CA SB 610- Good or Bad?

[MTT TL]

This bill can not be as good as it seems? While it allows law makers the ability to arm themselves it also appears to get rid of liability insurance requirements and give automatic permits after 30 days if the sheriff does not deny your permit. Also you could apply without having to pay for training first? Sounds crazy to me...

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/...ntroduced.html (non copyrighted material)

BILL NUMBER: SB 610 INTRODUCED
BILL TEXT


INTRODUCED BY Senators Wright and Correa
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Galgiani)

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

An act to amend Sections 26165, 26190, and 26205 of, and to add
Section 26202 to, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST


SB 610, as introduced, Wright. Firearms: license to carry
concealed firearm.
Existing law establishes an application process, including a
determination of good cause and completion of a training course, for
persons seeking a license to carry a concealed firearm. Existing law
authorizes the licensing authority of any city, city and county, or
county to charge a fee in addition to the application fee in an
amount equal to the actual costs for processing the application for a
new license, excluding fingerprint and training costs, but in no
case to exceed $100. Existing law provides that no requirement,
charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the payment of
any additional funds by the applicant, other than those costs already
specified in those provisions, may be imposed by any licensing
authority as a condition of the application for a license.
This bill would provide that the applicant would not be required
to pay for any training courses prior to a determination of good
cause being made, as specified. The bill would also provide that no
applicant would be required to obtain liability insurance as a
condition of the license.
The bill would require the licensing authority to make the
determination of good cause within 30 days of the application and to
provide written notification of that determination to the applicant,
as specified. The bill would also provide that the good cause
requirement would be deemed to be met for any applicant who is a
member of Congress, a statewide elected official, or a Member of the
Legislature, for purposes of protection or self-defense, or if the
licensing authority fails to make the determination within the 30 day
period.
Existing law requires the licensing authority to give written
notice to the applicant indicating if the license is approved or
denied within 90 days of the initial application for a new license or
a license renewal, or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's
criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever
is later.
This bill would instead require the licensing authority to give
written notice to the applicant indicating if the license is approved
or denied within 90 days of the initial application for a new
license or a license renewal. The bill would also require that the
notice provide the specific reason for denial, if the license is
denied.
By imposing additional burdens on local government entities, this
bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates
determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state,
reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these
statutory provisions.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 26165 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
26165. (a) For new license applicants, the course of training for
issuance of a license under Section 26150 or 26155 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.
(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), 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.
(c) 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.
(d) The applicant shall not be required to pay for any training
courses prior to the determination of good cause being made pursuant
to Section 26202.
SEC. 2. Section 26190 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
26190. (a) (1) Each applicant for a new license or for the
renewal of a license shall pay at the time of filing the application
a fee determined by the Department of Justice. The fee shall not
exceed the application processing costs of the Department of Justice
for the direct costs of furnishing the report required by Section
26185.
(2) After the department establishes fees sufficient to reimburse
the department for processing costs, fees charged shall increase at a
rate not to exceed the legislatively approved annual cost-of-living
adjustments for the department's budget.
(3) The officer receiving the application and the fee shall
transmit the fee, with the fingerprints if required, to the
Department of Justice.
(b) (1) The licensing authority of any city, city and county, or
county may charge an additional fee in an amount equal to the actual
costs for processing the application for a new license, excluding
fingerprint and training costs, but in no case to exceed one hundred
dollars ($100), and shall transmit the additional fee, if any, to the
city, city and county, or county treasury.
(2) 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.
(c) The licensing authority may 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.
(d) These local fees may be increased at a rate not to exceed any
increase in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and
reported by the Department of Industrial Relations.
(e) (1) In the case of an amended license pursuant to Section
26215, the licensing authority of any city, city and county, or
county may charge a fee, not to exceed ten dollars ($10), for
processing the amended license.
(2) This fee may be increased at a rate not to exceed any increase
in the California Consumer Price Index as compiled and reported by
the Department of Industrial Relations.
(3) The licensing authority shall transmit the fee to the city,
city and county, or county treasury.
(f) (1) If psychological testing on the initial application is
required by the licensing authority, the license applicant shall be
referred to a licensed psychologist used by the licensing authority
for the psychological testing of its own employees. The applicant may
be charged for the actual cost of the testing in an amount not to
exceed one hundred fifty dollars ($150).
(2) Additional psychological testing of an applicant seeking
license renewal shall be required only if there is compelling
evidence to indicate that a test is necessary. The cost to the
applicant for this additional testing shall not exceed one hundred
fifty dollars ($150).
(g) Except as authorized pursuant to this section, no requirement,
charge, assessment, fee, or condition that requires the payment of
any additional funds by the applicant , or requires the
applicant to obtain liability insurance, may be imposed by any
licensing authority as a condition of the application for a license.
SEC. 3. Section 26202 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
26202. (a) The licensing authority shall make the determination
of good cause pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155 within 30 days of
the application, and upon making that determination of good cause,
the licensing authority shall give written notice to the applicant of
the licensing authority's determination. If the licensing authority
determines that good cause exists, the notice shall inform the
applicants to proceed with the training requirements specified in
Section 26165.
(b) The good cause requirement shall be deemed met for either the
following:
(1) Any applicant who is a member of Congress, a statewide elected
official, or a Member of the Legislature, for protection or
self-defense.
(2) The licensing authority fails to make a determination of good
cause within 30-days of the application.
SEC. 4. Section 26205 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
26205. The licensing authority shall give written notice to the
applicant indicating if the license under this article is approved or
denied. The licensing authority shall give this notice within 90
days of the initial application for a new license or a license
renewal , or 30 days after receipt of the applicant's
criminal background check from the Department of Justice, whichever
is later . If the license is d enied, the
notice shall provide the specific reason for denial .
SEC. 5. If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this
act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local
agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant
to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of
the Government Code.

[MTT TL]

Wow, now I am crazy curious. 68 views and no one wants to comment on a bill that looks like it gives CHL's to California residents automatically after 30 days? What the deuce is going on here?

[gc70]

Disclaimer: I am not familiar with California law.

What is quoted above may look favorable in some small respects, but it does not appear to change the discretion Sheriffs have to decide what constitutes "good cause." Another way to think of it is that they have to turn you down quicker, but people holding state elected jobs get a pass on the entire "good cause" charade.

[HarrySchell]

I suspect the "sweetener" of tighter reply rules and insurance requirements was to get some support from gun owners while elevating the political class even further from their subjects.

CA effectively has "shall issue" in some counties, notably Sacramento, where "self-defense" is adequate good cause. The abuse of the "may issue" system as a favor factory and discriminatory tool in CA is a long one and continues. In urban areas it results in white and moneyed people getting permits and the rest of us being disarmed in public. A man with drug and anger problems can get a permit due to his acting career, but I can't. Inequality before the law is abundantly clear and needs to be dealt with properly.

Generally, the proposal got a lot of boos right off, and not just because "more guns on the street is dangerous" (the usual mantra), but many didn't like the idea of some of the loonier people in politics thinking themselves even more superior AND being armed. Our pols are not all model citizens, and some should be prohibited persons. Not as crazy as Loughner, but they would scare me.

Written law doesn't mean anything to criminals, and to some of the political class. This bill is not a good idea...nothing will change where it needs to and idiot pols will be more dangerous to citizens.

[mrgoodwrench76]

Shouldn't we all have to follow the same rules?? Why should elected officials get a 'free pass' on the responsibilities of non officials?? This disgusts me.

[HarrySchell]

I should add that the waiving of the requirement for liability insurance is not meaningful. In lawyer-dependent CA, shooting someone in clear self-defense on national TV would not shield you from a civil suit by the perp's relatives to get some blood money, even if they don't observe Sharia law.

In TX I wasn't worried about it. In CA under current law as I understand it, carrying concealed with a liability insurance policy would be a bad idea. Not as bad as being dead, but unwise, if you have anything to protect.

The Democrat pols writing the bill I am sure see this as a great boon...we won't require you to have insurance. Aren't we so kind?

At least in written law...but what they have enabled for the benefit of the lawyer community that feeds on this kind of stuff makes the "gift" irrelevant.

[natman]

In CA under current law as I understand it, carrying concealed with a liability insurance policy would be a bad idea. Not as bad as being dead, but unwise, if you have anything to protect.

[HarrySchell]

Got me, Natman...meant to say "without".
Thanks,
Harry.