AB1948

[Gawernator]

So just waiting for Patrick bateman to sign?

He's not that good looking

 

[Gawernator]

6 for renewal

3 for new application

this was removed from the bill FYI.

 

[Dvrjon]

I see Newsom ignoring this and letting it become law without a signature.

That way he can format an explanation to try and satisfy both sides. More than likely that will anger both sides. Typical Newsom.

Forgot to mention…there was NO registered opposition on this bill. None. There is no other “side” to placate.

 

[JackRydden224]

this was removed from the bill FYI.

Dang it but 3 yrs is still better than 2 yrs

I'll take the 50% increase and perhaps once the benefits from this extension are realized we'll get another bill to extend it 4,5 or 6 yrs.

 

[miles888]

...what's the catch?

Sacramento grants concession in one area while tightening in others.

We’re going to need an 8 hour class to apply for an FSC to buy a fire arm, pay excise tax while buying guns and training, get put on a discriminate waitlist for no predetermined time, 16 hours of class to apply for the CCW, and pay all the fees associated with it. All this to exercise a direct right clearly outlined in 2A.

So while this seems like a win it’s actually just Stockholm syndrome.

 

[grandpapeepap]

i also hate having to get a permit to protest or air my grievance with the government! we should abolish those requirements that go against another right protected!

 

[dvoncock]

Has anyone who’s read the final legislative text found indication that the lengthened period between issuance and renewal is retroactive?

 

[Dvrjon]

Has anyone who’s read the final legislative text found indication that the lengthened period between issuance and renewal is retroactive?

No. But to be clear, the duration isn’t mandated as a minimum of three years:

26220. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, 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.

 

[dvoncock]

No. But to be clear, the duration isn’t mandated as a minimum of three years:

Prior to amendment, the statutory text still read “shall not exceed” for initial licenses.

I haven’t heard of any agencies playing games by issuing licenses that were valid for a shorter duration than the full permissible period. If I were to guess, that’s because the administrative cost associated with issuing an initial licenses is often more than the fee permitted under the Penal Code.

Most LE agencies will probably be happy to issues three-year licenses to cut administrative costs.

 

[Dvrjon]

Prior to amendment, the statutory text still read “shall not exceed” for initial licenses.

Fair point. But, since there was some initial confusion over the 6-year issue it seems prudent to highlight this aspect.

I haven’t heard of any agencies playing games by issuing licenses that were valid for a shorter duration than the full permissible period. If I were to guess, that’s because the administrative cost associated with issuing an initial licenses is often more than the fee permitted under the Penal Code.

Up until a few years ago (Bruen) many agencies didn’t issue. Now, they are swamped with apps and can’t make head way. Dropping duration of the license would be silly, but it’s still an aspect of the law.

Most LE agencies will probably be happy to issues three-year licenses to cut administrative costs.

Some have been sued for delays. I doubt they’ll cut admin costs due to the volumes of apps. The recent Wolford decision May ramp that up. So workload will continue.

 

[dvoncock]

Fair point. But, since there was some initial confusion over the 6-year issue it seems prudent to highlight this aspect.

Up until a few years ago (Bruen) many agencies didn’t issue. Now, they are swamped with apps and can’t make head way. Dropping duration of the license would be silly, but it’s still an aspect of the law.

Some have been sued for delays. I doubt they’ll cut admin costs due to the volumes of apps. The recent Wolford decision May ramp that up. So workload will continue.

Maybe I’m cynical, but I believe the claim that delays were being caused by a flood of applications was a feature, not a bug. That was an explicit allegation in the suit filed against LASD and demand letter sent to LAPD (their polices were/are nearly identical).

LASD especially has a history shady issuance practices (pre-Bruen, the LA Times caught LASD selling fast-tracked CCWs to top Villanueva campaign donors by referencing public records with leaked documents). Around the same time, the Santa Clara Sheriff was caught running a similar scheme (the undersheriff actually ended up getting jail time for it!)

Some agencies actually put a lot of man hours into vetting applicants (LAPD called all of my references and, at my interview, it was clear that my IO had spent a decent amount of time reviewing my file. He knew all the firearms registered to me in AFS, mentioned when I received my law license, and appeared aware that I’d previously passed background checks for government employment). It seemed to me that LAPD must be paying officers to spend a few hours on each applicant; I imagine doing that every three years instead of two should save the city some money.