2013 California Firearms Legislation: Year End Recap

Updated October 17, 2013

Every year, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence tracks and analyzes all of the firearms legislation

pending in the California Legislature. This year, California enacted a historic number of significant and

innovative measures to strengthen the state’s gun laws.

This analysis includes all the bills introduced this year that would have a significant impact on California’s

gun laws, starting with the 17 bills that passed the legislature and reached the governor’s desk. Of those

17, 10 were signed in to law and 7 were vetoed.

For more information about the legislative process in California, see this overview of the legislative

process or the publication California’s Legislature.

Bills Passed By The Legislature

A. Signed Into Law

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

and Firearm Transfer Notifications

Under existing law, convicted felons, domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill are among the

people prohibited from possessing firearms. AB 500 prohibits any individual who is residing with a

prohibited person from keeping a firearm at that residence unless the firearm is either: 1) kept within a

locked container, locked gun safe, locked trunk, locked with a locking device, or disabled by a firearm

safety device; or 2) carried on the person.

Existing law also imposes a ten-day waiting period between the sale of a firearm and its acquisition by

the purchaser. In some circumstances, however, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) may be

unable to complete a purchaser’s background check within ten days. AB 500 requires DOJ to

immediately notify a dealer to delay the transfer of a firearm if DOJ is unable to determine the outcome

of a mental health evaluation, interpret arrest or criminal charge records, or determine whether the

purchaser is attempting to purchase more than one handgun within a 30-day period in violation of

California law prior to the end of the waiting period. If DOJ is unable to complete its determination

related to these records within 30 days, DOJ is obligated under the bill to notify the firearms dealer to

proceed with the transfer of the weapon.

Finally, the bill provides that, starting January 1, 2015, a firearms dealer must notify DOJ that the

purchaser of a firearm actually took possession of the firearm.

2

AB 48 (Skinner): Prohibiting Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Conversion Kits

AB 48 prohibits the use of “conversion kits” to manufacture large capacity ammunition magazines. It

also prohibits the purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines and tightens the definition of

“manufacture” in the current law to clarify that manufacturing includes assembling the parts of a

magazine.

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

California is the only state to maintain an automated database for tracking persons prohibited from

owning firearms, which is known as the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS). With more than

20,000 prohibited persons on the list and an additional 15 to 20 individuals added each day, neither the

Department of Justice nor local law enforcement has sufficient resources to address the existing

backlog.

SB 140 appropriates $24,000,000 from the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account to the Department of

Justice (DOJ) to address this backlog. The bill requires DOJ to, beginning on March 1, 2015, annually

report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee the results of APPS enforcement efforts and the

progress in reducing or eliminating the backlog.

SB 683 (Block): Firearm Safety Certificate

Under previous California law, a person may not purchase or receive a handgun unless he or she has a

“handgun safety certificate” issued by the California Department of Justice. A certificate is obtained by

taking and passing a written test on firearm safety, and is valid for five years. SB 683, beginning on

January 1, 2015, expands the safety certificate requirement to apply to purchases of all firearms, rather

than just handguns. This requirement does not apply to long guns owned by persons with valid hunting

licenses.

AB 1131 (Skinner): Mental Health Related Prohibitions

Previous state law prohibited a person who communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat

of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims from possessing a firearm for six

months following the psychotherapist’s reporting of this threat to local law enforcement. This bill

changes this prohibition from six months to five years. This bill also revises the procedures associated

with the return of firearms to their lawful owner by law enforcement following the end of a mental

health-related firearm prohibition.

AB 1131 also amends existing laws that require the reporting of mental health information to DOJ to

clarify that where existing requirements that require reporting be done “immediately,” “immediately”

shall mean a period of time not to exceed 2 court days in the case of a court and 24 hours in the case of

certain healthcare facilities. The bill also requires the reports to be submitted to DOJ electronically.

3

SB 127 (Gaines): Reporting of Mental Health Records

Previous law prohibited a person from possessing a firearm for a period of six months after

communicating a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably identifiable victim or victims to

a licensed psychotherapist. The psychotherapist must immediately report the threat to local law

enforcement, who must immediately notify the Department of Justice (DOJ).

SB 127 instead requires the licensed psychotherapist to make the report to local law enforcement within

24 hours in a manner prescribed by DOJ. The bill also requires the local law enforcement agency

receiving the report to notify DOJ electronically, within 24 hours.

AB 231 (Ting & Gomez): Strengthening Child Access Prevention Law and Keeping Firearms from

Prohibited People

In certain circumstances, California law imposes criminal liability on firearm owners who, through their

negligence, enable children to access their weapons. State law makes a person liable where he or she

knows or reasonably should know a child is likely to gain access to a loaded firearm and the gun owner

fails to securely store the gun. Under prior law, this provision only applied if the child actually carried

the firearm to a public place, brandished it, or injured someone with it. California law also established

criminal liability where a handgun owner knows or reasonably should know a child is likely to gain access

to the weapon and the owner fails to securely store it, but only if the child carries the handgun off the

premises.

AB 231 expands California’s child access prevention law to apply whenever a person negligently stores

or leaves a loaded firearm on his or her premises in a location where the person knows, or reasonably

should know, that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm, regardless of whether a child actually

acquires control of the firearm.

4

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

Under previous law, a person who knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access

to his or her firearm is subject to criminal penalties if the child injures or kills someone with the firearm

or carries the weapon into a public place. SB 363 expands these provisions to also apply if the person

who gains access to the firearm is prohibited from possessing guns under federal or state law.

Under existing law, state law enforcement officers are exempt from the requirement that all handguns

bought or sold in the state of California be certified as not unsafe by California’s Department of Justice.

SB 363 also exempts federal law enforcement officers from that requirement.

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

Previous law required a person wishing to acquire an assault weapon or 50 caliber rifle to obtain a

permit from the Department of Justice; a permit may be issued by the department following the

applicant’s showing that good cause exists for the issuance of the permit. The prior law defined

"person" as an individual, partnership, corporation, association, or any other group or entity. In order to

ensure that any individual possessing an assault weapon or 50 caliber rifle has passed a background

check, this bill redefines "person" strictly as an individual.

AB 539 (Pan): Prohibited Persons Firearm Storage With Dealers

This bill allows anyone who is prohibited from possessing a firearm, including convicted criminals,

domestic abusers and the severely mentally ill, to transfer any firearm in their possession to a licensed

firearms dealer for storage during the duration of the prohibition, as long as the prohibition expires on a

specified date. Under prior law, a prohibited person is only allowed to store their weapon with a law

enforcement agency for storage; otherwise, the individual must sell any firearms to a dealer or to

another private party through a dealer.

Under AB 539, a firearms dealer must notify the Department of Justice when the dealer receives a

weapon to store for a prohibited person and when the gun owner retrieves the weapon. The

Department of Justice must maintain records of this information.

B. Vetoed By The Governor

SB 374 (Steinberg): Assault Weapons and Record Retention

SB 374 would have simplified and strengthened California’s assault weapons ban by prohibiting the

manufacture, sale or possession of any semiautomatic centerfire rifle capable of accepting a detachable

ammunition magazine. The bill would have required those who currently legally possess such a firearm

to register the firearm by July 1, 2015.

5

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

State law currently preempts local governments from requiring the registration of guns or licensing of

gun owners. AB 180 would have created an exemption enabling the City of Oakland to adopt ordinances

dealing with gun registration and gun owner licensing applicable to its residents.

SB 755 (Wolk): Expanding Categories of Prohibited Persons

SB 755 would have prohibited several categories of persons from possessing firearms. The bill would

have prohibited a person from possessing a firearm if the person has been convicted of two or more

specified crimes involving intoxication or possession of a controlled substance within a three-year

period.

Additionally, SB 755 would have prohibited a person from possessing any firearm while receiving court-

ordered assisted outpatient treatment for a person suffering from mental illness. Where a California

county has authorized the use of court-ordered outpatient treatment, a court may order a person to

receive assisted outpatient treatment if certain criteria are met, including when the person is suffering

from a mental illness and is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision. Under SB

755, a court would have been required to notify the California Department of Justice within two days of

ordering a person to receive treatment and also when the person is no longer subject to treatment.

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

SB 299 would have required any person whose firearm is lost or stolen to make a report to local law

enforcement within 7 days from the time the person knew or should have known that the firearm was

lost or stolen. A similar bill, SB 1366, which would have required reporting within 48 hours, passed the

legislature in 2012, but was vetoed by the governor. SB 299 would also have made the false reporting of

a lost or stolen firearm an infraction.

AB 169 (Dickenson): Strengthening Unsafe Handgun Law

Under existing law, the Department of Justice performs safety tests on handguns and keeps a roster of

guns determined to be safe for sale. State law prohibits the manufacture or retail sale of an unsafe

handgun, but transfers of unsafe handguns between private parties are exempt from this prohibition.

Additionally, law enforcement officers may purchase unsafe handguns at retail and then resell them to

members of the public.

AB 169 would have: 1) limited the sale of unsafe handguns between private parties to two per year; 2)

prohibited law enforcement from transferring unsafe handguns to individuals who are not similarly

exempted from the unsafe handgun prohibition (i.e., prohibiting transfer to members of the general

public); and 3) clarified that the unsafe handgun laws would apply to semiautomatic pistols that have

been temporarily or permanently altered so that they will not fire in a semiautomatic mode.

6

SB 567 (Jackson): Revising Shotgun Definition

Currently, a shotgun is defined for purposes of California’s assault weapons ban as a weapon designed

to be fired from the shoulder to use the energy of the explosive in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a

smooth bore either a number of projectiles (ball shot) or a single projectile for each pull of the trigger.

SB 567 would have changed the definition to delete the requirement that it be intended to be fired from

the shoulder, and would clarify that a shotgun projectile may be fired through either a rifled bore or a

smooth bore.

The bill addresses the emergence on the consumer market of rifled bore shotguns with revolving

ammunition cylinders. California’s assault weapons law prohibits the possession of a shotgun with a

revolving ammunition cylinder, but because these newer firearms have rifled bores, they do not fall

within the definition of “shotgun.” By updating this definition, SB 567 would have brought these

firearms within the scope of the assault weapons ban.

The bill would have established a registration process for shotguns with revolving cylinders that were

lawfully purchased between 2001 and 2013. Any such lawfully owned shotgun with a revolving cylinder

would have had to be registered with the Department of Justice by July 1, 2015 using an online

registration system.

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

This bill would have required anyone wishing to hold an event at the Cow Palace where firearms or

ammunition are to be sold to acquire the prior approval of the boards of supervisors of both the County

of San Mateo and the City and County of San Francisco.

B. Passed (Governor’s Signature Not Required)

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

This resolution urges President Obama and Congress to develop a comprehensive federal approach to

reducing gun violence. The resolution specifically calls for placing assault weapons and high-capacity

magazines under the scope of the National Firearms Act and for requiring universal background checks

through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) for the transfer of all firearms.

The resolution also urges the president to take steps to ensure that all applicable state and federal

agencies are reporting all necessary records to NICS.

7

Bills That Did Not Pass The Legislature

1. Bills to Strengthen California’s Gun Laws

SB 53 (De Leon): Ammunition Purchase Permitting

SB 53 would have required that, starting July 1, 2016, every ammunition purchaser hold an ammunition

purchase authorization – with a unique identification number identical to the purchaser’s driver’s

license or state ID card number – issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ), which would have

conducted a background check prior to issuing the authorization. DOJ would have been obligated to

maintain a centralized list of authorized ammunition purchasers for use by ammunition sellers and law

enforcement. In completing an ammunition sale, a vendor would be required to confirm that every

purchaser has a valid ammunition authorization, record identifying information about the purchaser,

and submit that information to DOJ.

Beginning July 1, 2015, ammunition sellers would have been required to be licensed by DOJ. Under the

bill, ammunition sellers would have been prohibited from selling ammunition at any place except the

location specified on the seller’s license or at a gun show. SB 53 would also have required that

ammunition offered for sale must be stored so that it is not accessible without the assistance of the

ammunition vendor; the bill would also have required an ammunition vendor to forbid an employee

from handling ammunition if the vendor knows or reasonably should know that the employee is

prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition under state law.

The bill would also have required that all ammunition sales be conducted face-to-face. If ammunition is

purchased over the Internet or otherwise ordered from a remote seller, the bill would have required a

California ammunition seller must initially receive the ammunition and complete the transfer in

compliance with state law. Finally, the bill would have required the Attorney General to prepare a report

by July 1, 2016 on the feasibility and cost of an instant ammunition background check system.

Status: Two-year bill1 (was sent back to committee from Assembly floor for further revisions).

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

Current California law prohibits the sale of large capacity ammunition magazines (magazines capable of

holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition) but possession of these magazines is not illegal. SB 396

would have prohibited the possession of a large capacity magazine in California, regardless of when the

magazine was acquired. The bill would have provided that any person who legally possessed a large

capacity magazine may lawfully dispose of the magazine by selling it to a firearms dealer, removing it

from the state, destroying it, or surrendering it to law enforcement by July 1, 2014.

Status: Two-year bill (died on Assembly floor).

1 Two-year bills are bills that did not pass the legislature during this session, but may be considered again during

the next session.

8

SB 293 (DeSaulnier): Owner-Authorized Handguns

SB 293 would have established performance standards for owner-authorized handguns, firearms

equipped with biometric readers or other technologies that prevent unauthorized users from firing

them. The bill would have provided that any firearm that meets these minimum requirements could be

added to the Department of Justice’s roster of handguns certified for sale. Once two owner-authorized

handguns have been added to the roster, the bill would have provided that, two years later, no handgun

could be added to the roster without possessing owner-authorized technology.

Status: Two-year bill (died in Assembly Appropriations Committee).

SB 108 (Yee): Residential Storage of Firearms

SB 108 would have required that an adult firearm owner must, while outside of his or her residence,

keep any firearm in his or her residence stored in one of several specified ways, including in a gun safe,

or by using a locking device.

Status: Two-year bill (died in Assembly Public Safety Committee).

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

California law defines prohibited assault weapons to include firearms that have both the capacity to

accept a detachable magazine and one of a list of specific military-style features. California’s assault

weapons ban does not define the term “detachable magazine.” Perplexingly, current regulations define

“detachable magazine” in a manner that runs counter to both the spirit and the letter of the state’s

assault weapons law. Under the regulations, if any “tool,” including a bullet, is required to release a

firearm’s magazine, then the weapon does not have the capacity to accept a detachable magazine, and

is therefore not within the scope of the ban.

SB 47 would have closed the “bullet button” loophole by clarifying that any semiautomatic rifle with one

of the listed military-style features is an assault weapon unless it has a fixed magazine. The bill defined

“fixed magazine” as a magazine “contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner

that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.” SB 47 would have

required any person who lawfully possessed a “bullet button”-equipped weapon to electronically

register the firearm before July 1, 2015 with the Department of Justice.

Status: Two-year bill (died in Assembly Appropriations Committee).

9

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

AB 187 would have established a ten percent tax on the gross receipts of any retailer for the sale of

ammunition in California. Sixty-six percent of the proceeds from this tax would have been deposited in

the Public Safety Emergency Prevention Fund, from which the California Legislature would have been

authorized to appropriate money to support public safety programs in high crime municipalities. Thirty-

three percent of the proceeds would have been allocated to the School-Based Early Mental Health

Intervention and Prevention Services Matching Grant Program.

Status: Two-year bill.

AB 232 (Ting): Tax Credit for Gun Buybacks

AB 232 would have created a personal income tax credit for the surrender of firearms to local law

enforcement in gun buyback programs, in the amount of two hundred fifty dollars per handgun,

shotgun, or rifle, or five hundred dollars per assault weapon. For any individual, the credit may not to

exceed $1,000 per taxable year. The tax credit would have expired on December 1, 2017.

Status: Two-year bill.

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

California law prohibits the sale of firearms without a dealer’s license, unless the seller only engages in

the “infrequent” transfer of firearms. Current law defines “infrequent” as less than six transactions

within a year for handguns, and transfers of rifles and shotguns that are “occasional and without

regularity.” This bill would have provided that, for all firearm sales, infrequent means less than six

transactions a year.

AB 740 would also have added several criminal prohibitions aimed to combat gun trafficking. Among

other provisions, the bill would have prohibited any person from bringing a firearm into the state with

the intent to illegally sell the weapon. Finally, the bill would have required that any court obligated to

transmit mental health information to the Department of Justice must do so electronically.

Status: Two-year bill.

AB 760 (Dickinson): Ammunition Tax

AB 760 would have imposed a tax upon retailers engaged in business in California for the sale of

ammunition in California, at the rate of $0.05 per item of ammunition sold on or after January 1, 2014.

The bill would have also imposed an excise tax, at the rate of $0.05 per item of ammunition purchased

from a retailer for storage or other use in the state. Revenues collected from these taxes would have

been allocated to the School-Based Early Mental Health Intervention and Prevention Services Matching

Grant Program.

Status: Two-year bill.

10

AB 761 (Dickinson): CalPERS and CalSTRS Divestment

AB 761 would have prohibited the Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California

State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS) from investing public employee retirement funds in a

company with business operations that involve the manufacture of firearms or ammunition. The bill

would have required the Board of Administration of CalPERS and CalSTRS to sell or transfer any

investments in a company with these business operations.

Status: Two-year bill.

AB 1020 (Bonta): Notice to Firearms Purchasers

AB 1020 would have required the Attorney General to send a notice to each individual who has applied

to purchase a firearm within ten days of the submission of the application to purchase a weapon. The

notice would have informed the purchaser of California laws relating to firearm sales and loans, gun

trafficking, and safe storage, and would link to a web page summarizing California firearms laws that

would have been maintained by the Department of Justice.

Status: Two-year bill.

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

Under California law, a person is prohibited from possessing firearms if he or she has been taken into

custody as a danger to himself, herself or others and admitted into a county mental health facility.

Under existing law, this prohibition lasts for five years. State law also prohibits a person who

communicates to a licensed psychotherapist a serious threat of physical violence against a reasonably

identifiable victim or victims from possessing a firearm for six months following the psychotherapist’s

reporting of this threat to local law enforcement.

AB 1296 would have changed the durations of these prohibitions. Under the bill, an individual admitted

to a mental health facility as a danger to himself, herself, or others would have become prohibited from

possessing firearms for ten years. A person who communicated a serious threat of physical violence to a

psychotherapist would have become prohibited for five years. Finally, the bill would have amended

existing laws that require the reporting of mental health information to the Department of Justice (DOJ).

While current law establishes that reporting to DOJ by mental health facilities, courts, and local law

enforcement must be done “immediately,” AB 1296 would have clarified that “immediately” means a

period of time not to exceed 24 hours. The bill would also have required the reports to be submitted to

DOJ electronically.

Status: Two-year bill.

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

11

AJR 5 urges President Obama and Congress to support and pass Senator Dianne Feinstein's proposed

federal legislation prohibiting the sale, transfer, import, and manufacture of assault weapons and large

capacity magazines.

Status: Two-year bill.

2. Bills to Weaken California’s Gun Laws

AB 202 (Donnelly): School Marshall Plan

AB 202 would have authorized school districts to use general purpose funds to provide training for

“school marshals,” school employees who would be authorized to possess firearms at school sites or at

designated school activities.

Status: Two-year bill.

AB 249 (Donnelly): Repealing Unloaded Open Carry Ban

Current law prohibits the open carry of an unloaded handgun in any public place or on any public street

in an incorporated city or city and county, as well as on a public street in an unincorporated area of a

county or city and county where that county has prohibited the discharge of firearms. State law also

prohibits the carrying of an unloaded rifle or shotgun in public in an incorporated city or city and county.

AB 249 would have repealed these prohibitions.

Status: Two-year bill.

AB 871 (Jones): Weakening Concealed Firearm Permitting System

Under current law, a local law enforcement agency in California may issue a license to carry a concealed

firearm to an applicant if that person meets several requirements, including demonstrating that good

cause exists to issue the license. AB 871 would have taken away law enforcement discretion by defining

“good cause” to include personal protection or self-defense.

Status: Two-year bill.

Other Firearm-Related Bills (The Law Center Takes No Position On These Bills)

Note: bills in bold have been signed into law bills in plain text are two-year bills.

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

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

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

SB 385 (Block): Firearm Possession by Security Guards

SB 644 (Cannella): Sentences for Firearm Crimes

12

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

AB 128 (Bradford): Airport Law Enforcement

AB 134 (Logue): Concealed Carry License Records

AB 538 (Pan): Firearms Transfers and Recordkeeping

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

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

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

AB 1040 (Wieckowski): Probation Officers

AB 1084 (Melendez): Sentences for Firearm Crimes