License to Carry

Under Penal Code section 25400, it’s illegal to carry concealed a firearm. Under Penal Code section 2655, a License to Carry is a license to commit violations of Penal Code section 25400: "Section 25400 does not apply to, or affect, the carrying of a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person by a person who is authorized to carry that weapon in a concealed manner pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150)."

Under Penal Code section 25850, it’s illegal to carry a loaded firearm in public or to have a loaded firearm in a vehicle in a public place. Under Penal Code section 26100, "Section 25850 does not apply to the carrying of any handgun by any person as authorized pursuant to Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 26150) of Division 5."

The Issuing Agency of the CCW permit can under Penal Code section 26200, subdivision (a) place conditions on the CCW permit:

"A license issued pursuant to this article may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person."

Restrictions

The BOF 4012, which is the Department of Justice's standardized form for License to Carry applications says:

While exercising the privileged granted to the licensee under the terms of this license, the license shall not, when carrying a concealed weapon:

*Consume any alcoholic beverage
*Be in a place having a primary purpose of dispensing alcohol beverages for on-site consumption
*Be under the influence of any medication or drug, whether prescribed or not.
*Refuse to show the license or surrender the concealed weapon to any peace officer upon demand.
*Impede any peace officer in the performance of his/her duties.
*Present himself/herself as a peace officer to any person unless he/she is, in fact, a peace officer as defined by Californai law.
*Unjustifiably display a concealed weapon.
*Carry a concealed weapon not limited on the permit.
*Carry a concealed weapon at times or circumstances other than those specified in the permit.

TItle 49, section 46505 of the Untied States Code state that a license to carry a concealed weapon does not authorize a person to carry a firearm, tear gas, or any dangerous weapon aboard commercial airlines.

Any violation for these restrictions or conditions may invalidate the CCW license and may void any furhter use of the license until reinstated by the licensing authority.

Statutes

Penal Code section 26150

(a) 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:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) 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.

(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.

(b) The sheriff may issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following formats:

(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) 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)

(1) Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the sheriff of the county from entering into an agreement with the chief or other head of a municipal police department of a city to process all applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, or amendments to licenses pursuant to this chapter, in lieu of the sheriff.

(2) This subdivision shall only apply to applicants who reside within the city in which the chief or other head of the municipal police department has agreed to process applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this chapter.

AB1134 (2015) added (c)(1) and (c)(2), incorporating Los Angeles County Superior Court case number BC48049 and Vargas v. County of Los Angeles (B257371)

1.Construction and application  Limits imposed by this section on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon are that the applicant must be of good moral character, and that the applicant show good cause, and that the applicant be a resident of the county.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 134

2.Preemption  County ordinance which precluded the possession and use of guns in the county's parks and recreational areas was not preempted by the state statutes authorizing county sheriffs to issue concealed weapon licenses.  Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (App. 1 Dist. 2013) 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 698, 218 Cal.App.4th 661, review denied.  Counties Key Number 24;  Weapons Key Number 104

County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms on county property, insofar as it concerned gun shows, was not preempted by implication as being duplicative of state gun statutes; possessing a gun on county property was not identical to the crime of possessing an unlicensed firearm that was concealable or loaded, nor was it a lesser included offense, and therefore someone could lawfully be convicted of both offenses.  Nordyke v. King (2002) 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 27 Cal.4th 875, 44 P.3d 133, rehearing denied, answer to certified question conformed to 319 F.3d 1185, rehearing en banc denied 364 F.3d 1025, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 60, 543 U.S. 820, 160 L.Ed.2d 30, on subsequent appeal 563 F.3d 439, rehearing en banc ordered 575 F.3d 890, vacated 611 F.3d 1015, on remand 644 F.3d 776.  Counties Key Number 21.5;  Weapons Key Number 103

3.Due process  Because California applicants for license to carry concealed weapon (CCW) did not have property or liberty interest in that license, sheriff was not required to provide them with due process before denying their initial license application.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 134

4.Equal protection  Class-of-one equal protection claim does not depend upon a suspect classification such as race or gender, but rather, such a claim arises where the plaintiff was (1) intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and (2) there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3042;  Constitutional Law Key Number 3056

Requirement that applicant for license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California be a resident or spend substantial time in county in which they apply does not violate equal protection.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Equal protection was not violated by California county sheriff's policy of requiring applicant for license to carry concealed weapon to demonstrate “good cause” for its issuance, defined as set of circumstances that distinguished applicant from other members of the general public and caused him or her to be placed in harm's way, more than generalized fear for one's personal safety, and backed by supporting documentation; policy did not treat similarly situated individuals differently because not all law-abiding citizens were similarly situated.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Applicant's allegations that, although he regularly resided in his motorhome, he maintained and had nearly exclusive use of single room in residence located in county, that he regularly lived in county for several months each year, that he was required by his work to travel to high crime and remote rural areas, and that sheriff denied him license to carry concealed weapon because he did not have good cause for permit and because he was not county resident were sufficient to state claim that denial of license violated his equal protection rights, where county failed to identify important government interest or demonstrate how denial of license furthered that interest.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3376;  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 136

County's concealed-carry weapon (CCW) licensing scheme did not treat applicants differently based on whether they had contributed to sheriff's campaign fund, thereby precluding applicant's Fourteen Amendment equal protection claims; over 200 non-contributors received licenses during sheriff's tenure, while several donors had their applications denied or, when they made direct inquiries to sheriff, were told they were required to apply through regular application process.  Mehl v. Blanas, C.A.9 (Cal.)2013, 532 Fed.Appx. 752, 2013 WL 3369261.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

5.Second Amendment rights  California's favoring concealed carry over open carry does not offend the Second Amendment, so long as it allows one of the two.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, C.A.9 (Cal.)2014, 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

County's requirement that person had to show sufficiently pressing need for self-protection before permit to carry concealed weapon would be granted infringed Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, C.A.9 (Cal.)2014, 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

Under intermediate scrutiny, Second Amendment right to bear arms was not violated by California county sheriff's policy of requiring applicant for license to carry concealed weapon to demonstrate “good cause” for its issuance, defined as set of circumstances that distinguished applicant from other members of the general public and caused him or her to be placed in harm's way, more than generalized fear for one's personal safety, and backed by supporting documentation; government had important and substantial interest in public safety and in reducing rate of gun use in crime, particularly in reducing number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce risks to other members of public who used streets and went to public accommodations.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

Applicant's allegation that sheriff denied his application for license to carry concealed weapon because he did not have good cause for permit and because he was not county resident, without identifying important governmental interest or how denial furthered that interest, was sufficient to state claim for violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Weapons Key Number 136

6.Revocation  Privilege to carry concealed firearm on person was not significant property right so as to require hearing prior to revocation of license under due process clause;  licensee's livelihood was not dependent upon license, and license to carry concealed firearm was of limited and restrictive nature.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm was not deprived of liberty interest, as protected by due process clause, by sheriff's revocation of license, which was based on charges by police that licensee displayed poor attitude toward police while under influence of alcohol;  sheriff who revoked license did not make public reasons for revocation and thus did not damage licensee's good name, reputation, honor or integrity.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm did not have right under State Constitution to hearing prior to license revocation;  licensee's limited interest in practicing profession of manufacturing of weapons in particular way was small and governmental interest in protecting public safety was large.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

Sheriff's office did not wrongfully refuse to exercise its discretion in deciding to revoke license to carry concealed firearm;  sheriff's office relied upon information from police concerning licensee's individual circumstances.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

7.Investigation and determination  It is the duty of the sheriff to make an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application for a concealed firearm license.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

8.Right to license  Plaintiff, an employee of licensed private investigator, did not have liberty interests in obtaining initial license to carry concealed weapon, where many people engaged in occupations of private investigator and criminal offense investigator without concealed weapons license and no stigma attached to denial of her application.  Erdelyi v. O'Brien, C.A.9 (Cal.)1982, 680 F.2d 61.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496

Duly licensed private investigators are authorized to carry loaded firearms on their persons and in automobiles, and are also entitled to carry such weapons in a concealed manner as long as they are of good moral character, show good cause, and are residents of county.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 203(1)

9.Right to travel  Requirement that applicant for license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California be a resident or spend substantial time in county in which they apply does not violate right to travel.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 1282;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Issues of whether sheriff's denial of application for license to carry concealed weapon on ground that applicant was not full-time county resident deterred applicant from spending time outside of county, and whether residency requirement was necessary to further some compelling state interest involved fact questions that could not be resolved on motion to dismiss applicant's claim that denial violated his constitutional right to travel.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Federal Civil Procedure Key Number 1831

10.Discretion of sheriff  Under the state statutes authorizing county sheriffs to issue concealed weapon licenses, the sheriff has extremely broad discretion concerning the issuance of concealed weapons licenses, and the county board of supervisors also has the authority to provide, via its legislative process, for exceptions and conditions to when and where an issued “Carry License” may be validly used.  Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (App. 1 Dist. 2013) 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 698, 218 Cal.App.4th 661, review denied.  Weapons Key Number 134

The sheriff has extremely broad discretion concerning the issuance of concealed weapons licenses.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

The issuing officer has explicit statutory discretion to issue or not issue concealed firearm licenses to applicants who meet the minimum statutory requirements.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

11.Good cause  Stipulated judgment in earlier litigation between city police department and applicants for concealed firearm licenses did not relieve applicant of statutory obligation to show good cause for license; judgment did require police department to renew applicants' licenses from year to year, but only on application, and only “so long as they continue to have good cause, good character, not to be barred by law from the ownership of concealed firearms, and to meet” other statutory requirements of licensure.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

Where duly licensed private investigators, as applicants for permits to carry concealed weapons, were of good moral character and were residents of county, albeit that no inquiry into existence of good cause had ever been made by sheriff in connection with application of any investigator, or of any other applicants outside a limited group of public officials, it was the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and to make a determination, on an individual basis, on every application.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 134

12.Residence  A reserve police officer for a city may not be issued a concealed firearm permit if the reserve officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located.  62 Op.Atty.Gen. 508 (September 18, 1979), 1979 WL 29270.

62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 508 (Cal.A.G.), 1979 WL 29270 Office of the Attorney General State of California Opinion No. 79-708 September 18, 1979

• 1 THE HONORABLE JAMES M. CRAMER

DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO THE HONORABLE JAMES M. CRAMER, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, has requested an opinion on the following question: May a city police chief issue a concealed firearm permit to a person appointed to the position of reserve police officer for the city if the reserve officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located?

CONCLUSION

A city police chief may not issue a concealed firearm permit to a person appointed to the position of reserve police officer for the city if the reserve officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located.

ANALYSIS

Penal Code section 830.6 authorizes a city police chief to appoint a reserve (i.e., volunteer) ‘city policeman’ to carry out assigned specific police functions, and for the duration of the specific assignment a reserve police officer has the authority of a peace officer. (See also Gov. Code, § 38631.) Subject to certain exceptions (Pen. Cdde, §§ 12026, 12027), Penal Code section 12025 prohibits the carrying of a concealable firearm concealed upon one's person or in one's vehicle in the absence of a license to carry such firearm. Section 12025 does not apply to ‘duly appointed peace officers.’ (Pen. Code, § 12027, subd. (a); see also Pen. Code, § 12031, subd. (a)(1).) Thus, reserve peace officers while on duty are not prohibited by section 12025 from carrying a concealed firearm without a license. However, when not on duty, reserve peace officers do not have peace officer authority. (See Pen. Code, § 830.6.) Absent any exceptional circumstance specified in Penal Code sections 12026 and 12027, a reserve officer would need a license to carry lawfully a concealed firearm off duty. Penal Code section 12050 sets forth the conditions under which such a license, commonly referred to as a ‘permit,’ may be obtained. That section provides: ‘(a) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the county, may issue to such a person a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm for any period of time not to exceed one year from the date of the license, or in the case of a peace officer appointed pursuant to Section 830.6, three years from the date of the license. ‘(b) A license may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions which the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, and circumstances under which the person may carry a concealed firearm. ‘(c) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) shall be indicated on any license issued on or after the effective date of the amendments to this section enacted at the 1970 Regular Session of the Legislature.’

• 2 The question presented for analysis is whether the above quoted section authorizes a city police chief to issue a concealed firearm permit to a person appointed to the position of reserve police officer for the city despite the fact the reserve police officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located. We conclude that Penal Code section 12050 does not authorize the issuance of such a permit.

In construing the statute to determine the intent of the Legislature, we must first turn to the actual words used. (Tracy v. Municipal Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 760, 764.) ‘In the absence of compelling countervailing considerations, we must assume that the Legislature ‘knew what it was saying and meant what it said.’' (Tracy v. Municipal Court, supra, at p. 764.) In the case of Penal Code section 12050 we find no countervailing considerations. Whatever may be thought of the wisdom or policy of an enactment, when the meaning of a statute appears to be plain, clear and unambiguous on its face, the necessity for construction is eliminated. (County of Madera v. Carleson (1973) 32 Cal.App.3d 764.) Subdivision (a) of section 12050 sets forth in plain, unambiguous language that a county sheriff or a city police chief may issue a license to carry a concealed firearm to a person only if three conditions are met. The first condition is that the person be of good moral character. The second condition is that good cause exists for the issuance of the license, and the third condition is ‘that the person applying is a resident of the county.’ Subdivision (a) then sets forth the time period for which the license shall be valid. The operative phrase begins with the words ‘for any period of time . . ..’ Thereafter, two time periods are expressed. The first is ‘not to exceed one year from the date of the license’ and the second is ‘three years from the date of the license.’ The prepositional phrase ‘in the case of a peace officer appointed pursuant to section 830.6’ clearly relates to and modifies only the reference to the three year time period which immediately follows it. Thus, reserve officers are not exempt from the residence requirement of that section. We ‘. . . cannot ignore the plain words of [a] statute unless it appears the words used were, beyond question, contrary to what was intended by the Legislature.’ (County of Madera v. Carleson, supra, 32 Cal.App.3d at pp. 768-769.) The reference to reserve officers in Penal Code section 12050 was added by Statutes of 1977, chapter 987, section 3. The Legislative Counsel's Digest for the bill (AB 641) which was enacted as that chapter states that the amendment to section 12050 ‘. . . would provide for the licensing of reserve peace officers for the purpose of concealed carrying of concealable weapons for a period of three years.’ That explanation of the amendment sheds no light on the issue of whether the Legislature intended reserve peace officers to be exempt from the residence requirement of section 12050. It is likely the Legislature never considered the issue. Where the words of a statute are clear, we cannot ‘add to or alter them to accomplish a purpose that does not appear on the face of the statute or from its legislative history.’ (People v. Knowles (1950) 35 Cal.2d 175, 182-183; County of Madera v. Carleson, supra, at p. 769.) Thus, we conclude that under Penal Code section 12050 a city police chief is not authorized to issue a concealed firearm permit to a person appointed to the position of reserve police officer for the city if the reserve officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located.

• 3 We have also considered the validity of the residency requirement of Penal Code section 12050 in light of the state and federal constitutional concepts of substantive due process and equal protection of the laws (see Cal. Const., art. I, § 7; U.S. Const. 14th Amend.) and have found no reason to question its constitutionality. An act of the Legislature is presumed constitutional and all presumptions and intendments are in favor of the statute's validity. (McGowan v. Maryland (1961) 366 U.S. 420, 425; In re Ricky H. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 513, 519.)

Substantive due process of law requires that legislative action which creates some deprivation of individual life, liberty or property be reasonable in its goal and application; ‘. . ., i.e., the law must not be unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious but must have a real and substantial relation to the object sought to be attained.’ (Gray v. Whitmore (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1, 21; see also Nebbia v. New York (1934) 291 U.S. 502, 525; Russell v. Carleson (1973) 36 Cal.App.3d 334, 342.) Traditionally, the constitutional right of equal protection of laws requires that the state action in creating classifications bears some rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose. (Hardy v. Stumpf (1978) 21 Cal.3d 1, 7; Gray v. Whitmore, supra, 17 Cal.App.3d at p. 21.) However, if the state action creates a ‘suspect classification’ or abridges a ‘fundamental right,’ the state must show a ‘compelling state interest’ in justifying the action. (Hardy v. Stumpf, supra.) Suspect classifications have been held to include those based upon race, sex, national origin, alienage, and poverty. (Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby (1971) 5 Cal.3d 1, 18.) It is apparent that Penal Code section 12050 in no way relates to a suspect class. We have found no authority which would support a conclusion that the right to carry a weapon concealed on one's person or in one's car is a ‘fundamental interest’ requiring a compelling state interest to justify its regulation. (Cf. Ex parte Cheney (1891) 90 Cal. 617, 621.) Penal Code section 12050 does not establish a durational residency requirement, i.e., a requirement that the applicant be a resident for a specified period of time before applying for the permit; thus, the regulation does not penalize or deter a person's right to migrate. (See Adams v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 55, 62.) For these reasons, we believe analysis of both the concepts of substantive due process and equal protection as applied to Penal Code section 12050 involves the same basic issue: whether the residency requirement is rationally related to a legitimate state objective. (Cf. McGowan v. Maryland, supra, 366 U.S. 420 at p. 425.) Clearly it is. The residency requirement delegates to particular public officials the authority to grant licenses to residents of particular geographic areas. Every resident of the state has the right to apply for a license. The restriction is merely that residents of each county may apply only to certain public officials in their county of residence. This requirement is apparently based upon the assumption that a local police agency would be best equipped to determine the good moral character of the applicant, the necessity for the license, and the restrictions, if any, which should be placed on it. We do not find such an assumption irrational, arbitrary or capricious. ‘A statutory discrimination will not be set aside if any state of facts reasonably may be conceived to justify it.’ (McGowan v. Maryland, supra, at p. 426.) Here there is clearly a state of facts justifying the residency requirement.

• 4 Finally we note that nonresidents of the state are barred from obtaining a license under Penal Code section 12050. The Legislature apparently decided that the interest of a nonresident temporarily in the state who is not otherwise exempt from the concealed weapon prohibition of Penal Code section 12025 (see Pen. Code, §§ 12026, 12027) in carrying a concealed weapon is clearly outweighed by the burden imposed upon a local police agency in determining the good moral character of the applicant, the good cause for issuing the license, and the conditions and restrictions, if any, which should be placed on it. In the absence of any durational residency requirement (see, e.g., Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County (1974) 415 U.S. 250), we see no constitutional infirmity in Penal Code section 12050. (Cf. Adams v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d 55, 62.) Thus, we conclude that Penal Code section 12050 is valid and does not permit a city police chief to issue a concealed firearm license to a reserve peace officer who resides in another county.

GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General PAUL H. DOBSON Deputy Attorney General 62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 508 (Cal.A.G.), 1979 WL 29270

13.Private investigators  Licensed private investigator does not have a liberty or property interest in receiving a concealed weapon permit.  Guillory v. Orange County, C.A.9 (Cal.)1984, 731 F.2d 1379.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4280;  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496

14.Grounds for denial  Denial of application for concealed firearm license was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; application contained single statement about good cause, that “All conditions under which this CCW [California concealed weapon] was originally issued remain the same,” and applicant refused to provide further information on that issue.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

15.Records  A sheriff may not allow public inspection of the state summary criminal information contained in concealed firearm permit records or his investigation files on applicants for concealed firearm permit, but may allow public inspection of the applications for and records of permits for concealed weapons unless the withholding of the records is in the public interest as determined pursuant to Gov.C. § 6255, which provides the justification for withholding records from public inspection.  62 Op.Atty.Gen. 595 (October 16, 1979), 1979 WL 29280.

16.Parties  County sheriff, when deciding whether to grant licenses to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), acted as a representative of the state of California, and not of the county, and thus, the county was not a proper defendant in an action asserting an equal protection claim regarding the administration of a California statute providing for the issuance of CCW licenses; provisions of the California Penal Code dealing with CCW licensing did not suggest that the county board of supervisors or other county administrator, other than the sheriff, exercised control or oversight over CCW licensing, but rather, the relevant code provisions clearly delineated a role for the state with respect to administration and oversight, and moreover, a CCW license conveyed a right exercisable throughout the state.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Weapons Key Number 136

17.Immunity  County sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that her denial of a license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) constituted an equal protection violation implicating a fundamental right, specifically the Second Amendment; it was not clearly established at the time of the sheriff's decision, in 2008, 2009 and 2010, that there was a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment to carry a concealed weapon outside a person's home.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Civil Rights Key Number 1376(6)

Penal Code section 26155

(a) When a person applies for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county may issue a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant is a resident of that city.

(4) The applicant has completed a course of training as described in Section 26165.

(b) The chief or other head of a municipal police department may issue a license under subdivision (a) in either of the following formats:

(1) A license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) Where the population of the county in which the city is located 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) Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city from entering an agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the city is located for the sheriff to process all applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, and amendments to licenses, pursuant to this chapter.

1.Construction and application  Limits imposed by this section on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon are that the applicant must be of good moral character, and that the applicant show good cause, and that the applicant be a resident of the county.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 134

2.Preemption  County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms on county property, insofar as it concerned gun shows, was not preempted by implication as being duplicative of state gun statutes; possessing a gun on county property was not identical to the crime of possessing an unlicensed firearm that was concealable or loaded, nor was it a lesser included offense, and therefore someone could lawfully be convicted of both offenses.  Nordyke v. King (2002) 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 27 Cal.4th 875, 44 P.3d 133, rehearing denied, answer to certified question conformed to 319 F.3d 1185, rehearing en banc denied 364 F.3d 1025, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 60, 543 U.S. 820, 160 L.Ed.2d 30, on subsequent appeal 563 F.3d 439, rehearing en banc ordered 575 F.3d 890, vacated 611 F.3d 1015, on remand 644 F.3d 776.  Counties Key Number 21.5;  Weapons Key Number 103

3.Due process  Because California applicants for license to carry concealed weapon (CCW) did not have property or liberty interest in that license, sheriff was not required to provide them with due process before denying their initial license application.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 134

4.Equal protection  Requirement that applicant for license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California be a resident or spend substantial time in county in which they apply does not violate equal protection.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Equal protection was not violated by California county sheriff's policy of requiring applicant for license to carry concealed weapon to demonstrate “good cause” for its issuance, defined as set of circumstances that distinguished applicant from other members of the general public and caused him or her to be placed in harm's way, more than generalized fear for one's personal safety, and backed by supporting documentation; policy did not treat similarly situated individuals differently because not all law-abiding citizens were similarly situated.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Applicant's allegations that, although he regularly resided in his motorhome, he maintained and had nearly exclusive use of single room in residence located in county, that he regularly lived in county for several months each year, that he was required by his work to travel to high crime and remote rural areas, and that sheriff denied him license to carry concealed weapon because he did not have good cause for permit and because he was not county resident were sufficient to state claim that denial of license violated his equal protection rights, where county failed to identify important government interest or demonstrate how denial of license furthered that interest.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3376;  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 136

5.Second Amendment rights  California's favoring concealed carry over open carry does not offend the Second Amendment, so long as it allows one of the two.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, C.A.9 (Cal.)2014, 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

County's requirement that person had to show sufficiently pressing need for self-protection before permit to carry concealed weapon would be granted infringed Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, C.A.9 (Cal.)2014, 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

6.Right to license  Licensed private investigator does not have a liberty or property interest in receiving a concealed weapon permit.  Guillory v. Orange County, C.A.9 (Cal.)1984, 731 F.2d 1379.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4280;  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496

Plaintiff, an employee of licensed private investigator, did not have liberty interests in obtaining initial license to carry concealed weapon, where many people engaged in occupations of private investigator and criminal offense investigator without concealed weapons license and no stigma attached to denial of her application.  Erdelyi v. O'Brien, C.A.9 (Cal.)1982, 680 F.2d 61.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496

Under intermediate scrutiny, Second Amendment right to bear arms was not violated by California county sheriff's policy of requiring applicant for license to carry concealed weapon to demonstrate “good cause” for its issuance, defined as set of circumstances that distinguished applicant from other members of the general public and caused him or her to be placed in harm's way, more than generalized fear for one's personal safety, and backed by supporting documentation; government had important and substantial interest in public safety and in reducing rate of gun use in crime, particularly in reducing number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce risks to other members of public who used streets and went to public accommodations.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

Applicant's allegation that sheriff denied his application for license to carry concealed weapon because he did not have good cause for permit and because he was not county resident, without identifying important governmental interest or how denial furthered that interest, was sufficient to state claim for violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Weapons Key Number 136

7.Right to travel  Requirement that applicant for license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California be a resident or spend substantial time in county in which they apply does not violate right to travel.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 1282;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Issues of whether sheriff's denial of application for license to carry concealed weapon on ground that applicant was not full-time county resident deterred applicant from spending time outside of county, and whether residency requirement was necessary to further some compelling state interest involved fact questions that could not be resolved on motion to dismiss applicant's claim that denial violated his constitutional right to travel.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Federal Civil Procedure Key Number 1831

8.Discretion of sheriff  The sheriff has extremely broad discretion concerning the issuance of concealed weapons licenses.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

The issuing officer has explicit statutory discretion to issue or not issue concealed firearm licenses to applicants who meet the minimum statutory requirements.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

9.Investigation and determination  It is the duty of the sheriff to make an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application for a concealed firearm license.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

10.Good cause  Stipulated judgment in earlier litigation between city police department and applicants for concealed firearm licenses did not relieve applicant of statutory obligation to show good cause for license; judgment did require police department to renew applicants' licenses from year to year, but only on application, and only “so long as they continue to have good cause, good character, not to be barred by law from the ownership of concealed firearms, and to meet” other statutory requirements of licensure.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

Where duly licensed private investigators, as applicants for permits to carry concealed weapons, were of good moral character and were residents of county, albeit that no inquiry into existence of good cause had ever been made by sheriff in connection with application of any investigator, or of any other applicants outside a limited group of public officials, it was the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and to make a determination, on an individual basis, on every application.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 134

11.Residence  A reserve police officer for a city may not be issued a concealed firearm permit if the reserve officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located.  62 Op.Atty.Gen. 508 (September 18, 1979), 1979 WL 29270.

12.Private investigators  Duly licensed private investigators are authorized to carry loaded firearms on their persons and in automobiles, and are also entitled to carry such weapons in a concealed manner as long as they are of good moral character, show good cause, and are residents of county.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 203(1)

13.Grounds for denial  Denial of application for concealed firearm license was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; application contained single statement about good cause, that “All conditions under which this CCW [California concealed weapon] was originally issued remain the same,” and applicant refused to provide further information on that issue.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

14.Records  A sheriff may not allow public inspection of the state summary criminal information contained in concealed firearm permit records or his investigation files on applicants for concealed firearm permit, but may allow public inspection of the applications for and records of permits for concealed weapons unless the withholding of the records is in the public interest as determined pursuant to Gov.C. § 6255, which provides the justification for withholding records from public inspection.  62 Op.Atty.Gen. 595 (October 16, 1979), 1979 WL 29280.

15.Revocation  Privilege to carry concealed firearm on person was not significant property right so as to require hearing prior to revocation of license under due process clause;  licensee's livelihood was not dependent upon license, and license to carry concealed firearm was of limited and restrictive nature.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm was not deprived of liberty interest, as protected by due process clause, by sheriff's revocation of license, which was based on charges by police that licensee displayed poor attitude toward police while under influence of alcohol;  sheriff who revoked license did not make public reasons for revocation and thus did not damage licensee's good name, reputation, honor or integrity.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm did not have right under State Constitution to hearing prior to license revocation;  licensee's limited interest in practicing profession of manufacturing of weapons in particular way was small and governmental interest in protecting public safety was large.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

Sheriff's office did not wrongfully refuse to exercise its discretion in deciding to revoke license to carry concealed firearm;  sheriff's office relied upon information from police concerning licensee's individual circumstances.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

16.Standing  Pro se California resident, who alleged that he applied for a permit to openly carry a loaded firearm and was denied, in part because he resided in Los Angeles county, had standing to challenge constitutionality of California statute restricting the issuance of permits to openly carry a loaded firearm only to persons residing within counties containing fewer than 200,000 persons.  Nichols v. Brown, C.D.Cal.2013, 945 F.Supp.2d 1079.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

Penal Code section 26160

Each licensing authority shall publish and make available a written policy summarizing the provisions of Section 26150 and subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 26155.

Penal Code section 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 that meets all of the following criteria:

(1) The course shall be no less than eight hours, but shall not be required to exceed 16 hours in length.

(2) The course shall include instruction on firearm safety, firearm handling, shooting technique, and laws regarding the permissible use of a firearm.

(3) The course shall include live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range and shall include a demonstration by the applicant of safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, each firearm that the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry.

(b) A licensing authority shall establish, and make available to the public, the standards it uses when issuing licenses with regards to the required live-fire shooting exercises, including, but not limited to, a minimum number of rounds to be fired and minimum passing scores from specified firing distances.

(c) 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.

(d) 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 satisfy the requirements of paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a). 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.

(e) 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.

(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 752, Sec. 1. (AB 2103) Effective January 1, 2019.)

AB2103 (2018) This bill would require that the course of training be at least 8 but not be required to exceed 16 hours. The bill would require the course of training to include instruction on firearm handling and shooting technique and to also include a demonstration by the applicant of shooting proficiency and safe handling of each firearm the applicant will be licensed to carry and to include live-fire exercises conducted on a firing range. The bill would require a licensing authority to establish, and make available to the public, standards it uses when issuing licenses with regards to the live-fire shooting exercises it requires, as specified. By imposing additional requirements on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

SB610 (2011) 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 clarify that the application fee for a new license includes the costs of required notices. 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.

This bill would also require that the notice provide which requirement was not satisfied if the license is denied.

Penal Code section 26170

(a) Upon proof of all of the following, the sheriff of a county, or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, may issue to an applicant a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person:

(1) The applicant is of good moral character.

(2) Good cause exists for issuance of the license.

(3) The applicant has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 by that sheriff or that chief of police or other head of a municipal police department.

(b) Direct or indirect fees for the issuance of a license pursuant to this section may be waived.

(c) The fact that an applicant for a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person has been deputized or appointed as a peace officer pursuant to subdivision (a) or (b) of Section 830.6 shall be considered only for the purpose of issuing a license pursuant to this section, and shall not be considered for the purpose of issuing a license pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155.

1.Construction and application  Limits imposed by this section on the grant of an application to carry a concealed weapon are that the applicant must be of good moral character, and that the applicant show good cause, and that the applicant be a resident of the county.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 134

2.Preemption  County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms on county property, insofar as it concerned gun shows, was not preempted by implication as being duplicative of state gun statutes; possessing a gun on county property was not identical to the crime of possessing an unlicensed firearm that was concealable or loaded, nor was it a lesser included offense, and therefore someone could lawfully be convicted of both offenses.  Nordyke v. King (2002) 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 27 Cal.4th 875, 44 P.3d 133, rehearing denied, answer to certified question conformed to 319 F.3d 1185, rehearing en banc denied 364 F.3d 1025, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 60, 543 U.S. 820, 160 L.Ed.2d 30, on subsequent appeal 563 F.3d 439, rehearing en banc ordered 575 F.3d 890, vacated 611 F.3d 1015, on remand 644 F.3d 776.  Counties Key Number 21.5;  Weapons Key Number 103

3.Due process  Because California applicants for license to carry concealed weapon (CCW) did not have property or liberty interest in that license, sheriff was not required to provide them with due process before denying their initial license application.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 134

4.Equal protection  Requirement that applicant for license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California be a resident or spend substantial time in county in which they apply does not violate equal protection.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Equal protection was not violated by California county sheriff's policy of requiring applicant for license to carry concealed weapon to demonstrate “good cause” for its issuance, defined as set of circumstances that distinguished applicant from other members of the general public and caused him or her to be placed in harm's way, more than generalized fear for one's personal safety, and backed by supporting documentation; policy did not treat similarly situated individuals differently because not all law-abiding citizens were similarly situated.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Applicant's allegations that, although he regularly resided in his motorhome, he maintained and had nearly exclusive use of single room in residence located in county, that he regularly lived in county for several months each year, that he was required by his work to travel to high crime and remote rural areas, and that sheriff denied him license to carry concealed weapon because he did not have good cause for permit and because he was not county resident were sufficient to state claim that denial of license violated his equal protection rights, where county failed to identify important government interest or demonstrate how denial of license furthered that interest.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Constitutional Law Key Number 3376;  Constitutional Law Key Number 3478;  Weapons Key Number 136

5.Right to license  Licensed private investigator does not have a liberty or property interest in receiving a concealed weapon permit.  Guillory v. Orange County, C.A.9 (Cal.)1984, 731 F.2d 1379.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4280;  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496

Plaintiff, an employee of licensed private investigator, did not have liberty interests in obtaining initial license to carry concealed weapon, where many people engaged in occupations of private investigator and criminal offense investigator without concealed weapons license and no stigma attached to denial of her application.  Erdelyi v. O'Brien, C.A.9 (Cal.)1982, 680 F.2d 61.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496

Under intermediate scrutiny, Second Amendment right to bear arms was not violated by California county sheriff's policy of requiring applicant for license to carry concealed weapon to demonstrate “good cause” for its issuance, defined as set of circumstances that distinguished applicant from other members of the general public and caused him or her to be placed in harm's way, more than generalized fear for one's personal safety, and backed by supporting documentation; government had important and substantial interest in public safety and in reducing rate of gun use in crime, particularly in reducing number of concealed weapons in public in order to reduce risks to other members of public who used streets and went to public accommodations.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Weapons Key Number 106(3)

Applicant's allegation that sheriff denied his application for license to carry concealed weapon because he did not have good cause for permit and because he was not county resident, without identifying important governmental interest or how denial furthered that interest, was sufficient to state claim for violation of his Second Amendment right to bear arms.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Weapons Key Number 136

6.Right to travel  Requirement that applicant for license to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) in California be a resident or spend substantial time in county in which they apply does not violate right to travel.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 758 F.Supp.2d 1106, reversed and remanded 742 F.3d 1144, on rehearing en banc 824 F.3d 919, certiorari denied 137 S.Ct. 1995, 198 L.Ed.2d 746.  Constitutional Law Key Number 1282;  Weapons Key Number 106(4)

Issues of whether sheriff's denial of application for license to carry concealed weapon on ground that applicant was not full-time county resident deterred applicant from spending time outside of county, and whether residency requirement was necessary to further some compelling state interest involved fact questions that could not be resolved on motion to dismiss applicant's claim that denial violated his constitutional right to travel.  Peruta v. County of San Diego, S.D.Cal.2010, 678 F.Supp.2d 1046.  Federal Civil Procedure Key Number 1831

7.Discretion of sheriff  The sheriff has extremely broad discretion concerning the issuance of concealed weapons licenses.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

The issuing officer has explicit statutory discretion to issue or not issue concealed firearm licenses to applicants who meet the minimum statutory requirements.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134   8.Investigation and determination  It is the duty of the sheriff to make an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application for a concealed firearm license.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

9.Good cause  Stipulated judgment in earlier litigation between city police department and applicants for concealed firearm licenses did not relieve applicant of statutory obligation to show good cause for license; judgment did require police department to renew applicants' licenses from year to year, but only on application, and only “so long as they continue to have good cause, good character, not to be barred by law from the ownership of concealed firearms, and to meet” other statutory requirements of licensure.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

Where duly licensed private investigators, as applicants for permits to carry concealed weapons, were of good moral character and were residents of county, albeit that no inquiry into existence of good cause had ever been made by sheriff in connection with application of any investigator, or of any other applicants outside a limited group of public officials, it was the duty of the sheriff to make such an investigation and to make a determination, on an individual basis, on every application.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 134

10.Residence  A reserve police officer for a city may not be issued a concealed firearm permit if the reserve officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located.  62 Op.Atty.Gen. 508 (September 18, 1979), 1979 WL 29270.   11.Private investigators  Duly licensed private investigators are authorized to carry loaded firearms on their persons and in automobiles, and are also entitled to carry such weapons in a concealed manner as long as they are of good moral character, show good cause, and are residents of county.  Salute v. Pitchess (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 61 Cal.App.3d 557.  Weapons Key Number 203(1)   12.Grounds for denial  Denial of application for concealed firearm license was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; application contained single statement about good cause, that “All conditions under which this CCW [California concealed weapon] was originally issued remain the same,” and applicant refused to provide further information on that issue.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

13.Records  A sheriff may not allow public inspection of the state summary criminal information contained in concealed firearm permit records or his investigation files on applicants for concealed firearm permit, but may allow public inspection of the applications for and records of permits for concealed weapons unless the withholding of the records is in the public interest as determined pursuant to Gov.C. § 6255, which provides the justification for withholding records from public inspection.  62 Op.Atty.Gen. 595 (October 16, 1979), 1979 WL 29280.

14.Revocation  Privilege to carry concealed firearm on person was not significant property right so as to require hearing prior to revocation of license under due process clause;  licensee's livelihood was not dependent upon license, and license to carry concealed firearm was of limited and restrictive nature.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm was not deprived of liberty interest, as protected by due process clause, by sheriff's revocation of license, which was based on charges by police that licensee displayed poor attitude toward police while under influence of alcohol;  sheriff who revoked license did not make public reasons for revocation and thus did not damage licensee's good name, reputation, honor or integrity.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm did not have right under State Constitution to hearing prior to license revocation;  licensee's limited interest in practicing profession of manufacturing of weapons in particular way was small and governmental interest in protecting public safety was large.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

Sheriff's office did not wrongfully refuse to exercise its discretion in deciding to revoke license to carry concealed firearm;  sheriff's office relied upon information from police concerning licensee's individual circumstances.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

Penal Code section 26175

(a) (1) Applications for licenses and applications for amendments to licenses under this article shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General.

(2) The Attorney General shall convene a committee composed of one representative of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, one representative of the California Police Chiefs Association, and one representative of the Department of Justice to review, and, as deemed appropriate, revise the standard application form for licenses. The committee shall meet for this purpose if two of the committee’s members deem that necessary.

(3) (A) The Attorney General shall develop a uniform license that may be used as indicia of proof of licensure throughout the state.

(B) The Attorney General shall approve the use of licenses issued by local agencies that contain all the information required in subdivision (i), including a recent photograph of the applicant, and are deemed to be in substantial compliance with standards developed by the committee described in subparagraph (C), if developed, as they relate to the physical dimensions and general appearance of the licenses. The Attorney General shall retain exemplars of approved licenses and shall maintain a list of agencies issuing local licenses. Approved licenses may be used as indicia of proof of licensure under this chapter in lieu of the uniform license developed by the Attorney General.

(C) A committee composed of two representatives of the California State Sheriffs’ Association, two representatives of the California Police Chiefs Association, and one representative of the Department of Justice shall convene to review and revise, as the committee deems appropriate, the design standard for licenses issued by local agencies that may be used as indicia of proof of licensure throughout the state, provided that the design standard meets the requirements of subparagraph (B). The committee shall meet for this purpose if two of the committee’s members deem it necessary.

(b) The application shall include a section summarizing the requirements of state law that result in the automatic denial of a license.

(c) The standard application form for licenses described in subdivision (a) shall require information from the applicant, including, but not limited to, the name, occupation, residence, and business address of the applicant, the applicant’s age, height, weight, color of eyes and hair, and reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon.

(d) Applications for licenses shall be filed in writing and signed by the applicant.

(e) Applications for amendments to licenses shall be filed in writing and signed by the applicant, and shall state what type of amendment is sought pursuant to Section 26215 and the reason for desiring the amendment.

(f) The forms shall contain a provision whereby the applicant attests to the truth of statements contained in the application.

(g) An applicant shall not be required to complete any additional application or form for a license, or to provide any information other than that necessary to complete the standard application form described in subdivision (a), except to clarify or interpret information provided by the applicant on the standard application form.

(h) The standard application form described in subdivision (a) is deemed to be a local form expressly exempt from the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code).

(i) Any license issued upon the application shall set forth the licensee’s name, occupation, residence and business address, the licensee’s age, height, weight, color of eyes and hair, and the reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon, and shall, in addition, contain a description of the weapon or weapons authorized to be carried, giving the name of the manufacturer, the serial number, and the caliber. The license issued to the licensee may be laminated.

(Amended by Stats. 2016, Ch. 645, Sec. 1. (AB 2510) Effective January 1, 2017.)

1.Preemption  County ordinance prohibiting the possession of firearms on county property, insofar as it concerned gun shows, was not preempted by implication as being duplicative of state gun statutes; possessing a gun on county property was not identical to the crime of possessing an unlicensed firearm that was concealable or loaded, nor was it a lesser included offense, and therefore someone could lawfully be convicted of both offenses.  Nordyke v. King (2002) 118 Cal.Rptr.2d 761, 27 Cal.4th 875, 44 P.3d 133, rehearing denied, answer to certified question conformed to 319 F.3d 1185, rehearing en banc denied 364 F.3d 1025, certiorari denied 125 S.Ct. 60, 543 U.S. 820, 160 L.Ed.2d 30, on subsequent appeal 563 F.3d 439, rehearing en banc ordered 575 F.3d 890, vacated 611 F.3d 1015, on remand 644 F.3d 776.  Counties Key Number 21.5;  Weapons Key Number 103

2.Serial numbers  Under provisions of Dangerous Weapons Control Law, requiring that serial number be stated on both application for license to carry a concealable weapon and register of sale, the state bureau of criminal identification will issue serial numbers for Mordem .38 calibre water spear pistols now in retail outlets and manufacturer will place serial numbers on others.  35 Op.Atty.Gen. 46 (1960).

3.Revocation  Holder of license to carry concealed firearm was not entitled, under State Constitution, to postrevocation hearing in order to present evidence against revocation;  sheriff's decision whether to revoke license was highly discretionary and subjective and did not necessarily turn on showing of particular contestable facts for which evidentiary procedures were best adopted, licensee had opportunity to explain his situation in written application for new license, and to require sheriff to conduct evidentiary hearing would impose fiscal and administrative burdens which would interfere with efficiency of sheriff's primary responsibilities of fighting crime.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

4.Parties  County sheriff, when deciding whether to grant licenses to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), acted as a representative of the state of California, and not of the county, and thus, the county was not a proper defendant in an action asserting an equal protection claim regarding the administration of a California statute providing for the issuance of CCW licenses; provisions of the California Penal Code dealing with CCW licensing did not suggest that the county board of supervisors or other county administrator, other than the sheriff, exercised control or oversight over CCW licensing, but rather, the relevant code provisions clearly delineated a role for the state with respect to administration and oversight, and moreover, a CCW license conveyed a right exercisable throughout the state.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Weapons Key Number 136

Penal Code section 26180

(a) Any person who files an application required by Section 26175 knowing that any statement contained therein is false is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(b) Any person who knowingly makes a false statement on the application regarding any of the following is guilty of a felony:

(1) The denial or revocation of a license, or the denial of an amendment to a license, issued pursuant to this article.

(2) A criminal conviction.

(3) A finding of not guilty by reason of insanity.

(4) The use of a controlled substance.

(5) A dishonorable discharge from military service.

(6) A commitment to a mental institution.

(7) A renunciation of United States citizenship.

Penal Code section 26185

(a)

(1) The fingerprints of each applicant shall be taken and two copies on forms prescribed by the Department of Justice shall be forwarded to the department.

(2) Upon receipt of the fingerprints and the fee as prescribed in Section 26190, the department 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.

(3) No license shall be issued by any licensing authority until after receipt of the report from the department.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if the license applicant has previously applied to the same licensing authority for a license to carry firearms pursuant to this article and the applicant’s fingerprints and fee have been previously forwarded to the Department of Justice, as provided by this section, the licensing authority shall note the previous identification numbers and other data that would provide positive identification in the files of the Department of Justice on the copy of any subsequent license submitted to the department in conformance with Section 26225 and no additional application form or fingerprints shall be required.

(c) If the license applicant has a license issued pursuant to this article and the applicant’s fingerprints have been previously forwarded to the Department of Justice, as provided in this section, the licensing authority shall note the previous identification numbers and other data that would provide positive identification in the files of the Department of Justice on the copy of any subsequent license submitted to the department in conformance with Section 26225 and no additional fingerprints shall be required.

Parties  County sheriff, when deciding whether to grant licenses to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), acted as a representative of the state of California, and not of the county, and thus, the county was not a proper defendant in an action asserting an equal protection claim regarding the administration of a California statute providing for the issuance of CCW licenses; provisions of the California Penal Code dealing with CCW licensing did not suggest that the county board of supervisors or other county administrator, other than the sheriff, exercised control or oversight over CCW licensing, but rather, the relevant code provisions clearly delineated a role for the state with respect to administration and oversight, and moreover, a CCW license conveyed a right exercisable throughout the state.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Weapons Key Number 136

Penal Code section 26190

(a)

(1) An 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 shall charge an additional fee in an amount equal to the reasonable costs for processing the application for a new license, issuing the license, and enforcing the license, including any required notices, excluding fingerprint and training costs, 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, a 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 not be imposed by any licensing authority as a condition of the application for a license.

(Added by Stats.2010, c. 711 (S.B.1080), § 6, operative Jan. 1, 2012. Amended by Stats.2011, c. 741 (S.B.610), § 2; Stats.2019, c. 732 (A.B.1297), § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.)

Penal Code section 26195

(a) A license under this article shall not be issued if the Department of Justice determines that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.

(b)

(1) A license under this article shall be revoked by the local licensing authority if at any time either the local licensing authority is notified by the Department of Justice that a licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing firearms, or the local licensing authority determines that the person is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.

(2) If at any time the Department of Justice determines that a licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm, the department shall immediately notify the local licensing authority of the determination.

(3) If the local licensing authority revokes the license, the Department of Justice shall be notified of the revocation pursuant to Section 26225. The licensee shall also be immediately notified of the revocation in writing.

1.Grounds for denial  Denial of application for concealed firearm license was not arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary support; application contained single statement about good cause, that “All conditions under which this CCW [California concealed weapon] was originally issued remain the same,” and applicant refused to provide further information on that issue.  Gifford v. City of Los Angeles (App. 2 Dist. 2001) 106 Cal.Rptr.2d 164, 88 Cal.App.4th 801.  Weapons Key Number 134

2.Revocation  Privilege to carry concealed firearm on person was not significant property right so as to require hearing prior to revocation of license under due process clause;  licensee's livelihood was not dependent upon license, and license to carry concealed firearm was of limited and restrictive nature.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm was not deprived of liberty interest, as protected by due process clause, by sheriff's revocation of license, which was based on charges by police that licensee displayed poor attitude toward police while under influence of alcohol;  sheriff who revoked license did not make public reasons for revocation and thus did not damage licensee's good name, reputation, honor or integrity.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Constitutional Law Key Number 4496;  Weapons Key Number 135

Holder of license to carry concealed firearm did not have right under State Constitution to hearing prior to license revocation;  licensee's limited interest in practicing profession of manufacturing of weapons in particular way was small and governmental interest in protecting public safety was large.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

Sheriff's office did not wrongfully refuse to exercise its discretion in deciding to revoke license to carry concealed firearm;  sheriff's office relied upon information from police concerning licensee's individual circumstances.  Nichols v. County of Santa Clara (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236.  Weapons Key Number 135

3.Parties  County sheriff, when deciding whether to grant licenses to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), acted as a representative of the state of California, and not of the county, and thus, the county was not a proper defendant in an action asserting an equal protection claim regarding the administration of a California statute providing for the issuance of CCW licenses; provisions of the California Penal Code dealing with CCW licensing did not suggest that the county board of supervisors or other county administrator, other than the sheriff, exercised control or oversight over CCW licensing, but rather, the relevant code provisions clearly delineated a role for the state with respect to administration and oversight, and moreover, a CCW license conveyed a right exercisable throughout the state.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Weapons Key Number 136

Penal Code section 26200

(a) A license issued pursuant to this article may include any reasonable restrictions or conditions that the issuing authority deems warranted, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the licensee may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(b) Any restrictions imposed pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be indicated on any license issued.

1.Preemption  County ordinance which precluded the possession and use of guns in the county's parks and recreational areas was not preempted by the state statutes authorizing county sheriffs to issue concealed weapon licenses.  Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (App. 1 Dist. 2013) 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 698, 218 Cal.App.4th 661, review denied.  Counties Key Number 24;  Weapons Key Number 104

2.Exceptions and conditions for licensure  Under the state statutes authorizing county sheriffs to issue concealed weapon licenses, the sheriff has extremely broad discretion concerning the issuance of concealed weapons licenses, and the county board of supervisors also has the authority to provide, via its legislative process, for exceptions and conditions to when and where an issued “Carry License” may be validly used.  Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo (App. 1 Dist. 2013) 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 698, 218 Cal.App.4th 661, review denied.  Weapons Key Number 134

Penal Code section 26202

Upon making the determination of good cause pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155, 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. If the licensing authority determines that good cause does not exist, the notice shall inform the applicant that the request for a license has been denied and shall state the reason from the department's published policy, described in Section 26160, as to why the determination was made. Credits (Added by Stats.2011, c. 741 (S.B.610), § 3.)

Penal Code section 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 denied, the notice shall state which requirement was not satisfied.

(Added by Stats.2010, c. 711 (S.B.1080), § 6, operative Jan. 1, 2012. Amended by Stats.2011, c. 741 (S.B.610), § 4.)

Penal Code section 26210

(a) When a licensee under this article has a change of address, the license shall be amended to reflect the new address and a new license shall be issued pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 26215.

(b) The licensee shall notify the licensing authority in writing within 10 days of any change in the licensee’s place of residence.

(c) If both of the following conditions are satisfied, a license to carry a concealed handgun may not be revoked solely because the licensee’s place of residence has changed to another county:

(1) The licensee has not breached any of the conditions or restrictions set forth in the license.

(2) The licensee has not become prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.

(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (c), if a licensee’s place of residence was the basis for issuance of a license, any license issued pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155 shall expire 90 days after the licensee moves from the county of issuance.

(e) If the license is one to carry loaded and exposed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, the license shall be revoked immediately upon a change of the licensee’s place of residence to another county.

Penal Code section 26215

(a) A person issued a license pursuant to this article may apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license to do one or more of the following:

(1) Add or delete authority to carry a particular pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(2) Authorize the licensee to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(3) If the population of the county is less than 200,000 persons according to the most recent federal decennial census, authorize the licensee to carry loaded and exposed in only that county a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(4) Change any restrictions or conditions on the license, including restrictions as to the time, place, manner, and circumstances under which the person may carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.

(b) If the licensing authority amends the license, a new license shall be issued to the licensee reflecting the amendments.

(c) An amendment to the license does not extend the original expiration date of the license and the license shall be subject to renewal at the same time as if the license had not been amended.

(d) An application to amend a license does not constitute an application for renewal of the license.

Penal Code section 26220

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section and in subdivision (c) of Section 26210, a license issued pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155 is valid for any period of time not to exceed two years from the date of the license.

(b) If the licensee’s place of employment or business was the basis for issuance of a license pursuant to Section 26150, the license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the license. The license shall be valid only in the county in which the license was originally issued. The licensee shall give a copy of this license to the licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county in which the licensee resides. The licensing authority that originally issued the license shall inform the licensee verbally and in writing in at least 16-point type of this obligation to give a copy of the license to the licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county of residence. Any application to renew or extend the validity of, or reissue, the license may be granted only upon the concurrence of the licensing authority that originally issued the license and the licensing authority of the city, county, or city and county in which the licensee resides.

(c) A license issued pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155 is valid for any period of time not to exceed three years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of the following individuals:

(1) A judge of a California court of record.

(2) A full-time court commissioner of a California court of record.

(3) A judge of a federal court.

(4) A magistrate of a federal court.

(d) A license issued pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155 is valid for any period of time not to exceed four years from the date of the license if the license is issued to a custodial officer who is an employee of the sheriff as provided in Section 831.5, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion of the person’s employment pursuant to Section 831.5 if the four-year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition imposed pursuant to this article does not limit the validity of the license to a shorter time period.

(e) A license issued pursuant to Section 26170 to a peace officer appointed pursuant to Section 830.6 is valid for any period of time not to exceed four years from the date of the license, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion of the person’s appointment pursuant to Section 830.6 if the four-year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition imposed pursuant to this article does not limit the validity of the license to a shorter time period.

Penal Code section 26225

(a) A record of the following shall be maintained in the office of the licensing authority:

(1) The denial of a license.

(2) The denial of an amendment to a license.

(3) The issuance of a license.

(4) The amendment of a license.

(5) The revocation of a license.

(b) Copies of each of the following shall be filed immediately by the issuing officer or authority with the Department of Justice:

(1) The denial of a license.

(2) The denial of an amendment to a license.

(3) The issuance of a license.

(4) The amendment of a license.

(5) The revocation of a license.

(c)

(1) Commencing on or before January 1, 2000, and annually thereafter, each licensing authority shall submit to the Attorney General the total number of licenses issued to peace officers pursuant to Section 26170, and to judges pursuant to Section 26150 or 26155.

(2) The Attorney General shall collect and record the information submitted pursuant to this subdivision by county and licensing authority.

County sheriff, when deciding whether to grant licenses to carry a concealed weapon (CCW), acted as a representative of the state of California, and not of the county, and thus, the county was not a proper defendant in an action asserting an equal protection claim regarding the administration of a California statute providing for the issuance of CCW licenses; provisions of the California Penal Code dealing with CCW licensing did not suggest that the county board of supervisors or other county administrator, other than the sheriff, exercised control or oversight over CCW licensing, but rather, the relevant code provisions clearly delineated a role for the state with respect to administration and oversight, and moreover, a CCW license conveyed a right exercisable throughout the state.  Scocca v. Smith, N.D.Cal.2012, 912 F.Supp.2d 875.  Weapons Key Number 136

Residence

Raulinaitis v. Ventura County Sheriffs Department NO. CV 13-2605-MAN, 2014 WL 12685924, affirmed in Raulinaitis v. Ventura County Sheriffs Department (9th Cir. 2017, no. 14-56615)

" the statute's newly-added use of the term “resident” appears to have been intended to embody a concept akin to that of domiciliary, namely, to require that an applicant's permanent home be in the county of application."

"The VCSO interprets residence for Section 26150 purposes to mean the county in which a person spends most of his or her time and conducts most of his or her activities. That interpretation is consistent with the foregoing California case law and the legislative history behind Section 26150's residency requirement. Accordingly, the Court finds that the definition of resident which the VCSO applied to plaintiff does not violate California law."

Raulinaitis v. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (9th Cir. 2016, no. 12-56508)

Caselaw

912 F.Supp.2d 875 United States District Court, N.D. California. Tom SCOCCA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Sheriff Laurie SMITH, et al., Defendants. No. C–11–1318 EMC. Dec. 17, 2012.

41 F.Supp.3d 927 United States District Court, E.D. California. Jeff SILVESTER, et al., Plaintiffs v. Kamala HARRIS, Attorney General of California, and Does 1 to 20, Defendants. Case No. 1:11–CV–2137 AWI SAB. Signed Aug. 22, 2014. Filed Aug. 25, 2014.

843 F.3d 816 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Jeff SILVESTER; Brandon Combs; The Calguns Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization; The Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Kamala D. HARRIS, Attorney General of the State of California, in her official capacity, Defendant-Appellant. No. 14-16840 Argued and Submitted February 9, 2016 San Francisco, California Filed December 14, 2016

2019 WL 3302589 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. California. Nabil SAMAAN, Plaintiff, v. Scott R. JONES, Defendant. No. 2:16-cv-00789-KJM-CKD Signed 07/23/2019

2018 WL 4908171 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. California. Nabil SAMAAN, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, Scott Jones, individually and in his capacity as sheriff, and Does 1 through 10, Defendants. No. 2:16-cv-00789-KJM-CKD Signed 10/09/2018 Filed 10/10/2018 Attorneys and Law Firms

2016 WL 10933077 Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, C.D. California. Ronald NORDSTROM, Plaintiff, v. Ventura County Sheriff Geoff DEAN, Defendant. Case No. CV 15–7607 DMG (FFMx) Signed 01/08/2016

Opinions of Attorney General

64 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 832 (Cal.A.G.), 1981 WL 126823 Office of the Attorney General State of California Opinion No. 81-709 November 10, 1981

• 1 THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. CURTIS

DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY THE HONORABLE WILLIAM D. CURTIS, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTEREY, has requested an opinion on the following question: Is a Department of Corrections peace officer, as defined in Penal Code section 830.5, permitted to carry concealed a concealable firearm without the license required by Penal Code section 12025?

CONCLUSION

A Department of Corrections peace officer, as defined in Penal Code section 830.5, is permitted to carry concealed a concealable firearm without the license required by Penal Code section 12025, if authorized to do so by the Department of Corrections under such terms and conditions as are specified by the Department.

ANALYSIS

Penal Code section 120251 prohibits a person from carrying a concealable firearm concealed within a vehicle or on his person without a license. The provisions for licensing are set out in Penal Code sections 12050 through 12054.2 The licensing requirement does not apply or affect peace officers identified in section 12027. In pertinent part, section 12027, excepts the following peace officers: ‘(a) Peace officers listed in section 830.1 or 830.2 whether active or honorably retired, other duly appointed peace officers, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the federal government who are carrying out official duties while in California, or any person summoned by any such officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he is actually engaged in assisting such officer.’ Classes of peace officers are listed in sections 830.1, 830.2, 830.31, 830.4, 830.5, 830.6 and 830.8(b). Section 830.53 includes parole officers and correctional officers of the Department of Corrections and any employee of the Department designated as a peace officer by the Director of Corrections. In 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 385 (1980), we concluded that Department of Corrections peace officers, as specified in section 830.5, were exempt by operation or section 12027 from the prohibition against carrying concealed a concealable firearm without the appropriate license. Our reasoning was that these persons were ‘other duly appointed peace officers' within the meaning of section 12027 and the Legislature did not limit the licensing exception, as it had in cases of other categories of peace officers, to periods of time when such peace officers were engaged in the performance of their duties of employment. As stated in 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 385, 388-389 (1980): ‘We note that when the Legislature has determined to limit the exception of section 12027 to a person while such person is acting in the course of a certain duty, it has done so. Thus, subdivision (a) of section 12027 provides that a person summoned by any peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace is exempt ‘while he is actually engaged in assisting such officer.’ Likewise, subdivision (c) exempts members of the armed forces ‘when on duty.’ Subdivision (e) exempts certain guards and messengers ‘while actually employed in and about the shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure, bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.’ Likewise, subdivisions (f), (g) and (h) exempt members of shooting clubs, licensed hunters or fishermen, and members of antigue gun clubs during the period they are engaged in such activities. Had the Legislature wanted to place a similar restriction on peace officers and restrict their section 12027 exemption to duty hours, presumably it would have done so as in the case of the other classes referred to in that section.'

• 2 At the time this opinion was issued section 830.5 contained no reference to the matter of firearms. Consequently, our analysis was limited to the applicability of section 12027 to Department of Corrections peace officers. However, section 830.5 and sections 830.3, 830.31 and 830.4 were subsequently amended, effective September 30, 1980, to incorporate such a reference (Stats. 1980, c. 1340, pp. 614-615, § 13). Added to these statutes was a provision that the peace officers defined therein ‘may carry firearms only if authorized and under terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agency.’ This amendment was one of several resulting from Senate Bill No. 1447 (1979-1980 Reg. Sess.), which restructured the peace officer statutes.

Senate Bill No. 1447, when introduced on February 7, 1980, and insofar as it was intended to amend section 830.5, did not contain initially the above or a similar firearms provision. The original bill, however, proposed that sections 830.3 and 830.4 incorporate the following language: ‘[N]otwithstanding Sections 12027 and 12031, such peace officers shall carry firearms under such terms and conditions as specified by their employing agencies.’4 By amendment in the Senate on March 10, 1980, this provision was added to section 830.5 with a modification in wording: ‘[N]otwithstanding Sections 12027 and 12031, such peace officers may carry firearms only under such terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agency.’ In all three sections ‘may’ was now used in place of ‘shall’. This amendment also set out a new section 830.31, identifying other categories of peace officers, and containing the above firearms provision. The bill was amended in the Assembly on May 14, 1980, and the firearms provision in sections 830.3, 830.31, 830.4 and 830.5 was changed to read: ‘In accordance with Sections 12027 and 12031, such peace officers may carry firearms, but only under such terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agency.’ A further amendment was made in the Assembly on June 17, 1980. This time the language in sections 830.3, 830.31 and 830.4 was revised as follows: ‘Such peace officers may carry firearms only if authorized and under terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agencies.’ In contrast, the language in section 830.5 was changed to read: ‘[s]uch peace officers may carry firearms, but only under reasonable terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agency.’ Nevertheless, by a June 28, 1980, Assembly amendment, this latter language was discarded and the wording used in sections 830.3, 830.31 and 830.4 was used in section 830.5 as well. Accordingly, the final version of the bill, which became the law, settled on this provision: ‘Such peace officer[s] may carry firearms only if authorized and under such terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agency.’ The digest of Senate Bill No. 1447 by Legislative Counsel (Stats. 1980, c. 1340, pp. 606-607) recognized that prior law exempted ‘peace officers from specified prohibitions against the carrying of loaded or concealed firearms.’ The new law, the digest noted, would revise ‘peace officer exceptions for carrying loaded or concealable firearms.’

• 3 The meaning of the above firearms provision is plain, clear and unambiguous. First, department of Corrections peace officers may carry firearms. This is consistent with section 12027 which exempts ‘other duly appointed peace officers' from the licensing provisions.5 It is also in harmony with section 832, which directs that every person described as a peace officer in chapter 4.5 of title 3, part 2 of the Penal Code receive ‘a course of training in the carrying and use of firearms.’ Secondly, the authority to carry firearms is nevertheless qualified, i.e., such peace officer may carry firearms only if authorized and under such terms and conditions as are specified by the Department of Corrections. Thus, the agency may prohibit or limit the carrying of firearms. This is consistent with section 832 which states: ‘The course of training in the carrying and use of firearms shall not be required of any peace officer whose employing agency prohibits the use of firearms.’6

The firearms provision of section 830.5 does not distinguish between firearms carried concealed or openly, or between firearms which are concealable or otherwise. Consequently, the act of carrying concealed a concealable firearm is within the purview of the statute. In addition to giving the Department the authority to allow or disallow the carrying of firearms by its officers and the authority to set terms and conditions if it permits such carrying, section 830.5 provides that Department of Corrections peace officers' authority extends ‘to any place in the state while engaged in the performance of the duties of their respective employment and for the purpose of carrying out the primary purpose of their employment or as required under Sections 8597, 8598, and 8617 of the Government Code.’7 A statute should be construed as a whole, giving effect to every word and clause. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1858; Carleson v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1976) 64 Cal.App.3d 145, 155-156.) Reading this employment provision together with the firearms provision, we conclude that the Department's authority and control over its peace officers carrying firearms, including the concealed carrying of concealable firearms, extends to all times when the officers identified in section 830.5 are acting as peace officers. Section 830.5 and section 12027 concern peace officers and firearms. The sections can be harmonized. (See People ex rel. Younger v. Superior Court of Alameda County (1976) 16 Cal.3d 30, 40.) As we have seen, section 12025 imposes criminal sanctions upon a person who, without a license, carries concealed a concealable firearm and section 12027 exempts ‘duly qualified peace officers' from this licensing requirement. However, we do not interpret section 12027 as giving a peace officer authority to carry concealed a concealable firearm if his or her employing governmental agency prohibits or restricts such act. (See Peterson v. Long Beach (1979) 24 Cal.3d 238, 246; San Jose Peace Officers Assn. v. San Jose (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 935, 947; Long Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Long Beach (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 364, 372; Stribling v. Mailliard (1970) 6 Cal.App.3d 470, 473-474.) If the peace officer has such authority from his employing governmental agency, he is not required to obtain a license. However, if he has not received such authority, he must secure a license if the chooses to carry concealed a concealable firearm or face the prospect of violating section 12025. This is consistent with our conclusion in 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 508 (1979) that a reserve peace officer, as defined in section 830.6, was subject to the licensing requirement of section 12025 when not performing duties as a reserve officer.

• 4 Following issuance of our opinion in 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 385 (1980), supra, section 830.5 was amended in an apparent response to the opinion. The Legislature is deemed to be cognizant of the construction we place upon statutes. (Henderson v. Board of Education (1978) 78 Cal.App.3d 875, 883.) As Legislative counsel stated, there was an intent to revise the exceptions for the concealed carrying of concealable firearms.

Accordingly we modify our opinion in 63 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 385 by reason of the subsequent change in the law. Department of Corrections peace officers, as defined in section 830.5, still need not secure licenses, under Penal Code sections 12050-12054, in order to carry concealed concealable firearms. However, the exemption in section 12027 is now qualified by the authority of the Department of Corrections, under section 830.5, to allow or disallow the concealed carrying of concealable firearms or to set the terms and conditions of such carrying by its officers without a license while acting as peace officers. Nothing in this opinion is intended to detract from the right of a peace officer, as defined in section 830.5, to seek a license under sections 12050-12054 to carry concealed a concealed firearm, and, if licensed, to carry such firearm while not performing peace officer duties. (See 62 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 508 (1979), supra.) Should the Department of Corrections prohibit or limit its officers from carrying concealed concealable firearms, the licensing exception of section 12027(a) does not independently grant authority to the contrary. We conclude that the Legislature, by the amendment of section 830.5, has made the carrying of firearms by Department officers while acting as peace officers a matter of departmental policy. GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General JOHN T. MURPHY Deputy Attorney General Footnotes 1 Section 12025 provides in pertinent part: ‘(a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, any person who carries concealed within any vehicle which is under his control or direction any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person without having a license to carry such firearm as provided in this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, and if he has been convicted previously of any felony or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, is guilty of a felony.’ ‘(b) Any person who carries concealed upon his person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person without having a license to carry such firearm as provided in this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor, except any person, having been convicted of a crime against the person, property or a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, who carries concealed upon his person any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person without having a license to carry such firearm as provided in this chapter is guilty of a public offense and is punishable by imprisonment in a state prison, or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed six months, or by fine not to exceed five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment, and if he has been convicted previously of any felony or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, is guilty of a felony.’ 2 Unless otherwise indicated, all further references to statutory provisions will be references to the Penal Code. 3 Section 830.5 provides in its entirety: ‘The following persons are peace officers whose authority extends to any place in the state while engaged in the performance of the duties of their respective employment and for the purpose of carrying out the primary function of their employment or as required under Sections 8597, 8598, and 8617 of the Government Code. Such peace officer[s] may carry firearms only if authorized and under such terms and conditions as are specified by their employing agency: (a) A parole officer of the Department of Corrections or the Department of the Youth Authority, probation officer, or deputy probation officer. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, the authority of such parole or probation officer shall extend only (1) to conditions of parole or of probation by any person in this state on parole or probation; (2) to the escape of any inmate or ward from a state or local institution; (3) to the transportation of such persons; and (4) to violations of any penal provisions of law which are discovered in the course of and arise in connection with his employment. (b) A correctional officer employed by the Department of Corrections or any employee of the Department of the Youth Authority having custody of wards or any employee of the Department of Corrections designated by the Director of Corrections or employee of the Board of Prison Terms designated by the Secretary of the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency or employee of the Department of Youth Authority designated by the Director of the Department of the Youth Authority, any superintendent, supervisor, or employee having custody of wards in an institution operated by a probation department, and any transportation officer of a probation department.' 4 Section 12031 concerns prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms and contains an exception for peace officers similar to section 12027. 5 It is also consistent with section 12031 which excludes such peace officers from the prohibition against carrying a loaded firearm. 6 In California State Employees' Assn. v. Enomoto (1981) 118 Cal.App.3d 599, 602-604, state parole agents contended that the Department of Corrections was required to furnish them with service revolvers as safety equipment under the California Occupational Health and Safety Act (OSHA). The court, however, sustained a departmental policy prohibiting parole agents from carrying firearms except with prior permission. 7 The Government Code provisions relate to expanded peace officer duties arising in a war emergency, a state of emergency or a local emergency. 64 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 832 (Cal.A.G.), 1981 WL 126823

63 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 385 (Cal.A.G.), 1980 WL 96852 Office of the Attorney General State of California Opinion No. 80-225 May 9, 1980

• 1 THE DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS

THE DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS has requested an opinion on a question which may be phrased as follows: Are Department of Corrections peace officers, as defined in Penal Code section 830.5, exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm set forht in Penal Code section 12025 by virtue of Penal Code section 12027 during the officers' off-duty hours?

CONCLUSION

Department of Corrections peace officers, as defined in Penal Code section 830.5, are exempt from the prohibition against carrying a concealed firearm set forth in Penal Code section 12025 by virtue of Penal Code section 12027 whether such officers are on duty or off duty.

ANALYSIS

Penal Code section1 12025 provides that any person who carries a concealable firearm concealed on his person or in his vehicle is quilty of a misdemeanor. Sections 12026 and 12027 set forth certain exemptions from the rule of section 12025. Section 12027 provides: ‘Section 12025 does not apply to or affect any of the following: ‘(a) Peace officers listed in Sections 830.1, 830.2, or subdivision (a) of Section 830.3, whether active or honorably retired, other duly appointed peace officers, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the federal government who are carrying out official duties while in California, or any person summoned by any such officers to assist in making arrests or preserving the peace while he is actually engaged in assisting such officer. ‘The agency from which a peace officer is honorably retired may, upon initial retirement of the peace officer, or at anytime subsequent thereto, deny or revoke, for good cause, the retired officer's privilege to carry a weapon as provided in this subdivision. Any peace officer who has been honorably retired shall be issued an identification certificate containing an endorsement by the issuing agency indicating whether or not the retired peace officer has the privilege to carry a weapon pursuant to this subdivision. ‘(b) The possession or transportation by any merchant of unloaded firearms as merchandise. ‘(c) Members of the Army, Navy, or Marine Corps of the United States, or the National Guard, when on duty, or organizations which are by law authorized to purchase or receive such weapons from the United States or this state. ‘(d) Duly authorized military or civil organizations while parading, or the members thereof when going to and from the places of meeting of their respective organizations. ‘(e) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other financial institutions while actually employed in and about the shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure, bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state. ‘(f) Members of any club or organization organized for the purpose of practicing shooting at targets upon established target ranges, whether public or private, while such members are using any of the firearms referred to in this chapter upon such target ranges, or while going to and from such ranges.

• 2 ‘(g) Licensed hunters or fishermen while engaged in hunting or fishing, or while going to or returning from such hunting or fishing expedition.

‘(h) Members of any club or organization organized for the purpose of collecting and displaying antique or historical pistols, revolvers or other firearms, while such members are displaying such weapons at meetings of such clubs or organizations or while going to and from such meetings, or individuals who collect such firearms not designed to fire, or incapable of firing fixed cartridges or fixed shot shells, or other firearms of obsolete ignition type for which ammunition is not readily available and which are generally recognized as collector's items, provided such firearm is kept in the trunk. If the vehicle is not equipped with a trunk, such firearm shall be kept in a locked container in an area of the vehicle other than the utility or glove compartment.’ (Emphasis added.) Section 830.5 provides that the Director of Corrections and various members of his staff, including parole officers and correctional officers, are peace officers.2 That section limits the authority of Department of Corrections peace officers to law enforcement duties related to their particular employment except in certain cases of a proclaimed state of emergency. By its express terms section 12027 exempts ‘duly appointed peace officers' from the provisions of section 12025. The issue presented by the instant question is whether by virtue of the limitations on the authority of peace officers employed by the Department of Corrections set forth in section 830.5, such officers would not fall within the exemption set forth in section 12027 during their off-duty hours. We conclude that peace officers specified in section 830.5 fall within the exemption of section 12027 whether they are on or off duty. It is a fundamental principle of statutory construction that the primary and controlling consideration in the construction of a statute is the determination of and the giving effect to the legislative intent behind the statute. (Great Lake Properties, Inc. v. City of El Segundo (1977) 19 Cal.3d 152, 153; Select Base Materials, Inc. v. Board of Equalization (1959) 51 Cal.2d 640, 645.) In determining legislative intent, the words used in the statute should be interpreted to give effect to the statute according to the usual, ordinary import of the language. (Moyer v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd. (1973) 10 Cal.3d 222, 230.) Statutes on the same subject matter should be construed together in light of each other so as to ascertain the legislative intent and to harmonize the statute. (Id., at p. 230.) Turning to the words of section 12027, we find that the Legislature has exempted from the provisions of section 12025 ‘duly appointed peace officers.’ Department of Corrections peace officers are ‘duly appointed peace officers' while they are on duty at work or while they are off duty. In the absence of countervailing circumstances, it must be assumed that the Legislature meant to say what it said in drafting the statute. (Tracy v. Municipal Court (1978) 22 Cal.3d 760, 764.) If the Legislature had intended the exemption in section 12027 to apply to peace officers only when they were acting with peace officer authority it could have so stated.3

• 3 We note that when the Legislature has determined to limit the exemption of section 12027 to a person while such person is acting in the course of a certain duty, it has done so. Thus, subdivision (a) of section 12027 provides that a person summoned by any peace officer to assist in making an arrest or preserving the peace is exempt ‘while he is actually engaged in assisting such officer.’ Likewise, subdivision (c) exempts members of the armed forces ‘when on duty.’ Subdivision (e) exempts certain guards and messengers ‘while actually employed in and about the shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure, bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.’ Likewise, subdivisions (f), (g) and (h) exempt members of shooting clubs, licensed hunters or fishermen, members of antique gun clubs during the period they are engaged in such activities. Had the Legislature wanted to place a similar restriction on peace officers and restrict their section 12027 exemption to duty hours, presumably it would have done so as in the case of the other classes referred to in that section.

There is an exception which proves the rule in this regard. In 62 Cal.Ops.Atty.Gen. 508 (1979) we concluded that a reserve peace officer within the meaning of section 830.6 was subject to the license requirements of section 12025 when not performing duties as a reserve officer. However, that conclusion was based upon the language of section 830.6 regarding the authority of a reserve peace officer and section 12050 regarding issuance of a concealed firearms license. Section 830.6 provides: ‘(a) Whenever any qualified person is deputized or appointed by the proper authority as a reserve or auxiliary sheriff or city policeman, a deputy sheriff, or a reserve police officer of a regional park district, and is assigned specific police functions by such authority, such person is a peace officer; provided, such person qualifies as set forth in Section 832.6, and provided further, that the authority of such person as a peace officer shall extend only for the duration of such specific assignment. ‘(b) Whenever any person is summoned to the aid of any uniformed peace officer, such person shall be vested with such powers of a peace officer as are expressly delegated him by the summoning officer or as are otherwise reasonably necessary to properly assist such officer.’ (Emphases added.) Section 12050 provides in part: ‘(a) The sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county, upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character, that good cause exists for the issuance, and that the person applying is a resident of the county, may issue to such person a license to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm for any period of time not to exceed one year from the date of the license, or in the case of a peace officer appointed pursuant to Section 830.6, three years from the date of the license.

• 4 ‘..........’ (Emphasis added.)

It can been seen from the above two sections that the Legislature has specifically provided that a reserve officer is a peace officer only for the duration of a specific assignment and has made a special provision for a license for such officer to carry a concealed firearm. Reading the express language of these two sections in harmony with the provisions of section 12027 it becomes apparent that as to a reserve peace officer the Legislature intended that such officer would not be exempt under section 12027 while not performing a specific peace officer assignment. In contrast, the Legislature has not made special provision for a license for other peace officers in section 12050. We do not believe that the Legislature intended reserve peace officers to be eligible to obtain a three year license under section 12025, but that other peace officers would be eligible only for a one year license. Again, reading the statutes in harmony, we conclude that section 12050 is not applicable to duly appointed peace officers other than reserve peace officers because generally other officers are exempt from the licensing requirements of section 12025 by viture of section 12027.4 We have considered the possibility that the Legislature intended that the exemption of section 12027 would only apply to peace officers while they are acting within the scope of peace officer authority. The wording of the section negates any such intention on the part of the Legislature. Peace officers listed in sections 830.1, 830.2, or subdivision (a) of 830.3 are exempt whether they are active or honorably retired. For example, a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Police Department who is honorably retired falls within the exemption. (See § 830.2, subd. (f).) Consequently, we see no basis for assuming that the Legislature intended to limit the exemption of peace officers to those times when they are acting within the scope of their authority as police officers. A peace officer as defined in Penal Code section 830.5 is a ‘duly appointed peace officer’ whether on or off duty, although the peace officer's authority may be limited to specified functions by that section. We conclude that a Department of Corrections peace officer, as defined in section 830.5, is exempt from the provisions of section 12025 by virtue of section 12027, subdivision (a). GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN Attorney General PAUL H. DOBSON Deputy Attorney General Footnotes 1 Hereafter all unidentified section references are to the Penal Code. 2 Section 830.5 provides in pertinent part: ‘(a) Any parole officer of the State Department of Corrections, placement or parole officer of the Youth Authority, probation officer, or deputy probation officer is a peace officer. Except as otherwise provided in this subdivision, the authority of any such peace officer shall extend only (1) to conditions of parole or of probation by any person in this state on parole or probation; (2) to the escape of any inmate or ward from a state institution; (3) to the transportation of such persons; and (4) as provided in Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code, or when acting pursuant to Section 8617 of the Government Code. The authority of any parole officer of the State Department of Corrections shall further extend to violations of any penal provisions of law which are discovered in the course of and arise in connection with his employment. ‘(b) Any warden, superintendent, supervisor, or guard employed by the Department of Corrections, the Director of Corrections, any deputy director of the Department of Corrections, any superintendent, assistant superintendent, supervisor, or employee having custody of wards, of each institution of the Department of the Youth Authority, and any transportation officer of the Department of the Youth Authority, is a peace officer. The authority of any such peace officer shall extend only (1) as is necessary for the purpose of carrying out the duties of his employment, and (2) as provided in Section 8597 or 8598 of the Government Code, or when acting pursuant to Section 8617 of the Government Code. When he is carrying out his duties, any such supervisor, guard, officer, or employee who is engaged in transportation of prisoners or apprehension of prisoners or wards who have escaped is a peace officer whether acting within or without this state. ‘..........’ 3 In this respect it should be noted that the Legislature has expressly provided that section 12027 is not applicable to certain peace officers who are prohibited by statute from carrying firearms. (See § 830.3, subds. (j), (1) and (o).) 4 As we have noted (in fn. 2, supra) some peace officers are expressly excluded from the exemption of section 12027. 63 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 385 (Cal.A.G.), 1980 WL 96852

25 Pac. L.J. 553 Pacific Law Journal January, 1994 Review of Selected 1993 California Legislation Crimes Renee M. Cartier Copyright (c) 1994 by the McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific; Renee M. Cartier CRIMES; LICENSES TO CARRY CONCEALED FIREARMS Penal Code § 12053 (repealed, new, and amended); §§ 11106, 12050, 12051, 12054 (amended). AB 155 (Connolly); 1993 STAT. Ch. 1167 Under existing law, the sheriff1 or head of a municipal police department2 may issue a license to carry a concealed firearm3 upon the person.4 Chapter 1167 prohibits issuance of the license if the Department *554 of Justice (Department) determines that the person is within a prohibited class of persons.5 If, at any time, the licensing authority is notified by the Department, or determines that a licensee is within the prohibited class of persons, Chapter 1167 requires the licensing authority to revoke the license.6 Chapter 1167 additionally permits a licensee, under certain circumstances, to apply for an amendment to a license to carry a concealed firearm.7

• 555 Existing law requires the Attorney General to keep and file specified forms and records, including applications for licenses to carry concealable firearms upon the person.8 Chapter 1167 additionally requires the Attorney General to keep records of all issued, amended, or revoked licenses to carry a concealed firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.9

Under existing law, the licensing authority10 is required to keep records of any licenses issued and to file copies of those licenses with the Department.11 With the enactment of Chapter 1167, the licensing authority must also maintain records of any licenses which are issued, amended, revoked, or denied, and file copies of those records with the Department.12 Existing law provides that any person who knowingly13 makes false statements, concerning specific circumstances, on an application regarding the denial or revocation of a license to carry a concealed firearm, is guilty of a felony.14 Chapter 1167 mandates that any person who knowingly makes false statements, concerning the same specific circumstances, on an *556 application, regarding the denial of an amendment to a license, is also guilty of a felony.15 Footnotes 1 See CAL.CIV.PROC.CODE § 17 (West 1982) (defining sheriff as including constables and marshals); CAL.PENAL CODE § 832.3 (West Supp.1993) (setting forth training standards for sheriffs). 2 See CAL. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE §§ 20000-20332 (West 1992) (regulating the establishment of police protection districts). 3 See CAL.PENAL CODE § 12001(a) (West Supp.1993) (defining pistol, revolver, and firearm capable of being concealed upon the person as including any device designed to be used as a weapon which propels a projectile by force of combustion and which has a barrel less than 16 inches in length); 58 Op.Cal. Att'y Gen. 777, 777 (1975) (declaring that a Taser TF-1 weapon is a firearm capable of being concealed upon the person); cf. D.C.CODE ANN. § 22-3201(a) (1981) (defining pistol); MD.ANN.CODE art. 27, § 36F(b) (1992) (defining handgun as any pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person); ORE.REV.STAT. § 166.210(4) (1991) (defining handgun as any conventional pistol or revolver which: (1) Uses a fixed cartridge and contains a propellent charge, primer, and projectile; (2) is designed to be fired otherwise than from the shoulder; and (3) fires only a single shot for each pull of the trigger); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ANN. § 22-1-2(32) (1988) (defining pistol as any firearm with a barrel less than 16 inches and is designed to expel a projectile by action of an explosive); Strong v. United States, 581 A.2d 383, 385 (D.C.1990) (stating that an air pistol does not constitute a pistol for purposes of a statute prohibiting carrying dangerous weapons). 4 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12050(a) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. § 7 (West 1988) (defining person); id. § 12050(a)(1)-(2) (amended by Chapter 1167) (authorizing the issuance of a license to carry concealed firearms upon proof that the applicant is of good moral character, good cause exists to issue the license, and the applicant is a resident of the county); id. § 12050 (amended by Chapter 1167) (regulating the issuance of licenses to carry concealed firearms capable of being concealed upon the person); id. § 12054(a) (amended by Chapter 1167) (permitting the Department to charge a fee not to exceed three dollars for processing a renewal application or an application for a new license); id. § 12025 (West Supp.1993) (describing the criteria and punishment for the crime of carrying a concealed firearm); Salute v. Pitchess, 61 Cal.App.3d 557, 560-61, 132 Cal.Rptr. 345, 347 (1976) (stating that the duty of the sheriff is to make a determination of good cause on an individual basis for every application of licensed private investigators seeking a permit to carry concealed weapons); 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 508, 508 (1979) (declaring that a reserve police officer is ineligible to receive a concealed firearm permit if that officer does not reside in the county in which the city is located); cf. COLO.REV.STAT. §§ 30-10-523, 31-4-112.1 (1992) (authorizing the chief of police and the sheriff of each county to issue permits to carry concealed weapons); FLA.STAT.ANN. § 790.06(2) (West Supp.1993) (requiring the Department of State to issue a license to carry a concealed weapon upon the applicant meeting specified criteria); ME.REV.STAT. tit. 25, § 2003 (1992) (setting forth specific criteria for issuance of a permit to carry a concealed firearm); 18 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 6109(B) (1993) (stating that applications to carry concealed firearms are to be filed with the county sheriff or with the chief of police); MacNutt v. Police Comm'r of Boston, 572 N.E.2d 577, 579 (Mass.App.Ct.1991) (holding that a statute, which permits issuance of a license to carry a concealed weapon to “suitable persons” for a “proper purpose” does not infringe on any protected liberty or property right). 5 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12050(d) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. § 17(a) (West Supp.1993) (defining felony); id. § 12050(d) (amended by Chapter 1167) (prohibiting the issuance of a license to carry a concealed pistol if the Department determines that the applicant is within the class of persons described in California Penal Code §§ 12021, 12021.1 or California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 8100, 8103); see also id. § 12021 (West Supp.1993) (prohibiting any person who has been convicted of a felony from owning or possessing a firearm); id. § 12021.1 (West 1992) (providing that persons convicted of specified violent offenses, who own or possess any firearm, are guilty of a felony); id. § 12021(b)(1)-(26) (West 1992) (enumerating the specific violent offenses); CAL.WELF. & INST.CODE § 8100 (West Supp.1993) (prohibiting possession or ownership of a firearm by a person determined to be a danger to himself or others and certain mentally disordered persons); id. § 8103 (West Supp.1993) (stating that any person, who has been adjudicated as a danger to others or as a mentally disordered sex offender, or has been found not guilty by reason of insanity of certain crimes, must not have possession or custody of a firearm); Dickerson v. State, 517 So.2d 625, 627 (Ala.Crim.App.1986) (declaring that a statute which prohibits owning or possessing a pistol after having been convicted if a felony is not unconstitutional); State v. Ortiz, 546 A.2d 338, 339 (Conn.App.Ct.1988) (stating that a statute prohibiting possession of a pistol by a person previously convicted of a crime does not violate due process). 6 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12050(e)(1) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. (authorizing the licensing authority to revoke a license to carry a concealed pistol upon the person if either the Department or the licensing authority determine that the licensee is within the class of persons described in California Penal Code §§ 12021, 12021.1 or California Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 8100, 8103); id. § 12050(2) (amended by Chapter 1167) (requiring the Department to notify the licensing authority if, at any time, it determines that a licensee is within a prohibited class of persons); id. § 12050(3) (amended by Chapter 1167) (requiring the licensing authority to notify the licensee and the Department of the revocation of a license); Nichols v. County of Santa Clara, 223 Cal.App.3d 1236, 1244, 273 Cal.Rptr. 84, 89 (1990) (stating that the privilege to carry a concealed firearm is not such a significant property right so as to require a hearing prior to the revocation of the license under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution); id. at 1243, 273 Cal.Rptr. at 88 (declaring the sheriffs' decision to revoke a license to carry a concealed firearm highly discretionary); id. at 1244-45, 273 Cal.Rptr. at 89 (upholding a sheriff's revocation of a license to carry a concealed firearm where the licensee displayed a poor attitude towards police while under the influence of alcohol); cf. ALA.CODE § 13A-11-75 (1992) (permitting the sheriff to revoke a license upon proof that the licensee is not a proper person to be licensed); FLA.STAT.ANN. § 790.06(10) (West Supp.1992) (setting forth conditions under which a license to carry a concealed weapon may be suspended or revoked); 18 PA.CONS.STAT.ANN. § 6109(I) (1993) (stating that, for good cause, a license to carry a firearm may be revoked by the issuing authority). 7 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12050(f)(1)(A)-(D) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. (allowing a licensee to apply for an amendment to the license in order to add or delete authority to carry a particular firearm, to authorize the licensee to carry a concealed pistol, or to change any restrictions on the license); id. § 12050(f)(2), (4) (amended by Chapter 1167) (stating that, when licensees change their address, new licenses will be issued reflecting the changes, and providing that a license may not be revoked solely because the licensee changed residences without applying for an amendment to that license); id. § 12050(f)(3) (amended by Chapter 1167) (requiring the licensing authority to issue a new license if the original license has been amended); id. § 12051(b) (amended by Chapter 1167) (providing that any person, who files an application to carry a concealed weapon, while knowing that the information provided is false, is guilty of a misdemeanor); see also id. § 17(a) (West Supp.1993) (defining misdemeanor); id. § 12054(b) (amended by Chapter 1167) (permitting any city or county to charge a fee not to exceed three dollars for processing an amended license). 8 Id. § 11106(a) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. (directing the Attorney General to maintain records of fingerprints, applications to carry firearms which are capable of being concealed upon the person, dealers' records of sales of firearms, reports filed by peace officers relating to the transfer of firearms, Law Enforcement Firearms Transfer Forms, and reports of stolen, lost, found, pledged, or pawned property). 9 Id. § 11106(a) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. (mandating that the Attorney General maintain records of specified documents, including information supplied to the Department pursuant to California Penal Code § 12053); id. § 12053(b) (repealed and enacted by Chapter 1167) (specifying records relating to licenses which must be provided to the Department by the issuing authority). 10 See id. § 12050(a)(1)(A) (amended by Chapter 1167) (authorizing the sheriff of a county, the chief, or other head of a municipal police department to issue licenses to carry concealed weapons). 11 Id. § 12053(a)(3), (b)(3) (enacted by Chapter 1167); cf. PA.CONS.STAT. § 6109(e)(3) (1993) (directing the issuing authority to retain, for six years, a copy of the original license to carry a firearm). 12 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12053(a)-(b) (enacted by Chapter 1167). 13 See United States v. Hester, 880 F.2d 799, 802-03 (4th Cir.1989) (stating that the term “knowingly,” in a statute which prohibits knowingly making false statements in connection with the transfer or acquisition of a firearm, includes deliberate disregard for the truth, falsity with conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth, as well as actual knowledge). 14 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12051(c)(1)-(7) (amended by Chapter 1167); see id. (providing that any person, who makes a false statement regarding a criminal conviction, a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity, the use of a controlled substance, a dishonorable discharge from military service, a commitment to a mental institution, or a renunciation of United States citizenship, on an application concerning the denial or revocation of a license to carry a concealed firearm is guilty of a felony); see also United States v. Hernandez, 913 F.2d 1506, 1513 (10th Cir.1990) (stating that providing false information on an ATF Form 4473 is a violation of the statute prohibiting false statements in connection with the purchase of a firearm). 15 CAL.PENAL CODE § 12051(c)(1)-(7) (amended by Chapter 1167). 25 PACLJ 553