gun Safety Bills

Posted on Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014

SONY DSCOn Friday, July 22, California Governor Jerry Brown signed two important gun safety bills into law, one that will close a large loophole in California’s “Unsafe Handgun” law and another that will speed up court communication with law enforcement regarding mental health records.

AB 1964: Closing a Dangerous Loophole

California’s “Unsafe Handgun” law, on the books since 1999, requires handguns sold in the state to first pass standard safety testing and be equipped with basic safety features, such as loaded chamber indicators, which are designed to help prevent accidental shootings. A loophole in this law allowed single-shot handguns to completely bypass these safety requirements. After being sold, these single-shot handguns could be easily modified back into their fully-functional, semiautomatic form, creating a dangerous and frequently exploited situation. Last year alone, 18,000 single-shot handguns were sold in California.

AB 1964 closes this loophole and will ensure that the “Unsafe Handgun” law truly covers all handguns. This will keep dangerous junk guns off the streets and ensure that every handgun sold in the state complies with California’s rigorous safety standards.

AB 1591: Speeding Up Communication between Courts and the CA Department of Justice

Under current law, when a court takes an action that would prohibit a person from possessing a firearm because of mental health—such as a finding that the person is mentally incompetent to stand trial—that action must be reported to the California Department of Justice within two court days. The reported information is critical in helping to ensure that firearms are not acquired by individuals who might pose a danger to themselves or others. AB 1591 speeds up communication between courts and the CA Department of Justice by requiring that this important data is reported as quickly as possible, within one court day.

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is confident both of these laws will reduce gun violence in our state and we applaud the Governor and the Legislature for taking steps to keep Californians safe. For more information on pending gun safety legislation in California, including SB 53, the Law Center’s priority bill for 2014 which would regulate ammunition sales, see our update on California Legislation. For a full description of existing laws to reduce gun violence in California, visit our summary of California gun laws.

Tracking State Gun Laws: 2014 Developments

Posted on Friday, May 2nd, 2014

tracking-header

In April of this year, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal signed HB 60, a bill which expands the ability to carry firearms in public spaces such as bars and airports. The media was quick to report that this bill is evidence of a backlash against the many significant gun violence prevention laws enacted in the states last year, despite the media’s predominant narrative from last year that, after Newtown, more states weakened gun laws and the gun lobby “won”. The truth is that the recent media narratives are far from accurate.

Since Newtown, about the same number of laws (64) have strengthened state gun regulations as those that have weakened them (70), not including 38 newly-enacted gun laws that have a minimal impact on gun violence. However, a strict comparison of these numbers without deeper insight into the substance of the laws and where they were enacted is only half the story. Of the states that enacted laws to strengthen gun regulation, 8 states made very significant and, in some cases, sweeping changes to the way it regulates firearms. Alternatively, only 4 states enacted laws that have significantly weakened gun regulation.

Despite popular belief, in the last sixteen months since Newtown, the media has incorrectly portrayed the complicated and nuanced activity in fifty different state legislative bodies. The new laws have been tallied, and often, have been inappropriately equalized. Small bills which keep concealed weapons permit holders’ information private have been categorized as having equal weight to sweeping new laws that require background checks and ban assault weapons. The stories proclaiming the Georgia bill to be a pro-gun backlash make little of the fact that it was the NRA’s top priority in Georgia for two years and, after failing last year, barely scraped by this year and only in a watered-down version. The backlash stories also fail to mention the groundswell of activism that rose in opposition to the bill and succeeded in forcing the gun lobby to strip provision after provision from the measure.

The Law Center has tracked state firearms laws in all fifty states since 2009. Above is a map outlining the breadth of laws that have passed since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. Our analysis of legislative trends is based on watching and analyzing all gun legislation as it moves through state houses. The data shows us that the public’s mobilization after Newtown resulted in real and sustained change in legislative outcomes, as our team tracks new laws to strengthen gun policy come to unexpected states like South Carolina and Florida while an enormous number of bills to weaken state gun laws get watered down and end without progress.

In addition, a Mother Jones analysis comparing the population of states where gun laws were strengthened to states where they were weakened concluded that more than half of the country lives in states with stronger gun laws since Newtown.

More important than the numbers, or even the context surrounding the numbers, are the real people who have dedicated their lives to changing our nation’s gun laws since Newtown. New organizations such as Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Sandy Hook Promise, and Texas Gun Sense and many, many more have formed in just the last sixteen months. Real change happens when real people take action. The story after Newtown is that in every state people are making their voices heard, fighting to strengthen firearms laws, and opposing the gun lobby’s profit-driven efforts. This part of the story is only just beginning and real change will be measured in the lives that are saved.

policytrends

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy, there is no doubt that public support for sensible gun laws has soared. Many legislators are following the lead of the people and fighting for strong new policies to fill the gaps in gun regulation left by Congress. READ MORE »

Developing Trend in Gun Legislation: The Trayvon Martin Exception to Stand Your Ground Laws

Posted on Friday, February 7th, 2014

tallahassee-protest-dream-defenders-justice-lights-smaller

Yesterday jury selection began in the murder trial of Michael Dunn who shot and killed 17-year-old Jordan Davis. Witnesses say Dunn became enraged at Davis for playing music too loudly and provoked a confrontation that resulted in Dunn shooting and killing the unarmed teenager.

Dunn will likely base his defense on Florida’s stand your ground law—better described as a “shoot first” law—that allows someone to use deadly force outside the home if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. Florida’s law, as well as similar laws in several other states, does not require that the person using force retreat to a place of safety, if possible, before using force.

Eight months before Jordan Davis was killed, George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager walking to his father’s girlfriend’s house. By now, most of us know the story. Although Florida’s shoot first law was not incorporated into George Zimmerman’s defense, the court had instructed the jury on Florida’s controversial law and one of the jurors subsequently stated that the jury had found the law applicable to Zimmerman.

Again, a few weeks ago, yet another person behaving lawfully in public was shot and killed. Chad Oulson, who was texting his 3-year-old daughter’s caretaker during movie previews, angered Curtis Reeves, an armed, retired police officer. Reeves began to argue with Oulson. A confrontation ensued and Reeves shot and killed Oulson. Reeves is expected to also claim self-defense using Florida’s shoot first law.

A 17-year-old playing music in a car. A 16-year-old walking to see his father.  A father texting the babysitter during movie previews. These are only a fraction of the victims. These tragic events also demonstrate how shoot first laws continue to threaten public safety by encouraging people to take the law into their own hands and act as armed vigilantes, often with deadly consequences. The strongest of these laws also have a profound impact on the criminal and civil justice systems, tying the hands of law enforcement and depriving victims of remedies by providing blanket immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits to individuals who claim they were acting in self-defense.

Many states have had enough of this bloodshed and lawmakers have introduced legislation to repeal or limit the use of shoot first laws. Most notably, Alabama has introduced the “Trayvon Martin exception” as an amendment to its current shoot first law. The new legislation aims to protect innocent victims like Trayvon Martin, Jordan Davis, and Chad Oulson. The bill would prohibit use of the self-defense claim if a shooter pursued the victim who was behaving lawfully in a public place and the pursuit resulted in a deadly confrontation. READ MORE »

2013 State Scorecard: Why Gun Laws Matter

Posted on Monday, December 9th, 2013

HEADERGLM

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is proud to partner with the Brady Campaign to release our 2013 State Scorecard: Why Gun Laws Matter. This collaborative report empowers us all by putting the Law Center’s in-depth research on America’s gun laws into the hands of the advocates across the nation so they can continue to fight for effective gun policies in their communities.

Download the full 2013 State Scorecard: Why Gun Laws Matter here.

Since Newtown, so much has changed. The slaughter of innocent children at Sandy Hook Elementary School sent shockwaves through the nation and ignited a passionate call for our leaders to take steps to prevent gun violence. When Congress failed to pass any new gun violence prevention legislation in 2013, including the overwhelmingly popular legislation to expand background checks, state legislatures answered the call.

Starting last January, legislators in state houses across the country began introducing a record number of bills to strengthen gun laws. Even states with historically weak gun laws, like Florida, Missouri, and Texas, took action towards sensible gun legislation. In fact, twenty-one states enacted new laws to curb gun violence in their communities, with eight of these states passing major reforms—far eclipsing the corporate gun lobby’s limited success in state legislatures in 2013.

Click on each state’s initials in the map below to see our analysis of the gun laws in that state.

state-gun-laws-map

The 2013 Law Center & Brady Campaign State Gun Laws Scorecard1

To view a larger version of this map, click here.

Gun laws really do matter. State gun laws fill enormous gaps that exist in our nation’s federal laws, and help to reduce gun violence and keep citizens safe. In part because these laws help to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people and aid law enforcement in solving gun crimes, many of the states with the strongest gun laws also have the lowest gun death rates.

READ MORE »

  1. The combined expertise of the Law Center and Brady Campaign informed our grading system. Only states that have enacted several significant firearms laws received enough points to receive a grade in the A range. The states in the B and C ranges have enacted fewer laws, but do have some important gun safety measures on the books. The D states have only a small handful of firearms regulation while the F states have enacted little to no firearms regulation and, in many cases, have lost points for irresponsible gun laws. []

Tracking State Gun Laws: 2013 California Firearms Legislation

Posted on Thursday, October 17th, 2013

The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence is proud of the unprecedented progress California made in improving its already strong firearms safety laws in 2013. In response to the Newtown school shooting and other incidents of gun violence that devastate our communities every day, California legislators passed a historic number of bills to help prevent gun-related deaths and injuries in California, and Governor Brown signed 10 of those bills. The 17 bills described briefly below are all the 2013 firearms bills the Law Center supported that were passed by the legislature and either signed or vetoed by the governor.

For a more complete summary of each bill, and other firearms-related legislation introduced in 2013, please download our complete analysis of all firearms related bills introduced this year.

For more information about the legislative process in California, see this overview of the legislative process or the publication California’s Legislature.

bills-signed-into-law

AB 500 (Ammiano): Storage of Firearms in Homes with Prohibited Persons, Waiting Period Extension and Firearm Transfer Notifications

AB 500 requires any gun owner residing with a person who is prohibited from owning firearms under state or federal law to either: 1) keep the firearm within a locked container, locked gun safe, locked trunk, locked with a locking device, or disabled by a firearm safety device; or 2) carry the firearm on his or her person.

AB 500 also clarifies that the ten-day waiting period between the sale of a firearm and its transfer to the purchaser may be extended an additional 30 days if the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is unable to determine the outcome of a mental health evaluation, unable to interpret arrest or criminal charge records, or unable to determine whether the purchaser is attempting to purchase a second handgun in a 30-day period in violation of California law, prior to the end of the waiting period.

AB 48 (Skinner): Strengthening Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban

AB 48 prohibits the use of “conversion kits” to manufacture large capacity ammunition magazines. It also prohibits the purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines and tightens the definition of “manufacture” in the current law to clarify that manufacturing includes assembling the parts of a magazine.

READ MORE »

2012 California Firearms Legislation Summary

Posted on Tuesday, August 28th, 2012

Updated September 5, 2012

The Law Center monitors all firearm-related bills introduced in the California Legislature each year. The analysis below highlights and summarizes significant legislation considered by the legislature in 2012.

A dozen significant gun bills have been considered by the legislature this year, including SB 1366, co-sponsored by the Law Center. SB 1366, which is currently before the governor, would help law enforcement solve and prevent gun crimes by requiring firearm owners to report lost or stolen weapons. Three other bills to strengthen California’s gun laws are on the governor’s desk:

  • AB 1527, prohibiting the open carry of unloaded rifles and shotguns;
  • SB 1433, improving the process for getting guns out of the hands of domestic abusers; and
  • AB 2460, removing a loophole in the state’s ban on unsafe handguns.

Additionally, a number of bills to weaken California’s gun laws were defeated earlier this year.

Our California law summary contains information about the state’s existing firearms laws.
READ MORE »

Major Activity in State Firearms Legislation in 2012

Posted on Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

Updated October 23, 2012

The map below identifies firearms-related bills that have been enacted into law or vetoed in 2012. Red icons indicate action that weakens gun violence prevention efforts and green icons represent action that strengthens these efforts. Pushpins indicate where a measure was adopted by a state legislature but vetoed by the state’s governor.

Click on each icon to find out more information about each bill. Below the map, there is a state-by-state summary of all of the significant bills adopted or vetoed so far in 2012. This page and map will be regularly updated over the course of the year.

The information on this page supplements the Law Center’s state law summaries, as well as our prior summaries of state firearms laws adopted in 2009, 2010 and 2011.

View Major Activity in State Legislation 2012 in a larger map

Significant Firearms Legislation Adopted in 2012

READ MORE »