AB 2218: Gambling: licenses.

Existing law, the Gambling Control Act, provides for the licensure and regulation of various legalized gambling activities and establishments by the California Gambling Control Commission and the investigation and enforcement of those activities and establishments by the Department of Justice. A willful violation of the act is a misdemeanor. Existing law requires every person who is required to hold a state license to obtain the license prior to engaging in the activity or occupying the position with respect to which the license is required, except as specified. Existing law also requires every person who, by order of the commission, is required to apply for a gambling license or a finding of suitability to file an application within 45 calendar days after receipt of the order.

This bill would instead require the application described above to be filed within 60 calendar days after receipt of an order of the commission.

Existing law makes it a misdemeanor for a person who deals, plays, or carries on, opens, or causes to be opened, or who conducts, either as owner or employer, whether for hire or not, any of a list of specified gambling games, or any banking or percentage game played with cards, dice, or any device, for money, checks, credit, or any representative of value.

Existing law generally requires a person to be deemed unsuitable to hold a state gambling license under the California Gambling Control Act to own a gambling establishment if the person, or any partner, officer, director, or shareholder of that person, has any financial interest in any business or organization that is engaged in any form of gambling prohibited under the provision described above, whether within or without this state. Existing law exempts from these provisions a person who meets specified criteria, including a person who is licensed or had an application to be licensed on file with the commission on or before February 1, 2013. Existing law requires a person exempt under this provision, within 3 years of the date the closed business or organization reopens or becomes engaged in any form of gambling prohibited under the provision described above, to either divest that persons interest in the business or organization or divest that persons interest in the gambling enterprise or gambling establishment for which the person is licensed or has applied to be licensed by the commission.

During this 3-year divestment period, existing law makes it unlawful for any cross-promotion or marketing, as defined, to occur between the business or organization that is engaged in any form of gambling prohibited under the provision described above, and a gambling enterprise or gambling establishment.

This bill would instead require an exempt person, within 6 years of the date the closed business or organization reopens or becomes engaged in any form of gambling prohibited under the provision described above, to either divest that persons interest in the business or organization or divest that persons interest in the gambling enterprise or gambling establishment for which the person is licensed or has applied to be licensed by the commission. The bill would also make conforming changes. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The bill would require the City of Inglewood, by July 1, 2018, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature and appropriate policy committees of the Legislature on the progress of the construction of the City of Champions Revitalization Project and its impact on the divestment requirement described above. By imposing a reporting requirement on the City of Inglewood, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Inglewood.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.