You're viewing Docket Item 15 from the case Ulises Garcia et al v. Kamala Harris. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 1 of 41 Page ID #:81



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARK R. BECKINGTON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Deputy Attorney General
State Bar No. 268843

300 South Spring Street, Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: (213) 897-4902
Fax: (213) 897-5775
E-mail: [email protected]

Attorneys for Defendant Kamala D. Harris,
California Attorney General


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WESTERN DIVISION (LOS ANGELES)

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM

REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE FILED IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT BY CALIFORNIA
ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA
D. HARRIS

Date: August 8, 2016
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Courtroom: 14
Judge: The Honorable Beverly

Acton Filed: April 14, 2016

Reid O’Connell

ULISES GARCIA; JORDAN
GALLINGER; BRIAN HILL;
BROOKE HILL; CRAIG DeLUZ;
SCOTT DIPMAN; ALBERT
DUNCAN; TRACEY GRAHAM;
LISA JANG; DENNIS SERBU;
MICHAEL VEREDAS; FIREARMS
POLICY FOUNDATION;
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION;
MADISON SOCIETY
FOUNDATION; and THE
CALGUNS FOUNDATION,

Plaintiffs,

v.

KAMALA D. HARRIS, in her official
capacity as Attorney General of
California,

Defendant.












1





Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 2 of 41 Page ID #:82



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”), California

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris hereby respectfully requests that this Court take

judicial notice of the following documents:

1. The committee analysis of Senate Bill 707 of the California Senate

Committee on Public Safety (2014-2015 Reg. Sess.), dated April 14, 2015 (the

“April 14 Committee Analysis”). A true and correct copy of the April 14

Committee Analysis is annexed hereto as Exhibit A.

2. The committee analysis of Senate Bill 707 of the California Senate

Committee on Public Safety (2014-2015 Reg. Sess.), dated July 14, 2015 (the

10

“July 14 Committee Analysis”). A true and correct copy of the July 14 Committee

11

Analysis is annexed hereto as Exhibit B.

12

3. The memorandum and order of the Honorable Morrison C. England,

13

United States District Judge for the Eastern District of California, filed on

14

September 3, 2004, in Mehl, et al. v. Blanas, et al., No. CIV. S 03-2682 MCE KJM

15

(E.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2004) (Dkt. No. 17) (the “Mehl Dismissal Order”). The Mehl

16

Dismissal Order was not published and is not available on an electronic database.

17

A true and correct copy of the Mehl Dismissal Order is annexed hereto as

18

Exhibit C.

19

20

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

This Court “‘may take judicial notice of “matters of public record” without

21

converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment,’ as long as the

22

facts noticed are not ‘subject to reasonable dispute.’” Intri-Plex Technologies, Inc.

23

v. Crest Grp., Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Lee v. City of Los

24

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001)); see also Mack v. S. Bay Beer

25

Distributors, Inc., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986) (“[O]n a motion to dismiss a

26

court may properly look beyond the complaint to matters of public record and doing

27

so does not convert a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment.”),

28






2





Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 3 of 41 Page ID #:83



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

abrogated on other grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501

U.S. 104, 107 (1991).



The Court may properly take judicial notice of the annexed exhibits. Exhibits

A and B are part of the legislative history of Senate Bill 707 to amend the Gun-Free

School Zones Act of 1995. See Anderson v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1089, 1094 n.1 (9th

Cir. 2012) (“Legislative history is properly a subject of judicial notice.” (citing

Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005))); Snyder v. Unum Life

Ins. Co. of Am., No. CV 13-07522 BRO (RZx), 2014 WL 7734715, at *5 (C.D. Cal.

Oct. 28, 2014) (finding that state statute’s “legislative history is a source whose

10

accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned and a proper subject for judicial notice”

11

(citing Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005))). Exhibit C is

12

an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

13

See Walker v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., No. CV 09-1178 PSG (AGRx), 2009 WL

14

2048328, at *2 n.2 (C.D. Cal. July 9, 2009) (“The Court may take judicial notice of

15

orders by other courts . . . .” (citing Papai v. Harbor Tug & Barge Co., 67 F.3d 203,

16

207 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995), rev’d on other grounds, 520 U.S. 548)). Accordingly, the

17

annexed exhibits are the proper subjects of judicial notice and may be considered in

18

conjunction with the concurrently filed motion to dismiss.

19

20

For the reasons set forth above, the Request for Judicial Notice should be

CONCLUSION

21

granted.

22

23

24

25

26

27

28






3





Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 4 of 41 Page ID #:84



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dated: June 10, 2016



SA2016101989
52125867.doc

Respectfully submitted,

KAMALA D. HARRIS
Attorney General of California
MARK R. BECKINGTON
Supervising Deputy Attorney General


/s/ John D. Echeverria
JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendant Kamala D.
Harris, California Attorney General







4





Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 5 of 41 Page ID #:85

EXHIBIT A

RJN - Page 1Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 6 of 41 Page ID #:86

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Loni Hancock, Chair

2015 - 2016 Regular

Bill No:
Author:
Version:
Urgency:
Consultant:



SB 707
Wolk
February 27, 2015
No
JRD

Hearing Date: April 14, 2015

Fiscal:

Yes

Subject: Firearms: Gun-free School Zone

HISTORY

AB 624 (Allen) – Chap. 659, Stats. 1995
AB 2609 (Lampert) – Chap. 115, Stats. 1998

Source:

Author

Prior Legislation:


Support:

California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence; California
Public Defenders Association; Friends Committee on Legislation of California;
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Physicians for Social Responsibility,
Sacramento Chapter; Violence Prevention Coalition; Women Against Gun
Violence

Opposition:

Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association; California Correctional
Supervisors Organization; California Narcotics Officers; California Rifle and
Pistol Association, Inc.; Fraternal Order of Police, California State Lodge; Long
Beach Police Officers Association; Los Angeles County Professional Peace
Officers Association; Retired & Disabled Police of America; Santa Ana Police
Officers Association; California College and University Police Chiefs Association
(unless amended); 1 individual



PURPOSE

The purpose of this legislation is to: (1) allow a person holding a valid license to carry a
concealed firearm, and a retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded
firearm, to carry a firearm in an area that is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a
public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12; and, (2) delete
the exemption that allows a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm, and a
retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm, to possess a firearm on
the campus of a university or college.

Existing law creates the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. (Penal Code § 626.9(a).)

Existing law defines a “school zone” to means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or
private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, or within a distance of
1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. (Penal Code § 626.9(e).)


RJN - Page 2Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 7 of 41 Page ID #:87

SB 707 (Wolk )

Under existing law any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or
reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the school
district superintendent, or equivalent school authority, is punished as follows:




Any person who possesses a firearm in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school

Page 2 of 8

providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, is subject to imprisonment
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or five years.


Any person who possesses a firearm within a distance of 1,000 feet from a public or
private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, is subject to:


o Imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment
pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or five years; or,


o Imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or five

years, if any of the following circumstances apply:


?

?

?

If the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or of any crime
made punishable by any provision listed in Section 16580.

If the person is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or
acquiring a firearm, as specified.

If the firearm is any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person and the offense is punished as a felony, as
specified.


Any person who, with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges, or attempts

to discharge, a firearm in a school zone shall be punished by imprisonment pursuant to
subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for three, five, or seven years.


Every person convicted under this section for a misdemeanor violation who has been
convicted previously of a misdemeanor offense, as specified, must be imprisoned in a
county jail for not less than three months.


Every person convicted under this section of a felony violation who has been convicted

previously of a misdemeanor offense as specified, if probation is granted or if the
execution of sentence is suspended, he or she must be imprisoned in a county jail for not
less than three months.


Every person convicted under this section for a felony violation who has been convicted

previously of any felony, as specified, if probation is granted or if the execution or
imposition of sentence is suspended, he or she must be imprisoned in a county jail for not
less than three months.


Any person who brings or possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of,
or buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration
by, a public or private university or college, without the written permission of the
university or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college

RJN - Page 3Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 8 of 41 Page ID #:88

SB 707 (Wolk )




Page 3 of 8



authority, must be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170
for two, three, or four years.

Any person who brings or possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or

buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration by,
a public or private university or college, without the written permission of the university
or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college authority,
must be punished by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for one,
two, or three years.


(Penal Code § 626.9(f)-(i).)

Existing laws states that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 does not apply to possession of a
firearm under any of the following circumstances:


Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of

residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the
possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.


When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being

concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor
vehicle.


The lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other

firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.


When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave
danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued
by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat
to his or her life or safety, as specified.


When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm, as

specified.


(Penal Code § 626.9(c).)



Existing law states that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 does not apply to:


A duly appointed peace officer;



A full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying

out official duties while in California;


Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving

the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer;


A member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the

performance of his or her duties;


RJN - Page 4Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 9 of 41 Page ID #:89

SB 707 (Wolk )




Page 4 of 8

A person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm;



An armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as specified;



A security guard authorized to carry a loaded firearm;
An honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm; or,



An existing shooting range at a public or private school or university or college campus.


(Penal Code § 626.9(l).)

This bill would allow a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm, and a retired
peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm, to carry a firearm in an area that
is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction
in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12.

This bill would delete the exemption that allows a person holding a valid license to carry a
concealed firearm, and a retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm,
to possess a firearm on the campus of a university or college.


RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION



For the past eight years, this Committee has scrutinized legislatio n referred to its jurisdiction for
any potential impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States Supreme Court
ruling and federal court orders relating to the state’s ability to provide a constitutional level of
health care to its inmate population and the related issue of prison overcrowding, this Committee
has applied its “ROCA” policy as a content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison overcrowding.

On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to reduce its in-state adult institution
population to 137.5% of design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:


143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.


In February of this year the administration reported that as “of February 11, 2015, 112,993
inmates were housed in the State’s 34 adult institutions, which amounts to 136.6% of design bed
capacity, and 8,828 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities. This current population is
now below the court-ordered reduction to 137.5% of design bed capacity.”( Defendants’
February 2015 Status Report In Response To February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM
DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).

While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison population, the state now must
stabilize these advances and demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place the
“durable solution” to prison overcrowding “consistently demanded” by the court. (Opinion Re:
Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Request For Extension of December 31,
2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v.
Brown (2-10-14). The Committee’s consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:

RJN - Page 5Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 10 of 41 Page ID #:90

SB 707 (Wolk )





Page 5 of 8

Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed to reducing the prison

population;

Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety or criminal activity for which

there is no other reasonable, appropriate remedy;

Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly dangerous to the physical safety

of others for which there is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;

Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are proportionate, and cannot be achieved

through any other reasonably appropriate remedy.

COMMENTS


1. Need for This Legislation

According to the Author:


In recent years there has been a disturbing increase in the number of active
shooter incidents on school, college, and university campuses across the country,
with 42 such incidents in 2014. There have also been an alarming number of
sexual assaults on college and university campuses. Recently, some gun rights
proponents in other states have sponsored legislation to increase the opportunity
for students and teachers to bring firearms on school campuses with CCWs,
claiming this will deter sexual assaults and defend against active shooters. These
efforts have been vigorously opposed by school public safety officials, school
administrators, and public safety advocates. Research also indicates that bringing
more firearms on campus will lead to more campus violence and increase the
danger to students and others on campus.

California law provides that the authority over school safety belongs with
school/campus authorities. SB 707 maintains that authority and allows school
officials to prohibit or allow a firearm on campus as they deem appropriate.
Closing the CCW exemption in California law is consistent with efforts to
maintain school and college campuses as safe, gun free, environments for
students. SB 707 will ensure that students and parents who expect a campus to be
safe and “gun free” can be confident that their expectation is being met and that
school officials remain in charge of who, if anyone, is allowed to bring a firearm
on their campus.


2. Effect of the Legislation

Honorably retired peace officers authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm and
individuals who possess a valid concealed carry permit, are currently allowed to carry a firearm
on school campuses, including grade schools, high schools and college campuses. This
legislation would, instead, prohibit these two groups form carrying firearms on school grounds,
but would allow them to carry firearms within 1,000 feet of a school.




RJN - Page 6Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 11 of 41 Page ID #:91

SB 707 (Wolk )

California College and University Police Chiefs Association, who were the original sponsors of
this legislation and now have an oppose unless amended position, request:


Page 6 of 8



… that SB 707 be amended to remove the provisions impacting honorably retired
peace officers. If those provisions are amended, we will support the bill because
the bill’s focus will then properly be on addressing unrestricted campus access of
persons who possess concealed weapons permits pursuant Penal Code Section
26150.

We believe that honorably retired peace officers represent a public safety asset
and that it is a mistake not to have the ready availability of those officers. They
are subject to stringent standards in determining if they are to be given a firearms
endorsement upon retirement, must adhere to the same standards as the active
officers employed by their agency in order to retain that endorsement, are subject
to ongoing training requirements, and have demonstrated an ability to take
positive public safety action when the occasion calls for that action. As officers
sworn to protect school campuses, we consider the presence of an honorably
retired peace officer – with their decades of training and professionalism – to be a
distinct asset in our ability to carry out our mission. The sad reality is that active
shooter incidents take place disproportionately on our campuses and an honorably
retired peace officer can play a role in helping to keep such incidents in check.



SHOULD PERSONS WITH A CONCEALED CARRY PERMIT BE ALLOWED TO
CARRY FIREARMS ON SCHOOL CAMPUSES, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF
THE SCHOOL AUTHORITY?

SHOULD RETIRED PEACE OFFICERS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY A
CONCEALED OR LOADED FIREARM, BE ALLOWED TO CARRY FIREARMS ON
SCHOOL CAMPUSES, WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE SCHOOL
AUTHORITY?

3. Argument in Support

According to the California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence :

Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a school zone
without the written permission of certain school district officials. A school zone
includes school grounds and a distance within 1,000 feet of a public or private K-
12 school. Additionally, existing law prohibits a person from possessing a
firearm upon the grounds of a public or private university or college campus
without the written permission of specified university or college officials.
Persons holding a valid license to carry a concealed and loaded weapon (CCW)
and retired peace officers authorized to carry concealed and loaded firearms are
exempt from the school zone and university or college prohibitions. SB 707
would allow CCW license holders to carry a concealed firearm within 1,000 feet
but not on the grounds of a K-12 school and not on the campus of a university or
college. Firearms, including concealed loaded handguns, could still be allowed
on school grounds or campuses with the permission of school officials.


RJN - Page 7Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 12 of 41 Page ID #:92

SB 707 (Wolk )




Page 7 of 8

The Brady Campaign strongly believes that the discretion to allow concealed,
loaded guns on a school grounds and college or university campuses must lie with
school authorities, who bear the responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of
their students. Under existing law, county sheriffs issue CCW permits and
thereby determine who may carry a concealed, loaded gun on school grounds or
campuses. This creates the opportunity for a 21 year old from a rural county to
obtain a CCW permit and carry a loaded, hidden handgun in a dormitory on an
urban campus.

This is one area of firearm law in which California lags behind many other states.
According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks state firearm
laws, 39 states and the District of Columbia prohibit those with CCW permits
from possessing concealed firearms within school zones and 23 states specify that
CCW permit holders may not carry concealed firearms on college and university
campuses. California is not one of these states.

The national trend on this issue is disturbing as legislation has been introduced in
at least 16 states that would force guns onto college and university campuses.
Proponents are even suggesting that more guns on campuses would stop student
rape. Additionally, legislation is being pushed in 20 states to allow people to
carry hidden, loaded handguns in public without a permit. Moreover, federal
reciprocity legislation (H.R. 402 and S. 498) has been introduced that would
require states to recognize CCW permits from other states, including those with
reprehensibly low standards. States that use law enforcement discretion, such as
California, would be forced to recognize CCW permits from other states, even if
the permit holder would not pass a background check in the state. The threat of
national CCW reciprocity heightens the importance of SB 707 and the need to
remove the exemption that allows CCW license holders to carry guns on school
grounds and campuses in California. . .

Under SB 707, the number of hidden, loaded firearms legally brought onto school
grounds and college campuses will be reduced and the safety of students and
others will increase.


4. Argument in Opposition

According to Sacramento County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association:

SB 707 would make criminals out of our retired peace officer members who visit
a school campus. This bill would delete the exemption in current law that allows
a retired peace officer who is authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm, to
possess a firearm on a school campus. Although the bill allows school officials to
determine whether or not an exception to this prohibition should ever be made,
the safety of our retired members should not rest on the whim of a school official.

Retired peace officers protected and served the public while earning the enmity of
those in society who ran afoul of the law. Retired officers carry their weapons as
a means of personal protection. Recent attacks demonstrate the need for peace
officers—even retired peace officers—to be able to defend themselves if
necessary.

RJN - Page 8Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 13 of 41 Page ID #:93

SB 707 (Wolk )




Page 8 of 8

Forcing our retired members to choose between picking up their children or
grandchildren form school or attending school events and ensuring their own
ability to protect themselves or their loved ones is a decision they should not be
required to make. Neither should retired officers be forced to jeopardize their
safety in order to take college classes.

-- END –

RJN - Page 9Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 14 of 41 Page ID #:94

EXHIBIT B

RJN - Page 10Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 15 of 41 Page ID #:95

SB 707
Page 1

Date of Hearing: July 14, 2015
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell



ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Bill Quirk, Chair



SB 707 (Wolk) – As Amended July 2, 2015


SUMMARY: Specifies that persons who possess a concealed weapons permit may not possess
that firearm on school grounds as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1) Deletes the exemption that allows a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed

firearm to possess a firearm on the campus of a university or college.


2) Permits a person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to carry a firearm in an

area that is within 1,000 feet of, but not on the grounds of, a public or private school
providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12.


3) Specifies further exceptions to the prohibition on carrying ammunition on school grounds:


a) Exempts specified active and honorably retired peace officers from the prohibition;



b) Exempts persons carrying ammunition onto school ground that is in a motor vehicle

which is in a locked container within the trunk of the vehicle; and,


c) Deletes an existing exemption permitting persons who possess a concealed weapons

permit.


EXISTING LAW:

1) Creates the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995. (Pen. Code, § 626.9 subd. (a).)



2) Defines a “school zone” to means an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school

providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, or within a distance of 1,000 feet
from the grounds of the public or private school. (Pen. Code, § 626.9, subd. (e).)


3) Provides that any person who possesses a firearm in a place that the person knows, or

reasonably should know, is a school zone, unless it is with the written permission of the
school district superintendent, or equivalent school authority, is punished as follows: (Pen.
Code, § 626.9, subds. (f)-(i).)

a) Any person who possesses a firearm in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school
providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, is subject to imprisonment for
two, three, or five years.


RJN - Page 11Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 16 of 41 Page ID #:96

SB 707
Page 2

b) Any person who possesses a firearm within a distance of 1,000 feet from a public or
private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, is subject to:

i) Imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year or by imprisonment for two,

three, or five years; or,


ii) Imprisonment for two, three, or five years, if any of the following circumstances

apply:

(1) If the person previously has been convicted of any felony, or of any specified

crime.


(2) If the person is within a class of persons prohibited from possessing or acquiring a

firearm, as specified.


(3) If the firearm is any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed

upon the person and the offense is punished as a felony, as specified.


c) Any person who, with reckless disregard for the safety of another, discharges, or attempts
to discharge, a firearm in a school zone shall be punished by imprisonment for three, five,
or seven years.


d) Every person convicted under this section for a misdemeanor violation who has been
convicted previously of a misdemeanor offense, as specified, must be imprisoned in a
county jail for not less than three months.


e) Every person convicted under this section of a felony violation who has been convicted

previously of a misdemeanor offense as specified, if probation is granted or if the
execution of sentence is suspended, he or she must be imprisoned in a county jail for not
less than three months.


f) Every person convicted under this section for a felony violation who has been convicted

previously of any felony, as specified, if probation is granted or if the execution or
imposition of sentence is suspended, he or she must be imprisoned in a county jail for not
less than three months.


g) Any person who brings or possesses a loaded firearm upon the grounds of a campus of,
or buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration
by, a public or private university or college, without the written permission of the
university or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college
authority, must be punished by imprisonment for two, three, or four years.


h) Any person who brings or possesses a firearm upon the grounds of a campus of, or

buildings owned or operated for student housing, teaching, research, or administration by,
a public or private university or college, without the written permission of the university
or college president, his or her designee, or equivalent university or college authority,
must be punished by imprisonment for one, two, or three years.


RJN - Page 12Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 17 of 41 Page ID #:97

SB 707
Page 3

4) States that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 does not apply to possession of a firearm

under any of the following circumstances: (Pen. Code, § 626.9, subd. (c).)

a) Within a place of residence or place of business or on private property, if the place of

residence, place of business, or private property is not part of the school grounds and the
possession of the firearm is otherwise lawful.


b) When the firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being

concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor
vehicle.


c) The lawful transportation of any other firearm, other than a pistol, revolver, or other

firearm capable of being concealed on the person, in accordance with state law.


d) When the person possessing the firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave

danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current restraining order issued
by a court against another person or persons who has or have been found to pose a threat
to his or her life or safety, as specified.


e) When the person is exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm, as

specified.


5) States that the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995 does not apply to: (Pen. Code, § 626.9,

subd. (l).)

a) A duly appointed peace officer;



b) A full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying

out official duties while in California;


c) Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making arrests or preserving

the peace while he or she is actually engaged in assisting the officer;


d) A member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the

performance of his or her duties;


e) A person holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm;



f) An armored vehicle guard, engaged in the performance of his or her duties, as specified;



g) A security guard authorized to carry a loaded firearm;



h) An honorably retired peace officer authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm; or,



i) An existing shooting range at a public or private school or university or college campus.



6) Specifies that unless it is with the written permission of the school district superintendent, the

superintendent's designee, or equivalent school authority, no person shall carry ammunition
or reloaded ammunition onto school grounds, except sworn law enforcement officers acting

RJN - Page 13Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 18 of 41 Page ID #:98

SB 707
Page 4

within the scope of their duties or persons exempted under specified peace officer exceptions
to concealed weapons prohibitions. Exempts the following persons:

a) A duly appointed peace officer as defined.



b) A full-time paid peace officer of another state or the federal government who is carrying

out official duties while in California.


c) Any person summoned by any of these officers to assist in making an arrest or preserving

the peace while that person is actually engaged in assisting the officer.


d) A member of the military forces of this state or of the United States who is engaged in the

performance of that person's duties.


e) A person holding a valid license to carry the firearm.



f) An armored vehicle guard, who is engaged in the performance of that person's duties.


FISCAL EFFECT:

COMMENTS:

1) Author's Statement: According to the author, "The California Gun Free School Act

prohibits bringing a firearm on any school, college, or university campus, but exempts those
who carry a concealed weapons permit. SB 707 repeals this exemption, yet retains the
authority of campus officials to allow firearms, including concealed ones, on campus as they
see deem appropriate. Closing the CCW school grounds exemption in California is consistent
with efforts to maintain school and college campuses as safe, gun free, environments. SB 707
will ensure that students and parents who expect a campus to be safe and 'gun free' can be
confident that their expectation is being met and that school officials are fully in charge of
who is allowed to bring a firearm on their campus."


2) Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995: Enacted by AB 645 (Allen), Chapter 1015, Statutes of

1994, the Gun-Free School Zone Act, hereafter referred to as the "Act," generally provides
that any person who possesses, discharges, or attempts to discharge a firearm, in a place that
the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a within a distance of 1,000 feet from the
grounds of any public or private school, kindergarten or Grades 1 to 12, (a "school zone"),
without written permission, may be found guilty of a felony or misdemeanor and is subject
to a term in county jail or state prison.

The Act does not require that notices be posted regarding prohibited conduct under the Act;
therefore, it is incumbent on the individual possessing the firearm to be knowledgeable of
and adhere to the Act.

A "school zone" is defined as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school
providing instruction in kindergarten or Grades 1 to 12, inclusive, and within a distance of
1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. The Act also provides specific
definitions of a "loaded" firearm and a "locked container" for securing firearms.

RJN - Page 14Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 19 of 41 Page ID #:99

SB 707
Page 5

3) Effect of this Bill and the Honorably Retired Peace Officer Amendments : Honorably

retired peace officers authorized to carry a concealed or loaded firearm and individuals who
possess a valid concealed carry permit, are currently allowed to carry a firearm on school
campuses, including grade schools, high schools and college campuses. This legislation
would, instead, prohibit CCW permit holders form carrying firearms on school grounds, but
would allow them to carry firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill as originally
drafted also prohibited honorably retired peace officers from carrying firearms of school
campuses. The July 2, 2015 amendments to the bill exempt honorably retired peace officers
from the prohibition.

Opposition groups argue that because the bill now exempts honorably retired peace officers,
the bill is not in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The
Firearms Policy Coalition cites Silveira v. Lockyer (9th Cir. 2002) 312 F.3d 1052; which
struck down a provision exempting retired peace officers from the prohibitions of the
California Assault Weapons Control Act on Equal Protection grounds, holding that there was
no rational basis to treat retired officers differently from similarly situated members of the
general public. The constitutional question for this bill would be whether there is a rational
basis for exempting honorably retired peace officers from the prohibitions of the Gun-Free
School Zone Act of 1995.


4) Argument in Support: According to The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to

Prevent Gun Violence, "Existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm in a school
zone without the written permission of certain school district officials. A school zone
includes school grounds and a distance within 1,000 feet of a public or private K-12 school.
Additionally, existing law prohibits a person from possessing a firearm upon the grounds of a
public or private university or college campus without the written permission of specified
university or college officials. Persons holding a valid license to carry a concealed and
loaded weapon (CCW) and retired peace officers authorized to carry concealed and loaded
firearms are exempt from the school zone and university or college prohibitions. SB 707
would allow persons holding a CCW license to carry a concealed firearm within 1,000 feet
but not on the grounds of a K-12 school and not on the campus of a university or college.
Firearms, including concealed, loaded handguns, could still be allowed on school grounds or
campuses with the permission of school officials.

"The Brady Campaign strongly believes that the discretion to allow hidden, loaded guns on a
school grounds and college or university campuses must lie with school authorities, who bear
the responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of their students. Under existing law, county
sheriffs issue CCW permits and thereby determine who may carry a concealed, loaded gun
on school grounds or campuses. This creates the opportunity for a 21 year old from a rural
county to obtain a CCW permit and carry a loaded, hidden handgun in a dormitory on an
urban campus.

"This is one area of firearm law in which California lags behind many other states.
According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, which tracks state firearm laws, 39
states and the District of Columbia prohibit those with CCW permits from possessing
concealed firearms within school zones and 23 states specify that CCW permit holders may
not carry concealed firearms on college and university campuses. California is not one of
these states.


RJN - Page 15Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 20 of 41 Page ID #:100

SB 707
Page 6

"The national trend on this issue is disturbing as legislation has been introduced in at least 16
states that would force guns onto college and university campuses. Proponents are even
suggesting that more guns on campuses would stop student rape. Additionally, legislation is
being pushed in 20 states to allow people to carry hidden, loaded handguns in public without
a permit. Moreover, federal reciprocity legislation (H.R. 402 and S. 498) has been
introduced that would require states to recognize CCW permits from other states, including
those with reprehensibly low standards. States that use law enforcement discretion, such as
California, would be forced to recognize CCW permits from other states, even if the permit
holder would not pass a background check in the state where they are carrying. The threat of
national CCW reciprocity heightens the importance of SB 707 and the need to remove the
exemption that allows CCW license holders to carry guns on school grounds and campuses in
California.

"In Peruta v. County of San Diego, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found, in February
2014, that California’s CCW standard, which requires the applicant to show good cause and
gives discretion to local law enforcement, was unconstitutional. After the ruling, several
counties in California began to issue more CCW permits. Although the 9th Circuit vacated
and reheard Peruta en banc in June, the recent increase in CCW permits allows for more
guns to be carried in school zones and college and university campuses.

"College aged students may engage in risky or impulsive behavior, be under the influence of
alcohol or drugs, or suffer from pressure or depression and be at risk of suicide. Allowing a
student CCW license holder to carry guns on college and university campuses means that
more students will have access to firearms. Furthermore, the Violence Policy Center has
documented homicides, suicides, accidental shootings and at least 29 mass shootings (since
May 2007) committed by CCW license holders.

"Under SB 707, the number of hidden, loaded firearms legally brought onto school grounds
and college campuses will be reduced and the safety of students and others will increase.
The California Brady Campaign Chapters urge your AYE vote on this important measure."


5) Argument in Opposition: According to the National Rifle Association of America, "This
bill was introduced in the wake of an incident involving vice principal Kent Williams of
Tevis Junior High School, who was arrested in 2014 for bringing a firearm onto school
property despite possessing a valid CCW license. All criminal charges against him were
dropped, and he is now suing the city and police department for wrongful arrest. Williams v.
Bakersfield, No. 14-01955 (E.D.Cal. filed Dec. 8, 2014).

"Senate Bill 707 would effectively prohibit CCW holders from possessing firearms on any
properties that make up the grounds of a K-12 school or university, including many parking
lots, common areas that may not be readily identifiable as school grounds, and student
apartment buildings. Due to imprecise language used in current penal code section 626.9, SB
707 will further promote inadvertent violations and unjust prosecutions of otherwise law-
abiding firearm owners. This legislation raises significant concerns under the Second
Amendment by further infringing the rights of law-abiding—and properly licensed and
trained individuals—to possess a firearm for self-defense. From a practical perspective, SB
707 improperly expands prohibitions on the possession of firearms by persons who pose no
threat to public safety. In doing so, this legislation would leave these individuals, and all
other persons on California campuses, defenseless against violent criminals that target

RJN - Page 16Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 21 of 41 Page ID #:101

SB 707
Page 7

California schools and universities without regard for these restrictions, barring what a
majority of law enforcement officers believe to be the most effective line of defense against
mass shootings."


6) Prior Legislation:


a) AB 2609 (Lampert), Chapter 115, Statutes of 1998, clarified the Gun Free School Zone
Act (Act) to forbid the bringing or possession of any firearm on the grounds of, or in any
buildings owned or operated by a public or private university or college used for the
purpose of student housing, teaching, research or administration, that are contiguous or
are clearly marked university property. Exempts specified law enforcement and security
personnel.


b) AB 624 (Allen), Chapter 659, Statutes of 1995, passed the Gun-Free School Zone Act of

1995.



REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California College and University Police Chiefs Association (Sponsor)
Association for California School Administrators
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Chapters of the Brady Campaign
California Correctional Supervisors Organization
California Narcotic Officers Association
California Police Chiefs Association
California School Boards Association
California School Employees Association
California State PTA
California State University System
Courage Campaign
Davis College Democrats
Davis Joint Unified School District
Fraternal Order of Police
L.A. County Probation Officers Union
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
Long Beach Police Officers Association
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
Los Angeles County Professional Peace Officers Association
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Los Angeles Unified School District
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Sacramento Chapter
Retired and Disabled Police of America
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs' Association

RJN - Page 17Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 22 of 41 Page ID #:102

SB 707
Page 8

Santa Ana Police Officers Association
South County Citizens Against Gun Violence
Violence Prevention Coalition
Women Against Gun Violence
Youth Alive

1 private individual

Opposition

California Association of Licensed Investigators
California Rifle and Pistol Association
Firearms Policy Coalition
Gun Owners of California
National Rifle Association of America

Analysis Prepared by: Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

RJN - Page 18Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 23 of 41 Page ID #:103

EXHIBIT C

RJN - Page 19Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 24 of 41 Page ID #:104

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 1 of 17

RJN - Page 20Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 25 of 41 Page ID #:105

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 2 of 17

RJN - Page 21Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 26 of 41 Page ID #:106

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 3 of 17

RJN - Page 22Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 27 of 41 Page ID #:107

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 4 of 17

RJN - Page 23Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 28 of 41 Page ID #:108

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 5 of 17

RJN - Page 24Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 29 of 41 Page ID #:109

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 6 of 17

RJN - Page 25Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 30 of 41 Page ID #:110

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 7 of 17

RJN - Page 26Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 31 of 41 Page ID #:111

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 8 of 17

RJN - Page 27Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 32 of 41 Page ID #:112

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 9 of 17

RJN - Page 28Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 33 of 41 Page ID #:113

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 10 of 17

RJN - Page 29Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 34 of 41 Page ID #:114

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 11 of 17

RJN - Page 30Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 35 of 41 Page ID #:115

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 12 of 17

RJN - Page 31Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 36 of 41 Page ID #:116

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 13 of 17

RJN - Page 32Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 37 of 41 Page ID #:117

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 14 of 17

RJN - Page 33Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 38 of 41 Page ID #:118

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 15 of 17

RJN - Page 34Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 39 of 41 Page ID #:119

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 16 of 17

RJN - Page 35Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 40 of 41 Page ID #:120

Case 2:03-cv-02682-MCE-KJM Document 17 Filed 09/03/2004 Page 17 of 17

RJN - Page 36Case 2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM Document 15 Filed 06/10/16 Page 41 of 41 Page ID #:121

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


Case Name: Ulises Garcia, et al. v. Kamala

D. Harris



No.

2:16-cv-02572-BRO-AFM


I hereby certify that on June 10, 2016, I electronically filed the following documents with the
Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system:



REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE FILED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS
COMPLAINT BY CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMALA D. HARRIS



I certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and that service will be
accomplished by the CM/ECF system.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on June 10, 2016, at Los Angeles, California.




SA2016101989
52131223.doc



Angela Artiga

Declarant




/s/ Angela Artiga

Signature