BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 450 Hearing Date: June 28, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |McCarty |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |June 22, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Firearms: Concealed Carry License
HISTORY
Source: Author
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: Unknown
Opposition:Unknown
Assembly Floor Vote: Not Relevant
PURPOSE
The purpose of this legislation is to require a sheriff, chief,
or other head of a municipal police department issuing a
concealed carry permit to charge an applicant for the license a
fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of issuing and
enforcement of the license.
Existing law states that a county sheriff or municipal police
chief may issue a license to carry a handgun capable of being
concealed upon the person upon proof of all of the following:
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
2 of ?
The person applying is of good moral character (Penal
Code §§ 26150 and 26155(a)(1));
Good cause exists for the issuance (Penal Code §§ 26150
and 26155(a)(2));
The person applying meets the appropriate residency
requirements (Penal Code §§ 26150 and 26155(a)(3)); and,
The person has completed the appropriate training
course, as specified. (Penal Code §§ 26150 and
26155(a)(4)).
Existing law states that a county sheriff or a chief of a
municipal police department may issue a license to carry a
concealed handgun in either of the following formats:
A license to carry a concealed handgun upon his or her
person (Penal Code §§ 26150 and 26155(b)(1)); or,
A license to carry a loaded and exposed handgun if the
population of the county, or the county in which the city
is located, is less than 200,000 persons according to the
most recent federal decennial census. (Penal Code §§ 26150
and 26155(b)(2).)
Existing law provides that a chief of a municipal police
department shall not be precluded from entering into an
agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is
located for the sheriff to process all applications for
licenses, or renewal of licenses, to carry a concealed handgun
upon the person. (Penal Code § 26155(b)(3).)
Existing law provides that a license to carry a concealed
handgun is valid for up to two years, three years for judicial
officers, or four years in the case of a reserve or auxiliary
peace officer. (Penal Code § 26220.)
Existing law provides that a license may include any reasonable
restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority deems
warranted. (Penal Code § 26200.)
Existing law states that the fingerprints of each applicant are
taken and submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ).
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
3 of ?
Provides criminal penalties for knowingly filing a false
application for a concealed weapon license. (Penal Code §§
26180 and 26185.)
Existing law requires the fingerprints of each applicant for a
license to carry a concealed handgun be taken and two copies on
forms prescribed by the DOJ and be forwarded to DOJ. Upon
receipt of the fingerprints and the required fee, DOJ must
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 as to
whether the person is prohibited by state or federal law from
possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. (Penal
Code § 26185(a).)
Existing law states that if the license applicant has previously
applied to the same licensing authority for a license to carry
firearms and the applicant's fingerprints and fee have been
previously forwarded to DOJ, the licensing authority must note
the previous identification numbers and other data that would
provide positive identification in the files of DOJ on the copy
of any subsequent license submitted DOJ and no additional
application form or fingerprints are required. (Penal Code §
26185(b).)
Existing law states that if a license applicant has a license
issued and the applicant's fingerprints have been previously
forwarded to DOJ the licensing authority must note the previous
identification numbers and other data that would provide
positive identification in
the files of DOJ on the copy of any subsequent license
submitted to DOJ and no additional fingerprints are required.
(Penal Code § 26185(c).)
Existing law states that each applicant for a new license to
carry a concealed handgun, or for the renewal of a license, must
pay at the time of filing the application a fee determined by
DOJ. The fee cannot exceed the application processing costs of
DOJ. (Penal Code § 26190(a).)
Existing law allows the licensing authority of any city, city
and county, or county to charge an additional fee in an amount
equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a
new license, including any required notices, excluding
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
4 of ?
fingerprint and training costs, but in no case to exceed one
hundred dollars ($100), and must transmit the additional fee, if
any, to the city, city and county, or county treasury. The
first 20 percent of this additional local fee may be collected
upon filing of the initial application. The balance of the fee
shall be collected only upon issuance of the license. (Penal
Code § 26190(b).)
Existing law allows the licensing authority to charge an
additional fee, not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25), for
processing the application for a license renewal, and shall
transmit an additional fee, if any, to the city, city and
county, or county treasury. (Penal Code § 26190(c).)
This bill requires a sheriff, chief, or other head of a
municipal police department issuing a concealed carry license to
charge an applicant for the license a fee sufficient to cover
the reasonable costs of issuing and enforcement of the license.
RECEIVERSHIP/OVERCROWDING CRISIS AGGRAVATION
For the past several years this Committee has scrutinized
legislation referred to its jurisdiction for any potential
impact on prison overcrowding. Mindful of the United States
Supreme Court ruling and federal court orders relating to the
state's ability to provide a constitutional level of health care
to its inmate population and the related issue of prison
overcrowding, this Committee has applied its "ROCA" policy as a
content-neutral, provisional measure necessary to ensure that
the Legislature does not erode progress in reducing prison
overcrowding.
On February 10, 2014, the federal court ordered California to
reduce its in-state adult institution population to 137.5% of
design capacity by February 28, 2016, as follows:
143% of design bed capacity by June 30, 2014;
141.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2015; and,
137.5% of design bed capacity by February 28, 2016.
In December of 2015 the administration reported that as "of
December 9, 2015, 112,510 inmates were housed in the State's 34
adult institutions, which amounts to 136.0% of design bed
capacity, and 5,264 inmates were housed in out-of-state
facilities. The current population is 1,212 inmates below the
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
5 of ?
final court-ordered population benchmark of 137.5% of design bed
capacity, and has been under that benchmark since February
2015." (Defendants' December 2015 Status Report in Response to
February 10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge
Court, Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).) One
year ago, 115,826 inmates were housed in the State's 34 adult
institutions, which amounted to 140.0% of design bed capacity,
and 8,864 inmates were housed in out-of-state facilities.
(Defendants' December 2014 Status Report in Response to February
10, 2014 Order, 2:90-cv-00520 KJM DAD PC, 3-Judge Court, Coleman
v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (fn. omitted).)
While significant gains have been made in reducing the prison
population, the state must stabilize these advances and
demonstrate to the federal court that California has in place
the "durable solution" to prison overcrowding "consistently
demanded" by the court. (Opinion Re: Order Granting in Part and
Denying in Part Defendants' Request For Extension of December
31, 2013 Deadline, NO. 2:90-cv-0520 LKK DAD (PC), 3-Judge Court,
Coleman v. Brown, Plata v. Brown (2-10-14). The Committee's
consideration of bills that may impact the prison population
therefore will be informed by the following questions:
Whether a proposal erodes a measure which has contributed
to reducing the prison population;
Whether a proposal addresses a major area of public safety
or criminal activity for which there is no other
reasonable, appropriate remedy;
Whether a proposal addresses a crime which is directly
dangerous to the physical safety of others for which there
is no other reasonably appropriate sanction;
Whether a proposal corrects a constitutional problem or
legislative drafting error; and
Whether a proposal proposes penalties which are
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for This Legislation
According to the author:
Current state law prohibits anyone from carrying a
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
6 of ?
concealed weapon unless that person applies for and
obtains a permit. The issuing authority, usually a
county sheriff, may charge a fee to process the permit
application. There is no guidance on how much to
charge for the application fee. Given this vagueness,
it is unsurprising that different issuing authorities
have interpreted the law differently.
This has caused unequal treatment across California
and budget shortfalls for local governments.
Sacramento County is facing a shortfall of
approximately $250,000 caused by inadequate CCW
application fees and is facing cuts to essential
programs.
This bill seeks to remedy this vagueness by requiring
the issuing authority to charge a fee for the permit
which fully covers the cost of processing and
enforcing concealed weapon permits.
2. Current Events
According to a recent Sacramento Bee editorial:
Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones seems to be within
his rights in issuing concealed weapons permits to
law-abiding county residents essentially for the asking.
But taxpayers shouldn't be asked to foot the bill for his
politically popular perk, and that's what's happening.
State law dictates the amount that sheriffs can charge to
issue concealed weapons permits, essentially $100, plus the
cost of fingerprinting. The law also allows local officials
to raise fees by no more than the Consumer Price Index.
Sacramento County hasn't done so, and at the very least, it
should do that.
Even if the county were to take that step, the cost of
issuing concealed-carry permits evidently exceeds
inflation. According to Jones' budget numbers, the staffing
cost to grant permits will run about $461,000 this year.
But the fees charged to permit seekers will cover less than
half that, meaning that taxpayers must pick up the
remainder, almost $239,000. Worse, the cost to Sacramento
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
7 of ?
taxpayers more than doubled between the 2014-15 fiscal year
and the current fiscal year.
The California State Sheriffs' Association has not asked
the Legislature for authority to raise the fees.
Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, president of the
sheriffs' association, told an editorial board member that
he has "no appetite" to make concealed-carry permits more
expensive. We understand the reluctance. Sheriffs, too,
must get elected.
But the Legislature could and should force the issue,
especially this month as the new budget is being written.
Lawmakers ought to insert language into one of the
budget-related trailer bills making clear that local
authorities can charge the full cost of issuing
concealed-carry permits.
Under Jones, the number of permits has soared, from 350
when he took office five years ago to nearly 8,000 now,
making Sacramento County home to the state's third-largest
number of concealed-carry permits, after Fresno and Orange
counties.
Jones assigns one full-time deputy to the task, and as many
as 10 on-call employees, depending on demand. Permit
seekers pay a $20 application fee, $80 upon issuance, and
$122 for fingerprinting. A combined fee of $222 hardly
seems exorbitant.
Jones said in an email that issuing permits "is not a
business enterprise," and that when the department tried to
make the operation cost-neutral, the "delays and backup
were untenable." But unless a gun owner is in immediate
danger - and we doubt that all 8,000 of the Sacramento
County residents with permits are being actively threatened
- what exactly is the rush?
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
8 of ?
Jones also invokes a note of populism, saying in an email
that "raising fees would have a disproportionate impact on
our lower income residents." Even if that's true - and
we're guessing people who can afford guns and ammunition
are not destitute - sheriffs could, if authorized by the
Legislature, impose surcharges on wealthier gun owners to
help the lower-income permit seekers.
In Sacramento County's $3.6 billion budget, $239,000 is a
blip. But as they write their new budget, supervisors
should consider other uses for that $239,000. Supervisor
Phil Serna, for one, has cited a need for a
Spanish-speaking psychologist. Shelter providers could use
$239,000 to find housing for homeless people. Jones could
hire additional deputies who are well-trained in the use of
firearms.
Jones defends his liberal gun permit policy, telling The
Sacramento Bee's Hudson Sangree and Phillip Reese that
allowing people to carry concealed weapons empowers them
"to feel like they are safer in a world that is
increasingly not safe."
We disagree. We do not feel safer now that one in every 135
Sacramento County residents has a concealed-carry permit.
And we certainly don't believe taxpayers should pay for the
gun owners' privilege.
(Sheriff Jones' liberal gun permit policy costs all
taxpayers, Sacramento Bee Editorial Board, Sacramento Bee,
May 31, 2016,
http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article
81014202.html.)
3. Effect of Legislation
Existing law allows the licensing authority of any city, city
and county, or county to charge a fee in an amount equal to the
AB 450 (McCarty ) Page
9 of ?
actual costs for processing the application for a new CCW up to
one hundred dollars. (Penal Code § 26190(b).) The intent of
this legislation is to require that the licensing authority
charge "a fee sufficient to cover the reasonable costs of
issuing and enforcement of the license." That said, this
legislation does not delete or modify the existing provision
that allows the licensing authority to charge a fee-- meaning
that there would be one section in the Penal Code with a
permissive fee and a different section with a mandatory fee.
Members may wish to recommend the following amendments: (1)
delete the language of the legislation; (2) modify existing law
to make the CCW fee mandatory; (3) delete the $100 limit on the
CCW fee; and, (4) provide that the fee shall be sufficient to
not only cover the reasonable costs of issuing the CCW, but also
the cost of enforcement.
-- END -