Opinion ID: 2595475
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Statute's History and Context

Text: The AWCA's origins and legislative history are reviewed in detail in Kasler v. Lockyer, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pages 482-487, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334, 2 P.3d 581 ( Kasler). Suffice it to say here the legislation, enacted in 1989, was prompted by the belief that assault weapons posed a real, severe and growing threat to public safety, urgently requiring regulation and restriction to reduce the number of such weapons finding their way into the hands of street gangs, drug dealers and the mentally ill. The legislative history indicates that while few knowledgeable observers questioned the existence or gravity of the assault weapons problem, several individuals expressed significant reservations about the remedial measures proposed. In particular, the generic definition of assault weapon contained in the bills under consideration concerned many. Witnesses at the hearing conducted by the Assembly sitting as a Committee of the Whole (see Kasler, supra, at pp. 482-483, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334) complained the bills would throw the baby out with the dishwater [sic ] by including too many semiautomatic rifles that had legitimate uses, and that it was, in practice, impossible to formulate a generic definition that would include military-style weapons but exclude legitimate sporting guns. (1 Assem. J. (1989-1990 Reg. Sess.) pp. 449, 451.) When the law's final compromise form, containing a definition by list rather than a generic description, obtained approval from key political figures, Governor Deukmejian, who had expressed misgivings about the generic approach (see Kasler, supra, at p. 487, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334), was quoted as saying, The result of our efforts have been to clarify provisions of the laws and to provide more certainty regarding which guns are covered. ( Deukmejian, Roberti Agree on Weapons Bill, San Diego Tribune (May 4, 1989) p. Al, reprinted in Forsyth, Assault Weapons in California: a Case Study in Issue Management and the Media (1989) p. 8.) The law's origins as a legislative response to a serious public safety problem, reflected in this history and in the statutory findings and statement of purpose (§ 12275.5), tend to place the AWCA, including section 12280(b), in the category of public welfare offenses, of which the primary goal is regulation for the public welfare or safety rather than punishment of individual offenders. Moreover, from the fact that the list in section 12276 apparently was intended to provide `a more exact definition' ( Kasler, supra, 23 Cal.4th at p. 485, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 334) of assault weapons than the original bill, one might infer the Legislature viewed the provisions of the law, as finally enacted, as providing a definition sufficiently certain and detailed that ordinary gun owners would have little difficulty determining if their firearms had to be registered. In this sense, the statute's history suggests, if only weakly, that the Legislature intended to place on the owners or possessors of semiautomatic weapons [4] the onus of determining whether their firearms had the characteristics bringing them within the new law. On the other hand, the legislative statement of purpose in section 12275.5 includes, as its last sentence, the following: It is not, however, the intent of the Legislature by this chapter to place restrictions on the use of those weapons which are primarily designed and intended for hunting, target practice, or other legitimate sports or recreational activities. As the AWCA restricts only certain semiautomatic weapons, one could infer the Legislature believed those it left unrestricted did have significant sporting or recreational uses. In this sense, as the minor argues, the AWCA was clearly not premised on the view that all semiautomatic firearms were henceforth suspect and to be possessed only at the risk of subjecting oneself to criminal liability. Beyond these conflicting and somewhat attenuated inferences, the legislative history reveals no specific evidence of an intent to include or exclude any particular scienter in the elements of section 12280(b). Nor does the language of any of the AWCA's other substantive provisions clearly indicate a legislative intent to eliminate any mens rea element for a section 12280(b) violation. [5] We turn, therefore, to the AWCA's broader statutory context. The AWCA was codified as chapter 2.3 of title 2 of part 4 of the Penal Code. Title 2, which encompasses sections 12000 through 12809, is entitled Control of Deadly Weapons and contains numerous provisions aimed at controlling the ownership, possession, and use of firearms and other dangerous weapons. Among these provisions are: section 12020, punishing as a wobbler the possession of any of a long list of weapons, including short-barreled shotguns and rifles, undetectable firearms, explosive bullets, nunchakus, shurikens, multiburst trigger activators, concealed dirks or daggers, blackjacks and lipstick case knives; section 12021, which, inter alia, punishes as a felony the ownership or possession of firearms by convicted felons; section 12025, punishing as a misdemeanor, wobbler, or felony, depending on the circumstances, the carrying of a concealed firearm; section 12031, punishing as a misdemeanor, wobbler, or felony, depending on the circumstances, the public carrying of a loaded firearm; section 12220, which, inter alia, punishes as a felony the possession of a machine gun; section 12303, punishing as a wobbler the possession of a destructive device; and section 12320, punishing as a wobbler the knowing possession of armorpiercing handgun ammunition. In a number of cases predating the AWCA's 1989 enactment, Courts of Appeal construed various of these weapons laws as not requiring knowledge of the characteristics bringing the weapon within the statutory restriction or prohibition. (See People v. Corkrean (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 35, 37-41, 199 Cal.Rptr. 375 [§ 12220; knowledge gun fires automatically not an element of anti-machine-gun law]; People v. Daniels (1953) 118 Cal.App.2d 340, 343-345, 257 P.2d 1038 [same for predecessor to § 12220]; People v. Harrison (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 115, 120, 81 Cal.Rptr. 396 [§ 12031, subd. (a); knowledge gun is loaded not an element of misdemeanor offense of carrying loaded firearm in vehicle]; People v. Azevedo (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 235, 239-241, 207 Cal.Rptr. 270 [§ 12020, subd. (a); knowledge of sawed-off shotgun's contraband character not an element].) [6] The Attorney General observes that some of these decisions rely on the statutes' lack of a requirement the defendant knowingly possess the weapon. (See, e.g., People v. Daniels, supra, 118 Cal. App.2d at pp. 344-345, 257 P.2d 1038.) The Legislature, his argument continues, at the time it enacted the AWCA, was presumably aware of this uniform interpretation of the deadly weapons laws and, therefore, by again omitting any express reference to the possessor's knowledge, must have intended to impose liability without any element of scienter. The minor responds that the AWCA is distinguishable from sections 12020 and 12220, in that the latter restrict all machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, explosive ammunition and the like, while the AWCA restricts only selected semiautomatic weapons and expressly disavows (in the last sentence of § 12275.5, quoted earlier) any intent to restrict other semiautomatic weapons with legitimate sporting uses. [7] For two reasons, we agree with the minor that the pre-1989 Court of Appeal decisions on deadly weapons laws are not compelling evidence the Legislature intended section 12280(b) to lack any scienter element. First, the precedential history is not as clear or definitive as the Attorney General portrays it. As of 1989, this court had not ruled on whether knowledge of the weapon's illegal characteristics was an element of any of the state's deadly weapons laws; the few statements we had made on the subject, moreover, did not point clearly to liability without any scienter. Thus, in People v. Snyder (1982) 32 Cal.3d 590, 593, 186 Cal.Rptr. 485, 652 P.2d 42, while rejecting the claim a convicted felon in possession of a firearm must know of his legal status to violate section 12021, we stated that the crucial question is whether the defendant was aware that he was engaging in the conduct proscribed by that section. (Italics added.) Similarly, in Galvan v. Superior Court (1969) 70 Cal.2d 851, 868, 76 Cal. Rptr. 642, 452 P.2d 930, construing a San Francisco gun registration law, we stated, `The only knowledge required is knowledge of the character of the object possessed; knowledge that the possession is illegal is unnecessary.' (Italics added.) At the same time, in the related area of criminal penalties for possession of controlled substances, we had consistently construed such laws to require knowledge of the character of the substance possessed, despite the absence in the statutes of mens rea language. ( People v. Williams (1971) 5 Cal.3d 211, 215, 95 Cal. Rptr. 530, 485 P.2d 1146; People v. Winston (1956) 46 Cal.2d 151, 158-161, 293 P.2d 40; see also People v. Coria, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 875-880, 89 Cal.Rptr.2d 650, 985 P.2d 970 [citing additional cases on transportation, sale and cultivation of drugs, and adopting same construction for crime of manufacturing methamphetamine].) One Court of Appeal, in an appeal from convictions for possession of a sawed-off shotgun (§ 12020) and possession of morphine (Health & Saf.Code, former § 11500), had generalized the scienter rule for possession as follows: It is, of course, true that to establish unlawful possession of a contraband object it must be shown that the defendant exercised dominion and control over the object with knowledge of its presence and contraband character. ( People v. Prochnau (1967) 251 Cal.App.2d 22, 30, 59 Cal.Rptr. 265, italics added.) Thus, as of 1989, the appellate decisions regarding the scienter required for possessory offenses, including those involving deadly weapons, were not uniform in result. The Legislature in that year would not, therefore, necessarily have assumed that a felony offense punishing simple possession of a weapon would be construed as a strict liability crime if the statute failed to include any language of scienter. Second, as the minor suggests, the Legislature may have regarded the statutory prohibitions construed in the Attorney General's cited Court of Appeal decisions as significantly distinguishable from the AWCA. Those decisions rest in part on the belief that sawed-off shotguns and machine guns are so easily distinguishable, and so patently tailored to criminal activity, that unknowing and innocent possession is unlikely. (See People v. Azevedo, supra, 161 Cal.App.3d at p. 240, 207 Cal. Rptr. 270 [sawed-off shotguns described as members of a class of instruments normally used only for criminal purposes]; see also id. at p. 241, 207 Cal.Rptr. 270 [court concludes [i]t is not a heavy burden for a person who knowingly possesses a sawed-off shotgun to first determine the dimensions of that weapon or otherwise possess it at his or her own peril]; People v. Daniels, supra, 118 Cal.App.2d at p. 345, 257 P.2d 1038 [No doubt the Legislature felt that possession of a machine gun could hardly be had without knowledge that the object was in fact a machine gun].) In contrast, while the drafters and enactors of the AWCA clearly regarded as particularly dangerous, because of their criminal use, the assault weapons to be restricted, they also recognized that the enumerated weapons belonged to the larger class of semiautomatic firearms, some of which were primarily designed and used for lawful activities such as hunting and target shooting. (§ 12275.5, last sentence.) Nothing in the AWCA suggests the Legislature regarded the distinctions between these two groups of weapons to be so patent and definite that innocent and unknowing possession of a restricted assault weapon would be particularly unlikely. The machine gun cases further rest on the fact that the machine gun statute itself (§ 12220) contains language of scienter (knowingly) in its prohibition on transporting, but not in its prohibition on simple possession. (See People v. Corkrean, supra, 152 Cal.App.3d at pp. 38-39, 199 Cal. Rptr. 375; People v. Daniels, supra, 118 Cal.App.2d at pp. 344-345, 257 P.2d 1038.) In contrast, section 12280 does not contain language of scienter in any of its prohibitions. For these reasons, and contrary to the Attorney General's contention, the strict liability construction given some other deadly weapon statutes by the Courts of Appeal before 1989 is not strong evidence of the intent of the Legislature in enacting the AWCA.