Firearms: prohibited persons.
The passing of SB 120 would significantly alter existing state laws by extending the duration of firearm restrictions from certain misdemeanors. Previously, individuals convicted of specific misdemeanors would be prohibited from gun ownership for lesser durations compared to the newly established period under this bill. Such changes not only address public safety concerns but also impose additional penalties on those convicted, thus impacting the state's approach to firearm regulations and criminal justice.
Senate Bill No. 120, introduced by Senator Stern, amends Section 29805 of the California Penal Code concerning firearms and prohibited persons. The bill aims to expand restrictions on firearm possession for individuals who have been convicted of certain misdemeanors. Specifically, it establishes a 10-year prohibition against firearm possession for those convicted on or after January 1, 2020, of misdemeanors related to the carrying of firearms, including concealed and loaded firearms, as well as openly carrying unloaded handguns. Violation of this prohibition can result in punishment as either a misdemeanor or a felony.
The sentiment surrounding SB 120 generally gravitates towards supporting enhanced public safety measures. Proponents argue that restricting firearm access for individuals with certain criminal histories is a necessary step to mitigate gun violence and ensure community safety. However, there are notable criticisms from groups concerned about the bill's potential to disproportionately affect specific demographics or create barriers for individuals trying to reintegrate into society post-conviction, as the bill may lead to further stigmatization of certain populations.
Debate surrounding this legislation touches on significant points of contention, primarily regarding the balance between public safety and individual rights. Critics of the bill express concerns that extending the prohibition to misdemeanors may overly criminalize behavior that does not pose a severe threat to public safety. They argue that such measures may not effectively address gun violence and could unfairly penalize individuals seeking to rebuild their lives. The potential financial implications for local jurisdictions from the implementation of this state-mandated program also incite debate regarding the state's fiscal responsibilities.