California 2023-2024 Regular Session Status: Enacted 2 D cosponsors

SB 899 — Protective orders: firearms.

Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 544, Statutes of 2024.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. ✓
    Passed Senate
  4. ✓
    Passed Assembly
  5. ✓
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 03, 2024. Enacted.

Signed by Governor Gavin Newsom (Democratic) on September 24, 2024.

Prognosis

Likely to advance 76% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

High

How often bills like it became law.

  • Enacted

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 3 sponsors

    1 primary, 2 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (2 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 10 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would require the court, when issuing those orders, to provide the person subject to the order with information on how any firearms or ammunition still in their possession are to be relinquished, as specified. The bill would require the court to review the file to determine whether the receipt has been filed and inquire as to whether the person has complied with the requirement. The bill would require violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing unless the restrained party provides a receipt showing compliance at a subsequent hearing or by direct filing with the clerk of the court. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would also require the court, at a noticed hearing relating to these orders, to consider information presented that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would authorize the court, upon making this finding, to set a review hearing, as specified, to determine whether the person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the above provisions. Existing law requires specified protective orders related to domestic violence to be served on the respondent at the request of the petitioner, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody, by a law enforcement officer who is present at the scene of reported domestic violence involving the parties to the proceeding or who receives a request from the petitioner to provide service of the order. Existing law requires the petitioner to provide the officer with an endorsed copy of the order and proof of service that the officer is then required to complete and transmit to the issuing court, as specified. If the law enforcement officer determines that a protective order has been issued but not served, existing law requires the office to immediately notify the respondent of the terms of the order and where a written copy of the order can be obtained, and to enforce the order at that time. Existing law prohibits a fee from being charged to the petitioner for service of those orders. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would similarly require a peace officer, as defined, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve and enforce specified protective orders related to, among other things, elder or dependent adult abuse, harassment, workplace violence, or violence in postsecondary educational institutions, on a respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. The bill would similarly prohibit the imposition of a fee on a petitioner for service of these orders. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of a child and establishes factors to be considered in rebutting that presumption, including that the perpetrator is restrained by a domestic violence prevention order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally establish, as a factor to be considered, whether the perpetrator is restrained by any other protective order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would, for specified protective orders if the respondent declines to relinquish possession of a firearm or ammunition based on the assertion of the right against self-incrimination, authorize the court to grant use immunity for the relinquishment of the firearm. Existing law authorizes the court, as part of a relinquishment order, to grant an exemption from certain relinquishment requirements if the respondent can show that a firearm is necessary as a condition of continued employment and their employer is unable to reassign the respondent to a position where the firearm is unnecessary. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would revise the relinquishment process and would instead authorize the court to grant an exemption if the respondent is not precluded from owning, possessing, controlling, or purchasing a firearm and ammunition under state or federal law and specified conditions, depending on whether the respondent is a peace officer, are met. Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning that firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued for, among other things, ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to a domestic violence restraining order, and for a firearm or ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to other specified temporary restraining orders or injunctions. Existing law, the Safety For All Act of 2016, approved by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires any person selling specified amounts of ammunition to be licensed as an ammunition vendor. Existing law exempts specified transfers of ammunition from these provisions. Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. This bill would amend Proposition 63 to exempt the sale of ammunition to a licensed ammunition vendor by a person required to relinquish that ammunition due to specified protective orders. The bill would make additional conforming and clarifying changes, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6389 of the Family Code proposed by AB 2759 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2759 are enacted and this bill is enacted last, and would also incorporate additional changes to Section 1524 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1002 to become operative only if this bill and SB 1002 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

How this bill changes current law

1 change Share ↗

Compared against the California codes as published AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.

This bill amends 1 section(s) of the California codes: Section 19819 of the Business and Professions Code.

  • Section 19819 of the Business and Professions Code

    office. documents, which applicant, → office and posted on the commission’s internet website no later than the close of business of the second business day after the meeting at which the vote was taken. documents that applicant

    amended

Action History

  1. Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 544, Statutes of 2024.

  2. Approved by the Governor.

  3. Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

  4. Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 5747.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.

  5. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  6. In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.

  7. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 6793.) Ordered to the Senate.

  8. Ordered to third reading.

  9. Read third time and amended.

  10. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  11. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  12. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 15).

  13. August 7 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.

  14. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (June 25). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 18). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  16. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  17. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.

  18. In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

  19. Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 4208.) Ordered to the Assembly.

  20. Ordered to special consent calendar.

  21. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  22. Read second time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

  23. From committee: Do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0. Page 3963.) (May 16).

  24. Set for hearing May 16.

  25. May 13 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.

  26. Set for hearing May 13.

  27. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR with recommendation: To consent calendar. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 3634.) (April 16). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  28. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  29. Set for hearing April 16.

  30. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 0. Page 3283.) (March 12). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  31. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB S.

  32. Set for hearing March 12.

  33. Referred to Coms. on PUB S. and JUD.

  34. From printer. May be acted upon on or after February 3.

  35. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 2 co-sponsors · 119 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

  • Skinner

Co-sponsors (2)

Not signed on (119)

119 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 119 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 40 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Democratic 22000
Republican 7000
Total 40000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 76 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 44003
Republican 14000
Unaffiliated 18000
Total 76003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Holden — Yea
Mathis — Yea
Maienschein — Yea
Rodriguez — Yea
Villapudua — Yea
Ting — Yea
Jones-Sawyer — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Rendon — Yea
Friedman — Yea
Wood — Yea
Low — Yea
Waldron — Yea
Santiago — Yea
Eduardo Garcia — Yea
Jim Patterson — Yea
Luz Rivas — Yea
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Cervantes, Sabrina Democratic Not Voting
Connolly, Damon Democratic Not Voting
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Not Voting
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Essayli, Bill Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass as amended.

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 4 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 9000
Unaffiliated 2001
Republican 0003
Total 11004
% of votes cast 73%0%0%27%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Villapudua — Yea
Jim Patterson — Not Voting
Wendy Carrillo — Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Republican 2001
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 11001
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Maienschein — Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Not Voting
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 7 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 2000
Unaffiliated 2000
Democratic 3001
Total 7001
% of votes cast 88%0%0%13%
How each member voted (8)
Member Party Vote
Ting — Yea
McCarty — Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Reyes, Eloise Gómez Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Not Voting
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 38 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Unaffiliated 11000
Democratic 20002
Republican 7000
Total 38002
% of votes cast 95%0%0%5%
How each member voted (40)
Member Party Vote
Roth — Yea
Atkins — Yea
Portantino — Yea
Newman — Yea
Min — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Eggman — Yea
Glazer — Yea
Dodd — Yea
Bradford — Yea
Skinner — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Not Voting
Archuleta, Bob Democratic Not Voting
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Becker, Josh Democratic Yea
Blakespear, Catherine S. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Hurtado, Melissa Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Limón, Monique Democratic Yea
McGuire, Mike Democratic Yea
Menjivar, Caroline Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Rubio, Susan Democratic Yea
Smallwood-Cuevas, Lola Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Alvarado-Gil, Marie Republican Yea
Dahle, Megan Republican Yea
Grove, Shannon Republican Yea
Jones, Brian W. Republican Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1000
Democratic 8000
Unaffiliated 2000
Total 11000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Min — Yea
Wilk — Yea
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 899 do?
Existing law prohibits a person subject to specified protective orders from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would require the court, when issuing those orders, to provide the person subject to the order with information on how any firearms or ammunition still in their possession are to be relinquished, as specified. The bill would require the court to review the file to determine whether the receipt has been filed and inquire as to whether the person has complied with the requirement. The bill would require violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing unless the restrained party provides a receipt showing compliance at a subsequent hearing or by direct filing with the clerk of the court. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would also require the court, at a noticed hearing relating to these orders, to consider information presented that the restrained person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition. The bill would authorize the court, upon making this finding, to set a review hearing, as specified, to determine whether the person has possession or control of a firearm or ammunition in violation of the above provisions. Existing law requires specified protective orders related to domestic violence to be served on the respondent at the request of the petitioner, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody, by a law enforcement officer who is present at the scene of reported domestic violence involving the parties to the proceeding or who receives a request from the petitioner to provide service of the order. Existing law requires the petitioner to provide the officer with an endorsed copy of the order and proof of service that the officer is then required to complete and transmit to the issuing court, as specified. If the law enforcement officer determines that a protective order has been issued but not served, existing law requires the office to immediately notify the respondent of the terms of the order and where a written copy of the order can be obtained, and to enforce the order at that time. Existing law prohibits a fee from being charged to the petitioner for service of those orders. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would similarly require a peace officer, as defined, upon the request of a petitioner, to serve and enforce specified protective orders related to, among other things, elder or dependent adult abuse, harassment, workplace violence, or violence in postsecondary educational institutions, on a respondent, whether or not the respondent has been taken into custody. The bill would similarly prohibit the imposition of a fee on a petitioner for service of these orders. By expanding the duties of local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a family court to determine the best interest of the child for purposes of deciding child custody in proceedings for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation of the parties, petitions for exclusive custody of a child, and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Prevention Act. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption that an award of sole or joint physical or legal custody of a child to a person who has perpetrated domestic violence is detrimental to the best interest of a child and establishes factors to be considered in rebutting that presumption, including that the perpetrator is restrained by a domestic violence prevention order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally establish, as a factor to be considered, whether the perpetrator is restrained by any other protective order and has, or has not, complied with that order. Commencing January 1, 2026, the bill would, for specified protective orders if the respondent declines to relinquish possession of a firearm or ammunition based on the assertion of the right against self-incrimination, authorize the court to grant use immunity for the relinquishment of the firearm. Existing law authorizes the court, as part of a relinquishment order, to grant an exemption from certain relinquishment requirements if the respondent can show that a firearm is necessary as a condition of continued employment and their employer is unable to reassign the respondent to a position where the firearm is unnecessary. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would revise the relinquishment process and would instead authorize the court to grant an exemption if the respondent is not precluded from owning, possessing, controlling, or purchasing a firearm and ammunition under state or federal law and specified conditions, depending on whether the respondent is a peace officer, are met. Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning that firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order, as specified. Commencing January 1, 2026, this bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued for, among other things, ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to a domestic violence restraining order, and for a firearm or ammunition that a person is prohibited from owning due to other specified temporary restraining orders or injunctions. Existing law, the Safety For All Act of 2016, approved by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires any person selling specified amounts of ammunition to be licensed as an ammunition vendor. Existing law exempts specified transfers of ammunition from these provisions. Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with, and further the intent of, the act. This bill would amend Proposition 63 to exempt the sale of ammunition to a licensed ammunition vendor by a person required to relinquish that ammunition due to specified protective orders. The bill would make additional conforming and clarifying changes, as specified. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 6389 of the Family Code proposed by AB 2759 to be operative only if this bill and AB 2759 are enacted and this bill is enacted last, and would also incorporate additional changes to Section 1524 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 1002 to become operative only if this bill and SB 1002 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 899?
SB 899 is sponsored by Skinner, Blakespear, Catherine S. (Democratic), and Petrie-Norris, Cottie (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 899?
This bill has been enacted into law. Introduced January 03, 2024. Enacted.
Where can I track SB 899?
Track SB 899 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 899

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of SB 899

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →