2008 California Report: Recent Developments in Federal, State and Local Gun Laws

Legal Community Against Violence welcomes your interest and support To request assistance, become a member, or for more information, please visit www.lcav.org or call our office

2008 California Report Recent Developments in Federal, State and Local Gun Laws

MAILING ADDRESS 268 Bush Street, #555 San Francisco, CA 94104 TEL (415) 433.2062 FAX (415) 433.3357 WEB www.lcav.org

A Publication of

Legal Community Against Violence expertise, information & advocacy to end gun violence

A Publication of

Legal Community Against Violence expertise, information & advocacy to end gun violence

2008 California Report Recent Developments in Federal, State and Local Gun Laws

The views expressed in this publication are those of Legal Community Against Violence.

This publication is not intended as legal advice to any person or entity, and should not be regarded as such.

Copyright Š 2008 by Legal Community Against Violence. All Rights Reserved.

Legal Community Against Violence Mailing Address: 268 Bush Street, #555 San Francisco, CA 94104 Tel: 415-433-2062 Fax: 415-433-3357 E-mail: requestassistance@lcav.org Web site: www.lcav.org

May 8, 2008 Dear Community Leader, Legal Community Against Violence (LCAV) is pleased to provide you with the 2008 California Report: Recent Developments in Federal, State and Local Gun Laws. This report is being distributed to elected officials, government attorneys, police chiefs, sheriffs, public health officials and gun violence prevention advocates statewide.

LCAV is a national law center dedicated to preventing gun violence. Founded by lawyers in the wake of the July 1, 1993 assault weapon massacre at 101 California Street in San Francisco, LCAV is the country’s only organization devoted exclusively to providing legal assistance in support of gun violence prevention. We provide free assistance to public officials and advocates working nationwide to advance gun violence prevention, focusing on measures that can be implemented at the state and local levels.

Guns kill or injure more than 100,000 Americans – including more than 7,700 Californians – each year. Yet, as discussed in the 2008 California Report, the federal government repeatedly fails to act to stem the tide of gun violence. As a result, it is up to state and local governments to adopt policies to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. Fortunately, gun violence prevention remains a priority in the State of California, both at the state and local levels.

LCAV is grateful to the donors and foundations whose encouragement and financial support enabled us to produce this report, in particular, The California Wellness Foundation, David Bohnett Foundation, The Wallace Alexander Gerbode Foundation, The Joyce Foundation, the Five Bridges Foundation, and the van Löben Sels/RembeRock Foundation.

We hope you find the 2008 California Report informative. To learn more about LCAV’s services and how to get involved, please contact us or visit our web site, www.lcav.org – the most comprehensive resource for information on U.S. firearms laws in print or electronic form.

We welcome the opportunity to work with you to make our communities safer from gun violence.

Very truly yours,

Juliet A. Leftwich Senior Counsel

Table of Contents I. Gun Violence in America: The Senseless Bloodshed Continues

1

A. Firearm-Related Deaths, Injuries and Crimes B. Firearm Ownership and the Myth that Guns Make Us Safe C. Federal Gun Laws: Riddled with Gaps and Loopholes

1 2 3

II. Federal Update

5

A. The Second Amendment: The U.S. Supreme Court Reviews the Heller Case B. 2007 Legislation C. 2008 Legislation D. Federal Immunity Law Challenges

III. California State Update

10

A. California’s Gun Safety Laws Lead the Nation B. 2007 Legislation C. 2008 Legislation IV. California Local Governments Update

A. Local Authority to Regulate Firearms B. Local Ordinances to Reduce Gun Violence V. Beyond California

10 10 11 12

A. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, State Legislators Against Illegal Guns, and County Executives Against Illegal Guns B. International Association of Chiefs of Police C. LCAV’s Work with States Across the U.S. How We Can Help

5 7 8 9

13 14 14 14 15 16 17

I. Gun Violence in America: The Senseless Bloodshed Continues A. Firearm-Related Deaths, Injuries and Crimes Gun violence continues to plague our nation. In 2007, America witnessed the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history – the April 16 Virginia Tech massacre – in which a mentally unbalanced college student shot and killed 32 people, wounded 17 others and then killed himself.

On December 5, 2007, a 19-year-old opened fire with an assault weapon at an Omaha, Nebraska shopping mall, killing eight and wounding five before committing suicide. Four days later, another gunman went on a shooting rampage at two separate churches in Colorado, killing four and wounding five others before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Several high-profile shootings have already occurred in 2008. For example: • On January 10, a 10-year-old boy taking a piano lesson at a North Oakland music studio was shot and partially paralyzed by a stray bullet from the robbery of a gas station across the street.

• On February 7, five people were shot and killed, and two others shot and wounded, at a city council meeting in Kirkwood, Missouri.

• On February 14, a gunman shot 23 people at a lecture hall on the campus of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb, Illinois, killing five of them.1 Not surprisingly, each of these tragic incidents received a great deal of media attention. Americans expect to be safe in their schools, shopping centers, churches and other normally secure locations and are understandably horrified when mass shootings occur there. The reality, however, is that guns are used to kill people in less publicized homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings at an extraordinarily high rate throughout American communities every day. Consider the staggering statistics: • In 2005, the most recent year for which statistics are available, guns took the lives of over 30,000 Americans.2 Of the 80 people killed each day, approximately 32 die in homicides – the equivalent of a Virginia Tech massacre each day.

• In 2005, 69,825 individuals were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds.3 • In California, 3,453 people died from firearm-related injuries that year4 and 4,316 others were treated for non-fatal gunshot wounds.5

More recently, during the weekend of April 18 – 20 in Chicago, 36 shootings left nine dead.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS), WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2005 (2008), at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html.

3 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Web-Based Injury Statistics Query & Reporting System (WISQARS), WISQARS Nonfatal Injury Reports (2008), at http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html.

4 Supra note 2.

5 California Department of Health Services, Epidemiology and Prevention for Injury Control Branch (EPIC), EPICenter California Injury Data Online, Nonfatal Injury Data Custom Data Tables (2008), at http://www.applications.dhs.ca.gov/ epicdata/content/tb_nonfatal.htm.

1 2

1

A comparison of U.S. gun deaths and the number of military casualties suffered during two of our nation’s wars demonstrates the enormity of the problem. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period.6 In addition, the Iraq War has, in five years, killed over 4,000 American soldiers.7 More civilians are killed with guns in the U.S. every seven weeks.

On the home front, guns are a criminal’s weapon of choice. In 2006, nearly 68% of all murders nationwide were committed with a firearm.8 That year, a total of 388,897 gun crimes were committed, including 11,566 murders, 188,804 robberies, and 188,527 aggravated assaults.9 In California, firearms were used in 74.1% of homicides, 64.4% of robberies and 21.1% of aggravated assaults committed in 2006.10 B. Firearm Ownership and the Myth that Guns Make Us Safe The United States is the most heavily armed nation in the world. According to the Small Arms Survey 2007, Americans own an estimated 270 million firearms – approximately 90 guns for every 100 people.11 This is necessarily an estimate, however, because no system of federal registration or other comprehensive record-keeping requirements exist to track firearm ownership in this country.

Indeed, federal law currently prohibits the use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to create any system of registration of firearms or firearm owners.12 We do know that gun manufacturers continue to produce, and Americans continue to buy, millions of guns each year. According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), more than 3.65 million new firearms were manufactured in 2006, the most recent year for which statistics are available.13 The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that in 2006, more than 8.47 million firearm sales were approved.14 In California, more than 375,000 gun transfers were approved that year.15

U.S. Department of Defense, Statistical Information Analysis Division, Personnel & Military Casualty Statistics, U.S. Military Casualties in Southeast Asia – Vietnam Conflict Casualty Summary As of June 15, 2004, at http://siadapp. dmdc.osd.mil/personnel/CASUALTY/vietnam.pdf.

7 U.S. Department of Defense, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status, Fatalities as of: May 7, 2008, 10 a.m. EDT, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/news/casualty.pdf (last visited May 7, 2008).

8 U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Key Facts at a Glance: Crimes Committed with Firearms, 1973-2006, at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm (last visited May 7, 2008).

9 Id. 10 California Department of Justice,,Crime in California 2006 (Sept. 2007), at http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/candd/cd06/Crime_In_CA_2006.pdf (last visited May 7, 2008).

11 Small Arms Survey, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City at 39 (Aug. 2007).

12 28 C.F.R. § 25.9(b)(3).

13 U.S Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Annual Firearms Manufacturing and Export Report 2006, at: http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2006.pdf.

14 U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Background Checks for Firearm Transfers, 2006 – Statistical Tables (Mar. 2008), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/bcft06st/bcft06st.htm. 2006 is the most recent year for which statistics are available.

15 California Department of Justice, Bureau of Firearms, Dealer’s Record of Sale Transactions, 1972-2007, available at http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/drosdata2007.pdf. The percentage of American households that report having a gun in the home has declined over the last 35 years, however. Violence Policy Center, A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Gun Ownership in America (April 2007).

6

2

Although many Americans buy guns for self-protection, a large body of research shows that a gun in the home actually increases the risk of firearm-related death or injury to a household member.

That research includes the following studies: • Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Injuries and Deaths Due to Firearms in the Home, 45 The Journal of Trauma 263 (1998) (guns kept in the home are more likely to be involved in a fatal or nonfatal accidental shooting, criminal assault or suicide attempt than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense).

• Linda L. Dahlberg et al., Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study, 160 American Journal of Epidemiology 929 (2004) (having a gun in the home is associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home).

• Arthur L. Kellerman et al., Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home, 329 The New England Journal of Medicine 1084 (1993) (rather than conferring protection, guns in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance).

• Douglas J. Wiebe, Homicide and Suicide Risks Associated with Firearms in the Home: A National Case-Control Study, 41 Annals of Emergency Medicine 771 (June 2003) (finding that having a gun in the home increases the risk that adults will commit suicide with a firearm or be killed in a homicide with a firearm).

• Douglas J. Wiebe, Firearms in U.S. Homes as a Risk Factor for Unintentional Gunshot Fatality, 35 Accident Analysis & Prevention 711 (2003) (finding the relative risk of dying from an unintentional gunshot injury to be 3.7 times higher for adults living in homes with guns).16 Because the results of these studies are not well known, however, many Americans incorrectly believe that gun ownership increases their safety and the safety of their families. In addition, many gun owners leave their guns loaded and unlocked, increasing the odds that they will be used in unintentional or intentional shootings by children and other unauthorized persons.17 C. Federal Gun Laws: Riddled with Gaps and Loopholes Despite the undisputed statistics regarding our nation’s epidemic of gun violence and the dangers guns present to our society, America’s gun laws are among the weakest of industrialized nations worldwide. As stated in The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s (2006), “While gun control is extremely controversial in the United States, with opposition to even

See also Matthew Miller et al., Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States, 62 The Journal of Trauma 1029 (Apr. 2007) (finding that suicide rates among men, women and children are higher in states where more households have guns). Matthew Miller et al., State-level Homicide Victimization Rates in the U.S. in Relation to Survey Measures of Household Firearm Ownership, 2001-2003, 64 Social Science & Medicine 656 (Oct. 2006) (finding that states with higher rates of household firearm ownership have significantly higher homicide rates).

17 A 2005 study on adult firearm storage practices in U.S. homes found that over 1.69 million children and youth under age 18 are living in homes with loaded and unlocked firearms. Catherine A. Okoro et al., Prevalence of Household Firearms and Firearm-Storage Practices in the 50 States and the District of Columbia: Findings from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, 2002, 116 Pediatrics e370, e371-e372 (Sept. 2005), at http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/116/3/e370.

16

3

basic regulation such as licensing and registration, a review of legislation around the world shows that the norms in most countries, both industrialized and developing, are to strictly regulate civilian possession of firearms.”18 Not surprisingly, the U.S. has the highest rate of firearm deaths among 25 high-income nations,19 and the overall firearm-related death rate among U.S. children under the age of 15 is nearly 12 times higher than that among children in 25 other industrialized nations combined.20 Our astronomical levels of gun violence can be attributed, in large part, to our extremely weak federal gun laws. Riddled with gaps and loopholes, those laws do not, for example: • Require background checks on all gun purchasers. The Brady Act only requires federally licensed gun dealers to conduct background checks, exempting private sellers (responsible for an estimated 40% of all gun sales).21 Because of this “private sale” loophole, criminals and other prohibited persons can easily buy guns in most states.

• Regulate guns as a consumer product. Guns and ammunition (and tobacco) are exempt from the Consumer Product Safety Act.22 As a result, the federal government has authority to adopt health and safety standards for toy guns, but not for real guns.

• Require that handgun owners be licensed or that handguns be registered. Licensing laws help ensure that gun owners know how to safely use a firearm and are familiar with firearms laws; registration laws help law enforcement officials trace crime guns and return lost or stolen firearms to their lawful owners.

• Ban assault weapons or 50 caliber rifles (military-style firearms that combine long range, accuracy and massive power, and are readily available on the civilian market).23 • Limit the number of handguns that may be purchased at any one time, to prevent gun traffickers from buying guns in bulk and reselling them to prohibited purchasers.

• Impose a waiting period, to allow sufficient time for the completion of a background check and provide a “cooling off” period to help prevent impulsive acts of violence.24 Our nation’s gun laws have long been weak, but they became even weaker under the current Bush Administration. Before President Bush was elected, the NRA predicted that if Bush became president the group would be able to “work out of” the White House. That prediction proved to be prophetic. During his tenure, Congress allowed the assault weapon ban to expire, mandated that approved firearm purchaser records be destroyed within 24 hours, and severely restricted

Wendy Cukier & Victor Sidel, The Global Gun Epidemic: From Saturday Night Specials to AK-47s 131 (2006).

Id. at 17.

20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Morbidity & Mortality Weekly Report, Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children – 26 Industrialized Countries (Feb. 7, 1997).

21 18 U.S.C. § 922(s); Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Research in Brief 6-7 (May 1997).

22 15 U.S.C. §§ 2051, 2052(a)(1)(ii)(E).

23 Fifty caliber rifles are treated as ordinary long guns under federal law and thus can be purchased by persons over age 18. Moreover, because of the private sale loophole, 50 caliber rifles can be easily purchased in most states by criminals and would-be terrorists.

24 Under existing federal law, most guns are immediately transferred to the purchaser after the completion of an instant background check. Moreover, if the background check has not been completed within three days, the dealer may transfer the gun by default without knowing whether the transfer is lawful. 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1).

18 19

4

access to crime gun trace data.25 In addition, under President Bush, Congress passed the socalled “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” NRA-sponsored legislation to provide unprecedented legal immunity to the gun industry. That Act prohibits, with certain narrow exceptions, civil lawsuits and administrative proceedings against manufacturers and sellers of firearms and ammunition, and required the dismissal of most lawsuits pending against the industry nationwide.26 Frustrated by the federal government’s repeated failure to address our nation’s gun violence epidemic, state and local governments across the country have adopted a variety of common sense laws to regulate firearms. As discussed below, the State of California and its political subdivisions have been at the forefront of this effort.

II. Federal Update A. The Second Amendment: The U.S. Supreme Court Reviews the Heller Case “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

On March 18, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in District of Columbia v.

Heller, 128 S. Ct. 645, 169 L. Ed. 2d 417 (2007), a historic case involving the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court is reviewing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit which struck down the District’s 32 year-old handgun possession ban, interpreting the Second Amendment as guaranteeing a private right to possess firearms that is unrelated to service in a well-regulated state militia.27 The Court of Appeals’ decision is the only federal appellate decision in U.S. history to invalidate a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

The Heller case is very significant because it marks the first time in nearly 70 years the Supreme Court will interpret the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court last addressed the meaning of the Amendment in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) where, in a unanimous decision, it rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law prohibiting the interstate transportation of sawed-off shotguns. In that case, the Court held that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment is to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia, and the Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”28 Since Miller, over 200 federal and state appellate courts have upheld numerous common-sense gun regulations, including laws that: • Ban assault weapons.

The 24-hour record destruction and crime gun trace data disclosure rules have been included in appropriations bills funding the Department of Justice every year since 2004. Prior to 2004, approved firearm purchaser records were retained for 90 days, allowing ATF time to inspect dealer records to determine whether the dealer submitted accurate information about the purchaser. Disclosure of crime gun trace data is discussed further below in the Federal Update, at page 7.

26 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901-7903. Cases interpreting the federal immunity law are discussed at page 9.

27 Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F.3d 370 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

28 United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939).

25

5

• Prohibit firearm possession by persons who have been: o Involuntarily committed to a mental institution. o Convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. o Dishonorably discharged from the military.

• Require firearms dealers to be licensed.

• Require registration of firearms.

• Require handgun owner identification cards.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this well-established legal precedent, however, holding instead that the Second Amendment guarantees a private right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a well-regulated state militia.

A decision in the Heller case is expected in June 2008. Although it is difficult to predict how the Supreme Court will rule, the Court’s ruling should not immediately impact gun violence prevention laws beyond the Washington, D.C. handgun possession ban directly at issue in the case.

Nonetheless, a Supreme Court decision that finds a private right to bear arms under the Second Amendment can reasonably be expected to spawn challenges to a wide range of gun laws.

Significantly, because the Second Amendment was designed to limit the ability of the federal government to interfere with state militias, many courts, including, in pre-Miller decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court, have held that the Amendment only limits the power of Congress and has no application to state or local laws.29 Because the District of Columbia is not a state or locality but a federally-created district, the Supreme Court should have no occasion to revisit this established principle in Heller. Again, however, if the Court concludes that the Second Amendment confers a private right to possess firearms unrelated to service in a state militia, that ruling will likely result in challenges to state and local gun laws, notwithstanding well-settled precedent regarding the Amendment’s inapplicability to state and local governments.

LCAV was pleased to have the opportunity to assist the District of Columbia in the Heller case in coordinating the filing of amicus briefs. Nineteen amicus briefs, written on behalf of 188 amici, were filed in support of the District. Those briefs represent a wide variety of important voices, including law enforcement groups, public health advocates, law professors, historians, linguists, the American Bar Association, states, former Department of Justice officials, gun violence prevention organizations and members of Congress. LCAV also filed its own amicus brief in Heller, joined by The United States Conference of Mayors and several major U.S. cities: Baltimore, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York City, Oakland, Philadelphia, Sacramento, San Francisco, Seattle and Trenton.

See Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 123-24 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 813 (1995); Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc. v. Van De Kamp, 965 F.2d 723, 729-31 (9th Cir. 1992); Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270-71 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).

29

6

B. 2007 Legislation In 2007, the gun lobby succeeded in thwarting several attempts by Congress to reduce gun violence. One of the hardest fought battles related to the “Tiahrt Amendment,” a provision included in ATF appropriations bills since 2004 to limit access to crime gun trace data by law enforcement and the public. That provision prevents law enforcement from accessing crucial information needed to investigate and prosecute gun traffickers, hinders public officials seeking regulatory solutions to gun trafficking, and keeps the public from fully understanding the epidemic of gun crime and violence.30 State and national gun violence prevention groups, law enforcement organizations, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (discussed further at page 14 ) joined forces in 2007 to encourage congressional appropriations committees to remove the Tiahrt Amendment from appropriations bills. Despite these efforts, appropriations committees included the Amendment in ATF appropriations bills and the provision was included in the budget for fiscal year 2008.31 In 2007, Congress also passed the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007,32 which President Bush signed into law in January 2008. In its original form, this legislation was a worthy attempt to address a major shortcoming in the federal background check system. The FBI conducts background checks using the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which consists of records provided by the states. However, state submission of these records is voluntary and limited, especially with respect to mental health records.33 As a result, prohibited purchasers have been able obtain firearms. The NICS Improvement Amendments Act attempts to address this problem by providing financial incentives for states to submit information to NICS regarding whether a person is prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm.

Although the Act, as passed, retains these incentives, the gun lobby succeeded in adding amendments which create new loopholes and are cause for significant concern. Due to these amendments, the Act: (1) changes the standard by which federal agencies must submit mental health records to NICS, which will result in the submission of far fewer records; and (2) requires federal agencies and states that participate in the grant program to create relief from disability programs to allow prohibited persons with mental health histories to request that their ability to possess firearms be restored.34 Specifically, the provision prohibits ATF from disclosing firearms trace data except to law enforcement in connection with and for use in a criminal investigation or prosecution or to a federal agency for national security or intelligence purposes. In addition, the provision renders all firearms trace data immune from legal process and inadmissible in non-ATF administrative proceedings or civil actions. Information may be disclosed in aggregate form for statistical purposes.

31 Consolidated Appropriations Act 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, 121 Stat. 1844 (2007). Note that a more restrictive version of the provision was approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee but later rejected by Congress. The Tiahrt Amendment also includes a provision requiring the destruction of approved purchaser information within 24 hours of the approval by the FBI. This provision has received considerably less attention from the media and advocacy groups and was also retained in the budget for 2008.

32 Pub. L. No. 110-180, §§ 102, 104, 121 Stat. 2559 (2008).

33 See 28 C.F.R. § 25.4. Note that Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898 (1997), stands for the proposition that the federal government may not mandate that state officials administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. Although this proposition has not been applied to a case directly involving the contribution of state records to NICS, it may limit the ability of the federal government to require that states do so.

34 See Legal Community Against Violence, House of Representative Passes “NICS Improvement Act of 2007” with Troubling Amendments (June 15, 2007) at: http://www.lcav.org/pdf/HR_2640.pdf.

30

7

Another bill introduced in 2007 is similar to an NRA-backed measure considered by Congress, and passed by the House, in 2006. That legislation35 would significantly weaken ATF’s power to revoke the licenses of corrupt firearms dealers by, among other things, redefining the standard required for proving a violation and limiting the types of violations for which a license may be revoked.

Congress has not acted on the bill to date, but has until the end of December 2008 to take action on legislation introduced in 2007.

Congress has also failed to act on several gun violence prevention measures introduced in 2007.

One such measure, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, would prohibit the transfer of firearms to any individual the Attorney General knows or suspects to be a terrorist36 and reasonably believes may use a firearm in connection with terrorism.37 The bill would also prohibit firearm possession by any person who has received actual notice of this determination.38 Under the bill, the Attorney General would have authority to deny or revoke a federal firearms license based on the terrorism determination. A 2005 General Accounting Office report found that during a five-month period, 44 background checks on prospective firearm purchasers resulted in a match with terror watch list records. Thirty-five of those transactions were approved.39 Despite this alarming finding, the NRA strongly opposes the bill.40 Another 2007 bill would, among other things, require licensing for possessors of handguns and certain semiautomatic firearms and close the private sale loophole by requiring background checks prior to transfer of any firearm.41 Legislation that would have reinstated and improved the expired federal ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines was also introduced but has not been acted on by Congress.42 Passage of these bills appears unlikely.

C. 2008 Legislation At the urging of several U.S. senators and the NRA, the U.S. Department of the Interior has proposed the removal of the current ban on the carrying of loaded, accessible firearms on lands managed by the National Park Service and Fish and Wildlife Service.43 New regulations, submitted for public comment on April 30, 2008, would allow the carrying of concealed, loaded, and operable firearms on national park and wildlife refuges if the state in which the park or refuge is located allows such conduct in similar lands controlled by the state.44 Written comments on the new rule will be accepted through June 30, 2008. The Association of National Park Rangers is among the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act of 2007, H.R. 4900, 110th Cong. (2007).

36 The standard for this determination is similar to that used for inclusion in the Terrorist Watch List.

37 Denying Firearms and Explosives to Dangerous Terrorists Act of 2007, S. 1237, 110th Cong. (2007).

38 In addition, a concealed weapon or firearm permit holder currently exempt from a background check would no longer be exempt if the Attorney General makes such a determination.

39 U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, Gun Control and Terrorism: FBI Could Better Manage Firearm-Related Background Checks Involving Terrorist Watch List Records 11 (Jan. 2005), at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05127.pdf.

40 On April 30, 2007, the NRA sent a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez urging the Department of Justice to withdraw support for the bill. See Sam Hananel, NRA Raps Terror Suspect Bill, The Boston Globe, May 5, 2007.

41 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2007, H.R. 2666, 110th Cong. (2007).

42 Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2007, H.R. 1022, 110th Cong. (2007).

43 The ban is provided at 36 C.F.R. § 2.4 and 50 C.F.R. § 27.42.

44 General Regulations for Areas Administered by the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service, 73 Fed. Reg. 23,388 (April 30, 2008).

35

8

groups opposing elimination of the ban.45 In addition, seven former directors of the National Park Service sent a letter to the Secretary of the Interior opposing the rule change.46 Several measures to reduce gun violence have also been introduced in 2008, including a bill to prohibit federal firearms licensees from manufacturing, importing or transferring semiautomatic handguns manufactured or imported on or after January 1, 2010 unless they are capable of “microstamping.”47 (See discussion of California’s new microstamping law at page 10.) In addition, the Firearms Information Use Act of 200848 was introduced in March of this year to repeal the crime gun trace data provisions of the Tiahrt Amendment, discussed above. Finally, the Preserving Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions Act of 200849 was introduced in April to require the retention of background check information for 180 days for approved purchasers and for 10 years for approved purchasers whose names appear on terror watch lists. Passage of these bills also appears unlikely.

D. Federal Immunity Law Challenges Courts that have analyzed the federal gun industry immunity law since it was enacted in 2005 have focused on the applicability of the exception for lawsuits based on a “knowing violation of a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms,” as well as the law’s constitutionality. In 2006, the Superior Court for Lake County, Indiana held that the immunity law was unconstitutional because its requirement that pending lawsuits be dismissed violated the due process prohibition on retroactivity and improperly impinged on the realm of the courts by directing the outcome of particular pending cases. City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, Corp. No. 45D05-0005-CT-00243 (Lake Cty. Ind. Super. Ct., Oct. 23, 2006). In 2007, an Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, but ignored the constitutional questions, instead holding that the exception to the law applied to a claim under the Indiana nuisance statute. Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).

In January 2008, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed a decision refusing to apply the exception to a claim for a violation of the District’s Strict Liability Act and rejecting constitutional challenges to the law. District of Columbia v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp., 940 A.2d 163 (D.C. 2008). In April 2008, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a similar decision, finding the exception inapplicable to a claim for a violation of New York’s criminal nuisance statute and upholding the constitutionality of the immunity law. City of New York v. Beretta U.S.A. Corp, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9309 (2d Cir. 2008). The Ninth Circuit is currently considering an appeal of Ileto v. Glock, Inc., 421 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (C.D. Cal. 2006), appeal docketed, No. 06-56872 (9th Cir. Dec. 29. 2006) (holding that the exception did not apply to claims under California’s nuisance and negligence statutes and rejecting constitutional challenges, including the argument that the federal law constitutes a “taking” of a protected property interest in violation of the Fifth Amendment).

LCAV filed amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in the New York v. Beretta and Ileto cases.

See Association of National Park Rangers, ANPR Position on Personal Firearms in the National Park System (Jan. 27, 2008), at: http://www.anpr.org/guns_in_parks.htm.

46 Press Release, National Parks Conservation Association, Former National Park Directors: Loaded Guns Are a Bad Idea (April 3, 2008), at: http://www.npca.org/media_center/press_releases/2008/040308_gunsdirectorsletter.html.

47 National Crime Gun Identification Act, H.R. 5266, 110th Cong. (2008).

48 Firearms Information Use Act of 2008, S. 2769, 110th Cong. (2008).

49 Preserving Records of Terrorist and Criminal Transactions Act of 2008, S. 2935, 110th Cong. (2008).

45

9

III. California State Update A. California’s Gun Safety Laws Lead the Nation The State of California has enacted some of the strongest gun laws in the nation. Unlike most states, for example, California: • Has closed the federal private sale loophole and requires background checks on all prospective gun purchasers.50 • Prohibits the manufacture and sale of handguns that have not passed certain safety tests.51 • Maintains handgun purchaser records.52 • Requires handgun purchasers to obtain a safety certificate after passing a written test and performing a safe handling demonstration.53 • Limits handgun sales to one per person per month.54 • Imposes a 10-day waiting period.55 • Requires that all firearms manufactured or sold in the state be accompanied by a trigger lock or other firearm safety device approved by the Department of Justice.56 • Bans assault weapons and 50 caliber rifles.57 • Prohibits the sale of large capacity ammunition magazines (i.e., those capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition).58 B. 2007 Legislation In 2007, California strengthened its gun laws further when the Legislature adopted and Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law the following firearm-related bills: AB 1471 (Feuer) – Microstamping. This groundbreaking legislation – the Crime Gun Identification Act of 2007 – will help law enforcement solve firearm-related crimes by requiring all new models of semiautomatic handguns manufactured or sold in the state after January 1, 2010, to be “microstamped,” i.e., internally etched with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model and serial number of the handgun.59 Because these characters are transferred to the cartridge case when the weapon is fired, microstamping will allow law enforcement to trace cartridge cases found at a crime scene back to the purchaser of the handgun that fired them. This law – the first of its kind in the nation – will provide an outstanding crime-fighting tool because it will help law enforcement solve gun crimes even when the guns themselves have not been recovered.

All gun sales must be processed by a licensed dealer. Cal. Penal Code § 12072(d).

Penal Code § 12125 et seq.

52 Penal Code § 11106(c)(1).

53 Penal Code §§ 12071(b)(8)(B), 12800 et seq.

54 Penal Code §§ 12072(a)(9)(A), 12072(c)(6).

55 Penal Code §§ 12071(b)(3)(A), 12072(c)(1).

56 Penal Code § 12088.1.

57 Penal Code § 12280(a)(1).

58 Penal Code § 12020(a)(2), (b). For a complete summary of California’s firearm laws, visit the LCAV web site, http://www.lcav.org/states/california.asp.

59 Penal Code § 12126(b)(7).

50 51

10

Several states, including Virginia, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York, have followed California’s lead and are considering similar microstamping legislation. As noted previously, a federal microstamping bill has also been introduced in Congress.

AB 1013 (Krekorian) – Weapons and Ammunition Nuisance Abatement. This legislation creates a pilot program in selected cities (Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, San Diego and Sacramento) to allow city prosecutors and city attorneys to file unlawful detainer actions in the name of the people against tenants who create a nuisance by committing certain offenses related to firearms or ammunition.60 The law is modeled after a state statute which authorizes similar unlawful detainer actions against tenants who illegally sell a controlled substance on the premises or use the premises to further that purpose.

AB 289 (Spitzer) – Protective Orders. This legislation will allow a court to issue a protective order for up to ten years when a defendant is convicted of willful infliction of corporal injury on his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, regardless of whether the sentence is suspended or the person is placed on probation.61 Under existing state law, persons subject to a protective order are prohibited from possessing firearms.

The following bills were also introduced in 2007: AB 334 (Levine) – Reporting Lost or Stolen Firearms. This bill, which has been placed on the inactive file, would require new handgun owners to report the loss or theft of their handguns.

AB 362 (DeLeon) – Ammunition Sales. This bill to regulate ammunition sellers and purchasers passed the Assembly and then stalled in the Senate. The bill was re-introduced in 2008 as AB 2062, discussed below.

LCAV worked actively with other gun violence prevention organizations across the state to support gun violence prevention bills in 2007. We also helped defeat several bills which would have weakened California’s gun laws, including: 1) AB 1357 (Parra), which would have allowed persons with a hunting license to be exempt from the law requiring handgun purchasers to obtain a Handgun Safety Certificate; 2) AB 1218 (Duvall), which would have allowed certain “junk guns” manufactured prior to 1995 to be sold by firearms dealers; and 3) AB 1105 (Garrick), which sought to reduce the state’s 10-day waiting period. These bills were scheduled for hearings before the Assembly Public Safety Committee, but withdrawn from consideration after the Virginia Tech massacre and after LCAV and other organizations sent letters of opposition to the Committee. AB 1357 was finally heard – and defeated – in January of 2008. In 2007, LCAV helped defeat another gun lobby bill, AB 652 (Maze), which would have forced employers to allow employees to keep guns in their cars at the workplace.

C. 2008 Legislation Several important gun violence prevention bills were introduced in 2008 and are currently making their way through the California Legislature, including the following: 60 61

Cal. Civ. Code § 3485 Cal. Penal Code § 273.5 (i)

11

AB 2235 (DeSaulnier) – “Owner-Authorized Handguns.” AB 2235 would require all newly manufactured or imported handguns in California to be “owner-authorized,” i.e., designed so they can only be fired by the lawful owner or other authorized users, 18 months after the Department of Justice determines that such handguns are available for retail sale. This bill would help prevent unintentional and intentional shootings by children, thieves and other unauthorized persons. AB 2235 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 15, 2008. LCAV is a co-sponsor of the bill.

AB 2062 (DeLeon) – Ammunition Sales. AB 2062 is a comprehensive bill to regulate ammunition sales. It would, among other things, require ammunition vendors to: 1) obtain a state license; 2) maintain ammunition purchaser records; and 3) store ammunition so that it is inaccessible to the public. It would also require ammunition purchasers, beginning in 2011, to undergo a background check and obtain a state permit, and mandate that all ammunition sales be processed in face-to-face transactions. This bill is needed because ammunition sellers and purchasers are almost completely unregulated under existing law, allowing criminals and other prohibited persons to easily buy and sell ammunition throughout the state. AB 2062 passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 8, 2008. LCAV is also a co-sponsor of this bill.

AB 2696 (Krekorian) – Background Check Records. AB 2696 would require the electronic transmission of mental health records to the state Department of Justice for use in background checks on prospective firearm purchasers. These records are currently sent by mail, often in batches over a several month period, allowing certain mentally ill people to purchase firearms.

LCAV is the sponsor of this bill, which passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 1, 2008.

AB 2948 (Leno) – Cow Palace Firearm and Ammunition Sales. AB 2948 would prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Cow Palace, a state-owned venue for gun shows in the San Francisco Bay Area. This bill passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 8, 2008.

SB 1171 (Scott) – Carrying Loaded Firearms in Vehicles. SB 1171 would expand the prohibitions on carrying loaded firearms in public. Under existing law, carrying a loaded firearm in a vehicle in an unincorporated area is only prohibited in areas where local ordinances or other laws or regulations prohibit the discharge of firearms. SB 1171 would expand the prohibition so that no loaded firearm could be carried in a vehicle in any public place, street, road or highway, regardless of the existence of a local discharge ban. This bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 15, 2008.62 LCAV is pleased to work with state legislators and our coalition partners across the state on developing, drafting and supporting legislation to reduce firearm-related deaths and injuries in California.

IV. California Local Governments Update California cities and counties have pioneered legislative efforts to reduce gun violence. Since the mid-1990s, local governments in California have adopted over 300 innovative firearm Another bill, AB 2566 (Hancock), which would have repealed existing state laws that preempt local firearm-related ordinances, failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 8, 2008.

62

12

ordinances.63 Significantly, this local regulatory activity has provided a catalyst for several new state laws, including those to: 1) prohibit the manufacture and sale of “junk guns;” 2) require firearms dealers to equip all firearms with child-safety locks; 3) prohibit the sale of largecapacity ammunition magazines; 4) limit handgun purchases to one per person per month; and 5) prohibit the manufacture and sale of 50 caliber rifles. Each of these laws was modeled after local ordinances adopted since 1995.

A. Local Authority to Regulate Firearms Opponents of local gun laws often argue that cities and counties have no authority to regulate firearms or ammunition, i.e., that state law preempts such regulations. The courts generally have been hesitant, however, to strike down local gun laws on this basis.

The California Legislature has expressed an explicit intent to preempt local firearms regulations in three discrete areas: 1) licensing or registration of commercially manufactured firearms (Government Code Section 53071); 2) licensing or permitting with respect to the purchase, ownership, possession or carrying of a concealable firearm in the home or place of business (Penal Code Section 12026); and 3) the manufacture, sale or possession of “imitation firearms” (Government Code Section 53071.5).

The courts have held that California local governments have a great deal of authority to regulate firearms outside of these preempted areas. See, e.g., California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of West Hollywood (1998) 66 Cal. App. 4th 1302 (upholding a ban on the sale of Saturday Night Specials or “junk guns”),64 Suter v. City of Lafayette (1997) 57 Cal. App. 4th 1109 (upholding an ordinance regulating firearms dealers),65 Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 853 (upholding a ban on the sale of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property), and Nordyke v. King (2002) 27 Cal. 4th 875 (upholding a ban on the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property).

In Doe v. City and County of San Francisco (1982) 136 Cal. App. 3d 509, in contrast, the Court of Appeal held that Government Code Section 53071 and Penal Code Section 12026 expressly preempted a local ordinance banning the possession of handguns in San Francisco. Because the ordinance contained an exception for concealed weapons licensees, the court found that it had the effect of creating a new class of persons who would be required to obtain a license in order to possess a handgun in their home or place of business. The court also stated that even if it were to find no “licensing” requirement in the ordinance, it would still conclude that Section 12026 impliedly preempted the ordinance on the ground that the statute occupies the field of residential handgun possession. The court found nothing in state law to suggest, however,

See Prevent Handgun Violence Against Kids & Legal Community Against Violence, Communities on the Move 2000: How California Communities are Addressing the Epidemic of Handgun Violence (2000) at: http://www.lcav.org/library/ surveys_local_ords/com2000_pdf.pdf.

64 West Hollywood was the first California city to ban the sale of these dangerous firearms. LCAV’s survey of local gun laws indicates that as of May 31, 2000, 55 cities and counties had followed West Hollywood’s lead.

65 The Lafayette ordinance required dealers to sell trigger locks and obtain liability insurance and prohibited dealers from operating in residential areas and admitting minors unless accompanied by an adult. The court held that one ordinance provision – which imposed security requirements for firearms dealer premises – was preempted by a state statute which imposed similar, yet less stringent requirements. State law now allows local governments to impose security requirements that are more strict than state law. See Penal Code § 12071(b)(15).

63

13

that the Legislature intended to prevent local governments from regulating all aspects of firearm possession.

This year, the Court of Appeal followed the reasoning of Doe in Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco (2008) 158 Cal. App. 4th 895. In that case, the court held that state law preempted Proposition H, a voter-approved ordinance to ban handgun possession by San Francisco residents and prohibit the sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city.66 B. Local Ordinances to Reduce Gun Violence Recognizing that they bear primary responsibility for public health and safety, elected officials in communities throughout California continue to enact a variety of cutting-edge ordinances to fill gaps in state and federal law, including those which: • Require firearms dealers to o Obtain a local license. o Operate away from residential neighborhoods and other “sensitive” areas, e.g., schools, playgrounds and places of worship. o Conduct employee background checks. o Obtain liability insurance. o Prohibit unaccompanied minors from entering the dealers’ premises where firearm sales is the primary business performed. o Provide the results of twice-yearly inventory inspections to local law enforcement.

• Prohibit the sale or possession of firearms on publicly owned property (this type of ordinance has had the effect of ending gun shows at some public facilities, such as county fairgrounds).

• Require gun owners to store their firearms safely in the home and notify law enforcement when their weapons are lost or stolen.

• Require ammunition vendors to obtain a local license and maintain ammunition purchaser records.

• Prohibit the possession of high capacity ammunition magazines, and the sale and possession of 50 caliber cartridges.

LCAV provides pro bono assistance to local governments seeking to adopt or defend ordinances to reduce gun violence, and maintains a library of firearm-related ordinances adopted statewide.

For more information about the types of ordinances currently in effect in California cities and counties, see the California Local Ordinance Summary page of our web site at www.lcav.org/states/ calocalord.asp.

V. Beyond California A. Mayors Against Illegal Guns, State Legislators Against Illegal Guns, and County Executives Against Illegal Guns LCAV continues to work with Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG), a national effort launched by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino in 2006. Currently, LCAV was not involved in the development or drafting of Proposition H, but provided pro bono consulting services to San Francisco after the measure was placed on the ballot. LCAV also filed an amicus brief supporting the city’s legal right to adopt the ordinance.

66

14

nearly 300 mayors from more than 40 states are members of the coalition, which is dedicated to making America’s cities safer by cracking down on illegal guns. In addition to supporting local, state and federal legislative efforts to target these firearms, the coalition opposes federal efforts to restrict cities’ access to gun trace data and to restrict ATF’s efforts to combat illegal gun trafficking.

The coalition also seeks to hold accountable irresponsible gun dealers who knowingly sell guns to straw purchasers,67 and supports the development and use of technologies that aid in the detection and tracing of illegal guns.

In 2007, MAIG launched a national media campaign which includes a web site, www.ProtectPolice.org, and television advertisements. The campaign is aimed at informing the public about the importance of access to gun trace data and Congressional efforts to restrict such access via the Tiahrt Amendment. MAIG also strongly supports the Firearms Information Use Act of 2008,68 which would repeal the Amendment (see the Federal Update, 2007 Legislation, above for a discussion of the Tiahrt Amendment).

In 2008, LCAV presented information about federal and state firearms laws at a MAIG regional meeting in Jacksonville, Florida. Fifteen mayors and state legislators from New York and Florida were in attendance. At this meeting, the formation of a new coalition, State Legislators Against Illegal Guns, was announced. The group’s members pledged to recruit other state legislators to join their efforts to identify and fight for common sense measures to combat gun violence and the proliferation of illegal guns.69 LCAV attended the MAIG national summit in April 2008 and will continue to support the efforts of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and State Legislators Against Illegal Guns.

On April 8, 2008, Mayor Bloomberg and Westchester County, New York County Executive Andy Spano announced the formation of another new coalition, County Executives Against Illegal Guns.

For more information about these coalitions, go to www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org and www.ProtectPolice.org.

B. International Association of Chiefs of Police LCAV also continues to work closely with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP).

On September 19, 2007, IACP released a major report entitled “Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun

A “straw purchaser” is a person who buys firearms on behalf of a convicted felon, juvenile or other prohibited purchaser. As part of its efforts to crack down on irresponsible gun dealers, New York City filed a lawsuit against 15 dealers in Georgia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Virginia in May 2006. In December 2006, the City filed a second lawsuit against 12 additional gun dealers in the same states. Investigators using hidden cameras recorded the dealers named in both suits engaging in transactions that the dealers allegedly should have recognized as straw purchases. More than a third of the gun dealers named in the initial suit have now settled out of court and agreed to unprecedented oversight of their firearm sales. Under the terms of these agreements, a Special Master has been appointed who will have unlimited access to the dealers’ records and the power to impose escalating fines for any new violations of federal, state, or local gun laws.

68 Firearms Information Use Act of 2008, S. 2769, 110th Cong. (2008).

69 The co-chairs of State Legislators Against Illegal Guns are: New York State Senator Eric Schneiderman (D); Florida State Representative Evan Jenne (D); Kansas State Representative Thomas C. “Tim” Owens (R); Nebraska State Senator Brad Ashford (R); Pennsylvania State Representative Cherelle L. Parker (D) and Illinois Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R).

67

15

Violence in Our Communities.” The report, which is the product of a summit on gun violence held in April 2007, includes nearly 40 recommendations for federal, state and local governments, as well as for law enforcement, community and philanthropic leaders, to help reduce firearm-related deaths and injuries. LCAV assisted the IACP in planning the summit, providing materials for summit participants, and reviewing and commenting on drafts of the summit report, and attended the summit in Chicago. LCAV has a long history of working closely with law enforcement, and we are honored to be part of this effort.

More information about IACP can be found at http://www.theiacp.org/research/RCDGunCrime.html.

C. LCAV’s Work with States Across the U.S. In addition to our state and local policy work in California, LCAV also works in states and cities across the country to provide legal and public policy research support and technical assistance to policymakers and groups seeking to achieve effective, legally defensible gun violence prevention policies. In 2007, LCAV responded to requests for assistance from 15 states, including Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina and Ohio. Also in 2007, LCAV launched the Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a research-based, public education campaign set up to promote meaningful gun policy reform in that state. For more information on the Illinois Campaign, go to www.icpgv.org.

16

How We Can Help LCAV is available to provide free legal assistance to community leaders working to promote gun violence prevention. We are proud to provide the legal expertise, information and advocacy that make it possible for state and local officials and activists to advance effective, legally defensible reforms. Specifically, we: • • • • • • •

Conduct legal and policy research and analysis.

Assist in the drafting of firearms laws.

Testify at public hearings regarding firearms laws.

Arrange for pro bono litigation assistance, for example, when a local government is sued following the adoption of a violence prevention ordinance.

File amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) briefs in support of governmental entities and individuals in firearm-related litigation.

Develop model laws.

Maintain a library of gun ordinances enacted statewide and pleadings filed in ordinance-related litigation.

LCAV’s web site, www.lcav.org, provides detailed summaries of all federal and state gun laws and summaries of local firearms laws in selected states. The site also provides an in-depth discussion of more than 30 firearm-related policies, and summaries of all federal and state appellate cases interpreting the Second Amendment. In addition, the site includes model laws, case studies and links to amicus briefs we have filed.

LCAV also publishes reports, such as the 2008 California Report and the 2008 Edition of “Regulating Guns in America: An Evaluation and Comparative Analysis of Federal, State and Selected Local Gun Laws,” to educate community leaders about the issue of gun violence prevention. LCAV’s publications are available on our web site.

We look forward to the opportunity to work with you to reduce firearm-related deaths and injuries in our nation.

17

Join LCAV Today LCAV’s national membership program reaches out to lawyers and other supporters, gathering a powerful national voice in favor of stronger and safer gun regulations. Members broaden LCAV’s base of support in both financial and human terms. You can make an immediate difference by joining or renewing your membership today.

As a member, you will receive monthly e-communications with important information about emerging gun laws, invitations to receptions and educational events, and much more. Equally important, you will feel the satisfaction of playing a supporting role in the gun violence prevention movement.

To learn more about membership, visit http://www.lcav.org/get_involved/membership_donations.asp or call (415) 433-2062.

18

Legal Community Against Violence welcomes your interest and support To request assistance, become a member, or for more information, please visit www.lcav.org or call our office

2008 California Report Recent Developments in Federal, State and Local Gun Laws

MAILING ADDRESS 268 Bush Street, #555 San Francisco, CA 94104 TEL (415) 433.2062 FAX (415) 433.3357 WEB www.lcav.org

A Publication of

Legal Community Against Violence expertise, information & advocacy to end gun violence

A Publication of

Legal Community Against Violence expertise, information & advocacy to end gun violence