This measure would proclaim the month of April 2018 as Donate Life/DMV Partnership Month in California and would encourage all Californians to register with the Donate Life California Organ and Tissue Donor Registry.
This measure would recognize the week of March 18, 2018, to March 24, 2018, inclusive, as Dual Enrollment Week in California and would encourage colleges and universities to visit high schools and take action to help pupils register in dual enrollment courses.
This measure would declare the last week of March every year as Latino Education and Advocacy Week, a statewide week of advocacy for Latino education.
This measure would designate April 1, 2018, to April 7, 2018, inclusive, as California Diversity in STEM and Tech Week and would encourage all citizens and community organizations to support the observance of California Diversity in STEM and Tech Week by encouraging and celebrating diversity in the STEM fields and in California's technology and innovation economy.
Existing provisions of the California Constitution establish the Budget Stabilization Account in the General Fund and require the Controller, on or before October 1 of the 2015–16 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, to transfer from the General Fund to the Budget Stabilization Account amounts that include a sum equal to 1.5% of the estimated amount of General Fund revenues for that fiscal year. This measure would amend the California Constitution to create the California Infrastructure Investment Fund in the State Treasury. The measure would require the Controller, beginning in the 2019–20 fiscal year, to transfer from the General Fund to the California Infrastructure Investment Fund in each fiscal year an amount equal to up to 2.5% of the estimated General Fund revenues for that fiscal year, as provided. The measure would require, for the 2019–20 fiscal year and each fiscal year thereafter, the amounts in the fund to be allocated, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for specified infrastructure investments, including the funding of deferred maintenance projects.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell a handgun that is not safe. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is unsafe. Existing law generally requires manufacturers to submit samples of new handgun models for testing to determine if they are unsafe or may be approved for sale, as specified. Existing law requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe. Existing law, defines as "unsafe" a semiautomatic pistol that is not, as of January 1, 2010, listed on the roster if it is not designed and equipped with a microscopic array of characters that identify the make, model, and serial number of the pistol, etched or imprinted in 2 or more places on the interior surface or internal working parts of the pistol that are transferred by imprinting on each cartridge case when the firearm is fired. Existing law conditions this requirement on certification by the Department of Justice that this technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions. This bill would delete the requirement that a firearm be designed and equipped with this imprinting technology to be listed on the roster of handguns that have been determined not to be unsafe.
Existing law requires a judge or magistrate, in setting, reducing, or denying bail, to take into consideration the protection of the public, the seriousness of the offense charged, the previous criminal record of the defendant, and the probability of his or her appearing at trial or at a hearing of the case. Existing law requires that public safety be the primary consideration. In considering the seriousness of the offense charged, existing law requires a judge or magistrate to include consideration of, among other things, the alleged injury to the victim and the alleged use of a firearm or other deadly weapon in the commission of the crime charged. This bill, for purposes of a defendant charged with domestic violence, as defined, would require a judge or magistrate to take into consideration whether the victim was allegedly strangled or suffocated, as defined, by the defendant.
