Existing law makes it a crime to knowingly or willfully cause another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms or knowingly or willfully aiding, abetting, prompting, or facilitating the unlawful manufacture of firearms, including the manufacture of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles or the manufacture of any firearm using a 3-dimensional printer, as specified. Existing law authorizes a civil action against a person who knowingly distributes or causes to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code to any person, except as specified. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring an action against this person and seek a civil penalty, as specified, for each violation, as well as injunctive relief. This bill would require the Department of Justice to check on a quarterly basis beginning no later than July 1, 2027, whether ASTM International has published industry standards for equipping 3-dimensional printers with firearm blocking technology. The bill would require, if the department determines that ASTM International has published or adopted industry standards for firearm blocking technology for 3-dimensional printers, that the department publish written guidance or regulations within 24 months after making that determination. The bill would require, among other things, the written guidance or regulations to describe minimum performance standards for 3-dimensional printer firearm blocking technology before a printer can lawfully be sold or offered for sale in the state. If, as of July 1, 2029, the department determines that ASTM International has not published industry standards for firearm blocking technology for 3-dimensional printers, the bill would relieve the department of any further responsibility to ascertain whether ASTM International has published or adopted industry standards. The bill would make it unlawful to sell, offer for sale, or transfer for consideration, a 3-dimensional printer in the State of California that is not equipped with firearm blocking technology that also meets the above-described industry standards. The bill would exempt printers used exclusively for the manufacturing of properties (props) in the entertainment industry, and would authorize the department to adopt regulations that provide for additional exceptions to these provisions. This bill would also exempt a person who distributes, or causes the distribution of, digital firearm manufacturing code, solely for the bona fide purpose of, among other things, developing, refining, and testing the functionality of a firearm blocking technology from civil liability. This bill would make these provisions severable.
Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a personal firearm importer, within 60 days of bringing any firearm into this state, to, among other things, submit a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question to the Department of Justice. Existing law requires that a personal firearm importer be found to have complied with these provisions if certain requirements are satisfied. This bill would extend the above-described time period to within 180 days and would also require, commencing January 1, 2028, that personal firearm importer to certify under penalty of perjury that they have obtained a valid firearm safety certificate, or an exemption to the certificate requirement, as specified, and would make a failure to provide specified information in the report an infraction. The bill would prohibit a person from bringing a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 180 days, except as specified, and make a violation of this provision an infraction. The bill would remove the requirement that a personal firearm importer be found to have complied with these provisions if certain requirements are satisfied. By creating a new crime, and expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires any costs incurred by the department to implement the above-described provisions regarding personal firearm importers to be absorbed by the department within its existing budget and fees allocated in the Dealers' Record of Sale Special Account. This bill would authorize the appropriation of additional funds for implementation of the above-described provisions if the department determines that sufficient funding is not available to implement these provisions. Existing law requires an applicant for a firearm safety certificate to pass a test developed by the department covering specified subjects, including, among others, the laws applicable to carrying and handling firearms and the responsibilities of ownership of firearms. This bill would require an applicant for a firearm safety certificate, on or after January 1, 2029, to complete within the prior year a training course no less than 4 hours in length that, among other things, includes instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of these provisions. This bill would provide that the provisions of this bill are severable. 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.
Existing law, subject to an appropriation, requires the Department of Justice, on a monthly basis, to review the records in the statewide criminal justice databases and identify persons who are eligible for arrest record relief and automatic conviction record relief. Commencing on October 1, 2024, existing law makes arrest record relief available to an eligible person if the arrest occurred on or after January 1, 1973. Under existing law, a person is eligible for arrest record relief under these provisions if, among other things, the arrest was for a misdemeanor offense and the charge was dismissed. This bill, on and after October 1, 2029, additionally makes a person eligible for that relief if the arrest was for a felony offense, all charges arising from the arrest were dismissed, one year has elapsed since the date on which the most recent charge arising from the arrest was dismissed, and no charge arising from the arrest was refiled or is pending during that period. Under existing law, a person is eligible for automatic conviction record relief if the person meets certain requirements, including that it does not appear, based upon information available in the Department of Justice's record, that the person is currently serving a sentence of an offense and there is no indication of pending criminal charges. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, require, in determining whether there is a pending criminal charge based on the department's records, the department to conclude that there is no indication of pending criminal charges if at least 3 years have elapsed with no new activity related to that record. The bill would require, in determining whether a person is currently serving a sentence for an offense, the department to conclude that the person is no longer serving a sentence if the department is unable to determine whether a sentence is complete and at least 7 years have passed since the date of conviction. Existing law, subject to an appropriation, on a monthly basis, requires the department to electronically submit a notice to the superior court having jurisdiction over the criminal case and inform the court of all cases for which a complaint was filed and for which relief was granted pursuant to the provisions above. Existing law, for any certain record retained by the court, prohibits the court from disclosing information concerning a conviction granted relief pursuant to specified provisions, including the above provisions, to any person or entity, in any format, except to the person whose conviction was granted relief or a criminal justice agency. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, expand the above-described prohibition to include other provisions that authorize relief from a conviction. By placing additional duties on court staff, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would, on and after October 1, 2029, also require a court, upon the request of the subject of a record granted relief, to furnish a register of action confirming the court's receipt of notification and compliance with a grant of relief for a specified record granted relief under the above provisions. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 1203.425 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1395 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1395 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess or have under their custody or control, any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony. Under existing law, a person who alters, removes, or obliterates, or who buys, receives, disposes of, sells, offers for sale, or has in possession any pistol, revolver, or other firearm that has had the name of the maker or model or the manufacturer's number or other mark of identification changed, altered, removed, or obliterated is guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit a person, who is convicted on or after January 1, 2027, of the above prohibition, from owning, purchasing, receiving, or having in their possession or under their custody or control any firearm within 10 years of the conviction. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that the provisions of this bill are severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 29805 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 1753 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1753 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
(1) Existing law requires a court to determine whether a minor in custody will be released from, or detained in, custody, considering, among other things, whether it is a matter of immediate and urgent necessity for the protection of the minor or reasonably necessary for the protection of the person or property of another and whether continuance in the home is contrary to the minor's welfare. This bill would prohibit the court from ordering that a minor be detained in a juvenile hall unless it makes a finding that a less restrictive alternative to detention in the juvenile hall is unsuitable. The bill would also require the court, upon request, to reconsider whether continued detention in the juvenile hall is necessary based on new or current information and consistent with these provisions. (2) Existing law prohibits a ward or dependent child from being taken from the physical custody of a parent or guardian unless the court makes specified findings. Under existing law, if a minor is removed from the physical custody of the minor's parent or guardian as a result of an order of wardship pursuant to specified provisions, the order is required to specify the period of imprisonment. Existing law authorizes the court to commit a minor to a juvenile hall, juvenile home, ranch, camp, or forestry camp. This bill would prohibit a minor from being committed to physical confinement, unless the court finds that a less restrictive alternative disposition for the ward is unsuitable. The bill would require the court to consider, prior to removing a minor from the physical custody of the minor's parent or guardian, whether reasonable efforts were made to prevent or eliminate the need for removal or continued removal from the home, and whether services could be provided to enable the child's parent or legal guardian to effectively provide the care and control necessary for the child to return home.
Under existing law, if a person is convicted of either driving under the influence (DUI) of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug or driving while having 0.08% or more, by weight, of alcohol in the person's blood within 10 years of 2 separate violations of specified DUI offenses, or any combination thereof, that resulted in convictions, that person has committed an offense punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine, as specified. This bill would, instead, make the above DUI conviction punishable as a wobbler by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than 120 days nor more than one year and by a fine, as specified, or by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years and a fine, as specified. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Under existing law, if a person is convicted of DUI and the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, that person has committed an offense punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony. This bill would, instead, make the above DUI conviction punishable as a wobbler if the offense occurred within 10 years of 3 separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions, and punishable as a felony by imprisonment in the county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years and a fine, as specified, if the offense occurred within 10 years of 4 or more separate violations for driving under the influence that resulted in specified convictions. By increasing the punishment of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would make conforming changes. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Sections 23546, 23550, and 23550.5 of the Vehicle Code proposed by AB 1830 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1830 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. 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.
Existing law makes it a crime to operate a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and sets forth the penalties for a violation of these provisions. Existing law requires the driver of a vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury or death to a person, other than that driver, to immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident and provide specified personal information to the injured person or the occupants of the other vehicle and to any traffic or police officer at the scene of the accident. Existing law makes failing to comply with these requirements a crime, punishable as a misdemeanor for an accident resulting in injury and punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony for an accident resulting in death or serious injury, as defined. This bill would make the above-described violation for an accident resulting injury punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony and would impose an increased felony penalty for the above-described violation for an accident resulting in death or serious injury, if either of those violations occurred within 10 years of a separate driving under the influence, reckless driving, or gross vehicular manslaughter violation, as specified. By increasing the potential time of imprisonment, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a person who is convicted of specified crimes related to driving under the influence to be advised by the court of the dangerousness of their actions and that if that behavior in the future results in a person's death, they may be charged with murder. This bill would additionally require this advisement to be given if a person enters a plea to a different or lesser offense, as described. 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. By imposing an increased term of imprisonment, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law, the California Public Records Act, requires each state or local agency, upon a request for a copy of records that reasonably describes an identifiable record or records, to make the records promptly available to any person upon payment of fees covering direct costs of duplication, or a statutory fee if applicable, except with respect to public records exempt from disclosure by express provisions of law. Existing law requires, upon request, an exact copy to be provided unless it is impracticable to do so. This bill would specify that a recording of a call or a written communication that is maintained by a state or local agency that reports or describes an incident, as defined, occurring at a private detention facility, and specified records relating to that call or communication in the possession of a law enforcement agency, are not confidential, and would require an agency to disclose those records upon request to any member of the public. By requiring agencies to disclose certain records to the public, the bill would increase the duties of local officials and create a state-mandated local program. Existing law specifies that, except as provided, the act does not require the disclosure of records of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctional, law enforcement, or licensing purposes. This bill would also except the above-described requirements relating to records relating to private detention facilities from that provision, but would specify that those requirements do not apply to the office of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, the Department of Consumer Affairs, or any state entity within the Department of Consumer Affairs, as specified. The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts laws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. 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.
Existing law prohibits a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or knowingly participating in the arrest of any person for performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of a legally protected health care activity, as defined, or for obtaining a legally protected health care activity, if the legally protected health care activity is lawful in this state. Existing law prohibits a state or local public agency from cooperating with or providing information to an individual or agency from another state or a federal law enforcement agency, as specified, regarding a legally protected health care activity. Existing law prohibits specified persons, including a judicial officer, a court employee, or an authorized attorney, among others, from issuing a subpoena in connection with a proceeding in another state regarding an individual performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of a legally protected health care activity in this state, or an individual obtaining a legally protected health care activity in this state, if the legally protected health care activity is lawful in this state. This bill would make those provisions apply regardless of the patient's location. Existing law authorizes the Governor to surrender, on demand of the executive authority of any other state, any person in this state charged in the other state with committing an act in this state, or in a 3rd state, intentionally resulting in a crime in the state whose executive authority is making the demand. This bill would additionally prohibit a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or participating in the arrest of any person who the Governor has declined to surrender. Existing law requires any out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, or other legal process to include an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that the discovery request is not in connection with an out-of-state proceeding relating to a legally protected health care activity, except as specified. Existing law prohibits a California corporation that provides electronic communication services or remote computing services to the general public from complying with an out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, other legal process, or request by a law enforcement agent or entity seeking records that would reveal the identity of the customers using those services, data stored by, or on behalf of, the customer, the customer's usage of those services, the recipient or destination of communications sent to or from those customers, or the content of those communications, unless the out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, other legal process, or request from law enforcement includes the affidavit or declaration described above. This bill would extend those provisions to also apply to a California corporation that provides financial services, as defined, to the general public. By expanding the situations in which a declaration under penalty of perjury is required, this bill would expand the scope of the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would authorize the Attorney General to commence an action to enforce these provisions, as specified, and would authorize the court to assess a statutory penalty of $10,000 for a first violation, and $15,000 for a 2nd or subsequent violation, against any person or entity found to have intentionally, knowingly, willingly, or recklessly complied with or provided information in response to an inquiry, investigation, subpoena, or summons regarding legally protected health care activity in violation of these provisions. 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.
Existing law generally provides for the regulation of law enforcement agencies and requires specified law enforcement agencies to maintain policies on, among other things, use of force, hate crimes, and gun violence restraining orders. Existing law requires the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training to establish and keep updated a field training officer course relating to competencies of the field training program and police training program that addresses how to interact with persons with certain conditions. This bill would make it unlawful for a law enforcement officer to deny, delay, obstruct, or fail to facilitate access to medical evaluation or treatment for an individual under law enforcement control, but who is not in the custody of, or detained by, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, if it is safe and reasonable to provide access to treatment and a medical professional has been requested or is present and is willing to render care to the individual. If access to medical evaluation or treatment is denied or delayed when a medical professional is present and is willing to assist, the bill would require law enforcement to document the basis of the denial within 72 hours of the incident, as specified. The bill would authorize administrative discipline, including suspension or termination, against a law enforcement officer who violates those provisions. By creating a new crime and by increasing the duties on local law enforcement relating to reporting, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
