BILL ANALYSIS Ó
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1134|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1134
Author: Mark Stone (D)
Amended: 8/18/15 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 5-2, 7/14/15
AYES: Hancock, Glazer, Leno, Liu, Monning
NOES: Anderson, Stone
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-26, 4/16/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Firearms: concealed firearm licenses
SOURCE: California State Sheriffs' Association
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the sheriff of a county in which
a city is located to enter into an agreement with the chief or
other head of the municipal police agency in that city for the
chief or head of that municipal police agency to process all
applications for licenses to carry a concealed handgun upon the
person, renewal of those licenses, and amendments to those
licenses.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
1)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 1134
Page 2
a) The person applying is of good moral character (Penal
Code §§ 26150 and 26155(a)(1));
b) Good cause exists for the issuance (Penal Code §§ 26150
and 26155(a)(2));
c) The person applying meets the appropriate residency
requirements (Penal Code §§ 26150 and 26155(a)(3)); and,
d) The person has completed the appropriate training
course, as specified. (Penal Code §§ 26150 and
26155(a)(4)).
2)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) A license to carry a concealed handgun upon his or her
person (Penal Code §§ 26150 and 26155(b)(1)); or,
b) 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).)
3)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).)
4)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.)
5)Provides that a license may include any reasonable
restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority deems
warranted. (Penal Code § 26200.)
6)States that the fingerprints of each applicant are taken and
AB 1134
Page 3
submitted to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Provides
criminal penalties for knowingly filing a false application
for a concealed weapon license. (Penal Code §§ 26180 and
26185.)
7)States that a license to carry a concealed handgun cannot be
issued if DOJ determines that the person is prohibited by
state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or
purchasing a firearm. A license must be revoked by the local
licensing authority if at any time either the local licensing
authority is notified by DOJ that a licensee is prohibited by
state or federal law from owning or purchasing firearms, or
the local licensing authority determines that the person is
prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving,
owning, or purchasing a firearm. If at any time DOJ
determines that a licensee is prohibited by state or federal
law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a
firearm, DOJ shall immediately notify the local licensing
authority of the determination. (Penal Code § 26195.)
This bill authorizes the sheriff of a county in which a city is
located to enter into an agreement with the chief or other head
of the municipal police agency in that city for the chief or
head of that municipal police agency to process all applications
for licenses to carry a concealed handgun upon the person,
renewal of those licenses, and amendments to those licenses.
Background
The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD) instituted a
policy requiring applicants for licenses to carry a concealed
handgun to apply with the police chief in the city in which the
person resides, rather than the sheriff. In 2013, the Los
Angeles Superior Court held that the existing law did not,
specifically, provide for that option and ordered the LASD to
process all applications filed with the LASD. (Lu v. County of
Los Angeles, BC480493). The court stated:
Plaintiffs seek to require Defendants to exercise
their statutory duty to determine whether applicants
for licenses to carry handguns are of good moral
character, are residents of the County, and have good
cause for the licenses, as required by Penal Code §§
17020 and 26150-26225. Plaintiffs each seek a license
AB 1134
Page 4
to carry handguns pursuant to Penal Code § 26150, et
seq., and assert that they should not have to apply to
their own cities for issuance of a concealed weapons
license (CCW), as it violates their constitutional
rights under the 14th Amendment to be prohibited from
going directly to the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department
(LASD). . .
Defendants seek summary judgment/adjudication arguing
that the policy requiring residents to seek a CCW
permit from their respective city before seeking a CCW
permit from the LASD does not violate the law,
Plaintiffs fail to prove essential elements of their
causes of action for violation of equal protection
under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,
Platiniffs are not entitled to writ, injunctive, or
declaratory relief as they cannot show that the LASD's
policy is arbitrary, capricious, or without support,
and naming the LASD and Sheriff Baca as defendants is
redundant of suing the County of Los Angeles.
Plaintiffs argue that this case is really only about
whether the LASD must follow the law as written by the
legislature and as interpreted by the California Court
of Appeal. The Second District Court of Appeal has
expressly ruled that Penal Code §§26150-26225 impose a
duty on the LASD to make an investigation and
determine an application for a CCW permit on an
individual basis. The sole issue in this case is
whether the LASD has to follow that law.
The court goes on to find:
Plaintiffs' opposition heavily relies on Salute v.
Pitchess, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557 (1976) to support their
argument that Defendants are violating the law. The
court finds that the discussion in Saulte supports
denial of this motion.
In Salute the plaintiffs "were duly licensed private
investigators" seeking CCW permits. See Id., at p.
559. The Court acknowledged that "[t]he petitioners
allege, and the sheriff admits, that the sheriff has a
AB 1134
Page 5
fixed policy of not granting applications under
section 12050 except in a limited number of cases."
See Id., at p. 560. In Salute, that policy was stated
as follows:
"The Sheriff's policy is not to issue any
concealed weapons permit to any person, except
for judges who express concern for their personal
safety. In special circumstances, the request of
a public officer holder who expresses concern for
his personal safely would be considered. . ." and
"the outstanding permits issued by the Sheriff
are only 24 in number." See Salute, Id.
Plaintiffs successfully argue that the LASD's current
policy in this matter is akin to the improper "fixed
policy" in Salute. Here the LASD admits that, where
the applicant lives in an incorporated city which is
not policed by the LASD, it has a policy requiring
that before the LASD will consider and application for
a CCW permit such applicant must first apply with the
Chief of Police of the city in which the resident
lives and be denied a CCW permit. (Motion, Rogers
Dec., 9) Such a policy is similar to a fixed policy
of only granting a limited number of applications
because in essence the LASD will not consider any
applications that have not been first tendered to the
local Chief of Polic[e] of the applicable city.
It is clear to this court that the decision in Salute
was meant to address strict policies by the LASD that
ultimately result in the agency not considering
applications on a case-by-case basis. The Court
stated the following:
While the court cannot compel a public officer to
exercise his discretion in any particular manner,
it may direct him to exercise that discretion. We
regard the case at bench as involving a refusal
of the sheriff to exercise the discretion given
him by the statute. Section 12050 imposes only
three limits on the grant of an application to
carry a concealed weapon: the applicant must be
of good moral character, show good cause and be a
AB 1134
Page 6
resident of the county. To determine, in
advance, as a uniform rule, that only selected
public officials can show good cause it to refuse
to consider the existence of good cause on the
part of citizens generally and is an abuse of,
and not an exercise of, discretion. (Emphasis
added.) See Salute, Id.
The Court further stated that "[i]t is the duty of the
sheriff to make such an investigation and
determination, on an individual basis, on every
application under section 12050." See Id, at p.
560-561.
Defendants have instituted an improper policy
requiring certain applicants such as Plaintiffs to
first apply with their city's Chief of Police before
filing a separate application with the LASD. While
this court cannot direct Defendants how to exercise
their discretion in making the good cause
determination during the application process, this
court can direct LASD to exercise its discretion and
consider the application without first requiring the
applicant to seek the CCW permit with his/her local
policy chief. Indeed, Penal Code §26175(g) says "[a]n
applicant shall not be required to complete any
additional application or form for a license, or to
provide any information other than that necessary to
complete the standard application form described in
subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard
application form." LASD's policy effectively requires
Plaintiffs to present two (2) applications-first to
the local Chief of Polic[e] and then to LASD. This is
not proper. LASD's policy in this case is not
consistent with the statutory scheme for issuance of
CCW permits as set forth in Penal Code §§26150, et
seq., and the policy is not consistent with the Salute
case.
The court ultimately denied defendants motion for summary
judgment and issued a writ of mandamus (mandate) ordering
defendants "to consider the applications of all persons seeking
a CCW permit in the first instance without requiring any
AB 1134
Page 7
applicant to first seek a CCW permit with his/her local police
chief or city." This matter is currently pending review by the
California Court of Appeals.
Comments
This legislation is intended to address the ruling in Lu by
authorizing the sheriff of a county in which a city is located
to enter into an agreement with the chief or other head of the
municipal police agency in that city for the chief or head of
that municipal police agency to process all applications for
licenses to carry a concealed handgun upon the person, renewal
of those licenses, and amendments to those licenses.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal
Com.:NoLocal: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 8/19/15)
California State Sheriffs' Association (co-source)
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (co-source)
OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/19/15)
The Calguns Foundation
California Rifle and Pistol Association
Firearms Policy Coalition
Gun Owners of California
National Rifle Association
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department:
Existing law authorizes the sheriff of a county, or
the chief or other head of a municipal police
department, upon proof that the person applying is of
good moral character, that good cause exists, and that
the person applying satisfies certain conditions, to
issue a license for the person to carry a concealed
handgun, as specified. Existing law provides that the
AB 1134
Page 8
chief or other head of a municipal police department
is not precluded from entering into an agreement with
the sheriff of eh county in which the city is located
for the sheriff to process all applications for
licenses for a person to carry a concealed handgun,
renewal of those licenses, and amendments to those
licenses.
AB 1134 would provide that the sheriff of the county
in which the city is located is not precluded from
entering into an agreement with the chief or other
head of a municipal police department to process all
applications for licenses for a person to carry a
concealed handgun, renewals of those licenses, and
amendments to those licenses.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION:According to the Firearms Policy
Coalition:
The members and supporters of Firearms Policy Coalition urge
your "NO" vote
on Assembly Bill 1134 ("AB 1134").
AB 1134 is NOT SUPPORTED by the California Police Chiefs'
Association or law enforcement groups like Peace Officers
Research Association of California (PORAC).
AB 1134 undermines the will of the Legislature and the
wisdom of the
courts that "[a]pplications for licenses?. shall be uniform
throughout the
state." (Penal Code § 26175.)
AB 1134 does not require any public notice or comment
period prior to
any proposed agreements or changes to policies.
AB 1134 would allow sheriffs to make backroom deals with
police chiefs
that affect thousands, if not millions, of their residents
with nothing more
than a phone call.
AB 1134
Page 9
AB 1134 threatens the democratic process and local
accountability by
allowing elected sheriffs to delegate important,
legislatively-mandated
duties to city-appointed, un-elected police chiefs.
AB 1134 does not require any publication of agreements
and allows local
governments to play "hide the ball."
AB 1134 is about one thing, and one thing only: Saving
the civil-rights
violating Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department from a
losing legal
battle.
The only thing that is transparent about AB 1134 is the naked
agenda of one local agency (LASD) and its desire to relieve
itself from the burden of a statutory mandate it has not
complied with for decades.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 51-26, 4/16/15
AYES: Alejo, Baker, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke,
Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh,
Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gatto,
Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Gordon, Hadley, Roger Hernández,
Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Lopez, Low, McCarty,
Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Perea, Rendon,
Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Salas, Santiago, Mark Stone,
Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Achadjian, Travis Allen, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez,
Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gray, Grove, Harper, Kim,
Lackey, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez,
Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle, Jones, Quirk
Prepared by:Jessica Devencenzi / PUB. S. /
8/19/15 20:55:34
**** END ****
AB 1134
Page 10