Updated May 20, 2013

The Law Center’s Post-Heller Litigation Summary surveys the landscape of Second Amendment challenges to federal, state and local gun laws asserted in the aftermath of the United States Supreme Court’s controversial landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

Download our May 2013 summary or read it below. You can also download our March/April 2013 and February 2013 summaries.

The Law Center’s Recent Developments in Second Amendment Litigation, provides updates on the latest court decisions and lawsuits related to the Second Amendment.  Download our May 2013 update or read it below.

Finally, the Law Center’s Post-Heller Litigation Appendix provides the latest information about major ongoing Second Amendment cases.  Download our May 2013 Appendix or read it below.

Image by NateD2009 on Flickr

Below is a message from Carol Gorenberg, attorney and Law Center supporter:

In March of 1982, my sister bought a gun on First Street in San Francisco. She passed the background check and received her weapon – all without my knowledge, even though she had been living with me for 3 months since her previous suicide attempt. I found the receipt for the gun when I was going through her stuff, along with the suicide letter and her journal. It was quite clear to me that she did everything possible to keep her plan a secret.

If she hadn’t been able to buy a gun, she would have tried something else – and maybe that something would not have worked. The gun was the certain way to succeed, unfortunately. More than 90% of suicide attempts with a gun are successful.

In an instant, my sister’s right to life and my right to grow old with my sister were taken away. She didn’t have a chance to deal with her despair and get better. A gun kept her from having another chance at life.

The truth is that my sister and I are not alone. That’s why I seized the opportunity to honor the life of my sister by supporting the Law Center’s 20th Anniversary Dinner with a Tribute Message. Every day, the Law Center’s staff works to prevent the devastating toll that gun violence takes on families across the country – whether that is working on laws to prevent mass shootings, crime related homicides, or easy access to weapons by children. They are making our communities safer by finding effective solutions to our gun violence epidemic, providing accurate information to our legislatures and courts, and answering the arguments of those who would hide behind our Constitution to rationalize a culture of violence.

Sadly, I know that someone else’s sister is buying a gun today, and someone else will lose a sister, brother, parent, or child, today, tomorrow, and next week. However, I know that my contribution to this Anniversary Dinner honors the life of my sister and supports the Law Center’s incredibly valuable work. Each life we save, each suicide prevented, each murder thwarted, brings us closer to the goal of having a safe society where all can enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I hope you will stand with me by sending a Tribute Message or a Message of Support to the Law Center as they mark 20 Years.

Please join me today by sending a message of support through the Law Center’s form below.

All the best,
Carol Gorenberg

The Program Book for the Law Center’s 20th Anniversary Dinner will include space for messages of support and personal tributes from members of our community.

We invite you to share a tribute or a supportive message to be included in this commemorative book. Each dinner guest will receive a copy of the book where your message will be featured.

Individual tickets and tribute messages are sold out. Please contact 415.433.2062×309 for more information or to be placed on our wait list.

Last week, the California Department of Justice certified that microstamping technology is ready for California. As a result of this certification, microstamping – a technology that imprints a unique code on bullet cartridge cases as they are fired from a gun – will be required for all new handgun models manufactured for sale in the state, allowing for the implementation of a 2007 state law that is the first of its kind nationwide.

The Law Center supported the law by testifying at legislative and regulatory hearings because microstamping will bring significant benefits to law enforcement’s ability to investigate gun crimes. Microstamping allows law enforcement to connect an ammunition cartridge case recovered at a crime scene directly to the gun that fired it. The technology uses precise, microscopic engravings on the internal mechanisms of a handgun to stamp a unique code identifying the gun’s make, model and serial number onto every expelled cartridge case.

Cartridge cases are much more likely to be recovered at the scene of a shooting than the gun used, but, without microstamping, ballistic experts cannot use those cases to identify a specific weapon unless the firearm has also been recovered.

Through the adoption of this innovative technology, California has once again positioned itself as a leader in the effort to prevent gun violence. The state’s certification should also provide encouragement to the several other states have proposed, but not adopted, microstamping legislation in recent years. Most importantly, the attorney general’s announcement sends a clear message to gun manufacturers: it’s time to adopt this technology and help law enforcement solve gun crimes.

On April 29, the nation was saddened by the death of two-year old Caroline Sparks, who was shot and killed by her five-year-old brother Kristian in rural Kentucky.  The mother of the two children had left a rifle sitting in a corner of the house and had not known it was loaded.  She only left the room for a moment when she heard the gun go off.

Unfortunately, these kinds of shooting occur all the time.  Over the past ten days: a five-year old Alaska girl was fatally shot by her eight-year old brother;  a four-year old Alabama boy was accidentally shot in the head; a 13-year-old Florida boy shot his six-year old sister; a four-year-old in Indiana shot himself in the hand; and a three-year-old in Florida accidentally killed himself with his uncle’s gun.

Our hearts go out to these victims and their family members.  These kinds of shootings are the result of our nation’s insufficient attention to the more generalized problem of access to guns. Over the last few months, our nation’s leaders have begun to address how our background check system could, and should, prevent dangerous criminals and individuals with severe mental illness from accessing guns.  They should also address the parallel problem of child access to guns.

Far too many children can obtain firearms without adult supervision.  A 2005 study on firearm storage practices found that over 1.69 million children and youth under age 18 are living in homes in the U.S. with loaded and unlocked firearms. The presence of unlocked guns in the home increases the risk of both gun accidents, like those described above, and intentional shootings, like those that can occur when a violent or suicidal teenager has access to a firearm. See Statistics on Youth Violence and Gun Access for further data.

Almost half the states have no law penalizing individuals who provide children unsupervised access to firearms.  In addition, as described in our Child Access Prevention policy summary, some states with existing laws only penalize the responsible adult after a child has actually gained access to the firearm and someone has been shot.  A stronger approach generally requires gun owners to keep their guns locked whenever they are not in use. Massachusetts is the only state that has adopted this approach so far. Other jurisdictions should consider this approach, which could prevent many of the tragedies listed above, and which has been upheld by the courts.

Massachusetts’ safe storage law is one of many innovative strategies to prevent gun violence that legislators ought to consider.  If we don’t do anything, we’ll continue to read about terrible accidents involving kids and guns.

This June, the Law Center is Proud to Mark Twenty Years of Saving Lives and We Invite You to Join Us.

Twenty years ago this summer, a deranged former client entered the Pettit & Martin law offices in San Francisco. Armed with two military-style assault weapons outfitted with large capacity ammunition magazines, he walked through the office on a shooting rampage. In the end, he had killed eight — in addition to himself — and grievously wounded six more.

In the wake, the San Francisco legal community and others affected by this horrific event came together to prevent the next tragedy – founding the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. We have spent the last 20 years pouring our hearts, souls, and minds into developing effective legal solutions to address the rampant and destructive consequences of gun violence.

Every year, we gather to mark the anniversary of our organization’s founding with a special event to remember the lives that were taken on July 1, 1993, as well as the unacceptable toll of lives taken by gunfire every day. Our Anniversary Dinner is also a time to look to the future as we develop real and lasting solutions.

In response to the tragedy in Newtown, the nation is demanding sensible and life saving measures to reduce gun violence – in ways we’ve never seen before. Share in the success of the Law Center as it continues to meet the ever growing demand for smart legal solutions that protect our communities.

We are proud to welcome United States Senator Dianne Feinstein, United States Congressman Mike Thompson, and Jim Silkenat, American Bar Association President-elect. We invite you to celebrate this momentous occasion with us. To contribute to our work by joining the hundreds of law firms, corporations, and activists who sponsor this event annually, or to learn more about sponsor benefits, visit our sponsor page. For more on directions to the Fairmont and parking information, visit their map & directions page.

Individual tickets are sold out. Please call 415.433.2062×309 to be placed on our wait list.

If you would like to contribute to the Dinner or our work, visit our Donate page.

Model laws provide a starting point – a framework from which state or local legislation may be drafted, debated and, ultimately, adopted. The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has developed the following model gun violence prevention laws. Each one is based upon a thorough review of existing laws, judicial decisions, policy research, studies, and other gun violence prevention data, and each contains detailed findings regarding the need for, and benefits of, the specific law.

To request a copy of any of the below model laws, please contact us for more information.

A jurisdiction seeking to enact a model law must integrate the legislation with existing laws, and any jurisdiction considering firearms legislation should seek the advice of legal counsel. Additionally, every jurisdiction seeking to adopt a model law must determine which provisions are politically viable and appropriate for its constituents.

The Law Center is available to provide assistance to any jurisdiction seeking to tailor a model law to its particular needs.

Feature Publication

Model Laws for a Safer America: Seven Regulations to Promote Responsible Gun Ownership and Sales (Sept. 2011)

Model Laws for a Safer America is designed for use by activists and elected officials nationwide seeking to close dangerous loopholes in our federal regulatory system. The publication provides sample language for state and local gun laws in seven crucial areas, supported by detailed legislative findings.

The publication provides sample language for state and local laws to: 1) require background checks on all gun purchasers; 2) license firearm owners; 3) register all firearms; 4) regulate firearms dealers and ammunition sellers; 5) require the reporting of lost or stolen firearms; 6) impose a waiting period before the sale of a firearm; and 7) limit firearm purchases to one per person every 90 days. The publication also includes a discussion of common opposition arguments and legal issues.

Classes of Weapons

Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

This updated model law, published in December 2012, bans assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines using an approach that is stronger and more comprehensive than the former federal ban.

Local jurisdictions in California may also consider this California-specific model law to prohibit the possession of large capacity ammunition magazines. State law bans the manufacture and transfer of large capacity ammunition magazines.

Fifty Caliber Rifles

Prohibits the sale of 50 caliber rifles and cartridges.

Air Rifles

Bans the sale and possession of air rifles, defined to include B-B, air and pellet guns.

Sales and Transfers

Universal Background Checks

Requires background checks on all prospective firearm purchasers, closing a loophole in federal law that allows private firearm sellers (i.e., unlicensed persons) to sell guns without conducting background checks.

Gun Dealers and Other Sellers

Regulating Gun Dealers

Supplements federal law by requiring, among other things, that dealers obtain a local permit, conduct employee background checks and obtain liability insurance. Also prohibits dealers from operating in residential neighborhoods and near other “sensitive” areas, such as schools, playgrounds and places of worship. The Law Center has created a model for California, which can be tailored to other jurisdictions.

Gun Ownership

The Gun Owners’ Safety and Responsibility Ordinance

Requires any person seeking to own, possess, purchase or otherwise acquire a firearm to obtain a firearm safety certificate, which obligates the applicant to successfully complete a safety training course that includes live firing, a safe-handling demonstration and a written test of firearm laws. Firearm owners also must register their firearms and notify law enforcement when their weapons are lost or stolen. In addition, the model requires that gun owners safely store their firearms in the home to prevent access by children and other unauthorized users. This model law is designed specifically for local jurisdictions in Illinois.

Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms

Requires any firearm owner or possessor to report the loss or theft of his or her firearm to law enforcement within 48 hours of the time he or she knew or reasonably should have known of the loss or theft. This model is designed for use by local jurisdictions in California.

Firearms in Public Places

Regulating the Carrying and Possession of Firearms in Public Places

Establishes rules for the issuance of permits to carry concealed firearms in public and prohibitions for carrying guns in public under certain circumstances. This model legislation provides two options for regulating firearm possession in public: Option I prohibits the carrying of exposed firearms, and limits the carrying of concealed guns to persons issued a permit pursuant to a detailed, discretionary permitting process; Option II generally prohibits the possession of a firearm, whether hidden or exposed, in any public place, with appropriate exceptions.

Consumer and Child Safety

Personalized Handguns

Requires the personalization of handguns – equipping handguns with technology that prevents them from firing when operated by an unauthorized user. Provides testing standards and certification procedures for personalized handguns. Prohibits the manufacture, importation, purchase and transfer of non-personalized handguns.

Law Enforcement Resolutions

Resolution Urging Law Enforcement to Obtain and Utilize California Department of Justice Information Regarding Prohibited Armed Persons

Urges law enforcement to receive information from the California Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding persons who legally purchased firearms in the jurisdiction but subsequently became prohibited from possessing them. The resolution urges law enforcement agencies who have received this information to seek training from DOJ regarding its use, and to retrieve illegally possessed firearms whenever possible. This resolution is designed for use by local jurisdictions in California.

Resolution Urging Law Enforcement to Send Letters to Prospective Handgun Purchasers

Urges law enforcement to obtain information from the California Department of Justice about persons who reside in the jurisdiction and have recently applied to purchase handguns. Based on a successful program in Los Angeles, this resolution urges law enforcement to send letters to these prospective handgun purchasers to inform them of their responsibilities as firearm owners. This resolution is designed for use by local jurisdictions in California.

U.S. Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey (Credit: AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

We’re outraged but not defeated. The U.S. Senate just voted not to adopt the background check legislation offered by Senators Manchin and Toomey. The Manchin-Toomey proposal, which would have required background checks for firearms sales at gun shows and sales made over the Internet, fell just 6 votes short of the 60 vote threshold needed to proceed.

While the Manchin-Toomey legislation was a bipartisan compromise bill that included several disconcerting concessions to the gun lobby, it would have been a significant step forward for background checks in America. With the failure of this legislation today, a minority of senators have prevented critical progress towards universal background checks, which are supported by 90% of Americans as well as strong majorities of gun owners and NRA members.

We are disappointed and outraged by the outcome of today’s vote, but this is not the end of the fight for stronger federal laws to protect our communities from gun violence. In fact, this is just the beginning. Over three thousand Americans have been killed by guns since Newtown. For them, for the children and teachers at Sandy Hook, and for all those who have been impacted by gun violence, we will continue to fight for the changes that we know can save lives.

While federal efforts received a setback today, there continues to be good news at the state level. Just yesterday, eleven significant bills passed out of the California State Senate’s Public Safety Committee. This victory marks a critical first step for California, and it comes after important state victories in Maryland, Connecticut, Colorado, and New York.

Just as change is happening in the states, it will come to the federal level. Now more than ever, Americans are united in agreement that our weak gun laws are simply unacceptable. The American public’s voice – calling for universal background checks and other important safety measures – will be heard in the halls of Congress.

Please stand with us in this fight. Pitch in today so we can continue to work tirelessly for safer communities.

In a closely watched case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a significant decision on March 21, in which it affirmed the ability of state law enforcement to limit the carrying of guns in public places. Reversing the decision of a federal district court in Maryland, the circuit court held that a requirement under Maryland law – that an individual demonstrate a “good and substantial reason” in order to qualify for a permit to carry a handgun in public – does not violate the Second Amendment.

Notably, the Fourth Circuit rebuked the district court for making a “trailblazing pronouncement that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense extends outside the home” and it advised courts that they should await direction from the U.S. Supreme Court before determining whether or to what extent the Second Amendment might protect the possession of firearms in public.

The decision confirms that reasonable restrictions on carrying of handguns in public are constitutional, even if they strictly limit the number of individuals who may carry a handgun. As the Fourth Circuit explained, “The State has clearly demonstrated that the good-and-substantial-reason requirement advances the objectives of protecting public safety and preventing crime because it reduces the number of handguns carried in public. That is, limiting the public carry of handguns protects citizens and inhibits crime.”

Want more? Check out the other recent success stories.

Every year, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence tracks and analyzes all of the firearms legislation pending in the California Legislature. This year, California legislators have introduced a historic number of firearms bills, including a number of significant and innovative measures to strengthen the state’s gun laws.

This analysis summarizes over 30 bills that would change California’s gun laws. Please note that this analysis is ongoing and will be revised to reflect subsequent amendments and other developments.

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

(This analysis was last updated on May 30th, 2013)

Senate Bills

Photo by Ken Rockwell: http://kenrockwell.com

Priority Bills

This year, the California State Senate has introduced a package of eight bills, known as the LIFE (Life-saving Intelligent Firearms Enforcement) Act. The LIFE Act includes a number of significant measures that would greatly strengthen California’s firearms laws.

SB 374 (Steinberg): Assault Weapons and Record Retention

SB 374 would simplify and strengthen California’s assault weapons ban by prohibiting the manufacture, sale or possession of any semiautomatic rifle capable of accepting a detachable ammunition magazine. The bill would require those who currently legally possess such a firearm to register the firearm by July 1, 2014. SB 374 would also require firearm owners who possess handguns not currently recorded in the state’s firearms databases (because they were purchased prior to January 1, 1991) to submit a Firearm Ownership record for each such weapon to the Department of Justice.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (23-15) on May 29.

SB 396 (Hancock): Prohibiting Possession of Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

Current California law prohibits the sale of large capacity ammunition magazines (magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition) but possession of these magazines is not illegal. SB 396 would prohibit the possession of a large capacity magazine in California, regardless of when the magazine was acquired. The bill would provide that any person who legally possessed a large capacity magazine may lawfully dispose of the magazine by selling it to a firearms dealer, removing it from the state, destroying it, or surrendering it to law enforcement by July 1, 2014.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (24-14) on May 29.

SB 53 (De Leon): Ammunition Purchase Permitting

SB 53 would require that, starting July 1, 2017, every ammunition purchaser would be required to hold an ammunition purchase authorization – with a unique identification number identical to the purchaser’s driver’s license or state ID card number – issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would conduct a background check prior to issuing the authorization. DOJ would be obligated to maintain a centralized list of authorized ammunition purchasers for use by ammunition sellers and law enforcement. In completing an ammunition sale, a vendor would be required to confirm that every purchaser has a valid ammunition authorization, record identifying information about the purchaser, and submit that information to DOJ.

Beginning July 1, 2015, ammunition sellers would be required to be licensed by DOJ. Under the bill, ammunition sellers would be prohibited from selling ammunition at any place except the location specified on the seller’s license or at a gun show. SB 53 would require that ammunition offered for sale must be stored so that it is not accessible without the assistance of the ammunition vendor; the bill would also require an ammunition vendor to forbid an employee from handling ammunition if the vendor knows or reasonably should know that the employee is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition under state law.

The bill would also require that all ammunition sales be conducted face-to-face. If ammunition is purchased over the Internet or otherwise ordered from a remote seller, a California ammunition seller must initially receive the ammunition and complete the transfer in compliance with state law. Finally, the bill would require the Attorney General to prepare a report by January 1, 2016 on the feasibility and cost of an instant ammunition background check system.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (22-14) on May 29.

SB 683 (Block): Firearm Safety Certificate

Under current California law, a person may not purchase or receive a handgun unless he or she has a “handgun safety certificate” issued by the California Department of Justice. A certificate is obtained by taking and passing a written test on firearm safety, and is valid for five years. SB 683 would, beginning on January 1, 2015, expand the safety certificate requirement to apply to purchases of all firearms, rather than just handguns.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (28-11) on May 29.

SB 47 (Yee): Closing the “Bullet Button” Loophole

California law defines prohibited assault weapons to include firearms that have both the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and one of a list of specific military-style features. California’s assault weapons ban does not define the term “detachable magazine.” Perplexingly, current regulations define “detachable magazine” in a manner that runs counter to both the spirit and the letter of the state’s assault weapons law. Under the regulations, if any “tool,” including a bullet, is required to release a firearm’s magazine, then the weapon does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and is therefore not within the scope of the ban.

SB 47 would close the “bullet button” loophole by clarifying that any semiautomatic rifle with one of the listed military-style features is an assault weapon unless it has a fixed magazine. The bill defines “fixed magazine” as a magazine “contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” SB 47 would require any person who lawfully possessed a “bullet button”-equipped weapon to electronically register the firearm before July 1, 2015 with the Department of Justice.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (23-15) on May 29.

SB 140 (Leno/Steinberg): Funding Enforcement of Armed Prohibited Persons System

California is the only state to maintain an automated database for tracking persons prohibited from owning firearms, which is known as the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS). With more than 20,000 prohibited persons on the list and an additional 15 to 20 individuals added each day, neither the Department of Justice nor local law enforcement has sufficient resources to address the existing backlog.

SB 140 would appropriate $24,000,000 from the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to address this backlog. The bill would require DOJ to, beginning on March 1, 2015, annually report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the results of APPS enforcement efforts and the progress in reducing or eliminating the backlog.

Status: Signed by the governor on May 1.

SB 755 (Wolk): Expanding Categories of Prohibited Persons

SB 755 would prohibit several categories of persons from possessing firearms. The bill would add a number of crimes to the list of misdemeanors that prevent a person from possessing a firearm for 10 years after conviction, including: taking a firearm from a peace officer; dealing in firearms without a license; selling ammunition to a minor or to a prohibited person; possession of ammunition by a prohibited person; carrying ammunition onto school grounds; carrying a loaded or concealed weapon without a license under certain circumstances; and participating in a criminal street gang. The bill would also prohibit a person from possessing a firearm if the person has been convicted of two or more specified crimes involving intoxication or possession of a controlled substance within a three-year period.

Additionally, SB 755 would prohibit a person from possessing any firearm while receiving court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment for a person suffering from mental illness. Where a California county has authorized the use of court-ordered outpatient treatment, a court may order a person to receive assisted outpatient treatment if certain criteria are met, including when the person is suffering from a mental illness and is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision. Under SB 755, a court would be required to notify the California Department of Justice within two days of ordering a person to receive treatment and also when the person is no longer subject to treatment.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (25-12) on May 29.

SB 567 (Jackson): Revising Shotgun Definition

Currently, a shotgun is defined as a weapon designed to be fired from the shoulder to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger. SB 567 would change the definition to delete the requirement that it be intended to be fired from the shoulder, and would clarify that a shotgun projectile may be fired through either a rifled bore or a smooth bore.

The bill addresses the emergence on the consumer market of rifled bore shotguns with revolving ammunition cylinders. California’s assault weapons law prohibits the possession of a shotgun with a revolving ammunition cylinder, but because these newer firearms have rifled bores, they do not fall within the definition of “shotgun.” By updating this definition, SB 567 would bring these firearms within the scope of the assault weapons ban.

The bill would establish a registration process for shotguns with revolving cylinders that were lawfully purchased between 2001 and 2013. Any such lawfully owned shotgun with a revolving cylinder must be registered with the Department of Justice by July 1, 2015 using an online registration system.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (22-15) on May 29.

Other Senate Bills

SB 108 (Yee): Residential Storage of Firearms

SB 108 would provide that an adult firearm owner must, while outside of his or her residence, keep any firearm in his or her residence stored in one of several specified ways, including in a gun safe, or by using a locking device.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (21-17) on May 28.

SB 127 (Gaines): Reporting of Mental Health Records

Current law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm for a period of six months after communicating a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims to a licensed psychotherapist. The psychotherapist must immediately report the threat to local law enforcement, who must immediately notify the Department of Justice (DOJ).

SB 127 would instead require the licensed psychotherapist to make the report to local law enforcement within 24 hours, in a manner prescribed by DOJ. The bill would also require the local law enforcement agency receiving the report to notify DOJ electronically, within 24 hours, in a manner prescribed by DOJ.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (36-0) on May 20.

SB 293 (DeSaulnier): Owner-Authorized Handguns

SB 293 would establish performance standards for owner-authorized handguns, firearms equipped with biometric readers or other technologies that prevent unauthorized users from firing them. The bill would provide that any firearm that meets these minimum requirements could be added to the Department of Justice’s roster of handguns certified for sale. Once two owner-authorized handguns have been added to the roster, the bill would provide that, two years later, no handgun could be added to the roster without possessing owner-authorized technology.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (21-14) on May 29.

SB 299 (DeSaulnier): Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms

SB 299 would require any person whose firearm is lost or stolen to make a report to local law enforcement within 48 hours from the time the person knew or should have known that the firearm was lost or stolen. A nearly identical bill, SB 1366, passed the legislature in 2012, but was vetoed by the governor.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (24-15) on May 29.

SB 363 (Wright): Storage of Firearms in Homes with Prohibited Persons

Under existing law, convicted felons, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill are among the categories of people prohibited from possessing firearms. SB 363 would prohibit any individual who is residing with a prohibited person from storing a firearm at that residence unless the firearm is kept within a locked container or gun safe or secured with a locking device.

Under existing law, a person who knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to his or her firearm is subject to criminal penalties if the child injures or kills someone with the firearm or carries the weapon into a public place. SB 363 would expand these provisions to also apply if the person who gains access to the firearm is prohibited from possessing guns under federal or state law.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (36-0) on May 16.

SB 475 (Leno): Regulating Firearm Sales at the Cow Palace

This bill would require anyone wishing to hold an event at the Cow Palace where firearms or ammunition are to be sold to acquire the prior approval of the boards of supervisors of both the County of San Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco.

Status: Currently in the Assembly. Passed the Senate (25-13) on May 2.

SJR 1 (Wolk): Urging Federal Response to Gun Violence

This resolution urges President Obama and Congress to develop a comprehensive federal approach to reducing gun violence. The resolution specifically calls for placing assault weapons and high-capacity magazines under the scope of the National Firearms Act and for requiring universal background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the transfer of all firearms. The resolution also urges the president to take steps to ensure that all applicable state and federal agencies are reporting all necessary records to NICS.

Status: Currently in Assembly Public Safety Committee.

Assembly Bills

Photo: Copyright © 2005 David Monniaux

AB 48 (Skinner): Regulating Ammunition Sales, Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines, and Mental Health-Related Prohibitions

AB 48 would require the Department of Justice (DOJ) to notify local law enforcement if an individual purchases more than 3,000 rounds within a five-day period. (This provision is only operative if SB 53, described above, is also enacted.)

Current state law prohibits a person who communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims from possessing a firearm for six months following the psychotherapist’s reporting of this threat to local law enforcement. The bill would change this prohibition from six months to five years. The bill would also revise the procedures associated with the return of firearms to their lawful owner by law enforcement following the end of a mental health-related firearm prohibition.

AB 48 would also amend existing laws that require the reporting of mental health information to DOJ to clarify that where existing requirements that require reporting be done “immediately,” “immediately” shall mean a period of time not to exceed 24 hours. The bill would also require the reports to be submitted to DOJ electronically.

Additionally, the bill would prohibit the manufacture, sale or purchase of any device that can convert an ammunition feeding device into a large-capacity ammunition magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds. AB 48 would also amend the definition of “large-capacity magazine” to include a disassembled large-capacity magazine that is readily restorable to accommodate more than 10 rounds of ammunition, and an oversize magazine body that appears to hold in excess of 10 rounds but has not been permanently altered to only accommodate 10 rounds of ammunition or less.

Status: Currently in the Senate. Passed the Assembly (46-26) on May 29.

AB 169 (Dickenson): Strengthening Unsafe Handgun Law

Under existing law, the Department of Justice performs safety tests on handguns and keeps a roster of guns determined to be safe for sale. State law prohibits the manufacture or retail sale of an unsafe handgun, but transfers of unsafe handguns between private parties are exempt from this prohibition. Additionally, law enforcement officers may purchase unsafe handguns at retail and then resell them to members of the public.

AB 169 would: 1) prohibit the sale of unsafe handguns between private parties; 2) prohibit law enforcement from transferring unsafe handguns to individuals who are not similarly exempted from the unsafe handgun prohibition (i.e., prohibiting transfer to members of the general public); and 3) clarify that the unsafe handgun laws would apply to semiautomatic pistols that have been temporarily or permanently altered so that they will not fire in a semiautomatic mode.

Status: Hearing in Senate Public Safety Committee on June 11.

AB 170 (Bradford): Revising Permits for Assault Weapons and 50 Caliber Rifles

Existing law requires a person wishing to acquire an assault weapon or 50 caliber rifle to obtain a permit from the Department of Justice; a permit may be issued by the department following the applicant’s showing that good cause exists for the issuance of the permit. The law defines “person” as an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other group or entity. In order to ensure that any individual possessing an assault weapon or 50 caliber rifle has passed a background check, this bill would redefine “person” strictly as an individual.

Status: Hearing in Senate Public Safety Committee on June 11.

AB 180 (Bonta): Exempting Oakland from State Preemption of Firearms Registration and Licensing

State law currently preempts local governments from requiring the registration of guns or licensing of gun owners. AB 180 would create an exemption enabling the City of Oakland to adopt ordinances or regulations applicable to its residents in this area.

Status: Currently in the Senate. Passed the Assembly (46-29) on May 28.

AB 187 (Bonta & Dickinson): Gross Receipts Ammunition Tax

AB 187 would establish a ten percent tax on the gross receipts of any retailer for the sale of ammunition in California. Sixty-six percent of the proceeds from this tax would be deposited in the Public Safety Emergency Prevention Fund, from which the California Legislature would be authorized to appropriate money to support public safety programs in high crime municipalities. Thirty-three percent of the proceeds would be allocated to the School-Based Early Mental Health Intervention and Prevention Services Matching Grant Program.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 231 (Ting & Gomez): Strengthening Child Access Prevention Law

In certain circumstances, California law imposes criminal liability on firearm owners who, through their negligence, enable children to access their weapons. State law makes a person liable where he or she knows or reasonably should know a child is likely to gain access to a loaded firearm and the gun owner fails to securely store the gun; this provision only applies, however, if the child actually carries the firearm to a public place, brandishes it, or injures someone with it. California law also establishes criminal liability where a handgun owner knows or reasonably should know a child is likely to gain access to the weapon and the owner fails to securely store it, but only if the child carries the handgun off the premises.

AB 231 would expand California’s child access prevention law to apply whenever a person negligently stores or leaves a loaded firearm on his or her premises in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm, regardless of whether a child actually acquires control of the firearm.

Status: Currently in the Senate. Passed the Assembly (46-30) on May 28.

AB 232 (Ting): Tax Credit for Gun Buybacks

AB 232 would create a personal income tax credit for the surrender of firearms to local law enforcement in gun buyback programs, in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars per handgun, shotgun, or rifle, or five hundred dollars per assault weapon. For any individual, the credit may not to exceed $1,000 per taxable year. The tax credit would expire on December 1, 2017.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

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

Under existing law, convicted felons, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill are among the people prohibited from possessing firearms. AB 500 would prohibit any individual who is residing with a prohibited person from keeping a firearm at that residence unless the firearm is either: 1) kept within a locked container, locked gun safe, locked trunk, locked with a locking device, or disabled by a firearm safety device; or 2) carried on the person.

Current law also imposes a ten-day waiting period between the sale of a firearm and its acquisition by the purchaser. In some circumstances, however, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) may be unable to complete a purchaser’s background check within ten days. AB 500 would require DOJ to immediately notify a dealer to delay the transfer of a firearm if DOJ is unable to determine the outcome of a mental health evaluation or arrest or criminal charge records prior to the end of the waiting period. If DOJ is unable to complete its determination related to these records within 30 days, DOJ would be obligated under the bill to notify the firearms dealer to proceed with the transfer of the weapon.

Finally, the bill would provide that, starting January 1, 2015, a firearms dealer notify DOJ that the purchaser of a firearm actually took possession of the firearm.

Status: Currently in the Senate. Passed the Assembly (47-28) on May 29.

AB 539 (Pan): Firearm Storage for Prohibited Persons

This bill would allow anyone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm, including convicted criminals, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill, to transfer any firearm in their possession to a licensed firearms dealer for storage during the duration of the prohibition, as long as the prohibition expires on a specified date. Under current law, a prohibited person is only allowed to store their weapon with a law enforcement agency for storage; otherwise, the individual must sell any firearms to a dealer or to another private party through a dealer.

Under AB 539, a firearms dealer must notify the Department of Justice when the dealer receives a weapon to store for a prohibited person and when the gun owner retrieves the weapon. The Department of Justice must maintain records of this information.

Status: Currently in the Senate. Passed the Assembly (78-0) on May 30.

AB 740 (Alejo): Transfer of Firearms and Expanding Firearms Prohibitions

California law prohibits the sale of firearms without a dealer’s license, unless the seller only engages in the “infrequent” transfer of firearms. Current law defines “infrequent” as less than six transactions within a year for handguns, and transfers of rifles and shotguns that are “occasional and without regularity.” This bill would provide that, for all firearm sales, infrequent means less than six transactions a year.

AB 740 would also add several criminal prohibitions aimed to combat gun trafficking. Among other provisions, the bill would prohibit any person from bringing a firearm into the state with the intent to illegally sell the weapon. Finally, the bill would require that any court obligated to transmit mental health information to the Department of Justice must do so electronically.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 760 (Dickinson): Ammunition Tax

AB 760 would impose a tax upon retailers engaged in business in California for the sale of ammunition in California, at the rate of $0.05 per item of ammunition sold on or after January 1, 2014. The bill would also impose an excise tax, at the rate of $0.05 per item of ammunition purchased from a retailer for storage or other use in the state. Revenues collected from these taxes would be allocated to the School-Based Early Mental Health Intervention and Prevention Services Matching Grant Program.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 761 (Dickinson): CalPERS and CalSTRS Divestment

AB 761 would prohibit the Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) from investing public employee retirement funds in a company with business operations that involve the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. The bill would require the Board of Administration of CalPERS and CalSTRS to sell or transfer any investments in a company with these business operations.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 1020 (Bonta): Notice to Firearms Purchasers

AB 1020 would require the Attorney General to send a notice to each individual who has applied to purchase a firearm within ten days of the submission of the application to purchase a weapon. The notice would inform the purchaser of California laws relating to firearm sales and loans, gun trafficking, and safe storage, and would link to a web page summarizing California firearms laws that would be maintained by the Department of Justice.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 1296 (Skinner): Improving Laws on Firearms and Mental Health

Under California law, a person is prohibited from possessing firearms if he or she has been taken into custody as a danger to himself, herself or others and admitted into a county mental health facility. Under existing law, this prohibition lasts for five years. State law also prohibits a person who communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims from possessing a firearm for six months following the psychotherapist’s reporting of this threat to local law enforcement.

AB 1296 would change the durations of these prohibitions. Under the bill, an individual admitted to a mental health facility as a danger to himself, herself, or others would become prohibited from possessing firearms for ten years. A person who communicated a serious threat of physical violence to a psychotherapist would become prohibited for five years. Finally, the bill would amend existing laws that require the reporting of mental health information to the Department of Justice (DOJ). While current law establishes that reporting to DOJ by mental health facilities, courts, and local law enforcement must be done “immediately,” AB 1296 would clarify that “immediately” means a period of time not to exceed 24 hours. The bill would also require the reports to be submitted to DOJ electronically.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AJR 5 (Gomez): Supporting Federal Assault Weapons Ban Legislation

AJR 5 urges President Obama and Congress to support and pass Senator Dianne Feinstein’s proposed federal legislation prohibiting the sale, transfer, import, and manufacture of assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

Status: Currently in Assembly Public Safety Committee.

AB 202 (Donnelly): School Marshall Plan

AB 202 would authorize school districts to use general purpose funds to provide training for “school marshals,” school employees who would be authorized to possess firearms at school sites or at designated school activities.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 249 (Donnelly): Repealing Unloaded Open Carry Ban

Current law prohibits the open carry of an unloaded handgun in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or city and county, as well as on a public street in an unincorporated area of a county or city and county where that county has prohibited the discharge of firearms. State law also prohibits the carrying of an unloaded rifle or shotgun in public in an incorporated city or city and county. AB 249 would repeal these prohibitions.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

AB 871 (Jones): Weakening Concealed Firearm Permitting System

Under current law, a local law enforcement agency in California may issue a license to carry a concealed firearm to an applicant if that person meets several requirements, including demonstrating that good cause exists to issue the license. AB 871 would take away law enforcement discretion by defining “good cause” to include personal protection or self-defense.

Status: Two-year bill: ineligible to proceed this year.

Note: bills in bold below remain active; bills in plain text are two-year bills that are ineligible to proceed this year.

SB 38 (De León): Amnesty Period for Firearm Relinquishment

SB 175 (Fuller): Possession of Firearm in State Game Refuge

SB 303 (Knight): Concealed Carry by Retired Peace Officers

SB 385 (Block): Firearm Possession by Security Guards

SB 644 (Cannella): Sentences for Firearm Crimes

SB 769 (Block): Firearm Possession by Veterans Convicted of Crimes

AB 128 (Bradford): Airport Law Enforcement

AB 134 (Logue): Concealed Carry License Records

AB 538 (Pan): Firearms Transfers and Recordkeeping

AB 685 (Achadjian): Peace Officer’s State-Issued Handgun

AB 703 (Hall): Concealed Carry by Retired Reserve Peace Officers

AB 711 (Rendon): Use of Non-Lead Ammunition for Hunting

AB 1040 (Wieckowski): Probation Officers

AB 1084 (Melendez): Sentences for Firearm Crimes

Case Information:  Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 12-17803 (9^th Cir. Filed March 14, 2013)

At Issue:  Challenging San Francisco, California’s safe firearm storage law.  This lawsuit challenges San Francisco’s ordinance requiring that a handgun kept within a residence be stored in a locked container or disabled with a trigger lock.  This ordinance was designed to address the problems created by unsecured handguns in the home, which are disproportionately tied to violent unintentional shootings, suicides, illegal gun trafficking and school shootings. Plaintiffs argue that the ordinance is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Law Center’s Brief:  Our brief, filed in support of the City and County of San Francisco, argues that under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment opinions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), safe storage provisions like San Francisco’s are valid, constitutional legal requirements.  Moreover, the history of gun storage laws shows that San Francisco’s ordinance is consistent with the Second Amendment, and challenges to modern safe storage laws have been rejected.