Bill Text: CA SB2 | 2023-2024 | Regular Session | Introduced

California Senate Bill 2

NOTE: There are more recent revisions of this legislation. Read Latest Draft

Bill Title: Firearms.

Spectrum: Partisan Bill (Democrat 29-0)

Status: (Passed) 2023-09-26 - Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 249, Statutes of 2023. [SB2 Detail]

Download: California-2023-SB2-Introduced.html

CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2023–2024 REGULAR SESSION

Senate Bill

No. 2

Introduced by Senator Portantino
(Principal coauthor: Senator Bradford)
(Principal coauthors: Assembly Members Bauer-Kahan, Mia Bonta, Gipson, McCarty, Petrie-Norris, and Wicks)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Wendy Carrillo and Gabriel)

December 05, 2022

An act relating to firearms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST

SB 2, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria including, among other things, the applicant is of good moral character and has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified.

This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to address the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).

Vote: MAJORITY Appropriation: NO Fiscal Committee: NO Local Program: NO

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1.

(a) The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:

(1) The Legislature has compelling interests in protecting both individual rights and public safety. The Legislature’s intent and purpose in clarifying California’s requirements governing the issuance of carry concealed weapons (CCW) licenses, and clarifying Dealers’ Record of Sale cross-references, is to protect its residents’ rights to keep and bear arms while also protecting the public’s health and safety in the state by reducing the number of people killed, injured, and traumatized by gun violence; protecting the exercise of other fundamental rights, including the right to worship, attain an education, vote, and peaceably assemble and demonstrate; ensuring that law enforcement is able to effectively do its job; and combating terrorism.

(2) While the United States Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes some restrictions on states’ ability to regulate firearms, it has recognized that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not a “regulatory straightjacket.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2133. Indeed, the Second Amendment allows States to adopt a “‘variety’ of gun regulations.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2162. And when it comes to restrictions on carrying firearms in public, the United States Supreme Court has recognized three times that states may restrict the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2133; see also McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) 561 U.S. 742, 786; District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, 626. It has also recognized that states may prohibit individuals who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from carrying firearms in public. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138 fn.9.

(3) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing standards enacted in 43 states that include qualification standards that “are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding responsible citizens,’” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138 fn.9. The laws of at least 21 of these states authorize officials to deny concealed carry licenses to otherwise eligible applicants who are found not to be law-abiding or responsible based on a determination that the applicant lacks the character or temperament to carry firearms in public spaces or otherwise presents a danger to self, others, or the community at large. (See Ala. Code § 13A-11-75(a)(1)(a); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-308(b)(1); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-203(2); Conn. Gen. Stat. §29-28(b); Del. Code, Tit. 11, § 1441; Ga. Code § 16-11-129(d)(4); 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 66/15; Ind. Code § 35-47-2-3(g); Iowa Code §724.8(3); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, § 2003; Minn. Stat. § 624.714; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.101.2(7); Mont. Code § 45-8-321(2); N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-04-03(1)(e); Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.293(2); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109(e)(1)(i); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-11; S.D. Codified Laws § 23-7-7.1; Utah Code § 53-5-704(3)(a); Va. Code § 18.2-308.09(13); Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-104(g)). The United States Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed the validity of these states’ standards, including specifically and approvingly citing the standards adopted in Connecticut, which, the Court noted, validly preclude an otherwise eligible applicant from qualifying for a concealed carry license if the licensing official determines the applicant’s “conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2123 fn.1.

(4) Over the past several years, a wealth of empirical studies have shown that crime is higher when more people carry firearms in public places. While California and other states have decided to limit the places and conditions under which residents may carry firearms, over the past several decades other states have decided to allow most people to carry firearms in most public places. Those later states have seen markedly higher crime rates. According to one study, in the 33 states that adopted these “right-to-carry” laws, violent crime was substantially higher—13 to 15 percent higher—10 years after the laws were adopted than it would have been, had those states not adopted those laws. See Donohue, et al., “Right-to-Carry” Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis (2019) 16 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 198. That same study acknowledged that crime had dropped in both “Right-to-Carry” states and other states over the past several decades, but concluded that the violent crime reduction in states that did not adopt “Right-to-Carry” laws was an order of magnitude higher than those that did—a 42.3 percent drop in violent crime for those states that did not adopt “Right-to-Carry” laws compared to just a 4.3 percent drop for those that did.

(5) Broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas increases the number of people wounded and killed by gun violence. Among other things, pervasive carrying increases the lethality of otherwise mundane situations, as we have seen shots fired in connection with road rage, talking on a phone in a theater, playing loud music at a gas station, a dispute over snow shoveling, and a dispute over the use of a disabled parking spot. Importantly, in many of these incidents, the shooters held permits that allowed them to carry firearms in public, meaning that they met the criteria necessary to secure a permit, which often include a requirement that the person not previously have been convicted of a serious crime.

(6) Another study concluded that states that changed from prohibiting concealed carry of guns to a regime where the state must issue a CCW permit to any qualified applicant who requests one—a transition to a “shall issue” jurisdiction—experienced a 12.3 percent increase in gun-related murder rates, and 4.9 increase in overall murder rates. Gius, Using the Synthetic Control Method to Determine the Effects of Concealed Carry Laws on State-Level Murder Rates (2019) 57 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. 1. Two other studies concluded that states with “shall-issue” laws had higher overall homicide rates, higher firearm homicide rates, and higher handgun homicide rates as compared to the “may-issue” regimes in place in California and other states. Siegel, et al., Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States (2017) 107 Am. J. Pub. Health 1923; Siegel, et al., The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991 – 2016: A Panel Study (2019) 34 J. Gen. Internal Med. 2021. Several other studies reached similar results. Anita Knopov et al., The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates among Black and White Populations in the United States, 1991–2016 (2019) 44 Health & Soc. Work 232; John J. Donohue, Laws Facilitating Gun Carrying and Homicide (2017) 107 Am. J. Pub. Health 1864; Emma E. Fridel, Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearms Homicide (2021) 38 Just. Q. 892; Cassandra K. Crifasi, Correction to: Association between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties (2018) 95 J. Urban Health 773; Paul R, Zimmerman, The Deterrence of Crime Through Private Security Efforts: Theory and Evidence (2014) 37 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. 66.

(7) States with permissive “right-to-carry” laws also witness higher rates of firearm workplace homicides than those that did not have those laws. One study concluded that states with “right-to-carry” laws experienced 29 percent greater rates of firearm workplace homicides between 1992 and 2017 than those that did not. Mitchell L. Doucette et al., “Right-to-Carry” Laws and Firearm Workplace Homicides: A Longitudinal Analysis (1992–2017) (2019) 109 Am. J. Pub. Health 1747, 1751. Another peer-reviewed study found that restricting the ability to carry concealed weapons was associated with a 5.79 percent reduction in workplace homicide rates. Erika L. Sabbath et al., State-Level Changes in Firearm Laws and Workplace Homicide Rates: United States, 2011 to 2017 (2020) 110 Am. J. Pub. Health 230.

(8) While several studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s purported to conclude that increases in “right-to-carry” laws either decreased or had no effect on crime, many other early studies concluded that it increased crime. In 2005, the National Research Council issued a report evaluating the then-current literature about the impact of “right-to-carry” laws on crime, and concluded that it was “‘impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact’ of “right-to-carry” laws on violent crime and property crime in general and rape, aggravated assault, auto theft, burglary, and larceny in particular,” and that the “existing data and methods” were likely insufficient to resolve the question, and that “new analytical approaches and data” were needed “if further headway is to be made.” Nat’l Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2005) 272, 275.

(9) Since that time a number of social scientists have taken up the National Research Council’s call. Those studies overwhelmingly support the conclusion that more carrying of firearms in public leads to an increase in crime: of the 35 social science studies looking at this issue since the National Research Council issued its report in 2005, 23 found an increase in crime, 7 found no effect, and 5 found a decrease in crime. A 2014 study from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center concluded that a sizable majority of firearms researchers disagree with the statement that the change in state level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.

(10) Widespread carrying of firearms also impedes the exercise of other fundamental rights. When firearms are present in public spaces, it makes those places less safe, which discourages people from attending protests, going to school, peacefully worshiping, voting in person, and enjoying other activities.

(A) (i) While the net effect of policies that allow most people to carry firearms in most places have negatively impacted public safety broadly, their effects are likely to be far more deleterious when extended to college campuses. Risks of violence, suicide attempts, alcohol abuse, and other risky behavior are greatly elevated among college-aged, youth and in the campus environment, and the presence of firearms greatly increases the risk of lethal and near-lethal outcomes from these behaviors and in this context. Daniel W. Webster et al., Firearms on College Campuses: Research Evidence and Policy Implications, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Pub. Health (Oct. 15, 2016). Moreover, once Georgia passed a law allowing firearms to be carried on college campuses, campus members reported a statistically significant increase in perceptions of the campus as unsafe, fear of crime on campus, and lack of confidence in campus police; and a “statistically significantly increase in the proportion of campus members who reported experiencing fearful conflicts on campus.” Jennifer McMahon-Howard et al., Examining the Effects of Passing a Campus Carry Law: Comparing Campus Safety Before and After Georgia’s New Campus Carry Law, 20 J. of Sch. Violence (2021) 430.

(ii) Widespread carrying can also affect the ability to learn in primary and secondary schools. One study concluded that students exposed to school shootings have an increased absence rate, are more likely to be chronically absent and repeat a grade in the two years following the event, and suffer negative long-term impacts on high school graduation rates, college enrollment and graduation, and future employment and earnings. Marika Cabral et al., Trauma at School: The Impacts of Shootings on Students’ Human Capital and Economic Outcomes, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (Dec. 2020). Another study looked at longer term consequences of school shootings, finding that exposure to shootings at schools resulted in lower test scores, increased absenteeism, and increased subsequent mortality for those students, and particularly boys, who are exposed to the highest-victimization school shootings. Phillip Levine and Robin McKnight, Exposure to a School Shooting and Subsequent Well-Being, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (Dec. 2020).

(B) Widespread public carry also intimidates those who hope to peacefully worship. Places of worship already experience serious incidents or threats of violence. According to one study, the percentage of mass shootings motivated by religious hate escalated from 1 percent between 1966 and 2000 to 9 percent during 2000–2014 to 18 percent during 2018-February 2020. Richard R. Johnson, Serious Violence at Places of Worship in the U.S.—Looking at the Numbers, Dolan Consulting Grp. (Sept. 2019). A review of the Federal Investigation Bureau’s National Incident-Based Reporting System data—which covers only 20 percent of the country’s population—from 2000 through 2016 found that 1,652 incidents of “serious violence” occurred at places of worship, including aggravated assaults, shootings, stabbings, and bombings, with 57 percent involving the use of a firearm. Extrapolating those figures to the entire country would suggest that there are about 480 incidents of serious violence at places of worship in the United States each year. Allowing more people to carry in places of worship threatens to make these incidents more likely.

(C) Carrying firearms impedes the exercise of other rights of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the right to protest and vote. In a nationally representative survey, 60 percent responded that they would be “very unlikely” to attend a protest if guns were present, whereas only 7 percent said they would be “very likely” to attend such a protest. Alexandra Filindra, Americans Do Not Want Guns at Protests, this Research Shows, Wash. Post (Nov. 21, 2021). Another study concluded that 16 percent of demonstrations where firearms were present turned violent, as compared to less than 3 percent of demonstrations where firearms were not present. Everytown for Gun Safety & Armed Conflict Locations & Event Data Project, Armed Assembly: Guns, Demonstrations, and Political Violence in America (2021).

(11) An individual does not need to carry several firearms at any one time in order to effectively defend themselves. Studies have shown that, on average, individuals fire approximately two rounds when using a firearm in self-defense inside or outside of the home, including approximately 27 percent of incidents in which no shots are fired and the mere brandishing of the firearm is sufficient for self-defense. Limiting an individual to carrying no more than two firearms in public at any given time will not impair the ability of law-abiding, responsible individuals to engage in effective self-defense with a firearm.

(12) Laws requiring an assessment of dangerousness in connection with obtaining firearms have saved lives. One study concluded that since California’s gun violence restraining order process—which allows family members and law enforcement to petition a court for an order temporarily prohibiting a person from purchasing or possessing firearms, if a court finds that the person is a danger to themselves or others—took effect in January 2016, there have been 21 instances in which the statute was used to prevent a mass shooting. Wintemute, et al., Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings, 171 Annals of Internal Med. (2019) 655, 655-658. According to another study, 56 percent of mass shooters exhibited warning signs that they posed a risk to themselves or others before they carried out the shooting. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in America,” (Nov. 2020). One hundred percent of perpetrators of school violence showed concerning behaviors before committing their acts, according to a study by the United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Education. U.S. Secret Serv., Nat’l Threat Assessment Ctr., Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence 43 (2019).

(13) Broad public carry laws also impede the ability of law enforcement to ensure the public’s safety. For example, laws allowing open carry of firearms imperil law enforcement officers on the front lines by making it much more difficult for an officer to discern if a person is a threat, and when there is an active shooter situation, makes it harder to determine the source of the threat.

(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation to address the United States Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022).