April 18 , 2024
Golden State Republican Women
Janet Price, President
Submitted by the GSRW Legislative Analyst Committee
Valerie Evans, Lou Ann Flaherty, Val Emick, and Elaine Freeman,
CONTROVERSIAL BILL, SB 1160, REGARDING ANNUAL REGISTRATION OF FIREARMS COVERED IN CAPITOL UPDATE #9, HAS BEEN MAJORLY AMENDED
(Major pushback from many has succeeded in forcing the amendment)
The red is the original bill. The blue is the amended bill.
SB 1160, as amended, Portantino. Firearms: annual registration of firearms Firearms.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, makes it a misdemeanor to openly carry an exposed and unloaded handgun in a public place. Existing law generally makes that crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to 6 months, or by a fine not to exceed $1,000.
Existing law, if the exposed and unloaded handgun is being carried in a public place or public street in an incorporated city, makes that crime punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year or by a fine not to exceed $1,000 if the handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun are in the immediate possession of that person and the person is not in lawful possession of the handgun.
This bill would extend that increased punishment to also apply if the person with immediate possession of the handgun and unexpended ammunition capable of being discharged from that handgun is not listed with the Department of Justice as the registered owner of that firearm, as specified.
Existing law requires the sale or transfer of any firearm to be processed through a licensed firearms dealer. Existing law requires a licensed firearms dealer to record specified information regarding each firearm sale or transfer and to submit that information to the Department of Justice. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to maintain keep and maintain this and other specified information relating to firearms within the state.
This bill would require every firearm in the state, except those specifically exempted, to be annually registered with the department. The bill would require the registrant to annually pay a fee, as specified, to be deposited into a special fund that is continuously appropriated to the department for the express purpose of carrying out the administration and enforcement of the firearm registry. The bill would require the department to establish and maintain a system for the annual registration of firearms and would require the department to make registration information available to other law enforcement agencies, as specified. The bill would require the department to make reasonable efforts to notify firearms dealers, firearm owners, and the general public regarding registration requirements.
This bill would specify that registration shall not be deemed evidence that the registrant is lawfully permitted to own or possess the registered firearm nor that they are the lawful owner of the firearm. The bill would also, consistent with existing federal law, prohibit the use of certain federal records in establishing or enforcing the registry.
This bill would prohibit possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of which would be punishable as an infraction.
The amended bill is set for a hearing on April 23rd
AB 1893 Housing Accountability Act: housing disapprovals: required local findings
As required by law, a city or county is required to have an approved general plan and a housing element approved by the State Department of Community Development. The state has set criteria for housing elements to meet by the local jurisdiction.
Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low, or moderate income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. Under the act, one set of conditions available to a local agency for the finding necessary to disapprove a housing development project for very low, low, or moderate income households is that (a) the jurisdiction has adopted a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, and (b) the jurisdiction has met or exceeded its share of the regional housing need allocation for the planning period for the income category proposed for the housing development project.
This bill will revise that definition to mean at least 10% of the units are dedicated to lower income households, 100% of the units are dedicated to lower income households at an affordable rent consistent with rent limits established by the California Tax Cred Allocation Committee, 200% of the units are sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income or the housing development consists of 10 units or fewer. This bill will also repeal that set of conditions described as a basis for the findings necessary to disapprove a housing development project for very low, low, or moderate-income households
The bill will authorize a local agency that has failed to adopt a housing element that is in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law, to disapprove or conditionally approve a housing development project for very low, low, or moderate income households if it makes a finding that the housing development (a) is located on a site that is designated for housing, retail, office, or parking uses (bb) is not on a site or adjoined to any site where more than 1/3 of the square footage on the site Is dedicated to industrial use (c) does not exceed certain density thresholds, and (d) complies with other objective planning standards imposed by the local agency that apply in the closest zone in the local project that complies with these density thresholds be deemed in compliance with the density standards necessary for the streamlined, ministerial approval processes described above.
What does all of this mean? More State intrusion into local planning and development. The goal is to insure projects have very low, low and moderate units.
SB 1414, as introduced, Grove. Crimes: solicitation of a minor.
Under existing law, a person who solicits, or who agrees to engage in, or who engages in, any act of prostitution with the intent to receive compensation, money, or anything of value from another person is guilty of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor.
Under existing law, if the person solicited was a minor, and the person who solicited the minor knew or reasonably should have known that the person solicited was a minor, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for a mandatory minimum of 2 days and not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed $10,000 or by both such fine and imprisonment.
This bill would instead, if the person solicited was a minor, regardless of whether or not the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person solicited was a minor, make the offense punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 2, 3, or 4 years, and a fine not to exceed $25,000.
Existing law requires persons convicted of certain specified crimes to annually register as a sex offender, as specified, for a term of 10, 20, or 30 years.
This bill would require a person who, on or after January 1, 2025, is convicted of soliciting a minor, as specified, to annually register as a sex offender for a term of 10 years.
Set for hearing April 16.
AB 1776, as introduced 01/03/2024, Ta. Year-round standard time.
Existing state law, Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election, sets the standard time for California and sets daylight saving time to begin each March and end each November. Proposition 7 authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period, consistent with federal law, and authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to provide for the application of year-round daylight saving time when authorized by federal law.
This bill would repeal daylight saving time in the state and the provisions regarding the Legislature’s authority to amend the above-described provisions by a 2/3 vote. The bill would instead require the state and all political subdivisions of the state to observe year-round standard time.
And from the Senate
SB 1413, as introduced 04/04/2024, Niello. Year-round standard time.
Existing state law, Proposition 7, an initiative measure approved by the voters at the November 6, 2018, statewide general election, sets the standard time for California and sets daylight saving time to begin each March and end each November. Proposition 7 authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to change the dates and times of the daylight saving time period, consistent with federal law, and authorizes the Legislature to amend these provisions by a 2/3 vote to provide for the application of year-round daylight saving time when authorized by federal law.
This bill would repeal daylight saving time in the state and the provisions regarding the Legislature’s authority to amend the above-described provisions by a 2/3 vote. The bill would instead require the state and all political subdivisions of the state to observe year-round standard time. The bill would exempt the state and all political subdivisions of the state from the provisions of federal law that establish the advancement of time.
Set for hearing April 16.
Legislative Portal links – Express your support or opposition to a bill or directly to the Legislative committee currently reviewing it (as an individual, not as a member of RW or GSRW) – click here, or the bill’s author – click here, enter your bill # and look for tab at top of the bill page labeled “Comments to Author”.
