BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 610
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 21, 2011
Counsel: Gabriel Caswell
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY
Tom Ammiano, Chair
SB 610 (Wright) - As Amended: April 13, 2011
SUMMARY : Modifies conditions for the issuance of a concealed
weapon's (CCW) permit. Specifically, this bill :
1)Specifies that applicants are not required to pay for any
training courses prior to a determination of good cause being
made for a CCW permit.
2)States that no applicants for CCW permits must obtain
liability insurance as a condition of the license.
3)Requires that the licensing authority provide written
notification of the determination of good cause to the
applicant, as specified.
4)Requires that the licensing authority provide the specific
reason for the denial of the application for a CCW permit.
EXISTING LAW :
1)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 of a county may issue a license
to that person upon proof of all 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 a city within the county, or the applicant's
principal place of employment or business is in the county or
a city within 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. The sheriff may issue this license in either of
the following formats (Penal Code Section 26150):
a) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or
other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
SB 610
Page 2
b) Where the population of the county is less than 200,000
persons according to the most recent federal decennial
census, a license to carry loaded and exposed in only that
county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of
being concealed upon the person.
c) The police chief of a city or city and county may also
issue such licenses, according to the same criteria, to
residents of that city.
2)Provides that, for new license applicants, the course of
training for issuance of a license, as specified, may be any
course acceptable to the licensing authority, shall not exceed
16 hours, and shall include instruction on at least firearm
safety and the law regarding the permissible use of a firearm.
In addition, the licensing authority may require a community
college course certified by the Commission on Peace Officer
Standards and Training, up to a maximum of 24 hours, but only
if required uniformly of all license applicants without
exception. For license renewal applicants, the course of
training may be any course acceptable to the licensing
authority, shall be no less than four hours, and shall include
instruction on at least firearm safety and the law regarding
the permissible use of a firearm. No course of training shall
be required for any person certified by the licensing
authority as a trainer for purposes of this section, in order
for that person to renew a license issued pursuant to this
article. (Penal Code Section 26165.)
3)Requires any applicant for a permit to carry a concealable
weapon pay specified fees and provides for the disposition of
these fees. Current law also states that, other than those
fees specified in this section, an applicant may not be
charged any other fees. (Penal Code Section 26190.)
4)Provides that the fingerprints of each applicant shall be
forwarded to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and that, upon
receipt of the fingerprints and the appropriate fees, DOJ
shall 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. Current law requires that no license shall be
SB 610
Page 3
issued by any licensing authority until after receipt of the
report from the department. (Penal Code Section 26185.)
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Author's Statement : According to the author, SB 610 will
"streamline the process by which Californians apply for a CCW
permit. Currently there is no standard by which CCW permits
are processed by the Law Enforcement agencies authorized in
the Penal Code. SB610 would standardize the sequence of CCW
application processing for all Law Enforcement Agencies. Save
Law Enforcement resources by limiting the man hours of Law
Enforcement staff that must process the CCW applications to
persons who are qualified under the 'Good Cause' definition of
the issuing Agency. Provide a standard timeframe for Law
Enforcement Agencies for the processing of CCW applications."
2)Background : According to the background provided by the
author, "�a]pplicants for licenses to carry a concealed
handgun are being treated inconsistently within licensing
agencies and between licensing agencies. As an example, some
licensing agencies are requiring applicants to obtain
liability insurance as a condition of issuance of 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. This approach will also save law enforcement
significant time dealing with applications if they have a high
rate of denials."
3)Liability Insurance : It is not clear how many licensing
authorities may currently require applicants for a concealed
firearms license to obtain liability insurance as a condition
of obtaining a license. Existing law states:
"Except as authorized pursuant to this section, no requirement,
charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the
SB 610
Page 4
payment of any additional funds by the applicant may be
imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the
application for a license." �Penal Code Section 26190(g).]
This provision of existing law would appear to prohibit a
licensing authority from requiring liability insurance.
4)Argument in Support : According to the California Rifle and
Pistol Association , "�a]pplicants for licenses to carry a
concealed handgun are being treated inconsistently between
licensing authorities. 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 . . . . Some licensing authorities are
requiring applicants to obtain liability insurance as a
condition of the issuance of a license. Liability insurance
is not required under existing law and should not be required
to obtain a license."
5)Argument in Opposition : According to the California Police
Chiefs Association , "�c]urrent law authorizes a Police Chief
or Sheriff to issue a CCW upon a showing of good cause anda
finding of good character. 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."
6)Prior Legislation :
SB 610
Page 5
a) AB 462 (Haynes), of the 2003-04 Legislative Session,
would have mandated a finding of good cause to issue a CCW
permit when the individual applying has been a victim of
domestic violence or a hate crime. AB 462 failed passage
in this Committee.
b) SB 1283 (Haynes), of the 2001-02 Legislative Session,
would have provided that "good cause" is conclusively
established for the issuance of a license to carry a
concealed firearm if the applicant is a victim of domestic
violence or hate crime. SB 1283 failed passage in the
Senate Public Safety Committee.
c) AB 1369 (Oller), of the 1997-98 Legislative Session,
would have eliminated the discretion of a county sheriff or
police chief to deny a permit to carry a concealed firearm
to any person who is not otherwise prohibited. AB 1369
failed passage in this Committee.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Association of Firearms Retailers
California Rifle and Pistol Association
Kern County Sheriff
Lassen County Sheriff
National Rifle Association of America
Shasta County Sheriff
Siskiyou County Sheriff
Opposition
California Peace Officers' Association
California Police Chiefs Association
Analysis Prepared by : Gabriel Caswell / PUB. S. / (916)
319-3744
SB 610
Page 6