BILL ANALYSIS AB 2022 Page 1 Date of Hearing: May 5, 1998 Consultant: Dia S. Poole ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Don Perata, Chair AB 2022 (Wright) - As Amended: April 15, 1998 I. SHOULD LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS (CCW) BE VALID FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR? II. SHOULD CHIEFS AND SHERIFFS ISSUE CCW LICENSES FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED OR DOING BUSINESS BUT NOT RESIDING IN A COUNTY OR CITY? III. SHOULD PERSONS WITH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESTRAINING ORDERS BE PERMITTED TO OBTAIN A LICENSE? IV. SHOULD APPLICABLE FEES BE INCREASED? V. SHOULD LAW ENFORCEMENT IMMUNITY PROVISIONS BE ADDED? SUMMARY : Modifies criteria and application processes for licenses to carry a concealed pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person ("pistol carry license"). Specifically, this bill : 1) Requires persons to complete training requirements before being issued a pistol carry license. 2) Changes residency requirements for the issuance of pistol carry licenses as follows: a) Allows a sheriff to issue a pistol carry permit to any person who meets any one of the following conditions: i. Is a resident of the county or a city within the county. ii. Is employed within or spends a substantial period of time conducting business within the county or a city within the county. iii. Has acquired a current domestic violence restraining order from a court in another county. b) Allows a chief of police to issue a pistol carry permit to any person who meets one of the following conditions: AB 2022 Page 2 i. Is a resident of the city or city and county. ii. Is employed within or spends a substantial period of time conducting business within the city or city and county. iii. Has acquired a current domestic violence restraining order from a court in another city. c) Provides that the license issued on the basis of the applicant's place of business is valid for up to 90 days. d) Provides that pistol carry licenses are generally valid for up to two years, except as provided in Provision 2(c). 3) Increases local license processing fees from $3 to $40 for issuances and renewals with a cost of living adjustment. 4) Increases local license processing fees from $3 to $10 for amendments with a cost of living adjustment. 5) Immunizes a public agency for any injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend. or revoke any pistol carry license. 6) Immunizes any sheriff, chief of police, or their public employees from any liability for any injury caused by his or her issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend. or revoke any pistol carry license. EXISTING LAW : 1) Vests discretion in the chief of police or a county sheriff to issue a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed (handgun) upon the person or in a vehicle to an applicant ("pistol carry license"). (Penal Code Section 12050.) Current law includes these features: a) An applicant is not entitled to a pistol carry license. b) Except in the case of his or her reserve officers, a chief may not issue a pistol carry license to a person who resides outside that city. c) Except in the case of his or her reserve officers, a sheriff may not issue a pistol carry license to a person who resides outside that county or city within the county. d) In the case of his or her reserve officers, a chief or AB 2022 Page 3 sheriff may issue a pistol carry license to his or her reserve officers irrespective of where they reside. e) The applicant must be of "good moral character." f) "Good cause" for issuance of the permit must exist in the determination of the issuing agency. g) The permit may contain "any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing agency deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place or manner" of carrying the pistol. h) The applicant is legally prohibited from possessing a firearm if he or she is within a prohibited class due to a specified criminal record, mental disorder, or drug and/or alcohol abuse history. i) Pistol carry licenses for private citizens are valid for one year; permits for reserve peace officers are valid for three years. j) In a county with less than 200,000 population, the license may allow the open carrying of a loaded pistol. k) A permit holder may apply for an amendment to his or her permit to add or delete authority to carry a handgun, or to modify any restrictions. l) The permit holder must notify the issuing authority within 10 days if he or she moves out of the county of issuance. m) If a license is granted to carry a concealed handgun, it may not be revoked solely because the permit holder has moved. n) A pistol carry license to openly carry a loaded pistol is automatically revoked if the holder moves to a county with a population in excess of 200,000. 2) The processing costs that local agencies may charge for issuance, renewals and amendments to pistol carry licenses may not exceed $3. (Penal Code Section 12054). 3) Makes carrying a concealed pistol a misdemeanor punishable up to one year in the county jail. (Penal Code Section 12025.) 4) Permits carrying an exposed and unloaded pistol. 5) Provides that a public agency is immune for any injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate, approval or order or similar AB 2022 Page 4 authorization where the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or revoked. (Government Code section 818.4) 6) Provides that a public employee is immune from any liability for any injury caused by his or her issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend. or revoke any permit, license certificate, approval or order or similar authorization where he or she is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or revoked. (Government Code Section 821.2) COMMENTS : 1) Author's Statement . According to the author, "AB 2022 is an attempt to bring some uniformity and fairness to the issuance of concealed carry permits and to eliminate arbitrariness of how permits are unevenly issued around the state. This bill does not take away the discretionary authority of sheriffs or police chiefs. More than 30 states in the last ten years have moved to a 'shall' issue state. The undisputed facts are that the expanded issuance of concealed weapons around the country has not resulted in problems or crimes by permit holders. This bill is a more modest attempt to address a number of issues including a lack of uniform standards, lack of training, abuse in fees and other arbitrary obstacles hindering the application or granting of permits." 2) Interim Hearing on CCW Issuance . On November 18, 1997, this Committee held an interim hearing on the issue of carry permits. The central issue was whether Californians should be entitled to carry concealed weapons unless specifically prohibited due to a specified criminal record, mental disorder, and/or drug and alcohol abuse history. National experts on gun laws offered testimony and data to this Committee. 3) AB 2022 . a) Training requirements . In 1991, the Legislature required a basic firearms safety certificate (after a two- to four-hour course) for a person who anticipates the purchase or transfer of a handgun and person who is a loaned handgun. However, under current law, training is not required prior to issuance of a pistol carry license. This bill requires a course of training that may be any course acceptable to the licensing authority, up to 16 hours, and must include instruction on at least firearm safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm. b) Ambiguity . This bill provides that if the licensee's AB 2022 Page 5 place of business was the basis for issuance of the license as specified, the license is valid for up to 90 days. However, if the basis for issuance was a person's employment within a city, county, or city and county, the license appears to be valid up to two years. IS THIS THE AUTHOR'S INTENT? c) Longer license period . California's one-year license may be the shortest in the United States. New York, generally viewed as very restrictive state, provides for a three-year license in New York City and five years on the suburban Long Island counties. As a practical matter, most licenses in this state are renewed on a continual basis. Does the yearly renewal impose an administrative burden in rural areas. This bill increases the license to a period up to two years. Local agencies could still issue shorter licenses. d) Fees . Currently, the processing fees at the local level cannot exceed $3 and does not include DOJ processing costs associated with fingerprint checks. In addition, the cost for amending a license is $3.00. This bill increases the local processing cost to an amount up to $40 and provides for a cost of living adjustment (COLA). In addition, the license amendment fee is increased to an amount up to $10 and is placed on a COLA basis. 4) Residency Requirements . a) History . i. Pre-1997 legislation . Since at least 1953 when the current Penal Code Section 12050 was first enacted, sheriffs and police chiefs have been authorized to issue licenses to carry concealed handguns. Boards of police commissioners and city and town marshals were once given such authority as well, but that authority was eliminated in 1969. The 1969 legislation also precluded chiefs and sheriffs from issuing licenses to out-of-county residents. The 1969 limitation on the issuance of out-of-county residents may have been designed to prevent forum shopping. The 1969 legislation still allowed a chief of police of a city within that county to issue a carry permit to both residents of his or her city as well as to residents of the county at large. The apparent rationale for this provision was to allow chiefs to AB 2022 Page 6 issue permits to reserve officers who did not reside in that city. ii. 1997 Legislation . In 1997, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed two bills to address the residency issue: a. SB 146 (Johnston) , Chapter 408, Statutes of 1997, precluded chiefs of police from issuing carry permits to persons who did not reside in that city. The impetus for the bill was to prevent a northern California police chief from issuing permits to non-city residents who resided in the county. b. AB 1468 (Runner) , Chapter 744, Statutes of 1997, allowed chiefs or sheriffs to issue carry permits to their reserve officers irrespective of their counties of residence. b) AB 2022 . This bill essentially repeals SB 146 . In addition, this bill reverts to pre-1969 law by allowing the issuance of permits to persons who do not reside in the county or city. The residency requirement for city purposes is met if: (i) the person resides in that city; (ii) is employed within or spends a "substantial period of time" conducting business within that city; or (iii) has acquired a current domestic violence restraining order from a court in another county. For county purposes, the residency requirement is met if: (i) the person resides in that county or a city within the county; or (ii) is employed within or spends a "substantial period of time" conducting business within that city; or (iii) has acquired a current domestic violence restraining order from a court in another county. The place of employment or business provision would result in the issuance of a license for up to 90 days. What is the purpose or benefit of this provision? Would the license be renewable, allowing for an indefinite license as long as a person is employed, owns or does business in a particular area? Why are the domestic violence permit provisions needed? Does any other state have similar provisions? Is there data showing that firearms in the hands of domestic violence victims save lives, or are the weapons ultimately used against them? DO THE SHERIFFS AND/OR CHIEFS HAVE A POSITION ON THIS PROVISION? AB 2022 Page 7 SHOULD THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND 90-DAY BUSINESS/EMPLOYMENT LICENSE PROVISIONS BE DELETED? 5) Immunity Provisions . The author is considering deleting the immunity provision contained in this bill and, instead, rely on current law. a) Overview of existing law and case law . Government Code Section 818.4 immunizes a public agency for any injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate, approval or order or similar authorization where the public entity or an employee of the public entity is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or revoked. Similarly, Government Code Section 821.2 immunizes a public employee from any liability for any injury caused by his or her issuance, denial, suspension or revocation of, or the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license certificate, approval or order or similar authorization where he or she is authorized by enactment to determine whether or not such authorization should be issued, denied, suspended, or revoked. The California Supreme Court has repeatedly held that Government Code Sections 818.4 and 821.2 in combination totally and completely immunize public agencies and their employees from any liability where they take any action on permits or licenses except where the duty to issue clearly involves no determination of any kind on the part of the licensing agency. Nunn v. State of California (1984) 35 Cal.3d 616, 627; Morris v. County of Marin 18 Cal.3d 901, 911-915 (extensive discussion). Of particular relevance is Nunn . In Nunn , Ceola Nunn as the executrix of Mr. Nunn's estate brought a wrongful death action against the State, the head of the Bureau of Collection and Investigative Services (BCIS) of the Department of Consumer Affairs, and a community college district alleging that BCIS negligently delayed promulgating regulations and failed to issue Mr. Nunn an exposed firearms permit as a security guard. The complaint further alleged that the State's conduct thus prevented Mr. Nunn from being armed and being able to protect himself when he was shot while on duty as a security guard at a manufacturing plant in Los Angeles County. The Superior Court entered judgment on the pleadings in favor of the defendants and Mrs. Nunn as the executrix AB 2022 Page 8 appealed. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Government Code Sections 818.4 and 821.2 completely and thoroughly immunized the Department of Consumers Affairs, and its employees, and therefore the State, from any and all liability associated with its actions related to the issuance of exposed firearms permits to security guards. The issuance of a firearms permit necessarily involved a fair amount of discretion and as such was a "discretionary act" which was absolutely immune from tort liability pursuant to Sections 818.4 and 821.2. To the same effect as Nunn are the following decisions interpreting sections 818.4 and 821.2: i. People v. Superior Court (Wilson) (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 31, 37-39. State and employees immune from liability for failure to revoke driver's license. ii. Colome v. State Athletic Commission (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th 1444, 1455-1456. State and employees immune from liability for issuance of boxing license. iii. Rosenthal v. Vogt (1991) 229 Cal.App.4th 69, 75. State and employees immune from liability for disbarrment of attorney. iv. West v. State (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 753, 760-761. State and employees immune from liability for injuries resulting from issuance of contractors license. v. Hirsch v. State by and through the Department of Motor Vehicles (1974) 42 Cal.App.3d 252. State and employees immune from negligent issuance of vehicle title and registration by the Department of Motor Vehicles. b) AB 2022 . This bill adds Penal Code Section 12050.5 to immunize cities, counties, cities, and counties, their employees, and chiefs and sheriffs from any injury caused by the issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of, or by the failure or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke, any pistol carry license. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE CASE LAW AND EXISTING GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISIONS, IS IT NECESSARY TO ADD THIS SECTION TO THE PENAL CODE? 6) Suggested Amendments . Should the following be done? a) Remove the 90-day place of employment/business and domestic violence provisions for issuance by chiefs, and return the bill to current law where chiefs of police may only issue licenses to city residents. AB 2022 Page 9 b) Retain the 90-day place of business license provision, issued by sheriffs only, but delete the domestic violence provisions. c) Remove the immunity provisions. 7) Additional Reform Issues . Several policy issues are relevant on the carry issue in general: a) Who should be the issuing authority ? In most cities, chiefs only issue permits to reserve officers; in certain counties (reportedly San Diego and San Mateo), chiefs have in essence conveyed their issuing authority to the sheriff. Should California in statute allow chiefs to "hand off" issuance authority to sheriffs? b) Penalty issue . Previously, efforts have been made to impose an alternate felony/misdemeanor (wobbler) penalty for first-time carrying violations, with proponents arguing that while carrying certain categories of knives ("dirks and daggers") is a potential felony, while the illegal carrying of a concealed handgun is not. Opposition to a penalty increase has been predicated on numerous grounds ranging from inadvertent violations by "law-abiding citizens" who own guns and who do not have accessible ammunition, to a lack of sufficient exemptions, to potential federal firearms prohibitions for a felony conviction, and complaints over the issuance process for pistol carry permits. Should the penalty proposed in AB 2469 (Burton, 1994) be adopted, which makes it a wobbler to unlawfully carry an un-registered handgun with accessible ammunition? AB 2469 (Burton) passed the Assembly in 1994. AB 304 contained a similar provision as it passed the Assembly in 1997. c) Open Carrying of pistols and revolvers . Under current state law, save in school zones and in public buildings, it is not illegal to openly carry an unloaded and exposed handgun within a vehicle or on a city street. Further discussion is warranted on the state prohibiting: i. The open and concealed carrying of any loaded or unloaded handgun on the person within incorporated cities, with the necessary exemptions; and ii. The open and concealed carrying of handguns within vehicles anywhere, with the necessary exemptions. d) Occupational licensing issues . Under current law, the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) requires persons in the security field to obtain a DCA firearms permit. In AB 2022 Page 10 addition, to conceal that firearm, a local concealed firearm license is required. Is the current system working or should DCA, with appropriate safeguards, issue concealed handgun licenses to security personnel? Most states now require security personnel to obtain concealed carry licenses from the applicable state licensing agencies. Such a proposal was part of AB 53 (W. Murray) of the 1995-1996 Legislative Session. 8) Related Legislation . a) AB 1795 (Runner) is set to be heard today by this Committee. AB 1795 does the following: i. Increases the valid license period from one to three years for licenses to carry pistols, revolver, and other firearms capable of being concealed upon the person ("pistol carry licenses") for judges and full-time court commissioners or magistrates of federal and California courts. ii. Provides that the home address and telephone number for active and retired peace officers, judges, magistrates and full-time court commissioners of California Courts of Record and the federal courts, contained on applications for pistol carry licenses and the actual licenses, are exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act (PRA). b) AB 1868 (Lempert) adds to the list of special circumstances for the death penalty first-degree murder where the defendant intentionally killed the victim or children, or both, who were persons protected under a restraining order or protective order against the defendant. 9) Support . a) The Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California . The Coalition writes, "California's concealed weapons permit issuing system is in need of total reform. The current law is a detriment rather than a benefit to California residents. AB 2022 will make some of the needed changes in existing law...." b) The Sports & Arms Show Producers of America (SASPA) . SASPA writes, "...AB 2022 will improve the conditions under which concealed weapons permits are issued in California. Ultimately, the Sports and Arms Shop Producers of America desire to see the enactment of "shall issue" legislation. In the meantime, however, AB 2022 will provide some much needed relief." AB 2022 Page 11 10) Opposition . a) The Alameda County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association (ACCPSA) . ACCPSA writes, "In our judgment, the bill weakens existing controls over the issuance of concealed weapons licenses, serves no valid purpose, and adds unnecessary administrative tasks. "Under existing law, 'CCW' licenses are issued on a year-to-year basis by the sheriff or the chief of police of the jurisdiction in which an applicant resides. That provision is sensible for a number of reasons: It enhances consistency by limiting the number and role of persons authorized to issue the licenses; it gives issuing authority to the individual - the chief of police or the sheriff - who is most directly responsible for law enforcement and public safety in the particular community, and it limits licenses to a time span that reasonably protects against interim circumstances that could cause license denial or revocation. "AB 2022 would abolish these beneficial provisions by granting licensing authority to law enforcement officials in other jurisdictions and by eliminating the requirement for annual CCW renewal. In addition, the bill would inappropriately prohibit a chief of police or sheriff from requiring an applicant to provide proof of adequate liability insurance, it would mandate each licensing department to structure and furnish a course of instruction for applicants, and it would require each department to prepare extensive annual statistical reports concerning CCW applications." b) Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) . HCI argues that AB 2022 will allow applicants to "'shop' around for a CCW license to find a sheriff/chief willing to issue a CCW license when the sheriff/chief in the city/county in which they reside does not want to issue a CCW license," and believes "CCW applicants should continue to apply for a license with the sheriff or police chief in the county or city in which they reside." REGISTERED SUPPORT/OPPOSITION : Support California Investor's Mutual California Sportsman's Lobby, Inc. Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau Outdoor Sportsmen's Coalition of California Sports & Arms Show Producers of America Opposition AB 2022 Page 12 Alameda County Chiefs of Police and Sheriff's Association Handgun Control, Inc. Analysis prepared by : Dia S. Poole / apubs / (916) 445-3268