GOOD MORNING.
WE'RE NOW BEGINNING ASSEMBLY
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. UM,
WE'RE IN. WHICH IS CIERTOS HERE
, AND I'M HERE, SO WE'RE WAITING
FOR THE OTHER MEMBERS TO COME
HERE SO WE CAN ESTABLISH A
QUORUM. IN THE MEANTIME, I WILL
READ, UM. WHAT WE GENERALLY NEED
TO READ SINCE COVID. WE
ENCOURAGE THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE
WRITTEN TESTIMONY BEFORE THE
HEARING BY VISITING THE
COMMITTEE WEBSITE AT, UH, A P S
F DOT ASSEMBLY THAT CA.GOV.
PLEASE NOTE THAT ANY WRITTEN
TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE
COMMITTEE IS CONSIDERED PUBLIC
COMMENT AND MAYBE READ INTO THE
RECORD OR REPRINTED. ALL ARE
ENCOURAGED TO WATCH THE HEARING
FROM ITS LIVESTREAM ON THE
ASSEMBLY'S WEBSITE AT W W DOT
SIMILARLY DOT C A DOT GOV
BACKSLASH TODAY'S EVENTS. THE
HEARING ROOM WILL BE OPEN FOR
ATTENDANCE 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 A FOR
UPDATES, UM WE HAVE ONE MORE
MEMBER WERE NOT THERE AT A
QUORUM, SO WE WILL GO AS A
SUBCOMMITTEE. AH, I WILL BEGIN.
BY PRESENTING FROM MR TING. AND
I'LL PASS THE GAVEL TO MR QUIRK.
AND I WILL BE PRESENTING A B
1960 TEAM.
AH MR JONES. SAWYER. PLEASE
PROCEED. WELL, THANK YOU, MR
QUIRK. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS A B 9 60 STREAMLINES AND
IMPROVES. STATES CAMP PASSIONATE
RELEASE PROGRAM WITH THE
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION. WE ARE LOOKING
AT THE MOST VULNERABLE
POPULATION MEDICALLY HIGH RISK
PEOPLE, INCLUDING THOSE THAT AT
THE END STAGE CANCERS AND
ADVANCED DEMENTIA. WHEN WE LOOK
AT CALIFORNIA'S COMPASSIONATE
RELEASE PROGRAM BETWEEN JANUARY
2015 AND APRIL 2021 304 PEOPLE
WERE REFERRED TO THE PROGRAM,
BUT ONLY 91 PEOPLE DIED BEFORE,
BUT 91 PEOPLE DIED BEFORE THE
PROCESS COULD BE COMPLETED AND
ONLY 53 WERE RELEASED TO KEEP A
MEDICALLY HIGH RISK POPULATION
IN PRISON NOT ONLY PROHIBITS
THEM FROM GETTING THEIR BASIC
NEEDS ADEQUATELY MET, BUT IT
COST THE STATE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS TO COVER THE COSTLY
HEALTHCARE SERVICES. 89 60 IS
THE COMPASSIONATE APPROACH TO
IMPROVING THE COMPASSIONATE
RELEASE PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES
SETTING TIMELINES PROVIDING DUE
PROCESS RIGHTS, EXPANDING
MEDICAL ELIGIBILITY AND REMOVING
THE SECRETARY FROM THE REFERRAL
PROCESS. THE PROCESS FOR
APPROVAL THROUGH THIS PROGRAM IS
RIGOROUS AND THOUGHTFUL. REVIEW
IS DONE BY MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS
WITHIN CDCR. A PROPER RELEASE
PLAN FOR THE PERSON MUST BE
COMPLETE AND THE APPLICANT MUST
BE APPROVED BY THE COURTS WHERE
PUBLIC SAFETY RISK IS ASSESSED.
THIS BILL OPENS UP THE FRAMEWORK
FOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS TO
MAKE REFERRALS AND STREAMLINES
THE PROCESS SO THAT PEOPLE DO
NOT PASS AWAY BEFORE THEY GET A
CHANCE TO BE RELEASED AND
RECEIVE PROPER CARE. WITNESSES
TODAY I HAVE KELLY SAVAGE
RODRIGUEZ WITH ROOT AND REBOUND.
UM OKAY. DANIEL LANDSMAN WITH F
A F A. M. M ON THE PHONE.
PROTECT NICKEL ASSISTANCE IF
NEEDED. OKAY BEFORE WE DO THAT,
I'LL HAVE THE SECRETARY CALLED
ROLE AND ESTABLISH A QUORUM. HMM
WE NEED WE NEED FIVE, OKAY? THEN
I WON'T DO THAT. UM. OH MR VICE
CHAIR. YOU SHOULD BE NOW
CHAIRING THIS MEETING. YOU CAN
DO IT. ALRIGHT YEAH. WOW DID HE
SAY OLD MAN, OLDEST AND GROW,
MAN, BUT I AM THE OLDEST MAN
TOO. AT LEAST IN THE DEMOCRATIC
CAUCUS. YOU HAVE ONE GUY IN YOUR
CROCUS OLDER THAN ME, BUT I'M
PRETTY GOOD GOT YA? ALRIGHT SO
NOW WE'LL GO TO UH, WITNESSES IN
SUPPORT THE MAIN WITNESSES AND
SUPPORT WHO I GATHER ON THE
LINE. UM SO, OPERATOR. CAN YOU
BRING US THE WITNESSES? THEY'RE
ON THE LINE. OKAY WHOEVER IS
SUPPOSED TO GO FIRST SHOULD GO
FIRST. AND YOU'VE GOT TWO
MINUTES EACH OR A TOTAL OF FIVE
MINUTES. YES, FIVE MINUTES. SO
TRY AND KEEP IT AROUND 2 2.5
MINUTES UNLESS THE OTHER PERSON
WANTS TO SPEAK SHORTER. OKAY, GO
AHEAD. WHICH ONE AHEAD. CAN YOU
HEAR ME? YES. OKAY HI. MY NAME
IS KELLY SAVAGE RODRIGUEZ. I AM
A FORMERLY INCARCERATED PERSON
AND A MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA
COALITION FOR WOMEN PRISONERS
PROUD CO SPONSOR OF A B 9 60.
I'M HERE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF
A B 1960 A BILL THAT WILL EXPAND
AND IMPROVE THE COMPASSIONATE
RELEASE PROGRAM. WHILE
INCARCERATED. I VOLUNTEERED MY
TIME AT THE SKILLED NURSING
FACILITY AT CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
WOMEN'S FACILITY, PROVIDING CARE
AND COMFORT TO INCARCERATED
PEOPLE AT THE END OF THEIR LIFE
AND PERSONALLY WITNESSED A
FAILURE OF THE PROCESS DESIGNED
TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR THOSE WHO
ARE HONORABLE PEOPLE. I HAVE
SEEN PEOPLE ELIGIBLE FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE PASSED
AWAY IN PRISON BECAUSE THE
CONSIDERATION PROCESS IS
UNNECESSARILY LENGTHY, ALMOST
100 PEOPLE WHO WERE REFERRED FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE BETWEEN
JANUARY 2015 AND APRIL OF 2021
DIED BECAUSE THEIR CASES HAD NOT
YET BEEN DECIDED. IN FACT, JUST
THIS YEAR OUR SYSTEM FAILS
TOMORROW. FELIX 28 YEAR OLD MAN
IN CHINA, SALLY ST REASON. AFTER
COMPLAINING OF SEVERE STOMACH
PAINS FOR TWO YEARS, THEN THEY
MARRY WAS FINALLY RUSHED TO
EMERGENCY HOSPITAL AND DIAGNOSED
WITH STAGE FOUR CANCER IN
DECEMBER OF 2021. WHEN HE
FINALLY WAS REFERRED FOR
COMPASSIONATE RELEASE HIS MOTHER
WAS TOLD IT WOULD TAKE ABOUT SIX
MONTHS BEFORE THE DECISION WAS
TO BE MADE YET, SADLY, NO
DECISION EVER CAME TO MARRY
PASSED AWAY IN PRISON JUST A FEW
MONTHS AFTER HIS DIAGNOSIS, FAR
AWAY FROM HIS FAMILY AND LOVED
ONES. THIS WAS AN OUTGOING
DOUBLE TRAGEDY. WE NEED TO
CHANGE THE COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
SYSTEM FOR THREE CRITICAL IN
THREE CRITICAL WAYS. WE NEED TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE ELIGIBILITY
COVERS EVERYONE. WHO HAS SERIOUS
TERMINAL ILLNESSES. AND ANYONE
WHO IS SO ILL THAT THEY CAN'T
GET THEIR BASIC NEEDS MET IN
PRISON. THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS
HAVE A PROGNOSIS OF LESS THAN
SIX MONTHS TO LIVE. UM AND IT'S
AN UNACCEPTABLE BECAUSE
PHYSICIANS ARE UNABLE TO PREDICT
EXACTLY HOW LONG A PERSON HAS
LEFT THAT THEY OVER ESTIMATE THE
AMOUNT OF TIME A PERSON HAS. WE
NEED TO REMOVE UNNECESSARY STEPS
TO CONSIDER ATION PROCESS SO
THAT THE PROCESS CAN BE DONE
MORE QUICKLY. WE NEED TO ENSURE
THAT IT IS TRANSPARENT AND THAT
THERE IS DATA OUT THERE SO THAT
WE CAN SHARE IT WITH THE PUBLIC
. SO THEY KNOW WHEN SOMEONE HAS
APPLIED AND GONE THROUGH THE
PROCESS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE
HAVE FAILED. FACED IN PLACE. SP
9 60 COMPASSES THESE THINGS WE
URGE YOU ABOUT YES ON THIS BILL
BECAUSE A COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
PROCESS IS BROKEN RIGHT NOW, AND
NO ONE SHOULD EXPERIENCE WHAT
THE MOST STANLEY HAS EXPERIENCED
OR WHAT? TAMARI WENT THROUGH
HIMSELF. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
AND YOUR CONSIDERATION. I URGE
YOU TO VOTE YES. THANK YOU. AND
I UNDERSTAND THE SECOND WITH
DANIEL IS ACTUALLY HERE TO ASK
ANSWER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT
COULD COME UP. THAT'S CORRECT,
MR CHAIR. ALRIGHT SO NOW WE'LL
CHECK TO SEE IF THERE ARE PEOPLE
IN THE ROOM WHO WANT TO COME UP
AND SUPPORT. NATASHA MINSK, ER,
SMART JUSTICE, CALIFORNIA AND
SUPPORT. HI TATUM MACKLER WITH
SAMSON ADVISORS ON BEHALF OF
FAMINE SUPPORT AND HAVE ALSO
BEEN ASKED TO, UH READ A LIST OF
SUPPORT FROM MY COLLEAGUES TO
CALIFORNIA'S FOR SAFETY AND
JUSTICE FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON
LEGISLATION OF CALIFORNIA,
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC DEFENDERS
ASSOCIATION AND COMMON LAW
REFORM ALLIANCE. SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC DEFENDER ALLIANCE OF
SOUTH ASIANS TAKING ACTION
CALIFORNIANS UNITED FOR A
RESPONSIBLE BUDGET, INITIATE
JUSTICE, WHITE COATS FOR BLACK
LIVES. ELLA BAKER, CENTER, GRIP
TRAINING CENTER AND FRESNO
BARRIOS UNIDOS. THANK YOU. THANK
YOU. MR CHAIRMAN MEMBERS DAN
FULL AS THE OTHER ONE. WE HAVE
TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY DISTRICT
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND SUPPORT
VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT, UM. NOW WE
HAVE A QUORUM. ALRIGHT MADAM
SECRETARY, CALL THE ROLL. JOHN
SAWYER LACKEY. MIA BONTA. BRIAN
QUIRK HERE, SANTIAGO. CR TWO.
VERY GOOD. UM THIS IS GREAT. I
MOVED THE BILL. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE
GONNA WE WILL. WE WILL GO TO
OPPOSITION. WE WILL ALSO GO TO
PEOPLE ON THE PHONE. IN SUPPORT,
AND THEN WE'LL GO TO OPPOSITION.
SO THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE ON THE
PHONE, THE OPERATOR WILL PUT YOU
IN A Q AND LET YOU KNOW WHEN TO
COME. SO, OPERATOR, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT OF THIS
LEGISLATION, PLEASE PRESS ONE
AND ZERO. AND THEN PLEASE, MR
CHAIR. OKAY GO AHEAD. PLEASE
REMEMBER, IT'S JUST NAME
ORGANIZATION, IF ANY, AND YOUR
POSITION. OKAY. IS THERE NO ONE
ON THE LINE? NO NO ONE IN Q AT
THIS TIME, MR CHAIR, OKAY? NOW
WE'LL GO TO OPPOSITION. THEIR
OPPOSITION WITNESSES IN THE
ROOM. ALRIGHT. UM ARE THERE. AH!
NOW WE'LL GO TO OPPOSITION. ON
THE LINES. UH, OPERATOR. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO THIS
LEGISLATION, PLEASE PRESS 10.
AND THERE IS NO ONE IN QUÊ MR
CHAIR. THANK YOU. WELL NOW. GET
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS FROM THE
MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE HAD A
MOTION AND A SECOND. UM MADAM
SECRETARY, COULD YOU CALL THEM?
EXCUSE ME? OH, YOU YOU WANT TO
CLOSE FOR THE S THREE? I THOUGH,
GOT IT? ALL RIGHT. ASSEMBLY BILL
OF 1960, BY SOME REMEMBER SEEING
THE MOTION IS TO BE CONCURRED IN
JOHN SAWYER. I LÀ K NOT VOTING
BONTA. BRIAN BRIAN, I WORK. I
WORK I SANTIAGO. SEYARTO SEYARTO
NÓ. ALRIGHT NEEDS ONE. NO, NO,
WE NEED TO ALRIGHT. WELL, THE
CHAIR IS COMING UP. WHY DON'T WE
DO THE CONSENT ITEM? YEAH I
MOVED. I MOVED CONSENT. DO I
HAVE A SECOND ON CONSENT? GOOD.
ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR. 85 57
MOVED BY MR CORK AND SECONDED BY
MR BRIAN JOHN SAWYER JOHNSON. I
LACKEY A LACKEY. I BONTA BRIAN.
BRIAN I WORK. I WORK I SANTIAGO.
SEYARTO TOÀN TÔI. YOU CAN'T
CHALLENGER. GOOD PUSH. TOO MANY
CONSENT CALENDAR HAS CONSENT
CALENDAR HAS BEEN ADOPTED. UH
WE'RE WAITING FOR MR SANTIAGO
FOR LAST ITEM. UM. AND THE OTHER
MEMBERS SHOULD BE HERE SOON.
STAFF IS TEXTING MR SANTIAGO
RIGHT NOW. WE MAY HAVE GONE
FASTER THAN MAY HAVE
ANTICIPATED.
HELLO. SO MR BARTON IS HERE. SO
IN THE MEANTIME, WE CAN TAKE
VOTES OF ABSENT MEMBERS. ON THE
CONSENT CALENDAR. MAYBE 557.
BANTER. BANTER. AYE. ON A B 1960
BY SOME REMEMBER TING. THIS
MEASURE IS ON CALL BONTA. BANTA
AYE. THE SPECIAL REMAINS UNCLE.
MR SANTIAGO, TWO DOORS DOWN. WE
DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
TOGETHER. I DON'T KNOW WHICH
DOORS.
WHY IS EVERYBODY LOOKING AT MR
BRYANT FROM MR SANTIAGO?
EVERYBODY LOOKING AT YOU, MR
SANTIAGO. FROM HERE WITH THAT.
GOS THIS AFTERNOON. I'M ONTO
YOU.
YOU CAN HAVE YOU.
HELLO, MR SANTIAGO. I THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND
MR CORK FOR REMINDING ME. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH. WHENEVER YOU'RE
READY TO BEGIN, UH, THANK YOU,
MR CHAIR AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR
STAFF FOR HELPING US WORK ON
THIS BILL AS AMENDED A B 28 70
WOULD EXPAND CALIFORNIA'S RED
FLAG LAWS TO INCLUDE DATING
PARTNERS INDIVIDUALS WITH A
CHILD IN COMMON TO THE SUBJECT
OF PETITION. FAMILY MEMBERS,
INCLUDING FIRST COUSINS, NIECES,
NEPHEWS AND UNCLES. AND OTHERS.
IT WOULD ALSO CLARIFY THAT
ROOMMATES CAN ACCESS TO GVR Ó
STUDIES HAVE SHOWN IN CALIFORNIA
SORRY STUDIES ARE NOW SHOWING
THAT IN CALIFORNIA, BUT FLAG
LAWS HAVE PREVENTED OVER 58 MASS
SHOOTINGS, UNFORTUNATE
CALIFORNIA EXPERIENCE AN AVERAGE
OF 44 MASS SHOOTINGS BETWEEN
2013 AND 2021, WHICH IS
TRANSLATED INTO ONE MASS
SHOOTING FOR EVERY 8.3 DAYS, SO
STRENGTHENING THIS WOULD BE
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT AND IT
HELPS US TO PREVENT THE
SENSELESS VIOLENCE THAT WE HAVE
NOW SEEN, AND IN FACT, IN MY
DISTRICT OR AROUND OUR AREA,
WE'VE SEEN A NUMBER OF SHOOTINGS
RECENTLY OVER THE WEEKEND. WE
JUST SAW A NUMBER OF PEOPLE GET
SHOT AT THE BAR WE SAW IN GRAND
CENTRAL MARKET, WHICH IS ALSO
HIGH, HIGHER PROFILE SHOOTING.
UH WE CAN GO ON ALL DAY TODAY
AND SIT HERE AND LIST OUT THE
AMOUNT OF SHOOTINGS THAT WE'VE
SEEN. ON OUR STREETS, SO WE
THINK THAT THIS IS SENSIBLE AND
IT REMAINS AND IT REMAINS WITH
DUE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY STILL
HAVE TO GO TO THE COURTS.
NOTHING IN THIS SAYS YOU'RE
GOING TO TAKE YOU GOING AWAY AS
MUCH AS I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT
SAY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS
WHAT IT SAYS. YOU CAN PETITION
THE COURTS IF SOMEBODY IS NOT
FIT TO HAVE A GUN IN THEIR
POSSESSION DUE PROCESS WILL
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY
ARE FIT OR NOT. I RESPECTFULLY
AND ASK FOR NOW, BUT WE HAVE TWO
WITNESSES. MR. CHAIR IF YOU
WOULD ALLOW AH, AND I LET THEM
INTRODUCE THEMSELVES IN THE
INTEREST OF TIME AND PRESENT TO
YOU AS WELL. MR CHAIR. AND JUST
FIVE MINUTES TOTAL SPLIT UP
ANYWAY. YOU WANT VERY BRIEFLY,
MR CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS GOOD
MORNING, PAUL YODA ON BEHALF OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE ASSOCIATION
OF PSYCHIATRISTS. IT'S THE FIVE
CALIFORNIA DISTRICT BRANCHES OF
THE AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC
ASSOCIATION. THIS BILL WILL
REDUCE SUICIDES. IT WILL REDUCE
TRAUMA. ALTHOUGH RELATIVE
RELATIVELY LOW NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS WITH G BROS ARE
ACTUALLY MENTALLY ILL, GVR OS
CAN SERVE AS A GATEWAY TO
TREATMENT. SOMETIMES CONGRESS
JUST PASSED MEANINGFUL GUN
REFORM IN A BIPARTISAN WAY. UM,
HOPE WE CAN DO THAT, TOO. AND AS
LONG AS THESE BILLS CAN GO
THROUGH AND BE PASSED, AND THEY
DON'T INCREASE STIGMA IN
CALIFORNIA WERE DRY VOTE ON THIS
BILL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK
YOU. YES, SIR. MR CHAIRMAN,
MEMBERS DAY IN FULL ASSAULT ON
BEHALF OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. AS
THE ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S STATED, YOU
KNOW, THE FREQUENCY OF MASS
SHOOTINGS IN CALIFORNIA KEEPS
INCREASING. UH, UNFORTUNATELY.
IN MANY OF THESE CASES WHEN WE
INVESTIGATE AFTERWARDS, THERE
ARE RED FLAGS THAT IF PEOPLE HAD
ACTED ON THEM PRIOR TO THE
SHOOTING LIVES COULD HAVE BEEN
SAVED. EXPANDING THE. FOLKS WHO
CAN SEEK GUN VIOLENCE
RESTRAINING ORDERS IN A
RESPONSIBLE MANNER IS
APPROPRIATE. IT'S LONG OVERDUE
IN CALIFORNIA, AND IT WILL SAVE
LIVES. FOR THAT REASON WE ASKED
FOR YOUR I VOTE. THANK YOU. MHM.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER WITNESSES IN
THE HEARING ROOM IN SUPPORT? SEE
NONE. ARE THERE ANY WITNESSES ON
THE TELEPHONE LINE IN SUPPORT?
18 T OPERATOR, YOU CAN OPEN UP
LINE FOR WITNESSES AND SUPPORT
OF A B 28 70. THANK YOU. IF YOU
WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN SUPPORT
OF THIS LEGISLATION, PLEASE
PRESS ONE, THEN ZERO. ONE
MOMENT. 9 16. YOUR LINE IS OPEN.
LINE 16 YEAR LINE IS OPEN. LINE
16 YEAR LINE IS OPEN. YOU'RE
OPEN. 9 16 YEAR OPEN. WE'LL MOVE
ON. THERE ARE NO FURTHER IN QUÊ.
THANK YOU. NOW GO TO THE
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION IN THE
HEARING ROOM. BEING NONE. BUT
THAT'S AWESOME. BUDDY GET UP!
I'M SORRY. 18 THE OPERATOR,
COULD YOU OPEN UP THE LINES FOR
WITNESSES AND OPPOSITION TO A B
28 70? THANK YOU. IF YOU WOULD
LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION OF
THIS LEGISLATION, PLEASE PRESS
ONE THAN ZERO. ONE MOMENT,
PLEASE. LINE 14. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. THEY'RE OUT OF Q ONE
MOMENT.
9 12 YEAR LINE IS OPEN. WE'LL
MOVE ON. LINE 15. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. WE'LL MOVE ON. WE HAVE NO
FURTHER IN Q AT THIS TIME. WELL
THANK YOU 18 OPERATE 18, THE
OPERATOR WILL BRING IT BACK TO
THE COMMITTEE FOR ANY QUESTIONS,
COMMENTS CONCERNS. SO IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT HOW WE DEFINE WHO CAN
BRING THIS FORWARD. AND I THINK
YOU'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN THAT
IN THIS BILL. SOMEONE HAS TO
HAVE KNOWN THEM AND BE CLOSE TO
THEM FOR THE LAST YEAR. AND I
THINK THAT TYPE OF PEOPLE YOU'VE
GOT RELATIVES ROOMMATE. PEOPLE
WHO ARE IN A RELATIONSHIP SHARE
CHILDREN TOGETHER. THESE ARE
PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO KNOW
THERE HAVE BEEN ATTEMPTS TO
BROADNESS IN WAYS I DIDN'T LIKE,
AND WE GOT THOSE CHANGED. UM IN
PARTICULAR WHEN IT'S A COWORKER
. WE'VE SAID THAT THAT HAS TO GO
THROUGH MANAGEMENT AND HR
PROCESS. SO IT IS VERY
IMPORTANT. THAT WE KEEP THIS AT
AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL WHERE THERE
ARE PEOPLE WHO PRESUMABLY
ACTUALLY CARE ABOUT THE OTHER
PERSON. AND THAT'S REALLY,
REALLY IMPORTANT. AND THEN AGAIN
, THEY DO HAVE, OF COURSE, THEIR
DAY IN COURT, SO I THINK THIS IS
A VERY APPROPRIATE BILL AND I
MOVED THE BILL. MOVED AND
SECONDED AND MR SARTO SO MY
CONCERN IS STILL THE BROADNESS
AND THE EASE OF SOMEBODY. USING
THIS SYSTEM, UM, EXACT REVENGE
ON SOMEBODY THAT THEY HAD A BAD
RELATIONSHIP WITH UM, I THINK
OUR CURRENT LAWS COVER A LOT OF
THIS, BUT ALSO HAVING EX PARTE
A, UM, HEARINGS. I WAS OUT THE
PERSON THAT IS BEING ACCUSED OF
HAVING WHATEVER THE REASONS ARE
FOR. UM UM, GETTING THIS GVR
AGAINST THEM. UM IF THEY'RE NOT. THERE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
EXACTLY HOW? HOW DO THEY SORT
OUT? WHAT IS THE TRUTH? AND
WHAT'S NOT? IS THERE AN
INVESTIGATION OF SORTS THAT GOES
INTO THIS? OR IS THIS JUST A
FILING AND A REASONABLE
ASSUMPTION BASED ON WHAT THEY
HAVE IN THEIR HANDS? THAT THIS
IS NOT A RETALIATORY TYPE OF UM,
UM, EFFORT. FIRST MR CHAIRMAN OF
THE COMMITTEE, UH, BACK MR CORKS
POINT. IT'S UH IT'S TIGHTLY
WRITTEN AND PART OF THAT REALLY
IS THAT THIS COMMITTEE HAD
ENGAGED AS WELL AS THE SENATE
COMMITTEE AND HELP US WITH
LANGUAGE TO ENSURE THAT THE VERY
QUESTION OF THE GOOD THE GOOD
ASSEMBLYMEMBER'S ASKING US
AREN'T GOING TO HAPPEN RIGHT?
BECAUSE THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT
THERE STILL IS DUE PROCESS. NOW
WE MAY HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL
PHILOSOPHICAL DIFFERENCES ON THE
USES OF GUN AND THAT'S OKAY. SET
THAT ASIDE. BUT BUT THERE IS
STILL DUE PROCESS. THE COURT IS
STILL GOING TO DETERMINE THAT
AND I WANT TO ANSWER JUST A
QUESTION OF BROADENING. AND ONE
OF THE REASONS WE FELT VERY
STRONGLY THAT NEEDS TO BE
BROUGHT IN THIS BECAUSE
CURRENTLY WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK
AT G BROS HAVE ABOUT 96% OF THEM
THAT ARE FILED THROUGH LAW
ENFORCEMENT. UH AND THAT
CAPTURES PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT
HAVE A GUN. WE SHOULD ALL AGREE
THAT IT BELONGED. FORCE MINT
DETERMINES AT THIS POINT IN
TIME. THIS PERSON HAS A REASON
NOT TO HAVE A GUN. THAT'S
PROBABLY A PRETTY GOOD REASON
FOR THE PERSON NOT TO HAVE A GUN
AND GOES BEFORE THE COURTS
EITHER EX PARTY OR THEN, FOR A
LARGER A LARGER PERIOD OF TIME
THAT A PERSON SHOULD HAVE A GUN.
BUT WITH THAT ALSO TELLS US ON
THE FLIP SIDE IS MANY OF THE
PEOPLE WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE GUNS
OR SLIPPING THROUGH CRACKS
BECAUSE YOU CAN'T THERE'S NO WAY
TO HAVE LAW ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE
IN EVERY SITUATION WHERE A
PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN OR
THERE'S NO WAY TO EXPECT LAW
ENFORCEMENT TO KNOW. EACH AND
EVERY PERSON WHO DOES NOT WHO
SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN. IT'S JUST
IMPOSSIBLE, SO BROADENING UP
ACTUALLY REALLY HELPS AND HELPS
TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF EYES
AND EARS ON PEOPLE WHO SHOULD
NOT BE HAVING AGAIN. THE
LEGISLATURE HAS DEALT OVER THE
YEARS ON ON THE ISSUE OF GUN.
BUT ON THIS ONE, I DON'T I
PRESENT TO YOU THAT ISN'T ABOUT
WHO SHOULD HAVE A GUN WHO SHOULD
NOT HAVE A GUN IN THE SENSE OF
IN THE SENSE OF THE
PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT ABOUT
GUNS, BUT THIS IS A THIS IS MORE
OF AN ARGUMENT ABOUT PEOPLE WHO
SHOULD NOT HAVE A GUN BECAUSE
THEY CAN'T HURT OTHER PEOPLE. UH
AND AGAIN, I WOULD SAY TO YOU
THAT IT IS A GREAT SUCCESS FOR
LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THAT IN 17
96% OF THESE CASES ARE BROUGHT
FORTH. BUT IT'S ALSO A GREAT
FAILURE IN THE SYSTEM THAT
THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE
WHO SHOULD NOT BE HAVING GUNS.
WHO SHOULD MAYBE BE CALLED OUT
ON, UH, CALLED US MAYBE THE
WRONG WORD, BUT IT SHOULD MAYBE
HAVE A PAUSE ON HAVING THAT GUN
BECAUSE THE VIOLENCE THAT YOU
AND I MAY AGREE THAT IS
UNACCEPTABLE THAT WE'VE SEEN
COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN
CAUGHT. HAD AN INDIVIDUAL WHO
WERE TRYING TO INCLUDE SAY,
THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THIS
PERSON. THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE A
GUN. RIGHT? SO. WE'RE ADDING TO
THE POOL OF PEOPLE THAT SHOULD
NOT HAVE GUNS AND WE HAVE TO GO
OUT AND ENFORCE THE LAW AND MAKE
SURE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE GUNS
AND WE ALREADY HAVE A HUGE POOL
OF PEOPLE THAT SHOULD NOT HAVE
GUNS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
PEOPLE WHO ARE ILLEGALLY CARRY
THE GUNS, INCLUDING SOME OF THE
PEOPLE THAT WERE LISTED IN HERE.
SOME OF THE MASS SHOOTINGS, THE
ONE IN SACRAMENTO. THOSE WERE
GANG VIOLENCE. THOSE PEOPLE HAD
NO BUSINESS HAVING GUNS YET.
THEY STILL HAVE GUNS, SO I'M NOT
SURE HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE
MORE ANY MORE EFFECTIVE. UM AND
THAT'S WHERE YOU KNOW. YOU CITED
A STUDY. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT
STUDY. SO IF YOU CAN DIRECT ME
TO IT, THAT STUDY, I APPRECIATE
IT. AND I KNOW THE WITNESS. ALSO
ONE OF MY WITNESSES ALSO WANT TO
RESPOND TO GIVE ME MAYBE 30
SECONDS AND I'LL HAND OVER,
PLEASE. HAPPY TO SEND THE STUDY
OVER YOUR OFFICE. GREAT BUT LOOK
, LET'S SAY YOU AND I BOTH AGREE
ON AN INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED
HAPPENED THAT A PERSON SHOULD
NOT HAVE AGAIN. WE CAN AGREE. I
MEAN, THERE'S PLENTY WHERE YOU
AND I PROBABLY SEE EYE TO EYE
ON. ANY TIME THAT THERE'S CENSUS
VIOLENCE, WE'RE GOING TO AGREE
THAT PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD
A GUN. WHAT WE'RE WHAT THIS.
THIS DOESN'T INCREASE THE AMOUNT
OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T HAVE GUNS.
WHAT THIS SAYS IS THIS INCREASES
THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN
IDENTIFY WHO SHOULD NOT HAVE A
GUN. THAT'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE
INCIDENT THAT HAPPENED ACROSS
THE STREET. YOU AND I BOTH
AGREE. THAT INDIVIDUALS HAVE
NEVER HAD A GUN. I DON'T CARE
WHO YOU ARE. IN THIS BUILDING.
REASONABLE MINDS WILL AGREE THAT
PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A
GUN. UM YEAH, BUT BUT BUT THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO RIGHT NOW
ENERGY BIARO CAN PRESENT TO THE
COURT FOR THIS PERSON THAT THEY
HAVE A GUN. IS MORE LIMITED. AND. LAW ENFORCEMENT WHO HAS A HIGH
LEVEL OF SUCCESS. I WAS NOT ABLE
TO DO ONE FOR BECAUSE THEY
DIDN'T HAVE CONTACT WITH A
PERSON OR WHAT HAVE YOU IF WE IF
THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A PERSON
WHO WERE INCREASING, WHO COULD
HAVE IDENTIFIED? THIS INDIVIDUAL
SHOULD NOT HAVE HAD A GUN. THAT
WOULD HAVE PREVENTED SENSELESS
VIOLENCE. SO THIS INCREASES THE
AMOUNT OF PEOPLE WHO CAN
IDENTIFY PEOPLE WHO CAN CREATE
THAT MASS VIOLENCE THAT YOU AND
I BOTH AGREE SHOULD NOT HAPPEN,
BUT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THE PART
WHERE WE ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT.
ENFORCE THAT. THAT FINDING THAT
MECHANISM THAT SAYS, HEY, THAT
PERSON IS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE A
GUN. AND WHEN THEY DO, WHAT DO
WE DO ABOUT IT? BECAUSE WE
ALREADY HAVE THAT POOL OF PEOPLE
THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE GUNS THAT WE
DON'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. AND
THAT'S WHAT NHI NO. YOU HAD
YOUR 30 SECONDS LEFT. LET YOUR
WITNESS IF THEY WANTED TO
RESPOND. RESPOND THEN IF YOU
STILL IN YOUR CLOSING, WANT TO
RESPOND THE METHODOLOGY OF THAT
STUDY AND FIND OUT WHAT IT IS
JUST SO THE CHAIR. IT'S NOT A
DEBATE. GO AHEAD. MR CHAIRMAN
MEMBERS. I AGREE. THE WAY THIS
BILL DOES ROOMMATES. YOU KNOW
SOMEBODY BABY RELATIONSHIP.
SOMEBODY HAS SOMEBODY IN THE
CHILD. BEFORE I BECAME A POLICE
OFFICER. RESPONDING TO DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE CALLS MHM. THESE PEOPLE
ARE OFTEN IN THE BEST. PLACE TO
IDENTIFY. WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL IS
STARTING. TO LOSE IT FOR LACK OF
A BETTER TERM AND BECOME
DANGEROUS. MHM. BUT UNTIL A
CRIME WAS ACTUALLY COMMITTED.
LAW ENFORCEMENT GENERALLY DOES
NOT GET INVOLVED. THIS BILL
WOULD ALLOW THESE INDIVIDUALS TO
GO TO COURT AND EVEN ON AN
EXPERT THAT THE COURTS. REALIZED
WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL ISN'T PRESENT
JUST LIKE IN THE RESTRAINING
ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
SITUATION. THEY ASK QUESTIONS.
THEY GO IN DEPTH TO MAKE SURE
THAT THIS ISN'T A RETALIATORY
FAKE. YOU KNOW? SO THE
PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS ARE THERE
EVEN EXT. APARTHEID HERE. AND IN
THE NEXT PART, THE HEARING IS
GRANTED, THE PERSON COULD STILL
ONCE THEY FIND OUT THAT COULD
YOU WE'RE TALKING TO THE MIC.
PEOPLE CAN'T HEAR YOU. OKAY.
SORRY, MR CHAIRMAN. UH, SO THERE
IS A, UH, DUE PROCESS MECHANISM
. EVEN IN THE X PARTY, THEY CAN
FOLLOW UP HAVE A MORE DETAILED
HEARING. AS FAR AS THE APPS, UH
, SYSTEM RUN BY DOJ. I CAN TELL
YOU AS A LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER. WE WERE IN A MUCH
BETTER UH, PLACE TO REMOVE
FIREARMS THAN THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL. WE KNOW THESE
INDIVIDUALS WERE BETTER AT IT.
THEN THE STATE YOU KNOW FOR, YOU
KNOW, THAT'S JUST A FACT. SO YOU
KNOW, WHILE I AGREE THAT YOU
KNOW THE THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF
PEOPLE WHO DO NOT UH, LEGALLY
HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN FARMS THAT
DO AND THAT IS A PROBLEM. BUT
THE GUN VIOLENCE RESTRAINING
ORDER IS SUPPOSED TO PROTECT
SOCIETY FROM THOSE PEOPLE WHO
ARE LEGALLY ALLOWED TO HAVE A
FIREARM BUT WHO HAVE NOW
SUBSEQUENTLY BECOME. THROUGH A
VARIETY OF REASONS AND NOW A
DANGER TO THEMSELVES OR OTHERS.
AND I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY
RESPONDED TO CASES WHERE THESE
INDIVIDUALS THEY THREATEN THE
PERSON THEY WANT US TO SUICIDE
BY COP. I DON'T WANT TO
UNDERSTAND ALL OF THAT, BUT
REALLY, REALLY WELL, BUT WE ALSO
HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT WEREN'T
ABLE TO GET IN THAT ARE IN
OPPOSITION. THAT I DON'T KNOW IF
WE CAN GET THEM IN THE RIGHT.
THANK YOU AND T, 80 AND T.
OPERATOR. THERE WERE SOME
INDIVIDUALS. WHO WERE IN
OPPOSITION THAT WANTED TO GET IN
AND SPEAK. ARE YOU ABLE TO GET
THEM IN NOW? A MOMENT, MR CHAIR.
AND WE'RE GRABBING THEIR LINE
NUMBERS NOW, LADIES AND
GENTLEMEN, IF YOU WERE TO SPEAK
IN OPPOSITION, PLEASE PRESS 10,
AN OPERATOR WILL PROVIDE YOU
WITH YOUR LINE NUMBER IN PLACE
YOU BACK INTO QUÊ. ONCE AGAIN IF
YOU WISH TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION
, PLEASE PRESS ONE THAN ZERO
NOW. WE ARE GATHERING THEIR LINE
NUMBERS NOW, MR CHAIR. OKAY? I
THINK, MR REID, MR. CHAIR OKAY,
WE'RE STILL WE'RE STILL WAITING
FOR LINE NUMBERS.
THANK YOU AND OUR FIRST LINE
NUMBER IS GOING TO COME FROM
LINE NUMBER 27. YOUR LINE IS
OPEN. PLEASE GO AHEAD. I GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS DARREN
BEDWELL. I'M A MEMBER OF THE
CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION AND RESIDENT HERE IN
SACRAMENTO COUNTY. AND I'M
CALLING IN TO VOICE OPPOSITION
TO THIS LEGISLATION. MAYBE 28-7
THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
18 THE OPERATOR. DO WE HAVE
ANYONE ELSE? YES. LINE NUMBER
26. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. HI MY
NAME IS CARRIE HUME. I AM THEN I
REMEMBER AND CRP A MEMBER AND I
OPPOSED A B 2870. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU.
LINE 17. YOUR LINE IS OPEN. MY
NAME IS JAMES O'BRIEN AND THE
LIFELONG CALIFORNIA RESIDENT.
MEMBER OF CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION. AND I AM
CALLING IN OPPOSITION OF A B.
2870 THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.
NEXT WE'LL MOVE TO LINE 28,
PLEASE GO AHEAD. MR CHAIRMAN OF
MEMBER SAM FERRETTI'S
REPRESENTING GUN OWNERS,
CALIFORNIA IN OPPOSITION OF THIS
BILL, AND THANK YOU, MR CHAIR
FOR ALLOWING US TO BE ABLE TO
TESTIFY AND CORRECTING THIS
SITUATION. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK
YOU. MAXIMUM OF TWO LINE SEVEN.
PLEASE GO AHEAD. YES MR CHAIR.
THIS IS TIM MCMAHON. I'M THE
CHAIR OF THE SOUTH SACRAMENTO
CHAPTER OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE
AND PISTOL PISTOL ASSOCIATION
AND REMEMBER IN STRONG
OPPOSITION. THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT
TO MOVE TO LINE 20. PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. MY
NAME IS PAUL IT STUDEBAKER, A
LIFELONG CALIFORNIAN LIVING IN
AMADOR COUNTY. I'M A MEMBER OF
THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND PISTOL
ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL RIFLE
ASSOCIATION AND THE ARMED WOMEN
OF AMERICA AND THE DAUGHTER OF A
RETIRED SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPUTY
SHERIFF AND I STRONGLY OPPOSED
THIS. 80 28 17. THANK YOU. NOT
TO MOVE TO LINE. 13, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. THIS
IS CARLENE ELLIS. I'M A MEMBER
OF THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION, THE ARMED
WOMEN OF AMERICA AND I'M ALSO A
COMPETITIVE PISTOL SHOOTER. UM
PLEASE DON'T MAKE PEOPLE GUILTY
AND THEN HAVE TO PROVE
THEMSELVES INNOCENT. I OPPOSE A
B 28 70. THANK YOU. NEXT AND
LITTLE LINE. 31, PLEASE GO
AHEAD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE. MY NAME IS RON
LANDER. I'M CHAIRMAN OF THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY. UH CRP, A
CHAPTER RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER AND ON BEHALF OF THE 450
MEMBERS AND FAMILY OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY CRP A MEMBERS. WE
STRONGLY OPPOSED THIS MEASURE.
THANK YOU. MAXIMUM OF TWO LINE.
24. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI. MY NAME
IS GARY LUNDBERG. I'M A RESIDENT
OF VENTURA COUNTY AND I STRONGLY
OPPOSED MAYBE 28 70. CHEN LAWS
JUST DO NOT WORK. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT TO MOVE TO LINE
33. PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING, MR CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU
FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. MONEY.
MISS JEFF TURNER. I'M A MEMBER
OF CRP. A I'M, A DEMOCRAT FROM
MONTEREY COUNTY AND I OPPOSE A B
28 70. THANK YOU. MAXIMUM OF
TALLINN. 23. PLEASE GO AHEAD. HI
MR CHAIRMAN. MY NAME IS STEVE
KENT AND I'M A RESIDENT OF
SACRAMENTO COUNTY AND ALSO CRP A
MEMBER. AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE A
B 28 70. THANK YOU. NEXT SOME OF
THE LINE 35, PLEASE GO AHEAD.
THANK YOU, MR CHAIR. MY NAME IS
CRISTINA PERMAL ON THE PRESIDENT
OF SACRAMENTO COUNTY. AND A
MEMBER OF C R P A. I STRONGLY
OPPOSE A B 28 70 THANK YOU FOR
THE OPPORTUNITY. MAXIMUM OF TWO
LINE. 34. PLEASE GO AHEAD. 9 34.
YOUR LINE IS OPEN. HELLO. CAN
YOU HEAR ME? YES. MR TERROR, A
MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE FOR THE
RECORD, DAN REED, WESTERN
REGIONAL DIRECTOR WITH THE
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION, AND
STRONG OPPOSITION. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. NEXT IMMORTAL LINE.
36, PLEASE GO AHEAD. GOOD
MORNING. MY NAME IS STEVE ROD ON
THE LIGHTS, MEMBER OF THE
NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AND
MEMBER OF THE CHAPTER CHAIRMAN
IN THE CALIFORNIA RIGHT BLOOD
PISTOL ASSOCIATION. AND ON
BEHALF OF 450, LEGAL GUN OWNERS
AND LAKE AND MENDOCINO COUNTY'S
WE STRONGLY URGE A NO VOTE ON A
B 28 70. THANK YOU. NEXT MOVE TO
LINE 37. PLEASE GO AHEAD.
ALRIGHT MY NAME IS DAN SCHULTZ.
I'M A RESIDENT OF SACRAMENTO
COUNTY MEMBER OF C R P A. AND
NRA AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE A B
2070. THANK YOU FOR YOUR
CONCERN. THE OPPORTUNITY. AND
NEXT TO MOVE TO LINE. 38. PLEASE
GO AHEAD. HI THIS IS RORY HAMLI
FROM THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE AND
PISTOL ASSOCIATION. FOLSOM NORTH
SACRAMENTO CHAPTER IN STRONG
OPPOSITION OF MAYBE 28 70. AT
THIS TIME, THERE'S NO ONE ELSE
IN THE QUEUE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER MR
QUIRK? ONE LAST QUESTION, MR C.
ARTO ASKED WHAT THE COURT
PROCEEDINGS ARE LIKE, AND I'M
INTERESTED IN THAT AS WELL. SO
PERHAPS YOUR EXPERT. YOU KNOW,
WHAT ARE THE COURT PROCEEDINGS
LIKE WHAT HAPPENS? I HAVE NOT
PARTICIPATED IN ANY OF THE GUN
VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDER.
SYSTEMS, BUT THEY WOULD BE VERY
SIMILAR TO THE DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE. PROCEDURES. THE
INDIVIDUAL WOULD. SEEK THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT YOU HAVE
TO PROVIDE AN AFFIDAVIT. AS TO
LAYING OUT THE REASONS. WHY THEY
ARE SEEKING. THE PROTECTIVE
PROTECTIVE. ON THE COURT WOULD
QUESTION THAT. MAKE SURE THAT
THEY FIRST ARE UH, SOMEBODY WHO
IS ALLOWED T. SEEK THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER, SO THEY GO
THROUGH THE PROCEDURAL
ESTABLISHING JURISDICTION. THEN
THEY WOULD QUESTION THEM BASED
WHERE THEY HMM. EITHER HAVE THE
PERSON EXPLAIN THEIR BASIC
AFFIDAVIT OR THE COURT CAN
QUESTION THEM AS TO THE
INFORMATION IN THE AFFIDAVIT, IF
THERE ARE ANY WITNESSES ANY
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. LIKE I SAID
IN EX PARTE HEARINGS, THE COURTS
ARE. AND I DON'T KNOW ALL THE
TRAINING THAT THE JUDICIAL BENCH
HOW THEY GO THROUGH IT. I JUST
KNOW THAT THEY RECEIVED TRAINING
TO HELP IDENTIFY FAKE FALSE. UH
COMPLAINTS. UM, SO THEY WOULD GO
THROUGH WHATEVER MECHANISMS THEY
HAVE FOR THAT. UH AND THEN,
BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THEY WOULD
DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT
THE PROTECTIVE ORDER VERY
SIMILAR TO THE WHAT WE DO IN
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. OKAY, SO UM
AGAIN AS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IF
SOMEONE'S WORRIED THAT SOMEONE
IS UNSTABLE AND MIGHT HURT
THEMSELVES OR OTHERS. YOU WANT
TO PROTECT THE WITNESS. BUT WHAT
SORT OF DEFENSE CAN THE PERSON
WHO WANTS TO KEEP HIS GUN HALF
WELL, IT OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU'RE
GOING TO THE OFFENSIVE I
WOULDN'T REALLY BE IN THE EXPORT
A SITUATION, OKAY? BUT IF IT'S
IN A FULL HEARING THE INDIVIDUAL
WOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT THEIR
OWN EVIDENCE. PRESENT THEIR OWN
WITNESSES TO REFUTE. WHATEVER IT
IS KIND OF GOING TO BE A FACT
WHAT WOULD TRIGGER A FULL
HEARING? IF THE PERSON IS SERVED
IF YOU'RE NOT SEEKING THE EX
PARTE AYE. ORDER. SO IF YOU DID
A NOTICED HEARING UM OR IF THERE
WAS AN EX PARTY HEARING, AND NOW
I'M CHALLENGING. I'M THIS
SUBJECT. AND NOW I GO TO COURT
AND SAY, HEY, WAIT A MINUTE.
THIS. EVERYTHING WAS A LIE. I
WANT MY DAY IN COURT. YOU CAN
THEN GO TO OKAY SO YOU CAN GET
YOUR DAY IN COURT. ALL RIGHT.
THAT I THINK WAS THE MAIN
QUESTION, MR SARTO HAT. THANK
YOU. THANK YOU. ARE THERE. MR
LACQUER. I JUST WANTED TO POINT
OUT THE TROUBLESOME PART THAT MY
COLLEAGUE AND I SHARES THE FACT
THAT IN THE EXPORTATION
SITUATION YOU WILL IMMEDIATELY
BE DENIED YOUR GUN RIGHTS. AND
YOU HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO
REFUTE ALLEGATIONS. AND WE I
FIND THAT TO BE TRAVELING.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THE FULL
HEARING IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
HERE'S THE EXPERTISE THAT WE'RE
THAT WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH.
OKAY? HAVE SEEN NO OTHER IF YOU
MAKE CLOTHES, MR SANTIAGO, I
RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR AN I VOTE
AND THANK YOU, MR CHAIR AND
MEMBERS FOR YOUR THOUGHTFUL
DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. YOU MAY
CALL THE ROLL. ON A B 28 70
BASIN MEMBER SANTIAGO. THE
MOTION IS FOR THE SENATE
AMENDMENTS TO BE CONCURRED IN
JOHN SAWYER. I LACKEY BLACKIE.
NO BONTA BANTER. I BRIAN, BRIAN
, I WORK I WORK I SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO. I SAY ARTO. IT HAPPENS
. THAT MEASURE PASSES. THANK YOU
NOW GO TO ABSENT MEMBERS AND
VOTES. ITEM NUMBER ONE FOR
CONSENT. MAYBE 557 SANTIAGO.
SANTIAGO. AYE. ITEM NUMBER 29 60
BY SEMI MEMBER TEEN SANTIAGO
SANTIAGO I THAT MEASURE ONCE ON
CALL, AND THIS IS SENATE
AMENDMENTS HAVE BEEN MOTION IS
TO BE CONCURRED IN IN THE LAST
ITEM AT IT. OKAY EVERYONE ELSE'S
IS DONE.
AND ITEM NUMBER THREE A B 28 70
MY MR SANTIAGO SEYARTO TOÀN CR
TWO NOW. THAT INCLUDE CONCLUDES
THE BUSINESS OF PUBLIC SAFETY
COMMITTEE. YEAH.