Wednesday, August 8, 2012 Assembly Member Mike Gatto, Chair Assembly Member Diane Harkey, Vice-Chair Assembly Appropriations

Committee State Capitol, Room 2114 Sacramento, California 95814 VIA FAX, EMAIL, AND HAND-DELIVERY Re: Position: Senate Bill 249 (Yee) OPPOSE Location: Assembly Appropriations Committee

Dear Chairperson Fuentes and Vice-Chairperson Harkey, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc. (Cal-FFL) is California's premier non-profit industry association of, by, and for firearms manufacturers, dealers, collectors, training professionals, shooting ranges, and others, advancing the interests of its members and the general public through strategic litigation, legislative efforts, and education. On behalf of our members and thousands of California firearms owners, I strongly urge you and your committee to vote no on Senate Bill 249 (Yee). This bill creates significant new costs for California taxpayers and irreparably harms our fragile economy, including thousands of small businesses struggling in these difficult economic times. In 1989, the California Legislature enacted the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) 1 which banned a number of semi-automatic firearms by name (series weapons) and classified them under the term assault weapons. Later, in 2001, the Legislature enacted SB 23 (Perata) 2 which further defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms which possessed, among other configurationspecific characteristics, certain statutorily-defined (commonly referred to as evil) features such as those having both e.g. a pistol grip and detachable magazine. In response, the California firearms community engineered, and a number of manufacturers produce and sell, various SB 23 compliance accessory parts to ensure that Californians may continue to enjoy their rich heritage and tradition of enjoying the outdoors and shooting sports using extraordinarily-popular firearms platforms such as the common AR-15. To assist gun owners in determining lawful semi-automatic firearm configuration options, The Calguns Foundation (CGF) and members of the Calguns.net web forum created a flowchart3 which has been adopted by many local law enforcement agencies as part of their training program on California firearms law. Hundreds of thousands of legal firearms based on one type of compliance part, the Bullet Button and similarly-functioning magazine locking devices, are at the center of Senator Yees proposed outright ban on these maglocked firearms.
1 2

Stats. 1989, ch. 19, 3, p. 64.

Bill text, as enrolled, at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov:80/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=199920000SB23, last visited August 8, 2012.

3

CGFs flowchart can be viewed and downloaded at http://calgunsfoundation.org/resources/rifleflowchart.pdf.

2370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332, Madera, CA 93637 888.541.3040 fax: 888.541.9011 calffl.org

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.

SB 249 as amended August 7, 2012 August 9, 2012 Page 2

In its current form, SB 249 represents perhaps the single largest unconstitutional government taking in California history. Substantiating this is the national firearms industry association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, which estimates that approximately 19% of all firearms sold are AR-15 platform modern sporting firearms. NSSFs 19% figure does not account for those hundreds of thousands of AK, FAL, HK, Saiga, FN, and other platform firearms legally sold and possessed in California over the past decade. (These modern semi-automatic firearms are some of, if not the most, common firearms in the United States, and, especially, in technology-hungry California.) It is virtually impossible to visit any sporting range or training facility in California without seeing one and more likely, many variations of these popular sporting and defensive arms. California gun stores shelves are literally filled with these firearms, which remain in exceedingly high demand. Likewise, tens of thousands of firearms SB 249 seeks to ban are in the inventories of firearms distributors and at manufacturers shipping docks. Most certainly, these will be sold into California before SB 249 goes into effect, further exacerbating the takings issue and increasing the cost burden to California taxpayers. According to data acquired from the California Department of Justice, over 2 million long gun transactions took place in the 10-year period between 2001 and 2011. In that same period, more than 1.8 million unique handgun transactions occurred. Importantly, California law allows an unlimited number of long guns to be transferred under each transaction, while each handgun transaction represents a discrete handgun transfer. Given this, and especially considering the incredible number of bare off-list receivers and entirely home-built firearms (constructed from e.g. incompletely-manufactured materials that are fabricated using common shop tools) that have been assembled over the past decade into fully-functional maglocked firearms, Cal-FFLs analysis informs that at least 394,000 legal maglocked off-list firearms with SB 23 features exist in the state today. Our member Prince 50 Designs (the manufacturer of the Bullet Button device itself and one of the major firearms accessory vendors in the state) has alone sold enough maglocking devices to equip hundreds of thousands of California firearms. To say that 1 million firearms (and their owners) could be negatively impacted by SB 249 may very well be an understatement. We conservatively estimate that the State of Californias cost exposure for SB 249 is, at the very least, $400 Million, with more realistic estimates for property takings claims, legal expenses, impact to local law enforcement, and court costs exceeding $1.5 Billion. Senator Yees office has argued, and indeed days ago amended SB 249 to say, that SB 249 does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law. That assertion, proposed to be codified under Section 2 of SB 249, is patently false. This language is a poor and transparent attempt to evade State liability for the express unconstitutional nature and cost implications of the bill. 4 Senator Yee, himself, argued as recently as July that Bullet Button / maglocked firearms are legal under current law 5 firearms such as those he and SB 249s co-authors now seek to ban in the current iteration of SB 249.
Even in SB 249s previous form, when it sought to ban only conversion kits, the Assembly Public Safety Committee legislative analysis recognized the unconstitutional takings issues presented by SB 249: However, one must consider the issue of just compensation. This bill does not contain any provision compensating the owner of a conversion kit, purchased lawfully before the implementation of this law, for the taking of that conversion kit. Located at http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0201-0250/sb_249_cfa_20120702_100005_asm_comm.html, last visited August 8, 2012. In a previous version, SB 249 sought to ban only conversion kits, or parts designed to overcome maglocking devices and convert a maglock device into the functional equivalent of a standard magazine release. The Authors Statement called SB 249 [a] prohibition against a part which transforms a legal [Bullet Button / maglocked] firearm into an illegal assault weapon Id.
5 4

2370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332, Madera, CA 93637 888.541.3040 fax: 888.541.9011 www.calffl.org

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.

SB 249 as amended August 7, 2012 August 9, 2012 Page 3

Senator Yee surely would acknowledge that there has been no Legislative act to declare maglocked firearms as unlawful under the Penal Code since the California Department of Justice promulgated rules under SB 23 over a decade ago in 2001. 6 However, even more dispositive evidence informs that the State of California not only agrees that maglocked firearms are not Assault Weapons, but has in fact argued that they are legal in federal court. 1. In January 2002, Attorney General Bill Lockyer, responding to an inquiry regarding the legality of a semi-automatic centerfire rifle that had both SB 23 features and a magazine locking device, stated that [b]ecause the magazine cannot be removed without the use of a tool the firearm is not technically an Assault Weapon under California law. 7 2. In November 2008, the Sacramento Police Department issued training memo 2008-18 that states, in pertinent part: There has been an increase over the last two years of AR-15 & AK-47 type firearms sold in CA that at first glance appear to be an assault weapon. These firearms have a device installed called a Bullet Button.Once a bullet button device is installed the firearm no longer has a detachable magazine as required in Penal Code Section 12276.1(a)(1) and as defined in the California Code of Regulations. This allows someone to legally posses a rifle built on an off-list (not listed in PC 12276) lower receiver with a pistol grip, folding/telescoping stock, flash suppressor or a forward pistol grip because the firearm has a fixed magazine. 3. In January 2010, the Orange County Sheriffs Department issued training memo 10-3 that is materially the same as the Sacramento P.D. memo, above, with respect to the legality of semiautomatic firearms with Bullet Button devices. 9 4. In May 2011, Attorney General Kamala Harris asserted that both Californias regulations and the Assault Weapons Identification Guide issued by the California Department of Justice accurately recite California law, and demonstrate that [Plaintiff] Haynies gun was a fixed magazine weapon not banned by the AWCA. 10

See, 11 CCR 5469. See also, CA DOJ Assault Weapons Identification Guide 3rd Edition dated November 2001, located at http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/firearms/forms/awguide.pdf, last visited August 8, 2012. A.G. Lockyer January 7, 2002, letter to Trutanich-Michel in re DSA FAL model SA 58, located at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/DOJ_SA58_FAL-Magazine-Lock-opinion.pdf, last visited August 8, 2012. Memo located at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Sacramento-PD-OLL_Training_Bulletin-2008-11-18.pdf, last visited August 8, 2012. Memo located at http://www.hoffmang.com/firearms/Orange-County-AW-Training-Bulletin-2010-01-12.pdf, August 8, 2012. Def. Attorney General Kamala Harris Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Dismiss, case no. 10-cv-1255-SI, Eastern Dist. Fed. CA. Located at http://ia600507.us.archive.org/10/items/gov.uscourts.cand.225676/gov.uscourts.cand.225676.26.1.pdf, last visited August 8, 2012.
10 9 8 7

2370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332, Madera, CA 93637 888.541.3040 fax: 888.541.9011 www.calffl.org

California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc.

SB 249 as amended August 7, 2012 August 9, 2012 Page 4

These represent but some of the documents supporting the proposition that the State of California and its highest law enforcement officer have expressly acknowledged maglocked firearms to be legal under current law, and, as such, the state has a constitutional mandate (under both federal and state law) to compensate Californians for any firearms that are taken under SB 249. Moreover, SB 249 provides for no public awareness or outreach as did both Roberti-Roos (AWCA) and SB 23, nor does it appropriate any funding for law enforcement, training programs, the courts, firearms destruction, or any of the many downstream government processes that SB 249 would require. In summary, SB 249, if passed, will: Be possibly the largest and most costly unconstitutional government taking of private property in California history. Make hundreds of thousands of law-abiding Californians, including active law enforcement officers (who have no exemption under SB 249) into criminals on July 1, 2013. SB 249 is an ex post facto law and is expressly prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. Attack fast-growing family recreation opportunities and shooting sports like 3-gun and action rifle competitions, irreparably harm thousands of California small business owners and shutter businesses, and take away millions of dollars of tax revenues that support schools and law enforcement.

If SB 249 passes in any form, Cal-FFL and its members will, without fail, immediately file a federal civil rights lawsuit likely in cooperation with The Calguns Foundation, the Second Amendment Foundation, and others seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. As taxpayers ourselves, we certainly do not wish to see California take on such substantial and unnecessary cost burdens. However, should SB 249 become law, we will use every resource at our disposal to secure equitable judicial relief and proper compensation for SB 249s unconstitutional taking of our members and customers property. SB 249 is the worst possible kind of law: misguided, unconstitutional, costly, and completely irrational. Please stand for California taxpayers and reason by voting no on SB 249 when it comes before you. Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely,

__________________ Mr. Brandon Combs, President Cc: Assembly Appropriations Committee Members Assembly Appropriations Committee Consultant Geoff Long Assembly Public Safety Committee Consultant Milena Blake Republican Assembly Consultants Mr. Gary Olson and Mr. Allan Cooper

2370 W. Cleveland Ave. #332, Madera, CA 93637 888.541.3040 fax: 888.541.9011 www.calffl.org