Governor Gavin Newsom this week signed more than twenty bills to enact a series of gun control statutes in California. From my “legislative geek” perspective, there are two interesting provisions contained in the two main bills: SB 2 and AB 28. These provisions are the legislative findings and declarations, and the severability clauses.
Regarding the legislative findings and declarations, both Senate Bill 2 and Assembly Bill 28 contain more than a dozen, detailed findings and declarations that are based on studies and other factual information and data. In many bills that contain legislative findings and declarations, those are mainly statements of opinion or intent. Knowing that a legal challenge is likely, these detailed and documented findings are intended to help the judiciary justify upholding the laws.
Regarding the severability clauses, both SB 2 and AB 28 contain them, but SB 2 has the “standard” severability language, while AB 28 has a more detailed one, which is used less regularly, but still has been used previously.
The following are the legislative findings and declarations and severability clauses contained in these two bills:
Legislative Findings and Declarations Used
SB 2 (Portantino)
The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) The Legislature has compelling interests in protecting both individual rights and public safety. The Legislature’s intent and purpose in clarifying California’s requirements governing the issuance of carry concealed weapons (CCW) licenses, and clarifying Dealers’ Record of Sale cross-references, is to protect its residents’ rights to keep and bear arms while also protecting the public’s health and safety in the state by reducing the number of people killed, injured, and traumatized by gun violence; protecting the exercise of other fundamental rights, including the right to worship, attain an education, vote, and peaceably assemble and demonstrate; ensuring that law enforcement is able to effectively do its job; and combating terrorism.
(b) While the United States Supreme Court has made clear that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution imposes some restrictions on states’ ability to regulate firearms, it has recognized that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not a “regulatory straightjacket.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2133. Indeed, the Second Amendment allows States to adopt a “‘variety’ of gun regulations.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2162 (conc. opn. of Kavanaugh, J.). And when it comes to restrictions on carrying firearms in public, the United States Supreme Court has recognized three times that states may restrict the carrying of firearms in “sensitive places.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2133; see also McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) 561 U.S. 742, 786 (plur. opn. of Alito, J.); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, 626. It has also recognized that states may prohibit individuals who are not “law-abiding, responsible citizens” from carrying firearms in public. N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138 fn.9.
(c) Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing standards enacted in 43 states that include qualification standards that “are designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law-abiding responsible citizens,’” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2138 fn.9. The laws of at least 21 of these states authorize officials to deny concealed carry licenses to otherwise eligible applicants who are found not to be law-abiding or responsible based on a determination that the applicant lacks the character or temperament to carry firearms in public spaces or otherwise presents a danger to self, others, or the community at large. (See Ala. Code § 13A-11-75(a)(1)(a); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-308(b)(1); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-203(2); Conn. Gen. Stat. §29-28(b); Del. Code, Tit. 11, § 1441; Ga. Code § 16-11-129(d)(4); 430 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 66/15; Ind. Code § 35-47-2-3(g); Iowa Code §724.8(3); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 25, § 2003; Minn. Stat. § 624.714; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 571.101.2(7); Mont. Code § 45-8-321(2); N.D. Cent. Code § 62.1-04-03(1)(e); Or. Rev. Stat. § 166.293(2); 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 6109(e)(1)(i); R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-47-11; S.D. Codified Laws § 23-7-7.1; Utah Code § 53-5-704(3)(a); Va. Code § 18.2-308.09(13); Wyo. Stat. § 6-8-104(g)). The United States Supreme Court repeatedly affirmed the validity of these states’ standards, including specifically and approvingly citing the standards adopted in Connecticut, which, the Court noted, validly preclude an otherwise eligible applicant from qualifying for a concealed carry license if the licensing official determines the applicant’s “conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon.” N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022) 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2123 fn.1.
(d) Over the past several years, a wealth of empirical studies have shown that crime is higher when more people carry firearms in public places. While California and other states have decided to limit the places and conditions under which residents may carry firearms, over the past several decades other states have decided to allow most people to carry firearms in most public places. Those later states have seen markedly higher crime rates. According to one study, in the 33 states that adopted these “right-to-carry” laws, violent crime was substantially higher—13 to 15 percent higher—10 years after the laws were adopted than it would have been, had those states not adopted those laws. See Donohue, et al., “Right-to-Carry” Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State-Level Synthetic Control Analysis (2019) 16 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 198. That same study acknowledged that crime had dropped in both “right-to-carry” states and other states over the past several decades, but concluded that the violent crime reduction in states that did not adopt “right-to-carry” laws was an order of magnitude higher than those that did—a 42.3 percent drop in violent crime for those states that did not adopt “right-to-carry” laws compared to just a 4.3 percent drop for those that did.
(e) Broadly allowing individuals to carry firearms in most public areas increases the number of people wounded and killed by gun violence. Among other things, pervasive carrying increases the lethality of otherwise mundane situations, as we have seen shots fired in connection with road rage, talking on a phone in a theater, playing loud music at a gas station, a dispute over snow shoveling, and a dispute over the use of a disabled parking spot. Importantly, in many of these incidents, the shooters held permits that allowed them to carry firearms in public, meaning that they met the criteria necessary to secure a permit, which often include a requirement that the person not previously have been convicted of a serious crime.
(f) Another study concluded that states that changed from prohibiting concealed carry of guns to a regime where the state must issue a CCW permit to any qualified applicant who requests one—a transition to a “shall issue” jurisdiction—experienced a 12.3 percent increase in gun-related murder rates, and a 4.9 increase in overall murder rates. Gius, Using the Synthetic Control Method to Determine the Effects of Concealed Carry Laws on State-Level Murder Rates (2019) 57 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. 1. Two other studies concluded that states with “shall-issue” laws had higher overall homicide rates, higher firearm homicide rates, and higher handgun homicide rates as compared to the “may-issue” regimes in place in California and other states. Siegel, et al., Easiness of Legal Access to Concealed Firearm Permits and Homicide Rates in the United States (2017) 107 Am. J. Pub. Health 1923; Siegel, et al., The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide and Suicide Deaths in the USA, 1991 – 2016: A Panel Study (2019) 34 J. Gen. Internal Med. 2021. Several other studies reached similar results. Anita Knopov et al., The Impact of State Firearm Laws on Homicide Rates among Black and White Populations in the United States, 1991–2016 (2019) 44 Health & Soc. Work 232; John J. Donohue, Laws Facilitating Gun Carrying and Homicide (2017) 107 Am. J. Pub. Health 1864; Emma E. Fridel, Comparing the Impact of Household Gun Ownership and Concealed Carry Legislation on the Frequency of Mass Shootings and Firearms Homicide (2021) 38 Just. Q. 892; Cassandra K. Crifasi, Correction to: Association between Firearm Laws and Homicide in Urban Counties (2018) 95 J. Urban Health 773; Paul R. Zimmerman, The Deterrence of Crime Through Private Security Efforts: Theory and Evidence (2014) 37 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. 66.
(g) States with permissive “right-to-carry” laws also witness higher rates of firearm workplace homicides than those that did not have those laws. One study concluded that states with “right-to-carry” laws experienced 29 percent greater rates of firearm workplace homicides between 1992 and 2017 than those that did not. Mitchell L. Doucette et al., “Right-to-Carry” Laws and Firearm Workplace Homicides: A Longitudinal Analysis (1992–2017) (2019) 109 Am. J. Pub. Health 1747, 1751. Another peer-reviewed study found that restricting the ability to carry concealed weapons was associated with a 5.79 percent reduction in workplace homicide rates. Erika L. Sabbath et al., State-Level Changes in Firearm Laws and Workplace Homicide Rates: United States, 2011 to 2017 (2020) 110 Am. J. Pub. Health 230.
(h) While several studies from the late 1990s and early 2000s purported to conclude that increases in “right-to-carry” laws either decreased or had no effect on crime, many other early studies concluded that it increased crime. In 2005, the National Research Council issued a report evaluating the then-current literature about the impact of “right-to-carry” laws on crime, and concluded that it was “‘impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact’ of “right-to-carry” laws on violent crime and property crime in general and rape, aggravated assault, auto theft, burglary, and larceny in particular,” and that the “existing data and methods” were likely insufficient to resolve the question, and that “new analytical approaches and data” were needed “if further headway is to be made.” Nat’l Research Council, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2005) 272, 275.
(i) Since that time a number of social scientists have taken up the National Research Council’s call. Those studies overwhelmingly support the conclusion that more carrying of firearms in public leads to an increase in crime: of the 35 social science studies looking at this issue since the National Research Council issued its report in 2005, 23 found an increase in crime, 7 found no effect, and 5 found a decrease in crime. A 2014 study from the Harvard Injury Control Research Center concluded that a sizable majority of firearms researchers disagree with the statement that the change in state level concealed carry laws in the United States over the past few decades from more restrictive to more permissive has reduced crime rates.
(j) Widespread carrying of firearms also impedes the exercise of other fundamental rights. When firearms are present in public spaces, it makes those places less safe, which discourages people from attending protests, going to school, peacefully worshiping, voting in person, and enjoying other activities.
(1) (A) While the net effect of policies that allow most people to carry firearms in most places have negatively impacted public safety broadly, their effects are likely to be far more deleterious when extended to college campuses. Risks of violence, suicide attempts, alcohol abuse, and other risky behavior are greatly elevated among college-aged, youth and in the campus environment, and the presence of firearms greatly increases the risk of lethal and near-lethal outcomes from these behaviors and in this context. Daniel W. Webster et al., Firearms on College Campuses: Research Evidence and Policy Implications, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch. of Pub. Health (Oct. 15, 2016). Moreover, once Georgia passed a law allowing firearms to be carried on college campuses, campus members reported a statistically significant increase in perceptions of the campus as unsafe, fear of crime on campus, and lack of confidence in campus police; and a “statistically significantly increase in the proportion of campus members who reported experiencing fearful conflicts on campus.” Jennifer McMahon-Howard et al., Examining the Effects of Passing a Campus Carry Law: Comparing Campus Safety Before and After Georgia’s New Campus Carry Law, 20 J. of Sch. Violence (2021) 430.
(B) Widespread carrying can also affect the ability to learn in primary and secondary schools. One study concluded that students exposed to school shootings have an increased absence rate, are more likely to be chronically absent and repeat a grade in the two years following the event, and suffer negative long-term impacts on high school graduation rates, college enrollment and graduation, and future employment and earnings. Marika Cabral et al., Trauma at School: The Impacts of Shootings on Students’ Human Capital and Economic Outcomes, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (Dec. 2020). Another study looked at longer term consequences of school shootings, finding that exposure to shootings at schools resulted in lower test scores, increased absenteeism, and increased subsequent mortality for those students, and particularly boys, who are exposed to the highest-victimization school shootings. Phillip Levine and Robin McKnight, Exposure to a School Shooting and Subsequent Well-Being, Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Research (Dec. 2020).
(2) Widespread public carry also intimidates those who hope to peacefully worship. Places of worship already experience serious incidents or threats of violence. According to one study, the percentage of mass shootings motivated by religious hate escalated from 1 percent between 1966 and 2000 to 9 percent during 2000–2014 to 18 percent during 2018-February 2020. Richard R. Johnson, Serious Violence at Places of Worship in the U.S.—Looking at the Numbers, Dolan Consulting Grp. (Sept. 2019). A review of the Federal Investigation Bureau’s National Incident-Based Reporting System data—which covers only 20 percent of the country’s population—from 2000 through 2016 found that 1,652 incidents of “serious violence” occurred at places of worship, including aggravated assaults, shootings, stabbings, and bombings, with 57 percent involving the use of a firearm. Extrapolating those figures to the entire country would suggest that there are about 480 incidents of serious violence at places of worship in the United States each year. Allowing more people to carry in places of worship threatens to make these incidents more likely.
(3) Carrying firearms impedes the exercise of other rights of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including the right to protest and vote. In a nationally representative survey, 60 percent responded that they would be “very unlikely” to attend a protest if guns were present, whereas only 7 percent said they would be “very likely” to attend such a protest. Alexandra Filindra, Americans Do Not Want Guns at Protests, this Research Shows, Wash. Post (Nov. 21, 2021). Another study concluded that 16 percent of demonstrations where firearms were present turned violent, as compared to less than 3 percent of demonstrations where firearms were not present. Everytown for Gun Safety & Armed Conflict Locations & Event Data Project, Armed Assembly: Guns, Demonstrations, and Political Violence in America (2021).
(k) An individual does not need to carry several firearms at any one time in order to effectively defend themselves. Studies have shown that, on average, individuals fire approximately two rounds when using a firearm in self-defense inside or outside of the home, including approximately 27 percent of incidents in which no shots are fired and the mere brandishing of the firearm is sufficient for self-defense. Limiting an individual to carrying no more than two firearms in public at any given time will not impair the ability of law-abiding, responsible individuals to engage in effective self-defense with a firearm.
(l) Laws requiring an assessment of dangerousness in connection with obtaining firearms have saved lives. One study concluded that since California’s gun violence restraining order process—which allows family members and law enforcement to petition a court for an order temporarily prohibiting a person from purchasing or possessing firearms, if a court finds that the person is a danger to themselves or others—took effect in January 2016, there have been 21 instances in which the statute was used to prevent a mass shooting. Wintemute, et al., Extreme Risk Protection Orders Intended to Prevent Mass Shootings, 171 Annals of Internal Med. (2019) 655, 655-658. According to another study, 56 percent of mass shooters exhibited warning signs that they posed a risk to themselves or others before they carried out the shooting. Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, “Mass Shootings in America,” (Nov. 2020). One hundred percent of perpetrators of school violence showed concerning behaviors before committing their acts, according to a study by the United States Secret Service and the United States Department of Education. U.S. Secret Serv., NSB 686 Threat Assessment Ctr., Protecting America’s Schools: A U.S. Secret Service Analysis of Targeted School Violence 43 (2019).
(m) Broad public carry laws also impede the ability of law enforcement to ensure the public’s safety. For example, laws allowing open carry of firearms imperil law enforcement officers on the front lines by making it much more difficult for an officer to discern if a person is a threat, and when there is an active shooter situation, makes it harder to determine the source of the threat.
AB 28 (Gabriel)
This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act.
The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Gun violence is a public health and safety crisis nationwide. Firearms are now the leading cause of death for American children. California’s gun death rates are substantially lower than the national average, yet firearms remain a leading cause of death, injury, and trauma for young people and especially young people of color in this state.
(b) Gun violence also contributes to significant racial and socioeconomic inequality in safety. The most recent available data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicates that in 2021, nationwide, the parents of a Black son 13 to 19 years of age were more likely to lose their child to gun homicide than every other cause of death combined.
(c) A majority of gun assault victims survive the shooting but are often left to grapple with severe physical and mental injuries and long-term expenses, impairments, and pain. People who have been direct victims of violence are at substantially higher risk of being violently reattacked or killed, in part because a large majority of nonfatal shootings do not lead to arrest. Strained by the overwhelming number of shootings and related challenges, law enforcement agencies across the United States cleared less than one-third of aggravated assaults with firearms in 2019. Victims who have been shot, shot at, or chronically exposed to threats of gun violence and associated traumas may seek safety by affiliating with armed groups or engaging in retaliatory violence themselves.
(d) Gun violence imposes enormous harms on those who are not direct victims as well. The Director of the CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention presented research to Congress demonstrating that “youth living in inner cities show a higher prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder than soldiers” in the nation’s wartime military. Many studies have documented how witnessing a shooting or being chronically exposed to gun violence is correlated with increased risk of negative health outcomes, criminal system involvement, reduced educational engagement and achievement, and longer term negative impacts on workforce potential and earnings.
(e) The CDC notes that “Community violence can cause significant physical injuries and mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Living in a community experiencing violence is also associated with increased risk of developing chronic diseases. Concerns about violence may prevent some people from engaging in healthy behaviors, such as walking, bicycling, using parks and recreational spaces, and accessing healthy food outlets. Violence scares people out of participating in neighborhood activities, limits business growth and prosperity, strains education, justice, and medical systems, and slows community progress.”
(f) In addition to its enormous human toll, gun violence also causes economic harm in impacted communities and imposes enormous fiscal burdens on state and local governments and taxpayers. A report from the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform in 2020 determined that each firearm homicide in Stockton, California cost taxpayers at least $2,500,000 in direct government costs such as medical, law enforcement, court expenses, and lost tax revenue; nonfatal shootings with a single suspect were also estimated to cost taxpayers nearly $1,000,000 on average. A 2021 report by Everytown for Gun Safety found that gun deaths and injuries cost California $22.6 billion annually, of which $1.2 billion is paid by taxpayers every year. Gun violence also imposes broader indirect costs in the form of reduced home values and reduced profitability for local businesses. A report by the Urban Institute found that each additional homicide in a census tract in Oakland, California was “significantly associated with five fewer job opportunities among contracting businesses (businesses losing employees) the next year.”
(g) The firearm industry has also enjoyed record growth and profits for years. A 2020 Economic Impact Report by the firearm industry trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), noted that “the economic growth that America’s firearm and ammunition industry has experienced in recent years has been nothing short of remarkable.” A 2022 NSSF Economic Impact Report said the same thing, and documented a 269-percent increase in the firearm and ammunition industry’s estimated economic impact from 2008 to 2021 and an 11-percent increase from 2020 to 2021 alone.
(h) There has also been an unprecedented spike in shootings and gun homicides across the United States and California. According to CDC data from 2011 to 2021, the nationwide firearm homicide rate increased 85 percent.
(i) Firearms and ammunition sold by licensed manufacturers, dealers, and vendors of these products contribute to gun violence and broader harms. Gun dealers, for example, are the leading source of firearms trafficked to illegal markets, often through straw purchases, as well as negligent losses.
(j) The excise tax on firearm and ammunition retailers proposed in this act is analogous to longstanding federal law, which has, since 1919, placed a 10-percent to 11-percent excise tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition by manufacturers, producers, and importers. Revenues from this excise tax have been used, since passage of the Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act in 1937, to fund wildlife conservation efforts that remediate the effects that firearms and ammunition have on wildlife populations through game hunting, particularly through grants to state wildlife agencies, and for conservation-related research, technical assistance, hunter safety, and “hunter development.”
(k) This act will similarly place a reasonable surtax on firearm and ammunition industry members profiting from the sale of firearms and ammunition in order to generate sustained revenue for programs that are designed to remediate the devastating effects these products cause families and communities across this state.
(l) The National Rifle Association has referred to the Pittman-Robertson federal Firearms and Ammunition Excise tax as a “legislative model” and “friend of the hunter,” and NSSF has repeatedly emphasized the importance of this federal firearm industry excise tax as well. A 2019 statement by an NSSF director published on NSSF’s internet website emphasized that “an often overlooked, and certainly under-communicated benefit, is the impact that excise taxes on firearms and ammunition have on conservation and wildlife populations,” and a similar 2018 statement from NSSF praised Key Pittman and Willis Robertson, the legislators who sponsored the Pittman-Robertson excise tax, as “heroes of the most successful conservation model in the world.”
(m) This act would similarly provide dedicated revenue to sustain and expand effective gun violence prevention, healing, and recovery programs for families and communities across California, particularly in communities most disproportionately impacted by gun violence.
(n) This act is consistent with our nation’s longstanding historical tradition of regulating commercial firearm and ammunition manufacturers and sellers, including through federal, state, and local taxes on this commercial activity. An 1883 California statute, for instance, directed local governments to provide for payment of all revenue assessed as a tax, or received for licenses, on the storage, manufacture, and sale of gunpowder and related products in order to fund a “Fireman’s Charitable Fund” to support professionals tasked with remediating the collateral impacts of firearm-related commercial activity on public safety through fire risk.
(o) In the historical record, other states, including Mississippi (1844), North Carolina (1857), Georgia (1866), Alabama (1867), Hawaii (1870), Nebraska (1895), Florida (1898), Wyoming (1899), and Virginia (1926), have similarly enacted longstanding commercial, occupational, or other taxes on those selling, purchasing, or possessing firearms and other dangerous weapons.
(p) The tax specified in this act is a modest and reasonable tax on a profitable industry whose lawful and legitimate business activity imposes substantial harmful externalities on California’s families, communities, and taxpayers. The modest tax proposed in this measure mirrors the Pittman-Robertson federal excise tax on firearm and ammunition industry participants, is similarly dedicated to funding programs to remediate the harmful externalities of firearm industry commerce, and is similarly unlikely to discourage lawful sales and commerce in firearms or ammunition. A gun policy research review by the Rand Corporation noted that the available “research suggests that moderate tax increases on guns or ammunition would do little to disrupt hunting or recreational gun use.”
(q) The revenue from this act would provide sustained, dedicated investments in programs that are effective at addressing and remediating harms caused by firearm and ammunition industry products, including investments in: (1) community gun violence intervention and prevention initiatives that help address risk factors for violent behavior, protect and heal victims, interrupt cycles of shootings, trauma, and retaliation among those at highest risk, and address racial inequality in access to safety for communities of color; (2) gun violence research that helps stakeholders identify leading causes and evidence-based responses to gun violence; (3) initiatives that train health care providers about effective clinical tools for preventing firearm suicide and injury; (4) crime victim services, including mental health services, for victims of mass shootings and other gun homicides, and individuals chronically exposed to gun violence in their community, including students in school districts disproportionately impacted by gun violence in the school or broader community; (5) coordinated efforts to ensure firearm and ammunition purchasers are adequately informed about how to comply with California’s gun safety laws and responsibilities associated with safe use and possession of firearms, including child access prevention, and to promote effective and equitable implementation of California’s gun safety laws and programs; (6) programs that promote victims’ and public safety by ensuring the prompt, safe, and consistent removal of firearms and ammunition from people who become prohibited from possessing them, such as after a gun violence or domestic violence restraining order; and (7) evidence-based activities to effectively and equitably support gun homicide and shooting investigations in order to deliver justice for victims of gun violence in communities bearing the brunt of these tragedies.
(r) In a report published in August 2023 by the American Academy of Pediatrics, researchers found that the increase in firearm purchasing during the pandemic increased the risk for pediatric firearm injury, resulting in a 41.6-percent increase in the firearm death rate for American children between 2018 and 2021. During this period, racial disparities in gun deaths also significantly worsened. According to the report, communities of color bore the brunt of this burden, with Black children comprising nearly 50 percent of children killed by firearms. Unlike other age demographics in the United States, nearly two-thirds of youth gun deaths were attributable to homicide, while less than one-third are attributed to death by firearm suicide. State variability in access to preventative strategies like violence intervention, suicide prevention, and firearm safety programs all contribute to disparities in pediatric firearm death rates. With this legislation, California affirms its commitment to increasing access to these vital preventative strategies, particularly in our state’s most vulnerable communities.
(s) The Legislature hereby adopts this act for the purpose of reducing and preventing gun violence, including by addressing risk factors for gun violence, and promoting healing and recovery for victims of gun violence, particularly in communities that are disproportionately impacted by shootings and gun homicides.
Severability Clauses Used
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
If any section, subsection, sentence, or clause of this act is for any reason declared unconstitutional, invalid, or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the constitutionality, validity, or enforceability of the remaining portions of this act or any part thereof. The Legislature hereby declares that it would have adopted this act notwithstanding the unconstitutionality, invalidity, or unenforceability of any one or more of its sections, subsections, sentences, or clauses.
- Frequently Asked Questions about the ‘Sunrise’ Process - December 5, 2023
- More on OAL’s Review of Rulemaking Files – The ‘Nonduplication’ Standard - December 4, 2023
- Frequently Asked Questions about the ‘Sunset Review’ Process - December 3, 2023