The 2015 legislative session is in full swing, and the Law Center is committed to continue shaping California’s common-sense approach to responsible gun ownership and safety. Our attorneys are busy: tracking laws, testifying at public safety hearings, and working alongside lawmakers to pass legislation that will keep the Golden State a model for the rest of the nation when it comes to enacting smart gun laws that save lives.
This year, we are particularly focused on two important bills to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and away from our schools:
SB 347 “prohibited persons”: would require that criminals convicted of firearms-related misdemeanors, like stealing a gun or selling ammunition to children or felons, are not able to possess or purchase a gun within 10 years of their conviction. This bill will protect public safety, given that individuals who commit gun-related crimes are much more likely than law-abiding citizens to commit future offenses, including acts of violence.
SB 707 “gun-free school zone”: would eliminate a dangerous loophole in California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act by prohibiting individuals licensed to carry concealed handguns from carrying their weapons onto school grounds without the written permission of school officials. This bill would help ensure that school administrators have the discretion they need to provide students with a safe and secure learning environment.
To learn more about all of the firearm-related bills introduced in the California State Legislature this year, check out our comprehensive 2015 California Legislative Summary below.
For more info on legislative trends that are currently developing nationwide, read our 2015 State Gun Law Trendwatch.
2015 California Firearms Legislation Summary
The Law Center is tracking numerous firearm-related bills that were introduced in the California Legislature in 2015. A list of the bills still moving through the Legislature is provided below, followed by a brief summary of each firearm-related bill that was introduced this year. The complete text of each bill can be found at: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov.
For information on the status of firearm-related bills in other states, visit our 2015 summary of gun bills nationwide. For the full description of existing laws to reduce gun violence in California, visit our summary of California gun laws.
2015 Legislation at a Glance:
Currently Active Bills
Legislation to Strengthen California Gun Laws (Law Center Supports):
SB 347 (Jackson): Expanding prohibited persons list to include individuals convicted of certain firearm-related misdemeanors (PRIORITY Legislation)
SB 456 (Block): Preventing CCW licensees from bringing concealed firearms onto school and college campuses without permission from school officials (PRIORITY Legislation)
SB 707 (Wolk): Holding persons who make a credible threat to commit a school shooting criminally and financially liable
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer): Requiring courts to provide notice to certain criminal defendants that convicted felons are prohibited from possessing firearms
AB 950 (Melendez): Allowing persons subject to a Gun Violence Restraining Order to store firearms and ammunition with a licensed firearms dealer for the duration of the Order
Legislation to Weaken California Gun Laws (Law Center Opposition):
AB 1134 (Stone) – Oppose Unless Amended: Creating asymmetry in laws regarding issuance of CCW permits by sheriffs and local police departments
Other Firearm-Related Legislation (Law Center Neutral):
AB 499 (Cooley): Authorizing CCW licensees to carry concealed weapons while hunting with a bow and arrow
AB 892 (Achadjian): Providing an exception to the Unsafe Handgun Act allowing spouses of peace officers killed in the line of duty to receive their spouse’s service weapon
AB 947 (Chavez): Changing where individuals convicted of committing certain drug offenses while armed with a firearm must serve their sentences
SB 347 (Jackson): Expansion of Prohibited Persons List – Existing law generally prohibits a person who has been convicted of certain specified misdemeanors from possessing a firearm within 10 years of the conviction. SB 347 would add to the list of prohibiting misdemeanors the following firearm-related offenses: theft of a firearm, receiving stolen property if the property is a firearm, selling a handgun without a license, selling ammunition to a minor, possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, selling or supplying ammunition to a prohibited person, bringing ammunition on school grounds, carrying a concealed or loaded firearm in public without a license if the person has been convicted of a drug offense or of a crime against a person or property, carrying a concealed or loaded firearm in public without a license if the firearm was loaded and not registered to the person in possession, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited misdemeanant. With the exception of misdemeanor firearm theft and being a prohibited misdemeanant in possession of a firearm, these provisions would apply prospectively.
SB 347 would help protect public safety because individuals who commit gun-related crimes are more likely than law-abiding citizens to commit future offenses, including acts of violence. While a prior conviction of any type of misdemeanor is associated with a higher risk of future unlawful behavior, this correlation is even stronger when the prior offense was related to firearms. A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association showed that handgun purchasers with a single prior conviction for a nonviolent, firearm-related offense are seven times more likely to be charged with new, nonviolent firearms offenses, four times more likely to be charged with new violent offenses, and five times more likely to be charged with murder, rape, robbery, or aggravated assault than a person with no prior convictions.
Status: The bill passed the full Senate on June 3 and passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on June 30. It is now in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
Law Center Position: Support
SB 707 (Wolk): Concealed Carry Licensees in School Zones and College Campuses- Under California’s Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a “school zone” (defined to include the grounds of a public or private K-12 school or any area within 1,000 feet of such school) or the campus of a public or private university or college, unless it is with the written permission of specified school officials. However, current law provides an exception for persons holding a valid license to carry a concealed firearm to carry a firearm in school zones. As a result, these individuals may carry a gun onto the grounds of a school, college, or university without any prior authorization.
SB 707 would require concealed carry licensees to obtain written permission from school officials before carrying firearms onto school grounds. This bill would help improve the ability of school officials to maintain safe, gun-free environments by giving them more control over who is allowed to carry firearms on school property.
Status: The bill passed the full Senate on June 1 and is now scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on July 14.
Law Center Position: Support
Other Active Bills that Strengthen California Gun Laws
Senate Bills
SB 456 (Block): Threat to Discharge a Firearm on Campus – SB 456 would create a new wobbler offense to specifically criminalize intentional school shooting threats. This bill would make a person criminally liable for willfully threatening to discharge a firearm, which will result in death or great bodily injury, on the campus of a school or a location where a school-sponsored event is or will be taking place, with the specific intent that the statement is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of carrying it out, and where the threat, on its face and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution of the threat. A person who committed this crime could be prosecuted for either a misdemeanor or felony offense.
Status: The bill passed the full Senate on May 18 and passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 8. It is now on the full Assembly’s Consent Calendar.
Law Center Position: Support
Assembly Bills
AB 267 (Jones-Sawyer): Notice to Defendants Regarding Potential Consequences of Felony Conviction – Under existing California law, when a criminal defendant is brought before a magistrate after being arrested, the court must inform the defendant of the charge against him or her and also of the defendant’s right to counsel during the proceedings. AB 267 would require the court, prior to acceptance of a guilty or no contest plea to any offense punishable as a felony under state law, to inform the defendant that a conviction for a felony offense may result in various consequences, including prohibitions against owning or possessing a firearm. The bill would also make a legislative finding that the failure to provide this advisement with respect to pleas accepted prior to January 1, 2016, would not be cause to vacate a judgment or require the withdrawal of a plea, or find a conviction invalid.
Status: The bill passed the full Assembly on April 27 and passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 16. It is now awaiting a vote by the full Senate.
Law Center Position: Support
AB 950 (Melendez): Gun Violence Restraining Order, Firearm Transfers – Existing California law generally allows any person who is temporarily prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm to transfer any firearms in his or her possession to a licensed dealer for the duration of the prohibition. Existing law also provides that a dealer may charge the owner a fee for the storage of the firearm. Additionally, a dealer must notify the Department of Justice of the date on which the dealer has taken possession of any firearms on behalf of a temporarily prohibited person. However, these provisions currently only apply to firearms and not to ammunition.
AB 950 would allow temporarily prohibited persons to transfer both firearms and ammunition to licensed dealers for storage during the prohibition period. Moreover, this bill would bring the Gun Violence Restraining Order (“GVRO”) process—which, starting January 1, 2016, will allow law enforcement or family members to petition a court for an order to temporarily prohibit individuals who pose a danger to themselves or others from possessing firearms or ammunition—in line with other California law by allowing a person who is subject to a GVRO to transfer his or her firearms or ammunition to a licensed firearms dealer for storage during the duration of the order.
Status: The bill passed the full Assembly on April 30 and passed the full Senate on July 6. It will now be sent to the Governor.
Law Center Position: Support
Active Bills Opposed by the Law Center
AB 1134 (Stone): CCW Permits– Oppose Unless Amended – Under existing California law, the sheriff of a county and the chief or head of a municipal police department have discretion to issue a CCW permit for a person to carry a concealed, loaded handgun in public, if the person applying for such a permit satisfies certain conditions. Existing law authorizes the chief or other head of a municipal police department to enter into an agreement with the sheriff of the county in which the department is located to allow the sheriff to process all applications for CCW permits, renewals of those permits, and amendments to such permits. However, existing law does not provide sheriffs with parallel authority to enter into such agreements with police departments. As originally introduced, AB 1134 was a common-sense effort to correct this asymmetry in existing law by allowing county sheriffs to enter into agreements with the chiefs of municipal police departments regarding CCW permit applications.
Unfortunately, recent amendments to AB 1134 would make current law even more asymmetrical, not less. As amended, AB 1134 would now grant sheriffs the power to unilaterally review and overrule local police departments’ considered, final determinations on CCW permit applications after entering into an agreement allowing all CCW applications to be processed by the police department. Oddly, the bill would provide no parallel authority for local police departments to review sheriffs’ final determinations on CCW applications after entering into an agreement allowing all such applications to be processed by the sheriff. Instead, we have recommended that AB 1134 be amended to include clear, symmetrical language providing both sheriffs and local police departments the same authority to enter into whatever agreements regarding CCW permit applications would suit the needs of their own communities and respective agencies.
Status: The original version of this bill passed the full Assembly on April 16. The bill is now scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee on July 14.
Law Center Position: Oppose Unless Amended
This session, the Law Center also successfully opposed SB 566, which originally would have significantly weakened California’s firearm safety laws by creating a blanket exemption from safety certification requirements for all honorably discharged members of the military, regardless of the dates or level of their training and experience, or their knowledge of California gun laws. That version of SB 566 was defeated in the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 14. SB 566 was subsequently amended and would have simply granted honorably discharged military members a $10 discount on safety certification fees, as discussed below. That version failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee.
We also successfully opposed AB 225, which would have provided that any person who files a petition for a Gun Violence Restraining Order knowing that the information contained in the petition is false is guilty of perjury. Existing forms prepared by the Judicial Council for DVRO and GVRO petitions already provide warnings that it is perjury to knowingly including false information on such petitions, so this bill was unnecessary and could have had a chilling effect on the GVRO process and the family members of potentially dangerous individuals.
Other Active Firearm-Related Bills
Senate Bills
There are no other firearm-related bills actively moving through the Senate.
Assembly Bills
AB 499 (Cooley): Archery Season Concealed Carry Exception – Existing law establishes an archery season for the taking of deer with bow and arrow. Existing law generally prohibits a person taking or attempting to take deer during that archery season from carrying, or having under his or her immediate control, a firearm of any kind, except for an active or honorably retired peace officer, as specified. AB 499 would authorize a person with a valid license to carry a firearm capable of being concealed on the person, consistent with the terms of that license, while engaged in the taking of deer with bow and arrow as long as he or she does not take or attempt to take deer with the firearm.
Status: The bill passed the full Assembly on May 4 and is now in the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water.
Law Center Position: Neutral
AB 892 (Achadjian): Unsafe Handgun Act Exception for Spouses of Peace Officers Killed in the Line of Duty – Existing law allows the spouse or domestic partner of a peace officer who died in the line of duty to buy his or her state-issued handgun. However, existing California law makes it a crime for any person in the state to manufacture, import into the state, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend any unsafe handgun. AB 892 would exempt from that prohibition the sale or delivery of a state-issued handgun to the spouse or domestic partner of a peace officer who died in the line of duty.
Status: The bill passed the full Assembly on April 16 and passed the full Senate on July 6. It will now be sent to the Governor.
Law Center Position: Neutral
AB 947 (Chavez): Penalty for Crimes Involving Firearms and Controlled Substances – Existing law makes it a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for two, three, or four years to unlawfully possess any amount of a substance containing cocaine base, cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, or phencyclidine while armed with a loaded, operable firearm. AB 947 would instead make that felony punishable in a county jail. Additionally, existing law imposes an enhancement of three, four, or five years on the sentence of a person who is personally armed with a firearm in the commission of a violation of specified controlled substance offenses. This bill would require the enhancement to be served in state prison.
Status: The bill passed the full Assembly on May 14 and is now in the Senate Public Safety Committee.
Law Center Position: Neutral
Firearm-Related Bills that Failed to Pass This Year
Senate Bills
SB 566 (Bates): Firearm Safety Certificate Fees – Existing law authorizes a certified handgun safety instructor to charge a fee of $25 for the issuance of a handgun safety certificate, $15 of which is paid to the Department of Justice to cover the department’s costs in carrying out and enforcing provisions of law relating to handgun safety certificates.
This bill would have reduced the fee for a handgun safety certificate to $15 for an honorably discharged member of the United States Armed Forces, the National Guard, the Air National Guard, or the active reserve components of the United States, $10 of which is to be paid to the Department of Justice to cover the above-described costs. As discussed above, the Law Center successfully opposed the original version of this bill, which would have exempted all honorably discharged members of the military from California’s firearm safety certification requirements. That version was defeated in the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 14 and the bill was subsequently amended.
Status: The amended bill failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 28.
Law Center Position: Neutral
SB 678 (Hill): User-Authorized Firearms Study – User-authorized firearms, also known as “personalized firearms” or “smart guns,” incorporate common sense, cutting-edge technologies, like the fingerprint recognition software now widely available on smart phones, to prevent firearm use by unauthorized users. These firearms are designed to prevent shootings, both intentional and unintentional, by children, thieves, and other unauthorized users, including criminals who may attempt to wrestle guns away from police officers during the course of an arrest.
SB 678 would have directed the California Department of Justice (DOJ) to survey the current state of the user-authorized firearm industry, to assess market conditions and barriers to the market for user-authorized firearms in California, to investigate methods to increase the availability and use of user-authorized firearms in California, and to make recommendations to the Legislature proposing manufacturer performance and reliability standards and testing procedures for user-authorized firearms. The bill would also have directed DOJ to convene a working group in 2016, including representatives from a broad range of interested groups, to provide recommendations to guide DOJ’s review process, and instruct DOJ to report its findings and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2017.
Status: The bill failed to pass the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 28.
Law Center Position: Support
SB 714 (Nielsen): Enhanced Penalties for Certain Offenses Committed by Prohibited Persons – Under current California law, it is a felony for any person who has been previously convicted of a felony to own or possess a firearm. Existing law makes it an offense to carry a concealed firearm, or a loaded firearm in a public place without a license, punishable as a misdemeanor, or, based on prior criminal history and other circumstances, as a felony. It is a felony or a misdemeanor to carry a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony. It is generally a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in a public place.
SB 714 would impose an additional and consecutive term of 10 years in state prison on a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of a previous felony conviction, and who is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, carrying a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony, or openly carrying an unloaded firearm in a public place. This additional sentence will only be imposed if the offender has specified prior convictions related to firearms or violent behavior, or if at the time of the violation the offender was on supervised release, free on bail, awaiting sentencing, or subject to a felony arrest warrant, was in felonious possession of a controlled substance, or assaulted or battered a peace officer by means other than a firearm. The bill would limit the prison credits that may be awarded to a person sentenced pursuant to these provisions to not exceed 15% of the total term of imprisonment imposed and would require the entire term of imprisonment to be served in state prison.
Status: The author cancelled this bill’s hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee scheduled for April 21. SB 714 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Neutral
Assembly Bills
AB 84 (Gatto): Expanding DNA Act to Cover Certain Misdemeanor Crimes – California law, as amended by the DNA Act, requires a person who has been convicted of a felony offense to provide buccal swab samples, right thumbprints, and a full palm print impression of each hand, and any blood specimens or other biological samples required for law enforcement identification analysis.
AB 84 would have required any person who has been convicted of certain firearm-related misdemeanors—including assault with deadly weapon, selling a firearm with knowledge that the purchaser intends to use it to commit a felony, brandishing a weapon, criminal possession of a firearm while masked, possession, sale, transfer or manufacture of machine guns, and unlawful possession of firearms in a motor vehicle—to also provide these forensic identification samples to law enforcement upon conviction. This would also have applied to anyone charged with such a misdemeanor who is subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity.
Status: The bill failed to pass the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 28.
Law Center Position: Support
AB 150 (Melendez): Penalty for Buying or Receiving a Stolen Firearm – Prior to November, 2014, California law stated that theft of a firearm was grand theft, punishable as a felony by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, or two or three years. Additionally, the act of knowingly receiving and/or selling a stolen firearm was punishable either as a misdemeanor or a felony (known as a “wobbler” offense). The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (“Proposition 47”), which was approved by California voters in 2014, amended these provisions to require the theft of property that does not exceed $950, including a firearm, to be considered petty theft, punishable as a misdemeanor only.
AB 150 would have, upon approval by California voters, made buying or receiving a stolen firearm punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, restoring the penalties that were in place prior to the passage of Proposition 47. The bill would also have made the theft of a firearm grand theft in all cases, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years.
Status: The bill failed to pass out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 28.
Law Center Position: Neutral
AB 1415 (Linder): Proposition 47, Felons in Possession of a Firearm – Existing California law makes it a felony for any person who has been previously convicted of a felony to own, purchase, receive, or have in his or her possession or under custody or control any firearm. The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act (Proposition 47), was approved by the voters at the November 4, 2014 and reduced certain felonies to misdemeanors. Prop 47 allows a person who is currently serving a sentence for a conviction of a felony, and who would have been guilty of a misdemeanor under the law established by Prop 47, to petition a court for a recall of sentence in order to resentence the petitioner to a misdemeanor. Prop 47 also allows a court to designate a felony conviction of a person who has completed his or her sentence as a misdemeanor upon application.
AB 1415 would have made it a misdemeanor offense for a person who has had his or her felony conviction recalled and resentenced to a misdemeanor by Proposition 47, or who had his or her felony designated as a misdemeanor by Proposition 47 after completing his or her sentence, to own, purchase, receive, or have in possession, custody, or control any firearm within 10 years of the recall and resentencing or designation of their offense.
Status: The bill failed to pass out the Assembly Appropriations Committee on May 28.
Law Center Position: Neutral
Firearm-Related Bills that Have Become Two-Year Bills
Senate Bills
SB 452 (Galgiani): Proposition 47, Penalty for Firearm Theft – The Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act, enacted by Proposition 47 as approved by the voters on November 4, 2014, requires the theft of property that does not exceed $950 to be considered petty theft, and makes the crime punishable as a misdemeanor, except in cases when the defendant has previously been convicted of one or more specified serious or violent felonies or an offense requiring registration as a sex offender.
SB 452 would, upon approval by California voters, make the theft of a firearm grand theft in all cases, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, or 2 or 3 years.
Status: The bill passed the Senate Public Safety Committee on April 28 but was subsequently amended and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee. SB 452 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Neutral
SB 714 (Nielsen): Enhanced Penalties for Certain Offenses Committed by Prohibited Persons – Under current California law, it is a felony for any person who has been previously convicted of a felony to own or possess a firearm. Existing law makes it an offense to carry a concealed firearm, or a loaded firearm in a public place without a license, punishable as a misdemeanor, or, based on prior criminal history and other circumstances, as a felony. It is a felony or a misdemeanor to carry a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony. It is generally a misdemeanor to openly carry an unloaded handgun in a public place.
SB 714 would impose an additional and consecutive term of 10 years in state prison on a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm because of a previous felony conviction, and who is convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, carrying a loaded firearm in a public place, carrying a loaded firearm with the intent to commit a felony, or openly carrying an unloaded firearm in a public place. This additional sentence will only be imposed if the offender has specified prior convictions related to firearms or violent behavior, or if at the time of the violation the offender was on supervised release, free on bail, awaiting sentencing, or subject to a felony arrest warrant, was in felonious possession of a controlled substance, or assaulted or battered a peace officer by means other than a firearm. The bill would limit the prison credits that may be awarded to a person sentenced pursuant to these provisions to not exceed 15% of the total term of imprisonment imposed and would require the entire term of imprisonment to be served in state prison.
Status: The author cancelled this bill’s hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee scheduled for April 21. SB 714 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Neutral
SB 752 (Nielsen): Enhanced Penalties for Certain Offenses against Peace Officers – Existing California law makes it a crime to violate various provisions prohibiting certain actions against a peace officer or his or her family, other first responders, or public officials, including, but not limited to, removing an officer’s firearm while resisting arrest, and committing battery against a peace officer or other medical personnel engaged in the performance of his or her duties. Current law generally makes the violation of these provisions either misdemeanors or felonies punishable in a county jail, as specified, or punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, which is commonly referred to as a “wobbler.” SB 752 would revise these provisions to make all of the misdemeanors or wobblers instead punishable as felonies in county jail and make all of the felonies punishable in county jail instead punishable in state prison.
Status: The bill’s author cancelled this bill’s hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee scheduled for April 28. SB 752 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Neutral
Assembly Bills
AB 395 (Gallagher): Repeal of Unleaded Ammunition Restriction – Existing law requires, as soon as is practicable, but no later than July 1, 2019, the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of any wildlife, including game mammals, game birds, nongame birds, and nongame mammals, with any firearm, and requires the Fish and Game Commission to promulgate regulations by July 1, 2015, that phase in the requirements of these provisions. AB 395 would repeal the prohibition on the use of nonlead ammunition for the taking of wildlife and related provisions regarding the implementation of this requirement.
Status: The bill’s author cancelled a hearing in the Assembly Committee on Water, Parks and Wildlife scheduled for April 28. AB 395 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Neutral
AB 529 (Jones-Sawyer): APPS Database Search Prior to Driver’s License Renewal – AB 529 would allow the Department of Motor Vehicles to access the Armed Prohibited Persons database (“APPS”) in connection with the registration of vehicles and the issuance or renewal of driver’s licenses. APPS is a database that allows the California Department of Justice to identify individuals who have previously purchased firearms, but who have subsequently become prohibited by law from possessing them.
This bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to register, renew, or transfer the registration of a vehicle, or to issue or renew an individual’s driver’s license, when the Department determines that the person who is seeking a license or person to whom the vehicle is or will be registered is listed as a prohibited person in APPS. Before registering a vehicle, or renewing or transferring the registration of a vehicle, or issuing or renewing a driver’s license, the Department would be required to access APPS to determine if the person who is seeking a license or person to whom the vehicle is or will be registered is listed as a prohibited person.
Status: This author cancelled a hearing in the Assembly Transportation Committee scheduled for April 27. AB 529 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Support if Amended
AB 1154 (Gray): CCW Permits, California Public Records Act – The California Public Records Act currently provides that public records are open to inspection at all times during the office hours of the state or local agency that retains those records, and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as provided. However, existing law provides that nothing in the act shall be construed to require disclosure of information contained in an application for a license to carry a firearm that indicates when or where the applicant is vulnerable to attack or that concerns the applicant’s medical or psychological history or that of members of the applicant’s family. Existing law also provides that the provisions shall not be construed to require disclosure of the home address and telephone number of prosecutors, public defenders, peace officers, judges, court commissioners, and magistrates that are set forth in applications for licenses or in licenses to carry firearms, as specified.
AB 1154 would provide that the California Public Records Act shall not be construed to require the disclosure of the telephone numbers and home addresses (except for city and ZIP code information) of persons that are contained in licenses to carry firearms in public or in the application for such licenses. The bill would also allow for the disclosure of public records relating to the reason an application for a public carry license was granted or denied.
Status: The bill passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 21 but the author cancelled a hearing in the Public Safety Committee scheduled for Apr. 28. AB 1154 is now a two-year bill.
Law Center Position: Neutral