THANK. YOU. WELCOME TO THE
ASSEMBLY. PUBLIC SAFETY, UH,
COMMITTEE MEETING SO I NEED TO
READ THIS BRIEF. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
WE OCCURRED TO THE PUBLIC TO
PROVIDE WRITTEN TESTIMONY BEFORE
THE HEARING BY VISITING THE
COMMITTEE WEBSITE AT ÁP SF DOT
ASSEMBLY THAT CA.GOV. PLEASE
NOTE THAT ANY WRITTEN TESTIMONY
SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE IS
CONSIDERED PUBLIC COMMENT AND
MAYBE READ INTO RECORD OR
REPRINTED. ALL ARE ENCOURAGED TO
WATCH THE HEARING. UM FROM ITS
LIVESTREAM ON THE ASSEMBLY'S
WEBSITE AT W W DOT ASSEMBLY DOT
CA.GOV BACKSIDES TODAY'S EVENTS
. THE HEARING ROOM IS OPEN FOR
TENANTS OF THIS HEARING. ANY
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC ATTENDING
THE HEARING IS ENCOURAGED TO
WEAR A MASK AT ALL TIMES WHILE
IN THE BUILDING. THE PUBLIC MAY
ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THIS HEARING
BY TELEPHONE. WE ENCOURAGE THE
PUBLIC TO MONITOR THE
COMMITTEE'S WEBSITE FOR UPDATES.
SO LET'S BEGIN WITH SOME
HOUSEKEEPING, BUT WE NEED A
QUORUM PROPOSING D THE OFF
CALENDAR. WE DO HAVE A WE DO
HAVE AN AUTHOR HERE SO WE WILL
BEGIN AS A SUBCOMMITTEE. BUT
FIRST, LET ME SAY THIS, UM WE'VE
BEEN WE HAVE. THE COMMITTEE IS
GOING TO POUR SP 10 21 BRADFORD.
THE. VEHICLE DRIVING UNDER THE
INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL OR DRUGS,
BILL UM. THE CHAIR HAS WORKED
DILIGENTLY TO TRY TO COME UP
WITH AMENDMENTS. I WANT TO THANK
DO MEAN THANK YOU TO THE
SPONSORS WHO WANTED TO TAKE THE
AMENDMENTS, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME
PROBLEMS. UM WITH THE AUTHOR NOT
WANT TO TAKE THE AMENDMENTS. AND
EVERYONE'S WORKED REAL HARD TO
TRY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. AND SO
UNTIL WE CAN GET EVERYBODY ON
THE SAME PAGE. AH! THE
COMMUNITY'S GOING TO PULL THAT
BILL NUMBER SEVEN SB 10 21
BRADFORD. MR WINNER YOU IN NOW
APPROACH.
CAMERON'S HOUSE START WITH SB
ONE. OH, SEVEN. YES, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN.
COLLEAGUES, UM. WHEN AH, THANK
THE COMMITTEE FOR WORKING WITH
US IN SP ONE OF SEVEN AND WE'RE
HAPPY TO ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE
ANALYSIS. THANK YOU, MR WIENER.
THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. UH
COLLEAGUES. UH, TODAY, UM, YOU
KNOW, I JUST HAVE TO
ACKNOWLEDGE, UH, THE BIGGER
PICTURE AS WE JUST FINISHED IN
SAN FRANCISCO, UH, AND SOME
OTHER CITIES PRIDE WEEKEND AND
WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED ON FRIDAY
WITH THE OVERTURNING OF ROE V.
WADE AND WE SEE LAWS BEING
PASSED AROUND THE COUNTRY. TO
TRY TO TAKE OUR LGBTQ COMMUNITY
BACK TO THE BAD OLD DAYS WHEN
OUR COMMUNITY WAS CRIMINALIZED
WHEN OUR COMMUNITY WAS TOLD THAT
WE NEEDED TO BE INVISIBLE. UM
WHERE COMMUNITY WAS SUBJECTED TO
VARIOUS FORMS OF VIOLENCE AND
ALTHOUGH IN THE LAST NUMBER OF
DECADES WE CERTAINLY HAVE NOT
SOLVED ALL THESE PROBLEMS WE'VE
BEEN MAKING STEADY, STEADY
PROGRESS IN A POSITIVE
DIRECTION. UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE
NOW AT SEVERE RISK OF SLIDING
BACK AND WE ARE SEEING MORE AND
MORE BRAZEN ATTACKS. POLITICAL
AND OTHERWISE ON OUR COMMUNITY.
UM POLITICIANS WHO. YOUR
LIBERATED TO SAY, UM, JUST SOME
OF THE MOST HORRIFIC THINGS
ABOUT MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
YEAH, AND IT'S BEEN A BROAD
BASED ATTACK AND IT'S VERY
DANGEROUS. AND SO I WANT TO JUST
SAY THAT IN TERMS OF THE CONTEXT
IN WHICH WE INTRODUCED THIS
BILL. HI. UM I HAD NOT INTENDED
AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS YEAR TO
INTRODUCE THIS BILL. WE DID IT
AS A GOTTEN AMENDS. UM, AND THAT
WAS NOT BECAUSE WE DELAYED BUT
BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYONE ANY
ONE OF US ENVISIONED WHAT STATES
LIKE TEXAS AND ALABAMA. AND
OTHER STATES ARE DOING IN TERMS
OF BRUTAL ATTACKS ON TRANSGENDER
CHILDREN. AND THAT. THOSE
ATTACKS STARTED. THEY HAD BEEN
HAPPENING IN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS
. BUT THE ACCELERATED IN THE
SPRING OF THIS YEAR AND WE
DECIDED THAT WE HAD TO ACT AND
THAT'S WHY WE PUT SP 107 IN THE
PRINT. THESE ATTACKS ARE, UM UH,
ESSENTIALLY. SAYING THAT IF
PARENTS ALLOW THEIR TRANS
CHILDREN TO RECEIVE GENDER
AFFIRMING HEALTHCARE HEALTH CARE
THAT IS WITHIN THE STANDARD OF
CARE, AS DETERMINED BY THE
MEDICAL PROFESSION. HEALTH CARE
THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO REDUCE
RATES OF SUICIDE AND TO LEAD TO
HAPPIER, HEALTHIER CHILDREN WHO
ARE TRANSGENDER. THAT IF THEY
ALLOW THE GENDER AFFIRMING CARE
THAT, ACCORDING TO THE STATES,
THEY'RE COMMITTING QUOTE UNQUOTE
CHILD ABUSE. UH THE CHILD WILL
BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME PLACED
IN FOSTER CARE PARENTS WILL BE
PLACED IN PRISON. AND THE
PHYSICIAN. WILL BE PLACED IN
PRISON FOR DOING THEIR JOB FOR
PROVIDING APPROPRIATE CARE. ONE
CAN ONLY IMAGINE THE MESSAGE
THAT IF YOU ARE AN L G B T Q
CHILD IF YOU'RE A TRANS CHILD
ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY.
APPEARING FOR SOME OF THE MOST
POWERFUL POLITICIANS IN THIS
COUNTRY BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE.
BECAUSE OF WHO YOU ARE. YOU'RE
GOING INTO FOSTER CARE AND YOUR
PARENTS ARE GOING TO PRISON. AND
IS IT ANY WONDER WHY THESE KIDS
HAVE HIGHER RATES OF SUICIDE AND
SELF HARM. IS IT ANY WONDER WHY
THESE KIDS HAVE HIGHER RATES OF
HOMELESSNESS? UM, THE WE WANT
PARENTS TO EMBRACE AND ACCEPT
AND LIFT UP THEIR LGBTQ KIDS.
AND THESE PARENTS WHO ARE DOING
JUST TRYING TO DO RIGHT BY THEIR
KIDS AND ACCEPTING THEIR KIDS
FOR WHO THEY ARE AND SUPPORTING
THEM. ARE BEING TOLD YOU'RE A
CRIMINAL FOR DOING THAT. IT'S
DISGUSTING. IT'S DESPICABLE, AND
CALIFORNIA SHOULD HAVE NO PART
OF THAT. AND S. P 107 INSURERS
THAT CALIFORNIA WILL HAVE NO
PART OF THAT OF THOSE ATTACKS ON
OUR CHILDREN. THE BILL PROVIDES
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL NOT BE
PARTY TO ARRESTING PEOPLE. AND
TWO EFFECTUATING. THESE ARRESTS
OF THESE KIDS OF THEIR FAMILIES
OF PHYSICIANS WHO COME HERE ARE
FLEEING THESE HIS LIES. THE
STATES. IT PROVIDES THAT WE WILL
NOT HONOR SUBPOENAS. COMING OUT
OF THE STATES, WHETHER IT'S FOR
MEDICAL RECORDS OR OTHER RECORDS
IN ORDER TO ENFORCE THESE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DESPICABLE
LAWS. AND IT PROVIDES THAT WE
WILL NOT IN OUR COURTS ENFORCE
THOSE LAWS. UM SO, UM, MR
CHAIRMAN AGAIN. I WANT TO THANK
YOU AND THE COMMITTEE. THIS IS
AN IMPORTANT BILL TO MOVE
FORWARD AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR YOUR EYE BOATS WITH ME TODAY
TO TESTIFY ARE MARTIN CAMPOS,
OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR TRANS
FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICE. AND
ALBANY, HARPER WITH THE
TRANSGENDER ADVISORY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE A TOTAL OF
FIVE MINUTES TO SPLIT IT ANY WAY
YOU WANT 2.5 APIECE OR DEBRA,
YOU'RE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH.
SPEAK. SOMETHING. THANK YOU.
CHAIR AND COMMITTEE FOR THE
TIME. MY NAME IS MARTIN CAMPOS.
MY PRONOUNCER. THEY THEM AND I'M
HERE TO TESTIFY TO SUPPORT OF
SENATE BILL ONE. OH, SEVEN ON
BEHALF, INSURANCE, FAMILY
SUPPORT SERVICES AND THE 2400
TRANS YOUTH AND FAMILIES THAT WE
SERVE BOTH IN STATE AND ACROSS
THE NATION. I'D LIKE TO START BY
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT SOCIAL
ACCEPTANCE AND AFFIRMING SUPPORT
FOR TRANS YOUTH IS THE KEY TO
OVERALL SUCCESS WITHIN THEIR
MENTAL HEALTH. WE CURRENTLY ARE
WORKING WITH FAMILIES AND STATES
WHERE WE HAVE SEEN ANTI TRANS
LEGISLATION PREVENTING MEDICAL
TREATMENT THAT IS FORCING
FAMILIES TO MAKE THE HARD
DECISION TO HAVE TO UPROOT THEIR
FAMILY AND LIVELIHOOD TO SEEK
OUT REFUGE IN AN AFFIRMING
STATES SUCH AS CALIFORNIA. WE
ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE MANY
HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS AND
NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED EXPERTS IN
THE FIELD ACROSS OUR STATE.
PARENTS SHOULD NOT BE CONCERNED
ABOUT FACING LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS
WHILE SEEKING MEDICALLY
NECESSARY, GENDER AFFIRMING
SERVICES FOR THEIR YOUTH. NOR
SHOULD YOU HAVE TO ENDURE THE
TRAUMA THAT IS CREATED BY HAVING
THEIR PARENTS FACE THOSE
RAMIFICATIONS. THE COLLEAGUE
REMINDED ME RECENTLY THAT FOR
TRANS YOUTH, IT'S NOT ALWAYS
ABOUT BEING VIEWED AS TRANS. BUT
BEING VIEWED IN AFFIRMED AS WHO
THEY ARE, AND SO THEY CAN THRIVE
AND ALL THIS BILL IS SEEKING TO
DO IS ALLOW TRANSGENDER YOUTH TO
THRIVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
SECTS. UM GOOD MORNING
COMMITTEE. AND IT'S OUR HONOR TO
SPEAK IN FRONT OF YOU. MY NAME
IS EBONY HARPER. I IDENTIFY AS A
BLACK TRANS WOMAN. I'M GOING TO
TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT OF MY
PERSONAL STORY. AH I WAS A TRANS
YOUTH. AH AT 13. I GREW UP IN
SOUTH CENTRAL CALIFORNIA AND AT
13. I WAS KICKED OUT OF MY HOUSE
, WHICH WAS THE STORY FOR MOST
TRANSGENDER PEOPLE FROM MY ERA.
UM IF YOU WERE BETWEEN THE
PARTICULAR INTERSECTIONS OF
BEING BLACK AND TRANS GENDER, UM
AND I SPENT MANY YEARS ON THE
STREETS UM, AND JAILS.
INSTITUTIONS UM BECAUSE IT WAS
THE DARK AGES. UM TRANS FOLKS
WERE CONSIDERED MENTALLY
CONFUSED PEOPLE THAT COULD NOT
PARTICIPATE IN SOCIETY. AND SOME
OF YOU REMEMBER THOSE DAYS AND
THANKS TO THE CALIFORNIA
LEGISLATURE AND THE SUPPORT OF
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE TO
THE TRANS COMMUNITY. WE ARE
THRIVING. WE ARE PROSPERING. UM
A LOT OF TRANS FOLKS FROM MY ERA
, WHICH CAME OUT IN THE EARLY
NINETIES. UM A LOT OF THEM DIE
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET HEALTH
CARE. AND UM, YOU'RE SEEING
PEOPLE OF MY AGE GROUP GOING
BACK TO SCHOOL. NOW THAT WE HAVE
PROTECTIONS. UM AND MY GOOD
FRIEND JUST GOT HER PHD AND SHE
HAS THE SAME STORY. THAT I HAVE
, UM I SIT ON I AM COACH HERE OF
THE CALIFORNIA TRANSGENDER
ADVISORY COUNCIL. UM I AM
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER.
DOWN. 18 T OPERATOR. WE'RE NOT
READY TO. AH GO AHEAD. SORRY AM
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND FOUNDER
OF, UM CALIFORNIA TRANS STANDS.
WE DO POLICY WORK, AND WE DO
ADVOCACY WORK. AND RIGHT NOW
WE'RE DOING WORK IN PLASTIC
COUNTY. UM WHICH IS YOU KNOW,
RICK COUNTY, BUT, UM, I THINK
TRANS TRANSCENDS POLITICS. UM,
THERE ARE TRANS REPUBLICANS. UM
AND SO, UM, MY JOB IS TO SUPPORT
YOU. WHATEVER PARTY YOU ARE AND
YOUR TRANSFER. YOU NEED THE SAME
ACCESS TO CARE. AS I NEED. UM
AND SO YOU HAVE SEEN THAT OUR
COMMUNITY, UM RECENTLY HAS BEEN
POLITICIZED, WHICH IS CAUSING A
LOT OF TRAUMA AND PAIN IN OUR
COMMUNITY. AND CALIFORNIA HAS
ALWAYS LED THE WAY. UM AS FAR AS
SUPPORTING LGBT RIGHTS AND OTHER
STATES END UP FOLLOWING SUIT, UM
AND SUPPORTING RIGHTS. AND SO MY
STORY IS ONE OF THE LEGISLATURE
, UH, PUTTING IN DEALS THAT
SUPPORTED OUR COMMUNITY AND ME
BEING ABLE TO THRIVE AND PROSPER
BECAUSE OF YOUR DECISIONS. AND
SO, UM AND ALSO I HOSTED IT.
CALIFORNIA TREE LIGHTING WITH
THE GOVERNOR. UM AND YOU KNOW,
I'M ON THE BOARD OF THE TRANS
LAWCENTER AS WELL. AND UM, YOU
KNOW, THE 13 YEAR OLD ME THOUGHT
I WAS GONNA END UP YOU KNOW DID
BEFORE I HIT 21. HERE I AM, UM,
ADVOCATING IN MY FORTIES AND
STILL GOING STRONG AND HAVING
THE FORTITUDE OF SUPPORT. WITH
SENATORS LIKE SCOTT WIENER IN,
UM OTHERS IN THE LIEUTENANT
GOVERNOR AND OTHER FOLKS IN
GOVERNMENT, AND SO, UM, I ASKED
YOU TO PLEASE SUPPORT THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW
GO TO THE HEARING ROOM, ANYONE
NAME AND ORGANIZATION. THEY'RE
IN FAVOR OF WIENER. SB ONE. OH,
SEVEN. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND COMMITTEE MEMBERS. JONATHAN
CLAIRE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF INCINERATORS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. TOMMY MARTIN
ON BEHALF OF EQUALITY,
CALIFORNIA PROUD CO SPONSOR OF
THE BILL AND STRONG SUPPORT, AND
I'VE ALSO BEEN ASKED TO REGISTER
SUPPORT ON BEHALF OF THE
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LESBIAN
RIGHTS. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, MARCO GEORGE ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, KELBY
LINN WITH PLANNED PARENTHOOD
AFFILIATES OF CALIFORNIA, A
PROUD CO SPONSOR IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING
, ISABELLA ARGUETA ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA NURSE MIDWIVES
ASSOCIATION AND NARAL PRO CHOICE
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. BECCA TRAN ON BEHALF
OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR'S OFFICE
AND STRONG SUPPORT AS A CO
SPONSOR. EMILY HARRIS WITH THE
L. A. BAKER CENTER FOR HUMAN
RIGHTS AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK
YOU WILL. AND NOW 18. THE
OPERATOR WILL NOW GO TO THE
PHONE LINES FOR THE SUPPORT OF
SB ONE. OH, SEVEN WIENER. THANK
YOU. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN
SUPPORT OF SB ONE. OH SEVEN.
PLEASE PRESS ONE THAN ZERO ON
YOUR PHONE AND WE WILL START
WITH BLIND 54. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YEAH GOOD MORNING. KIM LEWIS,
REPRESENTING THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR YOU AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. NEXT. WE HAVE LINE
34, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. SALLY CHEATING ON
BEHALF O HULU CALIFORNIA ACTION
IN STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LINE 68,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING
SHARING MEMBERS, MADELINE COOPER
WITH NIELSEN MERKSAMER ON BEHALF
OF THE COUNTIES OF CONTRA COSTA
AND MARIN IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LINES.
75, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, REBECCA GONZALEZ FOR
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS, CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE 9 61, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. WOW. 9 61. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. NEXT WE HAVE LINES. 60,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.
CHAIR MEMBERS, MAX PERRY ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF LONG
BEACH, OSMAN SUPPORT. THANK YOU
. NEXT. WE HAVE LINE SIX. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS
MARISA MCGUINNESS ON BEHALF OF
THE HASHTAG ME TO FAMILY COURT
MOVEMENT AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
NEXT. WE HAVE LINE. 81, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. IS THAT ME? YES. MY
NAME IS CASSIDY WELLS. I'M A
LIFELONG RESIDENT OF CALIFORNIA
AND I'M URGING YOU TO VOTE YES.
ON SP ONE. OH, SEVEN. GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE SAVED MY LIFE,
AND IT HAS DONE THE SAME FOR
COUNTLESS OTHERS. CONTRARY TO
WHAT YOU MIGHT HEAR TODAY. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE
LINE 82, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
PILLOWS NAME OF FORD ON BEHALF
OF C B H D A IN SUPPORT OF THE
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AIRLINES 61 DID NOT GET A CHANCE
TO IF YOU WISH TO PRESS ONE AND
ZERO AGAIN. PERHAPS NOT. THAT IS
ALL I HAVE IN QUÊ. THANK YOU.
WE'LL NOW GO TO WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SB ONE. OH, SEVEN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
TESTIMONY.
THANK YOU. YOU BOTH HAVE A TOTAL
FIVE MINUTES SPLIT UP ANYWAY,
YOU WANT IS TO YOUR DISCRETION.
THANK YOU. I'M ERIN FRIDAY. I'M
AN ATTORNEY AND ONE OF THE LEADS
OF OUR DUTY. THERE ARE TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF OTHER PARENTS
BEHIND US. THIS IS NOT A
PARTISAN ISSUE. PARENTS ARE
VOTING WITH THE PARTY THAT
PROTECTS CHILDREN FROM
TRANSGENDER MEDICINE. WE OPPOSE
SB ONE. OH, SEVEN. IT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE 14TH
AMENDMENT IN ARTICLE FOUR. THIS
LAW. WELL NOT JUST PROVIDE
SANCTUARY FOR FAMILIES WHO LIVE
IN STATES WITH BANDS. IT MAKES
CALIFORNIA THE REFUGE FOR ALL
CHILDREN WHO WANT TO GET ACCESS
TO ANY TYPE OF GENDER INTER
INTERVENTIONS. NO QUESTIONS
ASKED. NO REAL MENTAL HEALTH
ASSESSMENT, NO MINIMAL DIAGNOSIS
AND NO PARENTAL CONSENT. SO AS
SO LONG AS THE MINOR CHILD CAN
GET TO CALIFORNIA, SHE CAN ORDER
UP ANY TYPE OF IRREVERSIBLE
TREATMENT. SUPPOSE DIVORCE MOM
AND DAD LIVE IN A STATE THAT
PERMITS GENDER INTERVENTIONS ON
MINORS WITH PROPER PARENTAL
CONSENT. PER THE CUSTODY
AGREEMENT. DAD HAS NO SAY IN
SON'S MEDICAL DECISIONS.
REGARDLESS HE IS ABLE TO PLACE
HIS SON ON PUBERTY, BLOCKERS AND
ESTROGEN ON A TRIP TO
CALIFORNIA. IF HE STAYS HERE.
DAD AND SON WILL BE THE LOWEST
PRIORITY FOR THE POLICE. THE
POLICE WILL NOT IGNORE
EXTRADITION REQUESTS, AND HE'S
SUBPOENAS SERVED ON DAD CAN BE
IGNORED, AND CALIFORNIA COURTS
MUST TAKE JURISDICTION OVER THE
CUSTODY OF THE CHILD, DESPITE
THE FACT THAT DAD AND SON HAVE
NO PAST TIES TO THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA. IMAGINE MOM AND DAD
LIVE IN A STATE THAT BANS GENDER
INTERVENTIONS. THEY HAVE A SON
WHO IS DISPLAYING REALLY
FEMININE ATTRIBUTES. HE LIKES
PINK DOLLS AND IS ATTRACTED TO
BOYS. DAD DOESN'T WANT HIS
DOESN'T WANT TO HAVE A GAY KID.
SO HE BRINGS INTO CALIFORNIA TO
TRANS THE GAY AWAY THE ULTIMATE
CONVERSION THERAPY. COURTS IN
CALIFORNIA MUST TAKE
JURISDICTION OVER ANY CHILD WHO
MAKESHER WAY TO CALIFORNIA
REGARDLESS IF THE PARENTS ARE
HERE, ACCORDING TO THIS BILL.
COURTS CAN ROLL THAT CHILD INTO
CALIFORNIA'S FOSTER CARE SO THAT
SHE CAN CONTROL HER OWN GENDER
INTERVENTIONS. THE NUMBER OF
HOMELESS KIDS SENATOR WIENER
WILL CONTINUE TO BALLOON.
BALLOON. FIGURE THE ANGUISH OF
THOSE PARENTS WHO HAVE TO THEN
COME TO CALIFORNIA TO FIGHT FOR
THE CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILDREN
HERE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AS CALIFORNIA TAKES, UH, CUSTODY
AND JURISDICTION OVER THOSE
CHILDREN. VOTE NO ON SB ONE. OH,
SEVEN. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
CHLOE COLE AND I AM A 17 YEAR
OLD. THE TRANSITION FROM THE
CENTRAL VALLEY. I WAS MEDICALLY
TRANSITIONED FROM AGES. 13 TO 16
. MY PARENTS TOOK ME TO A
THERAPIST WHO AFFIRMED MY MAIL I
DON'T NEED AND THE THERAPIST DID
NOT CARE ABOUT CAUSALITY OR
ENCOURAGED ME TO LEARN TO BE
COMFORTABLE IN MY BODY. HE
BRUSHED OFF MY PARENTS' CONCERNS
ABOUT THE EFFICACY OF HORMONES,
PUBERTY, BLOCKERS AND SURGERIES.
MY PARENTS WERE GIVEN THE THREAT
OF SUICIDE AS A REASON TO MOVING
FORWARD MY TRANSITION. MY
ENDOCRINOLOGIST AFTER 23
APPOINTMENTS PUT ME ON PUBERTY
BLOCKERS AND INJECTABLE
TESTOSTERONE. AT AGE 15 I ASKED
TO REMOVE MY BREASTS BY
THERAPISTS CONTINUED TO FOR MY
TRANSITION ATTENDED A TOP
SURGERY CLASS THAT WAS FILLED
WITH AROUND 12 GIRLS THAT THAT
WERE. THEY WERE MEN. MOST OF MY
AGE OR YOUNGER. NONE OF US WERE
GOING TO BE MEN. WE WERE FLEEING
FROM THE UNCOMFORTABLE FEELING
OF BECOMING WOMEN. I WAS
ANNOYINGLY PHYSICALLY CUTTING
OFF MY TRUE SELF FROM MY BODY
IRREVERSIBLY AND PAINFULLY. OUR
TRANS IDENTITIES WERE NOT
QUESTIONED. I WENT THROUGH WITH
SURGERY. DESPITE HAVING
THERAPISTS AND ATTENDING THE TOP
SURGERY CLASS. I REALLY DIDN'T
UNDERSTAND ALL THE RAMIFICATIONS
OF ANY OF THE MEDICAL DECISIONS
I WAS MAKING. I WASN'T CAPABLE
OF UNDERSTANDING AND IT WAS
DOWNPLAYED CONSISTENTLY. MY
PARENTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, WERE
PRESSURED TO CONTINUE MY SO
CALLED GENDER JOURNEY WITH
SUICIDE THREAT. I WILL NEVER BE
ABLE TO BREASTFEED A CHILD. I
HAD BLOOD CLOTS IN MY TURN. I AM
UNABLE TO FULLY EMPTY MY
BLADDER. I DO NOT YET KNOW IF
I'M CAPABLE OF CARRYING A CHILD
TO FULL TERM. IN FACT, EVEN THE
DOCTORS WHO PUT ME ON PUBERTY,
BLOCKERS AND TESTOSTERONE DO NOT
KNOW. SB ONE. OH, SEVEN IS
CIRCUMVENTING STATE LAWS AND I
NEEDED SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE. SO
MY STORY IS NOT REPEATED.
CHILDREN CANNOT CONSENT VOTE
KNOWN. SB ONE. OH, SEVEN. THANK
YOU. WE'LL NOW GO TO THE HEARING
ROOM FOR WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION TO SB ONE. OH, SEVEN.
YOU GO TO THE MICRO FRAME THAT
MICROPHONE. NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. I'M TED WHO? DACKO
FROM CONTRA COSTA COUNTY.
OPPOSED. SB ONE. OH, SEVEN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. I AM
OXANA COMMON ESKO. I'M A PARENT
OF DESISTED CHILD AND I OPPOSE
JUST BUILT THANK YOU. MS LABAN
URBANO PLASTER COUNTY. I'M A
PARENT OF A RECENTLY DECIDED KID
WHO'S TRANSGENDER. AT 16. PLEASE
OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK YOU. I'M
MITCHELL CALLED FROM THE CENTRAL
VALLEY OPPOSED TO SB ONE. OH,
SEVEN. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS
JOEY BRIGHT AND LIFELONG
DEMOCRAT AND A LESBIAN. AND I
OPPOSE SB ONE. OH, SEVEN.
VEHEMENTLY, THANK YOU. I'M
STAYING HILTON FROM CONTRA COSTA
COUNTY DEMOCRAT AND APPARENT AND
I'M OPPOSED TO SB ONE. OH,
SEVEN. MY NAME IS CECILIA CICADA
. I'M AN INDEPENDENT. I HAVE
VOTED DEMOCRAT FOR THE LAST 10
YEARS AND FOR THE SAFETY OF THE
CHILDREN. I'M OPPOSING. SB ONE.
IT WAS HEAVEN. THANK YOU. GREG
BURKE FROM THE CALIFORNIA FAMILY
COUNSELING OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. A T AND T
OPERATOR WILL NOT OPEN UP THE
PHONE LINES FOR OPPOSITION TO SB
ONE. OH, SEVEN WIENER. THANK YOU
. IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF SB ONE. OH, SEVEN.
PLEASE PRESS 10 ON YOUR PHONE.
WE WILL START WITH LINE. 55,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
KATHERINE MCBRIDE FROM PASTOR
COUNTY AND I STRONGLY OPPOSED
WIENERS. FB ONE OH, SEVEN. IT'S
DANGEROUS, DISGUSTING AND
DESPICABLE. THANK YOU. NEXT WE
HAVE LINED 74, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YES I'M NICOLE YOUNG FROM
PLASTER COUNTY.I AM THE CHAPTER
CHAIR OF PLASTER COUNTY MOMS FOR
LIBERTY. WE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED
THIS BILL I REPRESENT OVER 2000.
FAMILIES AND CONCERNED CITIZENS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT
AIRPLANE. 31, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS JOSHUA
WILLIAMS. I AM A MEMBER OF
MONTHS FOR LIBERTY PLAZA COUNTY
, AND I'M ALSO ASKING FOR A NO
VOTE ON THE 107. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT WAVE LINE. 37,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
KELLY. I REPRESENT THOUSANDS OF
CALIFORNIANS WITH ALLIANCE TO
PROTECT CHILDREN. I'M FROM
MONTEREY COUNTY, AND I STRONGLY
URGE A NO VOTE ON THIS
HORRENDOUS BILL. THANK YOU.
THANKS. WE HAVE LINED 77. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YES MY NAME IS EMILY
VIOLA AND I HAVE A TRANS FILED
IS ALSO ON THE STICK AND VERY
VULNERABLE TO PREDATORY MEDICINE
AND THIS WOULD STOP US. AS
PARENTS IN NEW YORK TO BE ABLE
TO BE ENGAGED IN OUR CHILD'S
HEALTH CARE AND TO FIND OUT
INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT KINDS OF
HARMFUL TREATMENTS HAVE BEEN
CONDUCTED ON HER BODY. THANK YOU
. NEXT WAVE LINE. 20, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI MY NAME IS CAROL. I'M
WITH THE FEMINIST AND STRUGGLE
AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
FILM LINE. 22, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
GIGI LARUE AND I REPRESENT OUR
DUTY AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. NEXT WAVE. 9
15, PLEASE GO AHEAD. ERICA
HATHAWAY FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ASSEMBLY, AND WE STRONGLY FELT
THANK YOU. THANKS TO HAVE LINE
73, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YEAH DAVIS
, DEMOCRAT AND SOCIAL WORKERS
STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS BILL.
THANK YOU. NEXT DESIGN 71,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME
IS DOLLY LÀ EPPERSON ACT
MONTEREY GRASSROOTS LEADER AND
CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE OF
MONTEREY. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. NEXT
ASSIGNED 66. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO THANK YOU FOR HEARING ME.
MY NAME IS LINLEY HOGAN OF SANTA
CLARA COUNTY. AND I AM THE
MOTHER OF A IDENTICAL TWIN
DAUGHTER. AND SHE HAS BEEN.
THINKINGSHE'S A BOY FOR THE
LAST FOUR YEARS AND NOW HAS
DECIDED SHE HAS NOT. AND I
OPPOSED THIS STILL VEHEMENTLY.
THANK YOU. THANKS FOR YOUR BLIND
59. PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES MY NAME
IS VICKI ABRAHAMSON AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSED SB ONE. OH,
SEVEN. UM THE OTHER SIDE. THANK
YOU. HOW CAN YEAH. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE LINE 56, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI THIS IS RENEE TANAKA.
YES SAMORA. I AM A FORMER
DEMOCRAT WITH A TEENAGE DAUGHTER
WHO HAS THE TRANSITIONS AND I
STRONGLY OPPOSED STILL. THANK
YOU. NEXT WAVE LINE. 83, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. YES JAMES RANDLETT
PLUS COUNTY REGISTERED DEMOCRAT
PARENTS OF A MINOR AUTISTIC
CHILD CURRENTLY BEING SEDUCED BY
THIS CRAZE STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE
LINE 88, PLEASE GO AHEAD. IS
THAT ME? OH HI. YEAH I WAS A
FORMER DEMOCRAT I OPPOSED
STRONGLY OPPOSED THE SB ONE. OH,
SEVEN. QUÊ THANK YOU. NEXT WAVE
LINE. 50, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES
MY NAME IS JEFFREY MORGEN. I AM
REPRESENTING THAT TALKED TODAY
WITH ALMOST HALF A MILLION
FOLLOWERS. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
NEXT TO SLINE 49, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ON BEHALF OF ROCK
HARBOR CHURCH BANKER SOLD
CALVARY CHILD AND WIFE ALIA
EXETER, PORTABLE HILLARY
COALITIONS FOR FREEDOM AND
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS FOR
PARENTS. AND PARENTS AGAINST
CHILD ABUSE FROM THE GOVERNMENT
. WE RESPECTFULLY AND STRONGLY
APPROVED SB ONE. OH, SEVEN.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR
HAVING LINE 61, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
I'M HOPING I CAN TALK. YES. CAN
YOU HEAR ME? HERE. TIâU UM MY
NAME IS SERENA LODGE, MOTHER OF
THREE. WITH PARENTS AGAINST. THE
PARENTS THAT STAND AGAINST
CONSTITUTIONAL. I'M
CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AGAINST
CHILDREN WERE ASKING FOR ABSTAIN
OR NO VOTE ON THE ONE OF SEVEN
EXCLUSION, NOT INCLUSION BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT. FILL
LINE. 12, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES
GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU FOR
TAKING MY CALL. MY NAME IS MARLO
ISAAC, A GRANDMOTHER OF FOUR.
AND I OPPOSE THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. AND THAT IS EVERYONE I HAVE
IN QUÊ. THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR QUESTIONS, MR. WORK.
YES I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING LATE.
SENATOR HAD TO PRESENT A BILL.
WE'RE ALL DOING THAT THESE DAYS.
UM SO THIS BILL PREDOMINANTLY IS
ABOUT LEGAL PROTECTION FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE. IT ALSO
DISCUSSES HAVING TWO TRIALS. AT
LEAST ONE OF THE TRIALS PARENTS
COULD YOU GET INTO THAT IN SOME
DETAIL? I'M SORRY. WHAT IN
PARTICULAR WELL IN IT IS THE
CHILD AND THE CHILD'S PARENTS OR
THE CHILD. AT LEAST ONE PARENT
OR PERSON ACTING AS A PARENT
HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CONNECTION
WITH THIS STATE OTHER THAN MERE
PHYSICAL PRESENCE. SO WHEN IT
COULD YOU EXPLAIN, THEN? TWO SO
THEY'RE WHAT THEY'RE BASICALLY
SAYING IS YOU CAN HAVE A SIX
YEAR OLD COME HERE, AND THEIR
PARENTS HAVE NOTHING TO SAY
ABOUT IT. AND THAT'S NOT THE WAY
I READ THE BILL. SO THERE'S BEEN
A LOT OF TALK TODAY ABOUT ABOUT
PARENTAL RIGHTS AND AGE OF
CONSENT, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
THE SPILL DOESN'T CHANGE
ANYTHING ABOUT THE STANDARDS OF
MEDICAL CARE OR THE PROCESS WHEN
A CHILD HOW CHILD RECEIVES
HEALTHCARE. UM AND FRANKLY, A
LOT OF THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT
HEALTH CARE EVEN BEING PERFORMED
HERE. IT'S ABOUT PARENTS LEAVING
ANOTHER STAIR FAMILIES HAVE
ANOTHER STATE BECAUSE THEY DON'T
FEEL SAFE THERE BECAUSE THE
STATE WHETHER IT'S TEXAS OR
ALABAMA OR OTHERWISE. THEY'RE
SAYING BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED
HERE IN TEXAS OR ALABAMA. YOU'RE
A FELON. AND SO PARENTS, UH,
FAMILY FEELS UNSAFE. THEY CAN
COME HERE. AND WE WILL DO WHAT
WE CAN TO PROVIDE A REFUGE FOR
THEM. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF
HYPERBOLE THAT WE HEARD IN THE
TESTIMONY TODAY, AND THAT'S JUST
NOT WHAT THE BILL WHAT THE BILL
DOES. OKAY. AND FOR SOMEONE
UNDER 18. WHAT DOES GENDER
FIRMING CARE MEAN? YEAH, AND TO
BE CLEAR. I'M NOT A PHYSICIAN. I
DON'T WANT TO. BY MYSELF OFF AS
A PHYSICIAN, AND THERE ARE MANY
MEDICAL PROVIDERS WHO COULD
ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND A LOT
OF DETAIL. UM WHAT I HAVE HEARD
FROM, UH MEDICAL PROVIDERS WHO
PROVIDE OR VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE
ABOUT GENDER AFFIRMING CARE IS A
FOR YOU THAT CAN INVOLVE PUBERTY
TO LAYERS. UM, IT CAN INVOLVE
HORMONES. UM IT IS NOT COMMON
FOR SURGERY TO HAPPEN TO MINORS
. I'M NOT SAYING IT NEVER
HAPPENS, BUT IT IS NOT COMMON.
AH AND I THINK THE HORMONES AND
PUBERTY LAYERS ARE PROBABLY THE
MOST COMMON FORM. THERE'S ALSO
THERAPY THAT PEOPLE RECEIVE
WHERE THERE'S NO PHYSICAL
INTERVENTION, BUT THEY'RE
RECEIVING THERAPY. RELATING TO
WHICH IS ALSO A FORM OF GENDER
AFFIRMING CARE. IT'S ALL MY
UNDERSTANDING AS WELL. SO THANK
YOU FOR BEING CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR
BILL DOES. THANK YOU. I DON'T
GET TO COMMENT. NÓ. YES. OKAY
SORRY FOR MY LATENESS AND COMING
IN. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS
GOT COVERED OR NOT. BUT
CURRENTLY, THE CALIFORNIA LAW
FOLLOWS THE UNIFORM CHILD
CUSTODY JURISDICTION ENFORCEMENT
ACT. WHICH IS ALSO FOLLOWED BY
EVERY STATE AND MOST TERRITORIES
IN THIS COUNTRY. AND WHAT DO YOU
EXPECT THE CONSEQUENCES OF
CALIFORNIA LEAVING THAT
AGREEMENT FOR THIS BILL, AND
HAVE YOU REVIEWED ALL OF THE
PROTECTIONS AND AGREEMENTS IN
THAT ACT? IT DOESN'T LEAVE THAT
AGREEMENT. UM AND THE BILL DOES
NOT, UH, DOES NOT INVOLVE
REJECTING JUDGMENTS OR CHILD
CUSTODY JUDGMENTS. IT'S NOT WHAT
THE BILL DOES, AND IT DOESN'T
LEAVE THAT AGREEMENT. BUT IT
SEEMS TO KIND OF ALLOW PARENTS
THAT ARE KIDNAPPED. A LOT OF
TIMES YOU HAVE THE YOU KNOW THE
NOTIFICATIONS ACROSS THE
BILLBOARDS THAT CHILD HAS BEEN
KIDNAPPED. MANY TIMES. THOSE ARE
FROM ONE OF THE PARENTS OR THE
OTHER. AND IT KIND OF ALLOWS
THEM TO GO TO ANOTHER STATE AND
THE WAY I READ THEIR BILL. IT
KIND OF GIVES THEM COVER. AND SO
THAT'S MY CONCERN. ONE OF MY
CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. THE OTHER
ONE IS THAT I BELIEVE THAT WHEN
A AH, CHILD IS UNDER 18. UM THEY
ARE THE PARENTS OR THE PERSON
THAT IS THE SUPPOSED TO BE IN
CARE OF THAT CHILD SO INFORMED
ABOUT EVERY ASPECT OF WHAT'S
GOING THROUGH WITH THAT CHILD SO
THAT THEY CAN BE SUPPORTIVE
PARENTS. LET'S LET'S TALK ABOUT
. I LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT SECOND
PART FIRST, IF I MAY BECAUSE
AGAIN, THIS IS DESPITE SOME OF
THE STATEMENTS THAT WOULD YOU
MAY NOT HAVE HEARD BECAUSE BUT
THAT I HAVE HEARD THEM IN THE
PAST IS SOMEHOW GO AHEAD. AGE OF
CONSENT. UH, BILL THAT'S NOT
WHAT THIS BILL IS. AND IN FACT,
WHAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT IS
SITUATIONS WHERE PARENTS ARE
SUPPORTING THEIR CHILDREN. AND
PROVIDING THEM WITH ACCESS TO
HEALTHCARE. AND THE PARENTS ARE
BEING THREATENED WITH
CRIMINALIZATION. IF WE LOOK AT
WHAT'S HAPPENING IN TEXAS ALBUM
IS A SERIES OF STATES NOW WHERE
THEY'RE SAYING PARENTS. YOU
DON'T GET TO MAKE THAT DECISION
. AND YOU ARE A CRIMINAL. IF YOU
MAKE THAT DECISION, AND WE'RE
GOING TO OVERRULE YOU AND SAY
THAT THAT IS A CRIME AND TAKE
YOUR KIDS AWAY FROM YOU AND
CRIMINALLY PROSECUTE. THAT'S
WHAT THESE LAWS DO SO TOO IF
SOMEONE IS ARGUING IN FAVOR OF
PARENTAL DECISION MAKING
PARENTAL CONSENT. THOSE LAWS ARE
THE EXACT OPPOSITE BECAUSE IT
WAS UNDERMINED. PARENTS WHO ARE
TRYING TO SUPPORT THEIR KIDS.
AND THIS LAW DOES NOT JUST BILL
DOES NOT CHANGE THAT. SO I JUST
WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT. UM
AND IN TERMS OF THE OTHER THIS
IS SIMPLY ALLOWING FAMILIES IF
THEY FEEL THAT THEY ARE NOT SAFE
IN THEIR STATE BECAUSE OF THESE
LAWS AND WHAT THOSE ARE TRYING
TO INFLICT ON FAMILIES AND THESE
STATES THAT THEY CAN COME HERE
AND WE'RE GOING TO DO WHAT WE
CAN AND IT'S NEVER AIRTIGHT.
BECAUSE THE U. S CONSTITUTION
HAS CERTAIN BASELINE
REQUIREMENTS AND WE'RE VERY
MINDFUL OF THAT THAT WE'RE THAT
WE ARE NOT GOING TO ENFORCE
THOSE LAWS HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS ABOUT. WE'RE
NOT GOING TO ENFORCE THOSE LAWS.
CRIMINALIZING THESE PARENTS. IN
CALIFORNIA. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR EXPLANATION. THANK YOU AND
THE OTHER COMMENTS. YOU MAY
CLOSE, MR WIENER. UM THANK YOU
pVERY MUCH. MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK
I THINK RESPONDING TO THOSE
QUESTIONS I CLOSED AND SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE.
UNFORTUNATELY DON'T HAVE A
QUORUM. YET. STUDENTS WE DO. UM
WE'LL BRING UP THE MATTER AND I
CAN LET YOU KNOW THAT CHAIRS
RECOMMEND AN AYE VOTE. THANK YOU
AND THANK YOU FOR THE WITNESSES
FOR BEING I KNOW IT'S SEVEN IS
NOT. IT'S NOT EASY TO COME AND
SPEAK. SO I COMMEND YOU FOR
BEING HERE TODAY. THAT'S VERY
BRAVE THING TO DO. SO THANK YOU.
WE'RE NOW GOING TO YOUR NEXT
BILL. YES, B ITEM NUMBER TWO S B
A FOUR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR
. CHAIRMAN UM SP 8 34 CLARIFIES
AND CODIFIES THE AUTHORITY OF
THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD. TO
REVOKE THE CALIFORNIA TAX EXEMPT
STATUS OF NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS. IF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL HAS DETERMINED THAT THAT
NONPROFIT HAS ACTIVELY ENGAGE IN
OR INCITED THE COMMISSION OF ANY
OF SEVERAL SERIOUS CRIMES
AGAINST OUR DEMOCRACY, INCLUDING
TREASON, INSURRECTION OR
SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY. SP 8 34
FILLS AN IMPORTANT JOB. UM WHILE
WE WHILE THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
CURRENTLY IS EXPLICITLY DIRECTED
TO SUSPEND THE TAX EXEMPT STATUS
OF NONPROFITS SUPPORTING
INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM. THERE'S
NO EXPLICIT AUTHORITY CONCERNING
NONPROFITS THAT ENGAGE IN OR
INSIGHT EFFORTS TO OVERTHROW OUR
GOVERNMENT. RIGHT NOW. A UH, A
NONPROFIT THAT IS LITERALLY
TRYING TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT CAN APPLY FOR AND
RECEIVETAX EXEMPT STATUS, AND
CALIFORNIA TAXPAYERS SHOULD NOT
BE SUBSIDIZING. EFFORTS TO
OVERTHROW OUR GOVERNMENT. UH AND
THIS BILL WILL CLARIFY AND
CODIFY THE ABILITY OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND FRANCHISE
TAX BOARD TO PREVENT THAT FROM
HAPPENING. I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR AN I VOTE WITH ME TO TESTIFY
. I BELIEVE, PERHAPS BY PHONE OR
LAWRENCE BASKET FROM CALIFORNIA,
INDIVISIBLE STATE STRONG AND
ROBERT HICKS FROM THE ANTI
DEFAMATION LEAGUE. THANK YOU, UH
18 T OPERATOR UH, OPEN UP THE
LINES, UH, FOR MR BASKET. MR
HICKS. YOU'RE OPEN. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. YOU BOTH HAVE
TOTAL FIVE MINUTES 2.5 MINUTES
APIECE. YOU MAY BEGIN. THANKS TO
SENATOR WIENER FOR OFTEN YEARS
BILL AND FOR THE COMMITTEE'S
CONSIDERATION. MY NAME IS
LAWRENCE BASKET. I'M HERE AS A
VOLUNTEER WITH INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG, WHICH
THE COALITION OF WHOEVER 80
INDEPENDENT LOCAL INDIVISIBLE
GROUPS WITH OVER 80,000
ACTIVISTS TOTAL IN CALIFORNIA,
INDIVISIBLE GROUPS FORMED ACROSS
THE COUNTRY AFTER THE 2016
ELECTION TO OPPOSE THE BIGOTED
AND TYRANNICAL TRUMP
ADMINISTRATION, WITH ITS
EXISTENTIALLY DANGEROUS APPROACH
TO ORDERING SOCIETY. WE CONTINUE
TO ORGANIZE TO PRESSURE OUR
GOVERNMENT FOR SOCIETALLY
BENEFICIAL AND PRO DEMOCRACY
POLICIES. ACCIDENT SUPPORTIVE.
AN ATTEMPTED COUP ARE ALREADY
ILLEGAL, BUT ALSO IT IS, OF
COURSE, THE OPPOSITE OF
CHARITABLE TO FOMENT TO FORM AN
ATTEMPTED COUP BASED UPON THE
BIG LIE ABOUT THE KNOWN VALID
RESULT OF THE 2020 ELECTION. ALL
THE SP 8 34 DOES IS REINFORCE
THE JUSTIFIED TAKING AWAY OF A
TAX EXEMPTION. OR OUR GOVERNMENT
TO DECLINE TO APPLY CONSEQUENCES
WOULD BE A MOCKERY OF THE OATH
OF OFFICE AND OF THE LAW. IN
GENERAL LAWS ARE NOT SELF
ENFORCING. IT TAKES ACTUAL
LIVING PEOPLE TO UPHOLD THEM AND
THE CASE AT HAND WITH SB 8 34.
THE CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX
BOARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL GOVERNOR
SENATE AND THE ASSEMBLY HERE
TODAY. DO NOT RESPOND TO THE
JANUARY 6TH 2021 INSURRECTION
OUT OF THE POLITICAL FEAR OF
ANGER FROM THOSE WHO SUPPORTED
THE INSURRECTION WOULD MEAN
APPEASEMENT. WITH THE
POTENTIALLY DIRECT PERCUSSION
HISTORY IMPLIES. INDIVISIBLE
CALIFORNIA STATE STRONG ENDORSES
AND I VOTE ON SDA 34. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT. GOOD MORNING.
MY NAME IS ROB HICKS AND I'M,
THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL DIRECTOR
FOR A DLS SAN DIEGO REGION. I'D
LIKE TO THANK SENATOR WAGNER AND
THE COMMITTEE FOR INVITING US TO
TESTIFY IN SUPPORT OF SB 834.
FOUNDED IN 1913 IN RESPONSE TO
AN ESCALATING CLIMATE OF ANTI
SEMITISM AND BIGOTRY. RADIO IS A
LEADING CIVIL RIGHTS AND ANTI
HATE ORGANIZATION COMMITTED TO
STOPPING THE DEFAMATION OF THE
JEWISH PEOPLE AND SECURING
JUSTICE AND FAIR TREATMENT FOR
ALL IN KEEPING WITH THAT
MISSION. ADELE HAS PARTICULAR
EXPERTISE IN TRACKING AND
EXPOSING EXTREMIST THREATS
ACROSS THE IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM.
IN THE WAKE OF THE JANUARY 6TH
ATTACK ON THE U. S. CAPITOL. AND
THE RISING TIDE OF HATE AND
EXTREMISM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE
HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THE WAYS IN
WHICH EXTREMIST AND HATEFUL
GROUPS OPERATING AS QUOTE
UNQUOTE CHARITABLE NONPROFITS
MAY BE ABUSING THEIR TAX EXEMPT
STATUS TO FURTHER THEIR VIOLENT
OR HATEFUL OBJECTIVES. LAST YEAR
. WE RELEASED A REPORT ON THIS
TOPIC AND ALSO WROTE A LETTER TO
THE IRS TO EXPRESS OUR CONCERN.
AS INDICATED IN THAT REPORT.
AFTER A CURSORY INVESTIGATION,
WE UNCOVERED EVIDENCE THAT A
RANGE OF GROUPS MAYBE MAKING
MISREPRESENTATIONS AND THEIR TAX
FILINGS IN ORDER TO SECURE A TAX
EXEMPT STATUS, AND THE FIRST
INSTANCE ENGAGING IN SELF
DEALING BY PAYING THEIR LEADERS
EXCESSIVE SALARIES. AND OR
DIVERTING FUNDS TO ENRICH
FRIENDS, FRIENDS AND FAMILY
MEMBERS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE
TAX EXEMPT ENTITY ITSELF. THIS
STATUS ALLOWS GROUPS TO RAISE
MONEY OR FINANCING WHILE
AVOIDING STATE AND FEDERAL
INCOME AND UNEMPLOYMENT TAXES.
IN SOME CASES, ORGANIZATIONS CAN
SIDESTEP PROPERTY TAXES, STATE
INCOME TAXES. SALES TAXES AND
EMPLOYMENT TAXES AS WELL. BUT
PERHAPS MOST IMPORTANTLY,
CONTRIBUTIONS TO FIVE OH ONE C
THREE ORGANIZATIONS ARE ALWAYS
TEXT DEDUCTIBLE. SOME DONORS MAY
VIEW TAX EXEMPT STATUS AS
GOVERNMENT ENDORSEMENT WHICH
GIVES FIVE OH ONE C THREES
INCREASED CREDIBILITY. MORE MUST
AND CAN BE DONE TO ENSURE THAT
EXTREMIST GROUPS DO NOT ABUSE
TAX EXEMPT STATUS IN CALIFORNIA
OR ANYWHERE ELSE. SENATOR
WIENERS. SB 834 IS AN IMPORTANT
STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
IT'S IN THE IT SENDS A CLEAR
MESSAGE THAT ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ENGAGE IN SOMETHING MOST SERIOUS
CRIMES AGAINST OUR DEMOCRACY.
SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO
OPERATE IN CALIFORNIA FOR
CHARITABLE PURPOSES. WE URGE YOU
TO SUPPORT SB A 34. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WHEN I GO TO THE
COMMITTEE ROOM, ANY WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT OF SB 834. CNN WILL
NOW GO TO THE. PHONE LINES,
WITNESSES IN SUPPORT OF A 34. 18
T OPERATOR OPEN UP. THANK YOU IF
YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
SB 834, PLEASE PRESS ONE AND
ZERO ON YOUR PHONE AND WE WILL
START WITH LINE. 27, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU CHAIR AND THANK
YOU, SENATOR WIENER FOR BRINGING
THIS BILL TO THE ATTENTION. I'M
RAJ VÀ WITH CHANGE BEGINS WITH
ME IN SAN DIEGO AND WERE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF SB 8 34. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU AND. THAT IS ALL
I HAVE IN QUÊ. OKAY, THEN I'LL
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE.
OPPOSITION I'M SORRY. OPPOSITION
FOR SB 834 IN THE ROOM. SEEING
NO ONE COMING UP FOR OPPOSITION
FOR SB 834 WILL GO TO THE
OPERATOR FOR OPPOSITION FOR 834
WIENER. THANK YOU. LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION OF SB 834, PLEASE
PRESS 10 ON YOUR PHONE. THANK
YOU. AND FIRST WE WILL GO WITH
LINE. 49, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, KAREN MEMBERS. MY NAME
IS TIA COBIAN FROM HILLARY
COUNTY AND ON BEHALF OF HILLARY
EXETER, CORDOVA COALITIONS FOR
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. WE STAND
IN VIOLENT OPPOSITION BECAUSE
IT'S ONE SIDED HYPOCRITICALLY
GAGGING THE OPPOSING OPINION,
BILL. THANK YOU. WHERE THANK
YOU. AND NEXT WE HAVE LINE 88,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. IS THAT ME?
YES, IT IS. YES I'M IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. AND NEXT
WE WILL GO WITH THE LINE. 50,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
JEFFREY MORGEN. I AM A STRONG
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. AND. NEXT WE WILL GO WITH
LINE. 102, PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES
HI, CANDY SENATORS AND SOME
WOMAN HEAR ME CLEARLY. YES.
EXCELLENT I AM IN ABSOLUTE
OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND. THAT IS ALL
I HAVE IN. Q THANK YOU NOW BRING
IT BACK TO COMMITTEE MEMBERS FOR
ANY MR QUIRK. UM I REALLY DON'T
UNDERSTAND THE OPPOSITION TO
THIS BILL. UM IF SOMEBODY IS
CONVICTED OF SEDITIOUS
CONSPIRACY TO OVERTHROW THE
GOVERNMENT, WHICH IS LIKELY THE
PROUD BOYS AND OTHERS WELL, WHY
YOU SHOULD GET GRABBED THEM. TAX
EXEMPT STATUS IS BEYOND ME.
THANKS. QUÊ THANK YOU. AND THE
OTHER IS SEEING NONE. YOU MAY
CLOSE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY
VOTE. AND AGAIN THE CHAIR IS
GOING TO RECOMMEND, AND I SINCE
WE GET A QUORUM WHOA! GET A
MOTION AND SECOND. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
MR PORTANTINO HAS BEEN PATIENTLY
WAITING WITH SB 918.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. QUÊ. UH,
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. COLLEAGUES.
I BEGIN BY ACCEPTING THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO
SP 9 18. I'M HONORED TO PRESENT
SP 9 18 SPONSORED BY OUR FORMER
COLLEAGUE AND CURRENT ATTORNEY
GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB
BONTA. UM AND I'VE BEEN PLEASED
TO BE WORKING WITH HIS OFFICE
AND HIS STAFF AND MY STAFF AND
YOUR STAFF AS WE PROGRESS 9 18
THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS
IN THE AFTERMATH OF THE SUPREME
COURT DECISION THAT CAME OUT
LAST YEAR FROM THE OUTSET, I'M
GOING TO DESCRIBE A LITTLE OF
THE PROCEDURAL HISTORY. SO
EVERYONE HAS AN UNDERSTANDING OF
WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TODAY AND
HOW WE GOT HERE. AH! GREAT
ANTICIPATED THE SUPREME COURT
DECISION EARLY IN THE
LEGISLATIVE CYCLE AND WANTED TO
BE PREPARED, SO THE BILL IS
INTRODUCED ORIGINALLY CLEANED UP
OBSOLETE PENAL CODE PROVISIONS
AND UPDATED FIREARMS. RELATED
CROSS REFERENCES. THERE ARE
CURRENTLY A NUMBER OF OUT OF
DATE. CROSS REFERENCES ARISING
FROM THE COLLECTIVE PASSAGE OF
RECENT FIREARM LEGISLATION. THE
FIRST PURPOSE OF THE BILL IS TO
CORRECT THE SPECIFIC CROSS
REFERENCES AN UPDATE REGARDING
THE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED BASIC
OUT AMMUNITION ELIGIBILITY CHECK
FEE AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
PERTAINING TO THE DOJ IS
RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR ANIMATION
SEEM AMMUNITION TRANSACTIONS.
THE SECOND UPDATE IS REGARDING
THE PREVIOUSLY ESTABLISHED
PRECURSOR PARK FEES, AND THE
STATUTORY REQUIREMENT PERTAINING
TO DOJ IS RECOVERY OF COSTS FOR
PRECURSOR PART TRANSACTIONS. AND
THEN THE THIRD UPDATE US IN
REGARD TO LICENSED FIREARM
DEALERS AND LICENSED AMMUNITION
VENDORS WHO SHALL AUTOMATICALLY
BE DEEMED FIREARM PRECURSOR PART
VENDORS PROVIDE COMPLIANCE WITH
SPECIFIED AH AND ACCURATELY
CROSS REFERENCE REQUIREMENTS.
NOW ON JUNE 13TH, WE ADDED A
PROVISION RELATING TO
CALIFORNIA'S CONCEALED CARRY
LICENSING PROCESS. THOSE
PROVISIONS, WHICH ARE REFLECTED
IN THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE
BILL IN PRINT. CLOSE A LOOPHOLE
THAT HAS ENABLED SOME CONCEALED
CARRY WEAPONS LICENSES CCW TO
LIST ON THEIR CCW LICENSE
LICENSES, WEAPONS THAT THEY DO
NOT OWN A REQUIRE LICENSING
AUTHORITIES. TO GATHER NEW
FINGERPRINTS WHEN PROCESSING
APPLICATIONS TO RENEW A CCW
LICENSE, THEREBY STRENGTHENING
OUR LAWS TO ENSURE CCW LICENSE
ONLY INCLUDES FIREARMS THAT THE
LICENSE HE OWNS. AND ALLOWING
DOJ TO MORE EFFECTIVELY CONDUCT
BACKGROUND CHECKS HAVE RENEWED
APPLICANTS. THE BILL AS WE ARE
PRESENTING IT TODAY, BUILT INTO
THE INTO IT FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS
TO CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC CARRY
REGIME IN RESPONSE DIRECTLY IN
RESPONSE TO THE U. S. SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION IN NEW YORK
RIFLE AND PISTOL ASSOCIATION
VERSE BRUIN AGAIN. I WANT TO
COMMEND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND
HIS STAFF FOR BEING PREPARED FOR
THIS MOMENT AS DISAPPOINTED AS
WE ARE IN THAT DECISION. THAT
DECISION DOES PROVIDE US A ROAD
MAP FOR GOING FORWARD, AND
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
TODAY AND AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE
THIS BILL FORWARD IN BREWING,
THE COURT HELD THAT NEW YORK'S
LAW REQUIRING AN APPLICANT FOR A
CONCEALED WEAPONS LICENSE. TO
SHOW PROPER CAUSE IN ORDER TO
SECURE LICENSE VIOLATES THE
SECOND AMENDMENT. CALIFORNIA
SIMILARLY REQUIRES APPLICANTS
FOR LICENSES TO CARRY FIREARMS
IN PUBLIC TO SHOW A GOOD CAUSE,
AND IT IS LIKELY LIKELY
UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER BRUIN,
WHICH IS WHAT THE PROBLEM WE'RE
HERE TO SOLVE. OUR VIEW IS THAT
THE RULING HAS IMMEDIATE IMPACT
IN CALIFORNIA. THIS MEANS THAT
LICENSING AUTHORITIES CAN NO
LONGER REQUIRE AN APPLICANT WHO
WANTS TO SECURE A LICENSE TO
CARRY A FIREARM IN PUBLIC TO
SHOW GOOD CAUSE. BUT THE COURT
MADE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT OTHER
REQUIREMENTS THAT CALIFORNIA
IMPOSES TO SECURE CCW LICENSE,
INCLUDING PASSING A BACKGROUND
CHECK A REVIEW OF MENTAL HEALTH
RECORDS AND COMPLETION OF A
FIREARM SAFETY COURSE AND OTHERS
REMAIN CONSTITUTIONAL.
NOTWITHSTANDING THE DECISION,
WHICH WAS ARGUING FRANKLY, WHICH
WAS ARGUABLY A MAJOR SETBACK FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY, WE WERE PREPARED
. WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE ISSUE
CLOSELY FOR MONTHS. SO TODAY'S
AMENDMENTS BEING OFFERED BY THE
BY THE COMMITTEE REPRESENT THE
CLOSE COLLABORATION BETWEEN MY
OFFICE, THE GOVERNOR AND THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND A UNIFIED
LEGISLATIVE APPROACH. WE WORK
CLOSELY WITH THE WITH THE
COMMITTEE TO FINALIZE THESE
AMENDMENTS TO ENSURE CALIFORNIA
STAY SAFE FROM GUN VIOLENCE,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE RECENT COURT
DECISION DOJ IS GOING TO GO
THROUGH THE MORE SPECIFIC
DETAILS ABOUT THE BILL. BUT
BROADLY SPEAKING, THE BILL
ESTABLISHES A SYSTEM THAT IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME
COURT'S GUIDANCE AND BRUIN. IT
IS BOTH CONSTITUTIONAL. AND WILL
MAINTAIN SAFETY FOR CALIFORNIANS
. IT RESTRICTS PEOPLE FROM
CARRYING FIREARMS IN CERTAIN
SENSITIVE PLACES AND PROHIBITS
INDIVIDUALS FROM SECURING APART
PERMIT. TO ISSUE A LICENSE, UM,
WITH SPECIFIC CRITERIA, SO
THAT'S THE KEY POINT. SUPREME
COURT SAYS. YOU CAN HAVE
RESTRICTED PLACES AND IT SAYS
YOU CAN HAVE CONCRETE CRITERIA.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO
ADDRESS IN 9 18 TODAY AND WITH
ME TO TESTIFY. I HAVE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE, UM AMY ALLEY FROM
THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
THE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR.
MICHAEL READING, WHO'S A SPECIAL
ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL, AND THEY'RE GOING TO
WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THOSE
SPECIFICS, SO AT THE APPROPRIATE
TIME, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR AND I
VOTE AND AGAIN. UH SO WE HAD A
SETBACK WITH THE SUPREME COURT.
WE WERE READY. WE'RE GOING TO BE
CONSTITUTIONAL. WE'RE GOING TO
BE BOLD. B BUT THE SAFETY OF
CALIFORNIANS AT THE FOREFRONT OF
THIS DECISION AND I'LL TURN IT
OVER TO THE DUST TO THE JUSTICE
DEPART. COULD YOU THINK WE HAVE
A CORE? COULD YOU LET US
ESTABLISH CORAM'S JOHN SAWYER.
LACKEY HERE TO BRIAN. QUIRK.
SANTIAGO. SEYARTO. AND JUST
ALLOW ME TO GET THROUGH THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. AND THEN WE'LL
GO TO TESTIMONY. ITEM NUMBER
FOUR SP 96 GLASER. I DON'T
NUMBER FIVE SB 14 68 GLACIER. I
REMEMBER 11. SB 10 87 GONZALEZ.
I DON'T NUMBER 14 SB 14 27
KOBOLD. YEAH. CALLED ROYAL. AND
THE CONSENT CALENDAR. JOHN
SAWYER, I LACKEY LACKEY. I BONTA
BRIAN. BRIAN I QUIRK QUIRK,
SANTIAGO SEYARTO TOÀN ARE TÔI.
THE COUNCIL ADOPTED YOU MAY MR
CHAIR IF I COULD JUST CORRECT.
MISS ALI IS THE LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE DOJ AND MICHAEL
READING IS THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL. THANK YOU FOR
THE CORRECTION. QUÊ SENATOR.
GOOD MORNING. I'M CHAIR AND
HONORABLE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I'M
AMY ALI, THE LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, HONORED TO REPRESENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA,
WHO'S THE PROUD SPONSOR OF THE
BILL. I WANT TO START BY
THANKING THE CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
STAFF ARE HELPING TO CRAFT AND
DISTRIBUTE THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH
TODAY'S COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS, SP
918 DOES TWO IMPORTANT THINGS.
IT IMPROVES. CALIFORNIA'S
EXISTING CONCEALED CARRY WEAPON
REGIME TO ADDRESS THE RECENT U.
S. SUPREME COURT DECISION IN NEW
YORK RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION VERSUS BRUIN. AND IT
ALSO CLEANS UP OUTDATED
PROVISIONS AND THE ERRONEOUSLY
OMITTED CROSS REFERENCES VARIOUS
ONES IN THE PENAL CODE. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NUMBER ONE
PRIORITY HAS BEEN PROTECTING THE
SAFETY AND WELL BEING, OF ALL
CALIFORNIANS AND IS WHY AT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WE ARE
SEIZING ILLEGALLY POSSESSED
FIREARMS OUT OF THE HANDS OF
DANGEROUS INDIVIDUALS. THERE ARE
APPS ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS
DEFENDING THE COMMON SENSE GUN
SAFETY LAWS THAT THIS ESTEEMED
BODY PASSED TO KEEP EVERYTHING
FROM WEAPONS OF WAR TO GHOST
GUNS OFF OUR STREETS. AND IT'S
ALSO WHY A SENATOR PORTANTINO
MENTIONED THAT ALTHOUGH THE CASE
WAS A DISAPPOINTMENT, IT WAS NOT
A SURPRISE TO US. WE'VE BEEN
WORKING CLOSELY FOR MANY MONTHS
WITH THE GOVERNOR AND ARE
LEADERS IN THE SENATE AND THE
ASSEMBLY AND THIS COMMITTEE
PREPARING LEGISLATION TO KEEP
CALIFORNIANS SAFE, CONSISTENT
WITH THE COURT'S OPINION IN
BRUIN. THE SUPREME COURT IN
BRAND RECENTLY DECIDED THAT
LICENSING SCHEMES REQUIRING AN
APPLICANT FOR A CONCEALED CARRY
LICENSE TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE OR
ANYTHING SIMILAR TO CARRY
FIREARMS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL,
NECESSITATING A LEGISLATIVE
RESPONSE GIVEN CALIFORNIA'S
CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK. SP
918 WOULD ESTABLISH A MORE
UNIFORM AND EFFECTIVE LICENSING
PROCESS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE
IMPLICATIONS FROM THE SUPREME
COURT'S RECENT DECISION. I'M
SEEING AS THE COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS ARE NOT YET IN PRINT
. THE COMMITTEE HAS ASKED US TO
KIND OF GO THROUGH THEM IN A
LITTLE MORE DETAIL TO DESCRIBE
FOR THE COMMITTEE EXACTLY WHAT
THE AMENDMENTS WILL DO. SO I'M
GOING TO, UM, TAKE THIS TIME TO
GO THROUGH, LIKE FOUR OF KIND OF
THE KEY FUNDAMENTALS OF THE BILL
. FIRST OF ALL, FIRST OF ALL,
UM, SB 918 OVER PLACED
CALIFORNIA'S GOOD CAUSE
REQUIREMENT WITH THE REQUIREMENT
THAT THE LICENSING AUTHORITY
PRIOR TO ISSUING A LICENSE OR
RENEWING A LICENSE DETERMINED
THAT THE APPLICANT IS A
QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL BASED ON AN
ASSESSMENT OF DEFINED CRITERIA.
SP 918 WILL PROVIDE A MECHANISM
FOR ESTABLISHING A STANDARDIZED
CCW APPLICATION FOR YOU
STATEWIDE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE AN
APPLICANT TO LIST ALL PRIOR
ARRESTS. CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS IN
ANY RESTRAINING OR PROTECTIVE
ORDERS ISSUED AGAINST THEM IN
CALIFORNIA OR ANYWHERE ELSE. AS
AS WELL AS THREE REFERENCES TO
ASSIST THE LICENSING AUTHORITY
AND ASSESSING THE DANGEROUSNESS
OF THAT INDIVIDUAL. A LICENSING
AUTHORITY WILL BE REQUIRED TO
DENY A LICENSE OR OR RENEWAL
APPLICATION. IF THE AUTHORITY
DETERMINES THAT THE APPLICANT
HAS COMMITTED CERTAIN ACTS BEEN
CONVICTED OF CERTAIN CRIMES OR
HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CERTAIN
RESTRAINING ORDERS, ALL OF WHICH
INDICATE IN CALIFORNIA'S VIEW.
THAT IT IS REASONABLY LIKELY
THAT THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN OR
IS REASONABLY LIKELY TO BE A
DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.
IN MAKING THAT DETERMINATION,
THE LICENSING AUTHORITY WILL BE
REQUIRED TO CONDUCT AN IN PERSON
INTERVIEW WITH THE APPLICANT
INTERVIEW AT LEAST THREE
CHARACTER REFERENCES. AND REVIEW
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION
ABOUT THE APPLICANTS. SB 918%
WILL ALSO PROMOTE DUE PROCESS BY
ALLOWING ANYONE WHOSE
APPLICATION IS DENIED TO RECEIVE
A HEARING BEFORE A JUDGE OF THE
SUPERIOR COURT FOR AN ADDITIONAL
LAYER OF REVIEW. THESE NEW
PROCEDURES WILL ENSURE THAT
CONSISTENT WITH THE SUPREME
COURT'S DECISION IN BRUIN ONLY
LAW ABIDING AND RESPONSIBLE
APPLICANTS FOR FOUR MINUTES CCW
LICENSE WILL BE AUTHORIZED TO
RECEIVE ONE AND THERE'S ALSO A
MINIMUM AGE REQUIREMENT. UM SP
NINE WHEN IT WAS STRENGTHEN
CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC CARRIER
RESTRICTIONS BY SETTING THE
MINIMUM AGE TO OBTAIN A CCW
LICENSE AT 21. THERE'S ALSO A
GUN STORAGE AND TRAINING
REQUIREMENT. SP 918 WILL IMPOSE
NEW GUN STORAGE AND TRAINING
REQUIREMENTS FOR ANYONE WHO
OBTAINS A RENEWS A PERMIT TO
CARRY A FIREARM IN PUBLIC. IT'S
ESSENTIAL FOR ANYONE AUTHORIZED
TO POSSESS FIREARMS IN PUBLIC.
NO, THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THEIR
USE AND MISUSE AND HOW TO SAFELY
HANDLE, LOAD, UNLOAD AND STORE A
FIREARM. THERE IS ALSO AN
IMPORTANT PIECE REGARDING
SENSITIVE LOCATIONS. IT WILL
LIMIT THE PLACES IN WHICH CCW
LICENSES WILL BE AUTHORIZED TO
CARRY FIREARMS IN PUBLIC. AND IT
WILL DESIGNATE CERTAIN SENSITIVE
PLACES IS OFF LIMITS FOR
FIREARMS, INCLUDING SCHOOL
GROUNDS, COMMUNITY COLLEGES,
COLLEGES OR UNIVERSITY GROUNDS,
GOVERNMENT AND JUDICIAL
BUILDINGS, MEDICAL FACILITIES.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IN ANY
PLACE WHERE ALCOHOL IS SOLD AND
CONSUMED. WE'VE ALSO INCLUDED
PUBLIC PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS,
ESPECIALLY EVENTS THAT REQUIRE
PERMITS, SUCH AS DEMONSTRATIONS.
YOU'VE USED YOUR THE WHOLE FIVE
MINUTES. MR CHAIR. COULD YOU
GIVE THEM A FEW MORE MINUTES
THAT THIS IS PRETTY NEW?
OUTLINE. WE'VE READ THE
AMENDMENTS. WELL, I'M JUST
SAYING. WE GET WE DON'T WE HAVE
X AMOUNT OF TIME. A LOT OF TIMES
COMMITTEE MEMBERS WHEN IT GETS
TO 12 O'CLOCK. AND I KEEP PEOPLE
HERE BECAUSE WE'VE GONE OVER. I
DID A LOT OF COMPLAINTS, SO THE
RULES WERE A LOT OF AHEAD OF
TIME. SO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE
ANOTHER? QUESTIONS WE CAN ANSWER
THEM AFTER DURING THE HEARING AS
WELL DEEPER THAN YOU GET A
NUTRITIONAL, TWO MINUTES, WHICH
MEANS. BREGUET ADDITIONAL TWO
MINUTES. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
THAT'S YOU GOTTA BALANCE ALL
THAT OUT, OKAY? QUÊ CHAIR. OKAY
UM, I'LL CLOSE IN THAT CASE. I'M
KEEPING OUR CHILDREN AND
FAMILIES SAFE FROM THE RAVAGES
OF GUN VIOLENCE. IT'S
FUNDAMENTAL TO THE FUTURE OF
CALIFORNIA. WITH THESE
AMENDMENTS. SB 918 WILL SERVE AS
AN INSTRUMENTAL TOOL TO DO JUST
THAT, AT A MOMENT WHEN IT IS
MOST NEEDED. FOR OUR CHILDREN
AND FOR OUR FUTURE AND ON BEHALF
OF ATTORNEY GENERAL ROB BONTA. I
ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT OF THIS
LEGISLATION I HAVE WITH ME TODAY
. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SPECIAL
ASSISTANT MICHAEL READING. AND
ON THE PHONE TO ANSWER ANY
TECHNICAL QUESTIONS REGARDING
PROVISION IN THE CURRENT VERSION
OF THE BILL. WE HAVE MAIRA
MORALES, ACTING ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR WITH THE BUREAU OF
FIREARMS, AND SO I'LL LEAVE IT
AT THAT WE CAN BUILD IN SOME OF
OUR ANSWERS. IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF
THE BILL DURING THE HEARING.
THANK YOU. HONORABLE CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. I JOINED THE
COMMENTS OF MUSCLY THANKS,
SENATOR PORTANTINO'S OFFICE FOR
THEIR EFFORTS IN JOINING WITH US
, AND I WELCOME YOUR QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU WILL NOW GO TO THE
RUMOR ANY OTHER WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT OF SP 918 PORTANTINO.
GOOD MORNING CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
WHO RECKON MARCUS REPRESENTING
THE BRADY CAMPAIGN AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GOOD
MORNING. NICOLE KIDMAN IS ON
BEHALF OF EVERY TOWN FOR GUN
SAFETY AND SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING, CRYSTAL OPAL OTTO
WITH MOMS DEMAND ACTION AND
STRONG SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING.
JENNIFER BORNSTEIN WITH MOMS
DEMAND ACTION FOR GUN SENSE IN
SUPPORT. GOOD MORNING, KAREN
ZANOTTO WITH MOMS DEMAND ACTION
AND STRONG SUPPORT. MARY LOU
ROSSETTO. MOMS DEMAND ACTION,
FORMER POLICE OFFICER AND GUN
OWNER IN SUPPORT THANK YOU. FOR
NOW. GO TO THE PHONE LINES FOR
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT 18
OPERATOR. COULD YOU OPEN UP FOR
SB? 918 PORTANTINO? THANK YOU.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU
WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB
918, PLEASE PRESS 10 ONYOUR
PHONE. AND WE WILL START WITH
LINES. 75, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, REBECCA GONZALEZ WITH
THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
SOCIAL WORKERS. CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER IN STRONG SUPPORT, ALSO
REPRESENTING THE SACRAMENTO
CHAPTER OF THE BRADY CAMPAIGN.
THANK YOU. AND THAT IS ALL I
HAVE IN QUÊ. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU.
NOW HAVE WHAT WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. GOOD THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TESTIMONY.
I'LL GO. WHEN EVER YOU'RE READY
. YOU NOW HAVE SEVEN MINUTES. MR
CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD. DAN
REED, WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR
WITH THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION. HERE IN STRONG
OPPOSITION TODAY TO SP 9 18. AS
YOU HEARD, THERE'S A LOT TO
UNPACK WITH THIS AMENDMENT. I
THINK IT'S CLOSE TO 50 PAGES
BEFORE I GET INTO THE AMENDMENT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON
THE UNDERLYING BILL. THEY TALKED
ABOUT CROSS REFERENCES AND IN SP
9 18. THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT
CHECKS ON PARTS AND AMMUNITION
IN RELATION TO BE 16 69 WHERE
THAT LIMIT WAS TAKEN DOWN TO $1.
WE'VE WRITTEN A LETTER TO DOJ
SOME YEARS BACK. THEY'VE BEEN
OVERCHARGING. THEY'VE BEEN
CHARGING OVER THE $1. THEY'VE
BEEN CHARGING $19. CONTRARY TO
WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. BUT WHEN
YOU LOOK AT THIS LANGUAGE, IT
REFERENCES BACK TO AS THE STATUE
RED ON DECEMBER 31ST 2019.
THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS ON HOW
MUCH THEY'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO
CHARGE AND WHAT THAT MEANS AND
HOW PEOPLE CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND
WHETHER IT'S A $14 THAT'S IN THE
STATUTES OR WHETHER IT'S 19 AS
CALLED FOR IN THE REGULATIONS,
AND SO I THINK THAT THERE NEEDS
TO BE SOME CLARITY THERE AS TO
WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. MOVING
TO THE AMENDMENTS, THOUGH, AND
WE'LL TRY AND MAKE THE MOST OF
OUR TIME HERE. AH! YOU KNOW THE
BROOM DECISION SET OUT A CLEAR
STANDARD FOR THE SECOND
AMENDMENT HOW TO VIEW
REGULATIONS AND WHAT WE'RE
SEEING THIS AMENDMENT IS IT'S
NOT IMPROVING CALIFORNIA'S
CONCEALED CARRY LAWS. IT'S IN
DEFIANCE OF THIS COURT OPINION.
WE'RE SEEING A COMPLETE
REDRAFTING OF PLACES WHERE LAW
ABIDING CITIZENS CAN CARRY IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT'S AN
INCREDIBLY CONFUSING PATCHWORK,
AND I THINK IT'S INCONSISTENT
WITH THE TEST THAT WAS CLEARLY
LAID OUT IN BRUIN IS LOOKING AT
THAT HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND
WHETHER THERE WAS A SOCIETAL
PROBLEM. UM AND I JUST THINK
THAT A LOT OF THIS IS
INCONSISTENT, AND WE SEE WHERE
CALIFORNIA GOOD CAUSES IS OUT
THE DOOR, RIGHT? WE RECOGNIZE
THAT. BUT YOU ALMOST SEE THIS?
NEW LANGUAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED
INDIVIDUAL IS ALMOST JUST WE'RE
HAVING A SHELL GAME AS TO WHAT
IT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, UM, YOU
KNOW, THE SUPREME COURT TALKED
ABOUT AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD, AND
YOU'RE STARTING TO PUT IN
SUBJECTIVE QUALIFIERS. AS YOU
HEARD OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
THE DOJ TALKING ABOUT LOOKING AT
PUBLICLY AVAILABLE STATEMENTS
AND WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR
THE FIRST AMENDMENT? WE ALSO SEE
SOME OTHER AREAS THAT MAY NOT BE
PROHIBITING CATEGORIES THAT
MIGHT DISQUALIFY SOMEONE. UM
FROM THAT WE TALKED. WE HEARD
ABOUT SENSITIVE PLACES, AND THE
COURT STRESSED ACTUALLY, THAT
NOT ALL PLACES WHERE PEOPLE
CONGREGATE OR TYPICALLY
CONGREGATE ARE SENSITIVE PLACES
THEY REFERENCED IN THE HELLER
CASE. THEY TALKED ABOUT SCHOOLS
AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, AND
NOW WE'VE SEEN THIS COURT. LOOK
AT, UM LEGISLATURES AND PULLING
AND COURTHOUSES. AND SO WITH
THIS BILL, YOU'RE NOW TALKING
ABOUT PARKING LOTS OUTSIDE
RESTAURANTS, PARKING STRUCTURES,
EXTENDING IT OUT, TOO. UH REAL
PROPERTY IN THE STREET ON THE
SIDEWALK, AND SO I THINK THIS IS
DEFINITELY IN CONFLICT WITH
WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE, AND I
WILL TRY TO SEE THE REST OF MY
TIME OVER HERE, TOO, MR
PRENTICE, BUT ONE OTHER COMMON
IS UM, THERE'S NOT AN
OPPORTUNITY FOR A NON CALIFORNIA
RESIDENT TO GET A CCW AND THE
COURT HAS RULED. THIS IS AN
INHERENT FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT AND
RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
LANGUAGE, IT'S LIMITED TO
RESIDENTS OF THE CITY COUNTY
STATE. AND SO NOW YOU DON'T HAVE
AN OPPORTUNITY, AND WE DON'T
HAVE RECOGNITION OR RECIPROCITY
WITH OTHER STATES FOR SOMEONE TO
COME HERE AND EXERCISE A
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT
. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT
OVER TO MR CREDITS. THANK YOU.
HOW MUCH TIME DO I HAVE? MR
CHAIRMAN? 3.5 MINUTES. THANK
YOU. AWESOME. MR CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS SAM PAREDES,
REPRESENTING GUN OWNERS OF
CALIFORNIA. THE WORLD IS NOW
DIFFERENT. UM UH, THE WHOLE
ASPECT OF GUN CONTROL AND THE
SECOND AMENDMENT HAS CHANGED,
AND I THINK THE STATE
LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO HAVE TO
TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT. I WANT
TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT
SOMETIMES A HALF TRUTH. IS A BIG
LIE, SENATOR RICHARDSON IN HIS
BOOK, CONFRONTATIONAL POLITICS,
SAID THAT THAT HE GAVE THE
EXAMPLE WHERE A PRODUCER SAID
THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID THAT MY
MOVIE WAS COLOSSAL WHEN IN FACT,
THE NEW YORK TIMES SAID THAT THE
MOVIE WAS A COLOSSAL FLOP. SO
THAT WAS KIND OF A HALF TRUTH.
WELL THAT I HAVE TRUTH IS
ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE
AMENDMENTS OF THIS BILL, UH,
WHEN IT SAYS THAT, UH ANNA.
LOGICAL REASONING ON THE SECOND
AMENDMENT IS NEITHER A
REGULATORY STRAITJACKET AND THEY
PUT A PERIOD ON THAT. THAT
WASN'T THE END OF THE SENTENCE
AND A REGULATORY NOR A
REGULATORY BLANK CHECK. THIS
BILL IS GOING ALONG THE LINES OF
A BLANK CHECK. IT IS CREATING,
UM ALL KINDS OF NEW PROVISIONS,
ALL KINDS OF NEW RESTRICTIONS.
THAT HAVE NO ANALOG. TO THE
SECOND AMENDMENT AT THE TIME OF
THE FOUNDING. THAT IS THE
STANDARD. UM TO JUSTIFY
REGULATION. THE GOVERNMENT MAY
NOT SIMPLY PAUSE IT THAT THE
REGULATION PROMOTES IMPORTANT
ISSUES. RATHER THE GOVERNMENT
MUST DEMONSTRATE THAT THE
REGULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH
THE NATION'S HISTORICAL
TRADITION OF FIREARM REGULATION
ONLY ONLY IF A FIREARM
REGULATION IS CONSISTENT WITH
THIS. NATION'S HISTORICAL
TRADITION. MAY COURT CONCLUDES
THAT THE INDIVIDUALS CONTACT UH
, FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE SECOND
AMENDMENT UNQUALIFIED COMMAND.
PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, EVEN
JUST AS CAVANAUGH SAID THAT THAT
UH UM STATES EMPLOY OBJECTIVE
THEY HAVE TO EMPLOY OBJECTIVE
SHALL ISSUE LICENSING REGIMES.
THOSE SHALL ISSUE REGIMES MAY
REQUIRE A LICENSE APPLICANT TO
UNDERGO FINGERPRINTING AND
BACKGROUND CHECK OF MENTAL
HEALTH. RECORDS CHECK TRAINING
AND FIREARM HANDLING LAWS
REGARDING THE USE OF DEADLY
FORCE. HE ALSO SAID GOING
FORWARD. THEREFORE THE 43 STATES
THAT EMPLOY OBJECTIVE SHALL
ISSUE LICENSING REGIMES FOR
CARRYING HANDGUNS FOR SELF
DEFENSE. MAY CONTINUE TO DO SO.
LIKEWISE, THE SIX STATES,
INCLUDING NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA,
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY TODAY'S
DECISION MAY CONTINUE TO REQUIRE
LICENSES FOR CARRYING HANDGUNS
FOR SELF DEFENSE. SO LONG AS
THOSE STATES EMPLOY OBJECTIVE
LICENSING REQUIREMENTS THAT
THOSE USED BY THE 43 OTHER
STATES. NO OTHER STATE IN THE
UNION. USES THE STANDARDS AND
THE AND THE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
AND RESTRICTIONS THAT THAT ARE
BEING PROPOSED HERE AND TO THIS
EXTENT, OF THE 43 STATES THAT
HAVE SHALL ISSUE 26 OF THEM MORE
THAN HALF OF THE UNION. ACTUALLY
DO NOT REQUIRE ANY. REQUIREMENTS
FOR PEOPLE TO CARRY CONCEALED
FIREARMS IN THEIR OWN STATES.
THE REASON THEY HAVE A SHALL
ISSUE CONCEALED CARRY WEAPONS
PERMITTED TO ALLOW CITIZENS TO
ACQUIRE ONE SO THAT THEY CAN
HAVE RECIPROCITY AND CARRY IN
OTHER STATES. IT IS CLEAR THAT
THIS BILL DOES NOT RISE TO THE
LEVEL OF BEING ABLE TO PROVE
THAT THERE IS A HISTORICAL
ANALOG. ENDED IN THE COURT SAID
THAT WHEN YOU GET THEY WARNED
JUDGES THAT WHEN YOU GET THESE
CASES THAT ARE OUTLIERS. THAT
ARE OUTLIERS. THEY'RE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. UM WE WILL.
I'M SURE WE WILL FIND OURSELVES
IN COURT. AND AS WE PREDICTED IN
HELLER IN HILLARY AND MCDONALD
AND IN THIS CASE WE FEEL VERY
CONFIDENT THAT WE WILL WIN AND
THAT THIS BILL WILL NEVER BECOME
LAW. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
THANK YOU. I WILL NOW GO TO IN
THE ROOM PEOPLE IN THE
OPPOSITION OF SP 918 PORTANTINO.
UH SEE NONE WHEN I GOT THE 18 T
OPERATOR PHONE LINES. WITNESSES
IN OPPOSITION NAME AND
ORGANIZATION. THANK YOU TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION OF HAS BEEN 9 18,
PLEASE PRESS 10. WE WILL START
WITH LINE. 102, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
YES, I AM ABSOLUTELY OPPOSITION
OF THIS BILL. FREEDOM TO THE
PEOPLE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
LINE 1 13, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS STEVE ROD ON
THE LIFE MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL
RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND MEMBER OF
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION IN THE US NAVY
VETERAN YOU KNOW, I'M STRONGLY
URGING THE COMMITTEE TO OPPOSE
THIS ILLEGAL BILL. SB 918. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU HAVE
LINE 1 24, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN, MEMBER
OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE RECORD.
MY NAME IS MICHAEL FINLEY,
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
FOR THE NATIONAL SHOOTING SPORTS
FOUNDATION TRADE ASSOCIATION
WITH GUN MANUFACTURERS,
RETAILERS AND RANGES. WE ARE IN
STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
NEXT. WE HAVE LINE 1 18, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS
JOHN HICKMAN AND THE CHAIRMAN OF
THE NEVADA COUNTY GUN OWNERS
LIKE MEMBER OF THE NINTH
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION LIKE
MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION. OF IT HALF
OF THE MEMBERSHIP IN THE NEVADA
COUNTY. WE STRONGLY OPPOSED SB 9
18. THANK YOU. THANKS. SO GO TO
LINE 1 11, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING AND THANK YOU, CHAIR AND
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE FOR
THIS OPPORTUNITY. MY NAME IS
DARREN. BUT WELL, I AM A MEMBER
OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION AND GUN OWNER
HERE IN CALIFORNIA, CALLING INTO
URGE OPPOSITION TO SB 918.
THANKS AGAIN. THANK YOU. NEXT
MOVE LINE. 109, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO MY NAME IS DAN MCKINNON.
I'M A FATHER OF FOUR AND A
PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHER OF 16
YEARS AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT. WE HAVE LINE 1 10, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. TO THANK YOU. MY NAME
IS CARLENE ELLIS. I'M A MEMBER
OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION AND A
GRANDMOTHER AND A CCW HOLDER.
AND I STRONGLY OPPOSED SB 9 18.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE
HAVE LINE 88, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THAT ME? YES, IT IS. OKAY YEAH.
MY NAME IS BERNADETTE SHING AND
I'M IN STRONG OPPOSITION. I
DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT FOR THE
RECORD, THE OTHER ONES THAT
MIGHT THAT I WAS ALSO IN
OPPOSITION OF UM SO FOR THE
RECORD, I'M BRENNA DITCHING.
THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LINE 46,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR CHAIR OF THE
SYSTEMIC MAN. I'M THE CHAIR OF
THE SOUTH SACRAMENTAL CHAPTER OF
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION AND REMEMBER AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE LINE 1 16, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA
LIVINGSTON. I'M A CALIFORNIA
NATIVE. MENDOCINE Ó COUNTY
RESIDENTS. A PARENT. AND I'M IN
STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE 918.
I'M A LIFE MEMBER OF THE NRA
LIKE MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA
LIFELINE PISTOL ASSOCIATION AND
A MEMBER OF THE WELL ARMED
WOMAN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE LINE 1 22, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME
IS T. J JUNIOR. I'M A SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA RESIDENTS WHERE CRIME
IS GOING THROUGH THE ROOF. I AM
A STRONG OPPOSITION OF THIS BILL
. I'M AN F F L HOLDER, FORMER
LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER. I AM AN
F F L HOLDER FOR YEARS NOW ALSO
A MEMBER OF THE N R. A LIFE
MEMBER, ALSO A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RIGHT ROOM PISTOLS.
SOC ATION THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
1. 15, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 91 15
YEAR LINE IS OPEN. HI MY NAME IS
RICHARD HILER AS BORN AND RAISED
IN SACRAMENTO ON 60 YEARS OLD.
AND BY FRAGMENTING ALL OF THE
PLACES WHERE YOU CAN AND CAN'T
CCW. IT MAKES IT SO DIFFICULT
THAT IT DISCOURAGES IT, AND I AM
STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THIS BILL
RETURNED FIRE ON THE SPOT IS
WHAT SELF DEFENSE EARS. THANK
YOU. NEXT WE HAVE LINED 1. 12,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MY NAME IS
SARAH HUME, A MEMBER OF A N R A
IN CRP, A STRONGLY OPPOSED THE 9
18. THANK YOU. NEXT WAVE LINE. 1
14, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 91 14 YEAR
LINE IS OPEN. THAT MIGHT BE ME.
CRP A AND R A MEMBER. UM I CAN'T
IMAGINE WHAT THE COLONISTS WOULD
HAVE DONE WHEN THEY WERE ON FOOT
OR ON HORSEBACK AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. DAVID
PARKER, CRP A AND R A CCW HOLDER
FOR NEVADA AND FLORIDA IS AN OUT
OF STATE RESIDENT. BUT WHY DOES
IT COST ME OVER $500 TO APPLY
FOR A LOOK? THANK YOU. NEXT WE
HAVE LINES 61, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
DEFINITELY YES, IT IS. YES HI.
GOOD MORNING CHURCH REMEMBERS.
MY NAME IS SERENA LODGE CALLING
FROM PLASTER COUNTY AND YOU WILL
NOT INFRINGE UPON OUR SECOND
AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND THAT IS ALL THAT
I HAVE IN. Q THANK YOU. NOW
BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
MEMBERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR MR
QUIRK? YES I HAVE A COUPLE OF
COMMENTS. THE FIRST ONE IS
SENATOR. I LIKE YOUR TIE. UM
WHERE TO BEGIN. WE HAVE A COURT
OF POLITICAL HACKS ARRANGED BY
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WITH THE
MINORITY OF VOTES BECAUSE OF THE
SENATE. BEING SET UP IN THE WAY
IT IS. THEY OWE INHALER THEY
OVERTURNED OVER 100 YEARS. OF
JURISDICTION. AND IF YOU LOOK AT
THE WRITINGS OF MADISON, IT IS
CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PRIVATE
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. IT'S RIGHT
FOR THE MILITIA. AND THAT'S A
COMMENT, NOT A QUESTION.
FURTHER. THEY'RE NOW LIMITING
THE RIGHTS TO VOTE AS IN AND YOU
KNOW. THEY ASKED FOR THESE CASES
SO THEY CAN TAKE LIBERTY AWAY
FROM US SO THEY CAN TAKE OUR
ABILITY TO DEFEND OURSELVES. I
WILL NEVER FEEL SAFE WHEN
THERE'S SOMEONE WITH A GUN IN
THE ROOM. EVEN A POLICE OFFICER
WHO IS TRAINED MAKES MISTAKES.
AT ANY RATE THERE. IN THE
ABORTION DECISION. THE CASE WAS
MADE THAT THE CONSTITUTION
DOESN'T MENTION ABORTION. THAT'S
TRUE. IT ALSO DOESN'T MENTION
THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS THE
RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION MEANS THAT WAS
ESTABLISHED. EARLY IN OUR TIME,
BUT IT'S SIMPLY PRESIDENT THAT
CAN BE OVERTURNED, TOO. AND IN
FACT PRESIDENT JACKSON REFUSED
TO FOLLOW SUPREME COURT ORDERS.
I THINK IT THE COURT IS NOW SEEN
AS A POLITICAL BRANCH. I THINK
IT'S TIME FOR THE OTHER
POLITICAL BRANCH, THE
LEGISLATURE AND THE EXECUTIVE
JUST SIMPLY SAY THAT THE SUPREME
COURT NO LONGER DECIDES WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION IS. IT WILL BE
DECIDED BY LAW. THAT'S MY
COMMENT. THANK YOU. QUÊ BRIAN,
DID YOU. YES. UM, FIRST I.
CANNOT WAIT UNTIL MY TIME IN THE
LEGISLATOR REACHES THE POINT
WHERE I CAN SPEAK AS FREELY AS
MY COLLEAGUE FROM THE BAY AREA.
HEY, I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT IN
MY FIRST TERM, UM NO. NOW IS THE
TIME FOR COURAGE AND NOW IS THE
TIME FOR ACTION. OF A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION LIKE THIS IS GOING
TO BE TAKEN INTO COURT. THEN
TAKE IT TO COURT. DEFINITELY
SHOULDN'T DIE IN THIS COMMITTEE,
SO I WANT TO THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR BRINGING IT. AND I'M MOTION
TO MOVE THE BILL. THANK YOU.
SINGING TO RESTRICT MY COMMENTS
TO SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF
THE PROVISIONS OF THE BILL IF
YOU WILL. UM, YOU KNOW, FIRST OF
ALL, I YOU KNOW, THE GOAL IS TO
GET GET GUNS OUT OF THE BAD
ACTORS HANDS AND PUT THEM INTO
THE GOOD ACTORS. HANDS UM, AND
ALLOW PEOPLE TO ENJOY THEIR
FREEDOMS THAT THEY'VE THEY'VE
HAD FOR, YOU KNOW. MANY, MANY
YEARS DECADES. UM THIS BILL.
THERE'S A PROVISION THAT WAS
STRUCK OUT A STRIKE OUT, IT
SAYS, AND IT KIND OF MAKES IT.
SO OTHERWISE LOST LAWFUL
TRANSPORTATION OF A FIREARM
WITHIN 1000 FT OF A SCHOOL. IS
AGAINST THE LAW, EVEN WHEN
THEY'RE STORING AND DRIVING BY.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT PART
THAT GOT STRUCK OUT? I CAN SPEAK
ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE. YES, WE'RE FAMILIAR
WITH THAT. ONE COMMENT THAT MY
COLLEAGUE, MISS ALI DIDN'T GET A
CHANCE TO SAY. WE DID THIS AS
QUICKLY AS WE COULD. WE WERE
OBVIOUSLY AWARE OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF THIS DECISION. UM
IT CAME DOWN LAST THURSDAY WITH
THIS PENDING HEARING. WE TRIED
TO GET THIS LANGUAGE TO YOU AS
QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE SO WE COULD
HAVE THAT. IT WAS A FIVE DAY
TURNAROUND FROM WHEN THE
DECISION CAME OUT, WERE VERY
OPEN TO TALKING THROUGH ANY
ISSUES YOU HAVE WITH THE BILL
AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT,
ESPECIALLY DURING THE
LEGISLATIVE RECESS. SO WE ARE
AWARE OF THAT ISSUE AND LOOK
FORWARD TO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE IF IT'S
NOT AMENDED OUT AND REVERTED
BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. UH
MAKE MAKES THIS BILL EVEN WORSE
THAN IT ALREADY IS. AND SO IF
THAT'S A MISTAKE, THAT'S A BIG
MISTAKE. AND SO THAT NEEDS TO BE
, UH, BEFORE THIS CAN GO
ANYWHERE THAT NEEDS TO BE TAKEN
CARE OF. YOU CANNOT MAKE A LAW
ABIDING CITIZEN GOING HUNTING
THAT HAS ONE RULE ROAD TO DRIVE
BY THAT DRIVES BY A SCHOOL INTO
A INTO A CRIMINAL. CAUSE THEY'RE
NOT UM, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE
PROBLEMS. I HAVE. THE OTHER
QUESTION I HAVE IS OKAY, SO THEY
WANT TO TAKE THE INFORMATION
THAT CURRENTLY HAS HANDLED THAT
THE LOCAL COUNTY LEVEL. FOR CCW
. THEY WANT TO TAKE THAT. AND
NOW THAT ALL GOES TO THE DOJ FOR
THE DOJ TO REVIEW THE APPLICANTS
FILE AND DETERMINE WHETHER THEY
MEET. THE. AH THINGS TO BE A
QUALIFIED PERSON TO RECEIVE A
CCW IS THAT CORRECT? SO WHERE
DOES THAT? HOW DOES THE DOJ
DEEMED THAT THEY ARE QUALIFIED.
IT'S THE LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY WHO WOULD DEEM
QUALIFICATIONS. OKAY SO THE DOJ
IS ROLE HERE WILL REMAIN SIMILAR
. WE DO BACKGROUND CHECKS. WE
GATHER CERTAIN INFORMATION. WE
PROVIDE SOME TRAINING, BUT THIS
DOES NOT MOVE THE DETERMINATION.
FROM THE LOCAL LICENSING
AUTHORITY TO THE DOJ. YES IT
JUST IT JUST SETS UP THE
CRITERIA AND THAT WAS VERY MUCH
IN RESPONSE TO THE CRITERIA FOR
THE COUNTY LEVEL TO DO THE
STATEWIDE CRITERIA. BE IN
MINISTER. I MEAN,SO THIS THIS
STATE SETS A STANDARD AND THEN
THE IT'S ADMINISTERED BY ALL OF
THE COUNTY AND LOCAL AGENCIES
THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE CCW
PROCESS. IT IS NOW, RIGHT.
CORRECT. AND THAT'S VERY MUCH IN
RESPONSE TO THE OPINION, WHICH
SAID THAT WELL, THE CONCURRENCE
WHICH SAID THAT THERE NEEDED TO
BE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA, SO IT WAS
OUR BELIEF THAT LOOKING AT IT,
WE NEEDED TO PROVIDE OBJECTIVE
CRITERIA, WHICH WE DID. ONE OF
THE ISSUES I KNOW WE'VE HAD IN,
UM, IN SOME COUNTIES IS, UM THE
UNWILLINGNESS OF SOME SHERIFFS
TO DO THE PROCESS. AND SO THAT
PROCESS BECOMES ELONGATED AND
CAN TAKE AS LONG AS TWO OR THREE
YEARS, WHICH IS REALLY
FRUSTRATING FOR LAW ABIDING
PEOPLE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE
WE DON'T MAKE THAT PROCESS
WORSE. SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF
THE ISSUES THAT I HAVE WITH THE
BILL. ANOTHER ONE THAT I HAVE IS
AH! WHEN YOU HAVE A APPLICANT
FOR A CCW. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO
DETERMINE THIS SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED QUALIFIED PERSON LIKE IN
THE LAST 10 YEARS HAS MADE OR
COMMITTED A THREAT OF VIOLENCE,
SO THAT WOULD BE ABOUT ANYBODY
DRIVING DOWN THE FREEWAY THESE
DAYS. HOW DO THEY DETERMINE? HOW
THAT PERSON HAS MADE OR ARE
COMMITTED A THREAT OF VIOLENCE.
HOW DO THEY DETERMINE THAT? DID
THEY DETERMINE IT FROM SOMEBODY
WHO COMES IN AND SAYS, HEY, THIS
GUY TOLD ME THAT YOU KNOW HE'S
GOING TO BEAT ME UP. IF YOU KNOW
FOR CUTTING THEM OFF THE
OBJECTIVE CRITERIA THAT'S IN.
THE BILL SPECIFIES THAT IT CAN
INCLUDE PUBLIC STATEMENTS THAT A
PERSON'S MADE OBVIOUSLY PRIOR
CRIMINAL HISTORY. AFFIDAVITS IN
SUPPORT OF RESTRAINING ORDERS.
UM ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN
THERE IS A, UM YOU KNOW,
OBVIOUSLY. DUE PROCESS THAT'S
SPECIFIED IN THE BILL THAT SAYS
BY IF THERE'S A CHALLENGE BY A
PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE
THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO ESTABLISH
THAT. OKAY JUST JUST LIKE ANY
OTHER COURT PROCEEDING, ANY
EVIDENCE THAT THAT WOULD BE
THEIR PROCESSES IMPORTANT MHM
CRITERIA AND THEN YOU HAVE
METHOD OF ADJUDICATE. YEAH I
UNDERSTAND THAT AND ALL THAT DUE
PROCESS TAKES AN INORDINATE
AMOUNT OF TIME. WITH OUR SYSTEM
, BUT IT'S IT IS. I AGREE WITH
YOU, SIR. IT IS BETTER TO TAKE
THE TIME TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE
YOU GET IT RIGHT. UM BUT SOME OF
THIS IS PRETTY VAGUE AS FAR AS
IT WAS SOMEBODY COMMITTING A
THREAT OF VIOLENCE THAT'S THAT
CAN BE A BROAD, BROAD SPECTRUM
OF THINGS. AND ESPECIALLY IN THE
LAST 10 YEARS. THAT'S THAT'S I
THINK DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO
PROVE OR UNPROVED. UM THE
EXPANSION OF AREAS THAT A CCW
MAY NOT CARRY. SO THE GOVERNMENT
BUILDINGS ALREADY PART OF THE
LAW. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION,
PARKS AND SIDEWALKS. SOME PEOPLE
HAVE CCW TO PROTECT THEMSELVES
BECAUSE OF THREATS AGAINST
THEMSELVES THERE. IN A HIGH
PROFIL POSITION, A JUDGE, A
POLICE OFFICER THOSE TYPE OF
FOLKS I KNOW, POLICE OFFICERS
ARE HAVING DIFFERENT STANDARD
THERE. BUT. PARKS AND SIDEWALKS
AROUND PARKS. AS A PUBLIC SAFETY
OFFICIAL. PERSON I RESPONDED A
LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE SHOT IN
PARKS. OPEN AREAS LIKE THAT OR
WHERE YOU'RE MOST LIKELY TO GET
HIT. AND IF THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED
TO BE CARRYING IN ORDER TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES, THAT WOULD
SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT. UM
LEAVING THEM OUT WHILE PEOPLE
THAT DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. ARE
ARMED AND CAN TAKE THEM OUT AT
THAT POINT. WHY? WHY OPEN? YOU
KNOW, PARKS, SIDEWALKS OPEN
OUTDOOR PROPERTY CONTROLLED BY
THE STATE OF PEOPLE CAN FIGURE
THAT OUT. I WOULD TAKE THE
OPPOSITE TACK. BUT BY HAVING A
FLIP PERIPHERAL PROLIFERATION OF
WEAPONS IN THOSE PUBLIC
GATHERING SITUATIONS, YOU'RE
PUTTING PEOPLE MORE AT RISK.
THAN HAVING THAT BE INCLUDED
WITH THE OBJECTIVE CRITERIA OF A
SENSITIVE PLACE. FOR THAT THE
PROLIFERATION IS PROBABLY FROM
PEOPLE WHO AREN'T FOLLOWING THE
LAW VERSUS PEOPLE WHO ARE UM SO
AND I'D BE MORE AFRAID OF THE
PEOPLE THAT AREN'T FOLLOWING THE
LAW, AND THAT'S THAT'S WHERE I
THINK WE REALLY NEED TO BE
DIRECTING. OUR EFFORTS IS TO
ENSURING THAT THE PEOPLE THAT
ARE OBTAINING AND USING WEAPONS
IN AN ILLEGAL MANNER ARE DEALT
WITH APPROPRIATELY. AND WE ALLOW
THE FREEDOMS FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE
FOLLOWING THE LAW. AND ARE NOT
THREATS TO PEOPLE TOO. TO
PROTECT THEMSELVES IF THEY NEED
TO. SO ANYWAY, UH, LOT OF ISSUES
WITH THIS. I THINK THE RUSH TO
GET IT IN HAS HAS CREATED A LOT
OF, UM, PROBLEMS WITH IT. AND UH
AND SO I AM NOT READY TO SUPPORT
THIS RIGHT NOW. AS DEPUTY MEMBER
. APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN. YES,
GO AHEAD. I THINK THAT THE FIRST
ITEM THAT YOU MENTIONED
REGARDING GETS SECTIONS 6 26.9
PARAGRAPH TO WHERE IT'S
CURRENTLY DELETED IN THE BILL,
AND I BELIEVE IF THAT'S THE ONE
I WORKED ON WITH THE REPUBLICAN
CAUCUS CONSULTANT. WE ARE
REMOVING THAT DELETION. SO
PUTTING THAT BACK INTO SURE YOU
KNEW THAT. WELL, THANK YOU THAT
IT'S A RELIEF. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. ARE THERE ANY MORE
COMMENTS? YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK
YOU, MR CHAIR. UM AND THANK YOU.
TO THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION. FRANKLY,
IS GOING TO MAKE CALIFORNIANS.
AMERICANS LESS SAFE. BUT IT ALSO
PROVIDED A ROADMAP FOR US IN
CALIFORNIA TO TRY TO MAKE
CALIFORNIANS MORE SAFE. SOME
FOLKS USE THE WORD WINNERS.
THERE'S NO THERE'S NO WINNERS.
WHEN IT COMES TO GUN VIOLENCE.
THERE'S ONLY LOSERS. UM TRAGIC
VIOLENCE. SHOOTING. WHETHER IT'S
IN A PARK WHETHER IT'S ON
CAMPUS. HAS REAL CONSEQUENCES.
THESE ARE LIFE AND DEATH
SITUATIONS AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING
TO DO HERE. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO
DO WITH THIS BILL. IS TAKE THE
SUPREME COURT DECISION. AND USE
IT AS A ROAD MAP, SO WE HAVE A
BROAD BILL. THERE'S NO QUESTION
THAT WE WANT TO BE BROAD. BUT WE
ALSO WANT TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL.
WE WANT TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT
IS GOING TO WITHSTAND THE COURT
CHALLENGE THAT MAY OR MAY NOT
COME. UM BUT WE WANT TO MAKE
SURE THAT WE DO EVERYTHING WE
CAN IN OUR POWER. TO PREVENT A
TRAGEDY. AND YOU NEVER KNOW WHEN
YOU PREVENT SOMETHING, BUT YOU
KNOW WHEN YOUR LAWS ARE IN PLACE
THAT YOU ARE PRESENTING
PREVENTING IT SOMEWHERE. UM, I
WAS IN BURBANK. THIS WEEKEND.
WHERE A NEW GUN STIR OPENED 800
FT FROM A SCHOOL. AND PARENTS
ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR KIDS
HAVING A RIGHT TO WALK TO
SCHOOL. AH! TO CONGREGATE TO
PLAY. AND NOT HAVE A THREAT OF
GUN VIOLENCE, NOT JUST ON THAT
CAMPUS, BUT ON THEIR FROM THEIR
HOME TO THEIR SCHOOL. UM THOSE
ARE REAL CONCERNS THAT PARENTS
pUM YES, WE HAVE WORK TO DO.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE UP THE
BILL ON THE FLOOR THIS WEEK.
MADE WE WEREN'T READY. THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE WAS
READY FOR THE ACTION. WE'VE BEEN
WORKING DILIGENTLY SINCE
THURSDAY TO PUT THE AMENDMENTS
IMPRINT WE WANTED TO HAVE THE
COMMITTEE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING
OF WHAT THE BILLS TWO MAIN
THEMES ARE GOING TO BE, WHICH IS
THE SENSITIVE AREAS AND THE
OBJECTIVE CRITERIA. BUT WE HAVE
SOME WORK TO DO OVER THE BREAK
TO BRING IT UP ON THE FLOOR WHEN
WE GET BACK. UM OBVIOUSLY I
WANTED OUT OF THIS COMMITTEE SO
WE CAN CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT IN
GOOD FAITH. AS YOU'VE SEEN IF
THERE'S A DRAFTING ERROR, WE'RE
HERE TO CORRECT THOSE. WE'RE
HERE TO MAKE THIS WORK. BUT AT
THE END OF THE DAY, WE KNOW THAT
OUR EFFORTS TO HAVE PRUDENT GUN
CONTROL IN CALIFORNIA WORK.
THEY'RE EFFECTIVE. WE KNOW THAT
A MAJORITY OF CALIFORNIANS WANT
US. TO REGULATE AND CONTROL WHO
GETS A WEAPON. THERE ARE PEOPLE
THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN IN
THEIR HAND. BECAUSE OF THEIR
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY BECAUSE
THEIR MENTAL STATE BECAUSE OF
THEIR INTENT. WE KNOW THAT IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS,
THE PRESENCE OF A GUN IS A
DISASTER. WE KNOW THESE THINGS,
AND WE HAVE TO ACT ACCORDINGLY
TO PREVENT THEM FROM HAPPENING
IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S WHY THIS
IS IMPORTANT. AND SO KNOWING
THAT WE ARE GOING TO PUSH THE
ENVELOPE, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO
IT IN A CONSTITUTIONAL WAY. I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
FROM THE COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. I
THINK WE'RE WAITING. I KNOW MR
BRYANT, UM, MADE THE MOTION I
THOUGHT I HEARD MR CORK
ENTHUSIASTICALLY SECONDED IT.
OKAY? AH! YOU KNOW, UM. THERE IS
A LOT OF WORK TO DO, AND I'M
GLAD YOU'RE TAKING THIS ON
BECAUSE IT'S QUITE A BIT OF WORK
TO BE DONE OVER THE BREAK. UH
AND I WOULD TELL MY FRIENDS ON
THE OPPOSITION SIDE. I WISH WE
COULD GO WITH HISTORICAL UH,
CRITERIA. WHERE WE JUST GIVE
EVERYBODY A MUSKET. ONE SINGLE
SHOT. TAKES YOU A MINUTE AND A
HALF TO LOAD AND RELOAD. W
DON'T HAVE THAT. WHAT WE HAVE A
WEAPONS THAT COULD BE EXTREMELY
DANGEROUS TO A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT ONE TIME THAT'S ONE. TO UM
I LOVE MY COLLEAGUES OR 120 OF
THEM. UM, BUT. YOU KNOW HOW
TENSE IT IS RIGHT NOW TO HAVE 80
, ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S AND 40
SENATORS STRAPPED ON THAT FLOOR.
DURING SOME OF THE MOST HEATED
ARGUMENTS YOU COULD EVER HAVE.
WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA. AND SO
I THINK WHAT THIS WHAT THE THIS
RULING KIND OF DID IT KIND OF
RESET US SO THAT WE WHAT YOU'RE
TRYING TO DO TRY TO CAPTURE AS
MANY, UM PLACES. WHERE THIS
COULD BE DANGEROUS FOR FOLK, AND
THAT'S AN AWESOME TASK BEFORE WE
, FOR THE MOST PART, WE DEPENDED
ON LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. THINK
ABOUT IT. WE DEPENDED ON LOCAL
LAW ENFORCEMENT. FOR CCW S AND
OTHER THINGS, AND I WILL TELL
YOU ON CCW. THEY'VE DONE A
MAGNIFICENT JOB AND I DON'T
ALWAYS COMPLIMENT. LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THEY'VE DONE A
MINUTE MINISTER'S JOB AT MAKING
SURE THERE AREN'T ANY CCW
INCIDENTS AND SO I THINK. THAT
GUIDELINE AND SOME OF THE THINGS
THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT IS USING AS
WHERE YOU DON'T WANT OR WHO YOU
SHOULD GIVE A GUN TO BE REALLY,
REALLY IMPORTANT TO HELP YOU.
KIND OF NARROW THIS DOWN TO
SOMETHING THAT IS WORKABLE FOR
EVERYONE, BECAUSE NOT EVERY
PLACE IS WHERE A GUN SHOULD BE.
SO WITH THAT, UM CHEERS.
RECOMMEND I VOTE. LET'S MOVE
FORWARD. ON SB 9 18 BY SENATOR
PORTANTINO. THE MOTION IS DUE
PATH AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER SAWYER. I LACKEY NO
BONTA. BRIAN BRIAN. I QUIRK.
QUIRK EYES SANTIAGO. SEYARTO
TOÀN Ó. MEASURES ARE CALLED
NEEDS. TWO MORE. MR AMBERG.
BELIEVE YOUR YOU'RE UP NEXT AND. I NEED TO GET YOU OUT BECAUSE
I THINK I NEED TO SEE YOU LATER.
YEAH EVERYBODY'S GONNA SEE ME
LATER. 61 BILLS. REALLY? YES
REALLY. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU LET
THE ASSEMBLY SINCE SO MANY BILLS
OVER THAT. BUT THIS IS ONE OF
THE GOOD BILLS THAT CAME OVER TO
YOU FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE
SENATE. UM CHARLIE, BEGIN.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. I WANT TO
THANK YOU. AND I WANT TO THANK
YOUR STAFF PARTICULAR,
PARTICULARLY LEAH BURNLEY FOR
THEIR HARD WORK ON THIS BILL
TODAY YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU SB 986
PREVENTING CATALYTIC CONVERTER
THEFT IS I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS
THAT CADILLAC CONVERTER THEFT
HAS BECOME AN EPIDEMIC HERE IN
IN CALIFORNIA. HOWEVER THERE ARE
SIGNIFICANT LEGAL CHALLENGES IN
TERMS OF BOTH IDENTIFYING AND
PROSECUTING THOSE WHO STEAL
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS, ONE OF THE
CHALLENGES NOT BEING ABLE TO
IDENTIFY CATALYTIC CONVERTER TO
A VIA A PARTICULAR VEHICLE, AND
THUS TO A PARTICULAR OWNER. TO
FIGURE OUT THE TIME PLACE AND IN
PARTICULAR, THE PERSON WHO WOULD
BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT THEFT.
WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS THIS BILL
WOULD ADDRESS THAT ISSUE BY
REQUIRING THAT CAR DEALERS, UM
PROVIDE A PERMANENT MARKING ON
CATALYTIC CONVERTER. I RECOGNIZE
THE BILL SAYS ETCHING RIGHT NOW
WE'RE GOING TO MODIFY THE BILL
SO THAT IT'S A PERMANENT, SO
THAT'S PERMANENT MARKER. THAT'S
ALL WE WANT TO DO IS WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A
PERMANENT IDENTIFIED ON THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTER. SO THAT WE
CAN TRACE IT BACK TO THE OWNER.
WE'LL ALSO BE AMENDING THE BILL
. UM IN THE NEXT COMMITTEE.
SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE MOVE THE
BILL FORWARD TO ENSURE THAT THAT
WHEN IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCESS
THE CATHOLIC VOTER, YOU HAVE TO
ENGAGE IN SIGNIFICANT
DISMANTLING THAT THOSE ALSO BE
EXEMPTED. THE REASON BEING IS
THAT THIEVES TYPICALLY CAN STILL
A CADILLAC CONVERTER IN JUST TWO
OR THREE MINUTES. HOWEVER IF
IT'S SIGNIFICANT DISMANTLING IS
REQUIRED, THEY ARE LESS MUCH
LESS LIKELY TO STEAL THAT
PARTICULAR CATALYTIC CONVERTER.
IT IS ALSO REQUIRES. THAT CORE
RECYCLERS LOGGED THE UNIQUE
IDENTIFICATION NUMBER ON THE
CADILLAC CONVERTER AND DO AS
WELL AS OTHER, UH, CURRENT
REQUIREMENTS AND THE CORE
RECYCLERS. MUST PROVIDE PAYMENT
IN A FORM THIS TRACEABLE EITHER
BY CREDIT CARD OR BY CHECK THAT
CANNOT BUY THE CATALYTIC
CONVERTER WITH CASH WITH THAT I
HAVE TODAY. ALEXANDER KARTINI IN
FROM LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND AMANDA UH
, WHILE DRAMA WITH THE HONORABLE
CLUB SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA. YOU
MAY MORNING, EVERYONE. MY NAME
IS ALEX. CAR CANNON. I'M A
DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WITH
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE THE
SPONSORS OF THIS IMPORTANT-LEGISLATION. I'VE BEEN A D A FOR
29 YEARS, 14 OF WHICH WERE WITH
THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY AUTO
THEFT TASK FORCE. WHERE I SERVED
AS THE DEPUTY IN CHARGE THERE.
UM I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK TO YOU
ABOUT THE DRAMATIC INCREASE IN
CATALYTIC CONVERTER THEFT.
OBVIOUSLY I'M NOT GOING TO
BELABOR THE PROBLEM. WE ALL KNOW
IT'S AN EPIDEMIC. WE ALL KNOW
THAT. IT'S BEEN A DISASTER SO
FAR, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO TELL
YOU HOW WE THINK WE SHOULD
ADDRESS THE ISSUE. PROSECUTORS
ACROSS THE COUNTRY ARE ALL
FACING THE SAME PROBLEM AS
SENATOR MENTIONED UNLESS THERE
ARE IDENTIFYING NUMBERS ON THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS. IT'S
ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO
SUCCESSFULLY PROSECUTE THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTER THIEVES.
EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT YOUR CAR
HAS A AN IDENTIFYING NUMBER ON
THE DASH. IT'S CALLED THE VIN
NUMBER. BUT WHAT YOU MIGHT NOT
KNOW IS THAT SAME VIN NUMBERS
ALL OVER THE INSIDE OF YOUR CAR.
IT'S AN ANTI THEFT DEVICE.
VIRTUALLY EVERY EXPENSIVE
COMPONENT IN YOUR CAR. IS MARKED
WITH THAT NUMBER EXCEPT FOR ONE,
AND THAT, OF COURSE, IS THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTER. UM THEFT OF
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS. RIGHT NOW.
IT'S EXPLODING BECAUSE THIS
CRIME PAYS A LOT OF MONEY, AND
IT'S VIRTUALLY RISK FREE TO THE
THIEVES. UNLESS THEY'RE CAUGHT
IN THE ACT. POLICE CAN DO
NOTHING. BECAUSE WE CAN'T PROVE
THAT THE CONVERTERS ARE STOLEN.
AND WHEN THE PARTS ARE STOLEN
FOR CASH, OFTEN THROUGH
MIDDLEMEN AND TWO METAL
RECYCLERS, WE CAN'T PROVE OR
HOLD THOSE RECYCLERS RESPONSIBLE
BECAUSE WE CAN'T PROVE THAT THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS THEY HAVE
ARE STOLEN THAT THAT THEY SHOULD
NOTE THAT THEY ARE STOLEN. THIS
BILL ADDRESSES BOTH ISSUES AND
SHOULD HAVE IMMEDIATE IMPACT.
SHOULD THIS BILL GO INTO EFFECT
IF THE THIEVES ARE CAUGHT WITH
EVEN SOME CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
THAT WE CAN PROVE TO BE STOLEN,
WE CAN HOLD THEM RESPONSIBLE FOR
THEIR ACTIONS. ALSO WANTS THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS CAN BE
IDENTIFIED THE MARKET FOR THESE
STOLEN PRODUCTS SHOULD COLLAPSE.
NOW I WILL ADMIT THAT CATALYTIC
CONVERTER THEFT, LIKE ALL AUTO
THEFT IS NEVER GOING TO
COMPLETELY GO AWAY. BUT IF YOU
IMPLEMENT THIS BILL, YOU'RE
GOING TO DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE
PROBLEM. OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT
COLLEAGUES ALL ACROSS THE
COUNTRY ARE CONSIDERING A
SIMILAR APPROACH AND WE URGE YOU
TO DO THE SAME. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER
THEM. OTHERWISE THEY JUST ASK
FOR YOUR VOTE ON THIS, BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAYBE
AGAIN. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS AMANDA WELL DRAMA WITH
THE AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA IN SUPPORT OF SENATE
BILL 9 86 AS MENTIONED,
CATALYTIC CONVERTER THEFT TEST
SKYROCKETED AND ACCORDING TO THE
NATIONAL INSURANCE CRIME BUREAU,
CALIFORNIA WAS AMONG THE TOP
FIVE STATES FOR STOLEN CATALYTIC
CONVERTERS IN 2020. ALONG WITH
THE COST OF REPLACING THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTER. THERE ARE
OFTEN OTHER COSTS AND
INCONVENIENCES TO AUTOMOBILE
OWNERS WHOSE CATALYTIC
CONVERTERS STOLEN THE
AVAILABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY
OF CATALYTIC CONVERTERS IS
BECOMING CHALLENGING. IS LEADING
TO INCREASED COSTSFOR THE
REPAIR AND LONGER TIME FRAMES
FOR THE REPAIR TO BE COMPLETED.
AS ALREADY MENTIONED THAT
ITCHING ON CATALYTIC CONVERTERS,
IT CAN BE PART OF THE SOLUTION.
AND SO WE ARE IN SUPPORT OF THIS
BILL, AND WE URGE AND I VOTE.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE NOW
GOING TO WITNESSES IN SUPPORT IN
THE ROOM. NATASHA INSTAGRAM, BUT
HAVE THE PROSECUTORS ALLIANCE OF
CALIFORNIA AND STRONG SUPPORT.
MEMBERS CAROLINA SANCHEZ WITH
CORBYN AND KAISER ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA LOW INCOME,
CONSUMER COALITION. AND SUPPORT
THANK YOU. MORNING, MR CHAIR
MEMBERS. RYAN CHAIRMAN WITH THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT ALSO IN SUPPORT
FOLLOWING POLICE OFFICER
ASSOCIATIONS FROM CLAREMONT
GROWING UP POMONA PALACE FOR
EAST NEWPORT BEACH. UPLAND SANTA
ANA, BURBANK, INGLEWOOD, ARCADIA
, RIVERSIDE FULLERTON AND
CULVERT CITY. ALL IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'RE NOW
GOING TO PHONE LINES, WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT NUMBER 986 SV. THANK
YOU. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF
YOU WISH TO SPEAK AND SUPPORTIVE
SP 986, PLEASE PRESS 10 ON YOUR
PHONE. AND WE WILL START WITH 9
35, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. SHARON MEMBERS,
CASSANDRA SMITH ON BEHALF OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS ABILITIES
IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND CUE.
NEXT WE HAVE LINE 102, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. IN OPPOSITION TO THE
BILL. HEY HEY, IF YOU'RE
SPEAKING IN SUPPORT OF US BE 986
, PLEASE PRESS ONE AND ZERO AND
NEXT WE HAVE LINE 1 27, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
LIEUTENANT BRANDON UP ON BEHALF
OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF IN SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
AND CUTE, AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE
IN QUÊ. THANK YOU NOW GO TO
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. FIVE
MINUTES. TOTAL BREAK. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIR MEMBERS,
ANTHONY SAMPSON ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA NEW CAR DEALERS
ASSOCIATION. WE'VE HAD AN
OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED POSITION
SINCE THIS BILL WAS INTRODUCED
AND HAVE HAD SOME PRODUCTIVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE SENATOR.
HIS SPONSORS. I THINK WHAT THE
CALIFORNIA NEW CAR DEALERS HAVE
SAID SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING IS
THAT THEY AGREE THAT THIS IS A
SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN SPARED. IN FACT, WE'VE
SEEN CATALYTIC CONVERTER THEFT.
ON VEHICLE LOTS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND
APPRECIATE THE INTENT AND THE
PROBLEM THAT THIS BILL IS
SEEKING TO ADDRESS. THERE HAVE
BEEN A COUPLE OF ISSUES THAT WE
HAVE BEEN, UM HOPING TO ADDRESS
IN THE BILL. ONE OF THEM, THE
SENATOR MENTIONED. I'LL JUST SAY
THAT, UM YOU KNOW THIS THE
DEALERS HAVE COME TO THE TABLE,
AGREEING TO DO THIS WORK. IT'S A
SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK. I
THINK REASONABLE MINDS CAN
DISAGREE AS TO WHO MIGHT BE THE
APPROPRIATE ENTITY TO DO IT, BUT
WE HAVE COME FORWARD, SAYING WE
ARE WILLING TO DO IT. UM, THE
ONE ISSUE THAT THE SENATOR
MENTIONED WAS THIS VISIBILITY
ISSUE. THE FACT IS, IS THAT
THERE ARE CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
THAT ARE WELL INTO THE EXHAUST
MANIFOLDS. VERY, VERY HARD TO
ACCESS. UM AND SO THE AMOUNT OF
WORK IT WOULD TAKE TO TAKE EACH
VEHICLE BOTH NEW AND USED. AND
BE ABLE TO PERMANENTLY MARK THE
VIN NUMBER IN THOSE HARD TO
REACH CATALYTIC CONVERTERS. I
THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO
ENSURE THAT THERE'S A VISIBILITY
STANDARD OR SOME TYPE OF
STANDARD TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT THOSE CATALYTIC
CONVERTERS. THAT ARE EASIER TO
REACH. THE SECOND ISSUE. UM IS
THAT IF THE DEALERS ARE GOING TO
COME IN AND DO THIS MANDATED
WORK FOR THE PUBLIC, GOOD FOR
PUBLIC SAFETY AND FOR CONSUMER
BENEFITS. WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO
HAVE THE EXPRESS AUTHORIZATION
TO COVER OUR COSTS FOR DOING
THAT. THIS IS NOT AN
INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK
AGAIN. WE'VE HAD A PRODUCTIVE
DIALOGUE WITH THE SENATOR. ON
THAT ISSUE AS WELL. WE HAVE
MANAGED TO BE ABLE TO GET INTO A
SUPPORT POSITION ON THE ASSEMBLY
OF VEHICLE ADDRESSING THE SAME
ISSUE. WE'RE HOPEFUL WE CAN DO
THAT WITH THIS AS WELL. SO THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. YES
SIR. MR CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE JOHN MOFFITT ON BEHALF
OF THE ALLIANCE FOR AUTOMOTIVE
INNOVATION, WHERE THE TRADE
ASSOCIATION FOR THE AUTOMAKERS
JUST WANT TO ALIGN OUR COMMENTS
WITH THOSE OF OUR PARTNERS. THE
NEW CAR DEALERS OF CALIFORNIA.
UM YOU KNOW TO THINGS I JUST
WOULD LIKE TO NOTE UM, YOU KNOW
AGAIN, WE AGREE WITH EVERYTHING
THAT'S BEEN EXPRESSED. AND IN
ADDITION, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN
WORKING WITH THE WITH MR GRAY,
THE AUTHOR OF THE OTHER VEHICLE
THAT'S IN THE OTHER HOUSE ON
SOME ADDITIONAL CONCEPTS OF WAYS
TO THAT. THAT WILL, UM HOPEFULLY
KEEP CONSUMER COSTS DOWN AND
PROVIDE A WAY THAT MAKES THIS
PROCESS EVEN EASIER. IT'S BEEN
STATED OFTEN, YOU KNOW, FROM A
NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FOLKS THAT
FEDERAL LAW REQUIRES AUTOMAKERS
TO STAMP 18 DIFFERENT PARTS ON A
CAR. THAT'S TRUE, BUT FEDERAL
LAW GIVES US TWO WAYS TO COMPLY
. WE CAN EITHER STAMPED EVENT ON
ALL OF THOSE PARTS, OR WE CAN
PUT AN ANTI THEFT DEVICE ON THE
VEHICLE. MOST OF THE VEHICLES
HAVE AN ANTI THEFT DEVICE ON THE
VEHICLE. THEREFORE THOSE PARTS
ARE NOT CURRENTLY STAMPS, SO
IT'S NOT JUST AN ISSUE OF ADDING
A STAMP TO ONE MORE PART. THOSE
PARTS AREN'T STAMPED RIGHT NOW.
BUT WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED IN
WORKING WITH OUR MANUFACTURERS
IS THAT MANY, NOT ALL BUT MANY,
UH WHEN THEY INSTALL THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTER, IT IS
INDIVIDUALLY SERIALIZED. AND SO
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH
WITH FOLKS ON IS OKAY. HOW DO WE
ALLOW AS PART OF THE PURCHASE
PROCESS? THE DEALERS REPORT THAT
NEW CAR OWNER INFORMATION THE
THEN ALL OF THAT TO THE DMV IF
WE CAN ALSO REPORT THAT
INDIVIDUAL SERIAL NUMBER THAT'S
ON THAT CATALYTIC CONVERTERS SO
THAT THAT SERIAL NUMBER IS
ASSOCIATED WITH THE VIN IN THE
D. M V DATABASE THAT WHEN THAT
WAY WHEN LAW ENFORCEMENT FINDS A
CATALYTIC CONVERTER. THEY SEE
THAT SERIAL NUMBER. IT WILL TIE
IT BACK TO A VIN. IT WON'T
REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL
MARKING OR ETCHING, OR, YOU KNOW
A LITTLE REQUIRE A LITTLE EFFORT
ON OUR PART. LITTLE EFFORT ON
THE DEALER'S PART LITTLE EFFORT
ON THE DMV'S PART TO PUT THAT
ALL TOGETHER, BUT IT'S SOMETHING
THAT WON'T REALLY TOUCH THE
CONSUMER BECAUSE IT WILL ALL
HAPPEN BEHIND THE SCENES ND ITS
CONCEPT THAT WE'D LIKE TO
CONTINUE EXPLORING. WITH THE
MANDATE TO EACH AND MARK AS THE
BACKSTOP. BUT IF THAT IF THAT
SYSTEM CAN BE SET UP IN THOSE
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS ARE
INDIVIDUALLY SERIALIZED, THEN
THAT SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION TO
THE TO THE ETCHING AND ENGRAVING
MANDATE IN THE BILL, AND SO
AGAIN, WE LOOK FORWARD TO
CONTINUE WORKING ON THE BILL.
THANK YOU. TWO IN THE ROOM,
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. THREE
NONE WILL GO TO FULL ONLINE 18 T
OPERATOR. COULD YOU OPEN UP SP
986 NUMBER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU IF YOU
WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF
SP 986, PLEASE PRESS ONE THAN
ZERO. IN ONE MOMENT WHILE WE GET
LINE NUMBER ASSIGNED. WE'LL
START WITH LINE. 88, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. YOU GOT ME. YES, IT IS.
FROM. I'M IN OPPOSITION. THIS
BERNADETTE TEACHING ONLY BECAUSE
IT SOUNDS LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE
REVISED A LITTLE BIT MORE. THE
THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU AND
ORGANIZATION, PLEASE. NEXT WE
WILL GO TO LINE. 79, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING, MR CHAIR
AND MEMBERS ANGIE ANGIE MINETTI
HERE OPPOSED UNLESS AMENDED ON
BEHALF OF MEIN HEIM AUCTIONS,
WHO'S A MEMBER ALSO OF THE
NATIONAL AUTO AUCTION
ASSOCIATION AT THE NATIONAL AUTO
AUCTION ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU
AND NEXT, WE'LL GO TO LINE. 84,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. KAREN RYE WITH
THE NATIONAL AUTO AUCTION AT
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THE
WHOLESALE MOTOR VEHICLE
AUCTIONS, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. AND THAT IS ALL. I
HAVEN'T YOU? OKAY, WE'RE NOW.
BRING IT BACK TO MEMBERS. THIRD
LACKING YEAH. LET ME JUST SAY
FIRST OFF THAT CATALYTIC
CONVERTER THEFT IS REALLY A
SERIOUS CRIMINAL CRISIS HERE IN
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT
REALLY DESERVES THE. THE
ATTENTION THAT YOU'RE BRINGING
TO THIS THIS ISSUE AND I GREATLY
APPRECIATE THIS ATTEMPTED
REMEDY, BUT I'M I'M IN A
CONFLICT WITH THE FACT THAT
REASONABLE STANDARDS AND IT
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE ON ON THE
RIGHT COMMITMENT TO MAKE SURE
THAT THESE REASONABLE STANDARDS
ARE WHAT'S PURSUED. THERE ARE AS
YOU IDENTIFY. THERE ARE CERTAIN
VEHICLES WHERE THE EMBEDDED
NATURE OF THE CATALYTIC
CONVERTER MAKES IT BASICALLY NOT
ATTRACTIVE TO THEFT. AND SO. I'M
GOING TO SUPPORT IT NOW. AND I'M
HOPING THAT YOU WILL DO AS YOU
HAVE INDICATED YOU'RE GOING TO
DO AND AMEND THIS THING, SO IT'S
REASONABLE TO THE MANUFACTURER
WORLD AND IF THAT DOES NOT
HAPPEN, I'LL HAVE TO WITHDRAW MY
SUPPORT WHEN IT GETS TO THE
FLOOR. BUT AS OF NOW I'M
SUPPORTING IT BECAUSE THIS
REALLY IS A PROBLEM. AND I THINK
THAT YOU'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK.
THANK YOU. YES, MR KIRK. YES UM,
I'D APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD
USE THE LANGUAGE IN THE A B
VERSION OF THIS THAT AH, IS
CONCERNED ABOUT THE CATALYTIC
CONVERTERS THAT ARE HARD TO
REACH. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW.
FEASIBLE THE SERIAL NUMBER ISSUE
IS IF IT COULD BE MADE
COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT. THAT
WOULD CERTAINLY HELP US ALL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WITH THAT.
YOU MAY CLOSE. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS AND, UM THE
COMMENTS MADE BY MR. SAMSON, MR
MOFFITT. UM ARE REASONABLE COME
BOTHCOMMENTS AND CONCERNS. THE
CHALLENGE HERE IS THIS IS A
PUBLIC SAFETY CHALLENGE AND THE
AH! THE BURDEN OF ADDRESSING
THIS PUBLIC SAFETY CHALLENGE, IN
MY VIEW FALLS AT LEAST RIGHT NOW
ON THE CAR DEALERS AND I
RECOGNIZE THAT THAT THEY DIDN'T
CREATE THE PROBLEM. I RECOGNIZE
THAT THEY'RE NOT STEALING
CATALYTIC CONVERTERS. I
RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE ALSO
VICTIMS. BUT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS
THIS ISSUE AND AT LEAST FOR
RIGHT NOW, THE BEST WAY TO
ADDRESS IT IS TO HAVE SOME
PERMANENT MARKING ON THE
CATALYTIC CONVERTER. WHETHER THE
SERIAL NUMBER CAN BE TRACED
BACK. WE WILL CONTINUE TO
INVESTIGATE THAT. IN TERMS OF
THE, UM REQUISITE CHALLENGES FOR
THIEVES IN TERMS OF DISMANTLING
AND EXEMPTING THOSE WE ARE
COMMITTED TO DO THAT, BUT I'M
I'M I'M COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE
THAT THAT WE DO SOMETHING HERE
IN THE NEAR TERM TO, UH, PROVIDE
SOME UM SOME TOOLS TO BE ABLE TO
ADDRESS THIS EPIDEMIC. SO WITH
THAT, I URGE AND I VOTE. THANK
YOU. WE NEED A MOTION MOVED. AND
CHAIRS RECOMMENDING CALL THE
WORLD. ON SB 9 86 BY SENATOR
AMBERG. THE MOTION IS PASSED TO
THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE.
JOHN SAWYER, JOHN SAWYER. I
LACKEY LACKEY. I BONTA BRIAN
WORK WORK I SANTIAGO. SEYARTO.
MEASURES ON CALL NEEDS TO MORE
THANK YOU. MR ARCHULETTA, YOU'RE
NEXT. AND THIS IS ITEM 15. THAT
WITH GRANITE PERMISSION
YESTERDAY ON THE FLOOR SO THAT
WE COULD HEAR IT TODAY. THANK
YOU SO MUCH. MR CHAIR AND
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. THANK YOU SO
MUCH FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY.
UH ONCE AGAIN, I'M SENATOR BOB
ARCHULETTA AND I'M HERE TO
PRESENT SENATE BILL 11 33
RELATED TO STATES OF EMERGENCIES
TO APPROVE. UH, SECOND. GOOD. TO
CONTINUE? YES. UH I WOULD LIKE
TO START BY THANKING THE
COMMITTEE AND STAFF ARE WORKING
WITH MY OFFICE AND AGREED TO
ACCEPT THE COMMITTEE SUGGESTED
AMENDMENTS. SENATE BILL 11 33
CLARIFIES EXISTING LAW. WHEN A
STATE OF EMERGENCY IS DECLARED
TO ENSURE BETTER COMPLIANCE AND
PROTECTIONS FOR CONSUMERS IN THE
MARKETPLACE, THE ANTI PRICE
GOUGING LAW THAT IS TRIGGERED
AFTER STATE OF EMERGENCY IS
DECLARED PROHIBITS MANY
INDUSTRIES FROM INCREASING
PRICES MORE THAN 10% AND THE
PENALTY FOR VIOLATING THIS LAW
INCLUDES FINES AND JAIL TIME.
ALTHOUGH THE PRICE GOUGING
LIMITATION WAS ONLY INTENDED TO
APPLY FOR 30 DAYS, STATE AND
LOCAL OFFICIALS HAVE EXTENDED
NUMEROUS STATE OF EMERGENCIES
FOR UP TO MONTHS, EVEN YEARS. IN
FACT, OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS,
SOME EMERGENCIES DUE TO COVID 19
, AND WILDFIRES AND DROUGHTS ARE
STILL ONGOING. UNFORTUNATELY
EXTENSIONS TO THESE 30 DAY
PERIODS ARE NOT ALWAYS MADE
PUBLIC BY STATE AND LOCAL
OFFICIALS. THIS IN TURN LEAVES
BUSINESSES CONFUSED AND HOW TO
PROPERLY COMPLY WITH EXISTING
LAW. SENATE BILL 11 33 FIXES
THIS PROBLEM BY REQUIRING THE
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF EMERGENCY
SERVICES TO KEEP AN UP TO DATE
WEBSITE REGARDING ALL DECLARED
EMERGENCY PROCLAMATIONS.
ADDITIONALLY THIS BILL REQUIRES
SPECIFIC FINDINGS RELATED TO
HOUSING IN ORDER TO CONTINUE A
STATE OF EMERGENCY THAT EXTENDS
BEYOND ONE YEAR. THIS BILL
PASSED, UH, UNANIMOUS BIPARTISAN
SUPPORT OUT OF THE SENATE. AND
FOR THESE REASONS, I
REPECTFULLY AFTER I VOTE AND
WITH ME TODAY TO TESTIFY IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL IS DEBORAH
CARLTON. REPRESENTING THE
SPONSORS OF THE BILL. CALIFORNIA
APARTMENT ASSOCIATIONS. YES YOU
HAVE FIVE MINUTES, MR CHAIRMAN.
AND MEMBERS DEBORAH CARLTON WITH
THE CALIFORNIA APARTMENT
ASSOCIATION. THANK YOU FOR
HEARING US TODAY. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT SHEDDING SOME SUNLIGHT ON
WHAT IS BEING PASSED AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. LAST YEAR. THERE
WERE 561 PROCLAMATIONS, AND THAT
WAS JUST BY THE GOVERNOR ALONE.
THERE WERE COUNTLESS NUMBERS AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL, AND I SAY
COUNTLESS BECAUSE IT WAS HARD,
IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO KNOW WHAT
WAS IN EFFECT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
. IN FACT, SOME LOCALS HAD TOLD
US THAT THEY HAD NO
PROCLAMATIONS IN EFFECT, BUT
AFTER EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AND
TIME SPENT BY OUR STAFF, WE
DISCOVERED THAT THEY DID, IN
FACT HAVE PROCLAMATIONS AT THE
LOCAL LEVEL. TO BE CLEAR. SB 11
33 DOES APPLY PENALTIES TO
BUSINESSES AND STILL CONTINUES
TO DO SO. UM HOUSING IS IN FACT
INCLUDED IN EXISTING STATUTE AND
STILL CONTINUES TO BE INCLUDED.
IN THIS LEGISLATION AT
PARAGRAPHS STARTING AT E, UH,
PARAGRAPHS B TALK ABOUT GOODS
AND SERVICES AND MEDICAL
SUPPLIES. PARAGRAPH C. TALKS
ABOUT CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND
D IS ABOUT MOTELS AND HOTELS.
PARAGRAPHS E, VERY EXTENSIVE
PART OF EXISTING STATUTE AND
CONTINUING AS PART OF SENATE
BILL 11 33 APPLIES TO HOUSING
FOR ALL THOSE REASONS. WE
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR VOTE
TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU WHEN
I GO TO THE ROOM FOR WITNESSES
AND SUPPORT SB 11 33 ARCHULETTA
CNN WERE NOT WITH THE PHONE
LINES WITNESSES IN SUPPORT. A T
AND T OPERATOR. THANK YOU.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, IF YOU
WISH TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB
11 33, PLEASE PRESS ONE AND ZERO
AT THIS TIME AND WE WILL START
WITH LINE. 52, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO, LINE 52. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN.
OKAY? AND I HAVE NO ONE ELSE.
THANK YOU. BABE. THEM WELL, NOW
GO TO WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION.
WHO HAVE FIVE MINUTES TWO
MINUTES APIECE OR 2.5, MINUTES
APIECE, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANT.
GREAT. THANK YOU. CHAIR. GINA
ROSE SALAS WITH THE WESTERN
CENTER ON LAW AND POVERTY. AND
BEFORE I START MY COMMENTS, I DO
WANT TO THANK THE CHAIR AND HIS
STAFF WERE WORKING WITH US ABOUT
THE AMENDMENTS. BUT
UNFORTUNATELY THE PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS WILL NOT ALLOW US TO
REMOVE OUR OPPOSITION. UM REALLY
, AT ITS CORE. THIS BILL IS
ABOUT PRICE GOUGING PROTECTIONS
IN HOUSING AND THE DESIRE TO
MASK THE SPILL OR TALK ABOUT IT.
BEING ABOUT NOTICE IS UNDERMINED
BY THE FACT THAT SECTION B,
WHICH ADVOCATES SUCH AS MYSELF,
OFTEN RELY ON IS EXCLUDING
HOUSING. AND IT WILL
SIGNIFICANTLY WEAKEN PRICE
GOUGING PROTECTIONS FOR
CALIFORNIANS DURING DECLARATION
OF EMERGENCY AT TIMES WHEN THEY
NEED IT THE MOST, AND I CAN TELL
YOU THAT I HAVE LITIGATED CASES
IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY. WE'RE THE
ONLY THING PROTECTING MY 80 YEAR
OLD CLIENTS FROM BEING A VICTIM
WAS THE SECTION OF HOUSING IN
SECTION B, AND THAT'S BECAUSE
UNFORTUNATELY THERE TENDENCIES
DID NOT APPLY TO THE STATE
ORDINANCE, THE LOCAL ORDINANCE
OR ANY OTHER PRICE GOUGING
ORDINANCES. AND HAD SECTION B
BEEN REMOVED, THOSE CLIENTS
WOULD HAVE INEVITABLY FELL INTO
HOMELESSNESS. WE ARE SEEING SUCH
SIMILAR SITUATIONS IN THE BAY
AREA AND HAYWARD, UM, WHERE
PEOPLE ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO
PRICE POTENTIAL PRICE GOUGING.
IF SECTION B IS REMOVED, AND NOT
ONLY WILL IT WEAKEN THE PRICE
GOUGING PROTECTIONS, BUT IT ALSO
SINGLES OUT HOUSING AS THE ONLY
GOODS AND SERVICES THAT HAS TO
MEET VAGUE UNAMBIGUOUS AND
UNDEFINED STANDARD IN ORDER FOR
THOSE PROTECTIONS TO CONTINUE
APPLYING ONE TENANTS NEEDED THE
MOST. AND LASTLY SPEAKING AS A
LITIGATOR, IT IS UNPRECEDENTED.
THAT THE ABILITY TO PROSECUTE A
CRIME FOR PRICE GOUGING IS BASED
ON A WEBSITE BEING UPDATED AND
JUST IT'S UM IT'S DEFINITELY
GOING TO BE IN SOMETHING NEW AND
SOMETHING THAT I THINK DESERVES
CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION. DO WE
REALLY WANT TO LIMIT
PROSECUTORIAL AUTHORITY BASED ON
A BUREAUCRATIC WEBSITE? WITH
THAT. I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST
YOUR NO VOTE AND I WILL CONCEDE
THE REST OF MY TIME TO MY
COLLEAGUE. YES THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR, BRIAN AUGUST ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA RUL, LEGAL
ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION AND THE
NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT OR
ORGANIZATIONS ALSO REMAIN IN
OPPOSITION AND MY COLLEAGUE IS
LAID OUT. I THINK A VERY GOOD
CASE FOR WHY THIS BILL SHOULD
NOT MOVE FORWARD. BUT LET ME ADD
A FEW POINTS. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE
ANALYSIS DETAILS. WE HAVE SEEN
IN THE WAKE OF WILDFIRES
OPPORTUNISTS USING THE SUDDEN
RESTRICTION IN THE HOUSING
MARKET TO INCREASE PRICES
DRAMATICALLY IN BOTH THE A G. IN
THE LOCAL D, A HAVE SEEN ENOUGH
THERE TO PROSECUTE IT. AND SO
THAT WILL CONTINUE. THIS BILL
SIGNALS OUT SINGLES OUT. ONLY
HOUSING. NOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT
OF DISCUSSION ABOUT TRANSPARENCY
, BUT THE TRANSPARENCY AND HAS
BUILT APPLIES ONLY TO THE
APPLICATION OF 3 96 TO HOUSING
AND WE KNOW FROM YEARS NOW OF
WILDFIRE EMERGENCIES AND COVID
19 THAT, UM, PRICE GOUGING IS A
REALITY POST. UM EMERGENCY, AND
YET WE ARE SINGLING OUT HOUSING
AND INSTEAD OF MAKING ADDITIONAL
PROTECTIONS, WE ARE NARROWING IT
ANYTIME. THE LEGISLATURE MAKES
CHANGES TO THE LAW AND PICKING
UP ON WHAT THE SPONSOR CAREFULLY
NOTED IN HER COMMENTS. WE ARE
DELETING THE TERM HOUSING FROM
BE IN THIS BILL, AND THAT IS
GOING TO CREATE AMBIGUITY ABOUT
WHETHER THE LEGISLATURE INTENDS
TO INCREASE PROTECTIONS. WITH
RESPECT TO RENTAL PRICES OR
DECREASE THEM. SO WHEN YOU PUT
THAT TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL
FINDINGS, WHICH ARE ONLY
REQUIRED FOR HOUSING, AND YOU
PUT ON TOP OF THAT, THAT
PROSTITUTE PROSECUTORIAL
DISCRETION IS LIMITED. WERE
PROHIBITED. UM DURING THE STATE
OF EMERGENCY UNTIL A LOCAL
DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY IS
POSTED ON THE WEBSITE, THE ONE
AND ONLY THING ONE AND ONLY
THING OF ALL GOODS AND SERVICES
IN THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES IT
TO BE POSTED BEFORE. PROSECUTOR
CAN APPLY THIS LAW. WHAT DOES
THAT SIGNAL THAT THE LEGISLATURE
IS SAYING ABOUT PRICE GOUGING
AND HOUSING, IT SAYS. WE THINK
IT SHOULD BE TREATED VERY
SPECIAL AND IT SHOULD BE LIMITED
IN ITS APPLICATION. WE BELIEVE
THAT BASED ON YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE NOW OF PEOPLE BEING
DISPLACED AND SEEING RENT
GOUGING, THAT WE SHOULD ACTUALLY
BE AT A MINIMUM, PROTECTING
FURTHER AND POTENTIALLY
EXPANDING, AND INSTEAD WE'RE
CONTRACTING AND CREATING MORE
AMBIGUITY. SO EVEN WITH THE
AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE NOT
DESCRIBED IN THE ANALYSIS, WE
CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THIS BILL.
THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. NOW
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION THAT
ARE IN THE ROOM. SEEN NONE WERE
NOT WITH THE PHONE LINES FOR
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. THANK
YOU TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF SB
11 33, PLEASE PRESS 10 ON YOUR
PHONE AND WE WILL START WITH
LINE. 1 44, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? SORRY. OH SORRY
. YES, THIS IS A SHANTY SINGH,
CALLING IT ON BEHALF OF TENNIS
TOGETHER IN OUR 50 MEMBER
ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE STATE
AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE
LINE 1 42, PLEASE GO AHEAD. 91
42. GOOD MORNING CHAIR MEMBERS.
THIS IS MARIAN DINNER CALLING ON
BEHALF OF PUBLIC ADVOCATE.
SYRIAN OPPOSITION UNLESS AMENDED
. SB 11 33 THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WE HAVE LINED 1 43, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME IS
ANDREW MANURE. I'M CALLING ON
BEHALF OF THE THAI COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CENTER IN LOS
ANGELES, AND WE STRONGLY OPPOSED
SB 1133. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT WAY OF LINE. 1 41, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME IS
JOHANNA MORALES ON BEHALF OF
LEADERSHIP COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE
AND ACCOUNTABILITY AND POLICY
LINK. WE STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 11
33. THANK YOU. QUÊ NEXT. WE HAVE
LINE 94, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MARGARET AND MONEO
HOUSING POLICY ATTORNEY WAS
LEGAL AID OF SONOMA COUNTY WE
STRONGLY OPPOSES SO THANK YOU.
THANK YOU NEXT YEAR OF LINE 1
47, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS EQUAL TRAVELED WITH THE
BAND WENT THROUGH THIS COUNCIL
IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THIS
BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
THAT IS ALL I HAVE IN QUÊ. THANK
YOU. AH! NOW BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE MEMBERS. WOULD MR CORK
UNDERSTAND IT? IF A LOCALITY OR
THE GOVERNOR WANTS TO COVER AH,
RENT. IN THEIR DECLARATION OF.
AN EMERGENCY. ALL I HAVE TO DO
IS PUT IT ON A WEBSITE IS THAT
CORRECT? YES SIR. I THINK THAT
THAT IS ADEQUATE. IF THE
LOCALITY IS CONCERNED ABOUT RENT
, THAT'S FINE. BUT I DO HAVE
FRIENDS WHO HAVE JUST A FEW
APARTMENTS AND THEY'RE HAVING
PEOPLE WHO JUST NEVER PAY.
THEY'RE CLAIMING. HARD THAT IT'S
DUE TO COVID 19, BLAH, BLAH,
BLAH. THE MY FRIENDS ARE SURE
THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE THE
MONEY. UM WE CAN GO TOO FAR IN
ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER, GIVEN
THAT THERE IS, IN FACT, THE
ABILITY FOR LOCAL OR STATEWIDE
OFFICIAL TO SAY, UM, WE'RE GOING
TO INCLUDE HOUSING. I'M OKAY
WITH THE BILL. IF THIS WILL
PROHIBITING THAT THEN I WOULD
HAVE CONCERNS, BUT IT'S JUST A
MATTER OF DOTTING I'S CROSSING
TEETH, PUTTING SOMETHING UP ON
THE WEBSITE. THAT'S ENOUGH FOR
ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
SENATOR. ANYTHING ELSE? YOU MAY
CLOSE. YES, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD
AND ADD DEBORAH CARLTON TO GO
AHEAD AND ADDRESS. SOME OF THE
COMMENTS WERE MADE. SURE. YOU'RE
FINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE GOING
BACK BACK TO THE BILL. AS YOU
HAD MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE, THE
GENERAL PUBLIC SOMETIMES DON'T
KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHERE
THERE IS A STATE OF EMERGENCY,
AND WE'VE DISCOVERED THAT THESE
EMERGENCIES GO FOR MONTHS AND
MONTHS AND IN SOME CASES A
COUPLE OF YEARS. AND ALL THIS
DOES IS BRING THE PROBLEM TO THE
SURFACE BY HAVING THE CALIFORNIA
OFFICER IN BRITAIN'S SERVICES TO
UPDATE THEIR WEBSITE, SO
EVERYONE KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT'S
GOING ON. AND WHEN IT'S TIME TO
REMOVE SOMETHING, OR IT'S STILL
IN EXISTENCE, THAT'S WHAT IT'S
DOING. AND UH AND THAT'S
BASICALLY IT. IT'S NOT BEING
PUNITIVE. T RENTERS OR
LANDLORDS OR DOESN'T ADDRESS
SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES IT JUST
THE WEBSITE AND ONCE THAT'S UH
PUBLICIZED THEN, THEN THE
CONSUMER CAN GO FROM THERE.
THANK YOU. AYE. THAT WAS
DISCLOSED. I NEED A MOTION. I
FORGOT THAT. CHERIF. RECOMMENDED
RECOMMENDATIONS CALL THE ROLL.
ON SB 11 33 BY SENATOR
ARCHULETTA. THE MOTION IS DUE
PATH AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER LACKEY, I BONTA BRIAN
QUIRK. SANTIAGO CR TWO. HIS OWN
CALLS. MEASURES DON'T CALL. WE
NEED TWO MORE. THANK YOU. CHAIR
MEMBERS, MEMBERS. YES, THE
WINNER BELT.
SO WE'RE YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER,
SIR. ARE GOING TO RECESS.
BACK. WE'RE BACK IN SESSION. I
BELIEVE MR BRADFORD THIS YEAR.
AH! FOR S B 12 62 AND SB 12 73.
CITY.
IN THE BRADFORD. I HAVE SP 12 62
AND SB 12 73 WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY, TAKE THEM IN THE ORDER
THAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH
START WITH 12 60 TO 12 62 WILL
RETURN PUBLIC RECORD. ACCESS TO
THE STATUS QUO BY ALLOWING THE
SEARCH AND FILTER FILTER RESULTS
BY AN INDIVIDUAL'S DATE OF BIRTH
AND DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. AH
AND MAY HAVE 21. ALL OF US ARE
NONE VERSUS HAMRICK WAS DECIDED
BY THE CALIFORNIA FOURTH
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS AND
THAT RULING, THE COURT CALLED
FOR THE REMOVAL OF TWO
IDENTIFIERS. DATE OF BIRTH AND
DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER FROM
PUBLIC RECORDS. MANY COURTS HAVE
SINCE REMOVED THE ABILITY TO
SEARCH AND FILTER RECORDS BASED
ON THE DATE OF BIRTH AND
DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER. AS A
RESULT, INDIVIDUALS WHO NEED TO
UNDERGO BACKGROUND CHECKS.
PROCESS TO SECURE WORK AND OR
HOUSING AND WHO HAVE PROVIDED
THERE ARE IDENTITY IDENTIFIERS
FOR THIS PROCESS OR BEING
STALLED OR STOPPED COMPLETELY
FROM GETTING THE BACKGROUND
CHECK. THIS DELAYED
DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTS
INDIVIDUALS WOULD COMMON NAMES
AND PREVENTS THEM THESE
INDIVIDUALS FROM BEING ABLE TO
SECURE WORK OR HOUSING ON A
TIMELY BASIS IF ORGANIZATIONS
INCLUDING THOSE WHO ARE REQUIRED
TO PERFORM BACKGROUND CHECKS ON
APPLICATIONS CAN NO LONGER USE
THESE IDENTIFY IRS WHEN
CONDUCTING RECORD RECORDS
CHECKED. THEY WILL BE LEFT WITH
NOTHING BUT NAMES AND LITTLE OR
NO WAY TO ASSOCIATED COURT
RECORD WHICH SPECIFIC
INDIVIDUALS, ALL OF US ARE KNOWN
VERSUS HAMRICK DECISION DID NOT
PROHIBIT TO USE OF BACKGROUND
CHECKS ENTIRELY, NOR DID IT
PROHIBIT BEING ABLE TO SEARCH
THE COURT INDEXES. COMPANIES
NONPROFITS, APARTMENT OWNERS AND
OTHERS WILL CONTINUE TO PERFORM
BACKGROUND CHECKS ON APPLICANTS.
REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF
THIS BILL, WHETHER IT BE FOR
LIABILITY OR INSURANCE PURPOSES
OR ORGANIZATIONS WANTING TO
MAINTAIN THE SAFEST ENVIRONMENT
. THE HAMMER DECISION DOES NOT
CHANGE THIS PRACTICE. UM BUT BY
PROHIBITING THE USE OF THESE
IDENTIFIERS WHEN SEARCHING, WE
ARE ALLOWING A DELAY IN A
PERSON'S BACKGROUND CHECK BEING
COMPLETED AND THEIR APPLICATION
ACCEPTED. EVEN IF THE APPLICANT
PROVIDED THOSE IDENTIFY IRS
WILLINGLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF
BACKGROUND CHECK TESTIFYING AND
SUPPORT TODAY IS KEVIN OLIVER IS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CHECKER
ORGANIZATION AND OSCAR SCHUYLER.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. MORON GO
GAMING AGENCY I RESPECT LAST
FRIDAY. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES
SPLIT UP ANYWAY. YOU WANT SURE
IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE. IT'S
AN HONOR, AND I APPRECIATE YOU
GIVING ME THE SPACE AND TIME TO
TALK ABOUT THIS VERY IMPORTANT
ISSUE. MY NAME IS KEN OLIVER AND
I'M CURRENTLY THE EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR OF CHECKER .ORG, UM AND
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CORPORATE
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR
CHECKER WHICH IS A LEADING
BACKGROUND CHECK COMPANY IN
CALIFORNIA. WHAT'S INTERESTING,
AND MAYBE COUNTERINTUITIVE TO
CHECK HER AS A COMPANY IS THEY
EMPLOY MORE FORMERLY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE IN THIS
STATE? THAN ANY COMPANY IN
CALIFORNIA. WE CURRENTLY HAVE
ABOUT 6% OF 1200 EMPLOYEES THAT
ARE FAIR CHANCE HIRES STRAIGHT
FROM PRISON. PEOPLE HAVE
COMMITTED CRIMES LIKE MURDER.
PEOPLE HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES
LIKE RAPE. PEOPLE COMMITTED
FINANCIAL CRIMES, THEFT CRIMES,
ETCETERA. WE ADVOCATE FOR AND
HALF FOR SEVEN YEARS IN THIS
STATE FAIR CHANCE HIRING AS A
MATTER OF FACT. AFTER I LET A
HISTORIC EFFORT IN THE
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE LAST YEAR
FOR REENTRY PROGRAM BASED ON
TECH TRAINING FOR FORMERLY
INCARCERATED MEN AND WOMEN. THIS
STATE CHECKER REACHED OUT TO ME
DIRECTLY IMPACTED PERSON OF THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TO LEAD
A NATIONAL EFFORT TO NORMALIZE
FAIR CHANCE HIRING AND BRING
DOWN THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE FROM
27% CURRENTLY TO THE NATIONAL
AVERAGE OF ABOUT 5. THAT'S MY
MISSION AND MY MANDATE AND
THAT'S HOW I APPROACHED THE CHIP
THE GROUP TODAY. UM THE FIRST
THING I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS
THE FACT THAT THIS BILL OR TE
CHAIRMAN'S BILL 23 83, OR THE
FAIR CHANCE ACT THAT PASSED IN
2018 WAS NEVER ABOUT WHETHER
BACKGROUND CHECKS SHOULD EXIST.
OR NOT EXIST IN THIS STATE. OR
EVEN IN THIS COUNTRY. WE KNOW
THAT BACKGROUND CHECKS PREVENT
PEOPLE IN SOME CASES LIKE MYSELF
FROM ACCESSING EMPLOYMENT,
ACCESSING HOUSING, ACCESSING
CERTAIN SOCIAL SERVICES. AND THE
APPROACH THAT I'VE TAKEN IN MY
PERSONAL WORK AND THE WORK THAT
I DO FOR CHECKER IS HOW DO WE
CHANGE THE NARRATIVE WITH
COMPANIES AND HOUSING PROVIDERS
ABOUT WHAT BACKGROUND CHECK
REALLY MEANS AND HOW TO USE IT
AS A TOOL FOR INCLUSIVITY.
RATHER THAN EXCLUSIVITY, AND
IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT
APPROACH WHEN WE THINK ABOUT THE
WAY THAT I WAS BROUGHT INTO THE
SPACE. I WAS BROUGHT INTO THIS
SPACE TO BE PROUD OF WHAT MY
LIFE EXPERIENCE WAS. THIS IS A
DIFFICULT BILL FOR ME TO TESTIFY
ON BECAUSE I STARTED IN THE
ADVOCACY COMMUNITY. I HAVE
MENTORS IN THIS ROOM PEOPLE WHO
GAVE HIM MY FIRST CHANCE OUT OF
PRISON TO BE A POLICY DIRECTOR
TO BE A PARALEGAL AND TO DO SOME
OF THIS GREAT WORK THAT WE DO.
AND FOR ME. THE ISSUE BOILS DOWN
TO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.
A PERSON COMES OUT OF PRISON OR
FROM INCARCERATION. IF THEY ARE
TALKING TO A FRIENDLY EMPLOYER
OR FAIR, CHANCE, FRIENDLY
EMPLOYER OR HOUSING PROVIDER.
AND THEY'VE DISCLOSED THE LAST
FIVE OR 10 OR 15, OR 20 YEARS OR
30 YEARS IN SOME CASES OF THEIR
LIFE AND WHERE THEY'VE BEEN WHAT
HAPPENS TO THE BACKGROUND CHECK
PROCESS AT THAT POINT. RIGHT
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT WHETHER
THERE SHOULD BE A BACKGROUND
CHECK. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
PROCESS OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK.
AND SO CHECK HER BECAUSE THEY
CONDUCT BACKGROUND CHECKS, AS DO
MANY OTHER COMPANIES WANTS TO
PROVIDE THE FASTEST, SAFEST,
MOST RELIABLE WAY UNDER FEDERAL
LAW. ANOTHER CALIFORNIA LAW TO
PROVIDE THE BACKGROUND CHECK.
CHECK HER AS A BACKGROUND CHECK
COMPANY DOES NOT REPORT ARREST
RECORDS. IN THE STATE. THEY
DON'T REPORT EXPUNGEMENT OR
RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPANDED
. AND THEY, UM LIVE UP TO ALL
THE LAWS AND FEDERAL LAWS UNDER
THE FCC ARA ACT. HELD BY THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE
CALIFORNIA REPORTING AGENCY ACT.
AND SO WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THE
PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THINGS LIKE
THE FAIR CHANCE ACT AND THIS
PARTICULAR BUILDING SPECIFICS.
WHICH DISPROPORTIONATELY AFFECTS
BLACK AND NOT BLACK LATINO
COMMUNITIES, ESPECIALLY IN L. A
COUNTY. WHY BECAUSE THE MOST
POPULAR NAMES IN CALIFORNIA ARE
HISPANIC SURNAMES, AND THEY
DISPROPORTIONATELY STOPPED.
BROWN PEOPLE, HISPANIC PEOPLE
FROM BEING ABLE TO GET THEIR
BACKGROUND CHECKS IN A TIMELY
MANNER. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF I
WALK OUT OF PRISON AND APPLY FOR
A JOB BECAUSE I HAD DON'T HAVE A
COMMON NAME. I CAN GET MY
BACKGROUND CHECK IN THE DAY. TWO
DAYS. THREE DAYS I'VE GIVEN
CHECKER PERMISSION. I'VE GIVEN
THEM MY DRIVER'S LICENSE NUMBER
. I'VE GIVEN THEM MY SOCIAL
SECURITY NUMBER. I'VE GIVEN THEM
WHATEVER INFORMATION THEY ASKED
TO ACCESS THE BACKGROUND CHECK.
IF SOMEBODY HAS A NAME LIKE
GARCIA, THEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO
THE COUNTY CLERK AS A RESULT OF
THE HEMORRHAGE CASE BECAUSE THEY
CAN'T CHECK MY BIRTHDATE. THEY
CAN'T CHECK BY SURNAME AND IT
TAKES A MONTH O TWO MONTHS,
SOMETIMES THREE MONTHS. FOR THAT
HISPANIC INDIVIDUAL TO GET THEIR
BACKGROUND CHECK AND ACTUALLY
ACCESS WORK. THIS WAS ABOUT FOUR
MINUTES 4.5. OKAY AND THIS WILL
BE THE SAME CASE WITH THE
APARTMENT HOUSING BILL WHEN ONCE
THE APARTMENT PROVIDERS ARE
ALLOWED TO DO THE BACKGROUND
CHECK. IF THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO
CHECK BY BIRTHDAY OR SURNAME.
THEN THOSE HISPANIC INDIVIDUALS
APPLYING FOR AN APARTMENT OR
HOUSING WILL ALSO BE DELAYED. 2
TO 3 MONTHS, SO FOR ME, IT'S
REALLY ABOUT ACCESS AND ABOUT
HOW TO CREATE A FAIR ACCESSIBLE
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL PEOPLE WHO
HAVE SUFFERED ANY KIND OF
CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK THAT'S
FILLED WITH EQUITY AND FAIRNESS
FOR EVERYBODY. IN WAS THERE
ANOTHER WITNESS? I HAD OSCAR.
SCHUYLER. DETECTIVE DIRECTOR OF
MORON GO GAMING AGENCY. I'D BE
MRE THAN GLAD TO TAKE HIS TIME.
IF HE'S NOT HERE. WHAT CALLING
IN? HE'S TRYING HIS CALLING IN
TRYING TO GET THE NUMBER NOW.
WERE AWESOME, AND YOU'RE AT FIVE
MINUTES. YOU USED UP EVERYONE'S
DONE, BUT I'LL LET ALLOW HIM TO
COME IN AND SPEAK AS HE'S ON THE
LINE. GIVE HIM A MINUTE. IF HE'S
NOT HERE. OPERATE. YOU HAVE
ANYONE? MY NAME IS OSCAR. YOU'RE
GOING TO WHAT? GENERALLY NOT.
THE WITNESS IS ALWAYS ON THE
GENERAL LIFE. OKAY SO WHEN WE GO
TO THE OPEN LINE WILL COME IN.
WE'LL GIVE HIM A FEW MINUTES TO
TALK. ANYONE ELSE IN THE
COMMITTEE ROOM AND FAVOR OF AH!
OF SP 12 62 BRADFORD. GOOD
MORNING, DEBRA CARLTON WITH THE
CALIFORNIA APARTMENT ASSOCIATION
AND SUPPORT THANK THANK YOU.
ANYONE ELSE IN THE ROOM. THEN
WE'LL GO TO THE PHONE LINES IN
SUPPORT OF 12 62. BRADFORD.
THANK YOU IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SB 12 62, PLEASE
PRESS ONE AND ZERO ON YOUR
PHONE. HAD ONE MOMENT WHILE WE
GET LINE NUMBERS.
AND WE'LL START WITH LINE 1 56,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI THIS IS ERIC
ELLMAN CONSUMER DATA INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATIONS. CD I A. WE ARE A
TRADE ASSOCIATION OF CONSUMER
REPORTING AGENCIES, INCLUDING
BACKGROUND CHECK COMPANIES. WE
STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL, AND
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMITTEE MAY
HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
WE'LL GO TO LINE 1 64, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI AND SELF CHECKOUT WITH
THE LOS ANGELES AREA CHAMBER OF
COMMERCE AND SUPPORT THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT. WE HAVE LINE 1
62, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU.
GOOD AFTERNOON, ACTUALLY. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS
BERNIE ROSCOE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA CABLE AND
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
AND STRONG SUPPORT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT. WE HAVE LINE 1
59, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. ACTUALLY HOFFMAN ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA CHAMBER
OF COMMERCE AND SUPPORT THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE
LINE 1 19, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
EMILY BELL ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA CREDIT UNION LEAGUE.
THANK YOU. AND THAT IS EVERYONE
I HAVE IN QUÊ. THANK YOU. UM
WELL, WE'LL NOW BRING IT BACK.
THE WITNESSES AND OPTIMUM SORRY
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. T SB.
12 62. HAVE A SEAT. YEAH. FIVE
MINUTES. MY NAME IS DORSEY. NON,
UM AND I'M FOUNDING MEMBER OF
ALL OF US NONE. UM I'M HERE. TO
EXPRESS MY OPPOSITION. UM. WHAT
PROBABLY STARTED OUT AS AN
INDUSTRY TO BE SOMETHING THAT
PROTECTED ALL OF US. BECAUSE I
KNOW WHEN I SEEN THAT INDUSTRY
MUSHROOM I'VE BEEN DOING, UH,
FIGHTING FOR THE FULL
RESTORATION OF SILVER AND HUMAN
RIGHTS OF FORMERLY INCARCERATED
PEOPLE FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS.
AND WHEN IT FIRST CAME INTO
BEING AS AN INDUSTRY WHAT MAINLY
Y'ALL WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT?
THAT TIME WAS 9 11. YOU KNOW,
AND THAT'S THE INDUSTRY GREW, SO
DIDN'T A VIOLATION OF OUR
PRIVACY. HAVE FUNDAMENTAL
PRIVACY. YOU KNOW, UH, SOME OF
MY WORK ALREADY SEEN COME
THROUGH HERE. INITIATED THE
CAMPAIGN TO BAN THE BOX. IN
WHICH WE HAVE 37 STATES ARE
THAT'S OPERATING UP UNDER THE
BAN THE BOX OPPORTUNITIES I'M
ALSO A PERSON WHO ACTUALLY, UH,
CAME THROUGH HERE THAT DID
SHACKLING TO STOP SHACKLING FOR
PREGNANT WOMEN. SO AT A CERTAIN
POINT WHEN WE START TALKING
ABOUT THIS BACKGROUND CHECKING
STUFF. AH WE'RE NO LONGER
TALKING ABOUT YOU KNOW, UH,
SAFETY YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
VIOLATING PEOPLE'S PRIVACY ON
THE REAL LEVEL. UH, WHEN THEY
SAY THEY'RE THE LARGEST
EMPLOYER. OF FORMERLY
INCARCERATED PEOPLE. I GOT 12
CHAPTERS OF ALL OF A SUDDEN,
NONE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
30 CHAPTERS OVERALL AND I
STRETCH FROM ONE END OF THE
STATE TO THE OTHER END OF THE
STATE. IN RELATIONSHIP TO THIS
ISSUE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING
THAT FORMERLY INCARCERATED
PEOPLE ARE JUMPING UP AND DOWN
THE HALF. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
BACKGROUND CHECKING INDUSTRY IS
MOVING. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT
LANDLORDS ARE MOVING THE TOOLS
THAT THEY USE WITH THE
BACKGROUND CHECKS WILL CONTINUE
TO DOCK DENIALS HOUSING IT WILL
CONTINUE TO DENY US EMPLOYMENT.
CONTINUE TO SUPPORT. UH
STRUCTURAL DISCRIMINATION. SO
I'M IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE
CONTINUATION OF REMOVING, UH AND
MAKING IT AS UH, EXPEDITIONS AS
POSSIBLE. IS INEXPENSIVE AS
POSSIBLE. BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE
STILL STRUGGLING WITH THE
PRESUMPTION OF REAL ABILITY,
ATION UPON THE COMPLETION OF A
SENTENCE. AND SOME OF US ARE
EMBRACING IT. ABSOLUTELY AND IF,
UM MY COLLEAGUE. MY FORMER
COLLEAGUE FELT UNCOMFORTABLE
WITH IT. I FEEL EXTREMELY
UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE I DIDN'T
THINK THAT I'D BE STEPPING INTO
SPACE AGAIN. YOU KNOW, BECAUSE
BELIEVE IT OR NOT, Y'ALL ARE
STILL DISCUSSION. WHETHER OR NOT
I'M A SLAVE. SO I AM ABSOLUTELY
UNCOMFORTABLE BEING HERE AND
ACTUALLY TESTIFIED BETWEEN
BEFORE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE
ACTUALLY THANK GOVERNANCE THAT
STUFF. SO AT A CERTAIN POINT
RATHER THAN NOT. THIS THING
PASSED OR NOT? I'M STILL GONNA
BE SUBJECT TO STRUCTURAL
DISCRIMINATION BASED ON THE
CONVICTION HISTORY. NO MATTER
HOW MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS I HAVE
, AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN
DOING IT FOR 40 YEARS, UH, AT
THIS PARTICULAR POINT ON THE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF LEGAL
SERVICES FOR PRISONERS WITH
CHILDREN ARE PROUD, FOUNDING
MEMBER OF ALL OF US AND NONE OF
FOUNDING BOARD MEMBER OF FREE AT
LAST, AND I GOT CREDENTIALS THAT
STRETCH OVER 40 YEARS SINCE I
I'VE BEEN OUT AND OPERATING. SO
AT A CERTAIN POINT. WHEN DO I
GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY
HAVE ACCESS TO WHAT EVERYBODY
ELSE HAVE ACCESS TO? AND I THINK
THAT THE BACKGROUND CHECKING%
SERVICES, UH, IS SURRENDERING A
LOT AND YOU'VE GIVEN UP A LOT.
IN RELATIONSHIP TO PRIVACY RIGHT
NOW, RATHER TO BE RIGHT HERE IN
THIS MOMENT AROUND WHETHER YOU
WANT TO CHECK CONVICTION
HISTORIES. OR WHETHER YOU'RE
DOING IT TO WOMEN. YOU GIVEN UP
A LOT IN RELATIONSHIP TO PRIVACY
OUT OF YOUR FEAR. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. UM ARE THERE ANY
OTHER WITNESSES IN THE ROOM AND
OPPOSITION? SEE. NONE WILL GO TO
THE PHONE LINES, WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. 18 T OPERATOR. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION OF SP 12 62 PLEASE
PRESS 10. AND WE WILL GO WITH
LINE 1 68, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING CHAIR AND MEMBERS. UH
AND LITTLE WITH CALIFORNIANS FOR
SAFETY AND JUSTICE AND
RESPECTFUL OPPOSITION. THANK YOU
AND NEXT WAY OF LINE 1 54,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES NATALIE
ROBERTS FROM, UH, A NEW WAY OF
LIFE REENTRY PROJECT IN LOS
ANGELES AND WE OPPOSE SB 12 62.
THANK YOU AND NEXT TO LINE 1 58,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD MORNING,
GAIL YOUNG WITH ROONE REBOUND
AND STRONG OPPOSITION SP 12 62.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT
SWIVELING AND 1 65, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HI. THIS IS PAM LOCKMAN
FROM THE CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES CALLING AND STRONG
OPPOSITION TO 12 62. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. WE HAVE LINED 1 70,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MINUTE THE
NIGHT CALLING FROM COMMUNITY
LEGAL SERVICES AND PALO ALTO
CALLING AND STRONG OPPOSITION TO
SB 12 62. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR YOUR LINE. 1 61,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YEAH GOOD
MORNING. THIS IS JOSEPH PAUL
FROM THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL
RAINTREE PARTNERSHIP IN L. A
COUNTY AND WE ARE STRONGLY IN
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL. THANK
YOU NEXT TO SIGN 88, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. IS THAT ME? YES, IT IS.
OH OKAY. UM YEAH, UM,
ORGANIZATION. LISTEN HELLO?
YEAH, I LISTENED TO BOOK HOW CAN
YOU HEAR ME? ARE WE NEED IS YOUR
NAME AND ORGANIZATION? YES. MY
NAME IS BERNADETTE SHING. AND
UM, I AM FOR IT. I LISTENED TO
BOTH SIDES. I COMPLETELY
UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, I
UNDERSTAND BOTH SIDES. BUT I
YEAH, I'M FOR IT. THANK YOU.
THANKS. WE HAVE LINE 1 63,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI THERE. MY
NAME IS BETH AVERY, SENIOR
SECRETARY WITH THE NATIONAL
EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT IN OUR
CALIFORNIA OFFICE AND CALLING AN
OPPOSITION TO SB 12. THANK YOU.
AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE IN QUÊ.
THANK YOU. NOW BRING IT BACK TO
COMMITTEE FOR QUESTIONS, MR
QUIRK. UM SO, SENATOR, UM,
ACCORDING TO THE ANALYSIS HERE,
DOJ HAS A DATABASE THAT CAN BE
SEARCHED FOR. I USED TO GET A
SECURITY CLEARANCE EVERY FIVE
YEARS. UM. SO DOJ DOES HAVE A
DATABASE. AND THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN THAT AND THE COURT
RECORD IS THE COURT RECORD IS
PUBLIC. THE DOJ DATABASE IS
RESTRICTED TO CERTAIN PEOPLE.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT ALL THE
RESTRICTIONS ARE. BUT GIVEN THAT
THE DOJ DATABASES AVAILABLE T
AUTHORIZED PARTIES TO CHECK. UH
GIVE ME EXAMPLE CABLE COMPANIES,
NURSES NURSING ETCETERA. UM.
GIVEN THAT THAT'S AVAILABLE. WHY
DO WE NEED THE COURT RECORDS?
POSITION IT TOO FAR MORE
CUMBERSOME PROCESS TO GO THROUGH
DOJ VERSUS THE REGULAR PUBLIC
DATABASE, SO WE'RE TRYING TO
EXPEDITE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE
JUST TRYING TO SECURE HOUSING OR
TRYING TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT. SO
THAT WAS THE REASON UH, THAT WAS
THAT WE DISCUSSED IT WAS MORE
CONVERSANT. YEAH I THINK IFI
COULD ADD ANYTHING TO SENATOR
BRADFORD'S POINT, IT IS ABOUT
ACCESS. MHM. IT'S ABOUT
EQUITABLE ACCESS. AND YOU KNOW,
DURING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING
THAT WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR
THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, WE'VE
NEVER MENTIONED WHAT HAPPENS TO
FOLKS WHO DON'T HAVE COMMON
SURNAMES WERE CONSTANTLY BROUGHT
UP IS THAT HISPANIC. COMMUNITIES
SPECIFICALLY IN L. A COUNTY WHO
HAVE A LOT OF SIMILAR NAMES. ARE
SUFFERING AN ADVERSE EFFECT.
BASED ON THE BACKGROUND CHECK
PROCESS BECAUSE THE CLERKS HAVE
TO GO INTO AND DO CUMBERSOME
SEARCHES, ETCETERA. AND IF YOU
DON'T MIND, I JUST WANT TO JUST
BRING UP THIS ONE REAL
PARTICULAR POINT. THAT'S CURRENT
AND CALIFORNIA LAW. ABOUT LAWS
THAT HAVE A DISPROPORTIONATE
IMPACT, AND THE CURRENT LAW
ESTABLISHES, AND THIS IS A
DIVISION TWO OF THE CALIFORNIA
CODE. SECTION 12 06 SO THAT A
PRACTICE THAT HAS A
DISCRIMINATORY EFFECT IN
HOUSING. IF IT ACTUALLY ARE
PREDICTABLY RESULTS IN A
DISPARATE IMPACT ON A GROUP OF
INDIVIDUALS. OR ELSE CREATES.
INCREASES REINFORCES AND
PERPETUATES SEGREGATED HOUSING
PATTERNS BASED ON THE MEMBERSHIP
IN A PROTECTED CLASS. AND SO
INDIVIDUAL SPANISH SURNAMES IN
CALIFORNIA OR HAVING A
DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT ON THE
BACKGROUND CHECK PROCESS AGAIN.
IT'S VERY EASY TO BLUR THE LINES
ON WHETHER THIS IS ABOUT
BACKGROUND CHECKS. THIS ISN'T
ABOUT BACKGROUND CHECKS. LIKE WE
WANNA INTRODUCE A BILL I'D BE ON
THE OTHER SIDE SITTING NEXT TO
MY FORMER BOSS HERE, DORSEY
NUNN. SAYING THAT WE SHOULD BAN
ALL BACKGROUND CHECKS IN
CALIFORNIA. I'M DOWN FOR THAT.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT TODAY. BUT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT IS THE PROCESS. OF
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS A
BACKGROUND CHECK. AND THAT'S ALL
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EQUITABLE
ACCESS FOR PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA
ACCESS HOUSING. ACCESS WORK. AND
YOU KNOW ACCESS OTHER SOCIAL
SERVICES. ALRIGHT. ME. NO, NO,
NO. LOOK THE INFORMATION I HAVE
FROM COMMITTEE STAFF IS THE DOJ
BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE DONE IN 24
TO 48 HOURS. IS THAT WRONG? SO
IF I COULD JUST ADD ONE THING,
DOJ BACKGROUND CHECKS ARE ONLY
ALLOWED FOR AUTHORIZED PURPOSES
. SO NOT EVERYBODY CAN GET A DOJ
BACKGROUND CHECK AND THEN
SEPARATELY FOR DOJ BACKGROUND
CHECKS THAT'S USUALLY
FINGERPRINTING. SO WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT LATINO COMMUNITIES THAT
PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE A
RELUCTANCE WITH PUTTING THEIR
INFORMATION INTO A SYSTEM WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT CREATING ANOTHER
BARRIER, REQUIRING THEM TO GO
GET FINGERPRINTED IN ORDER TO
ACCESS THAT DOJ BACKGROUND
CHECK. WHICH MEANS BEFORE
SOMEONE ACCESS, HOUSING OR
EMPLOYMENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO
GO GET FINGERPRINTS FIRST, WHICH
IS PROBABLY MORE CUMBERSOME. I
WOULD ARGUE THAT A SIMPLE
BACKGROUND CHECK AND TALKING TO
YOUR EMPLOYER HOUSING PROVIDER
ABOUT WHAT YOUR BACKGROUND IS.
WHAT WHAT YOUR PAST IS BUT
YOU'RE NOT ADDRESSING THE
QUESTION OF ACCURACY. UH,
ANYMORE. QUESTIONS. OKAY, YOU
MAKE CLOTHES. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS, AND I KNOW THIS
IS A ISSUE THAT'S BEEN GREATLY
DEBATED, BUT IT'S REALLY ABOUT.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS
AGAIN, TOO. HAVE A CHANCE AT
EMPLOYMENT AND I EXPEDITED WAY
HAVE CHANCE FOR HOUSING. IT'S
NOT ABOUT EXPOSING FOLKS I DID
ONE OF THE FIRST BANDBOX BILLS
IN 2000 AND 11 IN THIS PLACE,
AND EVEN WITH BANDA BOX, YOU CAN
STEAL FIND A PERSON'S PREVIOUS
RECORD DUE TO THE INTERNET, SO
NOTHING IS EVER REMOVED FROM.
ACCESS WE'RE JUST TRYING TO
PROTECT INDIVIDUALS AND MAKING
SURE THAT WHEN A JOHN SMITH
APPLIES YOU HAVE THE RIGHT JOHN
SMITH, NOT JOHN SMITH. WHO'S YOU
KNOW? SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THE
JOHN SMITH THAT'S LOOKING FOR
THE JOB AND NOT THE ONE WITH THE
CRIMINAL RECORD. SO WE WANT TO
BE CLEAR ABOUT THIS. AND I THINK
IT'S A COMMON SENSE MEASURE THAT
HAS BEEN CONVOLUTED BY ALL WHAT
WE FEAR AND WE CAN FEAR A LOT OF
STUFF. BUT I THINK THIS PROCESS
REALLY IS TRYING TO HELP. UH
STREAMLINE A PROCESS THAT WE'VE
HEARD FROM NOT ONLY INDIVIDUALS
SEEKING JOBS, BUT THE INDUSTRIES
THAT ALSO WERE LOOKING TO HIRE
FOLKS ARE PROVIDE HOUSING, AND
THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M DOING
THIS MEASURE BECAUSE I TOO NOT
ABOUT COMPROMISING PEOPLE'S
BACKGROUNDS AND THEIR
INFORMATION. THAT'S THE LAST
THING I WANT TO DO. I'M TRYING
TO, UH, FIX THE PROBLEM THAT WE
KNOW EXISTS, AND I RESPECTFULLY
ASK FOR I VOTE. OKAY? UM WAITING
FOR A. AND SECOND. OKAY WE HAVE
A MOTION, SO I THINK PART OF THE
NOT PART OF THE MAJOR PROBLEM
IS, UM EVEN I WAS GETTING MIXED
INFORMATION. ABOUT WHAT THIS
BILL DOES FROM, NOT THE PEOPLE
WHO ARE SITTING HERE. BUT OTHERS
WHO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THIS AH!
EVEN DISPARAGING. THE DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE AND THEIR ABILITY TO
GET THINGS DONE IN THE CONFUSION
IS UM, PROBABLY ACCORDING TO
DEAL J. THEY CAN TURN AROUND
THESE BACKGROUND CHECKS WITHIN
24 TO 48 HOURS FOR 80. NOW, 20%
MAYBE THAT GROUP THAT YOU'VE
SAID FOLLOWING IT MAY BE MONTHS
AND MONTHS OR TAKE A VERY LONG
TIME OR IS CUMBERSOME. BUT RIGHT
NOW DOJ IS SAYING THEY CAN GET
THAT DONE. EXTREMELY QUICKLY, UM. I HAVE A BANDBOX BILL FOR
HOUSING. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE
RID OF ANY BACKGROUND CHECKS
BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE YOU DO NEED
TO HAVE SOME KIND OF CHECKS TO
MAKE SURE YOU DON'T PUT SOMEONE
IN THERE IN IN AN APARTMENT OR
SOMEWHERE WE COULD BE
PROBLEMATIC. THE SAME WITH UBER
OR LYFT. YOU DON'T WANT SOMEONE
IN A CAR WITH WITH CHILDREN AND
PEOPLE OF THAT NATURE, EVEN
THOUGH THEY PRECLUDE THAT
THERE'S SOME DRIVERS THAT STILL
WILL PICK UP KIDS AND BRING THEM
TO SCHOOL. AND SO TRYING TO
FLUSH OUT WHAT THOSE ARE, UM, I
WAS PROMISED SOME INFORMATION
LAST NIGHT. I THINK THEY MAY
HAVE SENT TO MY STAFF. IT DIDN'T
GET TO ME. UM SO I PROBABLY NOT
GOING TO VOTE ON THIS NOW. I WAS
A HARD, HARD HARD HARD, HARD, NO
RESPECT TO THE CHAIR. AH
COULDN'T LAY OFF AND IF IT MAKES
IT TO THE FLOOR, WE CAN. WE CAN
HOPEFULLY FIXED ALL OF THE OR AT
LEAST GIVE THEM CLARITY. ON WHAT
YOUR COMPANIES ACTUALLY DO AND
I'M NOT REALLY COMFORTABLE WITH
THE COMPANIES THAT THAT DO THE
BACKGROUND CHECK. THAT WAS PART
OF WHAT I WANTED TO GET NOT ONLY
WHO OVERSEES THEM, BUT ALSO
MAKING SURE THAT THEY PROVIDE
ACCURATE INFORMATION SO THAT, UM
UM. AT THE FIRST SAID WE DON'T
END UP WITH FALSE INFORMATION OR
DOUBLE INFORMATION OR WHATEVER
SO CALLED GO AHEAD CALLED ROLE.
AN S B 12 62 BY SENATOR BRADFORD
. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER. SO YOU'RE NOT VOTING
LACKEY I BEGAN TO BRIAN QUIRK.
NOT VOTING, NOT VOTING. SANTIAGO
SEYARTO TOÀN CR TúI MEASURES
DON'T CALL THANK YOU. YOU MA
NOW DO, UH SP 12 73. BRAD FRUIT
SCHOOL SAFETY MODEL. OR NOT
NOTIFICATIONS. UH THIS MEASURE
WILL ELIMINATE THE MANDATORY
REQUIREMENT THAT SCHOOLS NOTIFY
LAW ENFORCEMENT FOR A WIDE RANGE
OF STUDENT BEHAVIORS SUCH AS
POSSESSION OF CANNABIS OR
ALCOHOL OR ANY ASSAULT. ON A
SCHOOL EMPLOYEE. DECADES OF
RESEARCH AND ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE
FROM STUDENTS AND PARENTS SHOW
LONG TERM HARM TO YOUNG PEOPLE.
OF EVEN MINIMAL CONTACT WITH THE
JUVENILE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
. ONE STUDENT TO MAKE CONTACT
WITH THIS THESE SYSTEMS, THEY
ARE LESS LIKELY TO GRADUATE HIGH
SCHOOL AND MORE LIKELY TO WIND
UP IN JAIL OR IN PRISON. BLACK
STUDENTS, LATINO STUDENTS AND
STUDENTS OF COLOR AND STUDENTS
WITH DISABILITIES ARE
DISPROPORTIONATELY REFERRED TO
LAW ENFORCEMENT AND CITED AND
ARRESTED THAN THEIR COUNTERPARTS
. NUMEROUS ARTICLES AND STUDIES
HAVE FOUND THAT THE PRESENCE OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT IN SCHOOLS
DURING THIS PERIOD OF DECLINING
JUVENILE CRIME, DIVERT PRECIOUS
RESOURCES FROM PREVENTION AND
SUPPORT SERVICES INCREASES THE
LIKELIHOOD OF DEEPER ENGAGEMENT.
IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM AND
EXACERBATED EXISTING RACIAL
DISPARITIES. OTHER ARTICLES ALSO
CITE THE DANGERS OF ZERO
TOLERANCE POLICIES AND RECOMMEND
EMPLOYING IN SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY
ACTIONS. INSTEAD HOWEVER,
EXISTING LAW OFTEN FORCES SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS AND STAFF TO
NOTIFY LAW ENFORCEMENT EVEN WHEN
THEY KNOW THIS WILL BE HARMFUL.
TWO STUDENTS, REGARDLESS OF THE
PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
INCIDENT, OR THE INDIVIDUAL
STUDENTS SITUATION AND SOME
INSTANCES, THESE LAWS, EVEN
AUTHORIZED EDUCATORS SHOULD BE
FINE. FOR FAILING TO REPORT SUCH
INCIDENTS. SP 12 73 WILL REDUCE
LAW ENFORCEMENT INVOLVEMENT IN
SCHOOLS AND GIVE TEACHERS AND
ADMINISTRATORS WHO ARE OFTEN
BEST SUITED TO THE TERM IN THE
APPROPRIATE RESPONSE TO
FLEXIBILITY AND THE POWER THEY
NEED TO SUPPORT STUDENTS BY
ELIMINATING STATE MANDATES FOR
SCHOOL NOTIFICATION OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT, INCREASING EDUCATOR
DISCRETION IN DETERMINING WHEN
TO NOTIFY LAW ENFORCEMENT,
ELIMINATING PROSECUTION OF
SCHOOL STAFF WHO FELL TO REPORT
INCIDENTS AND ELIMINATING THE
CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR WILLFUL
DISTURBANCE OF PUBLIC STUDENTS
AND PUBLIC SCHOOL MEETINGS.
EDUCATORS AND SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS ARE IN BETTER
POSITION TO SUPPORT STUDENTS BY
RESPONDING TO BEHAVIORAL ISSUES
AS AN APPROPRIATE MANNER. WE
RECENTLY AMENDED THE BILL TO
ADDRESS CONCERNS ON THE SENATE.
UM I SHOULD SAY IN THE SENATE SO
EMPLOYEES WOULD STILL BE
REQUIRED TO REPORT LAW ENFORCED
TO LAW ENFORCEMENT. ANY
SPECIFIED WEAPON THAT ARE
BROUGHT ON CAMPUSES AND KEEPING
EXISTING LAW INTACT.
ADDITIONALLY WE'RE CONTINUING TO
ENGAGE DISCUSSION WITH
STAKEHOLDERS AND ADDRESS THOSE
CONCERNS, AND I'M HERE TO
TESTIFY TODAY AS GARY HARDY.
WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE LEARNING
INSTITUTE AND SOPHIE SELLER, UH
, WITH A C L U SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR I VOTE. K A T AND T OPERATOR
, CAN WE PLEASE HEAR FROM GARY
HARDY?
GOOD MORNING. I DON'T WANT TO MR
CHAIRMAN, DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS
OF THE SENATE AND ASSEMBLY. MY
NAME IS GARY HARDY, THE CLERK
AND THE PAST PRESIDENT OF THE
LANGUAGE OF THE BICYCLE. THIS
REPORT OF EDUCATION AND ALSO
POLICY DIRECTOR AT SGL AYE. I'M
HONORED TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
SB 12 73 SCHOOL SYSTEMS WORK TO
SUPPORT THE LEARNING AND
DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO LIFT UP THE
BEST PRACTICES THAT ALLOW FOR
THE BEST OUTCOME. SB 12 23 DOES
THAT BY REMOVING THE MANDATORY
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS TO
INVOLVE OR NOTIFY POLICE IN
CERTAIN INSTANCES, MOVING AWAY
FROM THIS REQUIREMENT ALLOWS FOR
SCHOOLS TO LEAN ON AND
ALTERNATIVE BEST PRACTICES AND
THEIR TWO KIDS. TO ADDRESS AND
NOT CRIMINALIZED COMMENTS FOR
LETTING BEHAVIOR AND INSTEAD
PRIORITIZED PRACTICES THAT
EMPHASIZE CARE. THE PREVIOUS
MANDATE EXPOSES SCHOOLS, SCHOOL
STAFF NNECESSARY LIABILITY
WHILE EXPOSING YOUNG PEOPLE TO
THE SCHOOL TO PRISON PIPELINE
WHERE WE FIND BLACK AND BROWN
STUDENTS REPRESENTED
DISPROPORTIONATELY. AND LYNWOOD
SCHOOLS, MOVED AWAY FROM SCHOOL
POLICE IN SCHOOLS AND UPLIFTED
WE'RE SORT OF JUSTICE PRACTICES
P B. I S WHICH UNIT OUTSTANDING
RESULTS IN ON STATEWIDE
RECOGNITION. WE ALSO WORK TO
IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSES OF
DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR IN
CLASSROOMS AND MET THEM WITH
CARE AND RESOURCES. OUR STUDENTS
ARE STRIVING TO REPUBLIC. AND
NON PUNITIVE FROM INFORMED
HEALTH BASED APPROACHES THAT
FOSTER POSITIVE LEARNING OF
ENVIRONMENT. PASSING THIS BILL.
REMOVING THIS MANDATE DOES NOT
MAKE SCHOOLS LOVE SAFE. AH
CONTRARY IT WOULD MAKE SCHOOLS
MORE SAFE BY LAUNCH STAFF TO
MORE PROBABLY RESPONDED IN THESE
STUDENTS WAS ORGAN IN SCHOOLS
THAT ARE ADEQUATELY ADDRESSING
THE EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL
SAFETY OF STUDENTS. ON THAT
POINT. THIS IS WHERE THE
OPPOSITION GETS GETS THE WRONG
ABOUT THIS BILL, AND THERE'S NO
DATA TO SUPPORT THEIR CLEAN.
WHEN WE GET THIS RIGHT, WE GIVE
STUDENTS PERMISSION TO SHOW
BADGER YOURSELVES AND THRIVE AND
LEARN TO GROW AND ALLOW SCHOOL
STAFF TO LEAN ON THEIR YEARS OF
EXPERIENCE, EDUCATION AND
TRAINING SHORTLY. COOL STEPS
SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR
DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR STUDENTS
AND I URGE YOU TO SUPPORT THE
PASSAGE OF SB 12 23. IT
HAPPENED. TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND WITH
THAT, BOTH. SOPHIA STELLA. A C L
U FROM THE CALIFORNIA ON THE
PHONE. AYE. HELLO MY NAME IS
SOPHIE. STILL A I'M, A LEGAL
FELLOW AT THE EAST VALUE OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA WORKING ON
EDUCATION EQUITY ISSUES, AND I'M
A FORMER EDUCATOR TELL YOU
CALIFORNIA ACTION IS PROUD TO
COSPONSOR SP 12 73. AT 12 73
ELIMINATE STATUTORY MANDATES
THAT FORCE EDUCATORS TO CALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT EVEN WHEN THEY KNOW
IT IS NOT THE CORRECT RESPONSE
TO AN INCIDENT AS PART OF MY
WORK, I REPRESENT STUDENTS
IMPACTED BY THESE OVERREACHING
MANDATE. TODAY, I WILL SHARE
SOME OF THEIR STORIES. IN
NOVEMBER. 2021 ANTHONY, A LATIN
X EIGHT GRADER, WAS RECOMMENDED
FOR EXPULSION FOR THE ALLEGED
SALE OF CANNABIS ON CAMPUS AS
REQUIRED UNDER ED CODE FOR 890
TO SEE WHICH MANDATES
NOTIFICATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
FOR ANY INCIDENT INVOLVING A
STUDENT POSSESSING OR SELLING A
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE. THE LOS
ANGELES WILL. POLICE WERE
CONTACTED UPON SPEAKING WITH
ANTHONY AND THE WALL, THEY
DETERMINED THAT THE MATTER
SHOULD BE HANDLED BY THE SCHOOL.
IN THIS CASE, EVEN THE POLICE
FELT THEY SHOULD NOT INTERVENE.
ANTHONY WAS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR
EXPULSION DUE TO LACK OF
EVIDENCE AND WILL REMAIN IN
SCHOOL WITH A CLEAN RECORD FOR
MANY STUDENTS NOTIFICATION OF
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESULTS IN FAR
WORSE CONSEQUENCES EVEN WHEN
THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. IN
SEPTEMBER. 2020 LEILANI A LOT
NEXT FRESHMAN, WAS ATTACKED BY
ANOTHER STUDENT. LEILANI HAD NO
INTENTION OF FIGHTING AND ONLY
STRUGGLE TO GET AWAY. DURING THE
ATTACK, A STAFF MEMBER
PHYSICALLY INTERVENED AND WHILE
TURNING BACK AROUND,
UNINTENTIONALLY MADE CONTACT
WITH HIM, SHE IMMEDIATELY
APOLOGIZED, COMPLIED WITH ALL OF
HIS INSTRUCTIONS. THE TEACHERS
STATEMENT CONFIRMED THAT LEILANI
BACK WAS TURNED WHEN HE
INITIATED CONTACT WITH HER.
LEILANI HAD NO FORMAL BEHAVIORAL
ISSUES AND HAD NEVER BEEN IN ANY
PHYSICAL ALTERCATION. LEILANI
INJURIES INCLUDED SCRATCHES,
BRUISES AND SEVERELY
STRAIGHTENED. THERE WERE NO
APPARENT MARKS ON THE TEACHER'S
BODY. FILLING MONEY WAS TAKEN TO
THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER,
ALTHOUGH THE OFFICER STATED THAT
HE AND THE TEACHER IN NEW ANY
CONTACT WAS ACCIDENTAL, AND THAT
THE STUDENT STATEMENT MATCH THE
TEACHERS, HE CLAIMED HE HAD TO
FILE A REPORT AN ISSUE
CITATIONS. AS A RESULT, LEILANI
FACE BATTERY AND ASSAULT
CHARGES. SENSE LEILANI HAS
SUFFERED TO PANIC ATTACKS AT
SCHOOL AT THE JUVENILE COURT
PROCEEDINGS. THE COURT ALLUDED
TO THE FACT THAT THE SCHOOL
OVERREACTED AND PROVIDED THE
SUPPORT THAT THE SCHOOL SHOULD
HAVE UPON COMPLETION OF
COUNSELING AND COMMUNITY
SERVICE. THE CASE WILL LIKELY BE
DISMISSED. LEILANI SHOULD HAVE
NEVER BEEN TAKEN TO A SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICER, LET ALONE
SUBJECT TO HIS CITATION B. 12 73
WILL ENSURE THAT SCHOOLS AND
EDUCATORS HAVE THE DISCRETION
THEY NEED TO DECIDE ON THE BEST
RESPONSE IN EACH CASE. AND WILL
PROTECT STUDENTS FROM THE HARMS
THAT ANTHONY LEILANI AND MANY
OTHERS SUFFER. ONE LAW
ENFORCEMENT IS BROUGHT IN. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. WELL, NOW GO TO
THE ANYONE IN THE ROOM AND
SUPPORT THINK HERE WE GO. SP 12
73 BRADFORD. GOOD AFTERNOON.
MARCO GEORGE, CALIFORNA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND
SUPPORT. THANK THANK YOU. AND
ALI. EVEN DARI WITH ELLA BAKER
CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. GO TO PHONE
LINES, WITNESSES AND SUPPORT.
THANK YOU IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SB 12 73, PLEASE
PRESS ONE AND ZERO IN YOUR
PHONE. WE'LL START WITH LINE 1
67, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON, ERIC MORRISON SMITH,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WITH THE
ALLIANCE BOARDS, MEN OF COLOR
WERE CO SPONSORS AND IN STRONG
SUPPORT OF THIS, BILL. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. LINE
ONE. OH, SEVEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
SALLY CHING WITH A SLEW
CALIFORNIA ACTION. WE ARE PROUD
COAST MONSTERS AND IN SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU LINE 1 57,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES THEY'RE
SHARING MEMBERS. GREAT RE CRAMER
ON BEHALF OF DISABILITY RIGHTS,
CALIFORNIA OR CO SPONSORS TO THE
BILL AND URGE YOUR SUPPORT.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
LINE 1 75, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU. CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. MY NAME IS REAGAN
MCCULLOUGH WITH THE BLACK
PARALLEL SCHOOL BOARD AND WE ARE
CO SPONSORS AND THEN STRONG
SUPPORT. SP 12 73. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU AND NEXT BLIND 38,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. AND SUPPORT OF
SB 17 38 YEAR LINE WITH WAS NOT
OPENED. COULD YOU PLEASE READ
REPEAT? HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME?
YES, THANK YOU. HI THIS IS
DANIELLE WANDERA, WITH CHILDREN
NOW CALLING IN SUPPORT OF SB 12
73. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT.
WE HAVE LINE 1 78, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. ERIN
NAFTI, SENIOR LEGISLATIVE
COUNSEL WITH PUBLIC ADVOCATES.
WE STRONGLY SUPPORT SB 12 73.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
NEXT DESIGN. 1 80, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. HELLO MY NAME IS RUTH
CUSICK, HER PRONOUNS AND THEN CO
FOUNDER OF THE COLLECTIVE FOR
LABORATORY LOITERING. WE ARE IN
STRONG SUPPORT OF THIS BILL. 12
73. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT TO
SIGN 1 73, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI
MY NAME IS MARIAN. TOMMY I'M
HERE ON BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA
CHAPTER OF THE COUNCIL ON
AMERICAN ISLAMIC RELATIONS, AND
WE ARE IN STRONG SUPPORT OF SB
12 73. THANK YOU. THANK YOU NEXT
TO SIGN 1 50, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
HELLO CHAIR AND COMMITTEE
MEMBERS. I'M MAYA CENA CALLING
ON BEHALF OF THE DRUG POLICY
ALLIANCE AND STRONG SUPPORT OF
BILL NUMBER 12 73 THINGS SO.
THANK YOU. NEXT JUST LINE 1 76,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. 91 76. YOUR
LINE IS OPEN. IN 1 76. OKAY NEXT
WE GO WITH MINE. 1 81, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD MORNING. THIS IS
CAROL. WE'D ON BEHALF OF THE
DEMOCRATS OF ROSS MARK AND
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. AND THAT IS
ALL THAT I HAVE IN. Q THANK YOU.
UM, WE'RE NOT GO TO OPPOSITION.
IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? TO
BRADFORD 12 73. OKAY? FIVE
MINUTES. THE COURT CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS RANDY PERRY WITH AARON
READING ASSOCIATES ON BEHALF OF
POOR AC WE'VE BEEN OPPOSED TO
THIS BILL FROM DAY ONE. I WAS
GOING TO GET INTO ALL THE
DETAILS OF THE MEASURE. BUT I
THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT I
JUST I'LL ADDRESS WHAT HAS BEEN
SAID TODAY. THE NEED FOR THIS
BILL. FIRST NEED WAS THIS NEED
IS BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT'S
MANDATORILY BEING CALLED IN FOR
MINOR VIOLATIONS, DRUG OR
ALCOHOL USE AND THE LIKE. I CAN
TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, AND I HAVE
TALKED TO SO MANY OF LAW
ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS SINCE THIS
BILL WAS INTRODUCED. NO ONE
WANTS TO COME IN ON THOSE ISSUES
. NO ONE WANTS TO DO ANY OF
THOSE REPORTING. IF THAT IS
TRULY THE ISSUE AND ONE OF THE
NEEDS FOR THIS, BILL, WHY AREN'T
WE HAVING THAT DISCUSSION? WHERE
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? I DON'T
KNOW. I JUST LITERALLY I'M
THINKING OF THIS AS I'M SITTING
HERE. LET'S TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW
, NOTHING HAPPENS ON SCHEDULE
TWO OR THREE DRUGS. BUT IF
THEY'RE SELLING FENTANYL OR
THEIR DUE ALL THE BILLS ON
FENTANYL THIS YEAR, NOT WE HAVE
LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOULD BE
INVOLVED IN IT, BUT WE'RE NOT
HAVING THAT DISCUSSION. WE'RE
HAVING DISCUSSIONS ABOUT A BILL
THE THROWS A BLANKET AND THROWS
EVERYTHING OUT ON WHEN YOU'RE
GONNA NOTIFY LAW ENFORCEMENT.
AND IT'S BASED ON ADMINISTRATORS
WHO MAY HAVE DIFFERENT REASONS
FOR NOT WANTING TO CALL ON
ENFORCEMENT. YOU KNOW, THEY
ALWAYS SAY BUTTS IN THE SEAT,
RIGHT? YOU NEED A D A MONEY. YOU
DON'T WANT YOUR SCHOOL TO GET A
BAD REPUTATION FOR FIGHTS OR
WHATEVER. OR LAW ENFORCEMENT
BEING CALLED. I GET THAT. BUT
THE SECOND PIECE ABOUT THIS THAT
PROBABLY BOTHERED ME THE MOST.
IS THE ISSUE WHERE THIS BILL
JUST AND THE TESTIMONY JUST AS
SOON AS THERE'S RACIAL BIAS,
BECAUSE COPS COME IN, AND IT'S
GOING TO BE A RACIAL BIAS ISSUE
THAT YOU KNOW BLACK AND BROWNS
ARE THE ONES WHO ARE GOING TO
ARE THE IMPACT OF COIN IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHEN SOMEONE BRINGS
A WEAPON. OR SOMEBODY IS DOING
SOMETHING WHERE PEOPLE FEEL THEY
NEED TO CALL 911. AND I CAN JUST
I JUST WANT TO IF THE ISSUE IS A
RACIAL BIAS ISSUE, FIRST OF ALL
, I JUST WANT TO LIST VERY
QUICKLY WHAT THIS LEGISLATURE
HAS DONE RECENTLY. ON RACIAL
BIAS ISSUES, BUT LET'S HAVE THAT
DISCUSSION. THIS BILL DOESN'T
ADDRESS THAT THIS BILL DOESN'T
WELL. IT DOES ADDRESS THE MINOR
ALCOHOL AND DRUG ISSUES BY
THROWING OUT, INCLUDING
EVERYTHING. SO I JUST WANT TO
POINT TO THIS AND I'LL BE DONE.
AND THAT IS WE? WE'VE DONE A B
99 35 WEBER, WHICH REQUIRES TO
REPORT ALL STOP DATA AND THE
REASONS AROUND IT AND THE WHOLE
BIT AND THE INTERACTION. WE'VE
DONE 8 46 BURKE, WHICH MADE IT
MANDATORY TO VET ALL PEACE
OFFICER CANDIDATES FOR EXPLICIT
AND IMPLICIT BIAS DURING
BACKGROUND CHECKS AND
INTERVIEWS. WE'VE DONE.
ADDITIONALLY EVERY OFFICER IS
NOW TRAINED ON IMPLICIT AND
EXPLICIT BIAS, SUSTAINED
COMPLAINTS OF RACIAL BIAS.
POLICING ARE ALSO NOW ALL MADE
PUBLIC PER SP 16 BY SENATOR
SKINNER. AND OFFICERS WHO WERE
FOUND GUILTY OF RACIALLY BIASED
POLICING OF ANY KIND BECAUSE
IT'S NOT DEFINED. WILL BE
DECERTIFIED UNDER THE SENATOR'S
SB TWO. SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING
HARD. THIS LEGISLATURE HAS DONE
A LOT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ON
RACIAL BIAS, SO I JUST WANT TO
SAY THAT ISN'T WHAT THIS BILL IS
ABOUT. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT WHAT
THIS BILL IS GOING TO TAKE CARE
OF. IT'S NOT GOING TO HANDLE
THAT, IN TERMS OF THE DETAILS OF
THE BILL AND A CIVIL LIABILITY
ON TEACHERS AND PUTTING IT ON
NOW TAKING IT, SAYING WE SHOULD
ALLOW THE ADMINISTRATORS AND
TEACHERS TO MAKE THE DECISION.
YOU KNOW, THE AND BUT AT THE
SAME TIME REMOVE THE PROTECTIONS
OF LIABILITY LIABLE CIVIL AND
CRIMINAL LIABILITY. SO IF A
TEACHER MAKES THE WRONG DECISION
AND DOESN'T CALL IN LAW
ENFORCEMENT, AND SOMEBODY IS
KILLED OR IF THEY DO MAKE A CALL
, AND THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE
POLICIES OR PROCEDURES OF THAT
ADMINISTRATION BECAUSE THEY SAY
, YOU MUST GO THROUGH THESE
THREE STEPS BEFORE YOU CALL LAW
ENFORCEMENT. THEY GET ASSAULTED
BECAUSE THIS BILL STILL ALLOWS
FOR ASSAULT. AND ALLOWS FOR
ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON.
AND SO SOMEBODY GETS PUNCHED IN
THE FACE. THEY REACH OVER GRAB
THEIR PHONE CALL 911. THEY COULD
GET POTENTIALLY FIRED FOR THAT
BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FALL. THIS
FOLLOW THE SCHOOL'S POLICY. AND
THAT REMOVES THOSE PROTECTIONS
AS WELL THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN
THE LAW, BY THE WAY, BOTH OF
THOSE CIVIL CRIMINAL PROTECTIONS
FOR A TEACHER OR ADMINISTRATOR,
CALLING THE COPS AND IT PROTECTS
THEM AGAINST BEING FIRED AS AN
EMPLOYEE. IT'S ALL RIGHT. I'LL
TRY TO MAKE THIS QUICK. MR
CHAIRMAN, RYAN SHERMAN AT THE
RIVERSIDE SHERIFFSASSOCIATION
OPPOSITION, ALSO IN OPPOSITION.
THE FOLLOWING POLICE OFFICER
ASSOCIATIONS FROM CLAREMONT
CORONA, POMONA PALACE FORTIES
NEWPORT BEACH. UPLAND SANTA ANA
, BURBANK, INGLEWOOD, RIVERSIDE
ARCADIA. LOS ANGELES SCHOOL
POLICE FULLERTON COVER CITY
PLASTIC COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF
ASSOCIATION AND THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION OF SCHOOL SAFETY
PROFESSIONALS CONCUR WITH MY
COLLEAGUES COMMENTS. UH, I THINK
THIS BILL IS VERY DETRIMENTAL IN
A COUPLE OF WAYS. I THINK ONE IS
THAT REPEALS CURRENT
REQUIREMENTS. THAT THESE
NOTIFICATIONS ARE MADE JUST
BECAUSE OF NOTIFICATIONS MADE.
NOT ONLY DOES THAT NOT MEAN THAT
A COP IS GOING TO SHOW UP ALL
THE TIME TO TAKE A REPORT AND
ALSO DOESN'T MEAN THAT IF A COP
DOES SHOW UP THAT ANYBODY IS
GOING TO GET ARRESTED, IT MEANS
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS GOING TO BE
NOTIFIED. THAT'S ALL THAT'S ALL
THE NOTIFICATIONS D. THE SECOND
PART IS TO ENSURE BECAUSE THIS
ISN'T JUST ABOUT AN ISSUE OF
LOCAL CONTROL. THIS BILL IS
INTENDED AND DESIGNED TO MAKE
SURE THAT PEOPLE DO NOT CALL THE
POLICE. AND THIS ISN'T JUST
GIVING LOCAL CONTROL AND GIVING
PEOPLE THE OPTION TO CALL POLICE
BECAUSE IF THAT WERE THE CASE,
THE PROTECTIONS IN CURRENT LAW
LIKE RANDY HAD STATED WOULD NOT
BE REMOVED. THEY WILL NOT BE
ELIMINATED AS THEY ARE. THE
EMPLOYMENT PROTECTIONS FOR
TEACHER SEES ANOTHER TEACHER
GETTING ASSAULTED. THAT TEACHER
IS NOT PERMITTED TO NOTIFY THAT. BUT THE POLICE NOW THEY'RE NOT
BANNED FROM DOING IT, BUT
THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED BY THE
ADMINISTRATOR. SO IF THE
ADMINISTRATOR DOESN'T WANT THEM
TO REPORT THAT, OR EVEN IF
THEY'RE ATTACKED THEMSELVES,
THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REPORT
WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR DOING SO. THEY
VIOLATE THE ADMINISTRATORS
REQUIREMENTS, THEN THAT PERSON
WILL BE SUBJECT TO DISCIPLINE UP
TO HIM, INCLUDING TERMINATION.
FOR CALLING THE COPS FOR GETTING
ATTACKED BY A STUDENT AT SCHOOL.
IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE AT
ALL. UM SO AND THEN ALSO WITH
THE CIVIL LIABILITY AS WELL AND
ATTACHES IN THOSE SAME
SITUATIONS WERE VERY OPPOSED THE
BILL AND I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH
THAT. THANK YOU, MR CHAIRMAN.
THANK YOU. OTHER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIRMAN MEMBERS, COREY SAW
ZILLA ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA STATE
SHERIFFSASSOCIATION RESPECTFULLY
AND OPPOSITION. THANK YOU. MR
CHAIR AND MEMBERS MATTHEW
CYBERLINK ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION FOR LOS ANGELES.
DEPUTY SHERIFFS IN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. SHARED MEMBERS,
JONATHAN FELDMAN ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS
ASSOCIATION. OPPOSITION THANK
YOU. MORNING PAT ESPINOSA FROM
THE SANYO COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFICE ON BEHALF OF D
A SUMMER STEP IN AN OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU. AND WE'RE NOW GO THE
PHONE LINES AND OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING UP
POSITION OF SPEED. 12 73 POLICE
PRESS ONE, THEN ZERO. AND WE
WILL START WITH LINE 1 83,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI I DO
APOLOGIZE. I WAS IN THE SUPPORT
QUÊ BUT WAS DISCONNECTED. THIS
IS JIM LINDBERG ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATION
OF CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANKS. WE'LL GO WITH LINE 1 40,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR CHAIR
MEMBERS, LIEUTENANT BRANDON UP
ON BEHALF OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF AND STRONG
OPPOSITION VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR THIS LINE. 88, PLEASE
GO AHEAD. THAT ME? YES, IT IS.
YES HI. MY NAME IS BERNADETTE
SHING. I'M IN STRONG OPPOSITION.
THANK YOU NEXT YEAR OF LINE 1
51, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HELLO THIS
IS A SUSE MONTANA AND COMING ON
BEHALF OF THE CENTRAL SCHOOLS,
PLEASE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION
AND AS WELL AS THE ASSOCIATION
OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR FOR
SENDING OF CITY SCHOOLS. COOL
SUPERVISORS, MANAGERS AND SCHOOL
SITE PRINCIPLES AND ASSOCIATE
PRINCIPLES. AND, MORE
IMPORTANTLY, I'M CALLING IT THE
PARENT. UH THIS BILL DOES A LOT
MORE AS ILLUSTRATED BY THANK YOU
FOR ME. THINK. THANK YOU. NEXT
WE HAVE LINED 1 25, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME
IS BRENDA HEINZ CONCERNED PARENT
OF MONTEREY COUNTY. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND NEXT WE HAVE LINE
1 48, PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU
. THIS IS MATTHEW RICO, UH,
REPRESENTING THE SANDY GINS
AGAINST CRIME, AS WELL AS THE
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION IN
OPPOSITION TO A BILL THAT
UNDERMINES THREAT ASSESSMENT TO
PREVENT SCHOOL SHOOTINGS. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. AND NEXT, WE
WILL GO WITH. ONE MOMENT. GET
THEIR LINE NUMBER GO WITH LINE
NUMBER 1 86. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
WAS IT ME? AND WHEN I YES, THANK
YOU. HI MY NAME IS ANGELICA FEEL
LIKE VIDEO. I WAS ACTUALLY IN
THE SUPPORT QUÊ BUT WAS ALSO
DISCONNECTED. I'M WITH PUBLIC
COUNSELOR, CO SPONSOR OF SB 12
73 AND FIRMLY SUPPORT THE BILL.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THAT
IS ALL I HAVE IN QUÊ. THANK YOU.
WE'LL NOW BRING IT BACK TO THE
COMMITTEE. MR LACKEY. MR QUIRK,
JUST HAVE A COMMENT. I DON'T
REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT
THIS BILL. I JUST WONDER HOW IN
THE WAKE OF VIVALDI, TEXAS THAT
THAT PARTICULAR SCHOOL SHOOTING
CAN OUR LEGISLATURES RESPONSE TO
ME? IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, DON'T
SAY ANYTHING. PARTICULARLY WITH
THREATS AND ASSAULTS. IT'S
REALLY IMPORTANT TO INVOLVE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND I'LL BE CLEARLY
AN OPPOSITION IN THIS BILL.
STICKWORK. SO UM, I'LL NOTE HERE
THAT THE TEACHERS ARE NOT
OPPOSED TO THIS, AND THE MAIN
ARGUMENT POSED BY THE OPPOSITION
IS THERE SITTING HERE WAS A
TEACHER COULD BE ASSAULTED. AND
THEN FIRED AND I'VE NEVER SEEN A
TEACHER'S SUCCESSFULLY FIRED
YET, BUT AT ANY RATE, MAYBE
THAT'S A PROBLEM IN OUR SYSTEM.
BUT THAT THE TEACHER COULD BE
FIRED FOR REPORTING TO THE
POLICE. DO YOU THINK THAT'S IN
YOUR BILL? DO YOU THINK IT'S
POSSIBLE THAT BECAUSE OF YOUR
BILL, A TEACHER WOULD BE FIRED
FOR? NO, EXACTLY? UM I HAVE READ
IN PARTICULAR THE ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS. WHAT THEY'RE
ASKING FOR IS DISCRETION AND
CLEARLY IF THERE'S A SHOOTER IN
THE BUILDING OR THE TEACHERS
BEING SERIOUSLY ASSAULTED, UH,
THEY'RE GONNA CALL THE POLICE,
AND WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR HERE
IS THAT THERE IS DISCRETION.
THAT THERE'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC
MISDEMEANOR FOR DISTURBING THE
CLASS. YOU KNOW, I HAD QUESTIONS
ABOUT THIS BILL BECAUSE MY
DAUGHTER HAS BEEN IN CLASSES
THAT HAVE BEEN DISTURBED. BUT,
UM YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS KNOW BEST
IN THIS CASE. AND AGAIN, THE
TEACHERS ARE NOT OPPOSED. I
DON'T THINK THERE'S A THREAT TO
THEIR SAFETY, SO I'LL MOVE THE
BELL. A SECOND. THANK YOU. SO I
HAVE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
PERSPECTIVE OF THE OBJECTS AND
MY COLLEAGUE OVER THERE. I
INTERACT WITH TEACHERS QUITE
OFTEN. AND ALSO SCHOOL EMPLOYEES
ARE NOT THE TEACHERS BUT THE
SUPPORT PERSONNEL. AND FRANKLY,
THE MESSAGE I GET FROM THEM IS
THEY DON'T FEEL SAFE AT SCHOOL
ANYMORE. THEY DON'T FEEL SAFE
BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH A VAST
MAJORITY OF STUDENTS ARE GOOD
KIDS WHO PAY ATTENTION AND
RESPECT THEM, RESPECT THE
TEACHERS AND RESPECT THEIR
WORKERS. THERE ARE A FEW THAT
DON'T. AND THEY DON'T KNOW HOW
TO RESPOND TO THAT. THEY DON'T
KNOW HOW TO RESPOND WHEN THEY'RE
TRYING TO INSTRUCT SOMEBODY WHO
COMES UP AND PUSHES THEM INTO
THE WALL. THAT'S A MINOR
ASSAULT. BECAUSE. WHEN THEY DO
TRY TO GET SOMETHING DONE ABOUT
IT. THEY'RE TOLD. YOU KNOW WHAT
? WE'RE NOT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO
DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. WE DON'T
WANT TO DEAL WITH THE PARENTS.
WE DON'T WANT TO DEAL BECAUSE
THE PARENTS ARE NOT WANTING TO
STEP UP AND DISCIPLINE THEIR
KIDS. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT WE'RE
GOING TO ALLOW. UNRULY JUST THE
VERY FEW UNRULY KIDS. T NOT GET. REPORTED IN A MANNER THAT
PEOPLE CAN IDENTIFY AND TRACK
WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THIS YOUNG
PERSON IN THEIR LIVES THAT THEY
HAVE TO ACT OUT LIKE THAT? YES
SCHOOL TEACHERS AND SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS IF THEY ARE
ALLOWED TO CAN TRY TO INTERVENE.
BUT. A LOT OF PARENTS OF THE
STUDENTS TAKE OFFENSE TO THAT.
EVEN AND SO THEY'RE LEFT WITH
NOT DOING ANYTHING. AND NOT
DOING ANYTHING LEADS TO STUDENTS
WHO WIND UP BEING THOSE SCHOOL
SHOOTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THE POLICE ARE IN THE BEST
POSITION, AND WE HAVE SCHOOL
RESOURCE OFFICERS AND A LOT OF
THE SCHOOLS THAT ARE OUT OF MY
AREA. AND THE KIDS LOVE THEM.
THEY GET ALONG WITH THEM.
THEY'RE NOT THREATENED BY THEM.
AND WHEN THERE IS A KID THAT'S
IN TROUBLE OR GOING DOWN THAT
ROAD. THEY CAN JUST APPROACH
THEM AND TALK. AND MAYBE KEEP
THEM FROM GOING DOWN THAT ROAD.
AND THIS BILL TO ME SILENCES
TEACHERS, IT SILENCES
ADMINISTRATORS EVEN MORE. IN IN
TRYING TO KEEP TO KEEP THAT TYPE
OF BEHAVIOR THAT CAN GO AND
RESULT IN A SCHOOL SHOOTING OR
SOMETHING. AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC
AND AWAY FROM THE POLICE
OFFICERS WHO ARE THE ONES THAT
ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RESPOND TO
THIS SOMEDAY. SO YOU KNOW, IT'S
THE OLD THE SEE SOMETHING SAY
SOMETHING THING THAT THEY USED
TO. I MEAN, THAT WAS WEIRD
PREACHING FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT
THINGS THAT DON'T LOOK RIGHT. WE
NEED TO SAY SOMETHING TO TOO
LONG FORCE MEN. SO THEY CAN
FERRET OUT WHETHER THIS IS
SOMETHING LEGITIMATE OR
SOMETHING THAT IS NOT AND. FOR
ME. THIS DOES NOT CREATE A SAFER
ENVIRONMENT AT SCHOOLS. IT DOES
NOT HELP OUR TEACHERS MAINTAIN
AN ENVIRONMENT AT SCHOOL THAT'S
SAFE FOR EVERYONE, INCLUDING
THEMSELVES. AND IT'S KIND OF
GOING BACKWARDS IN THAT REGARD.
SO HARD FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS.
UH AND I'M NOT GOING TO UM, BUT
I JUST I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE.
TAKING EVEN MORE TOOLS AWAY FROM
OUR TEACHERS THAT ARE ALREADY
STRUGGLING. AND A LOT OF YOU
KNOW WHAT A LOT OF THEIR ANSWERS
IS. THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE
TEACHERS ANYMORE. AND WITH THEIR
STRUGGLING TRYING TO FIND
TEACHERS NOW. SO. UM FOR THOSE
REASONS, I JUST I REALLY
STRUGGLED THIS BILL AND I CAN'T
SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU
ANY MORE COMMENTS SEEING NONE.
YOU MAY CLOSE, MR. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIR AND I'VE LISTENED LONG AND
HARD TO THE OPPOSITION. AND I
HOPE IT'S NOT LOST ON ANYONE
HERE THAT THE OPPOSITION IS LAW
ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NOT SCHOOL
ADMINISTRATORS. IT'S NOT
TEACHERS. IT'S NOT THE FOLKS WHO
ARE CHARGED WITH MAKING THAT
DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THAT
STUDENT IS DISRUPTIVE FOR NOT
AND EVEN WITH THE CURRENT LAWS
THAT ARE IN PLACE TEACHERS AND
ADMINISTRATORS USE THEIR
DISCRETION. ALL THIS BILL DOES
IS AFFORD THOSE ADMINISTRATORS
AND THOSE TEACHERS. THE
DISCRETION OF WHETHER TO REPORT
LITTLE JOHNNY OR LITTLE SALLY.
BUT AS WE STATED, THEY WANT TO
SAY IT'S ABOUT RACE, AND MY
FRIEND MR PERRY WANTS TO TALK
ABOUT ALL THE REFORMS THAT WE
PASSED HERE IN CALIFORNIA AND
SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THE
LEGISLATURE BUT IT DIDN'T STOP A
LITTLE FIVE YEAR OLD BLACK KID
AND STOCKTON STOCKTON FROM BEING
PUT IN THE BACK OF A POLICE CAR
AND ZIP TIE. AND I DARE YOU TO
ASK ME IF IT WAS YOUR FIVE YEAR
OLD WOULD YOU BE SEEN CALL THE
POLICE ON YOUR Ì5, BUT IT'S
POLICE ARE CALLED EVERY DAY.
WHEN THERE'S A SLIGHT. UPSET KID
WHO IS A PERSON OF COLOR YOU
QUICKLY CALL THE POLICE. BUT
WHEN IT'S NOT AFRICAN, AMERICAN
OR LATINO WAS LIKE OH, LITTLE
JOHNNY JUST NEEDS A TIME OUT.
LITTLE SALLY NEEDS A TIME OUT
AND WE'RE SEEING IT IS CLEARLY
ALONG RACIAL LINES WERE. COPS
ARE CAUGHT IN SCHOOLS MORE SO
THAN IN INFLUENCE COMMUNITIES
AND THAT'S THE REALITY AND WE
HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT AND LIKE YOU
SEE TEACHERS FELT THEY WERE
PUTTING BEING PUT AT AT RISK
HERE, THEY WOULD BE STANDING IN
LINE TO OPPOSING THIS LAW
ENFORCEMENT WHO'S SAYING NOW?
THE TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS
WON'T BE CALLING US AND WHEN
POLICE ARE CALLED AND THEN EVEN
CONFLATE THIS WITH YOUR BODY.
I'M REALLY INSULTED BY IT
BECAUSE YOU HAVE PLENTY POLICE
ON SITE. ARMED AND DID NOTHING
AND ALLOWED 19 BABIES TO BE
KILLED AS THEY STOOD AROUND
SAYING, OH, WE'RE WAITING ON A
KEY WHAT MORE OF A THREAT DO YOU
NEED THAN THAT? WE'RE SEEING IF
LITTLE SALLY OR JOHNNY HOUSES
THROWS A BOOK THAT DOESN'T
REQUIRE THE POLICE TO COME. IF
THERE S A THREAT, A CREDIBLE
THREAT? YES CALL THE POLICE. WE
ALL WANT THAT TO HAPPEN. BUT
THIS BILL IN NO WAY REMOVES THE
AUTHORITY OF A TEACHER OR
ADMINISTRATOR WHEN THERE IS A
CREDIBLE THREAT. IT SAYS. DON'T
PENALIZE A TEACHER OR
ADMINISTRATOR WHEN THEY USE
THEIR DISCRETION. KNOWING THAT
KID BETTER THAN WANT FORCE MEANT
TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THEIR
THREAT TO EACH OTHER THEMSELVES
OR ADMINISTRATOR. AND. I HAD
THIS CONVERSATION A COUPLE OF
WEEKS AGO. WOULD HAVE SPOUSE OF
INDIVIDUAL HERE IN THIS TOWN,
AND THEY WERE A PRINCIPAL, AND
THEY SAW ONE OF THEIR FORMER
STUDENTS. AND HE SAYS. HE WAS A
TROUBLEMAKER FROM DAY ONE. BUT I
KNEW HE WAS NO THREAT. I KNOW
YOU AND LOOK TURNED OUT TO BE A
GREAT KID. BUT HE SAYS HE WAS
CUT UP ALL THE TIME. ALWAYS
DISRUPTING THE CLASS. ALWAYS
THINK NEVER CALLED. THE POLICE.
THEY MIGHT HAVE PUT THEM ON A
TIME OUT, MIGHT HAVE SUSPENDED
HIM. BUT YOU KNOW IT WASN'T
THREAT, BUT AGAIN THE MAJORITY
OF TIME. WE SEE WHERE AFRICAN
AMERICANS LATINOS HAVE POLICE
CALLED ON THEM. FOR BANGING ON
THE DOOR. THERE IS A DOUBLE
STANDARD HERE IN CALIFORNIA.
THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD IN
AMERICA AND THIS BILL IS TRYING
TO HELP ADDRESS THAT AND NOT
PENALIZE THE TEACHER WHEN THEY
KNOW THAT STUDENT FAR BETTER
THAN LAW ENFORCEMENT ON WHETHER
THEY ARE A THREAT TO THEMSELVES
OR TO ANYONE ELSE, AND I RESPECT
LAST FOR I VOTE. GET A MOTION.
OKAY, TAKE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU,
TOM. SO, UH, DETERMINED
BRADFORD. YOU AND I. BOTH KNOW A
TEACHER THAT'S IN YOUR DISTRICT.
WHO'S NOW A VICE PRINCIPAL. AH!
MY DAUGHTER. SHE MAKES THOSE
DECISIONS EVERY DAY. THE BIGGEST
ARGUMENT WE EVER HAD. NOW
THERE'S JUST NO RESOURCE
OFFICERS. THERE IS WHETHER OR
NOT THEY SHOULD COME BACK
EXACTLY. L A UNIFIED REMOVED
RESEARCH OFFICERS FROM RIGHT
NOW. RIGHT AND SHE SHE AND I
ARGUE ABOUT WHETHER IT SHOULD BE
OR THAT SHE KNOWS THE STUDENTS
DON'T WANT WE GO BACK AND FORTH.
BUT SHE IS NOT. SHE KNOWS SHE
MAKES A CALL BECAUSE SHE'S
BECAUSE THE AREA SHE'S IN THE
POLICE WILL SHOW UP. IMMEDIATELY
AND I'M TALKING ABOUT
WESTCHESTER IS LIKE JOHNNY ON
THE SPOT. UM SINCE THERE ARE A
LOT OF STUDENTS OF COLOR SHE
MAKES SURE THAT WHEN SHE DOES
CALL AS A WOMAN OF COLOR THAT
THERE NEEDED THERE I'VE ABSOLUTE
CONFIDENCE THAT. MY CHILD WILL
DO THE RIGHT THING AND CALL WHEN
IT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
SOMETIMES I PROBABLY HAVE TO
TELL HER BECAUSE L, A UNIFIED
TELLER NOT TO GET THE MIDDLE OF
SCRUM BECAUSE SHE'LL TRY TO JUMP
IN THERE AND TRY TO BREAK UP
KIDS FROM FIGHTING AND THAT TELL
HER THAT THAT'S A NO. NO BUT
SHE'S THE KIND OF TEACHER THAT I
THINK. NOT BECAUSE SHE'S MY
DAUGHTER, BUT I THINK SHE'S THE
KIND OF PERSON THAT KNOWS WHEN
YOU NEED TO CALL UM, FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO COME IN, AND I
HAVE UNBELIEVABLE. UM OBVIOUSLY
CONFIDENT IN HER JUDGMENT, AND I
THINK I WOULD LOT OF CONFIDENCE
AND A LOT OF HER. HER CO WORKERS
AND OTHER PEOPLE THAT THERE
THEY'LL DO THE RIGHT THING
BECAUSE THERE ARE CAMPUS AND AS
YOU SAID EARLIER, UM THEY KNOW
THESE YOUNG PEOPLE. AND THEY
KNOW THEM WELL, PROBABLY KNOW
WHAT THEY WILL OR WON'T DO. UM
AND THANK GOD WE HAVEN'T HAD UM
, THE KIND OF STUDENT PROBLEMS
THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER PLACES.
WE'VE HAD STUDENT PROBLEMS, BUT
I DON'T WANT TO. TALK ABOUT WHEN
WE WERE YOUNGER, BUT WHEN WE
WERE YOUNGER A LOT OF GANG
ACTIVITY THAT WAS GOING ON. IT'S
NOT AS BAD AS WHEN WE WERE
GROWING UP, AND I THINK IT'S A
LOT TO DO BECAUSE OF THE
TEACHERS AND THEIR ABILITY TO
HANDLE THAT, AND SO CHAIRS
RECOMMENDING. I VOTE AND
HOPEFULLY WE CAN WE CAN BRING
KEEP THE NORMALCY. IN OUR SCHOOL
SYSTEM. THANK YOU. OFFERED ABOUT. AN S B 12 73 BY SENATOR
pTO THE EDUCATION COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER. JOHN SAWYER. I LACKEY NO
BONTA. BRIAN. QUIRK EYES
SANTIAGO SEYARTO TOÀN SEYARTO NÓ. MR REMEMBERS THAT MEASURES ON
CALL. THANK YOU. MS RUBIO. MOVED
THE BILL. I HOPE THIS CAN BE
UNANIMOUS VOTE. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY TO BEGIN. THANK YOU AND
GOOD AFTERNOON CHAIR AND MEMBERS
OF THIS COMMITTEE TODAY I'M
PRESENTING SP 10 81 BILL THAT
MAKES IT COMMON SENSE CHANGE IN
CURRENT LAW BY GIVING VICTIMS OF
REVENGE PORN THE ABILITY TO SEEK
JUSTICE WHEN THEIR PRIVACY HAS
BEEN VIOLATED. I WANT TO THANK
THE CHAIR AND THE COMMITTEE. UH
AND THE STAFF AND I WILL BE
ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED COMMITTEE
AMENDMENTS. THANK YOU FOR ALL
THE WORK THAT YOU DID ON THIS
BILL. UNFORTUNATELY THE TERM
DISTRIBUTES LIMITS SITUATIONS IN
CASES WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL MAY
CONDUCT UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES SUCH
AS DISPLAYING A PRIVATE IMAGE
FOR PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. IT
HAPPENS. FOR EXAMPLE, AND ONE
CITY, THE PERPETRATOR BLEW UP
THE NAKED IMAGES OF THE VICTIM'S
BODY AND DROVE AROUND TOWN TO
EMBARRASS THE VICTIM. SHAME THE
VICTIM VIOLATING THAT, UH, THE
VICTIM'S PRIVACY. WE'VE SEEN A
WHERE OTHERS DISPLAY IMAGES SO
CO WORKERS CAN SEE. SO THERE ARE
ASHAMED AND EMBARRASSED, AND
SOMETIMES THEY HAVE TO LEAVE
THEIR PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT. THE
TRAUMA WITH VICTIMS, UH, THAT
THEY SUFFER IS DEVASTATING. THIS
IS A CRITICAL MEASURE TO ENSURE
THAT VICTIMS ARE PROTECTED AD
THAT THE RIGHT TO SEEK JUSTICE
IF THEIR PRIVACY HAS BEEN
VIOLATED. I WANT TO POINT OUT
THAT ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT RIGHT
WHEN WE SPEAK TO VICTIMS, THEY
OFTEN EQUATED TO FEELING RAPED
AND VIOLATED AND EXPOSED. THIS
IS SUCH A PERSONAL INTIMATE
VIOLATION OF ONE'S BODY. AS
EVIDENCED BY THE CONSTANT
HEADLINES OF OUR YOUTH
COMMITTING SUICIDE WHEN NAKED
IMAGES OF THEIR BODIES ARE
EXPLAINED, DISPLAYED EITHER ON
FACEBOOK OR OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA
OUTLETS. IN A MOMENT YOU WILL
HEAR FROM OUR WITNESS AND
SUPPORT WHO WILL BRIEFLY
DESCRIBE CONCRETE EXAMPLES OF
THIS WERE VICTIMS WERE UNABLE TO
SEEK JUSTICE DUE TO THE
LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT LAW. HERE
WITH ME IS MEG HOLDMAN, FORMER
SHASTA COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY AND CURRENT RIVERSIDE
COUNTY DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WHENEVER
YOU'RE READY. QUÊ. GOOD
AFTERNOON. SHARON MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. A LITTLE CLOSER. CAN
YOU HEAR ME NOW? GOOD AFTERNOON
CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS MEG
HULTMAN. AND TODAY I'M HERE TO
SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 81 BY
SENATOR RUBIO CURRENTLY SERVE AS
A DEPUTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. BUT I
PREVIOUSLY SERVED AS THE DEPUTY
D A IN SHAFT, A COUNTY. ALMOST
THREE YEARS AGO, A MAN AND A
WOMAN ENDED THEIR RELATIONSHIP.
LESS THAN A YEAR AGO THAT MAN
DECIDED TO ENLARGE TO NUDE
PHOTOS OF HIS NOW EX GIRLFRIEND
, PLASTERED THEM ON THE SIDE OF
HIS TRUCK AND DROVE AROUND TOWN
FOR ABOUT A WEEK. THAT WOMAN
BECAME AWARE OF THE PHOTOS WHEN
HE DROVE HIS TRUCK TO HER PLACE
OF EMPLOYMENT, AND SHE GOT A
PHONE CALL FROM A COWORKER WHO
RECOGNIZED HER. THE HURT AND
HUMILIATION THAT SHE SUFFERED IS
UNFATHOMABLE, AND THAT COWORKER
IS NEVER GOING TO SEE THOSE
IMAGES. AND FURTHERMORE,
COUNTLESS PEOPLE OVER ALL OF
SHAFT, A COUNTY HAVE NOW SEEN
HER NAKED ADULTS AND CHILDREN
ALIKE, AND WHY BECAUSE SHE HAD
THE AUDACITY TO START DATING
AGAIN TWO YEARS AFTER THEY BROKE
UP. SHE WAS NOT ABLE TO RECEIVE
ANY AMOUNT OF JUSTICE BECAUSE
OUR CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
CURRENTLY HAS A LOOPHOLE THAT
ALLOWS THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF THE
REWARD FOR BENJ PORN STATUTE
ONLY PROHIBITS DISTRIBUTION. NOW
THAT HAS A VERY SPECIFIC,
LITERAL DEFINITION. REQUIRING AN
ACTUAL TRANSITION OF POSSESSION
, TANGIBLE OR ELECTRONIC. IT
DOES NOT PROTECT AGAINST
DISPLAYING OR OTHERWISE SHOWING
IMAGES TO INDIVIDUALS TO CROWDS
SO IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT. PUTTING
UP A BIG SIGN IN YOUR YARD WITH
A NUDE PHOTO. IT DOESN'T
PROHIBIT DRIVING AROUND TOWN. SB
10 81 SPEAKS TO FIX THIS PROBLEM
AS WELL AS OFFER PROTECTION TO
ANYBODY THAT HAS MAYBE NOT AN
IDENTICAL BUT A SIMILAR
SITUATION WHERE A PHOTO WAS
SHARED WITH INDIVIDUALS WHO
WEREN'T ENTITLED TO SEE IT.
THEIR POTENTIAL LIFELONG
CONSEQUENCES THAT SHARING OF
INTIMATE PHOTOS CAN HAVE ON
ANOTHER PERSON. REVENGE PORN IS
NOT A MISTAKE DUE TO IMMATURE,
ITTY. IT'S NOT A BAD DECISION.
THAT'S JUST A RESULT OF ANGER,
HEARTBREAK, UPSET OR SOME OTHER
EMOTION. IT'S AN ACT OF PURE
VINDICTIVENESS AND ABUSE THAT
DOESN'T HAVE A PLACE IN OUR
SOCIETY. WHEN SOMEONE SHARES AN
INTIMATE PHOTO WITHOUT CONSENT,
THEY'RE VIOLATING TRUST, PRIVACY
AND BASIC HUMAN DECENCY. IN THE
LONG RUN, THEY COULD CAUSE THEIR
FORMER PARTNER INSURMOUNTABLE
AMOUNTS OF SHAME THEY COULD COST
THEM A JOB. IF THOSE PHOTOS END
UP ON THE INTERNET IF THEY SHOW
UP ON A BACKGROUND CHECK. WHEN A
PERSON GETS ANGRY AND SHARES
THESE TYPES OF PHOTO'S, THEY'RE-CONVERTING AN X FROM AN AX TO A
VICTIM OF EMOTIONAL AND
PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE. WE MAKE
DECISIONS, AND SOMETIMES
DECISIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES NOT
JUST FOR OURSELVES, BUT FOR
OTHER PEOPLE. FB 10 81 SEEKS TO
FIX THE LEGAL LOOPHOLE AND
STRENGTHEN PROTECTION FOR
VICTIMS OF REVENGE PORN. THANK
YOU. THEY PULLED THE MICROWAVE
FROM ME. UM ANYONE ELSE IN
SUPPORT OF THE BILL? KIM STONE
STONE ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF THE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT OR TWENTIES
ASSOCIATION, PROUD TO SPONSOR
THE BILL. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO
THE AUTHOR, AUTHOR STAFF IN THE
COMMITTEE. THANK YOU ANYONE ELSE
IN THE ROOM? SINGING THAT
OPERATE, GO TO THE PHONE LINES,
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT THANK YOU
, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN TO SPEAK
IN SUPPORT OF SB 10 81, PLEASE
PRESS ONE AND ZERO ON YOUR
PHONE. AND ONE MOMENT WHILE WE
ASSIGNED LINE NUMBERS.
I'M SORRY, WAS THAT IT? YOU ARE
ASSIGNING. AND FIRST WE HAVE
LINE 1 87, PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI
YES, I WAS A VICTIM. EXACTLY
THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED TO ME
ORGANIZATION AND WHAT I'M YES.
SOMEBODY HELD ME HOSTAGE FOR TWO
YEARS AND IT WAS VERY TRAUMATIC
. THEY DID EXACTLY THIS TO ME
AND I'M AND I'M IN FAVOR FOR
THIS BILL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE IN. Q
THANK YOU. NOW WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION.
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. UH YES.
UH GOOD GOOD MORNING CHAIR AND
MEMBERS. UM IT'S GOOD TO BE HERE
. MY NAME IS RICHARD BROKER. I'M
WITH THE PACIFIC JUVENILE
DEFENDER CENTER. AND WE CONTINUE
TO HAVE OPPOSED THIS BILL. UM,
UNLESS AMENDED. AND THE REASON
FOR THAT, AND WE'VE SPELLED THIS
OUT AT OUR LAST. HEARING IS THAT
THIS IS. ESSENTIALLY A TRAP FOR
YOUTH. THIS IS THE KIND OF
OFFENSE THAT IS. REALLY GOING TO
ENSNARE YOUNG PEOPLE. AND THIS.
THE LEGISLATURE ALREADY KNOWS
THAT YOUNG PEOPLE ARE
NEUROLOGICALLY AND
DEVELOPMENTALLY DIFFERENT. FROM
ADULTS THAT THEY ARE IMPETUOUS.
THERE ARE. PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM
THAT HAVE CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE AND KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING
ABOUT. THE LAW IN CALIFORNIA. IS
CODIFIED. TO REPRESENT THESE
FACTS IN PENAL CODE SECTION 30
51, FOR INSTANCE, BUT ALSO IN
OTHER, UM OTHER STATUTESAS
WELL. SO. I AM HERE. I REALIZED
THAT THIS TRAIN IS GOING TO
LEAVE THE STATION, AND I
REALIZED THAT IT'S UNLIKELY ANY
ACTION IS GOING TO BE TAKEN. BUT
WE ARE ABOUT TO PASS
LEGISLATION. THAT WILL NOT STOP
A YOUNG PERSON FROM COMMITTING
THIS KIND OF OFFENSE. UM AND WE
ARE JUST GOING TO IN SNARE MORE
YOUNG PEOPLE INTO THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM, WHICH THIS COMMITTEE HAS
ALREADY SPOKEN OF TODAY. UH, AS
YOU KNOW, BEING YOU KNOW, A VERY. SIGNIFICANT GOAL IS TO CURB
YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, BRINGING YOU
KNOW MORE AND MORE YOUNG PEOPLE
INTO THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
SYSTEM. SO I WILL END WITH THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR GEORGE.
THANK YOU, MARK. MARCO GEORGE ON
BEHALF OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION. I'D LIKE
TO THANK THE AUTHOR FOR THE
EARLIER AMENDMENTS AND FOR
TAKING THE MORE RECENT
AMENDMENTS. WE CONTINUE TO
OPPOSE THIS UNLESS IT'S AMENDED
TOGETHER, CARVE OUT FOR MINORS.
AND UM, I WOULD ECHO THE MR
BROKERS COMMENTS ABOUT JUVENILE
BRAIN DEVELOPMENT. BUT I THINK
ONE THING THAT HAS NOT BEEN
RELEASED SUFFICIENTLY LOOKED AT
IS THAT, UM, THE RESEARCH ON
JUVENILE TEXTING SEXTING, NOT
TEXTING. UM THAT RESEARCH IS A
BODY OF RESEARCH THAT'S GROWN
OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. AND IT
HAS SHOWN THAT WORLDWIDE THE
PREVALENCE OF SEXTING. UM AMONG
12 TO 17 YEAR OLDS IS 14.8% TO
27.4% AND THAT WAS FROM A 2018
STUDY. AND AS CELL PHONES AND
MOBILE DEVICES HAVE GROWN, THE
UM, THAT NUMBER HAS CONTINUED TO
RISE. SO A RECENT STUDY, WHICH
IS ACTUALLY ONGOING, SUGGESTS
THAT ALMOST 50% OF YOUNG ADULTS
ARE ENGAGING IN SEXTING. AND IT. UM AND SIGNIFICANTLY THE
MINERS WITH THE HIGHEST RATES OF
SEXTING WERE OLDER ADOLESCENTS.
LGBT Q YOUTH. AFRICAN AMERICANS.
AND LESBIANS. SO ONE OF THE
THINGS THAT THE STUDIES HAVE
LOOKED AT SOME OF THEM IS WHAT
IS THE MOTIVATION FOR THIS? AND
FOR A LOT OF THE YOUNG PEOPLE IS
SOME MEANS OF SEXUAL
EXPLORATION. FOR SOME, THEY SEE
IT AS FLIRTING. UM, FOR SOME.
CERTAINLY IT'S REVENGE OR, YOU
KNOW, SHAMING. THAT'S TRUE, BUT
IT HAS A LOT OF APPARENTLY
NORMATIVE AND SOCIAL. UM. MM
GOOD AND COMMONALITY. AND THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THAT
WE NEED TO CONSIDER. AND REALLY
THINK ABOUT HOW TO ADDRESS IT.
AND THE ONE THING. I WOULD SAY
IS, THE CANADIANS ARE WAY AHEAD
OF US IN THIS RESPECT, AND THEY
HAVE BOTH EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
AND I CHECKLIST. OF THINGS TO DO
WITH YOUTH INSTEAD OF
CRIMINALIZING IT SO RESPECTFULLY
. WE ASKED FOR YOUR NO VOTE
UNLESS IT'S AMENDED FOR CARVE
OUT FOR MINORS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. NOW GO TO THE ROOM ANY
OTHER WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION?
THEN WE'LL GO TO PHONE LINES,
WITNESSES, AN OPPOSITION RUBIO
10 81. THANK YOU TO SPEAK IN
OPPOSITION OF SPEED. 10 81,
PLEASE PRESS 10 ON YOUR PHONE.
BOTH ARE HERE. ONE AND ZERO ON
YOUR TELEPHONE. AND I HAVE NO
ONE IN QUÊ. THANK YOU ANY
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM YES,
MR SARTO. ALL RIGHT, UM. SO I
WANTED TO FIRST THANK THE AUTHOR
FOR ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
BECAUSE IT IS A BIG ISSUE, AND
IT'S A BIG ISSUE THAT IN HIGH
SCHOOL AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL,
ESPECIALLY CAN LEAD TO A LOT OF
SHAMING, WHICH LEADS TO
DEPRESSION, WHICH LEADS TO
SUICIDES. FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE
VICTIMS OF A CRIME THAT RIGHT
NOW AND IT IS A CRIME. IT SHOULD
BE A CRIME. THAT THERE ARE NO
CONSEQUENCES FOR IT. UM IT WON'T
STOP THEM JUST LIKE I DON'T
DISAGREE WITH YOU. IT WON'T STOP
THEM FROM DOING THAT. BUT
CERTAINLY IT WILL CREATE A
CONSEQUENCE. THAT WILL
DISCOURAGE THEM IN THE FUTURE
UNLESS THEY WANT TO HAVE THAT
CONSEQUENCE COMPOUND ITSELF
GETTING A MISDEMEANOR. ISN'T AND
ALL BE ALL OF YOUR EXISTENCE,
BUT IT SURE IS A WAKE UP CALL,
AND I REMEMBER BACK WHEN I WAS
13 OR 14. NO MY BRAIN WASN'T
VERY DEVELOPED AS YOU SAY. UH I
PROBABLY FOLLOW THE SAME PATTERN
AS EVERYONE ELSE. BUT YOU KNOW
WHAT I DIDN'T DO. I DIDN'T DO
CRAP LIKE THIS. GOING AROUND AND
SHOWING PICTURES OF SOMEBODY OF
A YOUNG KID. NAKED IS NOT NORMAL
, AND WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT
SO THE MINUTE YOU GO FROM SEXING
TO REVENGE PORN. YOU'VE CROSSED
THE LINE, AND PEOPLE NEED TO
KNOW THAT WE CAN'T STOP THE
STEPS 16 CRAZE. WE CAN
DISCOURAGE IT. WE CAN TELL
PEOPLE LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED
SOMETIMES. YES IF YOU DO WITH
THE WRONG PERSON, GUESS WHAT
THAT PERSON CAN TURN INTO A BAD
PERSON AND GO DOOP, UH, SHAMING
OF YOU IN THE FUTURE. UM, THIS
JUST. NOT ADDRESSING THIS RESULT
IN HORRENDOUS EFFECTS ON YOUNG
PEOPLE. AND WE'RE SEEING IT ALL
OVER. JUST THE OTHER DAY WE HAD
WHAT 22 BEAUTIFUL YOUNG PEOPLE.
THEY KILLED THEMSELVES. WE DON'T
KNOW WHY. BUT A LOT OF TIMES
IT'S THIS STUFF. IT'S THIS
STUFF. THEY KNOW THEY CAN'T DO
ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THEY KNOW
THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP
IT. AND SO GUESS WHAT THEY TAKE
THEMSELVES OUT OF THE PICTURE.
AND IF WE DON'T ADDRESS THAT
THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH US.
SO YEAH, THIS BILL. GREAT BILL.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT. UM, I%
WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT IT. THANK
YOU. TAKE MR COURTS. DID YOU
HAVE A QUESTION? YES. FIRST OF
ALL. UNDER THE LAW, JUVENILES
ARE TREATED DIFFERENTLY, AND I
THINK THAT THAT'S BUT SUFFICIENT
PROTECTION IF THE SENATOR WANTED
TO WRITE SOMETHING SPECIAL THERE
. I WOULDN'T OPPOSE IT, BUT I
DON'T NEED IT EITHER. THEY ARE
TREATED DIFFERENTLY, AND THEY
SHOULD BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY.
AND THAT'S THE WAY THE SYSTEM IS
SET UP. UM NOW THIS IS THIS IS
REALLY IMPORTANT. I WAS HERE
WHEN MR CANELA BROUGHT THIS UP
FOR THE FIRST TIME. AND I WILL
ALSO SAY THAT WHAT'S GOING ON
HERE. IS. THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO
GO BEYOND WHAT FRANKLY, MOST
ADOLESCENTS ARE DOING, WHICH IS
DOING THINGS ELECTRONICALLY.
THIS IS TRYING TO GET OUT OF THE
ELECTRONIC UM. OR ADD ADD TO GO
BEYOND THE ELECTRONIC FIELD, AND
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE
MOST OF THE ADOLESCENTS GET
CAUGHT UP ANYWAY. SO AH, LET'S
SEE WHAT WE'VE MOVED THE BILL
AND I HOPE WE CAN PASSIVE. OKAY?
SO WITH THAT WE'LL CLOSE YOU
CLOSE. THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF
THIS COMMITTEE FOR HEARING THIS
BILL. UM LET ME JUST START BY
SAYING I WAS A TEACHER OF HIS 17
YEARS AND I CARE VERY DEEPLY FOR
OUR CHILDREN AND OUR USED, UM,
JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS ALREADY
LIE IN TERMS OF BEING ILLEGAL TO
DISTRIBUTE ATTACKS AND OTHER AND
IT DOESN'T EXCLUDE, ARE YOU?
THIS IS JUST ADDING THE ABILITY
THAT THE WORD EXHIBITS AND I
WOULD ARGUE, TEXTING ALL THAT
KIND OF UP THERE ALREADY CAUGHT
UP IN THAT KIND OF SYSTEM WHEN
YOU GO BEYOND THAT, TO ACTUALLY
BLOW UP PICTURES PUT THE
BILLBOARDS WALK AROUND PURPOSELY
SHOWING IT TO CO WORKERS. AND I
KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR
YOUTH. BUT IN JUST GENERAL, IT
DESTROYS LIVES. I'VE HAD
CONVERSATIONS WITH MOTHERS THAT
LOST THEIR CHILDREN. WHEN
SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS TO
OUR YOUTH, IT'S VERY, REALLY
DIFFICULT TO HANDLE ON THAT END
, THEY ARE NOT PREPARED TO DEAL
WITH THE SHAME AND DEVASTATION.
AND SOME COMMIT SUICIDE. SO I
HAVE TO BALANCE THAT OUT AND TO
ENSURE THAT WE DON'T LOSE ANY
MORE CHILDREN TO SUICIDE. WE
DON'T HAVE VICTIMS THAT ARE
LOSING JOBS DUE TO THEIR IMAGES
BEING PURPOSELY DISTRIBUTED.
EXHIBITED AND, UH AND AGAIN,
THIS WILL COST A LOT OF MENTAL
HEALTH ISSUES THAT ARE REALLY
DIFFICULT TO OVERCOME. SO I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR RIVAL
. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS
FORWARD AND CHAIRS RECOMMENDING
I VOTE. CALLED THE ROLE ON SB 10
81 BY SENATOR RUBIO. THE MOTION
IS DUE PATH AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOHN
SAWYER, I LACKEY LACKEY, I BONTA
BRIAN. QUIRK ALRIGHT, WORK I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO. I SAY ARTO
TÔI. MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU.
MR WILK. SENATOR WILK, YOU'RE
NEXT. ITEM 12 SB 10 89 WILK.
YEAH. YOU WANT TO GO QUICK.
DON'T TALK. PASTOR YES, GO
QUICK. THERE'S A VERY SIMPLE
BILL THAT WILL GIVE PEOPLE THE
OPTION OF USING THE P A OR GOING
TO A PRIVATE PROVIDER. THIS IS
REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE
SOMETIMES YOU'RE SERIOUS DELAYS
USING THE P A, AND IS
PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT FOR YOUNG
PEOPLE. I THINK NO ONE THIS
BUILDING KNOWS MORE THAN THIS
COMMITTEE ABOUT ALL THE THINGS
WE NEED TO DO TO STOP THE
PRISON, TOO. THE PIPELINE TO
SCHOOL PRINT PIPELINE SYSTEM,
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF
YOU LOOK AT THE STATS, THOSE
PEOPLE DEMOGRAPHERS WHEN
PROJECTING FUTURE PRISON
POPULATIONS, LOOK AT THIRD GRADE
LITERACY RATES. SO WE NEED TO DO
ALL WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE
EQUIP OUR YOUNG PEOPLE TO BE IN
A POSITION TO READ THAT NONE OF
THAT WAS EVEN IN THESE NOTES.
BUT I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT
THERE AND WITH ME TO PROVIDE
EXPERT TESTIMONY. IS AND YOU DO
NOT GET YOUR HAIR CUT AGAIN. I
TOLD YOU TO CHERRY MCHALE WITH
THE OPTOMETRIST ASSOCIATION
REPRESENTING THEM. MR CHAIRMAN,
TERRY MCHALE, WITH AARON READING
ASSOCIATES REPRESENTING
CALIFORNIA OPTOMETRIC
ASSOCIATION, AND I'LL GO QUICKLY
TO I KNOW HOW HUNGRY YOU ALL
ARE. UH THE PEOPLE WHO SUFFER
THE MOST UNDER THIS OR THE YOUNG
PEOPLE WITH MEDICAL THE NUMBER
ONE COMPLAINT THAT OPTOMETRISTS
RECEIVED COME FROM MEDICAL
FAMILIES, AND WE DID A SURVEY
AND 39% OF PEOPLE WHO USE THE
PRISON AUTHORITY. IT TAKES AT
LEAST A MONTH AND A HALF TO GET
THE GLASSES, THE OTHER 38% TAKE
OVER TWO MONTHS TO FOUR MONTHS.
IT'S VERY INTERESTING WHEN YOU
ASK THE PIA HOW QUICK THEY'RE
TURNAROUND IS, THEY WILL SAY
IT'S 5 TO 9 DAYS. SO WE LOOKED
INTO IT. WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS
FROM THE TIME THAT THE PRISONER
RECEIVES THE ASSIGNMENT, IT
TAKES 5 TO 9 DAYS TO TURN IT
AROUND. THAT'S NOT HOW LONG IT
TAKES TO GET BACK TO THE PERSON
WHO NEEDS THE GLASSES. THIS BILL
DOES NOT SAY DO NOT USE THE P I
A IF THE PRISON AUTHORITY EVER
REACHES THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE
DOING IT IN 5 TO 9 DAYS, EVERY
OPTOMETRIST IN THE STATE WILL
USE THEM. THEY WON'T LOSE ANY
BUSINESS AT ALL. BUT FOR THOSE
WHO CAN'T DO IT, WE WANT TO GIVE
THEM THE OPTION. THAT'S WHAT IT
IS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I ASK
HER AND I VOTE. WE'RE NOW GOING
TO IN THE ROOM ANY WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT GO TO PHONE LINES,
WITNESSES AND SUPPORT 18 T
OPERATOR. WELCOME 10. SB 10 89.
IS TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF SB 10
89, PLEASE PRESS 10 ON YOUR
PHONE. AND ONE MOMENT AS WE GET
LINE NUMBERS.
AND WE WILL HEAR FROM. LINE
NUMBER 1 90, PLEASE GO AHEAD. OH
THIS IS DR DOUG MAJOR. I'M A
CERTIFIED CORRECTIONAL HEALTH
PROVIDER. ALSO AN ADVOCATE FOR
YOU YOUNG CHILDREN THROUGH THE
SLOOP LION'S EYES .ORG STRONGLY
SUPPORT OF SB 10 89. LET'S GIVE
CHILDREN THE TOOLS THEY NEED
EARLY TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN
SCHOOL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK
YOU. AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE IN
QUÊ. RIGHT? SO COMING UP. AH HE
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION. AND
NONE WERE GOING TO PHONE LINES,
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION THANK
YOU TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF
ESPEED, CANADIAN NINE, PLEASE
PRESS ONE AND ZERO ON YOUR
PHONE. PLEASE PRESS 10 AT THIS
TIME. AND I HAVE NO ONE IN QUÊ.
ALL RIGHT, AND WE BRING IT BACK
TO COMMITTEE. QUESTIONS, MR
CORK. THAT COURT. YES UM, SO
WHEN YOU GO TO SEE AN
OPTOMETRIST OR NOT TÂM OLOGISTS
YOU THEN WELCOME ACROSS THE ROOM
, AND THERE'S SOMEBODY SELLING
GLASSES. SO WHAT I'M CONCERNED
ABOUT IS THAT EVERYBODY WOULD
SIMPLY USE THAT. AND ALSO THAT
THE PRICES WOULD BE HIGHER THAT
MEDICAL WOULD PAY OR THE PATIENT
WOULD PAY. CAN YOU SINCE I'VE
LET YOU KNOW AT THE TIME. THAT
WAS MY CONCERN. I SUSPECT YOU'RE
YOU'RE EXPERT CAN ANSWER THAT.
THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION AND
THANK YOU FOR THE HEADS UP THAT
YOU WERE GOING TO ASK THAT
QUESTION. IT WAS VERY, VERY MUCH
APPRECIATED. THIS IS NOT A MONEY
MAKER IN ANY WAY THE MEDICAL
BENEFITS FEARS SET. WE'RE NOT
ASKING FOR AN INCREASE IN
MEDICAL ONLY ALLOWS EVERY TWO
YEARS THAT YOU CAN CHANGE THE
STYLE OF GLASSES YOU CAN HAVE SO
THAT THERE IS THIS IS NOT A
MONEY MAKING SITUATION. GREAT.
THANK YOU. I'LL BE SUPPORTING
THE BILL. THANK YOU, SIR. THANK
YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOVE
THE BILL. SECOND MOVED AND
SECONDED CLOSE. RESPECTFULLY
ASKED FOR CHAIRS RECOMMENDING I
VOTE CALLED FOR ALL. ON SP 10 89
BY SENATOR WELCOME MOTION IS DUE
PASSED THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE JOHN SAWYER, JOHN
SAWYER. I LACKEY. NÓI LACKEY. I
BONTA. BRIAN. QUIRK QUIRK I
SANTIAGO SANTIAGO. I SEE YOUR
TOE. YEAH, THEY ARE TÔI. YEAH.
WITH. IT LOOKS LIKE WITH THE
REPUBLICAN SUPPORT YOU GOT OUT
OF HERE SO.
WE CAN. WE CAN GO BACK AND TAKE
UP SOME VOTES ON BILLS. WHILE
WE'RE WAITING FOR ME. OH THERE'S
MR BECKER. UH HUH. IT. HE'S GOT
TO GO. OKAY, LET'S TAKE UP SOME
VOTES WHILE MR SANTIAGO IS HERE.
GO. JUST GIVE US A SECOND, MR.
SENATOR BECKER, SOME OF THEM.
YOUR LAST ONE AND THE CONSENT
CALENDAR. SANTIAGO SANTIAGO.
AYE. WE EMOTIONS ON ITEMS ONE
AND TWO. THE WIENER. AN ITEM
NUMBER ONE SB ONE. OH, SEVEN BY
SENATOR WIENER. IT WAS MOVED BY
DR QUIRKE SECONDED BY MR
SANTIAGO. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER, JOAN
SAWYER, I LACKEY LACKEY. NO,
BONTA. BRIAN QUIRK. QUIRK I
SANTIAGO. YES, SIR. SANTIAGO
EYES SEYARTO. SEYARTO KNOW THAT
MEASURES ON CALL. AN ITEM NUMBER
TWO. ITEM TWO WIENER. WE NEED
EMOTION. SECOND. MOVED BY. MR
QUIRK SECONDED BY MR JONES
SAWYER ON SB 8 34 BY SENATOR
WIENER. THE MOTION IS DUE PASS
AS AMENDED TO THE APPROPRIATIONS
COMMITTEE. JOHN SAWYER. JOHN
SAWYER. I LACKEY LUCKY, NOT
VOTING BONTA. BRIAN QUIRK. QUIRK
I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, I SAY YOUR
TOE SEYARTO NOT VOTING THAT
MEASURES ON CALL. GO THROUGH AND
ITEM NUMBER THREE. SB 9 18 BY
SENATOR PORTANTINO. THIS MEASURE
IS ON CALL SANTIAGO. 9 18 SERVED
FIVE. SENATOR PORTANTINO.
SANTIAGO. AYE. ITEM NUMBER FOUR
WAS ON CONSENT ITEM FIVE WAS ON
CONSENT. I DON'T NUMBER SIX SP 9
86 BY SENATOR AMBERG. THIS
MEASURE IS ON CALL. SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO. I SEYARTO. YEAH.
SEYARTO NOT VOTING. ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN WAS PULLED BY COMMITTEE
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SP 12 62 BY
SENATOR BRADFORD SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO I THIS MEASURE REMAINS
ON CALL. REMEMBER NINE SP 12 73
BY SENATOR BRADFORD SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO I THIS MEASURE REMAINS
ON CALL. ITEM NUMBER. 10 WAS
JUST DISPENSED WITH ITEM NUMBER
11 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
12. WE STILL HAVE ABSOLUTE
MEMBERS AT THIS TIME. AT NUMBER
13 IS PENDING FOR US ITEM NUMBER
14 IS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER 15
SB 11 33 BY SENATOR ARCHULETTA
SANTIAGO. SANTIAGO AND NOT
VOTING. THEY ARE TWO CR TÔI.
THIS MEASURE REMAINS ON CALL.
YOU MAY BEGIN, MR SENATOR
BECKER. THANK YOU. THIS IS NO
LONGER THE MORNING. GOOD
AFTERNOON, MR CHAIR MEMBERS, SP
12 23 WILL ENSURE THAT MORE
CALIFORNIANS RECEIVE MENTAL
HEALTH SUPPORT AND RESOURCES
THEY NEED BY SAFELY INCREASING
THE USE OF MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION IN APPROPRIATE CASES.
AND IT'S RESEARCH AND
RECOMMENDED. I THINK THE NUMBER
ONE RECOMMENDATION BY THE
COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE
PENAL CODE AFTER FINDING THAT
MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION HAS BEEN
SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERUTILIZED. IT
DOES PRESERVE JUDICIAL
DISCRETION. AND IT'S CONSISTENT
WITH WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE
DONE. AND I'VE WORKED WITH THE
JUDICIAL COUNCIL. CPD A THE SHOW
YOU AND OUR COUNTY BEHAVIORAL
HEALTH DEPARTMENTS. EXCEPT THE
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS. AND I'VE
WON SUPPORT TESTIMONY. WITNESS
THANK YOU. THE HONORABLE JUDGE
ESPINOSA IS ON THE LINE. THANK
YOU AGAIN AND I RESPECTFULLY ASK
FOR MY VOTE. JUST MINOSA
WHENEVER YOU'RE READY TO BEGIN.
I'M READY. THANK YOU FOR HAVING
ME COMMITTEE MEMBERS. BY WAY OF
INTRODUCTION. I DO WANT TO SAY
THAT I HAVE BEEN A MEMBER OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE REVISION OF THE
PENAL CODE. SINCE IT WAS
ESTABLISHED IN TWO 2020 AND
OBVIOUSLY OUR MISSION IS TO MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS TO SIMPLIFY AND
RATIONALIZE CRIMINAL LAW. PLAYER
MY PRIOR EMPLOYMENT INCLUDES
FIVE YEARS AS THE DIRECTOR OF
THE OPPOSITE OF DIVERSION AND
REENTRY WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH SERVICES IN LOS ANGELES
COUNTY. WHERE WE WERE TASKED
WITH THE MISSION OF REDUCING THE
MENTAL HEALTH POPULATION, THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY JAIL WE HAVE
DEVELOPED A NUMBER OF STRATEGIES
TO SAFELY REMOVED. INMATES FROM
THE JAIL WHO SUFFER FROM A
SERIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS. PRIOR TO
THAT, I SPENT MORE THAN TWO
DECADES AS A JUDGE OF THE LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT,
INCLUDING THE TERM AS THE
SUPERVISING GENERAL OF THE
CRIMINAL DIVISION. ME JUST
OUTLINED THE MENTAL HEALTH
CRISIS THAT BRINGS US HERE TO
TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR THESE
SERVICES TODAY, ONE THIRD OF THE
STATE'S PRISON POPULATION IS
ACTIVELY RECEIVING MENTAL HEALTH
TREATMENT. WHICH IS AROUND
30,000 PEOPLE. THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY JAIL, OPERATES THE
LARGEST MENTAL HEALTH
INSTITUTION IN THE UNITED STATES
, THE POPULATION WITH MENTAL
HEALTH CONDITIONS IN THE JAIL
HAS DOUBLED IN THE LAST DECADE.
THE DAILY CENSUS OF THE JAIL
HOVERS AT AROUND 13,500. AH!
PERSONS 42% OF THAT POPULATION
IS IN SOME POINT OF MENTAL
HEALTH HOUSING, MEANING THEY ARE
RECEIVING CARE TREATMENT AND
PSYCHOTROPIC MEDICATION. A STUDY
BY THE RAND CORPORATION HAS
FOUND THAT 61% OF THE MENTAL
HEALTH POPULATION AT THE TIME OF
THE STUDY WAS CONDUCTED. WAS
APPROPRIATE FROM APPROPRIATE FOR
DIVERSION AWAY FROM THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY JAIL AND INTO
COMMUNITY BASED CARE. SP 12 23
IS A RESULT HAS BEEN INDICATED
OF A RECOMMENDATION TO THE
COMMITTEE ON REVISION OF THE
PENAL CODE. TO SAFELY EXPAND THE
EXISTING MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION
. IN MANY CASES, DIVERSION WORKS
REDUCES AND REDUCES RECIDIVISM
WHILE IMPROVING OTHER OUTCOMES,
AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO
CONSIDER THAT UM THIS IS A
SERIOUS PUBLIC SAFETY STRATEGY.
ANY TIME THAT YOU REDUCE
RECIDIVIST BEHAVIOR, YOU ARE
IMPROVING PUBLIC SAFETY. SB 12
23 STREAMLINES THE COURT PROCESS
FOR JUDGES TO DETERMINE IF
MENTAL HEALTH DIVERSION IS
APPROPRIATE. IN A GIVEN CASE,
WHILE PRESERVING A JUDGE'S
ULTIMATE DISCRETION AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT
DIVERSION. TO BE CLEAR. SP 23
NEVER FORCES. A JUDGE TO GRANT
DIVERSION IS INSTEAD INJECTS A
BIT OF COMMON SENSE INTO THE
PENAL CODE. AND SAYS THAT AS A
STARTING POINT FOR THE JUDGE IF
THERE WAS A DIAGNOSED SERIOUS
MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE THE JUDGE
WILL ASSUME THAT THERE IS A
CONNECTION BETWEEN THAT
CONDITION IN THE CHARGE DEFENSE.
THAT CONNECTION CAN BE OVERCOME
, INCLUDING BY EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY A PROSECUTOR. EVEN
IF A JUDGE IS SATISFIED THAT
THERE WAS A CONNECTION TO THE
OFFENSE, HE OR SHE CAN STILL I'M
SORRY HE OR SHE STILL HAS TOTAL
DISCRETION. TO DENY DIVERSION
FOR OTHER REASONS, INCLUDING
PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY AND
CONCERNS AROUND PUBLIC SAFETY.
TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. SP 12
23 ALSO DOES NOT ALTER THE LIST
OF OFFENSES THAT ARE INELIGIBLE
TO RECEIVE MENTAL HEALTH
DIVERSION, INCLUDING MURDER,
RAPE AND OTHER EXTREMELY SERIOUS
OFFENSES. I WILL REMAIN FOR
QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY AND
AGAIN THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU
TODAY ON THIS VERY IMPORTANT
LEGISLATION, AND I ENCOURAGE YOU
TO SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. WE NOW HAVE WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT IN THE ROOM. NATASHA
MINSTER ON BEHALF OF SMART
JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA AND STRONG
SUPPORT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR
CHAIR MEMBERS. MY NAME IS MIKE A
DOCTOR OFF. I'M AN ATTORNEY WITH
THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA HERE
SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF BLUE
CALIFORNIA ACTION, A PROUD CO
SPONSOR OF THE BILL IN STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. MARCO GEORGE
ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA PUBLIC
DEFENDERS ASSOCIATION AND STRONG
SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
WE'RE NOT OVER WITNESSES AND
OPPOSITION. SEEING NONE IN THE
ROOM. WE'RE GOING TO WITNESSES
AND OPPOSITION ON THE PHONE
LINE. OPEN UP THE PHONE LINE.
DID YOU WANT TO DO SUPPORT ON
THE PHONE LINES? OKAY? LET'S DO
BOTH. A LONG DAY SPEAK. TO SPEAK
ON ON SP 12 23 PRESS ONE, THEN
ZERO AT THIS TIME. SPEAK EITHER
WAY, PRESS ONE AND ZERO AND WE
WILL START WITH LINE ONE. OH,
SEVEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. WE HAVE
A SERIOUS PALESTINIAN ACTION
THROUGH AND REPORT. THANK YOU.
AND ONE MOMENT WE WILL GO TO
LINE 1 91, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
AFTERNOON. THIS IS MATTHEW
GRECO. UH, ON BEHALF OF THE SAME
DIEGANS AGAINST CRIME, URGING A
NO VOTE ON SP 12 23. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND NEXT WE HAVE LINE
1 92, PLEASE GO AHEAD. NAME OF
FORD ON BEHALF OF CB HD, A
CALLING AND SUPPORT AND
APPRECIATE UNCLE AND
CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUTHOR.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THAT
IS WELL, I HAVEN'T YOU. THANK
YOU BRING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE
FOR QUESTIONS. IT'S JUST I'M NOT
TRYING TO FORCE YOU TO DÍAS
SPIRIT IN THE ROOM, AND THEN HE
WENT TO YEAH. ALRIGHT, WELL THE
OPPOSITION IS CONCERNED. ABOUT
WHO MAKES THE DECISION AS TO
WHETHER SOMEONE IS MENTALLY
IMPAIRED. CAN YOU DESCRIBE HOW
THAT WOULD BE DONE UNDER YOUR
BILL? SURE IN THE WITNESS CAN
CORRECT ANYTHING IF I IF I
MISSPOKE, SPEAK HERE, BUT THE
KEY PART IS PRESERVING JUDICIAL
DISCRETION, AND THAT'S WHAT THE
BUILD REALLY TRIES TO DO, UM IN
MAKE SURE THAT THE JUDGE CAN
TAKE ALL THE FACTORS THAT THE
COURT DEEMS APPROPRIATE INTO
THIS DETERMINATION, SO I THINK
THAT'S REALLY THE KEY FACTOR
HERE. AND I DON'T THAT ANSWERS
YOUR QUESTION. IF NOT, WE COULD
TRY TO CLARIFY MY CONCERN IS
JUDGES ARE TRAINED. AH, YOU MAY
HAVE AN EXPERT COMING FORWARD.
JUDGES ARE TRAINED. SURE, LET'S
HAVE A YEAH, PLEASE AGAINST
DANCER ADDS A DEFINITION OF WHO
CAN DIAGNOSE. THE INDIVIDUALS
HAVING A MENTAL HEALTH CONDITION
THAT QUALIFIES THE DIET, THE
DEFINITION THAT'S ADDED TO THE
BILL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE
DEFINITION USED IN OTHER PLACES
OF LAW. ESSENTIALLY SAYS IF THE
JUDGE QUALIFIES THE PERSON AS AN
EXPERT, THEN THEY CAN MAKE THE
DIAGNOSIS. OKAY, SO THEY'D HAVE
TO HAVE SOME EXPERTS. EXACTLY
THE JUDGE HAS TO BE SATISFIED
THAT THE INDIVIDUAL MAKING THE
DIAGNOSIS HAS THE EXPERT
QUALIFICATIONS TO DO SO. OKAY
BUT THE IMPORTANT THING IS THEY
NEED TO CALL IN AN EXPERT IS
THAT CORRECT OR CASES? THERE
MUST BE A DIAGNOSIS FROM A
QUALIFIED MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT.
EXCELLENT THANK YOU VERY MUCH
FOR DISPELLING THAT FALSE.
DWAYNE WE HAD EMOTION ON THE
BILL YET. YES, OKAY. GOOD. I'LL
BE VOTING FOR IT. QUÊ ANY OTHER
QUESTIONS. 18 NONE. YOU MAY
CLOSE. THANKS FOR COMMENTS
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR MY VOTE
CHAIRS RECOMMENDING I VOTE
CALLED ROLE. ON SP 12 23 BY
SENATOR BECKER. THE MOTION IS
DUE PATH AS AMENDED TO THE
APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JOAN
SAWYER, JOHN SAWYER, I LACKEY
KINO BANTA. BRIAN WORK. ALRIGHT
I SANTIAGO SANTIAGO, I CR TWO
SEYARTO NÓ. MET HIS OWN CALL.
THANK YOU.
NOW WE'RE WAITING FOR ABSENT
MEMBERS WHO HAVEN'T VOTED THE
COME BACK SO WE CAN COMPLETE.
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S BONTA AND BRIAN. NOW YOU'RE.
YES. UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR,
BONTA BANTA AYE. ITEM NUMBER ONE
SP ONE. OH, SEVEN BY SENATOR
WIENER BONTA. BANTER I THAT
MEASURE REMAINS ON CALL. ITEM
NUMBER TWO SB 8 34 BY SENATOR
WIENER BONTA. PONTA I. THAT
MEASURE REMAINS ON CALL. ITEM
NUMBER THREE SP 9 18 BY SENATOR
PORTANTINO BANDA. BANTA AYE.
ITEM FOUR WAS ON CONSENT. I
DON'T FIVE WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM
NUMBER SIX SP 9 86 BY SENATOR
UMBERG BONTA. BANTA I THAT
MEASURE PASSES. ITEM NUMBER
SEVEN WAS PULLED BY COMMITTEE.
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT SP 12 62 BY
SENATOR BRADFORD THIS MEASURE
WAS ON CALL BONTA. SPANSION THAT
VOTING. BOND I THAT MEASURE
REMAINS ON CALL. I REMEMBER NINE
SP 12 73 BY SENATOR BRADFORD
BONTA. BACK TO I THAT MEASURE
REMAINS ON CALL. ITEM NUMBER 10
SB 10 81 BY SENATOR RUBIO BONTA.
BAN TÔI. ITEM 11 WAS ON CONSENT.
ITEM NUMBER 12 SB 10 89 BY
SENATOR WILK BONTA. BANTA AYE.
ITEM 13 SB 12 23 BY SENATOR
BECKER. THIS MEASURE WAS ON CALL
BANTA. BUT ER I THIS MEASURE
REMAINS ON CALL AND THE NUMBER
14 WAS ON CONSENT. ITEM NUMBER
15 SB 11 33 BY SENATOR
ARCHULETTA BANTA. BANTA I THAT
MEASURE REMAINS ON. EXCUSE ME.
THAT MEASURE PASSES.
TELL ME WHAT HAPPENED. FIGURES.
NEVER. YOU'RE READY. I AM READY.
ON THE CALENDAR. I WAS ALREADY
THERE. APOLOGIES THIS IS MY
FIRST TIME DOING THIS ITEM
NUMBER ONE. THIS MEASURES ON
CALL SP ONE. OH, SEVEN. BRIAN.
BRIAN. I HAD THAT BILL IS OUT.
ITEM NUMBER TWO SB 8 34 WIENER.
THIS IS ON CALL BRIAN. THAT BILL
IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER THREE SP 9
18 PORTANTINO. UM. ASSEMBLY
MEMBER BRIAN I BELIEVE YOU'VE
ALREADY VOTED ON THAT ONE.
EXCUSE ME. ITEM NUMBER SIX SB
986 A BIRD. BRIAN BRIAN, I. ITEM
NUMBER SEVEN WAS PULLED. ITEM
NUMBER EIGHT SP 12 62 BRADFORD.
THIS MEASURES ON CALL BRIAN AYE.
BRIAN, I THOUGHT THERE WAS OUT I
WOULD NOT JUST SO. ITEM NUMBER
NINE SP. ITEM NOT NUMBER NINE SP
12 73. BRADFORD, BRIAN BRIAN I.
THAT BILL IS OUT. ITEM NUMBER 10
SB 10, 81 RUBIO, BRIAN. HI.
RIGHT? AND I. AT NUMBER 11 WAS
ON CONSENT. UM I DON'T NUMBER
12. SB 10 89 WILK, BRIAN. ALL
RIGHT. BRIAN, I. ITEM NUMBER 13
SB 12 23 BECKER. BRIAN BRIAN I.
THAT BILL IS NOW OUT. I DON'T
pNUMBER 14 WAS ON CONSENT AND
ITEM NUMBER 15 SB 11 33
ARCHULETTA, BRIAN. HI. BRIAN, I. THINK. OTHER SAFETY COMMITTEE
IS NOW IN THE GERMAN.