brady ca bagd proposal - final

MAKING CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES SAFER: AN INTEGRATED CAMPAIGN TO

STOP “BAD APPLE” GUN DEALERS

MARCH 2016CONFIDENTIAL: NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

Executive Summary

The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence

The Problem of “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers

The Problem of “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers in California

Brady Solution: The Campaign to “Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers”

Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers Campaign in California

Evaluation

Timeline

Conclusion & Funding

Appendix A: A History of the Brady Campaign & Center in California

Appendix B: Partnerships

Appendix C: A Case Study—Brady Organizing in Chicago

Appendix D: Brady Code of Conduct

6

5

3

Table of Contents

2

14

13

8

7

26

17

15

31

27

MAKING CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES SAFER WWW.BRADYCENTER.ORG2

America is facing a public health epidemic. Every day

90 people are killed with guns and more than 200 more

are injured, often by people who should never have had

access to guns in the first place. One significant way

dangerous and prohibited people acquire guns is through

“bad apple” gun dealers (BAGDs), the relatively small

number of gun dealers who sell virtually all crime guns.

These “bad apples” knowingly or carelessly ignore the law

and responsible business practices just to make a profit.

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

reports indicate that just 5 percent of gun dealers sell 90

percent of all crime guns.

“Bad apple” gun dealers are few in number, but their

impact on public safety and wellness is significant.

Through unethical, unscrupulous and, often, illegal

businesses practices, these dealers supply the straw

purchasers and gun traffickers that flood city streets and

communities with crime guns. They also skirt the law

to sell guns directly to prohibited purchasers including

convicted felons, domestic abusers and fugitives.

Part of the problem is that many dangerous people can’t

pass a Brady background check, but “bad apple” gun

dealers look the other way while customers buy guns for

others (straw purchasing) or purchase in bulk to illegally

resell (gun trafficking). Some go even further by falsifying

sales records, turning off security cameras, conveniently

“losing” or reporting firearms as stolen, or by skipping

legally required Brady background checks altogether.

While California has strong gun violence prevention laws,

the safety of Californians is dramatically compromised by

the impact of “bad apple” gun dealers. California’s crime

gun data aligns with the national data, which shows that

the majority of crime guns in California come from just a

handful of dealers, mostly within the state.

While existing data is somewhat limited, we have a strong

sense of who some of these “bad apple” dealers are, and

we are certain that the ATF knows who all of them are.

This proposal includes the specific names of some of the

dealers that have been identified as “bad apples” but are

still in operation, as well as the specific impact that “bad

apple” gun dealers have on the supply of crime guns to a

number of California cities.

Enough is enough. Cities, communities, and families are

suffering because of the unchecked flow of guns from

“bad apple” dealers; they must be reformed or shut down.

Brady’s campaign to Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers is a

multi-faceted, goal-oriented and impact-driven effort

leveraging Brady’s unique expertise in community

engagement, advocacy, messaging, media and legal action

to 1) create awareness and intense public scrutiny of

“bad apple” gun dealers, 2) create public and economic

pressure for them to reform, and 3) develop and

implement local, state and national policies that will

force them to change their ways or be shut down.

Brady, working with many of our 27 California chapters, intends to lead an integrated, partnership and community-driven campaign to Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers in California. The five-year goals of this

campaign are to:

• Identify BAGDs through greater collection, publication

and sharing of crime trace data and other key

investigative information in at least three city “crime

gun trace reports”;

• Shut down or meaningfully reform at least 10 of the

BAGDs most adversely impacting up to five California

cities; and,

• Reduce gun crime by more than 20% in at least three

California cities.

To implement the campaign, Brady will recruit,

convene and coordinate a wide array of partners and

stakeholders with an interest in preventing violence

and improving the health and wellness of California

communities, with strong emphasis on engaging the

communities of color that are most adversely impacted

by the guns that “bad apple” gun dealers are putting into

California communities. In addition to community and

organizational partners, Brady will deeply engage city and

state government, law enforcement, the legal community,

business leaders, faith leaders, researchers and academics

and the media and entertainment community in this

important effort. Brady has a strong track record in

engaging partners in all of these areas and already has

many key relationships throughout California.

Executive Summary

WWW.BRADYCENTER.ORG MAKING CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES SAFER 3

For more than forty years, the Brady Campaign and

Center to Prevent Gun Violence has been the leading

national voice in the prevention of gun violence, with an

unrivaled history of success, effecting meaningful, high-

impact change through policy, legal action, and creating

public awareness around the risks of guns in the home.

The Brady Bill, which President Clinton signed into law

in 1993, remains, by far, the single most effective gun

violence policy in history, with Brady background checks

blocking more than 2.6 million sales of guns to prohibited

purchasers such as domestic abusers, convicted violent

criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses. In

the words of President Clinton, “countless people are alive

today” because of the work of Jim and Sarah Brady and

the Brady Campaign.

Four years ago, Brady President Dan Gross was hired

to carry forward Jim and Sarah’s legacy and lead Brady

into a bold new era for the organization and the gun

violence prevention movement. A former advertising

executive (the youngest-ever partner at JWT), Dan

devoted his life to gun violence prevention after his

brother was shot in the head during a terrorist attack

on the observation deck of the Empire State Building in

1997. Prior to joining Brady, Dan co-founded and directed

the Center to Prevent Youth Violence (CPYV), where he

created innovative, effective and highly acclaimed public

health and safety campaigns, including the ASK (Asking

Saves Kids) campaign and Suicide-Proof Your Home

initiative, both of which Brady continues today. Dan is

also considered a leading national spokesperson on the

gun violence issue, with regular appearances in national

media and deep relationships at the highest levels of

government.

Under Dan’s leadership, Brady has established the bold

vision to cut U.S. gun deaths in half by 2025 through a

strategy that focuses entirely on the common ground

shared by the overwhelming majority of Americans:

keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerous people

we all agree should not have them. Brady is committed

to doing this by rallying every American who has had

#ENOUGH of gun violence through focused, sustained,

impact-driven campaigns in three areas:

1. “Finish the Job” the Brady Law started and expand

effective, lifesaving Brady background checks to all

gun sales, including gun shows and online where

thousands of gun sales in our nation go unchecked

every single day. This policy solution is supported by

93% of the American people;

2. “Stop ‘Bad Apple’ Gun Dealers” by reforming or

shutting down the small number of gun dealers who

will sell a gun to anyone just to make a profit and wind

up supplying the criminal market with the guns that

are devastating communities across the country; and,

3. Public Health and Safety Campaigns keep guns

out of the hands of children and beat back the gun

lobby myth that a gun in the home makes you safer

through the ASK (Asking Saves Kids) campaign, Suicide Proof Your Home and soon-to-launch

TalkAboutGuns.org

The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Brady & California

To implement the campaign, Brady will recruit, convene and coordinate a wide array of partners and stakeholders with an interest in preventing violence and improving the health and wellness of California communities, with strong emphasis on engaging the communities of color that are most adversely impacted by the guns that “bad apple” gun dealers are putting into California communities. In addition to community and organizational partners, Brady will deeply engage city and state government, law enforcement, the legal community, business leaders, faith leaders, researchers and academics and the media and entertainment community in this important effort. Brady has a strong track record in engaging partners in all of these areas and already has many key relationships throughout California.


In addition to its deeply engaged network of chapters

as well as strong organizational and governmental

relationships in California, Brady leverages deep

relationships in the media and entertainment industry

around its focused and sustained awareness campaigns.

This includes more than 100 A-list celebrities, business

executives and other prominent figures engaged in the

#ENOUGH campaign, wearing #ENOUGH bracelets at the

Oscars, and attending Brady events. Very importantly,

Brady’s Hollywood efforts also include a coordinated

campaign to integrate Brady’s messaging into the story

lines of TV shows and movies, an effort that has begun

to pay significant dividends. Brady has also engaged top

advertising and marketing talent, including hundreds

of thousands of dollars per year in donated creative and

production support.


In 2016, guns are expected to surpass automobiles as the “machine” that causes the most deaths in America. In 2010, the economic impact of firearm-related incidents was estimated to be more than $174 billion in both healthcare and societal costs. Gun violence also takes a dramatic and disproportionate toll on the health and wellness of communities of color. Gun violence is the leading cause of death among young black men ages 20-24. A young black man is nearly five times more likely to be killed by a gun than a young white man and more than 20 times more likely to be murdered than the average American.

In California, young black men between 20

and 24 are more than 25 times more likely to die from a gun homicide than the average Californian.

One significant reason why guns wind up causing so much

carnage, especially in the most impacted communities is

because “bad apple” gun dealers (BAGDs) are flooding the

communities with illegal guns. These “bad apples”

knowingly ignore the law and responsible business

practices just to make a profit.

They skirt Brady background checks required by law, turn

off video surveillance equipment or falsify sales records

to cover their tracks, including selling guns “off the books”

then reporting them as lost or stolen. They also willfully

ignore telltale signs of illegal gun purchases.

There are three basic ways “bad apple” gun dealers supply

the guns that wind up in the hands of felons, fugitives

and other prohibited purchasers and on the streets of our

communities:

1. Knowingly or negligently selling guns to “straw purchasers,” people who illegally buy guns for others.

For example, a pair of customers enter a store, one

picks out the gun(s), but the other fills out the Brady

background check paperwork.

2. Knowingly or negligently selling guns to gun traffickers, people who buy guns for illegal resale. For

example, a customer purchases multiple guns in one

visit (in one case as many as 85) or a customer who

makes frequent purchases in a suspiciously short

period of time.

3. Knowingly, negligently or irresponsibly supplying guns

directly to prohibited purchasers barred from legally

buying guns. For example, a gun is sold to a customer

without a conclusive background check (known as the

“default proceed” or Charleston loophole).

Significantly exacerbating the problem is a lack of public

access to trace data. As part of crime gun tracing efforts,

law enforcement identify the federally licensed firearms

dealer who sold the gun that was used in a crime. Crime

gun trace data answers the one question the gun lobby

does not want to be answered: “where do illegal guns come from?” The lack of public access to trace data is

largely a problem created by the Tiahrt Rider, a federal

appropriations rider pushed through Congress by the

corporate gun lobby in 2003 that protects “bad apple” gun

dealers by prohibiting the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,

Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from making most crime

gun trace data available to the public.

The Problem of “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers


The Problem of “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers in California

While California has some of the strongest gun violence prevention laws in the U.S., the safety of Californians is dramatically compromised by the impact of “bad apple” gun dealers.

The statistics below, from a 2002 ATF report, illustrate the dramatic impact that a small number of “bad apple” gun dealers (out of more than 4,200 CA Federal Firearms License FFLs) are having on the health, wellness and public safety of many California communities:

• Anaheim, Long Beach, and Santa Ana region: 42% of

traced guns were first purchased at only 6 federally

licensed gun dealers. 68% of crime guns in the area

come from California dealers.

• Suburban San Jose: 44% of traced guns were first

purchased at only 4 federally licensed gun dealers.

California dealers were the source of 85% of traceable

crime guns recovered in the area.

• Los Angeles: 43% of traced guns were first purchased

at only 9 federally licensed gun dealers. California

dealers were the source of 79% of traceable crime

guns recovered in the area.

• Oakland: 46% of traced guns were first purchased at

only 1 federally licensed gun dealer. California dealers

were the source of 74% of traceable crime guns

recovered in the area.

• Rural Salinas: 43% of traced guns were first purchased

at only 2 federally licensed gun dealers. California

dealers were the source of 75% of traceable crime

guns recovered in Salinas.

Most California crime guns come from “bad apple” dealers in-state. Out of the 21,267 crime guns recovered in California in 2014 for which the source was identified, 71% were traced to California dealers and 29% were traced to out-of-state dealers. While the percentages have been consistent since 2006, the raw numbers have gone up.

Since the Tiahrt Rider went into effect in 2004, trace data identifying specific gun dealers from the ATF has not been made public. Brady’s research indicates many of the same dealers who were identified as BAGDs prior to Tiahrt had gone into effect, many are still in business today. See Appendix for full list.

For example:

• Between 1989 and 1997, just four outlets of Turner’s

Outdoorsman provided 689 crime guns, including

dozens linked to homicides and assaults and more

than 200 other gun crimes in that period. Most

recently, the Turner’s Outdoorsman chain sold two

assault rifles and a handgun that were used by the

2015 San Bernardino shooters, who killed fourteen

people and injured twenty more; the two rifles were

bought by a straw purchaser.

• Outdoor World, a Capitola gun dealer, was identified

in a report by the Americans for Gun Safety

Foundation as selling 247 guns traced to crimes

between 1996 and 2000, putting it in the top fifty

crime gun suppliers nationwide during this period,

and yet Outdoor World is still open.


Brady Solution: The Campaign to “Stop Bad Apple Gun Dealers”

The Brady Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers” campaign is a

multi-faceted, impact-driven effort that leverages Brady’s

unique expertise in community engagement, advocacy,

media, messaging, and legal action to identify and shut

down (or reform) half of the nation’s “bad apple” gun

dealers by 2025. Combined with a network of strong

partnerships, and tools such as “The Brady Gun Dealer

Code of Conduct,” a set of easily implementable best

business practices which should be followed by law

abiding gun dealers, (see Appendix D), the campaign

seeks to:

1. Identify “bad apple” gun dealers through greater

collection, publication and sharing of crime trace

data and other key investigative information

2. Create public, economic and political pressure to

reform or shut down the identified BAGDs, through

• increased awareness and heightened public

scrutiny

• targeted organized protests

• local, state and national policies and regulatory

action

• high impact litigation

While the campaign is national in scope, Brady’s

implementation strategy is to focus regionally and locally

to “go deep” in engaging the communities most heavily

impacted by BAGDs and prioritizing protest and reform

efforts on the most egregiously offending dealers.

Case Study: Public Pressure + Trace Data = Impact!

A set of studies by professors at Johns Hopkins University demonstrates that a gun dealer’s change in business practices had a significant impact on its sale of crime guns. The studies focus on a single gun dealer in the Midwest and show that after the ATF publicly released information that a high number of crime guns were associated with that dealer; the dealer stopped selling small, inexpensive guns which were most commonly used in crime. As a result, the number of crime guns associated with the store, recovered within one year of sale, dropped by 73%. However, passage of the Tiahrt Rider by Congress in 2003, which restricted the public’s access to trace data, was associated with a 203% increase in the number of guns diverted to criminals within a year of sale by the same dealer.


Brady is confident that its Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers

campaign can have a profound impact on the health,

wellness and public safety of several of California’s most

impacted cities and communities.

Brady, working with many of our 27 California chapters intends to lead an integrated, partnership and community-driven campaign to Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers in California. The five-year goals of this campaign are:

• Identify BAGDs through greater collection, publication

and sharing of crime trace data and other key

investigative information in at least three city “crime

gun trace reports”.

• Shut down or meaningfully reform at least 10 of the

BAGDs most adversely impacting up to five California

cities.

• Reduce gun crime by more than 20% in at least three

California cities.

To implement the campaign, Brady will recruit,

convene and coordinate a wide array of partners and

stakeholders, including our army of California advocates,

with an interest in preventing violence and improving

the health and wellness of California communities.

Brady will partner with communities of color

disproportionately affected by crime guns from “bad

apple” gun dealers. In addition to community partners,

Brady will deeply engage city and state government, law

enforcement, the legal community, business leaders,

faith leaders and religious leaders, researchers and

academics, and the media in this important effort. Brady

has a strong track record of engaging partners in all of

these areas and already has many key relationships

throughout California.

Campaign Strategy and TacticsIdentify three to five communities of focus.

The first step in this initiative will be to identify 3-5 cities/

communities to focus campaign efforts, taking into

consideration local need and buy-in in terms of local

partnership opportunity, local business and philanthropic

support, and existing support and partnerships. Once

potential communities are identified, Brady will build and

maintain local coalitions of support.

Specific tactics to identify communities of focus will

include:

• Research to identify communities most adversely

impacted by “bad apple” gun dealers and with biggest

opportunity for impact.

• Outreach to determine local interest and partnership

opportunities in potential communities of focus,

including key government and law enforcement

officials, business leaders and community partners

and leaders (such as Black Lives Matter and Color of

Change).

• Leverage extensive existing Brady relationships and

partnerships in California to identify communities

and build coalitions of support.

Develop access to crime trace data analysis information and identify the BAGDs.

Collection, sharing and public release of crime gun trace

data and other investigative information is essential to

identifying specific “bad apple” gun dealers and their

impact on crime in specific cities and communities. It

also enables us to determine where to focus resources for

the maximum impact and to bring public scrutiny and

pressure on the worst offenders. Trace data enables us to

answer the one question the gun lobby does not want to

be answered: “Where do illegal guns come from?”

Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers Campaign in California


The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and many leading law enforcement

organizations have long recognized the value of

analysis of crime gun trace data. Trace and other

crime gun investigative information, such as “time

to crime” averages, provides law enforcement,

policymakers, and the impacted communities with

actionable intelligence on the specific sources of a

community’s crime gun and gun violence problem.

By documenting the diversion of firearms from the

legal to illegal, from private seller markets, and into

the hands of prohibited and dangerous people, we

can clearly identify the BAGDs and their impact on a

specific city or community.

Since the Tiahrt Rider went into effect in 2004, vitally

important crime gun data has not been made public by

the ATF including the identification of specific BAGDs.

This has had a stifling effect on the ability to intervene

and hold “bad apple” gun dealers accountable for their

role in flooding communities with crime guns.

But there are still important opportunities to make certain

vitally important data public and zero in on specific

BAGDs. While federal law enforcement is prevented from

using federal funds to share dealer-specific trace data,

the Tiahrt Rider specifically exempts from its prohibitions

the publication of “statistical aggregate data regarding

firearms traffickers and trafficking channels.”

However, despite being allowed to release the data the

ATF has not done so. Through our national Stop “Bad

Apple” Dealer campaign, Brady is working to pressure the

ATF to release this data. Once that data is released, Brady

will be able to identify BAGDs in California by combining

this data with media reports and investigative journalism.

Part of the California campaign is to encourage and

support communities in California to develope crime gun

trace reports like the one done in the city of Chicago.

In 2014, the City of Chicago produced a groundbreaking

report on the impact of illegal guns, which seems to meet

Tiahrt’s exemption. The report identified “bad apple” gun

dealers in the city that supply the bulk of crime guns. For

Brady’s campaign to reform or shut down “bad apple” gun

dealers this report was a game changer and we believe

it serves as a model for reports that can and should be

conducted for every community of focus for the proposed

campaign.

Specific tactics to develop crime trace data and identify

individual BAGDs in focused communities include:

• Brady’s experts in policy and law enforcement

relations will work with selected communities to

provide guidance and support to government and law

enforcement officials on the laws and regulations that

guide the collection, analysis and use of all relevant

crime gun investigative information and analysis.

• Brady will facilitate the sharing of best practices,

models and key expertise, including the

groundbreaking Chicago Report on Illegal Guns.

• Leverage the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)

request to the ATF to determine which California

dealers have repeatedly violated firearms laws and/or

have received warning from the ATF.

Pressure “bad apple” gun dealers to reform or shut down

Strong community engagement and leadership is

essential to the success of this campaign. Brady has

the proven commitment and expertise in meaningfully

engaging the diverse array of partners necessary to put

significant pressure on BAGDs once they are identified.

This includes the demonstrated ability to engage

partners in the communities of color most dramatically

impacted by BAGDs and too-often overlooked as

important voices in the national “gun violence

prevention movement.”

Did you know 90% of crime guns

can be traced to only 5% of dealers?


In addition to engaging community-based advocacy

organizations (e.g., Black Lives Matter and Color of

Change), Brady will leverage its proven organizing and

media expertise and its strong existing relationships

in California (including its network of 27 California

Chapters) to build other key partnerships with individuals

and organizations important to bringing public pressure

and scrutiny to bear on BAGDs, including prosecutors,

local law enforcement, faith leaders and religious

institutions, victims services groups, business and

community leaders, political leaders and activists, local

celebrities and influential local media (For a complete list

of Brady’s key national and California partnerships please

see Appendix B).

A key element to Brady’s efforts to reform BAGDs through

public pressure is The Brady Gun Dealer Code of Conduct (see Appendix D),” developed by Brady’s policy and legal

experts, which provides a set of easily implementable

best business practices, to be followed by responsible, law

abiding gun dealers to prevent guns from winding up on

the criminal market and being used to commit violence

and crime.

The following are specific tactics to bring public and

community pressure to reform or shut down BAGDs:

• Hire three to five local community organizers to

convene a coalition of community leaders from

impacted communities including victim service

organizations, faith leaders, youth organizing,

emergency room doctors, public officials, lawyers and

law enforcement, as well as other key leaders and

organizations within each community.

• Engage and empower impacted communities to

pressure “bad apple” gun dealers to reform or shut

down through events such as rallies, protests, and

town hall meetings, as well as petition drives.

• Leverage Brady’s organizers, partners, chapters and

media experts to build awareness through earned

media and events.

• Engage and empower impacted communities to

lobby their elected officials on the issue with specific

requests that the elected official publicly support the

campaign, e.g., by calling for trace reports, calling out

specific BAGDs; introducing or supporting key policies

or regulations.

• Encourage local media to feature and write

thoughtfully about how individual victims and their

larger communities are affected by bad apple gun

dealers by placing Op-eds and Letters to the Editor

written by local victims and survivors, as well as

other credible and compelling spokespersons.

• Leverage Brady’s existing relationships with

congressional representatives to build relationships

and partnerships within the communities they

represent.

Develop and pass state and local policies.

Brady’s California chapters have a long history of

advocating for stronger gun legislation that saves lives

and makes communities safer (see Appendix A). As part

of the California Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers campaign

strategy, advocates will focus on policy initiatives that

crack down on the unethical business practices of “bad

apple” gun dealers. One such initiative that is already

underway is AB 2549. If passed, AB 2549 would require all

gun sales to be videotaped, require gun dealer employees

to be subject to background checks, and provide stronger

pressure on gun dealers to abide by the law.

With each new legislative year, there are opportunities

to pass policies to reform “bad apple” gun dealers.

One notable example of Brady’s effective work organizing and partnering with communities of color to pressure BAGDs has been in Chicago where Brady has established deep community connections (See Appendix C for a case study on Brady’s work in Chicago.)


Legislation may include reforms to require:

• dealers to record and maintain video of all gun

sales to assist law enforcement to identify illegal

transactions and discourage salespeople from making

illegal transactions;

• pre-employment background checks on all gun

store employees to help safeguard against illegal

activities (i.e. gun inventory theft) and ensure that

prohibited purchasers are not hired and working in

gun dealerships;

• inspections of gun dealers by California law

enforcement to hold California gun dealers

accountable on a regular basis (right now inspections

are allowed but not mandatory);

• every law enforcement agency to trace every crime

gun recovered (while we understand that it is

currently mandated, our understanding is that the

law is not being enforced);

• all law enforcement agencies within a state to adopt

and implement the Crime Gun Investigative Protocol

established and recommended by the International

Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) (ex. New Jersey);

and

• a law to implement eTrace to digitize and speed up

the trace process through ATF.

Hold BAGDs accountable through impact litigation.

Civil lawsuits that hold gun dealers accountable have a

strong positive impact on the gun violence problem. One

study found that public nuisance suits brought by the

City of New York against twenty-five out-of-state “bad

apple” gun dealers led to a more than eighty-four percent

decrease in the number of guns recovered by New York

City police from those stores.

For more than 25 years and through more than fifty

lawsuits, Brady’s expert attorneys and the pro-bono

alliance of law firms have represented victims in taking

on the recklessness of negligent gun dealers. As a key

part of this campaign, Brady’s legal team, along with its

strong pro bono network of top law firms, will take on an

aggressive case filing schedule against “bad apple” gun

dealers impacting California communities.

Engage and leverage California’s local, state and national public officials and law enforcement for change at the federal level.

Public officials at every level in California can play a

meaningful role in supporting Brady’s call for change at

the federal level, most notably calling on Attorney General

Lynch and the ATF to investigate and reform the dealers

they know are “bad apples”. Brady is building broad national

coalitions of influential officials to petition Attorney

General Lynch to take action, including Prosecutors, Law

Enforcement, more than 100 Mayors (including New York,

Chicago and Los Angeles) and more than 40 members of the

Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses.

Brady’s philosophy of community engagement hinges upon balanced and thoughtful partnerships with existing local and regional groups. While this seems like an obvious necessity, there are unfortunately many examples where national groups do not respectfully engage existing local activists, resources and partners - but instead, “parachute” into a community with an authoritative, prescriptive approach that leaves no room to account for unique local needs and dynamics. See Appendix B for a list of Brady’s local, state and national partnerships.


Develop tailored public awareness campaigns.

Brady will leverage its extensive communications

and messaging expertise to develop and implement a

comprehensive communications plan to raise awareness

of “bad apple” gun dealers statewide and in targeted

markets. Some of the specific tactics will include:

• Convene roundtables and town halls to facilitate

discussions with key constituents and stakeholders

in affected communities, including with law

enforcement, community leaders, public officials,

business leaders, faith groups and others. In addition

to giving this a more organic feel than a “top-down”

approach to problem solving, these discussions will

generate the type of content media outlets need to

tell stories. Content generated from these events can

also be used in social media.

• Develop and release a report about “bad apple” gun

dealers in California. This effort will launch with a

major earned and paid media event to announce the

statewide findings and the collaborative campaign

and solutions to address the problem.

• Conduct a statewide “tour” during which we will release

individual reports specific to each of our targeted

markets and engage communities in the solutions.

• Secure ongoing earned media. A constant drumbeat

is key to succeeding in this effort. We will develop a

calendar plan of paid and earned media statewide

and in target markets will promote demonstrations,

protests, and similar events being organized on the

ground to ensure media coverage.

• Surrogate recruitment and media training. Working in

partnership with our chapters and advocates, we will

identify key spokespeople and provide them media

training to ensure message clarity and effectiveness.

This will not only enable our teams to be aggressive

with our message proactively but will also better

position advocates and staff to respond more quickly

to the inevitable attacks from the gun lobby. Engage

in social media campaigns. Social media will be a

significant element of our public awareness campaign

to raise awareness, foster conversation and activate

supporters. In partnership with a California-based

strategist, we will develop a social media plan that

drives proactive messaging while maintaining our

ability to respond to “news of the day.” Our social

media engagement plan will marry industry best

practices with what we know about our unique

audience and how it consumes this medium.

• Educate media on BAGDs. The news media can

play a critical role in exposing the practices of

BAGDs impacting their communities. We will

host backgrounders and seminars for reporters

covering the issue to educate them on the problem

and connect them with resources of additional

information on solutions that keep crime guns off the

street.

• Create viral videos. Brady will work with its creative

and production partners to create a steady stream

of engaging video content ranging from PSAs to

undercover videos.

• Script integration. Brady will continue its successful

program educating directors, writers, show runners

and researchers about issues related to BAGDs with

the goal of inspiring storylines. Most recently, for

example, a fictional story of a family impacted by a

“bad apple” dealer was featured on an episode of the

popular CBS program, “The Good Wife”.

• Celebrity engagement. Brady will continue its

successful efforts to engage the appropriate, credible

and compelling celebrity spokespeople to help

call attention to the impact of BAGDs, especially

on communities of color, and the solutions we are

advocating.


Brady’s California strategy to cut the number of “bad

apple” gun dealers in half was developed to not only

save lives but also to hold our organization accountable

for specific and measurable outcomes that will lead to a

reduction in gun crime, death and injury. The following

outlines how we will measure success for each area of the

multi-faceted campaign:

Overall Success:

• number of “bad apple” gun dealers identified in

California;

• number of “bad apple” gun dealers who adopt the

Brady Code of Conduct; and

• number of “bad apple” gun dealers shut down.

Research and Data:

• number of trace reports produced;

• the amount of new funding directed for gun violence

prevention research; and

• number of cities educated on best practices and

protocols of trace data analysis.

Organizing through Community Engagement:

• number of “bad apple” gun dealer campaign activities

with impacted communities;

• number of on-the-ground partners convened;

• number of community members and organizations

engaged in campaign activities;

• number of community members and organizations

from communities of color engaged in campaign

activities; and

• number of youth engaged in campaign activities.

Passing Legislative Policy:

• reduction of the number of deaths and injuries due to

gun violence;

• number of pieces of legislation focused on “bad apple”

gun dealers;

• number of elected officials who support state

legislation to stop “bad apple” gun dealers; and

• number of crime guns submitted for trace, ballistics,

and forensics.

Legal Action:

• number of “bad apple” legal cases filed, activity

in those cases and the outcomes of those legal

decisions;

• amount of pro bono support for cases in California;

• number of lawyers and law firms engaged in “bad

apple” gun dealer cases in California; and

• demonstrated effect of legal interventions has on the

conduct of other gun dealers.

Public Awareness of “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers:

• the amount of earned media focus on the California

Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealer campaign;

• the volume of social media and best metrics produced

from the California Stop “Bad Apple” Gun dealer

campaign;

• the amount of community engagement as a result of

earned and social media;

• measured change in media’s coverage of the problem

of California “bad apple” dealers; and

• the volume of new entertainment media featuring

stories related to “bad apple” issues.

Additional Metrics Include:

• partner satisfaction on their experience with the

campaign results and support;

• necessary funding secured from individuals,

foundations, corporate and government donors to

support the campaign; and

• funder satisfaction of their experience as a partner

with Brady to address “bad apple” problem.

Evaluation


Year One• Research and identify up to five communities

• Hire three to five local community-based organizers

• Build coalitions of support

• Develop media, PSA awareness and education

campaign and associated materials

• Work with law enforcement and government partners

to initiate trace reports in up to five communities to

identify “bad apple” dealers

• Develop policy, regulatory and legislative strategy

• Develop legal action / litigation strategy and identify

cases; Secure pro-bono legal partnerships

Year Two• Conduct trace reports in three to five communities

• Organize community driven protests and

demonstrations against BAGDs

• Launch media, PSA, education campaign

• Identified legislation, regulations, policy introduced

• File identified lawsuits, as appropriate

• Continue to build community partnerships

• Assess progress against goals

Year Three• Organize protests against BAGDs identified in trace

reports

• Sustain media, PSA, education campaign with

emphasis on BAGDs identified through trace report

• File identified lawsuits, as appropriate

• Continue local organizing as needed

• Assess progress against goals

Year Four• Sustain and increase organized protests against

BAGDs identified in trace reports

• Sustain media, PSA, education campaign with

emphasis on BAGDs identified through trace reports

• Work with partners to litigate ongoing cases; continue

to file identified lawsuits, as appropriate

• Pass proposed legislation, implement new policies

and regulations that lead to reform or closure of

BAGDs

• Assess progress against goals and report

Year Five• Continue to build / sustain all activities

• Assessment of goals achieved

• Develop and distribute a full campaign report

Timeline


California has among the strongest gun violence

prevention laws in the country, due to the vision and

leadership of many committed advocates and activists

across the state, including Brady’s strong network of

chapters and grassroots support. However, the significant

problem of gun crime and violence continues to plague

many California communities in large part because of

a few “bad apple” gun dealers. This proposal presents a

bold opportunity to meaningfully engage a broad group

of stakeholders in an effective, concerted effort to greatly

reduce the number of “bad apple” gun dealers and have

a clear and meaningful impact on reducing gun crime

and improving the health and wellness of communities

throughout California.

The total estimated budget for the five-year campaign

is $3.8 million (detail available upon request). To raise

these funds Brady is committed to building a broad

coalition of stakeholders with a commitment to the

health and safety of California communities, including

foundations and major donors, business leaders and

government support.

Conclusion & Funding


OverviewCalifornia is the leading voice on addressing gun violence in order to make our communities and neighborhoods safer. To date, California has the nation’s strongest gun laws passing more than 50 state gun violence preven-tion measures combined with dozens of legal victories in the court on behalf of gun violence victims. California has maintained a firearm mortality rate lower than the national average for almost two decades and consistent-ly rates on the Brady Campaign’s Scorecard as the most progressive state of gun violence prevention.

The Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Vio-lence have worked alongside community partners and a network of dedicated activists for close to thirty years as California fought for and passed gun reform legislation, making it the national model for gun violence prevention at the state level.

Policy and Grassroots Organizing in CaliforniaThe Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, previously Handgun Control, Inc., first opened offices in California in 1988, based in San Francisco. In the following year, the nation was rocked by the Stockton Schoolyard Shooting at Cleveland Elementary in which five children died and 32 others were wounded. This tragic shooting was a turning point for California gun violence prevention efforts, and Brady worked with grassroots activists to help California pass the nation’s first assault weapon limitations and it became the first state (along with Rhode Island) to expand background checks to all gun sales.

In 1990, offices were moved to Los Angeles to build a region-al headquarters for lobbying and grassroots efforts across the entire western portion of the country. While California continued to lead the country on gun reform at the state level, Brady’s focus on policy and organizing turned to the federal level for the push to pass the Brady Bill to institute mandatory background checks at the federal level for the first time. As the grassroots efforts for federal legislation grew, so too did Brady’s presence in California, with offices opening in San Diego and San Francisco by the mid-1990s.

By 1996, grassroots efforts in the state had firmly taken hold. Through the end of the decade, a dedicated cadre of Brady staff along with allied partners and a mobilized network of volunteers across the state pushed for key legislation and organized in state elections to hold elected officials accountable to an agenda that prioritized gun

violence prevention. These efforts have helped California maintain a strong majority in the state legislature dedi-cated to gun violence prevention since 1998.

In 1999, California passed a “grand slam” set of gun re-forms, creating a tipping point for the gun violence pre-vention movement in the state and making it a model for the rest of the country by passing four of the strongest gun control laws ever enacted in America at that time. The four laws enacted established: safety standards and testing for all handguns manufactured or sold in the state; an update and strengthening of the assault weapons law to include all military-style firearms and rapid-fire ammunition mag-azines; a one-handgun-a-month law to reduce illegal gun trafficking; and, requirements that all guns sold in the state be equipped with a law enforcement-approved child-safety lock. The legislative and political efforts of the late 1990s were incredible victories and remain strong to this day. In addition, no NRA-backed California state legislation has been enacted into law in decades.

In 2001, the Brady Campaign merged with the Million Mom March (MMM), expanding our network of activists to include their chapters. Brady regional offices across the state gave way to our expert and passionate chapters (now called “Brady Chapters”) who now continue the legis-lative and political successes started by Brady staff.

To this day, Brady continues to expand upon their network of activists and remains dedicated to the success of gun violence prevention legislation in the state. There are cur-rently 27 active chapters across the state.

Taking Action in the CourtsThe Brady Center, previously the Center to Prevent Hand-gun Violence, has operated on a national strategy of repre-senting victims and pursuing change through the courts. As California built the model for progressive legislation to reduce gun violence, the Brady Center’s Legal Action Proj-ect (LAP) has offered legal support since the early 1990s defending California’s laws and helping victims seek justice through the courts. For over 25 years, Brady’s legal staff has worked in California in three main ways:

1. Liability cases – these are typically negligence cases, instances of a victim or victims versus a certain gun dealer or manufacturer, seeking redress through the courts. In these cases, Brady’s legal team will serve as counsel or expert advisors on a case to advocate on be-half of these individuals to hold negligent gun compa-nies accountable for their contribution to gun violence.

Appendix A: A History of the Brady Campaign & Center in California


2. City cases – a specific strategy pursued nationally around the late 1990s and early 2000s. Cities across the country, including many in California, brought suits against gun manufacturers and dealers. The argument in these cases was that through negligent practices of marketing and sales, dealers and manu-facturers of firearms played a significant role in sup-plying the criminal gun market and gun violence, and should be held accountable for the significant cost to these cities and its citizens.

3. Amicus briefs – In instances where Brady may not be serving as counsel or advisor to a case, an amicus brief allows for an expert opinion to be heard on a case if deemed relevant. LAP will frequently file an amicus brief to support gun safety legislation, as is often the case in California, or to challenge laws that would let guns fall into dangerous hands when these cases are being heard by a court.

As can be seen in Brady’s case history in California, our LAP has stood behind California for decades as it pursued progressive gun reform. When California became the first state in the nation to enact limitations on assault weapons, Brady lent support and expertise through multiple amicus briefs at the district and circuit court levels. In at least one of the liability cases in which Brady’s legal team served as counsel, legal precedent was set and the case served as inspiration for legislation in the state of California.

Brady’s Legal Action Project remains dedicated to pro-tecting California’s sensible gun reforms and the safety of its citizens through the courts. Through our work and our national legal alliance, Lawyers for a Safer America, we’ve built a relationship with pro-bono attorneys and law firms across the state to ensure California remains the model of success for gun violence prevention at the state level.

ResultsSince the late 1980s, California has been and continues to remain critically ahead of the curve when it comes to gun violence prevention. Brady has worked alongside commu-nity partners and dedicated activists to help pass over 50 laws and have launched or supported more than 25 ac-tions in the courts. These efforts have built California into the model state for how local governments can work to prevent gun violence and make their communities safer.

Many of California’s laws were designed to reduce gun homicides and gun crimes by denying access to firearms for prohibited persons. However, many of the laws fo-cusing on safe storage, waiting periods, safety standards, and background checks to deny guns to those deemed a danger to themselves or others also assist in preventing suicides. As a result, California saw its firearm mortality rate decline by almost twice as much as the rest of the United States where many of these regulations are not in place.

From the 1980s into the early 1990s, California’s firearm mortality rate was higher than the rest of the country, with both the national rate and California’s firearm mortality rate hitting their respective peaks in 1993. Rates began to fall nationally in 1994. California saw a more dramatic reduction in firearm mortalities than seen nationally, dropping below national averages in 1998 and continuing to fall through the end of the decade. While rates stalled across the United States in 2000, California saw another reduction in rates not seen nationally from 2006-2010 before leveling out for a second time. While firearm mortality rates continue to hold steady in Cali-fornia today, the national rates have increased since 2010 largely due to increases in suicide by firearm.

The significant reduction of firearm mortality rates in California is a powerful testament to the success of Cali-fornia’s commitment to gun reform. In 25 years, California has solidified its status as the national leader in gun vio-lence prevention, and Brady has been fighting alongside tenacious grassroots activists and community partners in the state legislature and has been active in the judicial system in order to ensure California’s continued success.

Timeline of Gun Safety Legislation Passed in California1989 Legislative Session Roberti- Roos Assault Weapon limitations: Nation’s first limitation on possession of military-style guns and high capacity magazines passed in the wake of the tragic shooting at Cleveland Elementary School in Stockton, CA where 5 were killed and 32 others injured by a shooter armed with high capacity magazines and an assault rifle.

Background checks on all gun sales: Along with Rhode Island, California became the first state to pass legislation requiring background checks on all gun sales.


Record retention on handgun sales: Gun owner records required on the sale and transfer of all handguns to help law enforcement trace crime guns.

1991 Legislative Session Child Access Prevention (CAP): Hold adults responsible for keeping guns out of the hands of children under 14. If death or injury occurs charges can be brought if a child gains access to a firearm.

1997 Legislative SessionStrengthen CAP Law: The age of the minors from 14 to 18 and hold the gun owners responsible if the weapon was taken to a public place, even if it were not actually used to shoot or threaten anyone.

1998 Legislative SessionLicensing of Gun Manufacturers Penalty for Altering Serial Numbers

1999 Legislative SessionConsumer Safety Standards on Handguns: Handguns are required to be tested by independent laboratories and California DOJ would list approved handguns. The safety standards are based on similar tests developed by the Na-tional Institute of Justice for use by law enforcement.

Child-Safety Locks: Requires the state Department of Justice to test and approve child-safety lock devices and require gun dealers to equip firearms they sell with a DOJ-approved safety device.

Gun Trafficking & One-Handgun-Per-Month: Prohibits the purchase of more than one handgun in any 30-day period. Before the law was enacted, gun-traffickers were able to buy handguns in bulk and resell them to criminals and juveniles on the street.

Increase Penalty for Carrying Concealed Guns: Raises the penalty to illegally carry a concealed and/or loaded handgun which would provide discretion to the district attorney to charge the crime as either a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances.

Strengthening of the Assault Weapons and Magazine Limitation Laws: Expanded the previous law’s provisions by restricting the manufacture, sale, transfer or posses-sion of any semiautomatic assault weapons that have one or more military characteristics (such as pistol grips and folding stocks). Prohibited the sale or transfer of ammuni-tion magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

2001 Legislative Session Strengthen CAP Law: Increased penalties for gun owners who leave a gun easily accessible to a minor if the gun is brought to school.

Securing Gun From Armed and Prohibited People: Provides police officers in the field with information on whether suspects may legally possess firearms. Provided police access to the Department of Justice (DOJ) database of people who are prohibited from possessing firearms. The program is called the Armed Prohibited Person Sys-tem (APPS).

2004 Legislative SessionRestrict .50 Caliber “Sniper” Rifles

2005 Legislative SessionLost/Stolen Firearms – Permanent Record Keeping: Directs local law enforcement to submit the description of serialized firearms which have been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation, directly to an automated Department of Justice system.

Assault Weapons – Multiple Counts: Ensures that some-one who unlawfully manufactures, distributes, transports, imports, sells or possesses an assault weapon or .50-cal-iber sniper rifle would be charged separately for each weapon.

Emergency Protective Orders: Gives emergency protec-tive orders (EPOs) precedence in enforcement over any other restraining or protective order. This bill allows a law enforcement officer to seek an EPO from a court if any person is in immediate danger of domestic violence or abuse. The order would be issued immediately, with-out prior notice to the restrained party, and effective for 5-7 days.

Reporting / Secure Storage / Background Check: This law “cleaned up” Penal Code sections dealing with firearms. Requires law enforcement agencies to report information to DOJ pertaining to a firearm when the firearm is taken into custody by a law enforcement agency.

Domestic Violence – Prohibit Firearm Possession: Changed the California domestic violence restraining order statutes as recommended by the Attorney General’s Task Force on the Criminal Justice Response to Domestic Violence. Authorized arraignment courts to prohibit fire-arm possession by a domestic violence defendant, even in the absence of a “stay-away” order.


Prohibit Sale of Ammunition to Minors: A person must be 18 years of age to buy ammunition in California and 21 to purchase handgun ammunition.

2006 Legislative SessionRestraining Orders – 24 Hour Relinquishment of Fire-arms: Requires the person served to surrender the firearm within 24 hours of being served with the order regardless of whether the person is present in court.

Firearms – Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Oversight: Prevents illegal and unmonitored transfers of firearms from out-of-state vendors to unauthorized recipients in California. Requires FFL holders to undergo California background checks, allow the DOJ to inspect FFL holders who are not licensed in California, and require out-of-state vendors to verify that the recipient of a firearms shipment is eligible to receive the firearms.

Assault Weapons – Ending New Registration: Deleted the obsolete “add on” provision of current assault weapon law, which allowed the Attorney General to deem certain weapons “assault weapons” and thus opens a new regis-tration period for each newly listed assault weapon.

Protective Orders – Immediate Relinquishment: Requires those subject to a protective order to immediately surren-der their firearms in a safe manner upon the request of any law enforcement officer.

Increased Penalty for False Information: Provides that any person who is prohibited from obtaining a firearm who knowingly furnishes a fictitious name or address or knowingly furnishes any incorrect information or know-ingly omits any information required to be provided for the electronic or telephonic transfer would be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment in the state prison for eight, twelve or eighteen months.

2007 Legislative SessionCrime Gun Identification Act of 2007: Requires new models of semiautomatic handguns sold after January 1, 2010 be equipped with “microstamping” technology, whereby etched microscopic characters on two or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol are transferred onto the cartridge casing when the gun is fired.

Protective Orders: Allows a court to issue a protective order for up to ten years when a defendant is convicted of

willful infliction of corporal injury, even when a sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

Weapons and Ammunition – Nuisance Abatement: Added illegal conduct involving weapons and ammunition possession to those circumstances that constitute a nui-sance and would create pilot programs in specified cities to permit such conduct to form the basis of an unlawful detainer action (eviction) in the name of the people.

Firearms – Entering Information into NIBIN: Authorized and encouraged local law enforcement agencies to enter ballistic data into the federal National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) to ensure that represen-tative samples of fired bullets and cartridge cases from crime scenes are recorded in the national database.

2008 Legislative SessionFirearms in Care Facilities: Made it a serious license vio-lation to have “accessible firearms, ammunition, or both” on the premises of these facilities, resulting in licensure suspension, revocation or fines.

2009 Legislative SessionTracking Handgun Ammunition Sales: Requires sellers of handgun ammunition to store ammunition so that it is inaccessible to a purchaser without the assistance of the vendor, requires sales to be completed in face-to-face transactions, and requires the maintenance of handgun ammunition sales records. Prohibits gang members from possessing ammunition and prohibits selling or furnish-ing ammunition to known prohibited persons.

Weapons and Ammunition – Nuisance Abatement: An unlawful detainer action is a special court proceeding wherein a tenant can be evicted. Currently, two pilot pro-grams add illegal conduct involving weapons and ammu-nition possession to those circumstances that constitute a nuisance and form the basis of an unlawful detainer action (eviction) in the name of the people. The law ex-panded the pilot programs to other specified counties and extends the programs to 2014.

Search Warrants – Firearms and Mental Illness: Autho-rized the issuance of a search warrant for a firearm that is possessed by a person who has been detained or appre-hended for examination of his or her mental health con-dition or has been arrested for a domestic violence incident involving a threat or assault. Protects victims of domestic violence, individuals with mental illness, and the public by allowing law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms.


Search Warrants – Firearms and Protective Orders: Authorized the issuance of a search warrant for firearms that are in the possession of a person who is subject to the prohibition regarding firearms pursuant to a protective order issued to protect named family or household mem-bers. Protects victims of domestic violence by removing the offender’s firearms.

Restrict Open Carry CCW Permits: Reduced the open carry of weapons in populous counties and urban areas, where the sight of an openly carried firearm may increase the likelihood of violence.

Firearm Sales Transaction Reports: Requires pawnbro-kers and secondhand dealers to electronically report firearms acquisitions, on the day of transaction, directly to the DOJ and assist efforts to track down lost or stolen firearms.

2010 Legislative SessionElectronic Reporting of Mental Health Records: Requires that after July 1, 2012, mental health facilities must report the specified information to DOJ electronically. Ensures that the prohibited status is in the DOJ database immediately and upon discharge, a patient would be unable to pur-chase a firearm.

2011 Legislative SessionCrime Gun Tracing Improvement Act: Requires the preservation of records for long guns (rifles and shotguns) sold or transferred in California after January 1, 2014. Law brings uniformity to the reporting and record keeping requirements for both handguns and long guns and helps law enforcement solve gun crimes, expose illegal gun trafficking channels, and disarm felons, domestic violence perpetrators, and persons with severe mental illness who are prohibited from possessing firearms.

Prohibit Open Carry: Prohibits the carrying of exposed unloaded handguns in any public place or street in any incorporated or unincorporated city or county within California.

Restraining Orders – 10 Year Prohibition: Expands the court’s authority for issuing restraining orders in domestic violence case through a protective order for up to 10 years when a defendant is convicted for an offense involving “domestic violence” regardless of the sentence imposed.

Use of DROS Funds: The Dealers’ Record of Sale (DROS) fee is charged by the California Department of Justice (DOJ)

for most firearm transfers. Law allows DROS funds, as approved by the regular budget process, to be used for the Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) Program. Law enforcement can use this information to disarm persons who may be in the database as a result of a felony or vio-lent misdemeanor conviction, a commitment to a mental health facility, or the result of a domestic violence restrain-ing order for which they failed to surrender their firearm.

2012 Legislative SessionProhibit Long Gun Open Carry: Prohibits the carrying of exposed unloaded rifles or shotguns outside a motor vehi-cle in an incorporated city or city and county.

2013 Legislative Session Funding to Secure Guns From Prohibited People: Appro-priated $24 million to disarm prohibited persons known to be in possession of firearms.

Expands the Handgun Safety Certificate program: Expanded to include all firearms, including rifles and shotguns.

Ammunition Magazine Conversion Kits: Prohibits the purchase of large capacity ammunition magazines, in-cluding magazine conversion/repair kits.

Closing significant loopholes in the Safe Handgun Act: Closed the “single-shot” exemption and certain transfers of unsafe handguns by exempt persons.

Closing significant loopholes in the Assault Weapon Law: Closes background check loopholes relating to cor-porate or group permits for assault weapons.

Negligent Storage: Makes it a crime to negligently store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where a child is likely to gain access to the firearm. Requires individu-als who reside with a prohibited person to lock up all firearms in prescribed ways, disable the firearms with a safety device, or carry the firearm on the person. Extends the period of time for DOJ to complete a background check to 30 days in those rare instances when records are unavailable to complete the check within the stan-dard 10-day period. Requires dealers to notify DOJ when a prospective purchaser actually takes possession of a firearm.

AB 539 (Pan) Allows for persons who have become pro-hibited from possessing a firearm to store them with a licensed firearm dealer during the period of prohibition.


AB 740 (Alejo) Reduces the number of firearm transfers in which a person may engage without a dealer’s license. Tightens current law relating to the interstate transfer of firearms to deter trafficking.

AB 1131 (Skinner) Extends the firearms prohibition for persons who make serious threats of physical violence against reasonably identifiable persons from 6 months to five years. Requires courts and hospitals to transmit mental health determinations to DOJ within 24 hours by electronic means.

2014 Legislative SessionAB 1014 (Skinner) - Gun Violence Restraining Order AB 1014 would establish a process to allow law enforce-ment or immediate family members to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order when a person is at risk of in-jury to self or others by having a firearm. The court order would temporarily prohibit the purchase or possession of firearms while the order is in effect. The bill would allow a search warrant to be issued to seize firearms or ammuni-tion from a person subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order.

AB 1964 (Dickinson) - Unsafe Handguns and Single Shot Exemption California law requires that all new semiautomatic hand-guns models sold in the state pass a series of safety tests and possess certain features to be placed on the roster of handguns approved for sale. Pistols that fire a single shot before reloading are exempt. Unscrupulous firearm dealers are altering an increasing number of semi-auto-matic pistols to “single shot” weapons for the purpose of the sale and then immediately converting them back to the semi-automatic condition, thus circumventing the law. AB 1964 would prohibit that practice and preserve the integrity of California’s handgun requirements.

AB 1591 (Achadjian) - Prohibited Person Notifications by Courts Under current law, courts are required to notify the Department of Justice within two court days of taking cer-tain actions that result in a person becoming prohibited from possessing a firearm. These actions include finding a person mentally incompetent to stand trial or not guilty by reason of insanity, or placing a person under conser-vatorship. AB 1591 would require those notifications be made within one court day so that the prohibited status would be in the Department data systems more quickly.

AB 1609 (Alejo) - Out of State Firearm Purchases Federal law makes it illegal to purchase a firearm out-side of California and bring it into the state unless the firearm is shipped to a licensed dealer in California to complete the transaction. Federal authorities do not have the resources to enforce this law and California has no authority governing these transactions. AB 1609 would make California law consistent with federal law and give prosecutorial authority to law enforcement. The bill would ensure that the purchase of firearms from out of state would be fully subject to California’s strong laws, including a background check, 10-day waiting period, and possession of a firearm safety certificate. AB 1609 would reduce firearm trafficking from out of state.

SB 505 (Jackson) - Welfare Checks by Law Enforcement SB 505 would require law enforcement agencies to de-velop policies and protocols for conducting a check on the welfare or well being of an individual based upon a concern that the individual is a potential danger to self or others. These policies and protocols would encourage a peace officer to conduct a search of the Department of Justice Automated Firearms System before the welfare check to determine whether the person is the registered owner of any firearm.

2015 Legislative SessionSB 707 (Wolk) - No Concealed Weapons on Campus Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a K-12 school zone or on a public or private universi-ty or college campus without the written permission of certain school district officials. Persons holding a valid license to carry a concealed and loaded weapon (CCW) and retired peace officers authorized to carry concealed and loaded firearms are exempt from the school zone and university or college prohibitions. SB 707 will prohibit persons holding a CCW license from carrying a concealed firearm on the grounds of a K-12 school or on a campus of a university or college. They would still be allowed to carry the concealed firearm within the portion of a K-12 school zone (1,000 feet radius) that is not on school grounds. Additionally, firearms, including concealed, load-ed handguns, could still be allowed on school grounds or campuses with the permission of school officials.

AB 950 (Melendez/Pan) - Firearms Restraining Order – Dealer Storage AB 950 will allow a person who is subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order (Firearms Restraining Or-


der) to transfer his or her firearms and/or ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer for the duration of the prohibition. If the firearms or ammunition have been surrendered to a law enforcement agency, the bill will entitle the owner to have them transferred to a licensed firearms dealer. The bill will additionally provide for the transfer of ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer by any person who is prohibited from owning or possessing ammunition. The bill presents a reasonable alternative for temporarily removing firearms and ammunition from prohibited persons.

Brady’s Case History in CaliforniaLiability Cases:

• 1994-2001 – Merrill v. Navegar – On July 1, 1993, a mass shooting killed eight and injured six people at the 101 California Street office building. The Legal Ac-tion Project represented all plaintiffs in a suit against the manufacturer of firearms, magazines, and trigger, and the pawnshop that supplied the guns used in the shooting. The dealer settled out of the case early, leav-ing the manufacturer claims, which were eventually dismissed in 2001 after a long legal battle.

• 1995-2004 – Dix v. Beretta – LAP represented the par-ents of 15-year-old Kenzo Dix who was accidentally shot and killed by a friend who was playing with his father’s gun. The lawsuit alleged that the gun should have had a load indicator to alert the handler that there was a bullet in the chamber, as well as a built-in safety lock that could have prevented an unautho-rized firing. The lawsuit created important precedent, as it was the first case in which a court held that a gun manufacturer could be held liable for not in-cluding a safety device that would have prevented an unintentional shooting. The lawsuit also inspired California legislation requiring loaded chamber in-dicators, one of the issues in the case, and led some manufacturers to include built-in safety locks in guns. However, after three trials, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Beretta.

• 2001-2003 – Maxfield v. Bryco – 7-year-old Brandon Maxfield was accidentally shot and paralyzed by his babysitter as he tried to unload a Bryco pistol on April 6, 1994. The Legal Action Project assisted the attorney

for the Maxfield family as they filed suit against Bry-co, B.L. Jennings, the shooter, and the pawn shop that sold the gun, alleging that the gun was unreasonably dangerous due to lack of safety features and defective design. A jury returned a favorable verdict for tens of millions of dollars for the Maxfield family. After the verdict, Bryco Arms, one of the leading manufacturers of Saturday Night Special handguns and crime guns, went into bankruptcy.

• 2005-2006 – Pavelka v. Beretta – 26-year-old Burbank, CA police officer Michael Pavelka was shot and killed while assisting with a traffic stop on November 15, 2003. One of the three guns used was likely straw pur-chased at Turner’s Outdoorsman. While not counsel for the Pavelka family, Brady’s legal team assisted in filing a lawsuit against the dealer, as well as the man-ufacturers of the firearms, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, and Colt. The case was dismissed, at least partially on PLCAA grounds, on May 19,2006.

City Cases:• 1999-2005 – People of the State of California v. Arcadia

Machine & Tool Inc. – LAP was co-counsel in a lawsuit against members of the gun industry brought by San Francisco, Berkeley, Sacramento, San Mateo County, Alameda County, Oakland, and East Palo Alto. This case was consolidated with the other California city cases on 5/18/2000. The claims against the man-ufacturers and trade associations were dismissed upon summary judgment in March 2003. The state appealed this ruling, but it was affirmed in 2005. The claims against two dealers and three distributors proceeded. These parties settled before a trial sched-uled in 2003, agreeing to go above and beyond both state and federal law to prevent the diversion of their firearms into the criminal market.

• 1999-2005 – People of the State of California v. Arcadia Machine & Tool Inc. – LAP was co-counsel in a lawsuit against the gun industry brought by Los Angeles, Compton, West Hollywood. Inglewood joined the com-plaint in July 1999.

• 1999-2005 – People of the State of California v. Arcadia Machine & Tool Inc. – LAP was co-counsel in a lawsuit against the gun industry brought by Los Angeles County.


Amicus Briefs:• 1990-1992 – Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp – A

gun lobby challenge to the California law prohibiting the sale of certain military-style assault weapons. The Legal Action Project filed briefs at the district court and the Ninth Circuit to uphold the laws. The Ninth Circuit allowed the law to stand in May 1992.

• 1991-2001 – Kasler v. Lockyer – This case was a chal-lenge to the 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act. The Legal Action Project was involved in supporting the constitutionality of the law from its 1993 trial court amicus brief through its review at the Supreme Court of California. The Court ruled in favor of the State of California and Attorney General Bill Lockyer, and the case ended when the Supreme Court of the United States refused to review the case.

• 1993-1997 – People of the State of CA v. Dingman – Mr. Dingman owned a SKS “Type 56” rifle that had been modified with a 30-round detachable magazine. He was arrested and charged with possessing an illegal assault weapon under the California Assault Weapons Control Act, and challenged that his weapon was pro-hibited by the law. He was convicted by the trial court. The California Court of Appeals upheld the conviction finding that the statute was sufficiently clear that since this rifle had a detachable magazine, it was specifically prohibited by the ban. On appeal to the Supreme Court of California, the Legal Action Project filed an amicus brief. The Supreme Court of California ultimately denied to hear the case.

• 1995-1999 – CA Rifle and Pistol Association v. City of West Hollywood – This case is a gun lobby challenge to the City of West Hollywood’s 1995 ban on “Saturday Night Special’s” or small, cheap handguns. West Hollywood was the first city to target these readily available weapons. The Los Angeles County Superior Court dismissed the case, the Court of Appeals upheld the ban, and the Supreme Court of California denied to review the prohibition. The Legal Action Project filed briefs at both the trial court and the California Court of Appeals.

• 1999-2012 – Nordyke v. King – This case was a chal-lenge to an Alameda County ordinance that banned the possession and sale of guns on county-owned property where gun shows were held. There were multiple claims and courts involved throughout a long procedural history complicated by the U.S. Su-

preme Court decisions of DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. Brady submitted two briefs at the 9th Circuit. In June 2012 the en banc 9th Circuit considered the law, which the County had conceded at oral argument would allow gun shows as long as firearms remained unloaded and secured by cables, and held that the law was constitutional.

• 2002-2006 – Liranzo v. Liranzo – The Brady Center filed an amicus brief at the California Court of Appeals in support of a gun violence victim who was shot by his cousin, an alcohol and a drug abuser, who used his father’s gun during the shooting. The cousin had pre-viously been convicted of violating gun laws despite his dangerous history. The victim sued his cousin and his cousin’s father, arguing that the father owed the victim a duty of care not to entrust guns to someone who might misuse them. When the trial court exclud-ed evidence of the shooter’s past, the Brady Center argued that the shooter’s history of drug and alcohol abuse and prior criminal and irresponsible behavior involving firearms were relevant to the victim’s claim and should have been admitted into evidence. The California Court of Appeals ultimately sided with the defendant in 2006 and the Supreme Court of Califor-nia denied review months later.

• 2009-2015 – Jackson v. San Francisco – This case was a Second Amendment challenge to a San Francisco ordinance that required guns to either be fitted with trigger locks or stored in locked containers. Plaintiffs alleged that this rendered their guns inoperable and thus useless for self-defense purposes. Brady filed a brief upon appeal at the 9th Circuit arguing that the regulations were carefully drafted to reduce the risk of loss of life or serious injury from accidental shootings and suicide attempts and did not substan-tially burden the Second Amendment rights of San Francisco residents. In March 2014, the 9th Circuit upheld these laws as Constitutional by affirming the district court decision. Plaintiffs sought review at the Supreme Court of the United States, but certiorari was denied in June 2015.

• 2009-Present – Peruta v. San Diego – This case is a gun lobby challenge to San Diego’s Concealed Carry Weap-ons permit process. Brady has been instrumental in supporting the permitting scheme, filing several briefs throughout this process as the case travelled from the trial court all the way to an en banc review at the 9th Circuit, where it is currently pending. Brady has


defended the current law, arguing that the permitting process does not burden the right of law abiding citi-zens to possess guns in the home, and provides ample alternatives for public carrying, thus not substantially burdening Second Amendment rights. Further, the law reasonably fits the state’s compelling interest in protecting public safety.

• 2009-Present – Richards v. Prieto – This case is a gun lobby challenge to Yolo County’s Concealed Carry Weapons permit process. Brady filed a brief in support of the permitting scheme as lawful and constitutional at the district court and more recently, the 9th Circuit. The case is currently pending before a full en banc review at the 9th Circuit, and the Peruta case will have substantial implications for this case.

• 2009-Present – Pena v. Lindley – This case is a chal-lenge brought by Calguns and the Second Amend-ment Foundation to California’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which prohibits the manufacture, sale, gifting, or lending of any handgun in California that does not meet specific requirements. Plaintiffs claim the act vi-olates the Second Amendment and the equal protec-tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Brady Center filed a brief in the 9th Circuit asserting that the Act falls within constitutionally legal regulations to firearms in the interest of public safety.

• 2010-Present – Birdt v. Beck – This case is a challenge to California’s Concealed Carry Weapons permit pro-cess. Brady has filed briefs at the district level as well as the 9th Circuit to support the scheme as constitu-tional and substantially related to California’s interest in preventing gun violence.

• 2011-Present – Silvester v. Harris – This case is a gun lobby challenge to California’s mandatory 10 day waiting period for all firearm purchases, even for those who already own guns. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in August of 2014, agreeing that the 10-day waiting period was unconstitutional for those who already lawfully possessed a firearm, con-cealed carry permit, or certificate of eligibility and a

firearm, if the background check was approved within 10 days. The case was appealed, and Brady filed an amicus brief with the 9th Circuit to argue the constitu-tionality of the waiting period under DC v. Heller, and support this time period as an opportunity to deter impulsive acts of violence and straw purchasing.

• 2011-Present – Bauer v. Harris – In this case, Plaintiffs (which include a federally licensed firearms dealer, several firearms owners, and organizations like the NRA) claim that certain fees associated with purchas-ing and transferring firearms are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment because fees are an unlawful pre-condition on acquiring a firearm. This claim was dismissed by the district court, and the case is currently on appeal at the 9th Circuit. Brady filed a brief asserting that these fees are historically outside the scope of the Second Amendment, and using these fees to fund the firearms-related law enforcement program “Armed and Prohibited Per-sons System” is an appropriately tailored regulatory measure.

• 2012-Present – McKay v. Hutchens – This case is a gun lobby challenge to Orange County’s Concealed Carry Weapons permit process. Brady filed a brief in support of the permitting scheme as lawful and constitutional at the 9th Circuit, and the case is stayed pending the outcome of Peruta v. San Diego, Richards v. Prieto and Baker v. Kealoha (a HI concealed carry case pending before the 9th Circuit).

• 2013-2015 – Fyock v. City of Sunnyvale – This case was a challenge to Sunnyvale’s citizen-approved ordinance that restricted possession of “large capacity magazines” or magazines that carry more than 10 rounds of am-munition. The Brady Center filed a brief at the 9th Cir-cuit supporting the ordinance as a reasonable firearm regulation that is Constitutionally permissible under DC v. Heller, and for its contribution to a legitimate pub-lic interest of safety and preventing gun violence. On March 4, 2015, the 9th Circuit upheld the ordinance as legal in affirming a lower court’s earlier decision.


Brady through its long history of activism has deep

relationships with government officials across the

state including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and

Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom. Our Sacramento chapter

leaders, Nick and Amanda Wilcox, are among some of the

most respected activists in the state on any issue.

In addition, the following are examples of some of the

key partnerships Brady plans to pursue for Stop “Bad

Apple” Gun Dealer campaign in California. Brady already

partners with many of these organizations in different

capacities.

Local / State individuals and community partners that

include but are not limited to:

• AFL-CIO

• American Academy of Pediatrics - California Chapters

• American Public Health Association - California

Chapters

• Black Lives Matter

• California Departments of Justice

• California Firearms Strategy Group

• California Police Chiefs

• Color of Change

• Executives’ Alliance to Expand Opportunity for Boys

and Men of Color

• Generation Lockdown - Brady Youth Chapters

• La Raza

• The Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

• Mayor’s Offices of selected cities

• PORAC

• The city of Richmond’s Operation Peacemaker

Fellowship

• UFCW

• Women Against Gun Violence

• Violence Policy Coalition (especially CA)

• Youth Alive!

• Garen J. Wintemute, a professor of emergency

medicine and the director of the Violence Prevention

Research Program (VPRP) at the School of Medicine,

University of California, Davis

• Youth Justice Coalition

National Organizations and CoalitionsBrady’s network of California and national partners bring

an additional level of expertise to the California campaign

and will help drive outcomes. Additional partners and

coalitions we will leverage and engage to inform our work

on the California campaign include:

• American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) National

• American Bar Association (ABA) National

• American Public Health Association (APHA) National

• Amnesty International

• Children’s Defense Fund

• Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

• Generation Progress

• Hello Parent

• Injury Free Coalition for Kids

• National Association of Pediatric Nurse Practitioners

• National Association of Secondary School Principals

• National Parents Teacher Association (PTA),

• Nemours Children’s Health

• Office of Head Start within the U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

• Oregon Alliance for Gun Safety

• Rhode Island Department of Health Violence and

Injury Program

Additionally, Brady will engage the law firms which

provide ongoing pro-bono support to address California

‘bad apple” cases: Arnold & Porter; Cohen Milstein;

Covington & Burling; Dechert LLP; Hogan Lovells; Kellog,

Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel PLLC; McDermott Will

& Emery; Morrison Foerster; Proskauer Rose LLP; Ropes &

Gray LLP; Sidley Austin LLP; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher

& Flom LLP; White & Case; WilmarHale. Gun dealers

are crucial gatekeepers that stand as the front line of

defense to prevent criminals and the straw purchasers

and traffickers who supply them, from obtaining guns.

APPENDIX B: Partnerships


Appendix C: A Case Study —Brady Organizing in Chicago

Brady’s philosophy of community engagement hinges

upon balanced and thoughtful partnerships with existing

local and regional groups. While this seems like an

obvious necessity, there are unfortunately many examples

where national groups do not respectfully engage existing

activists and resources - but instead, enter a community

with an authoritative program and do not engage local

groups to partner in the campaign. Brady’s work in

Chicago is an example our philosophy in action.

Brady formally began organizing against “bad apple”

gun dealers (BAGDs) in 2014 with the Stop “Bad Apple”

Gun Dealer campaign. In Illinois, we have developed a

broad coalition of partners and key validators including

Father Michael Pfleger of Saint Sabina (perhaps the most

influential Catholic priest in America), Illinois Council

Against Handgun Violence, Rainbow PUSH Coalition,

People for a Safer Society, Purpose Over Pain and Chicago

Citizens for Change to protest against top crime gun

seller Chuck’s Gun Shop & Pistol Range. To support

existing local social activists, we embedded ourselves

with the state group working on gun violence prevention

and asked first how we could assist in helping them to

meet their goals. By being on the ground and showing

a commitment to their work, our team was able to

establish credibility as a partner and deeply integrate

our Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealer campaign work into

their plans. As a result, our collaborative efforts are now

leading to a much broader recognition of “bad apple”

gun dealers across the state, including the work being

done to institute a comprehensive gun dealer-licensing

regime, which enshrines the Brady Code of Conduct into

state law. Below is a detailed overview of the community

engagement strategy Brady has taken over the past 3

years in Chicago.

2014 Brady launched the Stop “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers

Campaign in Chicago, IL in 2014 with a massive protest of

Chuck’s Guns. Brady chose to focus on Chuck’s because

it is the poster child for BAGDs in that it has been

highlighted as supplying 1 in 12 guns used in crime in

Chicago. For this initial protest, Brady convened several


prominent community groups including Father Mike from

Saint Sabina, Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence

and Chicago’s Citizens for Change (now called Chicago

Survivors). The protest garnered significant local press

coverage and built the foundations of strong relationships

with local groups.

2015 In 2015, Brady built and expanded on the launch of the

campaign. First, Brady continued to deepen relationships

and partnerships with local Chicago GVP organizations

including working with a victim’s advocacy organization,

Chicago’s Survivors, to develop a victim intake brochure to

assist victims of gun crimes to trace the gun and possibly

receive free representation by Brady’s LAP team. In addition,

Brady continued to support the work of many local GVP

activists around educating the public about Chuck’s and its

abhorrent business practices. Secondly, Brady made good on

Dan Gross’ promise to Chuck’s that Brady would continue

to apply pressure until they reform by adopting the code of

conduct by staging a second protest outside of Chuck’s.

In June of 2015, the Brady-led alliance returned to Chuck’s

with an even larger coalition of local partners. The action

garnered the attention of Katie Couric and her film

production company which led to them featuring the

protest in their 2016 Sundance release documenting gun

violence in America.

The dividends of consciously respecting partners led to

this strong and diverse coalition by generating bigger

numbers in general and specifically activating more

people directly impacted by Chuck’s Guns to participate.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. and his advocacy group

Rainbow Push helped to drive out mothers of victims of

gun violence; Organizing for Action brought busloads

of activists from the northern Chicago suburbs and

state affiliates of partner organizations in Indiana and

Wisconsin turned out their members. On the local side,

Brady received the support of Kids off the Block, Hidya’s

Promise, Purpose Over Pain and People for a Safer Society.

Local politics often get in the way of allowing these

groups to work together but because of our deliberate

outreach, Brady was able to bring them together by

serving as a good faith partner and authentically engaging

the community.

As a result of these actions:

• Two new Brady Chapters in Illinois were chartered,

one of which was founded by a mother who lost one

of her children to a straw purchase from a bad apple;

• Local youth violence prevention organizations began

to prioritize finding a resolution for the havoc that

Chuck’s Gun Shop is wreaking on the community;

• The Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence

renewed their focus on passing Statewide Gun Dealer

Licensing Legislation to reform all bad apples and has

been successful in drawing the combined resources of

other national gun violence prevention partners; and,

• Local anti-violence groups have adopted Brady’s code

of conduct and are now working to see it adopted in

their towns and villages.


2016 In 2016 Brady built on the relationships created through

its work community organizing around stopping Chuck’s.

First, it cemented its commitment to State Gun Dealer

Licensing as a means of reforming Chuck’s and all other

IL bad apples by embedding a staffer to work on the

campaign statewide. So far this campaign has generated

the following results:

• Over 1000 volunteer calls into the city of Riverdale

educating voters about Chuck’s and pressing them

to support Gun Dealer Licensing as well as recruiting

volunteers to speak to their municipal government

about forcing Chuck’s to reform or shut down.

• Development of a large, dedicated and diverse

volunteer base in IL that is passionately working on

passing Gun Dealer Licensing and is helping spread

awareness about Chuck’s Guns and the campaign

• Statewide town-halls, summits, meetings about

Gun Dealer Licensing and the Stop “Bad Apple” Gun

Dealers campaign.

• Lobby visits to the state capital that raise awareness

about the crisis that bad apple gun dealers pose to IL

Brady continues to grow our coalition of partners and

engage the community of Riverdale. A key strategy Brady

is employing, which can be replicated in California, is

pushing for reform at the local level by having citizens

approach their municipal governments and demand

that they take action to reform or shut down Chuck’s.

This is part of Brady’s plan to further mobilize impacted

communities to become knowledgeable about “bad

apples” and then supporting them to pressure dealers to

reform. Brady continues to engage with clergy, grasstops

and grassroots in Riverdale to educate them about

Chuck’s.

Working with partners that focus on youth engagement,

Brady has educated local schools about the Stop “Bad

Apple” Gun Dealers campaign and about Chuck’s Guns.

We have developed workshops for youth impacted by

gun violence to empower them to be effective advocates

for reforming Chuck’s. This successful model is being

replicated throughout the state and could be used in

other parts of the country.


Most gun dealers, like most gun owners, are responsible

people, who want to do all they can to ensure that

firearms are only possessed by responsible, law-abiding

people. Responsible gun sellers know that their families,

friends, and communities are safer when they keep guns

out of the wrong hands.

Although the names of the victims, criminals, straw

purchasers and traffickers change with each shooting,

the source of most crime guns remains the same. A small

percentage of America’s gun dealers are where criminals

get guns. However, by employing responsible business

practices a gun dealer can reduce criminals’ access to

guns—and, correspondingly, gun crime, deaths, and

injuries.

This Code of Conduct defines some policies and

practices gun dealers should adopt to prevent the

diversion of guns into the illegal market. Each element

of the proposed Code has either been suggested by the

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

(ATF), imposed as a legal requirement in certain states,

accepted by dealers as part of litigation settlements,

or urged as a standard by major gun industry trade

associations.

The Code cannot—and does not—contemplate the

unique circumstances a particular gun seller faces in his

community or the discrete facts of any particular sale.

Nor does it include every reasonable business practice

that gun dealers should employ to prevent dangerous

people from obtaining guns, nor remove the gun dealers’

duty to exercise reasonable care in selling firearms.

But, implementing the Code, in addition to following

all applicable federal, state and local laws regarding

gun sales, will dramatically decrease the probability

that a dealer will be a source of guns for criminals, gun

traffickers, straw purchasers and other prohibited or

dangerous people.

The gun dealer commits to do all that it reasonably can to prevent dangerous people from obtaining and using firearms, including, but not limited to doing the following:

1 Prevent sales of guns to straw purchasers or gun traffickers. Law enforcement has long recognized that many

criminals obtain guns through straw purchasers and

gun traffickers who buy guns from licensed gun dealers

in order to supply the criminal market. It is the duty

of gun dealers to deny sales where there is a sufficient

likelihood or suspicion that it is a straw purchase—that

is, that the gun is not intended for the person completing

the required federal form (Form 4473). Gun dealers

should therefore do all they reasonably can to prevent

sales to straw purchasers or gun traffickers, including,

but not limited to:

• Screen for and refuse to sell to straw purchasers,

including by observing and asking questions of

prospective purchasers to determine if they are

buying for someone else.

• Maintain records of all trace requests received from

ATF and all purchasers that bought a gun later

traced to crime to identify such potential purchasers

if they attempt to purchase another firearm.

• Screen for and refuse to sell guns or ammunition to

purchasers that exhibit signs of alcohol intoxication,

drug use or possession, or mental instability.

• Prohibit dealer personnel from directing a customer

as to how to answer questions or forms required to

be completed in connection with the sale.

• Limit purchases of handguns to one per 30 days per

civilian, non-law enforcement customer.

APPENDIX D: Brady Code of Conduct


2 Prevent sales to persons prohibited from buying guns or too dangerous to possess guns.As a result of the landmark Brady Law, federally licensed

gun dealers must check the buyer’s background to make

sure that he or she is not prohibited from possessing

guns. Brady background checks have stopped more than

2.6 million gun sales to prohibited purchasers including

convicted felons, domestic abusers, fugitives from justice,

and other dangerous individuals. Gun dealers should

therefore do all they reasonably can to ensure that Brady

background checks are as effective as possible, including,

but not limited to:

• Refuse to transfer a firearm until a Brady background

check has been completed and the purchaser is

cleared to purchase the firearm.

• Search state court and criminal government

databases that may provide information on whether

the potential purchaser is prohibited.

• Refuse to sell a firearm to a potential purchaser if the

dealer has information that the purchaser may be a

danger to themselves or others.

• Refuse to sell firearms at gun shows unless all

firearm sales at such shows are conducted only upon

completion of a Brady background check.

• Perform Brady background checks for private sellers

for a reasonable fee.

3 Prevent criminals from obtaining firearms through thefts. Criminals sometimes obtain guns from gun dealers

through theft, and those guns, necessarily, end up in the

hands of criminals. Gun dealers should therefore do all

they reasonably can to develop a safety plan to protect the

dealership and deter theft, including, but not limited to:

• Develop a plan that includes adequate locks, exterior

lighting, surveillance cameras, alarm systems and

other anti-theft measures and practices. The plan

shall address the safe storage of weapons and

ammunition that is displayed during business hours

• Electronically record the make, model, caliber or

gauge, and serial number of all firearms that are

acquired no later than one business day after their

acquisition and electronically record their purchaser

no later than one business day after their disposition.

Monthly backups of these records shall be maintained

in a secure container. All firearms acquired but not

yet disposed of must be accounted for through a daily

electronic inventory check that is maintained at a

secure location.

• Provide immediate notification of any and all loss

or theft of any firearms to local and federal law

enforcement authorities.

4 Ensure that employees are responsible, law-abiding people that are prepared to be effective gatekeepers. To be an effective gatekeeper, gun dealers should

employ responsible, diligent, law-abiding people, and

develop and provide resources to equip its employees

with the tools to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Gun

dealers should therefore do all they reasonably can to

employ responsible people that are trained to adhere

to comprehensive and current compliance policies and

procedures, including, but not limited to:

• Conduct pre-employment background checks on all

potential employees, including contacting references

and prior employers, as well as conducting a criminal

history check that is the same as what gun buyers

have to complete.

• Require that all new employees attend a training

session prior to selling any firearms, and on an

annual basis thereafter. The training sessions shall

cover, at a minimum, the law governing firearm

transfers; how to recognize straw purchases; how

to recognize indicators that a person is attempting

to purchase firearms illegally and may be diverting

them for later sale or transfer, and how to respond to

those attempts.


• Review the circumstances surrounding each firearm

at issue in each ATF Trace Request, including a

review of the videotape or electronic recording of the

sale. Any sales person who participates in a clear or

obvious straw purchase in violation of store policy

or law will be terminated and dealer will seek and

support criminal prosecution, as appropriate.

• Annual review and update of compliance policies,

procedures and training materials; develop new

policies, procedures and training materials that

would have detected and prevented past sales to

gun traffickers, straw purchasers or other dangerous

people.

• Produce a bi-annual report of the store’s safety and

compliance record, and make it available to the

public; specifically highlighting the total number

of guns traced to the store in the prior 6 months

broken down by month; the number of known straw

purchases either attempted or completed within

the past 6 months broken down by month; and the

number of violations cited by the ATF over the past 6

months.

5 Assist law enforcement to investigate and prevent criminal access to guns.A gun dealer is the principal agent of federal

enforcement in restricting criminals’ access to firearms.

Law enforcement relies on gun dealers to provide

information to initiate, expand and pursue successful

prosecutions of criminals that are unlawfully trying to

obtain firearms. The gun dealer is often the “eyes and

ears” for law enforcement and will be in possession of

unique information that will be of vital assistance to law

enforcement. Gun dealers should therefore do all they

reasonably can to assist law enforcement, including, but

not limited to:

• Immediately notify local and federal authorities

of any suspected straw purchasers, prohibited

purchasers or dangerous individuals who attempt to

obtain guns.

• Immediately notify local and federal authorities of

any multiple handgun purchases that occur within

any ninety-day period.

• Videotape (including audio) and/or electronically

record (including audio) the point-of-sale of all

firearms transactions and maintain the videos or

electronic recordings for at least 5 years.

6 Maintain insurance for victims who are entitled to compensation.Most businesses maintain adequate insurance to

potentially compensate victims of wrongful conduct who

are entitled to compensation. Victims of gun violence

whose injury or loss was caused by the irresponsible

practices of a gun dealer deserve to be compensated for

their injuries. A responsible gun dealer should not keep

profits that resulted from its failure to keep guns out of

the wrong hands. Gun dealers should therefore secure

liability insurance that will insure the dealer against

liability for damage to property and for injury to, or death

of, any person as a result of the sale, lease or transfer of a

firearm or ammunition.

840 First Street, NE, Suite 400Washington, DC 20002www.bradycenter.org

(202) 370-8100

brady ca bagd proposal - final

Documents