BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Senator Loni Hancock, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 2510 Hearing Date: June 21, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Linder |
|-----------+-----------------------------------------------------|
|Version: |February 19, 2016 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |Yes |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|JRD |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Firearms: License to Carry Concealed: Uniform
License
HISTORY
Source: California State Sheriffs' Association
Prior Legislation:None known
Support: Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs; California
Police Chiefs Association; California Rifle and Pistol
Association; Los Angeles County Professional Peace
Officers Association; Los Angeles Police Protective
League; National Rifle Association; Riverside
Sheriffs' Association; Rick Farinelli, District 3
Supervisor, County of Madera
Opposition:California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees;
Firearms Policy Coalition
Assembly Floor Vote: 77 - 0
PURPOSE
The purpose of this bill is to (1) require the Attorney General
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
2 of ?
to develop a license to carry a concealed firearm (CCW), with
uniform information and criteria, that may be used as indicia of
proof of licensure throughout the state, and (2) approve the use
of licenses issued by local agencies and to retain exemplars of
approved licenses and a list of agencies issuing local licenses,
as specified.
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:
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 license may include any reasonable
restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority deems
warranted. (Penal Code § 26200.)
Existing law specifies that applications for CCW licenses,
applications for amendments to CCW licenses, amendments to CCW
licenses, and CCW licenses under this article shall be uniform
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
3 of ?
throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the
Attorney General. (Penal Code § 26175 (a)(1).)
Existing law provides that the Attorney General shall convene a
committee composed of one representative of the California State
Sheriffs' Association, one representative of the California
Police Chiefs Association, and one representative of the
Department of Justice to review, and as deemed appropriate,
revise the standard application form for CCW licenses. The
committee shall meet for this purpose if two of the committee's
members deem that necessary. (Penal Code § 26175(a)(2).)
Existing law states that the application shall include a section
summarizing the statutory provisions of state law that result in
the automatic denial of a license. (Penal Code § 26175(b).)
Existing law provides that the standard application form for CCW
licenses shall require information from the applicant,
including, but not limited to, the name, occupation, residence,
and business address of the applicant, the applicant's age,
height, weight, color of eyes and hair, and reason for desiring
a license to carry the weapon. (Penal Code § 26175(c).)
Existing law specifies that applications for licenses shall be
filed in writing and signed by the applicant. (Penal Code §
26175(d).)
Existing law provides that applications for amendments to CCW
licenses shall be filed in writing and signed by the applicant,
and shall state what type of amendment is sought and the reason
for desiring the amendment. (Penal Code § 26175(e).)
Existing law states that the forms shall contain a provision
whereby the applicant attests to the truth of statements
contained in the application. (Penal Code § 26175(f).)
Existing law provides that an 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, except to clarify or interpret
information provided by the applicant on the standard
application form. (Penal Code § 26175(g).)
Existing law states that the standard application form is deemed
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
4 of ?
to be a local form expressly exempt from the requirements of the
Administrative Procedures Act. (Penal Code § 26175(h).)
Existing law provides that any CCW license issued upon the
application shall set forth the licensee's name, occupation,
residence and business address, the licensee's age, height,
weight, color of eyes and hair, and the reason for desiring a
license to carry the weapon, and shall, in addition, contain a
description of the weapon or weapons authorized to be carried,
giving the name of the manufacturer, the serial number, and the
caliber. The license issued to the licensee may be laminated.
(Penal Code § 26175(i).)
This bill requires the Attorney General to develop a uniform CCW
license that may be used as indicia of proof of licensure
throughout the state.
This bill requires the Attorney General to approve the use of
licenses issued by local agencies if they contain specified
information and a recent photograph of the applicant.
This bill requires the Attorney General to retain exemplars of
approved licenses and maintain a list of agencies issuing local
licenses.
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:
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
5 of ?
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
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
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
6 of ?
proportionate, and cannot be achieved through any other
reasonably appropriate remedy.
COMMENTS
1. Need for Legislation
According to the author:
Existing law requires that licenses permitting persons to
lawfully carry a concealed firearm (CCW) must be uniform
throughout the state. However, the current form/license
approved by the Department of Justice (DOJ) is a paper
document that does not lend itself to being easily carried
on one's person. Nothing in existing law specifically
permits CCW-authorizing agencies to issue its own CCW
identity document in a more user-friendly format.
2. Effect of Legislation
This bill specifies that the Attorney General develop a uniform
CCW license that may be used as indicia of proof of licensure
throughout the state. The information on the license should be
uniform and consistent. However, the bill does not require that
the licenses themselves be identical in the same way that a
California Driver's License is, other than the specified
information. Opponents of the bill would like the information
and appearance of the concealed carry license to be consistent
across the state. However, the proponents of the bill are
concerned that by mandating such consistency, that the costs to
certain jurisdictions to update their systems to meet those
requirements would be prohibitive.
The bill additionally requires the Attorney General to approve
the use of licenses issued by local agencies if they contain
specified information and a recent photograph of the applicant.
The opponents argue that this provision will further provide for
inconsistencies appearing in licenses throughout the state. The
proponents of the legislation are more concerned with requiring
consistent content on the licenses, and providing a card that
can be carried upon the licensee easier than the paper permit.
By not requiring the paper permit and permitting an
identification card to be used as a CCW, proponents argue that
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
7 of ?
public safety is enhanced because more people will have their
license with them while they are carrying a concealed weapon.
3. Argument in Support
According to the California State Sheriffs' Association:
Existing law, Penal Code Section 26175, generally governs
the process for the issuance of licenses that permit
persons to lawfully carry concealed firearms. The
application and the licenses themselves must be uniform
throughout the state. Any license issued must include the
licensee's name, occupation, residence and business
address, age, height, weight, color of eyes and hair, and
the reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon. The
license is also required to contain a description of the
weapon or weapons authorized to be carried, including the
name of the manufacturer, the serial number, and the
caliber.
As a practical matter, the current CCW license is not
produced in a format that is easy to carry on one's person.
In response, some sheriff offices currently provide a
county identification card, which provides additionally
security features, and often includes a photograph of the
licensee. This county-issued card cannot take the place of
the standard DOJ CCW license, however, and licensees end up
carrying both documents.
It makes sense to carry one's CCW license on his or her
person when armed. It also stands to reason that issuers
of CCW licenses should be able to provide these documents
in a more convenient way that improves public safety by
allowing better identification of CCW holders. This bill
simply authorizes county-issued CCW identification to be
carried in lieu of the standard DOJ form, as long as it
contains all of the information currently required by law,
as well as a photograph of the licensee. Nothing in AB
2510 requires a permitting agency to do anything different
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
8 of ?
than what they currently do - the bill merely provides an
alternative avenue to ensure proper licensure and
identification.
4. Argument in Opposition
According to the Firearms Policy Coalition:
Current law requires that all licenses to carry in
California to be uniform throughout the state. An officer
who encounters a license from El Dorado County should be
seeing the exact same permit as from Riverside County-- and
it should be readily identifiable as such.
AB 2510 undoes this longstanding, successful scheme and
creates a patchwork quilt of licenses that must be
presented upon request (or sometimes even without a
request, depending on local policies) to any law
enforcement officer during a stop or other contact.
If all 450 or so issuing agencies (58 sheriffs and over 400
chiefs of police) were to make up their own permit, it
would cause confusion, put our members and law enforcement
in danger-- not only in California--but in those states
that honor our licenses.
In addition, it would put Federal Firearms Licensees
(FFL's) in the awkward and criminally liable position of
judging which of the 400-plus licenses are valid, in order
to comply with statutory exemptions for proof of residency
and firearms safety certificates at the point of sale.
Sadly, some local sheriffs have taken it upon themselves to
issue local identification cards or quasi-licenses, despite
the clear prohibition against it. Now, they have sponsored
AB 2510 to grant themselves absolution without any respect
for the purposes of the law enforcement committee that
originally chose the uniform standard per the penal code.
The proponents may argue that the current unnecessary and
superfluous local licenses or identification cards they
issue for various non-statutory reasons are simply
supplemental, simply to be easier to carry, simply more
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
9 of ?
attractive, or some other rationalization --so they have
come to the legislature seeking validation of their
irresponsible conduct. The proponents have argued that the
measure actually creates uniformity, when in fact it does
just the opposite. The proponents have argued that there
will be training when, in fact, there is none. The
proponents have argued that it will make the license modern
and more secure, but nothing in the measure points to
anything related to that.
Regardless of how it is explained away, the creation of
potentially 450 unique licenses is irresponsible,
unnecessary, dangerous and expensive. It is akin to having
hundreds of local drivers' licenses.
In order to comply with AB 2510, the California Department
of Justice (CADOJ) will have to hire or reassign multiple
full time equivalent staff to implement the new state
mandates; create an optional license (counter-intuitively
named "uniform"), review and approve all non-uniform local
licenses and retain and update the exemplars in perpetuity.
In order for the system to work, they will also have to
keep all FFL's and law enforcement officers and agencies
abreast - in real time-of any changes to any of the
400-something local licenses in perpetuity.
CADOJ will have to change their forms, policies and
regulations to create a new, optional, tragically mis-named
"uniform" license-which the local issuing authorities may
use. The CADOJ then shall be forced to give their stamp of
approval when any local sheriff or police chief makes a
change to the size, shape, color, material, tamper
resistance (if any) or logo (if any) on the card as long as
it has basic information on it. To what end? Why create new
mandates on a state agency to justify the whimsy of local
politicians who want to leave their personal brand on what
is supposed to be a statewide license?
-- END -
AB 2510 (Linder ) Page
10 of ?