BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 610
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 17, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 610 (Wright) - As Amended: August 15, 2011
Policy Committee: Public
SafetyVote:7-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: Yes
SUMMARY
This bill revises conditions for issuing a concealed weapon
(CCW) permit. Specifically, this bill:
1)Specifies applicants are not required to pay for any training
courses prior to a determination that good cause for a CCW
permit exists.
2)Specifies CCW applicants need not obtain liability insurance
as a condition of the license.
3)Requires the licensing authority to provide written
notification to the applicant when it determines whether good
cause exists for a CCW permit and to provide specific reasons
for denial of a CCW permit.
FISCAL EFFECT
Unknown, potentially state-reimbursable local costs, possibly
exceeding $150,000, to provide good cause notification as well
as specific rationale if the CCW permit is denied. For example,
if there were 7,500 applications, which required an additional
20 minutes of time, plus postage, the increased costs could be
in the range of $150,000.
Because current law authorizes a local fee of up to $100 for
processing CCW permit applications, however, plus $25 for
renewals, it is not likely a mandate claim would be successful.
In addition, several counties, including L.A., have acknowledged
they already provide the notice required by the bill and that
costs are covered by the existing fee.
SB 610
Page 2
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, CCW applicants are being
treated inconsistently by licensing agencies. As an example,
the author cites some licensing agencies as requiring
applicants to obtain liability insurance as a condition of
issuing a license. Liability insurance is not required under
existing law and should not be required to obtain a license.
In addition, 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 or complete a firearms training course.
2)Liability Insurance . It is not clear many licensing
authorities require applicants for a concealed firearms
license to obtain liability insurance as a condition of
obtaining a license, and existing law appears to prohibit such
a requirement: "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."
3)Support : According to the California Rifle and Pistol
Association, "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. 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."
According to letters from several rural county sheriffs -
Kern, Lassen, Shasta, Siskiyou and Trinity - this bill largely
conforms to existing practice and assures applicants do not
SB 610
Page 3
incur unnecessary training expenses until they are assured
they have cleared the good cause standard, and that rejected
applicants are advised as to the reason.
4)Opposition . According to the California Police Chiefs
Association, "It is current practice to require that an
applicant demonstrate proficiency with firearms and that the
applicant purchase liability insurance. This bill will permit
the demonstration of firearms proficiency to be shown after
the CCW has been issued and it dispenses with any requirement
that the applicant purchase liability insurance. The
California Police Chiefs Association believes that there has
been no showing of the public policy to be served by these
changes. In fact, we believe that the better public policy is
to assure that the applicant has demonstrated proficiency
prior to the issuance of a CCW and that the applicant can be
sufficiently insured so that anyone inadvertently harmed by
the applicant's negligence may be made whole."
5)Current Law :
a) 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 may issue a license
to that person upon proof 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 the applicant's principal place of employment or
business is in 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.
b) Requires any applicant to pay specified fees. Current
law also states that, other than those fees specified in
this section, an applicant may not be charged any other
fees.
c) Requires the licensing authority to provide written
notice to the CCW applicant within 90 days of the
application, or within 30 days of the applicant's criminal
background check, whichever is later.
Analysis Prepared by : Geoff Long / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
SB 610
Page 4