Preview
XAVIER BECERRA
Attomey General of Califomia
TAMAR PACHTER
Supervising Deputy Attomey General
P. Patty Li
D Atto General E-FILED
State Bar No. 266937 4/6/2018 2:11 PM
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 By: R. Faccinto, Deputy
Telephone: (415) 510-3817
Fax: (415) 703-1234
E-mail: Patty.Li@doj.ca.gov
Attorneys for Respondents Xavier Becerra,
Lindley, and the California Department of Justice
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
10
11
12 DANNY VILLANUEVA, NIALL Case No. 17CECG03093
STALLARD, RUBEN BARRIOS,
13 CHARLIE COX, MARK STROH, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN
ANTHONY MENDOZA, AND SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
14 CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF
ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR
15 DECLARATORY AND INJ UNCTIVE
Petitioners, RELIEF
16
Vv Date: 3:30 p.m.
17 Time: Apal 19, 2018
18 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity Judge: Hon. MarkW. Snauffer
as Attorney for the State of California;
19 STEPHEN LINDLEY, in his official Action Filed: September 7, 2017
capacity as Chief of the California
20 Department of J ustice, Bureau of Firearms;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
21 JUSTICE; and DOES 1-10,
22 Respondents.
23
24.
25
26
27
28
1
Request for Judicial Notice ISO Oppositionto Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093)
Respondents Xavier Becerra, Stephen Lindley, and the Califomia Department of Justice
request that the Court take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence
Code sections 452 and 453 of
each of the following documents that are referenced in their Opposition to the Verified Petition
for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief.
1 Exhibit 1 is the Assembly Floor Analysis prepared for Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016
Reg. Sess.).
2. Exhibit 2 is the analysis prepared for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety
regarding Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing
on June 14, 2016.
3. Exhibit 3 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Appropriations
10 regarding Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearingon May 16, 2016.
11 4. — Exhibit 4 is the Senate Floor Analysis prepared
for Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg.
12 Sess.).
13 5. Exhibit 5 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Safety
14 regarding Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing
on April 19, 2016.
15 6. Exhibit 6 is the Assembly Floor Analysis prepared for Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-
16 2016 Reg. Sess.).
17 7. Exhibit 7 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Appropriations
18 regarding Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing
on May 16, 2016.
19 8. Exhibit 8 is the Senate Floor Analysis prepared for Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-2016
20 Reg. Sess.).
21 9. Exhibit 9 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Safety
22 regarding Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing on May 10, 2016.
23 10. Exhibit 10 is a copy of the proposed regulatory action number 2016-1229-01FP,
24. regarding Bullet- Button Assault Weapons, submitted by DOJ to the Office of Administrative Law
25 (“OAL”) on December 29, 2016.
26 11. Exhibit 11 is a copy of the February 10, 2017 “Notice of Withdrawal” for OAL
27 Matter Number 2016-1229-01, issued by OAL, confirming DOJ’s withdrawal of its “proposed.
28 regulatory action regarding Bullet-Button Assault Weapons.”
2
Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093)
12. Exhibit 12 is acopy of the proposed regulatory action number 2017-0512-02FP,
regarding Bullet- Button Assault Weapons, submitted by DOJ to OAL on May 12, 2017.
13. Exhibit 13 is a copy of the June 26, 2017 “Denial of Requestto File and Publish
Regulations” for OAL Matter Number 2017-0512-02, issued by OAL, denying DOJ’s request
for the filing and publishing of the regulations “concem[ing] requirements and procedures for
the registration of certain assault weapons.”
14. Exhibit 14 is acopy of the proposed regulatory action number 2017-0719-04FP,
regarding Bullet- Button Assault Weapons, submittedby DOJ to OAL onJuly 19, 2017.
15. Exhibit 15 is a copy of the July 31, 2017 “Notice of Filing and Printing” for OAL
10 Matter Number 2017-0719-04, issued by OAL, granting DOJ’s request for filing and publishing
11 of the regulations “concem[ing] requirements and procedures for the registration of certain.
12 assault weapons.”
13 The Court may take judicial notice, under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), of
14 the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of
15 any state. This includes legislative committee and floor analyses, which are part of a statute’s
16 legislative history. (See, e.g., Peoplev. Robinson (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 69, 80, fn. 6, citing
17 Arcev. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 484 [holding that
18 reports of legislative committees are subject to judicial notice as official acts of the Legislature].)
19 In addition, “[o]fficial acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies.”
20 (Rodasv. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518; see Hogenv. Valley Hospital (1983) 147
21 Cal.App.3d 119, 125 [judicial notice taken of the records and files of an administrative board].)
22 Judicial notice also may be taken of any document published, recorded, or filed by any executive
23 department. (See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 842, fn. 3 [“[W]e may
24. take judicial notice of the report of a state executive officer as reflecting an ‘official act’
25 [citation].”].)
26 Exhibits 1 through 15 are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code section 452,
27 subdivision (c). These exhibits are records of the official acts of the Legislature and of public
28 agencies. The relevance of the materials subject to this request is set forth in Respondents’
3
Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093)
Opposition to the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief.
Section 453 of the Evidence Code provides that judicial notice of the matters set forth in
section 452 is mandatory if properly requested by a party. The requesting party must give
sufficient notice of the request to enable the adverse party to prepare to meet it, and furnish the
court with sufficient information to enable the Court to take judicial notice of the matter. (Evid
Code, § 453, subds. (a) & (b).) These requirements have been met here. Accordingly,
Respondents respectfully request that the Court grant this request for judicial notice.
Dated: April 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted,
10
XAVIER BECERRA
11 Attorney General of California
TAMAR PACHTER
p42 fe
12 Supervising Deputy Attorney General
13
14
P. PATTY Li
15 Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Respondents Xavier Becerra,
16 Stephen Lindley, and the California
Department of Justice
17
18
19
21
22
23
25
26
27
28
4
Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093)
EXHIBIT 1
SB 880
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 880 (Hall and Glazer)
As Amended May 17, 2016
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 24-14
Committee Votes Ayes Noes
Public Safety 5-1) Jones- Sawyer, Lopez, Low, Lackey
Quirk, Santiago
SUMMARY: Redefines what constitutes an assault weapon in order to close the bullet button
loophole. Also requires registration of weapons previously not prohibited, under the new
definition. Specifically, this bill:
1) Revises the definition of “assault weapon" to mean "a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, ora
semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified
attributes."
2) Defines “fixed magazine" to mean "an ammunition feeding device contained in, or
permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed
without disassembly of the firearm action."
3) Exempts a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if specified
requirements are met.
4) Requires that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, lawfully
possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the
firearm with the Department of Justice (DOJ) before January 1, 2018.
5) Permits the DOJ to increase the $20 registration fee as long as it does not exceed the
reasonable processing costs of the department.
6) Requires registrations to be submitted electronically via the Intemet utilizing a public- facing
application made available by the DOJ.
7) Requires the registration to contain specified information, including, but not limited to, a
description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely and specified information about the
registrant.
8) Permits the DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person for registration through the internet,
not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department to be paid and deposited, as
specified, for purposes of the registration program.
9) Requires the DOJ to adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing those provisions and
would exempt those regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act.
SB 880
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1) Contains legislative findings and declarations that the proliferation and use of assault and .50
BMG rifles poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of California.
2) States legislative intent to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles
and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession.
3) Prohibits several categories of assault weapons:
a) Specified firearms listed by name and others listed by series;
b) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols having the capacity to accept a
detachable magazine and also having one of several specified characteristics;
c) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols with a fixed magazine having the
capacity to hold more than 10 rounds;
d) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches;
e) Semiautomatic shotguns having two specified characteristics;
f) Semiautomatic shotguns having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine; and,
9 Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.
4) Defines a detachable magazine" as any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being
required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device
includes any belted orlnked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or
stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine.
5) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault
weapon.
6) Makes the possession of an assault weapon a criminal offense, subject to certain exceptions.
7) Defines a".50 BMG rifle" as “a center fire rifle that can fire a.50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon or a machinegun."
8) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift, loan, or possession
of .50 BMG rifles.
9) Exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military forces, and other specified agencies
from the prohibition against sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of assault
weapons or .50 BMG rifles.
10) Requires that any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon prior to the date it was
specified as an assault weapon to register the firearm with DOJ, as specified.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel.
SB 880
Page 3
COMMENTS: According to the author, "bullet button-equipped semi-automatic weapons have
no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They are designed only to facilitate
the maximum destruction of human life. Such weapons have been used in a number of recent
gun attacks including the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino that left 14 Californians dead
and 21 injured. Too many Califomians have died at the hands of these dangerous weapons.
"SB 880 will make our communities safer and upholds our commitment to reduce gun violence
in California by closing the bullet button loophole in California's Assault Weapons Ban. This
bill clarifies the definition of assault weapons and provides the DOJ the authority to bring
existing regulations into conformity with the original intent of California's Assault Weapon Ban.
Absent this bill, the assault weapon banis severely weakened, and these types of military- style
firearms will continue to proliferate on our streets and in our neighborhoods."
Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003528
EXHIBIT 2
SB 880
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 14, 2016
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair
SB 880 (Hall) - As Amended May 17, 2016
SUM MARY: Redefines what constitutes an assault weapon in order to close the bullet button
loophole. Also requires registration of weapons previously not prohibited, under the new
definition. Specifically, this bill:
1) Revises the definition of “assault weapon” to mean "a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, ora
semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified
attributes."
2) Defines “fixed magazine” to mean "an ammunition feeding device contained in, or
permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed
without disassembly of the firearm action."
3) Exempts a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if specified
requirements are met.
4) Requires that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, lawfully
possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the
firearm with the Department of Justice (DOJ) before January 1, 2018.
5) Permits the DOJ to increase the $20 registration fee as long as it does not exceed the
reasonable processing costs of the department.
6) Requires registrations to be submitted electronically via the Intemet utilizing a public- facing
application made available by the DOJ.
7) Requires the registration to contain specified information, including, but not limited to, a
description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely and specified information about the
registrant.
8) Permits the DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person for registration through the intemet,
not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department to be paid and deposited, as
specified, for purposes of the registration program.
9) Requires the DOJ to adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing those provisions and
would exempt those regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act.
SB 880
Page 2
EXISTING LAW:
1) Contains legislative findings and declarations that the proliferation and use of assault and .50
BMG rifles poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of California.
(Pen. Code, § 30505.)
2) States legislative intent to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles
and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession.
(Pen. Code, § 30505.)
3) Prohibits several categories of assault weapons:
a) Specified firearms listed by name and others listed by series (Pen. Code, § 30510);
b) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols having the capacity to accepta
detachable magazine and also having one of several specified characteristics;
c) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols with a fixed magazine having the
capacity to hold more than 10 rounds;
d) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches;
e) Semiautomatic shotguns having two specified characteristics;
f) Semiautomatic shotguns having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine; and,
g) Any shotgun with arevolving cylinder. (Pen. Code, § 30515.)
4) Defines a “detachable magazine" as any ammunition feeding device that can be removed
readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being
required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device
includes any belted orlnmked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or
stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine. (11 Cal. Code Regs. Section 5469.)
5) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault
weapon. (Pen. Code, § 30600, subd. (a).)
6) Makes the possession of an assault weapon a criminal offense, subject to certain exceptions.
(Pen. Code, § 30605.)
7) Defines a".50 BMG rifle" as “a center fire rifle that can fire a.50 BMG cartridge and is not
already an assault weapon ora machinegun." (Pen. Code, § 30530.)
8) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift, loan, or possession
of .50 BMG rifles. (Pen. Code §§ 30600 & 30610.)
9) Exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military forces, and other specified agencies
from the prohibition against sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of assault
SB 880
Page 3
weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (Pen. Code, § 30625.)
10) Requires that any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon prior to the date it was
specified as an assault weapon to register the firearm with DOJ, as specified. (Pen. Code, §
30900 et. seq.)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS
1) Author's Statement: According to the author, "bullet button-equipped semi-automatic
weapons have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They are designed
only to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life. Such weapons have been used in a
number of recent gun attacks including the recent terrorist attack in San Bemardino that left
14 Califomians dead and 21 injured. Too many Californians have died at the hands of these
dangerous weapons.
"SB 880 will make our communities safer and upholds our commitment to reduce gun
violence in California by closing the bullet button loophole in California’s Assault Weapons
Ban. This bill clarifies the definition of assault weapons and provides the DOJ the authority
to bring existing regulations into conformity with the original intent of California’s Assault
Weapon Ban. Absent this bill, the assault weapon ban is severely weakened, and these types
of military-style firearms will continue to proliferate on our streets and in our
neighborhoods."
2) California's Assault Weapons Ban: The origin of and subsequent modifications to the
assault weapons ban in Califomia are described by the federal Court of Appeal in the
following extended excerpt from Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as
amend. Jan. 27, 2003)
In response to a proliferation of shootings involving semi-automatic weapons, the California
Legislature passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) in 1989. The
immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the
Cleveland Elementary Schoolin Stockton, Califomia. An individual armed with an AK -47
semi-automatic weapon opened fire on the schoolyard, where 300 pupils were enjoying their
moming recess. Five children ages six to nine were killed, and one teacher and 29 children
were wounded.
The Califomia Assembly met soon thereafter in an extraordinary session called for the
purpose of enacting a response to the Stockton shooting. The legislation that followed, the
AWCA, was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation, and was the
model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. The AWCA renders it a felony offense to
manufacture in California any of the semi-automatic weapons specified in the statute, orto
possess, sell, transfer, or import into the state such weapons without a permit. The statute
contains a grandfather clause that permits the ownership of assault weapons by individuals
who lawfully purchased them before the statute's enactment, so long as the owners register
the weapons with DOJ. The grandfather clause, however, imposes significant restrictions on
the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Approximately 40 models
of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. The specified weapons
SB 880
Page 4
include “civilian” models of military weapons that feature slightly less firepower than the
military-issue versions, such as the Uzi, an Israeli-made military rifle; the AR-15, asemi-
automatic version of the United States military's standard-issue machine gun, the M-16; and
the AK-47, a Russian-designed and Chinese-produced military rifle. The AWCA also
includes a mechanism for the Attomey General to seek a judicial declaration in certain
Califomia superior courts that weapons identical to the listed firearms are also subject to the
statutory restrictions.
The AWCA includes a provision that codifies the legislative findings and expresses the
legislature's reasons for passing the law: "The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the
proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of
all citizens of this state. The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in [the
statute] based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for
firepower that its function asa legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially
outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the intent
of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons
and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. It is
not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of
those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or
other legitimate sports or recreational activities."
In 1999, the Legislature amended the AWCA in orderto broaden its coverage and to render it
more flexible in response to technological developments in the manufacture of
semiautomatic weapons. The amended AWCA retains both the original list of models of
restricted weapons, and the judicial declaration procedure by which models may be added to
the list. The 1999 amendments to the AWCA statute add a third method of defining the class
of restricted weapons: the amendments provide that a weapon constitutes a restricted assault
weapon if it possesses certain generic characteristics listed in the statute. Examples of the
types of weapons restricted by the revised AWCA include a “semiautomatic, center-fire rifle
that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and a
semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and also
features a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or aflare launcher. The amended AWCA
also restricts assault weapons equipped with “barrel shrouds,” which protect the user's hands
from the intense heat created by the rapid firing of the weapon, as well as semiautomatic
weapons equipped with silencers.
3) Changes This Bill Makes to the AWCA: As the Court explained, in 1999 the assault
weapons ban was amended to expand the definition of an assault weapon to include a
definition by the generic characteristics, specifically, to include a “semiautomatic, centerfire
rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” in addition to one of several
specified characteristics, such as a grenade launcher or flash suppressor. [SB 23 (Perata)
Statutes of 1999, Chapter 129, Section 7 et seq.] SB 23 was enacted in response to the
marketing of so-called “copycat” weapons - firearms that were substantially similar to
weapons on the prohibited list but differed in some insignificant way, perhaps only the name
of the weapon, thereby defeating the intent of the ban.
SB 23’s generic definition of an assault weapon was intended to close the loophole in the law
created by its definition of assault weapons as only those specified by make and model.
Regulations promulgated after the enactment of SB 23 define adetachable magazine as any
SB 880
Page 5
ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither
disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition
cartridge is considered atool In response to this definition, a new feature has been
developed by firearms manufacturers to make military-style, high-powered, semi-automatic
rifles “California compliant,” the bullet button.
In 2012, researchers at the nonprofit Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. released a
paper describmg the phenomenon of the bullet button and its effect on California’s assault
weapons ban:
The “Bullet Button”—Assault Weapon Manufacturers’ Gateway to the
Califomia Market
Catalogs and websites from America’s leading assault rifle manufacturers are full
of newly designed “California compliant” assault weapons. Number one and two
assault weapon manufacturers Bushmaster and DPMS, jomed by ArmaLite, Colt,
Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, and others are all introducing new rifles designed to
circumvent California’s assault weapons ban and are actively targeting the state in
an effort to lift now-sagging sales of this class of weapon. They are accomplishing
this with the addition of a minor design change to their military-style weapons
made possible by adefinitional loophole: the “bullet button.” [Please see the
Appendix beginning on page six for 2012 catalog copy featuring “California
compliant” assault rifles utilizing a “bullet button” from leading assault weapon
manufacturers. ]
Califomia law bans semiautomatic rifles with the capacity to accept a detachable
ammunition magazine and any one of six enumerated additional assault weapon
characteristics (e.g., folding stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, or other military-
style features).
High-capacity detachable ammunition magazines allow shooters to expel large
amounts of ammunition quickly and have no sporting purpose. However, in
California an ammunition magazine is not viewed as detachable if a “too!” is
required to remove it from the weapon. The “bullet button” is a release button for
the ammunition magazine that can be activated with the tip of a bullet. With the
tip of the bullet replacing the use of a finger in activating the release, the button
can be pushed and the detachable ammunition magazine removed and replaced in
seconds. Compared to the release process for a standard detachable ammunition
magazine it is a distinction without a difference. (Bullet Buttons, The Gun
Industry’s Attack on California’s Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Policy Center,
Washington D.C., May 2012. )
One approachto this issue, taken by SB 249 (Yee) in 2012 and SB 47 (Yee) of 2014, as well
as AB 1664 (Levine) of this session, and this bill, amends the statute to replace the language
regarding detachable magazines This approach also defines a "detachable magazine" as “an
ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without
disassembly of the firearm action, including an ammunition feeding device that can be
removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool." In other words, a semiautomatic
Tifle could have a detachable magazine, as long as that rifle did not also have any of the six
prohibited features or that rifle could have the prohibited features as long as it had a fixed
SB 880
Page 6
magazine.
Proponents argue the feature that makes one semi-automatic rifle capable of killing or
wounding more people in a shorter amount of time than another is the capacity to rapidly
reload large amounts of ammunition. For example, proponents note that, in 2011, a man
opened fire on teenagers ata summer youth camp in Norway, killing 69 and wounding
another 110, using a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle, the .223 caliber Ruger Mini- 14.
That rifle had none of the features listed in California’s definition of an assault weapon and it
is a perfectly legal weapon in Califomia; supporters of this bill submit that what made that
weapon such an effective tool of mass murder is the fact that the killer was able to rapidly
reload one magazine after another of ammunition.
4) Constitutionality: The Constitutionality of California’s assault weapons ban has been
upheld by both the California Supreme Court [Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472 (2000)] and
the federal Court of Appeal. [Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amend.
Jan. 27, 2003).] While the Califomia Supreme Court rejected allegations that the law
violated equal protection guarantees, the separation of powers, and failed to provide adequate
notice of what was prohibited under the law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decision in
Silveira was based largely on its interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and
bear arms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Ams,
shall not be infringed.” (United States Const. Amend. 2.) The Silveira Court based its ruling
on the widely held interpretation of the Second Amendment known as the “collective rights”
view, that the right secured by the Second Amendment relates to firearm ownership only i
the context ofa “well regulated militia.” [Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1086 (9th Cir.
Cal. 2002).]
The Silveira Court’s interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment has since been
squarely rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570
(2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). Whether the Heller and
McDonald cases mean that California’s assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment
and is, therefore, unconstitutional is a different matter.
In Heller, the Supreme Court rejected the “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment
and, instead, endorsed the “individual rights” interpretation, that the Second Amendment
protects the right of each citizen to firearm ownership. After adopting this reading of the
Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that federal law may not prevent citizens from
owning a handgun in their home. (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 683-684.)
In the McDonald case, the Supreme Court extended this ruling to apply to laws passed by the
50 states. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050.)
In deciding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to own a handgun in the home
for self-defense, the Supreme Court stated that this ruling has its limitations:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From
Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that
the right was not aright to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider
the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the
SB 880
Page 7
Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive
historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion
should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on
the commercial sale of arms."
5) Governor's Veto Message of 2013's SB 374 (Steinberg): Govemor Brown vetoed
somewhat similar legislation (requiring a fixed magazine) in 2013 with the following veto
message:
"Il am retuming Senate Bill 374 without my signature.
"The State of Califomia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country,
including bans on military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines.
"While the author's intent is to strengthen these restrictions, this bill goes much farther by
banning any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. This ban covers low-
capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting, firearms training, and marksmanship
practice, as well as some historical and collectible firearms. Moreover, hundreds of
thousands of current gun owners would have to register their rifles as assault weapons
and would be banned from selling or transferring them in the future.
"Today I signed a number of bills that strengthen California's gun laws, including AB 48,
which closes a loophole in the existing ban on dangerous high-capacity magazines. | also
signed AB 1131 and SB 127, which restrict the ability of mentally unstable people to
purchase or possess guns.
"I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal
activity orenhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners'
rights."
6) Argument in Support: According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "The
Califomia Legislature recognized long ago—after a gunman with an assault weapon shot 34
children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Califomia—that these military- grade
weapons of war have no place in our communities. Since 1989, California has led the nation
in enacting common sense gun safety laws to keep assault weapons off our streets. However,
the gun industry has repeatedly skirted the limits of this law and exploited its loopholes in
order to continue selling military-style weaponry within the state.
"Existing Califomia law defines prohibited assault weapons to include firearms that have
both the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and specified military-style features. The
ability to accept a detachable magazine allows a shooter to quickly reload an assault weapon
to continue firing and killing without interruption.
"California’s assault weapons ban does not define the term 'detachable magazine,’ however.
Perplexingly, current DOJ regulations define ‘detachable magazine’ in a manner that runs
counter to both the spirit and the letter of the state’s assault weapons ban. Under these
regulations’ definition, a weapon is not considered to have a detachable magazine, and is
SB 880
Page 8
therefore not a prohibited assault weapon, if a ‘tool is used to release the firearm’s magazine
instead of the shooter’s finger alone. The regulations specifically state that “a bullet or an
ammunition feeding device is considered a tool.’
"The gun industry has exploited this dangerous loophole in recent years by marketing
‘Califommia compliant’ assault weapons that are equipped with a ‘bullet button.' These
weapons are the functional equivalents of illegal assault weapons in every respect, except
that the shooter uses a bullet, magnet, or other instrument, instead of his or her finger, to
depress the button that releases the weapon’s magazine. These weapons may be reloaded as
quickly and efficiently as prohibited assault weapons, but they have been permitted to flood
into this state at an alarming rate, threatening Californians’ safety.
"SB 880 would further the letter and spirit of California’s assault weapons law by adding a
statutory definition of ‘fixed magazine’ to clarify that bullet button weapons are illegal assault
weapons. This definition would establish that firearms like bullet button weapons, whose
magazines may be removed and reloaded without disassembling the firearm action, do not
have ‘fixed magazines.’ Individuals who lawfully obtained these weapons prior to January 1,
2017, would be required to register their weapons with DOJ.
"A December 2015 mass shooting tragedy illustrates the compelling need for this legislation.
On that day, two radicalized assailants used bullet button weapons to shoot 36 people in a
San Bemardino community building in the span of less than four minutes. The 'Califomia
compliant’ bullet button weapons they used were designed to inflict maximal camage on
military battlefields and were nearly indistinguishable from illegal assault weapons. Any
legitimate fimction these weapons might serve in sport or recreation is substantially
outweighed by the danger that they may be used to—and in fact have been used to—quickly
and efficiently take large numbers of human lives. By prohibiting all future manufacturing,
possession, and sale of these weapons, SB 880 would help protect the public and law
enforcement from battlefield weaponry that has no place in our civilian communities.
"This legislation is substantively similar to AB 1664 (Levine), which recently passed with
strong support in this Committee and on the Assembly floor."
7) Argument in Opposition: According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, "On behalf of the
members and supporters of Firearms Policy Coalition, I respectfully submit our opposition to
Senate Bill 880 (Hall and Glazer) and respectfully request your 'NO' vote.
"SB 880 seeks to expand the ban on so-called ‘assault weapon’ through vague language, by
re-defining the term ‘detachable magazine’ to mean ‘an ammunition feeding device that can
be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action, including an
ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a
tool.
"SB 880 would ban millions of semi-automatic rifles protected by the Second Amendment to
the United States Constitution and violate the civil rights of every law-abiding person in (and
visitor to) Califomia, moving the goal posts yet again for the millions of law abiding
residents and visitors who have [quite reasonably, given the volume] struggled for years to
keep up with the frenetic pace of California’s ever-increasing and expensive firearm
regulations.
SB 880
Page 9
"The California Department of Justice (DOJ) will have to start from scratch to create new
regulations, new forms, new databases and new online interfaces. Even with modest
compliance by the public, the already struggling DOJ will have to hire or re- purpose dozens
of staff in order to process millions of firearms lawfully owned by hundreds of thousands of
Califomia residents.
"Law enforcement will find cause to arrest thousands of residents and visitors annually as SB
880 wraps in tens of millions of firearms owned by millions of Californians and visitors. This
will burden the courts and the correctional system—with people who are otherwise law-
abiding.
"To summarize;
e "SB 880’s uninformed new definitions put millions of law-abiding residents and
visitors in to our jails and prisons and therefore probation and parole.
"SB 880 contains no provision for outreach to the millions of Califomians who
have lawfully acquired firearms that would be subject to SB 880’s reach.
"SB 880 contains no provision for educating law enforcement officers or
prosecutors—the very people who will have to interpret and enforce it—which
will lead to false arrests and ruined lives.
"SB 880 creates overnight felons for mere possession, transfer, transport or inheritance of
common, constitutionally protected items, creating a crisis for residents and visitors who
have been law abiding all their lives and could lose all they have worked for —by simply
exercising a fundamental right."
8) Related Legislation:
a) AB 1663 (Chiu) takes a different approach to closing the bullet button loophole. AB
1663 was held in Assembly Appropriations Committee.
b) AB 1664 (Levine) is substantially similar to this legislation. AB 1664 is currently
awaiting a hearing in Senate Public Safety.
9) Prior Legislation:
a) SB 47 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have closed the bullet button
loophole by redefining an assault weapon in statute as 'a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle
that does not have a fixed magazine’ and has any one of several specified features. SB 47
was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file.
b) SB 374 (Steinberg), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have closed the bullet
button loophole by redefining an assault weapon as it pertains to rifles and defines
“detachable magazines" and “fixed magazines." Specifies that rifles which are not assault
weapons have fixed magazines. SB 347 was vetoed by the Govemor.
SB 880
Page 10
c) SB 249 (Yee), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have prohibited any person
from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring or possessing any conversion kit
designed to convert certain firearms with afixed magazine into firearms with a
detachable magazine. SB 249 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee
suspense file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Academy of Pediatrics
American College of Emergency Physicians, Califomia Chapter
Bend the Arc
Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Orange County
Brotherhood Crusade
Califomia Attomey General
Califomia Academy of Family Physicians
Califomia Catholic Conference
Califomia Chapters of the Brady Campaign
Califomia Communities United Institute
Califomia State PTA
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science
City of Berkeley
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
City of Oakland
Coalition Against Gun Violence
Community Clinic Association
Courage Campaign
Intemational Health and Epidermiology Research Center
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Laguna Woods Democratic Club
Nevada County Democrats
Peace Over Violence
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento
Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay
Rainbow Services
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Violence Prevention Coalition
Youth Alive
31 private individual
Opposition
Califomia Rifle and Pistol Association
Califomia Sportsman's Lobby
Califomia State Sheriffs’ Association
Califomia Waterfowl Association
SB 880
Page 11
Crossroads of the West
Gun Owners of Califomia
Firearms Policy Coalition
National Rifle Association
National Shooting Sports Foundation
Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of Califomia
Rick Farinelli, District 3 Supervisor, Madera County
Safari Club Intemational
San Bemardino Sheriff's Office
Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744
“11 CCR 5469.
EXHIBIT 3
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular Session
SB 880 (Hall) - Firearms: assault weapons
Version: March 28, 2016 Policy Vote: PUB.S.5-2
Urgency: No Mandate: Yes
Hearing Date: May 16, 2016 Consultant: J olie Onodera
This bill meets the criter
Preview
XAVIER BECERRA Attomey General of Califomia TAMAR PACHTER Supervising Deputy Attomey General P. Patty Li D Atto General E-FILED State Bar No. 266937 4/6/2018 2:11 PM 455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT San Francisco, CA 94102-7004 By: R. Faccinto, Deputy Telephone: (415) 510-3817 Fax: (415) 703-1234 E-mail: Patty.Li@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Respondents Xavier Becerra, Lindley, and the California Department of Justice SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF FRESNO 10 11 12 DANNY VILLANUEVA, NIALL Case No. 17CECG03093 STALLARD, RUBEN BARRIOS, 13 CHARLIE COX, MARK STROH, REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN ANTHONY MENDOZA, AND SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO 14 CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF ASSOCIATION, INCORPORATED, MANDATE AND COMPLAINT FOR 15 DECLARATORY AND INJ UNCTIVE Petitioners, RELIEF 16 Vv Date: 3:30 p.m. 17 Time: Apal 19, 2018 18 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity Judge: Hon. MarkW. Snauffer as Attorney for the State of California; 19 STEPHEN LINDLEY, in his official Action Filed: September 7, 2017 capacity as Chief of the California 20 Department of J ustice, Bureau of Firearms; CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 21 JUSTICE; and DOES 1-10, 22 Respondents. 23 24. 25 26 27 28 1 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Oppositionto Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093) Respondents Xavier Becerra, Stephen Lindley, and the Califomia Department of Justice request that the Court take judicial notice pursuant to Evidence Code sections 452 and 453 of each of the following documents that are referenced in their Opposition to the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. 1 Exhibit 1 is the Assembly Floor Analysis prepared for Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.). 2. Exhibit 2 is the analysis prepared for the Assembly Committee on Public Safety regarding Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing on June 14, 2016. 3. Exhibit 3 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Appropriations 10 regarding Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearingon May 16, 2016. 11 4. — Exhibit 4 is the Senate Floor Analysis prepared for Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. 12 Sess.). 13 5. Exhibit 5 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Safety 14 regarding Senate Bill 880 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing on April 19, 2016. 15 6. Exhibit 6 is the Assembly Floor Analysis prepared for Assembly Bill 1135 (2015- 16 2016 Reg. Sess.). 17 7. Exhibit 7 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Appropriations 18 regarding Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing on May 16, 2016. 19 8. Exhibit 8 is the Senate Floor Analysis prepared for Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-2016 20 Reg. Sess.). 21 9. Exhibit 9 is the analysis prepared for the Senate Committee on Public Safety 22 regarding Assembly Bill 1135 (2015-2016 Reg. Sess.), for hearing on May 10, 2016. 23 10. Exhibit 10 is a copy of the proposed regulatory action number 2016-1229-01FP, 24. regarding Bullet- Button Assault Weapons, submitted by DOJ to the Office of Administrative Law 25 (“OAL”) on December 29, 2016. 26 11. Exhibit 11 is a copy of the February 10, 2017 “Notice of Withdrawal” for OAL 27 Matter Number 2016-1229-01, issued by OAL, confirming DOJ’s withdrawal of its “proposed. 28 regulatory action regarding Bullet-Button Assault Weapons.” 2 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093) 12. Exhibit 12 is acopy of the proposed regulatory action number 2017-0512-02FP, regarding Bullet- Button Assault Weapons, submitted by DOJ to OAL on May 12, 2017. 13. Exhibit 13 is a copy of the June 26, 2017 “Denial of Requestto File and Publish Regulations” for OAL Matter Number 2017-0512-02, issued by OAL, denying DOJ’s request for the filing and publishing of the regulations “concem[ing] requirements and procedures for the registration of certain assault weapons.” 14. Exhibit 14 is acopy of the proposed regulatory action number 2017-0719-04FP, regarding Bullet- Button Assault Weapons, submittedby DOJ to OAL onJuly 19, 2017. 15. Exhibit 15 is a copy of the July 31, 2017 “Notice of Filing and Printing” for OAL 10 Matter Number 2017-0719-04, issued by OAL, granting DOJ’s request for filing and publishing 11 of the regulations “concem[ing] requirements and procedures for the registration of certain. 12 assault weapons.” 13 The Court may take judicial notice, under Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (c), of 14 the official acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments of the United States and of 15 any state. This includes legislative committee and floor analyses, which are part of a statute’s 16 legislative history. (See, e.g., Peoplev. Robinson (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 69, 80, fn. 6, citing 17 Arcev. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 471, 484 [holding that 18 reports of legislative committees are subject to judicial notice as official acts of the Legislature].) 19 In addition, “[o]fficial acts include records, reports and orders of administrative agencies.” 20 (Rodasv. Spiegel (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 513, 518; see Hogenv. Valley Hospital (1983) 147 21 Cal.App.3d 119, 125 [judicial notice taken of the records and files of an administrative board].) 22 Judicial notice also may be taken of any document published, recorded, or filed by any executive 23 department. (See Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 842, fn. 3 [“[W]e may 24. take judicial notice of the report of a state executive officer as reflecting an ‘official act’ 25 [citation].”].) 26 Exhibits 1 through 15 are judicially noticeable under Evidence Code section 452, 27 subdivision (c). These exhibits are records of the official acts of the Legislature and of public 28 agencies. The relevance of the materials subject to this request is set forth in Respondents’ 3 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093) Opposition to the Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Section 453 of the Evidence Code provides that judicial notice of the matters set forth in section 452 is mandatory if properly requested by a party. The requesting party must give sufficient notice of the request to enable the adverse party to prepare to meet it, and furnish the court with sufficient information to enable the Court to take judicial notice of the matter. (Evid Code, § 453, subds. (a) & (b).) These requirements have been met here. Accordingly, Respondents respectfully request that the Court grant this request for judicial notice. Dated: April 6, 2018 Respectfully Submitted, 10 XAVIER BECERRA 11 Attorney General of California TAMAR PACHTER p42 fe 12 Supervising Deputy Attorney General 13 14 P. PATTY Li 15 Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Respondents Xavier Becerra, 16 Stephen Lindley, and the California Department of Justice 17 18 19 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 4 Request for Judicial Notice ISO Opposition to Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate (17CECG03093) EXHIBIT 1 SB 880 Page 1 SENATE THIRD READING SB 880 (Hall and Glazer) As Amended May 17, 2016 Majority vote SENATE VOTE: 24-14 Committee Votes Ayes Noes Public Safety 5-1) Jones- Sawyer, Lopez, Low, Lackey Quirk, Santiago SUMMARY: Redefines what constitutes an assault weapon in order to close the bullet button loophole. Also requires registration of weapons previously not prohibited, under the new definition. Specifically, this bill: 1) Revises the definition of “assault weapon" to mean "a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, ora semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes." 2) Defines “fixed magazine" to mean "an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action." 3) Exempts a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if specified requirements are met. 4) Requires that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the firearm with the Department of Justice (DOJ) before January 1, 2018. 5) Permits the DOJ to increase the $20 registration fee as long as it does not exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department. 6) Requires registrations to be submitted electronically via the Intemet utilizing a public- facing application made available by the DOJ. 7) Requires the registration to contain specified information, including, but not limited to, a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely and specified information about the registrant. 8) Permits the DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person for registration through the internet, not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department to be paid and deposited, as specified, for purposes of the registration program. 9) Requires the DOJ to adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing those provisions and would exempt those regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act. SB 880 Page 2 EXISTING LAW: 1) Contains legislative findings and declarations that the proliferation and use of assault and .50 BMG rifles poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of California. 2) States legislative intent to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. 3) Prohibits several categories of assault weapons: a) Specified firearms listed by name and others listed by series; b) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and also having one of several specified characteristics; c) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols with a fixed magazine having the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds; d) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches; e) Semiautomatic shotguns having two specified characteristics; f) Semiautomatic shotguns having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine; and, 9 Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder. 4) Defines a detachable magazine" as any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted orlnked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine. 5) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault weapon. 6) Makes the possession of an assault weapon a criminal offense, subject to certain exceptions. 7) Defines a".50 BMG rifle" as “a center fire rifle that can fire a.50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon or a machinegun." 8) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift, loan, or possession of .50 BMG rifles. 9) Exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military forces, and other specified agencies from the prohibition against sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles. 10) Requires that any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon to register the firearm with DOJ, as specified. FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. SB 880 Page 3 COMMENTS: According to the author, "bullet button-equipped semi-automatic weapons have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They are designed only to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life. Such weapons have been used in a number of recent gun attacks including the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino that left 14 Californians dead and 21 injured. Too many Califomians have died at the hands of these dangerous weapons. "SB 880 will make our communities safer and upholds our commitment to reduce gun violence in California by closing the bullet button loophole in California's Assault Weapons Ban. This bill clarifies the definition of assault weapons and provides the DOJ the authority to bring existing regulations into conformity with the original intent of California's Assault Weapon Ban. Absent this bill, the assault weapon banis severely weakened, and these types of military- style firearms will continue to proliferate on our streets and in our neighborhoods." Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 FN: 0003528 EXHIBIT 2 SB 880 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 14, 2016 Counsel: Gabriel Caswell ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Reginald Byron Jones-Sawyer, Sr., Chair SB 880 (Hall) - As Amended May 17, 2016 SUM MARY: Redefines what constitutes an assault weapon in order to close the bullet button loophole. Also requires registration of weapons previously not prohibited, under the new definition. Specifically, this bill: 1) Revises the definition of “assault weapon” to mean "a semiautomatic centerfire rifle, ora semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of those specified attributes." 2) Defines “fixed magazine” to mean "an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action." 3) Exempts a person who possessed an assault weapon prior to January 1, 2017, if specified requirements are met. 4) Requires that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined, register the firearm with the Department of Justice (DOJ) before January 1, 2018. 5) Permits the DOJ to increase the $20 registration fee as long as it does not exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department. 6) Requires registrations to be submitted electronically via the Intemet utilizing a public- facing application made available by the DOJ. 7) Requires the registration to contain specified information, including, but not limited to, a description of the firearm that identifies it uniquely and specified information about the registrant. 8) Permits the DOJ to charge a fee of up to $15 per person for registration through the intemet, not to exceed the reasonable processing costs of the department to be paid and deposited, as specified, for purposes of the registration program. 9) Requires the DOJ to adopt regulations for the purpose of implementing those provisions and would exempt those regulations from the Administrative Procedure Act. SB 880 Page 2 EXISTING LAW: 1) Contains legislative findings and declarations that the proliferation and use of assault and .50 BMG rifles poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of California. (Pen. Code, § 30505.) 2) States legislative intent to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and .50 BMG rifles and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. (Pen. Code, § 30505.) 3) Prohibits several categories of assault weapons: a) Specified firearms listed by name and others listed by series (Pen. Code, § 30510); b) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols having the capacity to accepta detachable magazine and also having one of several specified characteristics; c) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles or semiautomatic pistols with a fixed magazine having the capacity to hold more than 10 rounds; d) Semiautomatic centerfire rifles with an overall length of less than 30 inches; e) Semiautomatic shotguns having two specified characteristics; f) Semiautomatic shotguns having the capacity to accept a detachable magazine; and, g) Any shotgun with arevolving cylinder. (Pen. Code, § 30515.) 4) Defines a “detachable magazine" as any ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered a tool. Ammunition feeding device includes any belted orlnmked ammunition, but does not include clips, en bloc clips, or stripper clips that load cartridges into the magazine. (11 Cal. Code Regs. Section 5469.) 5) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift or loan of an assault weapon. (Pen. Code, § 30600, subd. (a).) 6) Makes the possession of an assault weapon a criminal offense, subject to certain exceptions. (Pen. Code, § 30605.) 7) Defines a".50 BMG rifle" as “a center fire rifle that can fire a.50 BMG cartridge and is not already an assault weapon ora machinegun." (Pen. Code, § 30530.) 8) Bans the manufacture, distribution, transportation, importation, sale, gift, loan, or possession of .50 BMG rifles. (Pen. Code §§ 30600 & 30610.) 9) Exempts the DOJ, law enforcement agencies, military forces, and other specified agencies from the prohibition against sales to, purchase by, importation of, or possession of assault SB 880 Page 3 weapons or .50 BMG rifles. (Pen. Code, § 30625.) 10) Requires that any person who lawfully possesses an assault weapon prior to the date it was specified as an assault weapon to register the firearm with DOJ, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 30900 et. seq.) FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown COMMENTS 1) Author's Statement: According to the author, "bullet button-equipped semi-automatic weapons have no legitimate use for sport hunters or competitive shooters. They are designed only to facilitate the maximum destruction of human life. Such weapons have been used in a number of recent gun attacks including the recent terrorist attack in San Bemardino that left 14 Califomians dead and 21 injured. Too many Californians have died at the hands of these dangerous weapons. "SB 880 will make our communities safer and upholds our commitment to reduce gun violence in California by closing the bullet button loophole in California’s Assault Weapons Ban. This bill clarifies the definition of assault weapons and provides the DOJ the authority to bring existing regulations into conformity with the original intent of California’s Assault Weapon Ban. Absent this bill, the assault weapon ban is severely weakened, and these types of military-style firearms will continue to proliferate on our streets and in our neighborhoods." 2) California's Assault Weapons Ban: The origin of and subsequent modifications to the assault weapons ban in Califomia are described by the federal Court of Appeal in the following extended excerpt from Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amend. Jan. 27, 2003) In response to a proliferation of shootings involving semi-automatic weapons, the California Legislature passed the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) in 1989. The immediate cause of the AWCA's enactment was a random shooting earlier that year at the Cleveland Elementary Schoolin Stockton, Califomia. An individual armed with an AK -47 semi-automatic weapon opened fire on the schoolyard, where 300 pupils were enjoying their moming recess. Five children ages six to nine were killed, and one teacher and 29 children were wounded. The Califomia Assembly met soon thereafter in an extraordinary session called for the purpose of enacting a response to the Stockton shooting. The legislation that followed, the AWCA, was the first legislative restriction on assault weapons in the nation, and was the model for a similar federal statute enacted in 1994. The AWCA renders it a felony offense to manufacture in California any of the semi-automatic weapons specified in the statute, orto possess, sell, transfer, or import into the state such weapons without a permit. The statute contains a grandfather clause that permits the ownership of assault weapons by individuals who lawfully purchased them before the statute's enactment, so long as the owners register the weapons with DOJ. The grandfather clause, however, imposes significant restrictions on the use of weapons that are registered pursuant to its provisions. Approximately 40 models of firearms are listed in the statute as subject to its restrictions. The specified weapons SB 880 Page 4 include “civilian” models of military weapons that feature slightly less firepower than the military-issue versions, such as the Uzi, an Israeli-made military rifle; the AR-15, asemi- automatic version of the United States military's standard-issue machine gun, the M-16; and the AK-47, a Russian-designed and Chinese-produced military rifle. The AWCA also includes a mechanism for the Attomey General to seek a judicial declaration in certain Califomia superior courts that weapons identical to the listed firearms are also subject to the statutory restrictions. The AWCA includes a provision that codifies the legislative findings and expresses the legislature's reasons for passing the law: "The Legislature hereby finds and declares that the proliferation and use of assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety, and security of all citizens of this state. The Legislature has restricted the assault weapons specified in [the statute] based upon finding that each firearm has such a high rate of fire and capacity for firepower that its function asa legitimate sports or recreational firearm is substantially outweighed by the danger that it can be used to kill and injure human beings. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this chapter to place restrictions on the use of assault weapons and to establish a registration and permit procedure for their lawful sale and possession. It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities." In 1999, the Legislature amended the AWCA in orderto broaden its coverage and to render it more flexible in response to technological developments in the manufacture of semiautomatic weapons. The amended AWCA retains both the original list of models of restricted weapons, and the judicial declaration procedure by which models may be added to the list. The 1999 amendments to the AWCA statute add a third method of defining the class of restricted weapons: the amendments provide that a weapon constitutes a restricted assault weapon if it possesses certain generic characteristics listed in the statute. Examples of the types of weapons restricted by the revised AWCA include a “semiautomatic, center-fire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds,” and a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and also features a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or aflare launcher. The amended AWCA also restricts assault weapons equipped with “barrel shrouds,” which protect the user's hands from the intense heat created by the rapid firing of the weapon, as well as semiautomatic weapons equipped with silencers. 3) Changes This Bill Makes to the AWCA: As the Court explained, in 1999 the assault weapons ban was amended to expand the definition of an assault weapon to include a definition by the generic characteristics, specifically, to include a “semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine” in addition to one of several specified characteristics, such as a grenade launcher or flash suppressor. [SB 23 (Perata) Statutes of 1999, Chapter 129, Section 7 et seq.] SB 23 was enacted in response to the marketing of so-called “copycat” weapons - firearms that were substantially similar to weapons on the prohibited list but differed in some insignificant way, perhaps only the name of the weapon, thereby defeating the intent of the ban. SB 23’s generic definition of an assault weapon was intended to close the loophole in the law created by its definition of assault weapons as only those specified by make and model. Regulations promulgated after the enactment of SB 23 define adetachable magazine as any SB 880 Page 5 ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with neither disassembly of the firearm action nor use of a tool being required. A bullet or ammunition cartridge is considered atool In response to this definition, a new feature has been developed by firearms manufacturers to make military-style, high-powered, semi-automatic rifles “California compliant,” the bullet button. In 2012, researchers at the nonprofit Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. released a paper describmg the phenomenon of the bullet button and its effect on California’s assault weapons ban: The “Bullet Button”—Assault Weapon Manufacturers’ Gateway to the Califomia Market Catalogs and websites from America’s leading assault rifle manufacturers are full of newly designed “California compliant” assault weapons. Number one and two assault weapon manufacturers Bushmaster and DPMS, jomed by ArmaLite, Colt, Sig Sauer, Smith & Wesson, and others are all introducing new rifles designed to circumvent California’s assault weapons ban and are actively targeting the state in an effort to lift now-sagging sales of this class of weapon. They are accomplishing this with the addition of a minor design change to their military-style weapons made possible by adefinitional loophole: the “bullet button.” [Please see the Appendix beginning on page six for 2012 catalog copy featuring “California compliant” assault rifles utilizing a “bullet button” from leading assault weapon manufacturers. ] Califomia law bans semiautomatic rifles with the capacity to accept a detachable ammunition magazine and any one of six enumerated additional assault weapon characteristics (e.g., folding stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, or other military- style features). High-capacity detachable ammunition magazines allow shooters to expel large amounts of ammunition quickly and have no sporting purpose. However, in California an ammunition magazine is not viewed as detachable if a “too!” is required to remove it from the weapon. The “bullet button” is a release button for the ammunition magazine that can be activated with the tip of a bullet. With the tip of the bullet replacing the use of a finger in activating the release, the button can be pushed and the detachable ammunition magazine removed and replaced in seconds. Compared to the release process for a standard detachable ammunition magazine it is a distinction without a difference. (Bullet Buttons, The Gun Industry’s Attack on California’s Assault Weapons Ban, Violence Policy Center, Washington D.C., May 2012. ) One approachto this issue, taken by SB 249 (Yee) in 2012 and SB 47 (Yee) of 2014, as well as AB 1664 (Levine) of this session, and this bill, amends the statute to replace the language regarding detachable magazines This approach also defines a "detachable magazine" as “an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action, including an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool." In other words, a semiautomatic Tifle could have a detachable magazine, as long as that rifle did not also have any of the six prohibited features or that rifle could have the prohibited features as long as it had a fixed SB 880 Page 6 magazine. Proponents argue the feature that makes one semi-automatic rifle capable of killing or wounding more people in a shorter amount of time than another is the capacity to rapidly reload large amounts of ammunition. For example, proponents note that, in 2011, a man opened fire on teenagers ata summer youth camp in Norway, killing 69 and wounding another 110, using a high-powered, semi-automatic rifle, the .223 caliber Ruger Mini- 14. That rifle had none of the features listed in California’s definition of an assault weapon and it is a perfectly legal weapon in Califomia; supporters of this bill submit that what made that weapon such an effective tool of mass murder is the fact that the killer was able to rapidly reload one magazine after another of ammunition. 4) Constitutionality: The Constitutionality of California’s assault weapons ban has been upheld by both the California Supreme Court [Kasler v. Lockyer, 23 Cal. 4th 472 (2000)] and the federal Court of Appeal. [Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) (as amend. Jan. 27, 2003).] While the Califomia Supreme Court rejected allegations that the law violated equal protection guarantees, the separation of powers, and failed to provide adequate notice of what was prohibited under the law, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal decision in Silveira was based largely on its interpretation of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Ams, shall not be infringed.” (United States Const. Amend. 2.) The Silveira Court based its ruling on the widely held interpretation of the Second Amendment known as the “collective rights” view, that the right secured by the Second Amendment relates to firearm ownership only i the context ofa “well regulated militia.” [Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1086 (9th Cir. Cal. 2002).] The Silveira Court’s interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment has since been squarely rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010). Whether the Heller and McDonald cases mean that California’s assault weapons ban violates the Second Amendment and is, therefore, unconstitutional is a different matter. In Heller, the Supreme Court rejected the “collective rights” view of the Second Amendment and, instead, endorsed the “individual rights” interpretation, that the Second Amendment protects the right of each citizen to firearm ownership. After adopting this reading of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court held that federal law may not prevent citizens from owning a handgun in their home. (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 683-684.) In the McDonald case, the Supreme Court extended this ruling to apply to laws passed by the 50 states. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050.) In deciding that the Second Amendment guaranteed the right to own a handgun in the home for self-defense, the Supreme Court stated that this ruling has its limitations: "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not aright to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the SB 880 Page 7 Second Amendment or state analogues. Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." 5) Governor's Veto Message of 2013's SB 374 (Steinberg): Govemor Brown vetoed somewhat similar legislation (requiring a fixed magazine) in 2013 with the following veto message: "Il am retuming Senate Bill 374 without my signature. "The State of Califomia already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, including bans on military-style assault rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines. "While the author's intent is to strengthen these restrictions, this bill goes much farther by banning any semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. This ban covers low- capacity rifles that are commonly used for hunting, firearms training, and marksmanship practice, as well as some historical and collectible firearms. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of current gun owners would have to register their rifles as assault weapons and would be banned from selling or transferring them in the future. "Today I signed a number of bills that strengthen California's gun laws, including AB 48, which closes a loophole in the existing ban on dangerous high-capacity magazines. | also signed AB 1131 and SB 127, which restrict the ability of mentally unstable people to purchase or possess guns. "I don't believe that this bill's blanket ban on semi-automatic rifles would reduce criminal activity orenhance public safety enough to warrant this infringement on gun owners' rights." 6) Argument in Support: According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "The Califomia Legislature recognized long ago—after a gunman with an assault weapon shot 34 children at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, Califomia—that these military- grade weapons of war have no place in our communities. Since 1989, California has led the nation in enacting common sense gun safety laws to keep assault weapons off our streets. However, the gun industry has repeatedly skirted the limits of this law and exploited its loopholes in order to continue selling military-style weaponry within the state. "Existing Califomia law defines prohibited assault weapons to include firearms that have both the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and specified military-style features. The ability to accept a detachable magazine allows a shooter to quickly reload an assault weapon to continue firing and killing without interruption. "California’s assault weapons ban does not define the term 'detachable magazine,’ however. Perplexingly, current DOJ regulations define ‘detachable magazine’ in a manner that runs counter to both the spirit and the letter of the state’s assault weapons ban. Under these regulations’ definition, a weapon is not considered to have a detachable magazine, and is SB 880 Page 8 therefore not a prohibited assault weapon, if a ‘tool is used to release the firearm’s magazine instead of the shooter’s finger alone. The regulations specifically state that “a bullet or an ammunition feeding device is considered a tool.’ "The gun industry has exploited this dangerous loophole in recent years by marketing ‘Califommia compliant’ assault weapons that are equipped with a ‘bullet button.' These weapons are the functional equivalents of illegal assault weapons in every respect, except that the shooter uses a bullet, magnet, or other instrument, instead of his or her finger, to depress the button that releases the weapon’s magazine. These weapons may be reloaded as quickly and efficiently as prohibited assault weapons, but they have been permitted to flood into this state at an alarming rate, threatening Californians’ safety. "SB 880 would further the letter and spirit of California’s assault weapons law by adding a statutory definition of ‘fixed magazine’ to clarify that bullet button weapons are illegal assault weapons. This definition would establish that firearms like bullet button weapons, whose magazines may be removed and reloaded without disassembling the firearm action, do not have ‘fixed magazines.’ Individuals who lawfully obtained these weapons prior to January 1, 2017, would be required to register their weapons with DOJ. "A December 2015 mass shooting tragedy illustrates the compelling need for this legislation. On that day, two radicalized assailants used bullet button weapons to shoot 36 people in a San Bemardino community building in the span of less than four minutes. The 'Califomia compliant’ bullet button weapons they used were designed to inflict maximal camage on military battlefields and were nearly indistinguishable from illegal assault weapons. Any legitimate fimction these weapons might serve in sport or recreation is substantially outweighed by the danger that they may be used to—and in fact have been used to—quickly and efficiently take large numbers of human lives. By prohibiting all future manufacturing, possession, and sale of these weapons, SB 880 would help protect the public and law enforcement from battlefield weaponry that has no place in our civilian communities. "This legislation is substantively similar to AB 1664 (Levine), which recently passed with strong support in this Committee and on the Assembly floor." 7) Argument in Opposition: According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, "On behalf of the members and supporters of Firearms Policy Coalition, I respectfully submit our opposition to Senate Bill 880 (Hall and Glazer) and respectfully request your 'NO' vote. "SB 880 seeks to expand the ban on so-called ‘assault weapon’ through vague language, by re-defining the term ‘detachable magazine’ to mean ‘an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm without disassembly of the firearm action, including an ammunition feeding device that can be removed readily from the firearm with the use of a tool. "SB 880 would ban millions of semi-automatic rifles protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and violate the civil rights of every law-abiding person in (and visitor to) Califomia, moving the goal posts yet again for the millions of law abiding residents and visitors who have [quite reasonably, given the volume] struggled for years to keep up with the frenetic pace of California’s ever-increasing and expensive firearm regulations. SB 880 Page 9 "The California Department of Justice (DOJ) will have to start from scratch to create new regulations, new forms, new databases and new online interfaces. Even with modest compliance by the public, the already struggling DOJ will have to hire or re- purpose dozens of staff in order to process millions of firearms lawfully owned by hundreds of thousands of Califomia residents. "Law enforcement will find cause to arrest thousands of residents and visitors annually as SB 880 wraps in tens of millions of firearms owned by millions of Californians and visitors. This will burden the courts and the correctional system—with people who are otherwise law- abiding. "To summarize; e "SB 880’s uninformed new definitions put millions of law-abiding residents and visitors in to our jails and prisons and therefore probation and parole. "SB 880 contains no provision for outreach to the millions of Califomians who have lawfully acquired firearms that would be subject to SB 880’s reach. "SB 880 contains no provision for educating law enforcement officers or prosecutors—the very people who will have to interpret and enforce it—which will lead to false arrests and ruined lives. "SB 880 creates overnight felons for mere possession, transfer, transport or inheritance of common, constitutionally protected items, creating a crisis for residents and visitors who have been law abiding all their lives and could lose all they have worked for —by simply exercising a fundamental right." 8) Related Legislation: a) AB 1663 (Chiu) takes a different approach to closing the bullet button loophole. AB 1663 was held in Assembly Appropriations Committee. b) AB 1664 (Levine) is substantially similar to this legislation. AB 1664 is currently awaiting a hearing in Senate Public Safety. 9) Prior Legislation: a) SB 47 (Yee), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have closed the bullet button loophole by redefining an assault weapon in statute as 'a semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine’ and has any one of several specified features. SB 47 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. b) SB 374 (Steinberg), of the 2013-2014 Legislative Session, would have closed the bullet button loophole by redefining an assault weapon as it pertains to rifles and defines “detachable magazines" and “fixed magazines." Specifies that rifles which are not assault weapons have fixed magazines. SB 347 was vetoed by the Govemor. SB 880 Page 10 c) SB 249 (Yee), of the 2011-12 Legislative Session, would have prohibited any person from importing, making, selling, loaning, transferring or possessing any conversion kit designed to convert certain firearms with afixed magazine into firearms with a detachable magazine. SB 249 was held on the Assembly Appropriations Committee suspense file. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support American Academy of Pediatrics American College of Emergency Physicians, Califomia Chapter Bend the Arc Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Orange County Brotherhood Crusade Califomia Attomey General Califomia Academy of Family Physicians Califomia Catholic Conference Califomia Chapters of the Brady Campaign Califomia Communities United Institute Califomia State PTA Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science City of Berkeley City of Long Beach City of Los Angeles City of Oakland Coalition Against Gun Violence Community Clinic Association Courage Campaign Intemational Health and Epidermiology Research Center Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence Laguna Woods Democratic Club Nevada County Democrats Peace Over Violence Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Bay Rainbow Services Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors Violence Prevention Coalition Youth Alive 31 private individual Opposition Califomia Rifle and Pistol Association Califomia Sportsman's Lobby Califomia State Sheriffs’ Association Califomia Waterfowl Association SB 880 Page 11 Crossroads of the West Gun Owners of Califomia Firearms Policy Coalition National Rifle Association National Shooting Sports Foundation Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of Califomia Rick Farinelli, District 3 Supervisor, Madera County Safari Club Intemational San Bemardino Sheriff's Office Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744 “11 CCR 5469. EXHIBIT 3 SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS Senator Ricardo Lara, Chair 2015 - 2016 Regular Session SB 880 (Hall) - Firearms: assault weapons Version: March 28, 2016 Policy Vote: PUB.S.5-2 Urgency: No Mandate: Yes Hearing Date: May 16, 2016 Consultant: J olie Onodera This bill meets the criter