California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016)
| California Proposition 63: Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 2016 | |
| Topic Firearms | |
| Status On the ballot | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 63, the Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute.
| A "yes" vote supported prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and requiring certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition. |
| A "no" vote opposed this proposal to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and require certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition. |
Election results
 |
| Proposition 63 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
 Yes | 2,042,425 | 63.26% | ||
| No | 1,186,379 | 36.74% | ||
- Election results from California Secretary of State
Overview
Regulation of ammunition in California
In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation requires individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. The legislation also requires sellers to conduct background checks of purchasers with the Department of Justice. Some provisions of the legislation will repeal and replace parts of Proposition 63 if it is approved.[1]
Changes to state law
Proposition 63 would require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit. Dealers would be required to check this permit before selling ammunition. The measure would eliminate several exemptions to the large-capacity magazines ban and increase the penalty for possessing them. Proposition 63 would also enact a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms.[1]
Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 is a misdemeanor. Proposition 63 would make stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.
State of the ballot measure campaigns
Yes on Prop 63 outraised opponents five to one. As of November 3, 2016, supporters had received $4.54 million, while opposing committees had raised $868,265. The California Democratic Party, a supporter of Proposition 63, had contributed over $1 million to the campaign. The National Rifle Association was against the initiative and contributed $95,000 to opponents. Polls indicated that around 68 percent of residents supported Proposition 63.
Initiative design
Requirements to buy ammo
Proposition 63 was designed to require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a four-year permit from the California Department of Justice. Dealers would be required to check this permit before selling ammunition.[1] California enacted legislation in July 2016 that, if Proposition 63 is approved, would repeal this provision and instead mandate dealers to check with the Department of Justice to determine if the buyer is authorized to purchase.
Licenses to sell ammo
In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation requires individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less of ammunition per month for hunting trips are not required to obtain a license
Proposition 63 would establish a misdemeanor penalty for failing to follow these dealer licensing requirements.
Large-capacity magazines
California banned large-capacity magazines for most individuals in 2000. Individuals who had large-capacity magazines before 2000 were allowed to keep the magazines. Proposition 63 would remove the ownership exemption for pre-2000 owners of large-capacity magazines. Individuals who do not comply with the measure would be charged with an infraction.
Court removal of firearms
Proposition 63 would enact a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms. Courts would be required to inform individuals prohibited from owning a firearm that they must turn their firearms over to local law enforcement, sell their firearms to a licensed dealer, or give their firearms to a dealer for storage. Probation officers would check and report on what prohibited individuals did with their firearms.
Out-of-state purchases
Starting in July 2019, the July 2016 legislation prohibits most California residents from purchasing ammunition outside the state and bringing it into the state without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer. Proposition 63 would move up the start date of this law to January 2018. It would also make bringing out-of-state ammunition into the state without first delivering it to a dealer an infraction.
Reporting theft
Dealers of ammunition would need to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. Individuals would need to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Failure to report would be considered an infraction.
Penalty for theft
Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 is a misdemeanor.
Proposition 63 would make stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The official ballot title is as follows:[2]
| “ | Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.[3] | ” |
Ballot summary
The long-form ballot summary was as follows:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:[1]
| “ |
Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.[3] |
” |
Petition summary
The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 63 was changed from the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection. The original summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was:[4]
| “ | Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal by sale to dealer, destruction, or removal from state. Requires most individuals to pass background check and obtain Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Department of Justice. Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement. Prohibits persons convicted of stealing a firearm from possessing firearms. Establishes new procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons and violent criminals. Requires Department of Justice to provide information about prohibited persons to federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.[3] | ” |
Fiscal impact
Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.
The statement is as follows:[1]
| “ |
|
” |
Full text
The full text of Proposition 63 can be found here.
Support
Supporters
Officials
Yes on Prop 63’s “Join the Fight" |
- Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)[6]
- U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)[7]
- U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
- Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
- Sen. Kevin de León (D-24)[8]
- Rep. Toni Atkins (D-78)
- Rep. Evan Low (D-28)
- Rep. Matthew Dababneh (D-45)
Former officials
- Rep. John Perez (D-53)[7]
Parties
- California Democratic Party[7]
- California Young Democrats
- Santa Monica Democratic Club[9]
Local government
Local officials
Law enforcement
Municipalities
|
Organizations
|
Unions
| Verbatim fact check: Was California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom right about mass shootings since Proposition 63's announcement? | |
| In an October 2016 op-ed, Newsom wrote there were "over 10 mass shootings" between October 15, 2015 and October 20, 2016. While there is no standard definition of "mass shooting," two of the private groups that do track "mass shootings" report 42 and 47 in the time period cited.
| |
- SEIU[7]
- California Federation of Teachers
- California Nurses Association[11]
- California Faculty Association
Individuals
- Sean Parker, founder of Napster and former president of Facebook[12]
- Barbra Streisand, musician[13]
Arguments
Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 63:[1]
- The proposition would keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands by closing loopholes in existing law.
- The proposition would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and recreation.
- The proposition would address the issue of illegally armed felons.
Official arguments
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), and Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 63 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[1]
Police in Dallas doing their job..., A nightclub in Orlando.... An office holiday party in San Bernardino.... A church in Charleston.... A movie theater in Aurora.... An elementary school in Newtown.... What's next? how may more people need to die from gun violence before we take bold action to save lives? More than 300 Americans are shot each day, more than 80 of them fatally. ENOUGH! It's time to take action to keep guns and ammo out of the wrong hands. Proposition 63 - the Safety for All Act - will save lives by closing loopholes to prevent dangerous criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining and using deadly weapons. PROPOSITION 63 WILL:
Proposition 63 keeps guns and ammo out of the wrong hands, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Californians to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and recreation. Right now, thousands of dangerous felons remain illegally armed because we don't ensure that people convicted of violent crimes actually relinquish their guns after conviction. The Department of Justice identified more than 17,000 felons and other dangerous people with more than 34,000 guns, including more than 1,400 assault weapons. Passing Proposition 63 will represent a historic and unprecedented step forward for gun safety. ... To learn more please visit www.SafetyforAll.com |
Opposition
 |
 |
The campaign in opposition to Proposition 63 was led by Stop Prop 63 and The Coalition for Civil Liberties.[14][15]
Opponents
Federal and state officials
- U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)[16]
- U.S. Rep. Paul Cook (R-8)[17]
- Sen. Ted Gaines (R-1)
- Sen. Mike Morrell (R-23)
- Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4)
- Sen. Jeff Stone (R-28)
- Rep. Brian Dahle (R-1)
- Rep. Brian Jones (R-71)
- Rep. Shannon Grove (R-34)
- Rep. Jim Gallagher (R-3)
- Rep. Tom Lackey (R-36)
- Rep. Devon Mathis (R-26)
- Rep. Melissa Melendez (R-67)
- Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-33)
- Rep. Jim Patterson (R-23)
- Rep. Marc Steinorth (R-40)
- Rep. Marie Waldron (R-75)
Local officials
|
Parties
- California Republican Party[19]
- Libertarian Party of California[20]
- California Peace and Freedom Party[21]
Organizations
|
Individuals
- Kim Rhode, six-time Olympic shooting medalist[23]
- Chris Cheng, professional marksman[17]
- Steven Seagal, actor
- Steve Cooley, retired Los Angeles County District Attorney
- Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones[24]
Arguments
| A Coalition for Civil Liberties advertisement, titled "Take Away Our Rights, Take Away Our Life" |
Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 63:[1]
- The proposition would burden law-abiding citizens who own firearms.
- The proposition would not keep terrorists and violent criminals from accessing firearms and ammunition.
- The proposition would divert resources away from local law enforcement and burden an already overburdened court system.
- The proposition would make Californians less safe and would waste public resources and money.
- The proposition would be difficult for the legislature to amend.
Official arguments
Donny Youngblood, president of California State Sheriffs’ Association, Kevin Bernzott, CEO of the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, and Tiffany Cheuvront, principal officer of the Coalition for Civil Liberties, wrote the official argument in opposition to Proposition 63 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:[1]
Prop 63 is overwhelmingly opposed by the law enforcement community and civil rights groups because it will burden law abiding citizens without keeping violent criminals and terrorists from accessing firearms and ammunition. The California State Sheriffs' Association, Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens' Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, and numerous other law enforcement and civic groups, representing tens of thousands of public safety professionals throughout California, are united in their opposition to this ineffective, burdensome, and costly proposal. Prop 63 would divert scarce law enforcement resources away from local law enforcement and overburden an already overcrowded court system with the enforcement of flawed laws that will turn harmless, law-abiding citizens into criminals. In fact, New York recently abandoned its enforcement of a similar proposal after it was passed, finding that it was impossible to implement and effectively maintain. Doing what actually works to keep the public safe is the highest priority of law enforcement professionals who dedicate their lives to 'protecting Californians. Unfortunately, Prop 63 will not make anyone safer. To the contrary, by directing resources away from measures that are truly effective at preventing the criminal element from acquiring guns and ammunition, it would make us all less safe. The immense public resources that Prop 63 would waste should be used to hire more officers and to target, investigate, and prosecute dangerous individuals and terrorists. After closely analyzing the language of Prop 63, the law enforcement community found many problems in the details, Due to strict limitations on the legislature's ability to amend voter-enacted propositions, most of these problems will be difficult or impossible for the legislature to fix if Prop 63 passes, saddling California with the burdens and costs of this flawed proposal forever. By going around the legislature, this initiative limits public safety professionals in developing future legislation that would truly promote public safety. California taxpayers should not waste hundreds of millions of their dollars on ineffective laws that have no value to law enforcement and will harm public safety by diverting resources away from effective law enforcement activities that are critical to public safety. Please visit WWW.WHERESMYAMMO.COM for more information. |
Campaign advertisements
The following video advertisements were produced by the Coalition for Civil Liberties:[25]
|
|
|
Campaign finance
| Total campaign contributions[26] as of November 3, 2016[27] | |
 Support:
|
$4,536,383.87 |
 Opposition:
|
$868,265.24 |
As of November 3, 2016, the support campaign for Proposition 63 had raised $4,536,383.87, about five times the amount raised by the opposition campaign.
Support
As of November 3, 2016, the following PACs were registered to support Proposition 63 and the total amount raised below was current as of the same date. The amount spent listed below was current as of November 3, 2016.[28]
| PAC | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| NEWSOM BALLOT MEASURE COMMITTEE; SAFETY FOR ALL, YES ON PROP. 63 | $4,536,383.87 | $4,284,158.86 |
| Total | $4,536,383.87 | $4,284,158.86 |
As of November 3, 2016, the top five largest donors in support of Proposition 63 were:[29]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| California Democratic Party | $1,147,804.27 |
| Newsom for California Lieutenant Governor 2014 | $727,564.00 |
| Sean Parker | $400,000.00 |
| George M. Marcus | $250,000.00 |
| Nicholas Pritzker | $250,000.00 |
Opposition
Three ballot measure campaign committees were registered in opposition to Proposition 63 as of November 3, 2016. The committee received the following total contributions as of November 3, 2016. The expenditures listed were current as of November 3, 2016.[28]
| Committee | Amount raised | Amount spent |
|---|---|---|
| COALITION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES - NO ON 63, A PROJECT OF CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION Click here for details | $577,848.96 | $608,427.61 |
| STOP PROP 63, A GRASSROOTS, COMMON-SENSE EFFORT FOR RATIONAL POLICY SPONSORED BY FIREARMS POLICY COALITION | $290,416.28 | $293,842.61 |
| VETO GUNMAGEDDON, CITIZENS OF CALIFORNIA WHO ARE OPPOSED TO PROPOSITION 63, ASSEMBLY BILLS 1135, 1511, 1695 AND SENATE BILLS 880, 1235 AND 1446. | $0 | $0 |
| Total | $868,265.24 | $902,270.22 |
As of November 3, 2016, the top five largest donors in opposition to Proposition 63 were:[29]
| Donor | Amount |
|---|---|
| National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action | $95,000 |
| California Rifle and Pistol Association | $45,000 |
| Gun Owners of California, Inc. | $45,000 |
| Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms | $42,561.75 |
| California Waterfowl Association | $25,000 |
Methodology
In calculating campaign finance for supporting and opposing committees, Ballotpedia does not count donations or expenditures from one PAC to another since that would amount to counting the same money twice. This method is used to give the most accurate information concerning how much funding was actually provided to and spent by the opposing and supporting campaigns. Ballotpedia reports all in-kind donations reported by the state government.
Media editorials
Support
- The Desert Sun: "Despite what the gun rights lobby might say, Proposition 63’s limits are reasonable as well as sensible and practical. Though these measures will not stop the next determined lawbreaker’s shooting spree, limiting easy access to bullets and boosting efforts to take guns from those who shouldn’t have them should help reduce the 33,000 gun deaths seen across America each year."[30]
- East Bay Express: "It makes gun theft a felony, and it also requires that, if a weapon is lost or stolen, it must be reported. California is one of the states with the toughest gun regulations, and Prop. 63 will tighten up loopholes and infrequently enforced rules."[31]
- Los Angeles Times: "Now, with Proposition 63, voters have the opportunity to impose additional restrictions. Despite a few niggling concerns, we encourage a yes vote on Proposition 63 to send a loud and clear message to the pro-gun lobby that California voters want more, not fewer, limits on access to firearms."[32]
- The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 63 would fix a major flaw in Proposition 47, an initiative approved two years ago, by specifically stating that theft of a firearm is a felony. This dangerous loophole allows criminals who steal guns worth less than $950 to get away with only a misdemeanor charge."[33]
- San Diego City Beat: “This is common sense. Everybody should undergo a background check before buying ammunition, and those purchases should be tracked by the Department of Justice. Nobody should be sold large-capacity ammunition magazines. And anyone who steals a gun shouldn’t be allowed to have one. While this could be costly, it’s money well spent.”[34]
- San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 63 and cited Doug Porter, who said, "This is all good stuff..."[35]
- The San Diego Union-Tribune: "This editorial board thinks these are reasonable provisions that don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights and have the potential to reduce gun violence and mass shootings. Yes on Proposition 63."[36]
- San Francisco Chronicle: "The gun-rights lobby has been trying to alarm law-abiding owners with horror stories about how Prop. 63 would criminalize bullet sharing among hunters and other shooting partners. Not true. The initiative is clear that it is illegal only if the individual sharing bullets does so with someone 'he or she knows or using reasonable care should know' is banned from possessing ammunition. The restrictions in Prop. 63 are sensible, practical, respectful of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians, and in the interest of public safety."[37]
- San Francisco Examiner: "Any measure that increases gun safety and could possibly block someone who shouldn’t have a loaded gun from obtaining one is a worthwhile effort, no matter the inconvenience."[38]
Opposition
- The Bakersfield Californian: "There is such a thing as 'piling on.' You see this often when public outrage collides with politicians yearning to grandstand. This is what is happening with Proposition 63, a November ballot measure that proposes to lock a package of far-reaching gun control laws into the state’s constitution. ... To a large extent, Prop. 63 only duplicates these new gun control laws. You would think the recent legislative actions should be good enough for Prop. 63 proponents. Nope. Proponents want these laws placed in the state constitution, where changes then would require a vote of the people. And some politically ambitious proponents also want personal public credit for California having the nation’s toughest gun control laws."[39]
- The Fresno Bee: "It largely duplicates several of the laws passed by the governor and the Legislature. If approved, Proposition 63 would become part of the state Constitution, thus requiring future voter approval to tweak or eliminate gun control provisions resulting in unintended consequences."[40]
- Orange County Register: "We support many of the components of Proposition 63. But they need to be — and many were — argued out in Sacramento by our elected representatives. That is how the process is intended to work. This is an effort by Lt. Gov. Newsom to burnish his state reputation in advance of his run for governor in 2018."[41]
- The Record: “Vote no. Many parts of this ballot measure are positive, but this is a case of lawmaking through the ballot box. The Legislature needs to do the heavy lifting on gun control.”[42]
- San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 63.[43]
Other opinions
- The Mercury News argued that gun control measures passed by the legislature would be better than a gun control ballot initiative. The editorial board wrote: "It's far better for the Legislature to pass measures like this than take chances on a gun control initiative. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon hopes that these laws will persuade Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to yank his gun control initiative from the ballot this fall. But Newsom, who is running for governor, seems more interested in grandstanding on a hot-button issue in California than enacting good legislation. He counters that his proposition is 'more comprehensive, more powerful and more permanent than anything the Legislature is considering and can legally accomplish.' 'More permanent' is precisely the problem. An initiative can't be changed to correct problems without going back to voters. It should be a last resort when lawmakers refuse to deal with an important issue. This Legislature is stepping up."[44]
Polls
- See also: 2016 ballot measure polls
- In mid August 2016, California Counts found a large majority of respondents in support of Proposition 63. The firm found 93 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, and 60 percent of Republicans in support of the measure.[45]
- A USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times joint poll found support for Proposition 63 to be around 64 percent in early September 2016.[46]
- A Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 483 voters and found support for Proposition 63 at 60 percent. There was a 20-point gap between the genders in terms of support, with 70 percent of women and 50 percent of men favoring the initiative.[47]
- SurveyUSA asked 712 Californians about Proposition 63 in September 2016. About 63 percent of respondents supported the measure. Only 42 percent of gun-owners support it, while 72 percent of non-owners did.[48]
- In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 63. Support among respondents was 72 percent.[49]
- SuveyUSA found 63 percent of respondents supporting the initiative in mid October 2016.[50]
- In late October 2016, USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times surveyed 1,500 registered voters on Proposition 63 and found support at 58 percent and opposition at 35 percent.[51]
- The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 59 percent.[52]
Polls with margins of error
| California Proposition 63 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Yes | No | Undecided | Margin of Error | Sample Size | ||||||||||||||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 10/22/2016 - 10/30/2016 | 58.0% | 35.0% | 7.0% | +/-2.3 | 1,500 | ||||||||||||||
| SurveyUSA 10/13/2016 - 10/15/2016 | 63.0% | 27.0% | 10.0% | +/-3.6 | 725 | ||||||||||||||
| CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016 | 72.0% | 20.0% | 8.0% | +/-7.0 | 622 | ||||||||||||||
| SurveyUSA 9/8/2016 - 9/11/2016 | 63.0% | 29.0% | 9.0% | +/-3.6 | 712 | ||||||||||||||
| USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 9/1/2016 - 9/8/2016 | 64.0% | 28.0% | 8.0% | +/-2.0 | 1,879 | ||||||||||||||
| California Counts 8/15/2016 - 8/25/2016 | 77.0% | 22.0% | 2.0% | +/-4.0 | 915 | ||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 66.17% | 26.83% | 7.33% | +/-3.75 | 1,058.83 | ||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Polls without margins of error
- Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."[47]
| California Proposition 63 (2016) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poll | Yes | No | Undecided | Sample Size | |||||||||||||||
| The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016 | 59.0% | 38.0% | 3.0% | 1,498 | |||||||||||||||
| The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016 | 60.0% | 30.0% | 10.0% | 483 | |||||||||||||||
| AVERAGES | 59.5% | 34% | 6.5% | 990.5 | |||||||||||||||
| Note: A "0%" finding means the candidate was not a part of the poll. The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org. | |||||||||||||||||||
Background
| Voting on Firearms |
|---|
|
| Ballot Measures |
| By state |
| By year |
| Not on ballot |
California Proposition 15
In 1982, California voters were first presented with a firearms-related measure: Proposition 15, which would have required handgun owners to register their guns with the Department of Justice on or before November 2, 1983, and restricted the number of California handguns in certain ways. The National Rifle Association spent 5 million dollars opposing Proposition 15. It was defeated, with more than 60 percent of voters casting a "no" vote. As of 2016, Proposition 63 was the only other firearms-related ballot measure presented to voters in California history.
Legislation
In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation required individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less of ammunition per month for hunting trips were not required to obtain a license. The legislation also required sellers to conduct background checks of purchasers with the Department of Justice. People with permits to carry concealed weapons were exempt from background checks. Starting in July 2019, Californians would be prohibited from bringing ammunition purchased in another state into California without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer.[1]
Other 2016 firearms measures
Three other firearms-related ballot measures were voted on in the United States in 2016: Question 3 in Maine, Question 1 in Nevada, and Initiative 1491 in Washington. Proposition 63 is the only 2016 measure, and the only measure in California's history, to address the purchase of large-capacity ammunition magazines rather than the actual firearm itself.
Path to the ballot
- See also: California signature requirements
- Gavin Newsom, Thomas A. Willis, and Margaret R. Prinzing submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 4, 2015.[4]
- A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on December 31, 2015.[2]
- 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
- On February 11, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 91,470 signatures.[53]
- On April 29, 2016, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and petitioners submitted 600,000 signatures for verification.[54][55]
- Supporters had until June 28, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
- On June 23, 2016, the initiative was certified for the ballot. The secretary of state concluded that about 400,000 of the more than 600,000 signatures submitted were valid.[56]
- Proposition 63 was assigned its official title, Proposition 63, on July 2, 2016.[57]
Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,228,384.05 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.09.
| Verbatim fact check: Does an increase in the number of propositions on the ballot in California lead to more of those propositions being rejected by voters? | |
| We examined the election results for statewide propositions on the ballot between 1912 and 2014 to determine if there is a simple correlation between the number of propositions on the ballot and the proportion of propositions that are rejected by voters. In elections with more than 13 propositions, the average number of propositions on the ballot per election during the period, voters rejected 44 percent of propositions. In elections with 13 or fewer statewide propositions on the ballot, 42 percent were rejected. Read Ballotpedia's Verbatim fact check » | |
State profile
This excerpt is reprinted here with the permission of the 2016 edition of the Almanac of American Politics and is up to date as of the publication date of that edition. All text is reproduced verbatim, though links have been added by Ballotpedia staff. To read the full chapter on California, click here.
The Golden State—that is how Americans have long thought of California: as a distant and dreamy land initially, then as a shaper of culture and as a promised land for millions of Americans and immigrants for many decades. America’s largest state in terms of population remains in many ways a great success story. But in some ways, it has failed to fulfill its promise. It is the birthplace of much of the world’s most advanced technology, yet it has plenty of Third World neighborhoods. It is home to some of the world’s most creative people and industries, but for five years it posted one of the nation’s highest unemployment rates. Among the states, it has attracted the largest number of immigrants from Mexico, Latin America, and Asia, but it also has seen the largest exodus of citizens to other states.
In the middle of the 20th century, California was the promised land for an American middle class that supported the New Deal and liked Ike, that embraced and personified all-American values in 1940s movies and 1950s television. By the early 21st century, California had become a two-tiered society, with an affluent elite that embraces culturally liberal values—“gentry ... (read more)
| Demographic data for California | ||
|---|---|---|
| California | U.S. | |
| Total population: | 38,066,920 | 314,107,084 |
| Land area (sq mi): | 155,779 | 3,531,905 |
| Gender | ||
| Female: | 50.3% | 50.8% |
| Race and ethnicity | ||
| White: | 39.2% | 62.8% |
| Black/African American: | 5.9% | 12.6% |
| Asian: | 13.5% | 5% |
| Native American: | 0.8% | 0.8% |
| Pacific Islander: | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| Two or more: | 4.5% | 2.9% |
| Hispanic/Latino: | 38.2% | 16.9% |
| Education | ||
| High school graduation rate: | 81.5% | 86.3% |
| College graduation rate: | 31% | 29.3% |
| Income | ||
| Median household income: | $61,489 | $53,482 |
| Persons below poverty level: | 16.4% | 14.8% |
| Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2014) | ||
Presidential Voting Pattern
The percentages below show California voter preference in general election presidential races.
California vote percentages
- 2012: 60.2% Democratic / 37.1% Republican
- 2008: 61% Democratic / 37% Republican
- 2004: 54.3% Democratic / 44.4% Republican
- 2000: 53.4% Democratic / 41.7% Republican
U.S. vote percentages
- 2012: 51.1% Democratic / 47.2% Republican
- 2008: 52.9% Democratic / 45.7% Republican
- 2004: 48.3% Democratic / 50.7% Republican
- 2000: 48.4% Democratic / 47.9% Republican
More California coverage on Ballotpedia
- Elections in California
- United States congressional delegations from California
- Public policy in California
- Influencers in California
- Verbatim California fact checks
- More...
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California 2016 Proposition 63 ammunition. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles; they are included to provide readers with the most recent news articles on the subject. Click here to learn more about this section.
Related measures
| Firearms measures on the ballot in 2016 | |
|---|---|
| State | Measures |
| Maine | Maine Background Checks for Gun Sales, Question 3 |
| Nevada | Nevada Background Checks for Gun Purchases, Question 1 |
| Washington | Washington Individual Gun Access Prevention by Court Order, Initiative 1491 |
External links
Basic information
Support
Opposition
- Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63
- Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63
- Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63 Twitter
- Stop Prop 63
Other resources
See also
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 California Secretary of State, "California General Election November 8, 2016, Official Voter Information Guide," accessed August 18, 2016
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 California Secretary of State, "Initiatives and Referenda Cleared for Circulation," accessed January 6, 2016
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Secretary of State, "Full text," accessed January 6, 2016
- ↑ Yes on Prop 63, "Homepage," accessed September 19, 2016
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 San Francisco Chronicle, "Gavin Newsom takes on tough initiatives," September 11, 2016
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Yes on Prop 63 Safety for All, "Endorsements," accessed September 18, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California Senate leader endorses gun control initiative despite differences with its author, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom," October 20, 2016
- ↑ Santa Monica Daily Press, “Endorsements surge as campaigns heat up,” September 17, 2016
- ↑ California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, “2016 Environmental Justice Voter Guide,” accessed October 5, 2016
- ↑ Highland Community News, “Nurses Endorse Gun Safety, Death Penalty Repeal Measures,” September 26, 2016
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Three rich Californians stake claims on statewide ballot," September 18, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "Barbra Streisand endorses California gun control initiative," October 5, 2016
- ↑ Stop Prop 63, "Homepage," accessed September 19, 2016
- ↑ Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63, "Homepage," accessed September 12, 2016
- ↑ Sierra Sun Times, “Congressman Tom McClintock Comments on California Ballot Propositions,” October 14, 2016
- ↑ 17.0 17.1 17.2 17.3 17.4 Coalition for Civil Liberties, "Groups & Individuals Opposed to Prop 63," accessed October 17, 2016
- ↑ Action News Now, "Three county sheriffs 'strongly oppose' Prop 63's potential gun controls," August 29, 2016
- ↑ California Republican Party, “CAGOP Endorsements of Propositions on the California 2016 Ballot,” accessed September 12, 2016
- ↑ Libertarian Party of California, "Measures," August 21, 2016
- ↑ Peace and Freedom Party, "Peace and Freedom Party recommends," accessed September 17, 2016
- ↑ Guns.com, "California police chiefs come out against gun control ballot measure," September 26, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Olympic medalist featured in new ads against gun-control initiative Proposition 63," September 28, 2016
- ↑ Mother Jones, “California Voters Were Hit With a Blizzard of Ballot Propositions. Here’s Your Cheat Sheet,” October 18, 2016
- ↑ Youtube, "Coalition for Civil Liberties," accessed September 30, 2016
- ↑ Note: These totals include all contributions and may include in-kind donations as well as cash donations.
- ↑ Note: This date is the most recent date on which Ballotpedia staff researched campaign finance data. The actual date through which this information is accurate depends on the campaign finance reporting requirements in this state.
- ↑ 28.0 28.1 Cal-Access, "PROPOSITION 063- FIREARMS. AMMUNITION SALES. INTIATIVE STATUTE.," accessed November 3, 2016
- ↑ 29.0 29.1 California Fair Political Practices Commission, "November 2016 General Election," November 3, 2016
- ↑ The Desert Sun, "Voters should OK Prop. 63's as sensible gun law tweaks," October 23, 2016
- ↑ East Bay Express, "Vote With Us! The East Bay Express' Endorsements for Election Day 2016," October 11, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Proposition 63 would add to the state’s already robust gun control laws," September 20, 2016
- ↑ The Sacramento Bee, "A California gun measure that’s too high stakes too fail," October 2, 2016
- ↑ San Diego City Beat, “2016 Voter Guide: State measures,” October 12, 2016
- ↑ San Diego Free Press, "San Diego 2016 Progressive Voter Guide," October 13, 2016
- ↑ The San Diego Union-Tribune, "For sensible gun rules, vote yes on Proposition 63," October 13, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Chronicle, "Chronicle recommends: Yes on Prop. 63," September 12, 2016
- ↑ San Francisco Examiner, "Examiner Endorsements: Statewide ballot measures," October 23, 2016
- ↑ The Bakersfield Californian, "Vote no: Prop. 63 piles on redundant gun controls," September 21, 2016
- ↑ The Fresno Bee, "Proposition 63 won’t keep Californians any safer from gun violence," October 12, 2016
- ↑ Orange County Register, "Editorial: Vote no on Proposition 63," October 12, 2016
- ↑ The Record, “Record endorsements: Voters faced with 17 state ballot measures,” October 15, 2016
- ↑ San Mateo Daily Journal, "Editorial: Daily Journal proposition endorsements," October 28, 2016
- ↑ The Mercury News, "Mercury News editorial: California's gun control opportunity," May 20, 2016
- ↑ California Counts, "California Counts poll offers insights into voters outlook on state," September 8, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Gun control initiative has strong support among California voters, poll finds," September 14, 2016
- ↑ 47.0 47.1 Field Poll/IGS Poll, "Two-to-One Voter Support for Marijuana Legalization (Prop. 64) and Gun Control (Prop. 63) Initiatives," September 23, 2016
- ↑ SurveyUSA, "Results of SurveyUSA Election Poll #23139," September 12, 2016
- ↑ CALSPEAKS, "General Election October 2016 Survey of Californians," October 20, 2016
- ↑ SurveyUSA, "On Eve of Final Presidential Debate, Trump in California Risks Getting Smaller Percentage of Popular Vote Than Any Republican Candidate in the Past 100 Years; Recreational Marijuana Prop 64 Still Leads Ever-So-Slightly; Harris Safe," October 17, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "California voters support gun control initiative, Proposition 63, poll says," November 3, 2016
- ↑ The Field Poll, "Voters Inclined to Support Many of this Year's Statewide Ballot Propositions," November 4, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "Circulating Initiatives with 25% of Signatures Reached," accessed February 24, 2016
- ↑ Los Angeles Times, "Lt. Gov. Newsom says he has enough signatures for gun safety initiative," April 28, 2016
- ↑ Courthouse News Service, "Calif. Gun-Control Measure Heads to Voters," April 29, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "November 2016 Eligible Statewide Ballot Measures," accessed June 24, 2016
- ↑ California Secretary of State, "CORRECTION: Proposition Numbers for November Ballot Measures," July 2, 2016
| ||
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Ballot Measures |
List of California ballot propositions | Local measures | School bond issues | Ballot measure laws | Initiative laws | History of I&R | Campaign Finance Requirements | Recall process | |
| Ballot measures by year |
1910 | 1911 | 1912 | 1914 | 1915 | 1916 | 1919 | 1920 | 1922 | 1924 | 1926 | 1928 | 1930 | 1932 | 1933 | 1934 | 1935 | 1936 | 1938 | 1939 | 1940 | 1942 | 1944 | 1946 | 1948 | 1949 | 1950 | 1952 | 1954 | 1956 | 1958 | 1960 | 1962 | 1964 | 1966 | 1968 | 1970 | 1972 | 1973 | 1974 | 1976 | 1978 | 1980 | 1982 | 1984 | 1986 | 1988 | 1990 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | 1996 | 1998 | 2000 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 | 2006 (local) | 2008 | 2008 (local) | 2009 | 2009 (local) | 2010 | 2010 (local) | 2011 (local) | 2012 | 2012 (local) | 2014 | 2016 | |
| Government |
California State Constitution | State Assembly | State Senate | State legislative districts | Legislative Analyst's Office| |
| State executive offices |
Governor | Attorney General | Secretary of State | Controller | Treasurer | State Auditor | Superintendent of Public Instruction | Commissioner of Insurance | Secretary of Agriculture | Secretary for Natural Resources | Director of Industrial Relations | President of Public Utilities | |
| School boards |
California Department of Education | California school districts | |
| Judiciary |
California Supreme Court | Courts of Appeal | Superior Courts | Judicial selection in California | |
| Elections |
Recalls | Vote fraud | 2010 elections | 2012 elections | 2014 elections | Fair Political Practices Commission | |
| Divisions |
List of Counties | List of Cities | List of School Districts | Evaluation of county websites | Evaluation of city websites | Evaluation of school district websites | |
