|
Legislative Report
As was mentioned in the President’s message this is an extremely lengthy legislative report. It’s easy to pass over this material, but we ask that you take the time to see how the forces that would end some of the activities that you hold dearly are at work. It’s not always a direct attack, sometimes its subtle and circuitous, but it’s always aimed at curtailing your rights as a gun owner and hunter. In the near future, out of necessity, we will change our approach, and this will necessitate your participation, without it we will lose this important fight.
We not the only multi-species organization out there, but we are the big gorilla
and we need to start acting like it.
Late in the evening of Saturday, August 31, 2024, the 2024 California State Legislative Session – the final year of the two-year 2023/2024 Session – gaveled to a close. With the State Legislators done with their business, the spotlight shifted over to Governor Newsom, who has until September 30th to act upon
bills that made it to his desk
Legislation is listed in bill number order, not in order of priority.
• AB 262 (Holden) – Children’s Camps: Safety and Regulation – GOVERNOR’S DESK
As amended August 8, 2024, AB 262 by Assembly Member Chris Holden (D/41-Pasadena) would require the Department of Social Services (DSS) – subject to a special appropriation by the Legislature – to prepare a report, informed by consultation with a wide variety of stakeholders, regarding approaches
for children’s camp health, safety regulations, and oversight.
A “two-year” bill, AB 262 was originally introduced in January 2023. As introduced, AB 262 would have required that DSS assemble a stakeholder group specifically composed of representatives from the Department of Public Health, the Department of Education, the Department of Industrial Relations, and the Department of Parks and Recreation. As originally written, AB 262 would also have required that the stakeholder group include specific interests – expressly calling out “parent advocate groups” and “children’s safety groups”. Further, as previously written, the bill would have required that stakeholder group to make recommendations to address, among other things, appropriate qualifications and training for camp staff that oversee activities that carry an “inherent or heightened risk,” including “gun ranges”.
Since AB 262’s introduction twenty months ago, we had serious concerns regarding the fact that the bill did not require that the Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) or wildlife conservation or recreational shooting groups be included in the stakeholder group. Given that DSS has no history of working with DFW, or with conservation or shooting organizations, we were concerned that if our interests were not specifically called out in the bill we would not be at the table. Without our representation, we were confident that AB 262 would result in unnecessary and costly regulations being placed on camps, while not appropriately educating youth on wildlife conservation, our hunting, fishing, and archery pastimes, and firearms safety.
To address these concerns, we met with the author’s office several times during the 2023 Session to try to secure amendments to the bill which would ensure wildlife conservation, shooting organizations, and DFW were appropriately represented in the stakeholder group discussions. During the 2023 Session, AB 262 easily passed through the Assembly and the Senate. Passing off the Senate Floor in early September 2023, AB 262 was immediately sent back to the Assembly for their vote of approval of amendments placed in the bill in the Senate. However, in September 2023, prior to being brought up for that final vote, AB 262 was ordered to the inactive file at the request of the author and became a “two-year” bill. Taking no chances, early in the current 2024 Session – with AB 262 still on the inactive file – we met again with the author’s office and the Governor’s office to discuss our concerns. Those meetings went well, giving us hope that, should the bill move forward, it will be amended to address our concerns.
In June 2024, AB 262 was pulled off the inactive file and ordered to the Senate. In early August, AB 262 was brought to the Senate Floor and substantially amended to: a) require an appropriation by the Legislature specifically for this purpose to be implemented; and b) remove language which specifically called for “parent advocate groups” and “children’s safety groups” to be consulted, instead calling for a “wide variety of stakeholders” to be included. As recently amended, AB 262 still does not require that DSS consult with DFW but does not preclude them from doing so. In late August, AB 262 passed off the Senate Floor and was soon on its way to the Governor’s desk. AB 262 remains on the Governor’s desk at this time.
• AB 554 (Gabriel) – Corporations for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals: Enforcement of Laws - DEAD
Existing law authorizes a non-profit corporation for the prevention of cruelty to animals, or an officer thereof, to file a complaint against any person, before any court or judge having jurisdiction, for the violation of any law relating to or affecting animals and to aid in the prosecution of the offender before a court or magistrate.
AB 554 by Assembly Member Jesse Gabriel (D/46-Woodland Hills) would have authorized any such corporation, or an officer thereof, filing such a complaint to also bring it as a civil action to obtain specific or injunctive relief to enforce laws relating to or affecting animals. We believed that, given the bill’s loosely written language, AB 554 could place those who breed, train, or simply hunt with sporting dogs at unreasonable risk.
Double-referred, AB 554 was heard in two Assembly policy committees – passing out of both by April 2023. Having been tagged “non-fiscal”, AB 554 then bypassed Assembly fiscal committee and went straight to the Assembly Floor. In May 2023, while on the Assembly Floor, AB 554 was pulled from consideration and placed in the “inactive file” at the request of the author. Becoming a “two-year” bill, AB 554 could have been considered in the 2024 Session. However, having failed to pass off the Assembly Floor by the January 31, 2024, deadline, AB 554 died.
• AB 3064 (Maienschein) – Firearms: Safety Devices – GOVERNOR’S DESK
Existing law requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to compile and maintain a roster listing of all the firearm safety devices that have been tested by a certified testing laboratory, have been determined to meet DOJ’s standards for firearm safety devices, and thus may be sold in this state.
AB 3064 by Assembly Member Brian Maienschein (D/76-San Diego) would, commencing on January 1,2026, authorize DOJ to charge a fee for devices newly listed on the roster to cover costs related to the approval of the device. Further, the bill would authorize DOJ to charge each entity that manufactures or imports an approved firearm safety device into the state for sale an annual fee to cover the cost of storage of a prototype device. The fees may not exceed the costs of research and development, report analysis, storage of prototype devices, and other program infrastructure costs necessary to implement the requirements of the bill. Among many other things, AB 3064 would also require that any device newly added to the roster have the name of the manufacturer, the model number, and the model name, as they appear on the roster, engraved or otherwise permanently affixed to the device.
Existing law requires a person bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to DOJ a report within 60 days describing the firearm and providing personal information. Among other things, AB 3064 would allow the person to electronically submit the report and authorize DOJ to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon.
Existing law requires any sale, loan, or transfer of a firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. But current law exempts from this requirement the transfer of certain firearms that are curios or relics to a licensed firearm collector and certain transfers made by gift, bequest, intestate succession, or operation of law. Existing law requires a person who receives a firearm pursuant to these provisions, within 30 days after taking possession, to submit a report to DOJ describing the firearm and providing personal information. Current law also requires a collector who imports such a firearm into the state to submit a report to the department.
As amended, AB 3064 would require these reports to be submitted in a form and manner prescribed by DOJ and authorize DOJ to charge a fee for the processing of these forms. Further, the bill would make the furnishing of false or fictitious information on these reports punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would also authorize DOJ to request photographs of the firearm to determine if it is a prohibited weapon, as specified.
Moving quickly, AB 3064 passed through the Assembly and over to the Senate before the end of May via party-line votes. On the Senate side, AB 3064 continued to ride its party-line wave, passing through the Senate and off to the Governor’s desk in late August. AB 3064 remains on the Governor’s desk at this time.
• SB 8 (Blakespear/Skinner) – Civil Law: Firearms Liability and Insurance – DEAD
SB 8 – co-authored by Senator Catherine Blakespear (D/38-Laguna Hills) and Senator Nancy Skinner (D/9-Oakland) – would have required gun owners to obtain and maintain a gun liability insurance policy which specifically would cover losses or damages resulting from any negligent or accidental use of that firearm, including death, injury, or property damage. The bill would also have required written evidence of coverage in the place where a firearm is stored. In addition, SB 8 would have required the Insurance Commissioner to set the minimum coverage for a policy required by the bill and to develop a standardized form of evidence of liability coverage. SB 8 would have taken effect on January 1, 2025.
SB 8 was heard in Senate policy in April 2023 with testimony taken by us and others, but no vote held. Having missed the April 2023 deadline for policy committees to pass bills tagged fiscal to fiscal committee, SB 8 became a “two-year” bill that could be considered early in the 2024 Session.
However, because SB 8 was not heard and passed out of the Senate fiscal committee by the January 2024 deadline, SB 8 died.
• SB 53 (Portantino) – Firearms Storage – GOVERNOR’S DESK
Existing law imposes storage requirements to prevent children from gaining access to firearms. SB 53 by Senator Anthony J. Portantino (D/25-Glendale) would require a person who possesses a firearm in a residence to keep the firearm securely stored when the firearm is not being carried or readily controlled by the person or another lawful authorized user. For purposes of these provisions, a firearm is securely stored if the firearm is maintained within, locked by, or disabled using a certified firearm safety device or secure gun safe that meets specified standards. The bill would make a first and second violation of this offense punishable as an infraction, and a third or subsequent violation punishable as a misdemeanor. The bill would exempt firearms that are unloaded antiques or permanently inoperable from these provisions. The bill would require the DOJ to seek to inform residents about these standards for storage of firearms. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor or a felony if a person keeps a firearm within any premises that are under the person’s custody or control and the person knows or reasonably should know that a child is likely to gain access to the firearm without the permission of the child’s parent or legal guardian, and the child obtains access to the firearm and causes injury, other than great bodily injury, or death or great bodily injury to the child or any other person or carries that firearm off-premises to a public place or a school. Existing law, however, exempts a person from the above provisions if the person has no reasonable expectation that a child is likely to be present on the premises. SB 53 would remove that exemption.
SB 53 would go into effect beginning on January 1, 2026. Introduced on December 5, 2023, SB 53 launched out of the starting blocks at a record pace – passing through the Senate and over to the Assembly via party-line votes before the end of January 2024.
On the Assembly side, SB 53 continued to ride the party-line, easily working its way through the Assembly and off to the Governor’s desk in late August. SB 53 remains on the Governor’s desk at this time.
• SB 921 (Roth) – Animal Welfare – DEAD
Existing law makes it a crime to inflict unnecessary cruelty or to abuse an animal in any manner, including, but not limited to, maliciously and intentionally maiming, mutilating, torturing, or wounding an animal.
As introduced, SB 921 by Senator Richard D. Roth (D/31-Riverside) would have additionally made it a crime to otherwise abuse or subject a living animal to needless suffering. Further, the bill would have made it a crime for a person to maliciously and intentionally mistreat any animal even if the mistreatment does not cause physical injury. We were concerned that the lack of a specific definition of the term “mistreat” in SB 921, as introduced, could have opened the door for animal-rights interests to place law-abiding individuals –including those who are safely training a dog for sporting purposes or other reasons– at risk. Fortunately, SB 921 was amended to require that specified handling and husbandry practices widely regarded as routine, including rodeo or rodeo related events, not be presumed to constitute animal mistreatment. Further, as amended, the bill would also have made animal treatment laws inapplicable to acts authorized pursuant to permits issued by a state or federal wildlife agency as part of a wildlife conservation research or recovery effort including, but not limited to, immobilizations, vaccinations, tagging, banding, collaring, or similar activities.
Among other things, as amended, SB 921 also expressly stated that the bill’s provisions would not interfere with any of the laws known as the “game laws.” The bill also stated that its provisions “do not interfere with the right to destroy any venomous reptile, or any animal known as dangerous to life, limb, or property, or interfere with the right to kill an animal used for food.”
SB 921 passed out of Senate policy committee in early April but died a week later in Senate fiscal committee.
• SB 922 (Roth) – Animal Cruelty – DEAD
Existing law makes it a crime to leave or confine an animal in an unattended motor vehicle under conditions that endanger the health or well-being of an animal due to heat, cold, lack of adequate ventilation, lack of food or water, or other circumstances that could reasonably be expected to cause suffering, disability, or death to the animal. Existing law makes a first conviction for the crime punishable by a fine not exceeding $100, or if the animal suffers great bodily injury, by a fine not exceeding $500, imprisonment in a county jail, or both. Existing law makes a subsequent conviction punishable by a fine not exceeding $500 dollars, imprisonment in a county jail, or both. Existing law requires a person who is convicted of specified crimes related to animal abuse, and who is granted probation, to successfully complete counseling.
As introduced, SB 922 by Senator Richard D. Roth (D/31-Riverside) would have increased those fines to $500 for a first offense and $2,000 for a subsequent offense or if the animal suffers great bodily injury. SB 922 would also have expanded the requirement to require a person convicted of leaving an animal in an unattended motor vehicle to complete counseling, an education program on the dangers of leaving an animal inside of an unattended motor vehicle, or both. Further, the bill would have made failure to complete the counseling or education program a misdemeanor.
We were concerned that, given the loose language of existing law and the significant increase in fines and penalties that this bill proposed, SB 922 could embolden animal-rights interests to attempt to place law-abiding individuals – such as those who transport sporting dogs in kennels – at unreasonable risk.
SB 922 was set to be heard in Senate policy committee in early April but was pulled from consideration and died.
• SB 1160 (Portantino) – Firearms: Annual Registration of Firearms – AMENDED
As introduced, SB 1160 by Senator Anthony J. Portantino (D/25-Glendale) would have required firearms to be annually registered with DOJ. The bill would also have required registrants to annually pay a “to be determined” registration fee – estimated to be as high as $250/gun or more – to fund DOJ’s administration and enforcement of the firearm registry. The bill would have required DOJ to establish and maintain a system for the annual registration of firearms and create the registered Firearm File.
SB 1160 would have exempted antique firearms, as well as firearms used in service by a peace officer, firearms owned by any department or agency of the state or federal government, or any firearm owned by the Armed Forces of the United States, California National Guard, or California State Guard. Firearms personally owned by any employee or appointee of these entities would not have been exempted.
SB 1160 would have required that all guns be registered as of July 1, 2025.
With our conservation coalition letter of strong opposition to SB 1160 on file, the bill was slated to be heard in the Senate policy committee in early April. At that hearing, as we readied to testify in opposition, the bill’s author suddenly announced that he was pulling SB 1160 from consideration. Days later, SB 1160 was gutted and amended to deal with open carry of handguns.
• SB 1163 (Dahle) – Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions: Wildlife Salvage Permits – DEAD
During the 2024 Session, wildlife conservation interests sponsored SB 1163 – legislation which was intended to improve public safety and promote the health of California’s deer by reducing the frequency of vehicle-wildlife collisions on California’s roadways. Graciously authored by Senator Brian Dahle (R-Redding), SB 1163 would have authorized the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to develop a pilot program which would have enhanced the gathering of data on vehicle-wildlife collisions via the creation of a smartphone app that allowed motorists to report the location and type of roadkill easily, and in real-time. To further augment data collection, SB 1163 would have authorized the Fish and Game Commission to establish a pilot program that would allow persons to salvage edible portions of deer, elk, antelope, or wild pig killed on our roadways – provided they submitted the necessary data via the app and obtained a salvage permit. With the use of the greatly enhanced roadkill databank generated by SB 1163, CDFW, California Highway Patrol, Caltrans, and other state agencies could better predict road-kill hotspots and evaluate the placement of wildlife road crossings and other actions to reduce future vehicle-wildlife collisions.
SB 1163 easily passed through the Senate and off the Senate Floor before the end of May. On the Assembly side, SB 1163 maintained its momentum – passing out of Assembly policy committee unopposed in late June. Unfortunately, the bill’s momentum came to an abrupt stop in mid-August. Falling victim to California’s
significant budget shortfall, SB 1163 was held in Assembly fiscal committee and died.
• SB 1226 (Cortese) – Hunting: Navigable Waters – SIGNED
Existing law makes it unlawful to enter land for the purpose of discharging a firearm or taking any mammal or bird, including waterfowl, on that land, without having first obtained written permission from the owner, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession of that land, if either of the following applies: (1) the land belongs to, or is occupied by, another person and is either under cultivation or enclosed by a fence, or (2) there are signs forbidding trespass or hunting or both displayed at intervals not less than 3 to the mile along all exterior boundaries and at all roads and trails entering those lands, including land temporarily inundated by water flowing outside the established banks of a waterway.
Sponsored by conservation interests, SB 1226 by Senator Dave Cortese (D/15-Campbell) will restrict the application of the provisions regarding land temporarily inundated by water flowing outside the established banks of a waterway to non-navigable waters. The bill will also state that these provisions do not restrict the public’s right to use navigable waters for hunting, fishing, or other public purposes.
SB 1226 amends §2016 of the Fish and Game Code to make it more consistent with two State Attorney General Opinions that found that hunting is an integral part of the public right of navigation; and that §2016 restrictions on hunting navigable floodwaters are unconstitutional because they conflict with Article X, Section IV of the California Constitution, which requires the State Legislature protect the public’s access to navigable waters. Under SB 1226, §2016 restrictions on hunting will still apply to any non-navigable waters and lands that meet the other requirements of that Section.
When it goes into effect on January 1, 2025, SB 1226 will not only help ensure that sportsmen and women exercising their rights on navigable floodwaters are not wrongly cited for trespassing, but it will also save the court system time and money. Most district attorneys are unaware of the State Attorney General Opinions, and judges who have access to them typically dismiss that particular charge due to concerns about infringement on the public’s rights. Further, SB 1226 will not affect any other provision in law, including other code sections that restrict or ban hunting, or the ability of the California Fish and Game Commission to further regulate the taking of game and fish on navigable waters.
SB 1226 easily passed through the Senate and over to the Assembly by early May. Once in the Assembly, SB 1226 maintained its momentum – easily passing through the Assembly and off the Assembly Floor by early August unopposed.
SB 1226 was placed on the Governor’s desk on August 13th and signed into law on August 19th.
• SB 1253 (Gonzalez) – Firearms Safety Certificates – DIED
SB 1253 by Senator Lena A. Gonzalez (D/33-Huntington Park) would have prohibited a person from bringing any firearm, except an antique firearm, into this state as a personal firearm importer without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 120 days of bringing that firearm into this state.
Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Further current law requires an applicant to pass the written test to obtain or renew a firearm safety certificate and the payment of a $25 fee. Current law also provides that a firearm safety certificate shall expire 5 years after the date of issuance. However, existing law expresses the intent of the Legislature not to require a firearm safety certificate for the mere possession of a firearm.
As originally introduced, SB 1253 would have prohibited a person from possessing a firearm without the possession of a valid, unexpired firearm safety certificate. Largely due to our collective opposition, the language of SB 1253 was considerably watered down since it was introduced in February.SB 1253 quickly made its way through the Senate, passing off the Senate Floor and over to the Assembly before the end of May. Once in the Assembly, SB 1253 was heard in Assembly policy committee in June, passing out and to the Assembly fiscal committee via party-line. In August, SB 1253 was held in Assembly fiscal committee and died.
AB28 (Gabriel), this bill became law on July 1, 2024, and imposed an 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and firearm parts. On July 2, 2024, a lawsuit was filed in the San Diego County Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of the law. This lawsuit was filed by: Danielle Jaymes, Joshuah Gerken, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Firearm Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and the National Rifle Association of America. Little has transpired at this point, but a court hearing has been proposed for October of this year. For those who wish to follow this case more closely it is captioned Jaymes v Maduros
27-2024-00031147-cu mc-ctl. We will follow this case and report on significant events.
In this report where the term “we” was utilized it referred to Bill Gaines of Bill Gaines & Associates a lobbying firm that has been assisting us on an unpaid status.
| 
