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.|