B
i
:• I
i

i

fii

iii

%'
A

;i

yj \«

/

S V

V

/■

ot liO D e

FINAL REPORT

August 1995

Attorney General Daniel E. Lungren’s
Policy Council on Violence Prevention
I

This publication was prepared by the Crime and Violence Prevention Center, California Attorney General’s Office.
i

I

NITIATIVES

a

MEDIA

Promote policies and strategies that increase the
constructive use of media to deglamorize violence and
promote nonviolent social norms.

FIREARMS

I

Promote policies and strategies that reduce deaths and
injuries from firearms.

Promote policies and strategies that reduce violence

ALCOHOL

associated with alcohol.

COMMUNITY

Promote policies and strategies that strengthen commu
nities and schools by expanding local ownership and
control.

'h'’

RELATIONSHIPS

Promote policies and strategies that support families,
recognizing them as the basic institution for developing
and nurturing children.

Promote policies and strategies that foster and support
violence-free relationships.

YOUTH

Promote policies and strategies that ensure the devel
opment of healthy and responsible youth.

RESPECT for
DIVERSITY

Promote policies and strategies that recognize that all
people matter,fostering a respect for diversity.

PERSONAL & SOCIAL
responsibility

Promote policies and strategies that advance personal
and social responsibility.

research &
EVALUATION

Promote policies and strategies to support violence
prevention research and evaluation based on the public
health model.

13

!

I'.

NITIATIVE: FIREARMS
Promote policies and strategies that reduce deaths and injuries
from firearms.

BACKGROUND
//

Homicide victims are getting younger and younger and younger ... with
the most rapid rate of increase in the 15- to 19-year olds. ... Simulta
neously, the perpetrators are also getting younger and younger. So,
increasingly, in/e have a problem of kids killing kids ... and firearms
playing a central role in this epidemic of youth homicide.
//

— Mark Rosenberg

t-

-■x-

•5^

National Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention’

California has the unenviable distinction of being one of the first states
to report that gunshot wounds have become the leading cause of injury
deaths, even surpassing vehicular accidents. Deaths and injuries due to
firearms are both a public health and law enforcement concern; both
fields have made it a priority to prevent future firearm tragedies.

would prevent
V

accidental
deaths and
...

r,i.

injuries ton

‘•I
f'

'm

In February 1995, the California Police Chiefs' Association adopted a
position paper on the regulation of firearms stating, "The lack of regula
tion over and misuse of firearms is one of the most daunting issues we
must face, if we are ever to address the tragedy that threatens the viabil
ity of our society." An unequivocal goal of the association is "the saving
of human lives through a substantive reduction in the misuse of fire
arms.

I'.-i c-

L'i

V

vuiminto:allM^
■<T'

"2

R

The California Department of Justice reported that firearm-related homi
cides in California increased by 67.4 percent from 1988 to 1993. Fire
arms were used in 74 percent of the 4,095 homicides in California in
1993. Handguns were used in 85 percent of these firearm-involved
homicides.^ In 1993, firearms were involved in almost two-thirds of the
armed robberies and almost one quarter of all aggravated assaults re
ported.'*

California teenagers and young adults face an especially high risk of
being killed with a firearm. During 1993, about 70 percent of all homit

i#
V

89
M

.-e

cide victims under age 18 and 83 percent of victims aged 18 to 29 were
killed with a firearm. Proportionately, victims 40 years of age or older
were

less likely to be killed with a firearm than any other age group (58

percent).5

Based on a comprehensive national study of the financial cost of firearm
violence, the California Research Bureau, California State Library, devel

oped a model and applied it to the state. Some of the major findings of
this study are;

• Wounded gunshot victims and gunshot fatalities in California cost
$703 million in direct medical care in 1993.

• Over 80 percent (or nearly $569 million) of the medical care provided
to gunshot victims in California was uncompensated cost passed on
to the public.

• The average cost of treating a gunshot victim in California in 1993
■ was $25,883.

' '

'' ; "

• The average cost due to loss in productivity and guality of life per
gunshot fatality in California in 1993 was over $2.4 million.

• Firearm-related injuries and fatalities in 1993 indirectly cost Califor
nians over $16.9 billion in lost productivity and quality of life, based
on state-adjusted costs for 1992.®

Sales of firearms rose dramatically in California from 483,574 in 1991 to

635,688 in 1993, an increase of about 30 percent. In 1994, sales of
firearms dropped about 6.7 percent from the 1993 figures to 593,246.
About two handguns are sold for every long gun sold in California. In
1994, the Department of Justice checked 599,672 dealer records of sale
for the purchase of firearms, as required by law, and denied 6,426
purchases or transfers from being made. Of these denials, 21 were
denied because the individuals involved had prior homicide convictions,
333 were under restraining order, and 3,041 had prior assault convic
tions.^

The Policy Council's approach to the Firearms Initiative was to address
actions that should be taken to reduce the lethality and availability of
firearms. The Council's recommendations on firearms reflect its concern

for injuries and unnecessary loss of life and range from manufacturing
standards and sale of hollow-point bullets to firearms dealer require
ments, licensure of handgun purchasers, and safe storage. The Council
believes that through prevention efforts, public education and legisla
tion, California could; 1) reduce the numbers of injuries and deaths from
firearms; and 2) reduce the numbers of firearms that end up in the
hands of violent offenders, impulsive or threatened youth, inexperienced
or unskilled owners, and criminals.

90

f

The Council was aware of the complex legal questions involved in imple
menting some of the recommendations concerning firearms. There were
heated debates and disagreements on the specific wording of some of the
recommendations. However, consensus was reached to include most of

the recommendations in this report, as long as the minority views were
reflected in the discussion.

One major recommendation on which the Council could not reach con

sensus relates to the repeal of state pre-emption over regulation of fire
arms. Although the Council agreed to adopt the general principle of local
control and ownership of violence prevention efforts, members could not
reach agreement on this issue. Council members did, however, agree that
the debate on the issue of pre-emption should be included in the report
because of the significance of the issue.
California law restricts the regulation of firearms to the state. "Existing
California law provides that it is the intention of the Legislature to occupy
the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commer
cially manufactured firearms, and that such provisions shal l be exclusive of
all local regulations relating to registration or licensing by any city or
county." (Gov. Code, § 53071.)
The proposed Council recommendation, which was given serious consider
ation, stated;

California should enact legislation to repeal Government Code section
53071 and allow local jurisdictions (cities and counties) to regulate the
sales and possession of firearms.

After vigorous debate, the Council could not reach consensus on the
inclusion of this recommendation in the report. The Council's discussion
is summarized below.

Arguments in favor of eliminating state pre-emption and allowing local
regulation of firearm sales and possession:
• The firearm issue is no different than other local issues, and problems

are best solved by local communities that can assess and determine
appropriate solutions to their problems.
• The clear, strong relationship between the availability of firearms and
the incidence of violent crimes is a critical issue in violence prevention,

which local jurisdictions need authority to impact.

• Authorizing local jurisdictions to regulate firearms is not meant to be
an initial move to ban all firearms, but simply to provide local control
over the issue.

• Gun control is not a constitutional issue; no gun control law has ever

been overturned by a federal court on Second Amendment grounds.
• Inconsistency in local laws exist in other fields of law and are man
aged by local jurisdictions.

91

Arguments against eliminating state pre-emption, which prohibits local
regulation of firearms sales and possession:
• Local regulations could

lead to inconsistencies in the law, which.

could result in law-abiding citizens unknowingly committing

crimes

by bringing a legally owned weapon into a jurisdiction with specific
restrictions against such weapons.

• Local regulations could infringe on civil liberties such as the right to
bear arms,

limiting the ability of individuals to own or possess a gun

for protection of themselves and their homes.

• Local regulation could be a first step in an out-and-out ban of all
firearms in some
ment

localities, following a pattern similar to the develop-

of local anti-cigarette smoking ordinances.

Other discussion on

local control,concerned revising appropriate sections

of the Government Code to authorize local jurisdictions to enact time,

such . .
place and manner regulations-for firearms sales. For example,
across the
regulations would restrict a firearms dealer from locating
street from an

elementary school, daycare center or youth recreational

center.

The Council concluded this portion of the deliberations by strongly

reiterating its belief in the connection between firearms availability and

the lethality of violence, Council members encourage additional public
debate on the issue of pre-emption.

The following recommendations were based on the evidence presented
a
to the Council and the collective wisdom of the group in seeking
firearms
common ground on firearms. Although many issues involving
and resources to
were vigorously debated, the Council lacked the time

conduct an exhaustive analysis of every issue. Ultimately, decisions on

these matters will require further public investigation and debate, as well
as

potential action by the Legislature, the Governor and, perhaps, the

courts.

92

L.

R

C

E

O

M

M

E

N

D

A

T

0

N

S

manufacture and

of handguns
commonly
referred
as "Saturday
D sale
California
should enact
legislation
to toprohibit
the Night Specials.
Discussion:

One difficulty in addressing the issue of the Saturday Night Special (SNS)
the lack of a common definition. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco
and Firearms describes the Saturday Night Special as a weapon that
was

retails for less than $50, is .32-caliber or lower, and has a barrel length
of three inches or less.® Other definitions include the following descrip

tors: short barreUow caliber, small size that maximizes concealability,

cheaply constructed from low tensile strength materials that minimize
the price and carry the potential to injure the user.

Proponents of this recommendation argued that a handgun with these
or self-defense
man ufacturing specifications serves no useful sporting
purposes, and that:

• Handguns made of cheap, low tensile strength materials prevent
prolonged use in target shooting.
• The short barrel of this handgun precludes use in hunting or
target shooting.

• A bullet of higher velocity and caliber is necessary to provide
adequate "stopping power" for self-defense purposes.
• This type of handgun is consistently awarded poor quality ratings
by the gun industry itself.

Dr. Garen Wintemute testified on the handgun industry in California. In

his testimony, he reviewed Ring of Fire, a report from the Violence
Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.

Specifically, this report describes a small group of handgun manufactur
ers in Southern California who produce the great majority of Saturday

Night Specials made in the United States. According to Dr. Wintemute,
"such small, inexpensive handguns [SNS] are disproportionately involved
in violence and figure in thousands of firearm crimes each year. In 1992,
the most recent year for which data are available, six California manu

facturers produced 685,934 handguns — 34 percent of all handguns
made in the United States."®

Ring of Fire includes excerpts from the magazine Gun Tests, which is
characterized as the equivalent of Consumer Reports for gun buyers.
Guns Tests conducts its own "rigorous" product evaluations. The fol

lowing Gun Tests product evaluations were included in Ring of Fire:
In its review of two versions of a .22-caliber pistol both guns had
93

enough problems with feeding and chambering that they were effec
you
tively rendered single-shot pistols." They concluded: "[i]fThe
review
fine."
plan to do anything but look at them, they ... are
I never

was

subtitled, "Don't Waste Your Money.

10

In its Gun Tests evaluation, another .25-caliber pistol "performed

reliably, either failing to chamber a round or overriding the top
cartridge in the magazine with a resulting feeding failure about 20
un

percent of the time." After test firing, the evaluators concluded;
but this ...

"Accuracy from this type of pistol is seldom impressive,
performance was worse than usual

The gun received a "Do Not Buy

recommendation.
Gun

Tests found another recently introduced .22-caliber pistol to be

were mediocre at
categorrcally "Unacceptable." IDs ."handling qualities
best.." In test firing, the evaluators "experienced 20 misfires due to
battery,
light firing-pin strikes and 36 failures to completely lock into
and [the gun] failed to feed truncated-nose ammunition about 25
percent of the time, The bottom line; a "Do Not Buy" recommenda12

tion.
Some

Council members expressed their concerns that banning these low-

and cheaply manufactured firearms could deprive people of selfprotection, if they could not afford to buy more expensive, higher-quality

cost

handguns,

Others argued that prohibiting the manufacture of these

move
particular low-grade, cheap handguns in California wouldofsimply
the
state.
In
the industry — with its employment and tax base — out
addition, such a ban could result in the substitution of more expensive,

reliable and lethal handguns by criminals. The Council agreed, however,

that the state should prohibit the manufacture and sale of this type of
firearm in California because this action would reduce the availability of
small, easily concealable, cheaply made handguns.

manufactured
in
stan

California to
meetenact
the same
consumer
safety guns
and production
B California
should
legislation
to
require
dards imposed on imported firearms.
Discussion:

The Council believes that Californians should have the same degree of

protection from handguns manufactured in this state as they can cur
rently expect from handguns imported from foreign manufacturers.

In 1968, Congress responded to an epidemic of violence and public
§ 921 et
concern by enacting the Gun Control Act of 1968. (18 U.S.C.S.
seq.) Among its many provisions was a ban on the importation of firearms

94

(Saturday Night Specials), which were determined to not be "suit-

To implement the ban, the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) developed the factoring criteria

able for sporting purposes.

defining the specifications and describing the characteristics of these
handguns. Although such handguns were also manufactured in the
United States, Congress consciously and deliberately exempted their
domestic production from such standards.

The BATF standards for imported revolvers and pistols address barrel

length, frame construction, weapon weight (unloaded), caliber, revolver
safety features such as lock mechanism and loaded chamber indicators,

and miscellaneous equipment, including double action and target grips.
To determine if a particular handgun meets import standards, the BATF

awards points, as appropriate, for each of these characteristics. A
specified number of points is required for the gun to meet import stan-

,. dards.’^

,

;

• - ;

At the request of the Violence Prevention Research Program, the BATF

evaluated handguns manufactured by six California manufacturers to

determine if they met the standards imposed on imported firearms.'^

The BATF found that most California-manufactured handguns are too

small and too easily concealable to meet the importation criteria. Others
meet the size criteria, but fall below other design or performance stan
dards.'®

California should enact legislation that requires gun manufacturers

to build in or provide child safety devices for all firearms sold m this
state and requires all dealers to offer such devices at the point of
sale.

Discussion:

There are no California laws requiring gun manufacturers to build in or

provide child safety devices for firearms sold in California, nor are there

laws requiring dealers to offer such devices at the point of sale. No
federal law authorizes jurisdiction over the design and domestic produc
tion of firearms. In fact. Congress expressly prohibits the Consumer

Product Safety Commission from exercising jurisdiction over firearms or
ammunition. (15 U.S.C.S. § 2052(a)(1)(E) and § 2080, note; 18 U.S.C.S.
§ 921 et seq.)

A variety of California laws have been enacted to reduce incidents of
accidental deaths and injuries from firearms through education and
threat of penalties for careless handling. For example, firearm safety

devices are a mandated topic for inclusion in the Department of Justice
California Firearms Law booklet, and methods for childproofing firearms

95

m

and safe storage are within the scope of knowledge required for receipt
of a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate. (Pen. Code, §§ 12080 subd. (a)(5),
12803 subd. (a)(1).) Under the Children's Firearm Accident Prevention

Act of 1991, any person who keeps a loaded firearm where a child ob- ■
tains it and improperly uses it may be fined or sent to prison. (Pen. Code,
§ 12035.) In addition, licensed gun dealers are required to conspicuously
post a sign within their licensed premises that warns their patrons; "If
you leave a loaded firearm where a child obtains and improperly uses it,
you may be fined or sent to prison." (Pen. Code, § 12071, subd. (b)(7).)
These measures, however, only promote, rather than ensure safety.
In its recent Policy Paper, the California Police Chiefs' Association (CPCA)
stated that "a gun is a product not unlike a car, chain saw or lawn
mower, in that it is capable of being designed and manufactured in such
manner as to render it .less likely to be misused or cause unintended injury

to'the operator." The association recommended that'domestic and
imported firearms manufacturers be subject to consumer product safety
standards.''^

The CPCA also addressed storage of firearms in its policy paper: "Guns
left lying about the home unsecured kill or injure thousands of people a
year. Responsible gun ownership demands that no firearm ever be left
unattended in such condition that it can be readily used or stolen." The
CPCA also recommends that "all firearms at the time of sale be sold with

a separate locking device that would render a firearm incapable of imme
diate use.

18

The addition of safety devices such as trigger locks and handle grips
would provide a primary prevention strategy, making it nearly impossible
for young children to pull the trigger of a loaded firearm without supervi
sion or help from an adult. The firearms industry has already developed
this technology. These safety devices would prevent accidental deaths
and injuries to children if they were installed or built into all guns sold in
California.

Based on these findings, the Council strongly recommends that gun
manufacturers be required to build in or provide safety devices in firearms
sold in California, and that dealers be required to offer such safety de
vices at the point of sale.

should
□ The
California
Attorney
General,
Governor
and
Legislature
enforcement
urge Congress to support the continuation and rigorous

■t
fe '.
•t's.-.

of the federal assault weapons ban.
-m-

■mw

96

Discussion:

"Assault weapons, like the ones used to brutally murder my wife and
seven others [at 101 California Street, San Francisco], have absolutely no
place in our society, and they threaten the well-being of our most impor
tant natural resource — our people. ... What further evidence do we

need to classify an assault weapon as a weapon of mass destruction?
Eight dead, six wounded ... is that not enough?
19

The federal assault weapons ban, included in the Violent Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, was signed into law on September
13, 1994. (Pub.L. 103-322 (Sept. 13, 1994), 108 Stat. 1996.) Withi n

a

few months after its enactment, efforts were already underway for its
repeal. The new federal law:

• Makes it unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer or
serriiautomatic assault weapon-after September'13, 1994.

possess a

• .

• Defines the term "semiautomatic assault weapon" to mean: 1) any
of the 19 types of firearms, or copies, or duplicates of the firearms in

any caliber, as specified; 2) a semiautomatic rifle that has the ability
to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of five specific
assault features; 3) a semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to
accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of five specified
assault features; and 4) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least
two of four specified assault features.

• Makes it unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a "large capac
ity ammunition feeding device" as defined, which was manufactured

after September 13, 1994, and has a capacity of, or can be readily
restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

• Exempts the use of semiautomatic assault weapons by the military or
law enforcement officers.

• Doubles the penalty to 10 years for anyone who uses a banned
weapon in a violent or drug trafficking crime.

• Repeals the law 10 years after enactment. (Pub.L. 103-322 (Sept.
13, 1994), 108 Stat. 1996, Sec. 110101 et seq.)

Assault weapons and large-capacity magazine clips clearly increase the
capacity for death and injury of innocent victims when available to and

used by criminals. Council members could determine no justification for
anyone but law enforcement or the military to have this level of fire
power.

The Council supports the federal assault weapons ban and recommends
that the California Attorney General, Governor and Legislature urge
Congress to support continuation and rigorous enforcement of the law.

97

California should enact legislation to limit the sale of expanding,
hollow-point ammunition because of its lethality and ability to cause
extensive injury and organ damage.
Discussion:

Restricting the sale of expanding, hollow-point bullets was recom
mended to the Council on a number of occasions, primarily by emer
gency and trauma physicians. The physicians based this recommenda
tion on their first-hand experiences attempting to save the lives of
people wounded by these bullets. A discussion of bullet characteristics
taken from an article in the Journal of Trauma follows:

There are two major classes of high-velocity bullets — jacketed (e.g.,
full patch, military) and expanding (e.g., mushrooming, soft nose,
5pdrting).. In. accord with.-internationai layv (Geneva Convention), all ;
military bullets must be the full-jacketed, non-expanding type. Gener
ally, such bullets maintain their approximate caliber in passing through
tissue masses in animals comparable in size to man. This international
agreement applies to bullets of all nations.

In contrast to full-jacketed ammunition are the expanding bullets.
When performing ideally, this type of bullet expands to several times
its original caliber, thereby establishing a very wide wound tract, the
frontal area of which far exceeds that produced by full-jacketed bul

■

lets. The expanding bullet forms a wound that is a cone of enor
mously greater volume.

Velocity and bullet design are the major determinants of wounding
capability in gunshot wounds. High-velocity bullet wounds differ from
other penetrating injuries in that wound size bears little relationship to
the dimensions of the wounding agent. ... Expanding bullets used for
sporting purposes create a permanent tract much larger than that
produced by full-jacketed, military type bullets. In experiments with
.30-caliber bullets traveling at a speed of 2900 feet per second, wound
volumes ... were approximately 40 times as great with expanding
bullets, as compared with full-patch military bullets.
Wounds due to high-speed bullets in hunting accidents and home
accidents in the average community are almost always due to jacketed,
expanding-type bullets (e.g., soft nose, hollow-points). As such, they
embrace the most damaging properties of moving bullets — high
velocity and widely expanded wound tract."20

Expanding hollow-point bullets cause substantial organ and tissue
damage in providing the "stopping power" to immediately disable or kill
the intended victim. Hollow-point injuries are far more destructive, life
threatening and, ultimately, costly to treat.

98

TV

A number of arguments against restricting the sale of hollow-point

bu lets were made by a few CouncN members, including: 1)the design of
the bullet IS more effective in stopping perpetrators of crime; 2) many law
enforcement professionals believe these bullets are safer because they
stop perpetrators without exiting the victim and wounding or killing

will kill the animal immediately rather than wounding it and allowing it to
nder off and slowly bleed to death; and 4) banning hollow-point

wa

bullets would create an underground market for the ammunition.

Afte consideration of these views, the Council concluded that regulating

and imi mg accessibility to lethal and destructive expanding, hollowpoint bullets was consistent with the initiative to reduce deaths and

injuries due to firearms. Thus, the.Council recommends that hollow-

point bulletsales be limited, for example, to people who are licensed

hunters.

H Califorma should enact legislation to require ail gun dealers to reel

“proper dealer
H T' licensing requirementsdepartmenuo
'
have been ensure ,ha,
met.

Discussion:

The Council was concerned about the licensing of firearms dealers and
the monitoring of their compliance with the law. Council members were
also interested in determining how local communities could impact
enforcement of these laws. During the course of the Council's public ■
hearings and deliberations, both federal and state legislation was enacted
hat addressed some of these concerns. Specifically, firearm dealer
icense applicants are now required to notify the police chief or sheriff of
the jurisdictions in which they wish to conduct business. (Pub.L. 103-322

!

i.ii

( eptember 13, 1994), 108 Stat. 2013, Sec. 110302.) However, it should
be noted that neither state i

nor federal law requires any kind of response

from the local law enforcement: agency.

Currently, persons selling, leasing or transferring firearms in the State of

California must be licensed in compliance with both federal and state
laws. (Pen. Code, § 12070, subd. (a).) These laws are reviewed below;
Federal Requirements for Firearms Dealer Licensure

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF), there
federally licensed California firearms dealers in January

■ Minimal federal requirements at that time made dealer licenses
ery easy to obtain. Possession of a federal license allowed the holder to
■ t

99

t

buy large numbers of firearms at wholesale prices and to buy handguns
without a waiting period. Of these federally licensed dealers, 20 percent

perated out of storefronts, and 80 percent sold guns from their homes,
at gun shows or through catalog orders. There was little BATF control to

0

ensure that non-storefront locations complied with the law.^'

In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act tightened
federal standards for BATF licensing of firearms dealers. This law di
rected the Secretary of the Treasury to notify the chief law enforcement
officer in the appropriate state and local jurisdictions of the names and
addresses of all persons in the state to whom a firearms license was
issued. (Pub.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 2014, Sec. 110307.) The new law

strengthened the licensing requirements by mandating that applicants to
submit a photograph and fingerprints, inform local law enforcement of
their federal dealer application, and comply with state and local laws.
(Pub.L. 103-322 (September 13, 1994), 108 Stat. 2013, Sec. 110301 et
seq.)

In March 1995, the BATF reported a 19 percent drop in the number of
federal dealer licenses in California, from 23,883 in January 1994 to

19,130 through the first quarter of 1995. BATF staff speculated that this
have been a result of the stricter licensing requirements and higher
fees.^^ The number of federal dealers has continued to fall. As of April
may

1, 1995, there were 18,567 federal licensees, a 22 percent drop from

January 1994. Since the new federal law requires federally licensed
dealers to comply with state requirements, it is anticipated that the
number of federal firearms licensees will continue to decrease as renew
als are evaluated for state compliance.

California Requirements for Licensure
California law authorizes the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to
administer state firearms dealer licensing and enforcement functions.

12071.) All persons who sell, lease or transfer firearms
must obtain a California firearms dealer license. (Pen. Code, § 12070.)

(Pen. Code,

To be a licensed firearms dealer in California and be listed on the state

wide registry of firearms dealers, California Penal Code Section 12071
requires applicants to;
• Provide evidence of a valid federal firearms dealer's license.

• Submit a valid Department of Justice Certificate of Eligibility, a state
verification that the applicant is not a person prohibited by law from
•i ■ -

possessing a firearm or holding a dealer's license. (Note; This certifi
cate must be renewed annually.) The verification also involves the
submission of fingerprint cards and payment of all processing fees.
• Provide evidence of a valid Seller's Permit issued by the State Board
of Equalization.

100

• Provide evidence of all locally issued regulatory and/or business

licenses or letters from a governmental representative explaining that
such licenses are not required in that particular jurisdiction.
On April 1, 1995, the DOJ reported that of the 18,567 federally licensed
firearms dealers in California, there were only 2,700 fully licensed deal
ers (i.e., dealers who had registered with both state and federal authori

ties), about 14.5 percent of the total. This year, the DOJ will begin
inspecting California-licensed firearm dealers to monitor compliance.
(Pen. Code, § 12071, subd. (f).)

Even with the strengthening of the dealer licensing laws, the Cou nci

agreed that firearms dealers should be required by state law to register
with their local law enforcement agency. Council members believe that
this recommendation could improve dealer cornplianpe with state law

and could also help.local community'law enforcement agencies to better
monitor the operations of firearms dealers in their communities.

n license
California
enact
legislation to require individuals to obtain a
to should
purchase
a handgun.
Discussion:

The Council members agreed that handgun purchasers should demon

strate personal competence in the safe use and handling of a handgun.
However, they could not unanimously agree on how this would be

accomplished. Much of the discussion focused on the controversy
surrounding the use of the term "license" in this recommendation. As

an alternative, the term "certificate" was suggested. Many Council

members strongly objected to the substitution of the term and, although
a vocal minority continued to object to the use of the word "license,"
the Council unanimously agreed to include it with the opposition view
point clearly presented.

To lawfully purchase and take delivery of a handgun from a licensed

California firearms dealer, an individual must be 21 years of age, observe
a 15-day waiting period, undergo a clear background check, and possess
a Basic Firearms Safety Certificate (BFSC). (Pen. Code, § 12072, subds.

(b) & (c).) There is no requirement, however, for individual purchasers to
obtain a license by demonstrating personal skill and competency in the
use, maintenance and storage of a handgun.

When a handgun is purchased, a dealer's record of sale (DROS) must be
completed to furnish information for a background check to the Califor

nia Department of justice (DOJ) and the local law enforcement agency.
The handgun purchaser must present to the dealer clear evidence of
101

identity and age, as well as other personal infornnation (e.g., date of birth,
local address, place of birth, complete telephone numbers, occupation,
physical description, all legal names and aliases ever used, and yes or
sex.

I questions that prohibit purchase). The purchaser must then
subd.(a),
sign and certify the record of sale. (Pen. Code, §§ 12076,
12077, subd.(a)(2).) The dealer mails two copies of the DROS to the DOJ
no answers to

local law enforcement agency in which the sale is
made. (Pen. Code, § 12076, subd. (b).)

and one copy to the

The DOJ uses the DROS to check its records (e.g., criminal history records
and Domestic Violence Restraining Order Registry), as well as those
records that the DOJ is authorized to request from the Department of
Mental Health and local mental health facilities, to determine if the pur
chaser is a member of a category prohibited by law from having firearms.
Ind.ividuals who are felons, those under restraining order or convicted of
violent misdemeanors,.or people suffering from certain meatal health . . .
conditions are prohibited frommbtaining firearms. If the DOJ determines

that the purchaser is prohibited from obtaining a firearm, it is required to
immediately notify the dealer and the local law enforcement agency of

that fact. (Pen. Code, § 12076, subd. (c).) The intent of this requirement

is to ensure that firearms are not released to any prohibited individuals.
After the mandatory waiting period and absent any notification that the

purchase is prohibited, the handgun purchaser receives delivery of the
handgun upon presentation of the BFSC to the dealer. (Pen. Code, §
12071, subd. (b)(8).) The BFSC is intended to certify the buyer's personal
knowledge about the safe use, handling and storage of handguns, meth

ods for childproofing handguns, the laws applicable to carrying a handApril 1,
gun, and the responsibilities of handgun ownership. (Effective
1994, Pen. Code, § 12803, subd. (a)(1).) A BFSC can be obtained by
taking and receiving a passing score on the DOJ objective test, completing
the two-hour DOJ basic firearms safety video course provided by the

dealer, or completing a DOJ-certified firearms safety course.(Pen. Code, §
12802 et seq.)

In light of California's current system requiring a mandatory waiting
period, background check and the BFSC, the recommendation to require a
license prior to the purchase of a handgun was vigorously debated among
Council members.

Arguments in favor of requiring licenses for the purchase of a handgun:
• Licensing would require individuals to demonstrate personal skill and
competence in the safe use and handling of a handgun. Possession
of a BFSC only signifies that its holder has either seen a video,

passed an objective test, or attended an approved firearms safety
course.

102

f

• California and national data show that public health, safety and
welfare are threatened by the irresponsible use, possession, handling
and/or storage of handguns.
• Requirements for this type of licensing program are equivalent to the
initial driver's license exam (a combination performance- and knowl

edge-based test). The lethality of handguns is as well-documente d
as that of motor vehicles.

• A licensing program can be supported by its own fees and would not
create a new fiscal burden on state government.

Arguments against requiring licenses for the purchase of a handgun:
• A more palatable, less controversial approach is already in place.
Current requirements include background checks and possession of
the BFSC prior to delivery.

• Licensing individuals to purchase handguns suggests that govern
ment is granting a privilege. Owning a handgun is a right, and
licensing would be an intrusion on civil liberties.
• Government could use licensing to discriminate against individuals
based on race, ethnicity, sex, residence or economic status.
• Establishing licensing requirements would be costly. After intense
debate, the Council concluded in favor of the initiative that handgun
purchasers should be required to demonstrate personal skill and
competency to reduce death and injuries from firearms.

0The Department of Justice should promote public awareness

of

California law requiring that all firearm sales and transfers be docu
mented through a licensed dealer or local law enforcement agency.
Discussion:

California law requires the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prepare a
booklet summary of California firearms laws. The booklet, California
Firearms Laws, includes information on lawful possession, documenta

tion of sale, loan and transfer procedures, and responsibilities of firearms
ownership. Copies of the booklet must be offered at actual cost to
firearms dealers. (Pen. Code, § 12080.) Dealers must offer copies of
the most current version available for sale to retail purchasers or trans

ferees of firearms. (Pen. Code, § 12071, subd. (b)(9).) Currently, the
DOJ also offers annual training sessions throughout the state to educate
dealers on changes in the law.

Despite the availability of this pamphlet and annual dealer training, it
was the opinion of the Council that more could be done to educate the
general public on current law requiring documentation of all sales,
transfers and loans of firearms through licensed dealers or local law
Si
'Vr.

103

»lff ■

enforcement agencies.(Pen. Code, § 12072, subds. (c) & (d).)
The DOJ Bureau

of Criminal Information and Analysis estimates that

there are 100,000 reports of gun thefts from California homes annually,
Over 80
and only about 25 percent of these guns are recovered.“
percent of the firearms used in crimes are reportedly obtained by theft
or through illegal or unregulated transactions.
24

The Council believes that a public education effort on the benefits of
documenting all sales, transfers and loans of firearms would help local
law enforcement officers investigate crimes, return stolen firearms and
track firearms used in violent crimes.

Department
of
should develop

Health
ServicesDepartment
and local law
enforcement
agencies and to encoura The
California
of
Justice,
the
California
a public service campaign to promote firearms safety
age gun owners to

record the make, model and serial number of
their firearms for reporting purposes, if stolen.
Discussion;

H. -

Information on safe use and handling of firearms, methods of firearms

storage and child-proofing, availability of firearms safety programs and

devices, and the responsibilities of firearms ownership is covered in the
DOJ booklet, California Firearms Laws. (Pen. Code, 12080.) Although

this information is offered to the public through licensed firearms deal
ers.

the Council felt that a more visible statewide public awareness

campaign could save lives and improve law enforcement's ability to
investigate crimes, apprehend criminals and return stolen property.
The goals of law enforcement and public health are similar in that they

both want to reduce deaths and injuries caused by firearms. This view is

also shared by a substantial proportion of community members. Public
education is one of many public health strategies. Comprehensive

public education campaigns concerning seat belt safety and the dangers
of smoking have successfully changed public behavior (e.g., increasing
the use of seat belts and reducing smoking) by influencing public knowl
edge and attitudes.

The Council recommends that the DOJ, Department of Health Services
and local law enforcement agencies jointly embark on a public education

campaign concerning firearm safety practices, safe home storage and
available safety devices. Encouraging owners to record the make, model
and serial number of their firearms would aid in tracking these weapons

should they be stolen, as well as in apprehending and prosecuting
criminals.

104

I

The Judicial Council should encourage judges to apply the law allow
ing them to order individuals who are subject to domestic violence
restraining orders to surrender any and all firearms in their posses
sion.

Discussion:

Law enforcement officers at the scene of a family-violence incident

involving a threat to human life or physical assault may take temporary
custody of any firearm or other deadly weapon in plain sight or discov

ered pursuant to a consensual search required for the protection of the
officers and others present. If the firearm is not retained for use
who was in
as evidence, it must be returned to the owner or person
peace

lawful possession 48 hours after the seizure or as soon as possible, but
no more

than 72 hours later. In those cases where a law enforcement

agency has reasonable cause to believe that the return of a firearm
• would be likely to result in endangering the victim, the agency can
advise the owner and, within 10 days, initiate a petition in superior.court
to determine if the firearm should be returned. (Pen. Code,

12028.5.)

Effective January 1, 1995, the courts may order individuals with domes
tic violence restraining orders against them to relinquish firearms in their
immediate possession or control within 24 hours of the order, if present
in court, and within 48 hours after being served, if not in court. The
order must be based on the court's determination by a preponderance of
evidence that the respondent is likely to use or display or threaten to use
a firearm in, a further act of violence. The firearm must either be surren
dered to the control of local law enforcement officials or sold to a

licensed gun dealer. (Earn. Code, § 6389.)

During calendar year 1994, approximately 40,000 domestic violence
protective orders were reported to the DOJ by local law enforcement

agencies. During this same period, there were 333 firearms denials
25

based on domestic violence restraining orders.

A new law requires that the court or local law enforcement agency

immediately notify the DOJ by electronic transmission of protective
orders. (Earn. Code, § 6380.) The DOJ estimates that an additional

1 50,000 reports will be made this year. Thus far, the DOJ has entered
26

44,000 reports in its system.

California law makes it a crime for any person who knows that he or she

is subject to a domestic protective order, temporary restraining order or
injunction from purchasing, receiving or attempting to purchase or
receive a firearm, or to willfully and knowingly violate the order. (Pen.
Code, § 12021, subd. (g).)

#
105

The Council strongly supports laws that may prevent domestic violence

m

by making it more difficult for violent individuals to have access to
firearms. Therefore, the Council recommends that the Judicial Council
encourage judges to actively apply Family Code section 6389 when
appropriate.

:v.:

I

California should enact legislation to increase the penalty for carry

ing loaded, concealed firearms from a misdemeanor to a misde
meanor/felony at the discretion of the district attorney, to make it
consistent with other concealed weapon sanctions.
Discussion:

The California Penal Code is inconsistent in charging dangerous weap- .
ons'violations as misdemeanors,, misdemeanor/felonjes. ordeloni'es,;
■- , ■

■ Individuals arrested for carrying coricealed""'m'etal 'knuckfes,' blackjacks or •
certain knives" may be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. (Pen.
Code, § 12020, subd. (a).) Individuals carrying a concealed, loaded
firearm without a permit are subject only to misdemeanor charges.
(Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a) (1).) The Council concluded that this

'vr

incongruity in criminal law and public policy was indefensible.
The Council believes that carrying a concealed, loaded firearm without a

permit is a serious cr'hme and should be treated as such. Therefore, the
Council recommends that Cal ifornia enact legislation to amend Penal
Code section 12031 to increase the penalty to a "misdemeanor or
felony," at the discretion of the district attorney.

California should enact legislation to increase mandatory sentences

12 for using a gun during a crime.
Discussion:

Many members of the Council wanted the group to directly address
those who were committing violent crimes with a firearm. As Steve
Helsley, representing the National Rifle Association, stated to the Coun
The
cil, "You've got to deal with the behaviors, the guns are there.

■m

"27

Council concluded that firm and clear enforcement of laws should

communicate that California will no longer tolerate this type of violent
crime. As a whole, the Council agreed that a comprehensive approach
to preventing firearms violence included enacting legislation to increase
mandatory sentences for use of a firearm during a crime.
Some Council members did not think that increasing mandatory sen
tences for crimes involving firearms would constitute a prevention

106

■m

9r-

strategy. Most members, however, agreed that tougher penalties and

enforcement of these laws may be deterrents to violent and gun-related
crimes. Although mandatory sentences would be a late-stage response to
violence, they would directly affect those using a gun in the commission
of a crime. The Policy Council concluded that stiffer sentences would

further its initiative to reduce death and injuries by firearms.

107

It
1:
1 1

}

ENDNOTES

Mark Rosenberg, M.D., M.P.R, Director, National Center For Injury Prevention and Control, Centers

1.

for Disease Control and Prevention, Testimony before the Policy Council, Fresno, California,
September 22, 1994.

^ ,i

■

"Confronting the American Tragedy, The Need to Better Regulate Firearms," Sacramento; California

2.

Police Chiefs' Association, Position Paper #95-1, Feb. 1995, p. 2.

3.

of Justice, 1994,
Crime and Delinquency in California, 1993, Sacramento: California Department

4.

Ibid., pp. 11-12.

p. 110.

Homicide in California, 1993, Sacramento: California Department of Justice, 1994, p. 79.
Marcus Nieto, Roger Dunstan and Gus A. Koehler, Ph.D., "Firearm-Related Violence in California;
Incidence and Economic Costs," Sacramento; California State Research Bureau, California State

5.
6.

Library, Oct. 1994, p. 22.

DROS Statistics, Firearms Program, California Department of Justice, 1994.

7.

Garen Wintemute, M.D., Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern California, Sacramento:

I

Violence Prevention Research Program, 1994, citing "Project Identification; A Study of the

Handguns Used in Crimes," Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1976.
.

Garen Wintemute, M.D:, Ring of Fire: The Handguri Makers of Southern California, Sacramento.

9.

Violence Prevention Research Program, 1994,.p. ix. .

•’ . '10. '■Ibid'., p. 27; citing Plinkers,'"Part' II:'Another look'at'.22-pisrols,;" Gun-Tests,'l!,-'N-o:-3,'March '■1990,pp. 3-8.
11.

■

Ibid., p. 40, citing "Alloy Semi-auto Pocket Pistols: .25 ACP Single Actions," Gun Tests, V, No. 6,

June 1993, 24-28.

12. Ibid., p. 40, citing "Odds and Ends: .22 LR pistols," Gun Tests, V, No. 12, Dec. 1993, 3-8.

13. Garen Wintemute, M.D., Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California, September 27,
1994.

14. Wintemute, Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern California, pp. 67-68.

:ir-

15. Ibid., pp. 24-25.
16.

Ibid., p. 21.

17. California Police Chiefs' Association, "Confronting the American Tragedy," p. 4.
18.
19.

Ibid., pp. 3-4.

Steve Sposato, Testimony before the Policy Council, Oakland, California, August 9, 1994.

20. William E. DeMuth, Jr., M.D., "Bullet Velocity and Design as Determinants of Wounding Capability:
21.

An Experimental Study," The Journal of Trauma, 6, No. 2, 1966, p. 227-228, 232.
Garen Wintemute, M.D., Ring of Fire: The Handgun Makers of Southern California, citing "Project
Identification: A Study of the Handguns Used in Crimes," Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms, 1976.

22. Sacramento Bee, 9 March 1995, Sec. A, p.l; and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
23. DROS Statistics, Firearms Program, California Department of Justice, 1994.

24. Albert J. Reiss, Jr., and Jeffrey A. Roth, Eds., National Research Council, Understanding and
Preventing Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993, p. 18.

-ft''

Si

25. Domestic Violence Restraining Order Unit, California Department of Justice.
26.

Ibid.

27. Steve Heisley, National Rifle Association, Testimony before the Policy Council, San Diego, California,
September 27, 1994.

108
L