SB 610: CA Senators Grant Themselves a Free Pass for Concealed Carry

TTAG commentator John Fritz and I recently read a news report on California bill SB 610. Apparently, California senators had exempted themselves from the normal concealed carry approval process. SB 610 granted state and federal elected officials “shall-issue” status; just being a politician was deemed “good cause” for a concealed carry permit. John finally found the text in a link to the NRA [full text after the jump]. SB 610 would make it easier for California residents in life-threatening situations to carry a firearm, removing the training requirement requirement. PROVIDED the licensing Powers That Be agree there is a clear and present danger. UNLESS you’re an elected official. Then you ain’t gotta prove nothin’. Training? Not required. Golden State politicians: hypocrites and cowards. Who knew?

Issue: CCW REFORM (Wright)
Description: SB 610, as amended, 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 provide written notification of the determination of good cause to the applicant, as specified. The bill would also require that the good cause requirement be deemed 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.
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 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.
Latest Info: 06/02/2011 – SB 610 has passed the Senate 28 YES, 8 NO. The bill now moves to the Assembly side – first stop is the Assembly Public Safety Committee. Please contact members of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and urge them to stand up for the law-abiding gun owners of California and support SB 610.

comments

  1. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

    Yep, the elitism shines right through doesn’t it?

  2. avatar JOE MATAFOME says:

    Just like all other COMMIE states, only those in power are allowed to defend themselves.

  3. avatar Res Publica Americana says:

    36,000,000 people, and they aren’t doing anything. Maybe they deserve this shit.

  4. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

    Maybe Representative Weiner needs it for improper representation of his weiner?

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      haha… dude… that was awesome. I almost spit.

      1. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

        I tell you, the name alone screams for jokes. When I was a wild teenager at the Citadel, there was a Lt. Colonel who was the official disciplinarian. His name: Colonel Dick.

        1. avatar Buuurr says:

          Rockin!

  5. avatar Pat Carver says:

    Another state is proposing that only legislators be allowed to carry in restaurants and bars.
    It reminds me of the end of Animal Farm.
    “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”
    PC

  6. avatar Van says:

    I really am glad that I live in GA. If I ever have to move I will definitely look at a state’s weapons laws as a consideration as to whether or not I will move there. CA is off the list.

  7. avatar Nicholas Dixon says:

    Typical politician hypocrisy.

    Disgusting? Yes. Surprising? No.

  8. avatar CUJO THE DOG OF WAR says:

    I suppose the years of bribes and special interests qualify as weapons training…

    1. avatar Mike Walton says:

      amen brother!

  9. avatar Tom Ostlund says:

    This was inevitable in CA. Gun control only has one destination. The wrong people will have control of the guns. I would trust my neighbor defending me, who loves to practice and is on a shooting team, verses some politician who carries just to get votes.

  10. avatar Tim says:

    “Golden State politicians: hypocrites and cowards. Who knew?”

    Me! I knew.

  11. avatar Bob says:

    A law is inherently flawed when it treats elected officials or government employees differently. There’s simply no reason for dual-class laws like that.

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      You couldn’t be more correct. This was one of the benefits to leaving Canada. Sadly some states are becoming Canada.

  12. avatar KW says:

    “Golden State politicians: hypocrites and cowards. Who knew?”
    Very funny. It doesn’t get any better than their ex fearless leader Arnie. The fraud he has perpetrated on his constituents is disgraceful. I hope he rots for the all shit he’s pulled.

    1. avatar Buuurr says:

      Elect an actor and what do you get? That was the peoples doing.

  13. avatar David B says:

    The elected official good cause was stricken frrom the bill. Media and public outcry.
    Training is still required, but you only need it after the permit is approved and before it is issued.

  14. avatar Will Litten says:

    Heavy sigh… some days it is a sad thing to be a Californian. And y’all can keep the “commie” crap to yourselves.

    1. avatar Javier E says:

      I feel for you, I’m from Joizy. The “Commie crap” I believe is directed at the poloticians in our states not in their populations.

  15. avatar Javier E says:

    Of course they dont believe that the general public can be trusted to do the right thing. Poloticians live by the rule of “Do as I say not as I do”. HYPOCRITES the lot of them.

  16. avatar Frank Clarke says:

    Doesn’t the 14th amendment guarantee us peons all the same rights our betters arrogate to themselves?

    No, I didn’t think so, either…

  17. avatar Robert White says:

    If CA Governor veto this bill then the California is going to be worse in the nation for Law by Citizen. They can pass many anti-gun laws only criminal still have a guns.

  18. avatar Mike Walton says:

    this makes me want to puke. as a californian, i hang my head in shame. our communistic rule has pushed me to consider why i reside in such a hypocritical and unbalanced shit heap. our grandfathers are rolling over in their graves in disgust.

  19. avatar dan baldwin says:

    Upon careful review of SB 610 as passed on Oct. 9,2011, it appears that the “shall issue” provision for elected officals’ CCW was deleted somewhere in one of the amendments. (SB 610 Section 3, adding Penal code 26202(b)(1)). As far as referrences to training goes, it looks like the only thing this law did was to prohibit ‘issuing autorities” (local sheriff’s) from requiring training to be completed BEFORE they issue a determination of “good cause”. In other words, the sheriff cannot require applicants to take and pay for training before deciding if they will issue the permit. all in all, it looks like the bill backed off it’s most controvisal provision. I may be wrong on this. Any other comments from others?

  20. avatar jeff says:

    Can we the people vote on this to change it are is there nothing we can do

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email