AB 28 | Gabriel
Creates expansive, new excise tax on both firearms/ammunition sold in California.
- Taxing an enumerated right is not only unconstitutional but is strongly prejudicial. It penalizes the law abiding, who are engaging in a perfectly legal financial transaction of a perfectly legal product. If this proposal sought to levy a special tax on someone who had committed a crime while using a firearm, that at least pertains to the problem the bill aims to solve.
- With regard to the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax that is levied on manufacturers, this has not been challenged in the courts, but passage of AB 28 will initiate immediate scrutiny on that federal tax. At very least, Pittman-Robertson has been accepted because there is an actual nexus between firearm purchases and the use of the tax for funding wildlife conservation nationwide. The same cannot be said of AB 28.
- If the Legislature chooses to raise and expend resources to address violence of any kind – gun-related or otherwise, it should be a cost borne by the whole of California’s tax-payers – rather than singling out those who choose to purchase a firearm. The overwhelming majority of firearms used in crimes are either stolen or secured on the black market by thieves. According to the 2019 U.S. Department of Justice Report on the “Source and Use of Firearms involved in Crimes”, only 1.3% obtained the gun from a retail source.
AB 1406 | McCarty
Permits DOJ to delay delivery of a firearm for 30 additional days if additional research is required to determine a person’s eligibility.
- DOJ currently has a record of prolonged delays on approving eligibility. This legislation would give them yet another opportunity to deny responsible citizens from securing a firearm and to deflect criticism of not being able to do their job in a timely manner. Oftentimes, both gun and ammunition purchasers are notified of a “hold” and upon the immediate submission of a second background check – for which they must pay again – they pass.
- AB 1406 will not fix the problem of firearm misuse but rather provides unnecessary cover for a Department that seems intent on providing obstacles to lawful, responsible citizens who simply wish to protect their families and homes.
AB 1483 | Valencia
Expands the 30-prohibition on the purchase of firearms from a licensed dealer to include private party sales and “precursor parts.”
- This bill presents serious obstacles on many levels – most specifically for the many individuals attempting to liquidate a collection of firearms, resulting from an estate settlement or bequeathment in a will. Plus, there are significant numbers of firearm collectors who should not be prohibited from selling such investments in order to raise needed capital.
- AB 1483 would have no bearing on the problem of firearm misuse; purchasing multiple firearms within a specified period of time is not an indicator of someone who is prone to violent behavior.
SB 2 | Portantino
Massively restricts the ability of CCW holders to carry in most areas of the state by establishing “sensitive places” criteria. In designating the majority of the state as a “sensitive place,” this bill is a clear attempt to circumvent the ruling from the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen.
- Bruen was very clear and specifically warned against expanding the definition of sensitive places to include vast areas used by the public at-large.
- Multiple federal courts including most recently the District Court of Hawaii (an Obama appointed judge) has ruled that the sensitive places included in SB 2 are unconstitutional.
- Judge Kobayashi stated that lawful CCW holders are not killing, injuring, or traumatizing individuals with acts of gun violence or terrorism. The proof is that CCW holders in California are among the most law-abiding citizens in the state.
- Renewing CCW holders to submit a new set of fingerprints is unnecessary; DOJ currently maintains a set on file and preventing spouses from having each other’s firearms on each other’s permits is punitive. The cost of a new set of fingerprints will be approximately $100, thereby making it more expensive, negatively impacting lower-income applicants to whom $100 is a significant barrier and anunrealistic financial burden.
SB 368 | Portantino
Mandates that temporary transfers of a firearm for storage to prevent a potential suicide can only be to a licensed dealer – thereby prohibiting the temporary transfer to a private party.
- This requirement would expose dealers to significant and unimaginable liability issues; if a dealer does not have the adequate physical capacity to accept the transferred firearms, they would be in violation of state law and could lose their license. There are many options for safe storage and dealers should not be considered as the only trusted source for such transfers.
- The obvious best choice is for the firearms to be transferred to a law enforcement agency.
SB 452 | Blakespear
Prohibits a licensed firearms dealer from selling, offering for sale (or exchanging, giving, transferring, or delivering) a semiautomatic pistol unless it has been microstamped.
- Microstamping is fatally flawed because the technology has proven to be unreliable. It is easily defeated by simply exchanging the firing pin or defacing the tip of the firing pin with a simple household item, such as an emery board. Plus, no manufacturers have chosen to utilize such technology given a number of legal challenges, not to mention both physical and logistical obstacles.
- The original purpose of establishing the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale was to ensure that the firearms were safe. Since all guns initially suspected of being “unsafe” (so-called Saturday Night Specials) passed stringent testing requirements, the purpose of the Roster was modified. The issue of safety was tossed and replaced by requirements (such as microstamping) that had nothing to do with the safe operation of the firearm.
- The author would be wise in delaying movement of this bill until the issue of microstamping is resolved in the courts as multiple lawsuits are ongoing that challenge this requirement.
GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA
1190 Suncast Lane, Suite 2, El Dorado Hills, California 95762 – (916) 984-1400 (916) 984-1402 fax
A Political Committee Dedicated to Crime Control – Not Gun Control