Home » CAPITOL UPDATE #19 – May 9, 2024

Share This Post


CAPITOL UPDATE #19 – May 9, 2024

May 9, 2024

Golden State Republican Women
Janet Price, President

        Submitted by the GSRW Legislative Analyst Committee        
Valerie Evans,
Lou Ann Flaherty and Elaine Freeman, 

AB 2861, as amended, Wallis (Republican, AD 47). Introduced February 15, 2024

Personal income tax: credit: gun safe.

The Personal Income Tax Law allows various credits against the taxes imposed by that law.

This bill would allow a credit against those taxes for each taxable year beginning on or after January 1, 2025, and before January 1, 2030, in an amount equal to the amount paid or incurred, not to exceed $300, during the taxable year for the purchase of one gun safe, as defined, for use in a residential unit located in the state.

Existing law requires any bill authorizing a new tax expenditure, as defined, to include tax credits, to contain, among other things, specific goals, purposes, and objectives that the tax credit will achieve, detailed performance indicators, and data collection requirements.

This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.

This bill is supported by the Gun Owners of California.


SB 1038, as amended, Blakespear (Democrat, SD 38). Firearms.

(1) Existing law, as enacted by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires a person to report the loss or theft of a firearm that the person owns or possesses to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the theft or loss occurred within 5 days of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost, as specified.

Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act.

This bill would amend Proposition 63 by requiring a person to report the loss or theft within 48 hours of the time that the owner or possessor knew or should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.

(2) Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the Department of Justice any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.

This bill would require the department to inspect the 25 firearm dealer locations in the annual report that are the source or origin of the highest gross number of firearms that were illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, as specified.

(3) Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements, that every dealer keep a record of electronic or telephonic transfers of firearms.

This bill would require a firearm dealer to annually certify their inventory to the Department of Justice, as specified. Upon request by a local law enforcement agency, the bill would require the Department of Justice to send a copy of the annual certifications to the agency. The bill would authorize the Attorney General, a city attorney, or county counsel to impose a civil penalty on a person who violates this provision in the amount of $3,000 per day for the first violation, $5,000 per day for a 2nd violation, and $10,000 per day for a 3rd and subsequent violation, as specified.

(4) Existing law requires, with certain exceptions, a firearm dealer to report an acquisition of a firearm to the Department of Justice, as specified.

This bill would, commencing January 1, 2027, remove specified exceptions to those provisions.

This bill is opposed by the Gun Owners of California.

Hearing: May 13 @ 10:00 am in 1021 O Street, Room 2200




 SB 233, as amended, Skinner. Practice of medicine: Arizona physicians: abortions and abortion-related care for Arizona patients.

Existing law, the Medical Practice Act, establishes the Medical Board of California and the Osteopathic Medical Board of California to license and regulate the practice of medicine, and establishes examination, training, and other requirements for licensure as a physician and surgeon. A violation of the act is a misdemeanor.

This bill, through November 30, 2024, would authorize a physician licensed to practice medicine in Arizona who meets certain requirements to practice medicine in California for the purpose of providing abortions and abortion-related care to patients who are Arizona residents traveling from Arizona, upon application for registration with the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as applicable.

The bill would prohibit the physician from providing care or consultation for other purposes or to other patients, except under specified circumstances. The bill would require an Arizona physician, before practicing in California, to submit specified information to the Medical Board of California or the Osteopathic Medical Board of California, as applicable, including, among other information, written verification from the Arizona Medical Board or the Arizona Board of Osteopathic Examiners in Medicine and Surgery, or documentation printed from an online licensing system, that the physician’s Arizona license to practice medicine is in good standing and confers on the physician the authority to practice abortions and abortion-related care. The bill would require the applicant to provide an affidavit attesting that, among other things, the applicant meets all of the requirements for registration, as specified, and would make it a misdemeanor for a person to provide false information. 

The bill would limit the information the California boards are required to disclose about a registrant. The bill would deem a physician registered pursuant to the bill’s provisions a licensee of the applicable board, would authorize the applicable board to take enforcement against a person registered pursuant to the bill’s provisions, and would prohibit the applicable boards from collecting any fees for registration. By creating a new crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would repeal the bill’s provisions on January 1, 2025.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

Hearing: May 6 in 1021 O Street, Room 1100

(Amazing how quickly things can happen when the governor backs a bill!)


SB 1446, as amended, Smallwood-Cuevas. Grocery establishment and retail drug establishment employees: self-service checkout and technologies affecting essential job functions.

Existing law imposes certain requirements on grocery employers, as defined, upon the purchase or change in control of a grocery establishment, including requiring a successor grocery employer to retain eligible grocery workers for a specified period after transfer of the grocery establishment.

This bill would prohibit a grocery establishment or a retail drug establishment, as those terms are defined, from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are satisfied, including having no more than 2 self-service checkout stations monitored by any one employee and requiring the employee to be relieved of all other duties.

The bill would require a grocery establishment or retail drug establishment that offers self-service checkout to include self-service checkout in a specified analysis of potential work hazards for purposes of their injury and illness prevention programs. The bill would require a grocery establishment or retail drug establishment that develops or implements technology that significantly affects the essential job functions or eliminates jobs or essential job functions of its employees, or that enables self-service, to complete a specified assessment before implementing the technology. The bill would require the study to include, among other things, the salaries, benefits, jobs, and work hours that would be eliminated by the workplace technology.

The bill would require the grocery establishment or retail drug establishment to notify and solicit input from its employees at least 60 days before drafting the study, to provide the study to employees or their collective bargaining representatives at least 60 days before implementation, and to post a copy of the study in a location accessible to its employees and customers before, and for at least 90 days following, implementation of the workplace technology.

Hearing: May 6 @ 10:00 am in 1021 O Street, Room 2200

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”.

Share This Post