License to Carry

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.

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.