When the law contradicts the "intent" of the Legislature

[Hinnerk]

Not sure if this is the proper forum for these questions but it does involve CA laws and how they affect us.

When Section 27585 was added to the CA PC it apparently shut the door on shipment of C&R long guns into CA to resident FFL3s as had previously been lawful. Section 27585 was added by AB 1609. On or about 23 May 2014, the proposed wording of 27585(a)(6) was amended to strike out

A licensed collector who is subject to and complies with Section 27966.

and replaced it with

A person who complies with subdivision (b) of Section 27875.

The original wording refers to Section 27966 which deals with the exemption from FFL1 (dealer) transfers of Curio & Relic transactions when the receiver of the firearm has an FFL3 and COE. The substitute wording deals with bequests.

If this specific original wording has remained in the bill when it was written into law, it would have continued the practice of FFL3s directly purchasing long arms from out of state and having them shipped to their licensed address. According to the stated intent of the Legislature in adding PC 27585, they did not intend to affect "Persons who import or bring firearms into California under existing regulatory statutes who comply with those statutes" (see below).

The above amendment had the effect of doing just that.

SECTION 1. (a) It is the intent of the Legislature in adding Section 27585 to the Penal Code to do all of the following:
(1) Address the circumstances in which a California resident, on or after January 1, 2015, acquires a firearm outside of California and transports, imports, or brings that firearm into California, in violation of Section 922(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code, but under circumstances in which Section 27545 of the Penal Code does not apply.
(2) Allow the current brokering processes set forth in Section 922(a)(3) of Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 27545 of the Penal Code, and any implementing statutes to continue.
(3) Allow persons who acquire firearms outside of California by bequest or intestate succession to utilize the functionally same reporting requirements as apply to an applicable exemption from Section 27545 if that receipt were to occur within California.
(4) To treat the delivery of a firearm made by a dealer pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 27585 of the Penal Code in the same manner as any other dealer delivery of a firearm, including but not limited to, the application of any exemption from the provisions of Section 27540 of the Penal Code, or Article 1 (commencing with Section 26700) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 26800) of Chapter 2 of Division 6 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code.
(b) It is not the intent of the Legislature in enacting Section 27585 to affect any of the following:
(1) The lending of firearms by or to California residents that occur solely outside of California.
(2) The lending of firearms in this state which comply with statutes that currently govern the lending of firearms.
(3) To impose duplicative and unnecessary reporting requirements where reporting requirements already apply.
(4) Persons who import or bring firearms into California under existing regulatory statutes who comply with those statutes.

Is there any legal basis to challenge a law that violates the intent of the Legislature or is the ultimate intent judged solely on the text of the law as finally written?

Is there any record of introduction, discussion and purpose of amendments like this?

[Robotron2k84]

If Trump's EO for the travel ban can be enjoined for his comments and tweets, I don't see why you couldn't seek out a challenge. Bad faith laws are subject to scrutiny. You should hope to find a sympathetic judge.

Good luck if you choose to pursue.

[Dvrjon]

Originally Posted by Hinnerk

Not sure if this is the proper forum for these questions but it does involve CA laws and how they affect us.

When Section 27585 was added to the CA PC it apparently shut the door on shipment of C&R long guns into CA to resident FFL3s as had previously been lawful. Section 27585 was added by AB 1609.

The original wording refers to Section 27966 which deals with the exemption from FFL1 (dealer) transfers of Curio & Relic transactions when the receiver of the firearm has an FFL3 and COE. The substitute wording deals with bequests.

If this specific original wording has remained in the bill when it was written into law, it would have continued the practice of FFL3s directly purchasing long arms from out of state and having them shipped to their licensed address. According to the stated intent of the Legislature in adding PC 27585, they did not intend to affect "Persons who import or bring firearms into California under existing regulatory statutes who comply with those statutes" (see below).

The above amendment had the effect of doing just that.

Is there any legal basis to challenge a law that violates the intent of the Legislature or is the ultimate intent judged solely on the text of the law as finally written?

Is there any record of introduction, discussion and purpose of amendments like this?

1. Is there any legal basis to challenge a law that violates the intent of the Legislature or is the ultimate intent judged solely on the text of the law as finally written?

Answer: The Legislature was well aware of the intent as stated in the legislation when they authored and passed the statute...The "Intent" statement was included in the text during their deliberations. It isn't likely that one could make a persuasive case that the statute as a whole contradicts itself and the statute as enacted did not meet the intent stated in that enacted statute.

2. Is there any record of introduction, discussion and purpose of amendments like this?

Answer: Leginfo provides full information on recent legislation, including committee reports and all amendments: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01320140AB1609

[Hinnerk]

Originally Posted by Dvrjon

1. Is there any legal basis to challenge a law that violates the intent of the Legislature or is the ultimate intent judged solely on the text of the law as finally written?

Answer: The Legislature was well aware of the intent as stated in the legislation when they authored and passed the statute...The "Intent" statement was included in the text during their deliberations. It isn't likely that one could make a persuasive case that the statute as a whole contradicts itself and the statute as enacted did not meet the intent stated in that enacted statute.

2. Is there any record of introduction, discussion and purpose of amendments like this?

Answer: Leginfo provides full information on recent legislation, including committee reports and all amendments: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/f...01320140AB1609

1) If the legislature was "well aware" of the intent of the Legislature as expressed in the bill, they cannot reconcile that with an amendment that changed the effect of the bill from being in agreement with the stated intent to having an effect in contravention of the stated intent.

2) I see nothing in Leginfo* that explains the reasoning for the amendment and the fact that the statement of the intent of the Legislature was not similarly amended to keep it in line with the change effected by the amendment makes me question how well aware the legislature could have been.

* admittedly, this may be because I am not intimately familiar with the way that the California Legislature conducts and reports on its business. Nonetheless, the Bill Analysis, where I would expect such details to reside, is lacking.

[Hinnerk]

Reading through the Bill Analyses it is clear that the arguments were consistent with the stated intent. See for example

"Anyone who complies with the federal “direct ship” mandate, the new residence procedures, or the collector procedures is fully protected by this bill. The people who are not protected are the criminal element.

[Date of Hearing: March 25, 2014 ]

It seems clear that the bill was intended to affect the trafficking of unreported long guns from out of state and NOT to interfere with FFL3 activity but somewhere along the line the bill was modified to do just that.