Outgunned: Why California’s Groundbreaking Firearms Law is Failing

Two decades ago, California legislators added a new weapon to the state’s growing arsenal of gun-control measures, already among the toughest in the nation. Their motivation came from 2,000 miles away, where a disgruntled employee at a suburban Chicago engine factory had killed four people and wounded four others before pulling the trigger on himself. It was soon revealed that some of the weapons he smuggled inside should have been earlier confiscated because of his past criminal convictions.

In the wake of that deadly rampage, and with lofty expectations, California became the first state in the country to create a database identifying thousands of people who’d legally purchased guns but were now deemed too dangerous to be armed.

Fast forward to 2021.  After Sam Cassidy shot and killed nine co-workers at the Valley Transportation Authority in San Jose May 26 before turning an automatic pistol on himself, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s deputies searched his fire-damaged East San Jose home and found dozen of semi-automatic guns, approximately 25,000 rounds of ammunition of various calibers and 17 Molotov cocktails. They later learned he had a history of violent threats and erratic behavior.

The California firearms law had been the product of a rare display of bipartisanship — especially on an issue as fractious as gun control. The Legislature had anted to give state and local authorities a methodical way to remove firearms from individuals who’d lost their right to bear them because of violent crimes, serious mental health issues or active restraining orders.

But what seemed at the time like a straight-forward approach to the enforcement of existing gun laws has instead become mired in chronic shortcomings, failing for years to make good on its potential. Successive administrations have vowed to fix the problems, but all have fallen short.

Today, the state is struggling to recover thousands of guns from people who have been ordered to surrender them. At the start of the year, the list compiled by the state Department of Justice had swelled to 24,000 individuals, the most ever. The pandemic only worsened the mounting backlog of cases when some state Justice Department agents were pulled from field enforcement.

“We are lucky to have a system that tells us this information,” said Julia Weber, a former supervising attorney for the state courts’ administration who now works on gun policy issues for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “But it’s disheartening. It’s a failure of the promise of the system.”

CalMatters spent three months examining the layered troubles of the Armed and Prohibited Persons System, interviewing current and former law enforcement officers, gun control advocates, lawmakers and researchers. Hundreds of law enforcement agencies across California were asked to assess their engagement — or lack thereof — with the system.

The state would not provide names of individuals in its database, citing confidentiality restrictions. But CalMatters obtained a small sampling dating back to March through separate requests to local law enforcement agencies that had received state Justice Department  information for their jurisdictions. They provide a glimpse of the stakes behind the statistics.

In Santa Paula, a woman in the database has been ordered to surrender her guns because of a mental health-related prohibition. She’s listed as having 22 of them. In Ukiah, an accused domestic abuser is believed to have 44 guns. A Central Valley man awaiting trial on a rape charge for three years has remained armed despite a court order requiring him to hand over his firearm.

One of the names in the database stunned Corina Arias. In 2016, the Kings County grandmother was punched by her next-door neighbor, John Marshall Smith, who was convicted of misdemeanor battery. The conviction carried a 10-year ban on owning a gun in California.

“I can’t even believe they’d allow him to be armed,” Arias said when told her attacker was listed by the state in March as having failed to surrender his gun. “It’s a complete shock.” (CalMatters was unable to locate Smith, and his attorney in the case is deceased.)

Top-to-bottom problems stymie success

The system’s effectiveness, CalMatters found, is being undermined on numerous fronts.

On the ground, the envisioned collaboration between state and local criminal justice officials to confiscate firearms has been scattershot, at best. Some police departments say they had no idea they even had access to monthly state reports identifying individuals in their jurisdictions who remain unlawfully armed.

At the same time, many judges have done little to ensure their orders requiring gun relinquishments are executed, worsening the backlog and potentially putting the public’s safety at risk.

Meanwhile, understaffed state agents in the Bureau of Firearms are often outmatched by the onslaught of new cases every day from throughout California. Each one must be checked and cross-checked by hand across multiple criminal justice databases before being added to the prohibited-persons list. Simply put, the additions are coming faster than the subtractions.

The work-intensive process and outmoded technology has led some in law enforcement to question the database’s reliability. They say they’ve discovered errors during field operations and that investigations based on the list are a waste of resources.

Experts on the system — who note that thousands of guns have, in fact, been removed from individuals — say stakeholders throughout government must summon the resolve to finally fix the system’s deepening problems.

“We’ve made a decision as a society that there are people who, for a constellation of reasons, should not be allowed to have firearms. Are we going to enforce that social decision or not?” asked Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at UC Davis.

To be sure, a person’s inclusion on the list does not mean he or she will act violently with a legally purchased but unlawfully possessed weapon. Gun control advocates struggled to identify shootings that might have been prevented had authorities successfully retrieved firearms. Officials acknowledge that some people on the list may have already surrendered their weapons.

Although the state does not track how many individuals, if any, commit crimes while they continue to remain armed, the agency has good reason to be concerned.

Last year, agents recovered 12 handguns, four rifles, two shotguns, one assault weapon and thousands of rounds of ammunition from a person listed in the database as having 24 firearms. One of the handguns was loaded and unsecured in a bedroom closet of the Norwalk home, where a 16-year-old and 2-year-old also lived.

The previous year, law enforcement authorities discovered that a Los Angeles County man in the database was trafficking illegal weapons. They found a tactical vest and a pipe bomb in his home.

In 2020, as the pandemic spread across the months, nearly 300 people on the list tried to buy ammunition but were denied the purchases during background checks mandated in California, according to the Justice Department. Agents investigated and closed 73 cases involving those people, recovering 96 guns.

At the time of its adoption, the Armed and Prohibited Persons System was seen as the low-hanging fruit of gun-control measures—taking firearms from known owners who legally shouldn’t have them.

But today, the inability of state and local agencies to make it work as envisioned has raised questions about how they can begin to confront the wider menace posed by the thousands of illegal firearms circulating throughout California or the new wave of untraceable “ghost guns,” assembled at home from mail-order kits.

“It’s very frustrating to see that we have such a hard time implementing firearms removals in situations where we have all the information in front of us,” said Weber of the Giffords Law Center. “It doesn’t give the public a lot of confidence in our ability to tackle a lot of these more complex firearm issues.”

Stephen Lindley spent more than 15 years in the state Justice Department, including nearly a decade in charge of the Bureau of Firearms before leaving in 2018. He said he was proud of California’s database and its successes removing weapons from potentially dangerous and suicidal individuals.

But he said he also saw up close the many obstacles. You can’t keep adding people to the list, he said, without making sure weapons are being removed from people, too.

“We’re no longer at the front of the pack here,” he said.

A vow to fix California’s gun law — again

During his recent confirmation hearings, State Attorney General Rob Bonta was peppered with questions from lawmakers on how he planned to fix the system. The discussion mostly focused on the need to modernize the database and hire additional agents to investigate cases.

At the start of this year, there were 75 authorized positions in the Bureau of Firearms unit responsible for the Armed and Prohibited Persons System, nicknamed APPS, including special agents, supervisors and trainees. But a third of those spots were vacant, meaning that some 50 individuals in six offices across California were primarily responsible for tens of thousands of guns.

In the past, money has not been the answer.

Following the Newtown, Conn., elementary school mass shooting in 2012, for example, the state added $24 million to address what was then a rising backlog of armed individuals. With that funding, the Justice Department said it could reduce the backlog by 40% over three years, bringing total cases down to 11,900.

It didn’t work, largely because the agency had trouble recruiting and keeping staff.

Bonta said in an interview that he wants to address those staffing shortages and keep pace with advances in technology so overburdened agents don’t have to grapple with a hodge-podge of nearly a dozen outdated databases to create a reliable list. As it stands now, the department can’t even determine the precise breadth of the backlog, including how many cases have remained unresolved for more than six months.

“It is a nation leading system, something that California should be proud of,” Bonta said. “We’re committed to making progress in reducing the APPS list and hope to be able to show you the outcomes and data in the months and year ahead that demonstrates that.”

Holes on the front lines

Lost in all the talk about funding and modernization has been an arguably bigger obstacle to success — how to get hundreds of local law enforcement agencies to pick up a heavier share of the burden, as legislators initially envisioned. Building the list is one thing, getting the guns is another.

The Justice Department has for years prepared a monthly report for local agencies across the state showing who in their jurisdictions is in the database. But either the word hasn’t gotten through or the will to act among some local police hasn’t been strong.

Lindley, the former head of the state firearms bureau, said that under his watch the state sent the monthly reports as both a document and spreadsheet so departments could filter data to, say, focus on just local residents with a history of domestic violence or severe mental health issues.

But “agencies didn’t do shit with them,” Lindley said. He later softened his criticism, saying some, like the Los Angeles Police Department, did set up local programs to confiscate the guns. But many agencies didn’t engage.

“The APPS program saves lives,” Lindley said. “And if more agencies invested just a little bit of time into doing that in their own jurisdictions, it would be very beneficial.”

CalMatters asked 400 local law enforcement agencies across California for the most recent monthly reports they’d received regarding unlawfully armed people in their jurisdictions.

About 80 departments indicated they were aware of the report but declined to provide a copy, citing various public records exemptions. Many departments simply didn’t respond.

But more than 150 agencies wrote back saying they didn’t have any such reports. Although it’s possible an officer in one of those agencies may have obtained information directly through the Justice Department’s website, numerous police officials said they had no idea what CalMatters was asking about.

“I have been the police chief here for almost eight years. We have never received a report from anyone regarding who has guns that they should not have,” Orange Cove’s police chief wrote in an email. “I have never heard of such a report.”

The same went for Leslie Easley, a records administrator at the Lassen County Sheriff’s Office. “As far as I know, there is no report like that. I’ve never seen one in 15 years here.”

While on the phone with a CalMatters reporter, she logged into a portal where the state shares information with local law enforcement agencies. She tried searching for a monthly armed and prohibited persons report but got only an automated message saying her search yielded no results.

And it wasn’t just smaller agencies that said they were unaware of the reports.

“I’ve never heard of this,” said Maryann Weiman, a senior administrative analyst with the Stockton Police Department. “That might have been nice to know about.” Weiman said she couldn’t rule out the possibility that someone in her 400-person department receives an email. But if the department was using such a document, Weiman said, she’d know about it.

One Northern California department indicated that it would start getting reports as a result of CalMatters’ records request.

“After checking our files, we found that our agency was not receiving the Armed Prohibited Persons System reports on a monthly or any basis. As such, we have no reports that are subject to release,” Willits Police Chief Fabian E. Lizarraga wrote in an email. “We have now instituted steps to start receiving these reports through the Department of Justice. Thank you.”

Courting danger

One logical place to start confronting the backlog of unlawfully possessed weapons, advocates say, is in the courts, where judges issue the directives prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms because of convictions and restraining orders.

But CalMatters found that California judges, for a variety of reasons, are failing to ensure that their orders are being followed. This forces the Justice Department and local police to play catch-up months later after the names end up in the state’s database.

Department officials flagged the problem in their last two annual reports on the system.

They noted that the percentage of individuals with felony convictions in the database climbed from 47% to 54% between 2019 and 2020, suggesting that “relinquishment regulations at the time of conviction are not being effectively implemented.”

Over the years, there have been efforts — including legislation and voter-approved measures — to ensure guns are being surrendered earlier, at the courthouse level, but many have been stymied by budget barriers, hiring hurdles, technological issues or inconsistent enforcement.

The state has failed, for example, to fully fund a mandate requiring California’s county courts to confiscate or enforce the transfer of firearms “at the time of conviction when an individual is prohibited due to a felony or qualifying misdemeanor,” the Justice Department noted in its 2020 annual report.

A 2001 law also has failed to live up to its billing.

It requires family courts to perform background checks on individuals before issuing domestic violence restraining orders to determine, among other things, criminal histories. A later law expanded the checks to include a review of the state’s vast database of all legal weapons sales. If there’s a match, judges are empowered to convene hearings and hold gun owners in contempt to ensure their weapons are surrendered.

In practice, this hasn’t always happened.

The full background checks only applied to courts with the resources to afford them. The state Judicial Council was legislatively tasked with determining which courts were too hard-pressed to comply. But that analysis was never done. To this day, state court administrators do not know who’s doing rigorous background checks and who’s not.

In addition, many judges lack access to a confidential Justice Department database that includes all weapons sales, to match against individuals in their courtrooms accused of acts that would bar gun ownership.

Records show that 20% of people in the Armed and Prohibited Persons System — nearly 4,600 gun owners — are under restraining orders.

“Why don’t we give judges access to the purchase records?” said gun researcher Wintemute, who is studying the state’s system. “What if they could say, ‘I got it right here in the computer…You’ve got guns and we’re going to send you home with the bailiff and we want those guns now.’ Just get it done.”

Only 28 superior courts — fewer than half — have access to the Justice Department’s web portal, which includes firearm ownership records and other law enforcement databases, according to the Attorney General’s Office. Although some courts told CalMatters that local sheriff’s offices check firearm ownership for them in domestic violence cases, others acknowledged they’re unable to regularly get such information.

Confusion was evident in the response of Placer County to CalMatters’ queries. The court there initially said it had access to criminal histories, but not firearms ownership. After follow-up questions, a spokesman said the court discovered it did have access to that information and would now use it in domestic violence cases.

Even when family court judges learn an alleged abuser is armed, they don’t always require proof that guns are surrendered.

Too often it’s an “honor system,” said Allison Kephart, the legal director of Weave, a nonprofit that helps domestic abuse survivors in Sacramento County. “It falls on the victim to come back to the court and say, ‘Excuse me, your honor, you told this person they needed to turn their gun in. And I don’t believe they have.’”

A bill advancing through the Legislature, Senate Bill 320, would force family court judges to do more to ensure abusers surrender their weapons. Although a similar bill failed last session, this one has little opposition.

Robert Lewis is a reporter with CalMatters.


  1. The list of prohibited behaviors, ostensibly compiled to protect the public, was perverted into a minefield designed to deprive as many Californians as possible of their 2nd Amendment rights. Examples: simple assault, battery, domestic violence, a violation of the state’s intentionally convoluted gun laws, etc. These behaviors are not, on their own, precursors to or predictors of gun violence. Considering the make-up of the elected prosecutors in the state’s larger cities, self-defense of any kind, a convincingly deceptive spouse, or a technical violation of a gun law is all it takes for otherwise stable and honest citizens to lose their rights — unless they’re wealthy or politically-connected to the right (I mean left) people.

  2. Commenter Phu’s list of ‘prohibitive behaviors’, also knows as crimes, are all violent, which seem to me to be in line with the idea of prohibiting violent Californians from possessing such weapons of mass destruction. There’s a way to make things less convoluted: simply amend the constitution. It’s been done before; see the 21st amendment.

  3. I think what this reporter is trying to say is that convicted criminals ignore gun laws and that enforcing existing laws using already existing resources might be the answer. That’s fascinating!

  4. This law is unconstitutional on its face. 2A doesn’t include the phrase “unless the person is deemed dangerous or violent”.

    If the “Authorities” were really serious about reducing gun homicides, and since they clearly have no regard for the Constitutional rights of others, they could simply prohibit black males up to age 40 from owning or possessing guns.

    If the idea were to interdict the group most likely to engage in violence, or to interdict the largest cohort of potential violators whilst affecting the smallest group of innocent gun-owners, that would be the logical starting point.

    But Phu is correct; these laws are not about safeguarding Constitutional rights, or real-world effectiveness, or maximizing the impact of the legislation; these are feel-good solutions and political grandstanding, that demonize an easy target (people accused or convicted of simple violence), regardless of whether such actions are actually indicative of homicidal intentions aka actual risk.

    And since neither the law, nor the people who created it and push for its enforcement, do not appear to consider it important to be coupled with any clear such intention, then it is arbitrary and based only on behavior or suspected behaviors. And if you can arbitrarily target all such persons, on the theory that they are more likely than the general public to engage in homicidal gun violence, then certainly you can target an entire group that is actually empirically shown to be many times more likely than the general public to engage in homicidal violence (black males up to some certain age – after which they tend to “age out of” this disproportionately likely behavior).

    But no, facts and expedient solutions are to the left like garlic and holy water to vampires. They will continue on with their unConstitutional and arbitrary schemes that have no real-world benefit, because nobody calls them out for it. Nobody is willing to point out the hypocrisy, or show that one could impose effective controls if you’re willing to violate the Constitution as they are doing.

  5. Unlike the sex offender registry, we don’t know if a co-worker, neighbor, etc. appears in the APPS database. The offender count grew by over 10% in 2020. Last year’s clearance rate would require more than 28 years to deplete. Based on the latest 2020 report, it is infinite – more are being added than removed.

    Liccardo’s gun tax proposal fails to address criminal justice system transparency or accountability. No additional funding for SJPD or anything else that’s proven effective. Not even those items recommended in Biden’s proposal or in the Attorney General’s gun violence reduction initiative.

  6. I have a great idea lets defund the Police and send in trained crises counselors.
    Lets invite 2.5 million Covid-19 infected undocumented drug smugglers and fly them all over the country at taxpayer expense and then declare anyone who objects as “Enemies of the State”.
    When are you people going to stop voting for the cabal of morons that are running this beautiful state into the ground?

  7. “Commenter Phu’s list of ‘prohibitive behaviors’, also knows as crimes, are all violent,” — SCC Resident

    Want to be convicted of assault and/or battery? Simply shove away from your face a disgusting, aggressive panhandler in San Francisco and see how fast that pantywaist Chesa Boudin empanels a jury of progressive pukes. If you think that a simple misdemeanor should be sufficient to brand you as a dangerously violent and revoke your Constitutional rights then you probably also believe that Rick Callender, former racism-peddling thug turned CEO of Valley Water (convicted of felonious assault in a Los Gatos case, conviction later politically cleansed into a misdemeanor) should be forced to step down. Good luck with that.

    Ask a cop how many times he or she has witnessed a spouse intentionally provoked into making misdemeanor contact. Or how many times they’ve seen someone prosecuted based on the lies of a skillful and vindictive spouse. Domestic violence is a highly politicized crime, with standards that change from county to county and with every election. Often the convicted are young and immature, with otherwise clean records.

    Want to violate a California gun law? Pretty easy, just obtain one and chances are you will at some point find yourself in violation of the ever-changing laws governing ammunition, magazine capacity, safe gun storage, or ownership prohibitions.

    I support any program that will disarm the insane. I also support any law that will disarm serious criminals, violent or not, but I recognize that the most dangerous of such people will always find a way to arm themselves, and these are the people who need to go away forever.

  8. The 18th amendment suspended the right to have a drink, the 21 restored the right to bare a drink.
    Good thinking SCC we need to restore the right to keep and bare arms in the “Peoples Republic of Kalifornia! ASAP!

  9. I wish I could remember the felon that was released from prison and within several hours had purchased a new weapon. He then went about killing the witness that put him in prison in the first place. Isolated incident? I think not. If a criminal wants a gun, they are readily available, and they can get one. No ID needed, no picture, actually anything that could identify the person buying the gun. The bottom line is they can get a gun, period, with no questions asked. I don’t and have never owned a gun. But if I did want one, I would need to come up with proper ID, prove who I am and in some cases, need to wait until my information is verified. That’s from existing laws on the books, so what the heck, let’s make a few other useless laws that will not affect the criminals at all.

  10. We are not outgunned. The politicians have disarmed us (law abiding citizens). The Second Amendment and Human Right to Self Defense is already gone outside the home. And the result is Mass Shootings and the total empowerment of criminals who have nothing to fear.

  11. So they are admitting that they cannot enforce the existing laws on the books. And the solution, to the progressive mind (sic), is to add more unenforceable laws to the books. Genius!

    The solution to gun violence is to prosecute violent criminals and felons. Prosecutors who do not should be recalled. The solution to gun violence is more police on the streets being more proactive. Sorry BLM and other defund the police movements, but your sophomoric rhetoric is running very thin and completely unsupported by crime statistics.

    And, in conclusion, let me say that the last thing California needs is to add to the number of existing pencil-pushing bureaucrats who cost us a fortune and do absolutely nothing.

  12. It goes both ways, but generally I agree. If criminal wants or needs to get a firearm – he’ll get one. On other hand, for a regular person to get one you gotta jump hoops…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *