BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair S
2011-2012 Regular Session B
6
1
0
SB 610 (Wright)
As Amended March 21, 2011
Hearing date: March 29, 2011
Penal Code
SM:mc
CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS: ELECTED OFFICIALS
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation: Numerous
Support: California Rifle and Pistol Association; National Rifle
Association; California Association of Firearms
Retailers
Opposition:Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, California
Chapters; California Police Chiefs Association; Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department (unless amended);
Legal Community Against Violence; California Peace
Officers' Association
KEY ISSUES
WITH RESPECT TO APPLICATIONS FOR A LICENSE TO CARRY A CONCEALED
HANDGUN:
SHOULD THE LICENSING AUTHORITY BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE
DETERMINATION OF GOOD CAUSE, AS SPECIFIED, AND UPON MAKING THAT
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageB
DETERMINATION OF GOOD CAUSE, GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE
APPLICANT OF THE LICENSING AUTHORITY'S DETERMINATION AND, IF
APPROVED, INFORM THE APPLICANT TO PROCEED WITH THE SPECIFIED
TRAINING REQUIREMENTS?
(CONTINUED)
SHOULD IT BE PROHIBITED TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO PAY FOR ANY
TRAINING COURSES PRIOR TO THE DETERMINATION OF GOOD CAUSE BEING
MADE?
SHOULD IT BE REQUIRED THAT IF THE LICENSE IS DENIED, THE NOTICE
SHALL PROVIDE THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR DENIAL?
SHOULD IT BE PROHIBITED TO REQUIRE AN APPLICANT TO OBTAIN LIABILITY
INSURANCE AS A CONDITION TO OBTAIN A LICENSE?
SHOULD THE GOOD CAUSE REQUIREMENT BE DEEMED MET FOR ANY APPLICANT
WHO IS A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, A STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICIAL, OR A
MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE, FOR PROTECTION OR SELF-DEFENSE ALTHOUGH
THESE PERSONS MUST STILL COMPLY WITH ALL OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
OBTAINING OR RENEWING A LICENSE?
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to provide with respect to
applications for a license to carry a concealed handgun that (1)
the licensing authority shall make the determination of good
cause, as specified, and upon making that determination of good
cause, the licensing authority shall give written notice to the
applicant of the licensing authority's determination. If the
licensing authority determines that good cause exists, the
notice shall inform the applicant to proceed with the specified
training requirements; (2) the applicant shall not be required
to pay for any training courses prior to the determination of
good cause being made, as specified; (3) if the license is
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageC
denied, the notice shall provide the specific reason for denial;
(4) no applicant shall be required to obtain liability insurance
as a condition to obtain a license; and (5) the good cause
requirement shall be deemed met for any applicant who is a
member of Congress, a statewide elected official, or a Member of
the Legislature, for protection or self-defense although these
persons must still comply with all other requirements for
obtaining or renewing a license.
Current law states that when a person applies for a license to
carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being
concealed upon the person, the sheriff of a county may issue a
license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
The applicant is of good moral character.
Good cause exists for issuance of the license.
The applicant is a resident of the county or a city
within the county, or the applicant's principal place of
employment or business is in the county or a city within
the county, and the applicant spends a substantial period
of time in that place of employment or business.
The applicant has completed a course of training, as
specified.
The sheriff may issue this license in either of the following
formats:
A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial
census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that
county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person.
The police chief of a city, or city and county may also issue
such licenses, according to the same criteria, to residents of
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageD
that city. (Penal Code § 26150.)<1>
Current law provides that, for new license applicants, the
course of training for issuance of a license, as specified, may
be any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall not
exceed 16 hours, and shall include instruction on at least
firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a
firearm.
In addition, the licensing authority may require a community
college course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training, up to a maximum of 24 hours, but only if
required uniformly of all license applicants without exception.
For license renewal applicants, the course of training may be
any course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall be no
less than four hours, and shall include instruction on at least
firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a
firearm. No course of training shall be required for any person
certified by the licensing authority as a trainer for purposes
of this section, in order for that person to renew a license
issued pursuant to this article. (Penal Code § 26165.)
Current law requires any applicant for a permit to carry a
concealable weapon pay specified fees and provides for the
disposition of these fees. Current law also states that, other
than those fees specified in this section, an applicant may not
be charged any other fees. (Penal Code § 26190.)
Current law provides that the fingerprints of each applicant
shall be forwarded to the (Department of Justice) DOJ and that,
upon receipt of the fingerprints and the appropriate fees, DOJ
shall promptly furnish the forwarding licensing authority a
report of all data and information pertaining to any applicant
of which there is a record in its office, including information
---------------------------
<1> SB 1080, Chap. 711, Stats. 2010, recast and renumbered most
statutes relating to deadly weapons without any substantive
change to those statutes. Those changes will become operative
January 1, 2012. All references to affected code sections will
be to the revised version unless otherwise indicated.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageE
as to whether the person is prohibited by state or federal law
from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
Current law requires that no license shall be issued by any
licensing authority until after receipt of the report from the
department. (Penal Code § 26185.)
Current law states that the licensing authority shall give
written notice to the applicant indicating if the license is
approved or denied. The licensing authority shall give this
notice within 90 days of the initial application for a new
license or a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the
applicant's criminal background check from the Department of
Justice, whichever is later.
This bill would provide that the licensing authority shall make
the determination of good cause, as specified, and upon making
that determination of good cause, the licensing authority shall
give written notice to the applicant of the licensing
authority's determination. If the licensing authority
determines that good cause exists, the notice shall inform the
applicants to proceed with the specified training requirements.
This bill would amend the preceding statute to provide that "The
applicant shall not be required to pay for any training courses
prior to the determination of good cause being madeÝ,]" as
specified.
This bill would require that, if the license is denied, the
notice shall provide the specific reason for denial.
This bill would amend the preceding statute to include that no
applicant shall be required to obtain liability insurance as a
condition to obtain a license.
This bill would provide that the good cause requirement shall be
deemed met for any applicant who is a member of Congress, a
statewide elected official, or a Member of the Legislature, for
protection or self-defense although these persons must still
comply with all other requirements for obtaining or renewing a
license.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageF
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the last several years, severe overcrowding in California's
prisons has been the focus of evolving and expensive litigation.
As these cases have progressed, prison conditions have
continued to be assailed, and the scrutiny of the federal courts
over California's prisons has intensified.
On June 30, 2005, in a class action lawsuit filed four years
earlier, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California established a Receivership to take
control of the delivery of medical services to all California
state prisoners confined by the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"). In December of 2006,
plaintiffs in two federal lawsuits against CDCR sought a
court-ordered limit on the prison population pursuant to the
federal Prison Litigation Reform Act. On January 12, 2010, a
three-judge federal panel issued an order requiring California
to reduce its inmate population to 137.5 percent of design
capacity -- a reduction at that time of roughly 40,000 inmates
-- within two years. The court stayed implementation of its
ruling pending the state's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On Monday, June 14, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear
the state's appeal of this order and, on Tuesday, November 30,
2010, the Court heard oral arguments. A decision is expected as
early as this spring.
In response to the unresolved prison capacity crisis, in early
2007 the Senate Committee on Public Safety began holding
legislative proposals which could further exacerbate prison
overcrowding through new or expanded felony prosecutions.
This bill does not appear to aggravate the prison overcrowding
crisis described above.
COMMENTS
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageG
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB610 will:
1) Streamline the process by which Californians apply for a
Concealed Carry Permit. Currently there is no standard by
which CCW permits are processed by the Law Enforcement
agencies authorized in the Penal Code. SB610 would
standardize the sequence of CCW application processing for
all Law Enforcement Agencies.
2) Save Law Enforcement resources by limiting the man hours
of Law Enforcement staff that must process the CCW
applications to persons who are qualified under the "Good
Cause" definition of the issuing Agency.
3) Provide a standard timeframe for Law Enforcement
Agencies for the processing of CCW applications.
2. Liability Insurance
It is not clear how many licensing authorities may currently
require applicants for a concealed firearms license to obtain
liability insurance as a condition of obtaining a license.
Existing law states:
Except as authorized pursuant to this section, no
requirement, charge, assessment, fee, or condition that
requires the payment of any additional funds by the
applicant may be imposed by any licensing authority as
a condition of the application for a license. (Penal
Code § 26190(g).)
This provision of existing law would appear to prohibit a
licensing authority from requiring liability insurance.
SHOULD IT BE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED TO REQUIRE LIABILITY
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageH
INSURANCE AS A CONDITION OF OBTAINING A LICENSE TO CARRY A
CONCEALED HANDGUN?
IS THIS ALREADY PROHIBITED BY EXISTING LAW?
3. Elected Officials and Good Cause
Current law requires that, for an applicant to be issued a
license to carry a loaded, concealable firearm, the issuing
authority must find both that good cause exists to issue the
license and that the applicant be of good moral character.
Current law does not specify what would constitute good cause.
This bill would specify that one form of good cause to carry a
loaded, concealed weapon is being a member of Congress, a
statewide elected official, or a Member of the Legislature, "for
protection or self-defense." This would not automatically
result in these elected officials being issued concealed
firearms license. An elected official who wanted such a license
would still need to file an application, have their fingerprints
submitted to DOJ and pass a background check, and be found to be
of good character.
Although the public officials listed in the bill might be
considered to hold a job that increases their risk of being
targeted by an angry or deranged member of the public, members
might wish to consider whether people in other jobs might claim
that the same situation applies equally to them. Parking meter
attendant, school superintendent, sports referee, newspaper
reporter or editor, are all examples of jobs whose duties may
involve making controversial decisions or statements that could
result in the jobholder alienating a member of the public, who
might become deranged and violent. If the specified elected
officials are deemed to have good cause to carry a concealed
handgun because of the nature of their job, will others in jobs
with similar attributes have an equal claim to this "good cause"
exemption? Members may also wish to consider whether elected
officials seeking concealed weapons permits are, under current
law, being unreasonably prevented from obtaining them as a
result of the "good cause" requirement.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageI
SHOULD BEING A SPECIFIED ELECTED OFFICIAL CONSTITUTE GOOD CAUSE
TO BE LICENSED TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM?
WOULD THE RATIONALE FOR MAKING THIS EXCEPTION FOR THESE
OFFICIALS APPLY EQUALLY TO OTHERS?
IS THE "GOOD CAUSE" REQUIREMENT UNREASONABLY PREVENTING THESE
ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM OBTAINING THESE LICENSES WHEN THEY SEEK
THEM?
(More)
4. Argument in Support
The California Rifle and Pistol Association states:
SB 610 would standardize the application process for a
license to carry a concealed handgun and correct several
inconsistencies in the application of the current law.
Applicants for licenses to carry a concealed handgun are
being treated inconsistently within and between licensing
authorities. For example:
Some licensing agencies do not provide applicants who are
denied a license the specific reason(s) for denial of a
license. This practice gives the appearance of an
arbitrary decision by the licensing authority. Applicants
who are denied a license should receive a written notice
which gives the specific reasons for the denial within 30
days of the application being filed.
Some licensing authorities require applicants to pay a
firearms training fee and complete a firearms training
course before the authority considers approving or
disapproving an applicant for good cause. A good cause
determination should be made by the authority before an
applicant is required to pay for and complete training.
Applicants denied a license for good cause should not be
required to pay for and complete a firearms training
course. Only after an applicant passes a background and
good moral character review, should the issuing authority
require the applicant to pay for and pass a firearms
training course.
Some licensing authorities are requiring licensee's to
obtain liability insurance as a condition of issuance of a
license. Liability insurance is not required under
existing law and should not be required to obtain a
license.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageK
5. Argument in Opposition
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign Against Gun
Violence state:
Existing law gives sheriffs and chiefs of municipal police
departments the discretion to issue permits for the
carrying of concealed and loaded firearms (CCW permits).
Law enforcement must find that good cause exists, that the
applicant is of good moral character, is a resident or
employed within the jurisdiction, and has completed a
course of training. Senate Bill 610 makes a number of
changes to the Penal Code relating to the issuance of a
permit for the carrying of CCW permits. The net result of
these changes is to significantly weaken current law.
First, and most objectionable, is the provision that good
cause is deemed met if the licensing authority fails to
make a determination of good cause within 30 days. Ten
days of this period is typically consumed by the Department
of Justice in performing the background check. Given that
many law enforcement agencies are now understaffed due to
budget cuts, the remaining time is insufficient for making
a careful determination of good cause. To allow the good
cause standard to be met by default if the local agency
cannot meet the deadline is simply reckless and not in the
interest of public safety.
Secondly, good cause is deemed to have been met if the
applicant is a member of Congress, a statewide elected
official, or a member of the California Legislature. These
individuals should abide by the same standards as any other
citizen. If specific threats are made known to a
legislator or a statewide official, that person can use
that information as the basis for a showing of good cause
and may apply for a CCW permit. This part of the bill
appears to be an attempt to use the recent tragic events in
Tucson to create yet another exemption for CCW issuance.
Finally, SB 610 requires that when a CCW permit is denied,
SB 610 (Wright)
PageL
the permitting authority must provide the "specific reason"
for the denial to the applicant in a written notification.
Such a requirement would tend to stifle the discretion that
law enforcement now has to deny permits when they feel that
it is in the public interest to do so. The requirement to
provide specific reasons will expose law enforcement to
legal challenges and could lead to a weakening of the
current standard.
***************