BILL ANALYSIS �
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: April 5, 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 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
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageB
DETERMINATION OF GOOD CAUSE, AS SPECIFIED, AND UPON MAKING THAT
DETERMINATION OF GOOD CAUSE, GIVE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE
APPLICANT OF THE LICENSING AUTHORITY'S DETERMINATION AND IF
APPROVED INFORM THE APPLICANTS 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 applicants 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
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageC
good cause being made, as specified; (3) if the license is
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 section 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 section 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 section 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 section 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 provides 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 amends 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 made�,]" as
specified.
This bill requires that, if the license is denied, the notice
shall provide the specific reason for denial.
This bill amends the preceding statute to include that no
applicant shall be required to obtain liability insurance as a
condition to obtain a license.
This bill provides 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.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageG
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Bill
According to the author:
SB 610 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 section 26190(g).)
This provision of existing law would appear to prohibit a
licensing authority from requiring liability insurance.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageH
SHOULD IT BE SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED TO REQUIRE LIABILITY
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, 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 EXEPTION 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?
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:
(More)
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.
5. Argument in Opposition
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign Against Gun
Violence state:
The California Chapters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence submitted a letter in opposition to SB 610 on
March 13, 2011. On March 21, the bill was amended to
remove our major objection. While we appreciate the
author's changes, we nevertheless remain in opposition for
the following reason.
(More)
SB 610 (Wright)
PageK
Senate Bill 610 still contains the provision that "good
cause" for the issuance of a permit to carry a concealed
and loaded firearm (CCW permit) 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. Our elected officials should have to 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.
As a general matter, the California Chapters of the Brady
Campaign oppose increasing the number of exemptions from
the "good cause" standard for obtaining a CCW permit. Both
active and retired police officers are now exempt as are
various types of security guards. With the exception of
police officers, the exemption applies only when the
firearm is carried within the course and scope of assigned
duties. This particular proposed exemption is particularly
unseemly as it confers special privileges on those "who
make the rules".
In conclusion, the California Chapters of the Brady
Campaign remain opposed to SB 610 and respectfully ask for
your NO vote.
***************