Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law requires a licensing authority to issue or renew a license to carry a firearm capable of being concealed if specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the applicant is not a disqualified person for the license, as specified, and the applicant has completed a specified course of training. Existing law makes a new or renewal license that is issued to be valid for a period of time not to exceed 2 years from the date of the license, except as otherwise provided.

Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law requires a licensing authority to issue or renew a license to carry a firearm capable of being concealed if specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the applicant is not a disqualified person for the license, as specified, and the applicant has completed a specified course of training. Existing law makes a new or renewal license that is issued to be valid for a period of time not to exceed 2 years from the date of the license, except as otherwise provided.

This bill would extend the duration of those licenses to 4 years from the date of the license. The bill would make conforming changes.

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

RECONSIDERATION

VOTE ONLY

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

SUMMARY:

Extends the duration of a concealed carry firearms permit from two years to three years, beginning on January 1, 2026, and from three years to four years, beginning on January 1, 2027.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes that a concealed carry firearms permit issued by designated local officials is valid for two years from the date of the license, excluding the process for amending a license for an applicant’s change of address, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 22620, subd. (a).)
2. States that if a licensee’s place of employment or business was the basis for issuance of a license, 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, and 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. (Pen. Code, § 22620, subd. (b).)
3. Requires that 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. (Pen. Code, § 22620, subd. (b).)
4. Provides that a concealed carry firearms license or license renewal, to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, shall be issued or reissued by the sheriff upon proof submitted by the licensee, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 26150.)
5. Provides that a concealed carry firearms license or license renewal, to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, shall be issued or reissued by the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county upon proof submitted by the licensee, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 26155.)
6. Authorizes a person issued a license pursuant to this article to apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license to add or delete authority to carry a firearm, authorize a person to carry a firearm, 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, and 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. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subd. (a)(1)-(4).)
   
7. Provides that if the licensing authority amends the license, a new license shall be issued to the licensee reflecting the amendments. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subd. (b).)
8. States that 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. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subd. (c).)
   
9. Establishes defined conditions for amending a license due to a change of address. (Pen. Code, § 26210.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California’s two-year renewal cycle for CCW licenses unfairly penalizes law-abiding citizens with greater costs to maintaining an active license and creates extra hassle for responsible gun owners while straining local government resources. AB 1092 fixes this by extending the license term to four years, cutting down on paperwork, saving taxpayer money, and making the process more efficient -- all without lowering safety standards -- bringing CCW licenses in line with other types of important permits in the state, as well as the CCW license policies of nearly every other state across the country.”
   
2. Effect of the Bill: This bill would ultimately extend the duration of a concealed carry license from two years to four years.

For one year, this bill would authorize licensees to secure a three-year license, while licensees would be authorized to secure a four-year license beginning on January 1, 2027. Extending the license duration to three years for only a single year has the potential to distort the normal ebbs and flows of license applications. By including the one-time three-year license option, many applicants could opt to wait until the next year to secure a four-year license knowing that option is soon to be available. This could create pent up demand, which could create backlogs.

In contrast, by extending the license duration, there could be longer-term benefits to processing efficiency by what may be a reduction over time in the number of license and renewal applications received each year. Arguably, administrative processing burdens may be eased by extending the license duration period. While staggering the renewal cycle could create pent up demand, it could also create longer-term consistency in the application cycle by issuing new licensees who may want to immediately take advantage of the longer permitting cycle.

We have witnessed a recent example at the federal level of issues that can be created by distorted application cycles producing pent up demand, which then produce significant application backlogs.

At the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic the United States State Department faced an unprecedented collapse in demand for passports as the Department initially declined to issue passports except in life or death emergencies^[1] and the stay-at-home orders across most of the country depressed demand for passports.^[2] Like passports, concealed carry licenses are issued by government agencies and generally require some amount of processing time to make individualized determinations of whether the document will be issued. Following the rescission of stay-at-home orders, pent up demand for travel caused Americans to apply for passports in record numbers.^[3] This caused enormous backlogs, which produced much higher-than-average wait times for passports to be processed.^[4] It took until December 2023 for the Department to get control of the backlog and its processing times back to normal.^[5]

It is unclear, however, whether staggering the renewal periods will have any significant impact on application cycles.

1. Permitting Schemes and Bruen: This bill would extend the concealed carry license period from two years currently, to four years beginning in 2027.

One study noted, “As of January 1, 2024, 27 states have laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons without first receiving a permit . . . Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia require permits but have shall-issue laws, under which law enforcement agencies have no or very limited discretion to deny concealed-carry permits to citizens who are otherwise permitted to possess handguns.”^[6] Louisiana and South Carolina, which were not permitless carry states in January 2024, have since appeared to become permitless carry states.^[7]

License renewal times and costs vary widely by state. Idaho, for example, charges $20 for an initial permit and $15 for permit renewal with discretion to the Sheriff to charge for fingerprinting and materials for the license.^[8] New permits in Wisconsin require a $40 permit fee and mandatory training.^[9] The initial application for a concealed carry permit in San Jose, CA totals $1,328, which includes over $400 in State fees, a mandatory psychological evaluation, and required completion of a training course.^[10]

Depending on the type of license, renewal times and costs also see large variations. To use relatively consistent examples, Idaho counties typically take at least 90 days to process a concealed carry permit,^[11] Wisconsin completes its process within 21 days,^[12] while the process can take six months or more in Placer County, CA.^[13]

The differences between California’s costs and processing times compared to other states and counties can appear stark, however, California is home to approximately 40 million people, compared to the approximately 2 million in Idaho and 6 million in Wisconsin.^[14] In other words, Idaho and Wisconsin combined only have 20% of the population of California alone.^[15] While this bill does not make any changes to the fee structure of California’s permitting program, this bill’s structure could potentially impact the length of processing times, as discussed (See Effect of the Bill).

The issue of fees and processing times could implicate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, which established the right to carry a firearm outside one’s home for self-defense as protected Second Amendment conduct. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, 1.) A full evaluation of this bill under Bruen is likely unnecessary because the burden of this bill is not being placed on those who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. (Id. at p. 20.)

The Court, however, in Bruen noted, “. . . because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” (Id. at p. 30, fn. 9.)

It is unclear whether some of the California counties with more expensive license applications and lengthier processing times already test the limits of Bruen’s footnote 9 warning about “exorbitant fees” and “lengthy wait times” potentially producing an unconstitutional outcome even in a shall issue regime.

Likewise, it is also unclear whether near-term distortions could create even longer wait times, even though extending the duration of the license period could lead to processing time reductions in the long-term. Even longer wait times could also cause questions about our licensing regime’s constitutionality under Bruen. Arguably, the more expensive the licenses become, and the longer processing times become, in either the short- or long-term, the more likely the risk becomes of the regime being found unconstitutional.

Additionally, while this bill could possibly benefit from an increase in fees to offset the expected losses that will result from extending the duration of the license, any additional fee increase could likewise cause California’s permitting scheme to run afoul of Bruen’s warning that even a shall-issue regime like California’s could be unconstitutional due to “exorbitant fees.”

1. Concealed Carry Licensure and Public Safety: By extending the license window from two years to four years, this bill could have an impact on public safety.

One study reviewed methodologically strong scientific studies to determine the relationship between concealed carry permits and violent crime. While the majority of the twenty-three studies reviewed showed uncertain effects between concealed carry permits and homicide, five of the studies showed states with shall-issue or permitless carry laws were associated with an increase in homicides.^[16] Four of those studies found higher rates of firearms homicide.^[17] For suicide, mass shootings, and unintentional injuries and deaths, however, a review of studies showed uncertain effects.^[18]

States with more permissive carry laws tend to lead to an increase in people publicly carrying concealed firearms.^[19] One study estimated that the number of people carrying concealed firearms has doubled from approximately 11 million to 22 million in roughly the past ten years.^[20]

While there is evidence showing that permitted firearms owners are some of the more law-abiding groups in the country and rarely are found responsible for violent crime, there is also evidence showing that criminal access to firearms is greater in more permissive permitting states due to increases in the theft of those firearms.^[21]

This bill would extend the duration for a person to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in California. Extending the license’s duration could lead to more people permitted, and more people permitted for longer times, which might create some specific impacts on public safety.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, California law provides local officials with the discretion to issue concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits to individuals who meet the standards set by state law. As a Sheriff responsible for issuing these permits, my department has a rigorous screening process to ensure all CCW holders meet the standard required by law. This process is time consuming for both my staff and the applicant. While labor intensive, the process has worked in that those who hold CCW permits in Orange County have exercised their rights responsibly. While the Orange County Sheriff's Department has issued over 20,000 CCW permits, we also enjoy some of the safest communities in the state. CCW permit holders do not contribute to violence; they are law-abiding citizens who safely exercise a constitutional right.
2. “As a result of the rigorous permit process and responsible nature of CCW permit holders, I believe the two-year renewal requirement creates unnecessary workload and burden on county resources. The proposal to allow jurisdictions that issue a CCW permit for a longer time period will result in reduced costs and greater efficiencies for local agencies tasked with processing applications. Additionally, extending the life of a CCW permit will bring California in line with most states that require a permit to carry a firearm.”
   
3. Related Legislation:
   
   1. AB 458 (Stefani), requires a bidder for, or a party to, a contract with a state agency for the procurement of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories to take specified acts, including requiring a state agency to reject a bid or cancel a contract under specified circumstances. AB 458 is set to be heard on April 1, 2025 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   2. AB 1078 (Berman) requires the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified, and additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. AB 1078 is set to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   3. AB 1187 (Celeste Rodriguez) requires a personal firearm importer to obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and include a copy of the valid firearm safety certificate within the report, and require any applicant for a certificate to complete a training course. AB 1187 is set to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   4. AB 1316 (Addis) requires that every person who purchases a hunting license receives, at minimum, information on certain topics related to firearms, including the safe storage of firearms, liability for parents and guardians who should have known their child could access a firearm at home, basic California firearm laws, and how to legally transfer or relinquish a firearm. AB 1316 is set to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   5. SB 248 (Rubio) requires the Department of Justice to mail to any person who notifies the department of a firearm transaction a letter that includes certain information relevant to firearm ownership, such as information on how to legally transfer or relinquish a firearm and resources regarding gun violence restraining orders, among others. AB 248 is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
      
   6. SB 320 (Limon) requires the Department of Justice to develop and launch a system to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the California Do Not Sell List with the purpose of preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to the person who adds their name. SB 320 is set to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee. >
      
4. Prior Legislation:
   
   1. AB 3064 (Mainschein), Chapter 540, Statutes of 2024, among other things, requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, describing the firearm and providing personal information.
   2. SB 2 (Portantino), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2023, among other things, establishes criteria for a person disqualified from acquiring a carry license, defines the prohibited places where a person cannot carry a firearm even with a license, and requires each licensing authority prior to issuing a carry license, to determine if the applicant is the recorded owner of the particular pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person reported in the application.
   3. SB 899 (Skinner), Chapter 544, Statutes of 2024, requires the court, when issuing protective orders, to provide the person subject to the order with information on how any firearms or ammunition still in their possession are to be relinquished, as specified, and requires violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing.
   4. AB 1931 (Fong), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, would have made a license issued to carry a concealed firearm valid for any period of time not to exceed 5 years. AB 1931 did not pass out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
      

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Gun Owners of California, INC.
Orange County Sheriff's Department
San Diego County Sheriff's Office

Opposition

None

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Karimi, The US is not Issuing Passport Unless it’s a Life-or-Death Family Emergency (Apr. 3, 2020) CNN <https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/us-passport-emergencies/index.html> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

2. Hansler, Passport Backlog: Americans face Months-long wait as State Dept. Deals with Flood of Applications (July 15, 2021) CNN <https://6abc.com/passport-backlog-delays-us-passports-summer-travel/10889029/> [as of Mar. 24, 2025].

   ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Coleman, Unprecedented Demand (May 2024) State Magazine <https://statemag.state.gov/2024/05/0524feat02/> [as of Mar. 2025]. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. The Effects of Concealed Carry Laws (July 16, 2024) RAND <https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

7. California Concealed Carry Reciprocity and Gun Laws (Feb. 3, 2025) United States Concealed Carry Association <https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/ca-gun-laws/#changelogs> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

8. Concealed Weapons License Reciprocity, Idaho State Police <https://isp.idaho.gov/bci/cwl-reciprocity/> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

9. Concealed Carry Weapon Information, State of Wisconsin Department of Justice <https://www.wisdoj.gov/Pages/PublicSafety/concealed-carry-weapon-license-information.aspx> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

10. Permit Fees (Mar. 11, 2023) City of San Jose Police Department <https://www.sjpd.org/records/fees/permit-fees> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

11. Concealed Weapons License Application, State of Idaho < https://isp.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/BCI/Reciprocity/Training/CWL-Application.pdf> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

12. See, supra, at note 9. ↑

13. How long does the new Concealed Carry Weapon process take? County of Placer <https://www.placer.ca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=832> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

14. State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2020-2024 (Dec. 2024) U.S. Census Bureau <https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html#v2024> [as of Mar. 24, 2025].

    ↑

15. Ibid. ↑

16. The Effects of Concealed Carry Laws (July 16, 2024) RAND <https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

17. Ibid. ↑

18. Ibid. ↑

19. Ibid. ↑

20. Ibid. ↑

21. Ibid. ↑

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1092

Author:(Castillo) – As Amended Ver:March 13, 2025

SUMMARY:

Extends the duration of a concealed carry firearms permit from two years to three years, beginning on January 1, 2026, and from three years to four years, beginning on January 1, 2027.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes that a concealed carry firearms permit issued by designated local officials is valid for two years from the date of the license, excluding the process for amending a license for an applicant’s change of address, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 22620, subd. (a).)
2. States that if a licensee’s place of employment or business was the basis for issuance of a license, 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, and 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. (Pen. Code, § 22620, subd. (b).)
3. Requires that 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. (Pen. Code, § 22620, subd. (b).)
4. Provides that a concealed carry firearms license or license renewal, to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, shall be issued or reissued by the sheriff upon proof submitted by the licensee, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 26150.)
5. Provides that a concealed carry firearms license or license renewal, to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, shall be issued or reissued by the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county upon proof submitted by the licensee, as defined. (Pen. Code, § 26155.)
6. Authorizes a person issued a license pursuant to this article to apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license to add or delete authority to carry a firearm, authorize a person to carry a firearm, 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, and 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. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subd. (a)(1)-(4).)
7. Provides that if the licensing authority amends the license, a new license shall be issued to the licensee reflecting the amendments. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subd. (b).)
8. States that 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. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subd. (c).)
9. Establishes defined conditions for amending a license due to a change of address. (Pen. Code, § 26210.)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California’s two-year renewal cycle for CCW licenses unfairly penalizes law-abiding citizens with greater costs to maintaining an active license and creates extra hassle for responsible gun owners while straining local government resources. AB 1092 fixes this by extending the license term to four years, cutting down on paperwork, saving taxpayer money, and making the process more efficient -- all without lowering safety standards -- bringing CCW licenses in line with other types of important permits in the state, as well as the CCW license policies of nearly every other state across the country.”
2. Effect of the Bill: This bill would ultimately extend the duration of a concealed carry license from two years to four years.

For one year, this bill would authorize licensees to secure a three-year license, while licensees would be authorized to secure a four-year license beginning on January 1, 2027. Extending the license duration to three years for only a single year has the potential to distort the normal ebbs and flows of license applications. By including the one-time three-year license option, many applicants could opt to wait until the next year to secure a four-year license knowing that option is soon to be available. This could create pent up demand, which could create backlogs.

In contrast, by extending the license duration, there could be longer-term benefits to processing efficiency by what may be a reduction over time in the number of license and renewal applications received each year. Arguably, administrative processing burdens may be eased by extending the license duration period. While staggering the renewal cycle could create pent up demand, it could also create longer-term consistency in the application cycle by issuing new licensees who may want to immediately take advantage of the longer permitting cycle.

We have witnessed a recent example at the federal level of issues that can be created by distorted application cycles producing pent up demand, which then produce significant application backlogs.

At the outset of the Covid-19 pandemic the United States State Department faced an unprecedented collapse in demand for passports as the Department initially declined to issue passports except in life or death emergencies^[1] and the stay-at-home orders across most of the country depressed demand for passports.^[2] Like passports, concealed carry licenses are issued by government agencies and generally require some amount of processing time to make individualized determinations of whether the document will be issued. Following the rescission of stay-at-home orders, pent up demand for travel caused Americans to apply for passports in record numbers.^[3] This caused enormous backlogs, which produced much higher-than-average wait times for passports to be processed.^[4] It took until December 2023 for the Department to get control of the backlog and its processing times back to normal.^[5]

It is unclear, however, whether staggering the renewal periods will have any significant impact on application cycles.

1. Permitting Schemes and Bruen: This bill would extend the concealed carry license period from two years currently, to four years beginning in 2027.

One study noted, “As of January 1, 2024, 27 states have laws allowing people to carry concealed weapons without first receiving a permit . . . Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia require permits but have shall-issue laws, under which law enforcement agencies have no or very limited discretion to deny concealed-carry permits to citizens who are otherwise permitted to possess handguns.”^[6] Louisiana and South Carolina, which were not permitless carry states in January 2024, have since appeared to become permitless carry states.^[7]

License renewal times and costs vary widely by state. Idaho, for example, charges $20 for an initial permit and $15 for permit renewal with discretion to the Sheriff to charge for fingerprinting and materials for the license.^[8] New permits in Wisconsin require a $40 permit fee and mandatory training.^[9] The initial application for a concealed carry permit in San Jose, CA totals $1,328, which includes over $400 in State fees, a mandatory psychological evaluation, and required completion of a training course.^[10]

Depending on the type of license, renewal times and costs also see large variations. To use relatively consistent examples, Idaho counties typically take at least 90 days to process a concealed carry permit,^[11] Wisconsin completes its process within 21 days,^[12] while the process can take six months or more in Placer County, CA.^[13]

The differences between California’s costs and processing times compared to other states and counties can appear stark, however, California is home to approximately 40 million people, compared to the approximately 2 million in Idaho and 6 million in Wisconsin.^[14] In other words, Idaho and Wisconsin combined only have 20% of the population of California alone.^[15] While this bill does not make any changes to the fee structure of California’s permitting program, this bill’s structure could potentially impact the length of processing times, as discussed (See Effect of the Bill).

The issue of fees and processing times could implicate the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, which established the right to carry a firearm outside one’s home for self-defense as protected Second Amendment conduct. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, 1.) A full evaluation of this bill under Bruen is likely unnecessary because the burden of this bill is not being placed on those who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. (Id. at p. 20.)

The Court, however, in Bruen noted, “. . . because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” (Id. at p. 30, fn. 9.)

It is unclear whether some of the California counties with more expensive license applications and lengthier processing times already test the limits of Bruen’s footnote 9 warning about “exorbitant fees” and “lengthy wait times” potentially producing an unconstitutional outcome even in a shall issue regime.

Likewise, it is also unclear whether near-term distortions could create even longer wait times, even though extending the duration of the license period could lead to processing time reductions in the long-term. Even longer wait times could also cause questions about our licensing regime’s constitutionality under Bruen. Arguably, the more expensive the licenses become, and the longer processing times become, in either the short- or long-term, the more likely the risk becomes of the regime being found unconstitutional.

Additionally, while this bill could possibly benefit from an increase in fees to offset the expected losses that will result from extending the duration of the license, any additional fee increase could likewise cause California’s permitting scheme to run afoul of Bruen’s warning that even a shall-issue regime like California’s could be unconstitutional due to “exorbitant fees.”

1. Concealed Carry Licensure and Public Safety: By extending the license window from two years to four years, this bill could have an impact on public safety.

One study reviewed methodologically strong scientific studies to determine the relationship between concealed carry permits and violent crime. While the majority of the twenty-three studies reviewed showed uncertain effects between concealed carry permits and homicide, five of the studies showed states with shall-issue or permitless carry laws were associated with an increase in homicides.^[16] Four of those studies found higher rates of firearms homicide.^[17] For suicide, mass shootings, and unintentional injuries and deaths, however, a review of studies showed uncertain effects.^[18]

States with more permissive carry laws tend to lead to an increase in people publicly carrying concealed firearms.^[19] One study estimated that the number of people carrying concealed firearms has doubled from approximately 11 million to 22 million in roughly the past ten years.^[20]

While there is evidence showing that permitted firearms owners are some of the more law-abiding groups in the country and rarely are found responsible for violent crime, there is also evidence showing that criminal access to firearms is greater in more permissive permitting states due to increases in the theft of those firearms.^[21]

This bill would extend the duration for a person to lawfully carry a concealed firearm in California. Extending the license’s duration could lead to more people permitted, and more people permitted for longer times, which might create some specific impacts on public safety.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, California law provides local officials with the discretion to issue concealed carry weapon (CCW) permits to individuals who meet the standards set by state law. As a Sheriff responsible for issuing these permits, my department has a rigorous screening process to ensure all CCW holders meet the standard required by law. This process is time consuming for both my staff and the applicant. While labor intensive, the process has worked in that those who hold CCW permits in Orange County have exercised their rights responsibly. While the Orange County Sheriff's Department has issued over 20,000 CCW permits, we also enjoy some of the safest communities in the state. CCW permit holders do not contribute to violence; they are law-abiding citizens who safely exercise a constitutional right.

“As a result of the rigorous permit process and responsible nature of CCW permit holders, I believe the two-year renewal requirement creates unnecessary workload and burden on county resources. The proposal to allow jurisdictions that issue a CCW permit for a longer time period will result in reduced costs and greater efficiencies for local agencies tasked with processing applications. Additionally, extending the life of a CCW permit will bring California in line with most states that require a permit to carry a firearm.”

1. Related Legislation:
   1. AB 458 (Stefani), requires a bidder for, or a party to, a contract with a state agency for the procurement of firearms, ammunition, or firearm accessories to take specified acts, including requiring a state agency to reject a bid or cancel a contract under specified circumstances. AB 458 is set to be heard on April 1, 2025 in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   2. AB 1078 (Berman) requires the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified, and additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. AB 1078 is set to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   3. AB 1187 (Celeste Rodriguez) requires a personal firearm importer to obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and include a copy of the valid firearm safety certificate within the report, and require any applicant for a certificate to complete a training course. AB 1187 is set to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   4. AB 1316 (Addis) requires that every person who purchases a hunting license receives, at minimum, information on certain topics related to firearms, including the safe storage of firearms, liability for parents and guardians who should have known their child could access a firearm at home, basic California firearm laws, and how to legally transfer or relinquish a firearm. AB 1316 is set to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   5. SB 248 (Rubio) requires the Department of Justice to mail to any person who notifies the department of a firearm transaction a letter that includes certain information relevant to firearm ownership, such as information on how to legally transfer or relinquish a firearm and resources regarding gun violence restraining orders, among others. AB 248 is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   6. SB 320 (Limon) requires the Department of Justice to develop and launch a system to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the California Do Not Sell List with the purpose of preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to the person who adds their name. SB 320 is set to be heard in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 3064 (Mainschein), Chapter 540, Statutes of 2024, among other things, requires any person, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to mail or personally deliver to the Department of Justice a report, describing the firearm and providing personal information.
   2. SB 2 (Portantino), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2023, among other things, establishes criteria for a person disqualified from acquiring a carry license, defines the prohibited places where a person cannot carry a firearm even with a license, and requires each licensing authority prior to issuing a carry license, to determine if the applicant is the recorded owner of the particular pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person reported in the application.
   3. SB 899 (Skinner), Chapter 544, Statutes of 2024, requires the court, when issuing protective orders, to provide the person subject to the order with information on how any firearms or ammunition still in their possession are to be relinquished, as specified, and requires violations of the firearms or ammunition prohibition to be reported to the prosecuting attorney in the jurisdiction where the order has been issued within 2 business days of the court hearing.
   4. AB 1931 (Fong), of the 2017-18 Legislative Session, would have made a license issued to carry a concealed firearm valid for any period of time not to exceed 5 years. AB 1931 did not pass out of the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Gun Owners of California, INC.
Orange County Sheriff's Department
San Diego County Sheriff's Office

4 Private Individuals

Opposition

None Submitted.

Analysis Prepared by:

Dustin Weber / PUB. S. / (916) 319-3744

1. Karimi, The US is not Issuing Passport Unless it’s a Life-or-Death Family Emergency (Apr. 3, 2020) CNN <https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/us-passport-emergencies/index.html> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

2. Hansler, Passport Backlog: Americans face Months-long wait as State Dept. Deals with Flood of Applications (July 15, 2021) CNN <https://6abc.com/passport-backlog-delays-us-passports-summer-travel/10889029/> [as of Mar. 24, 2025].

   ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Coleman, Unprecedented Demand (May 2024) State Magazine <https://statemag.state.gov/2024/05/0524feat02/> [as of Mar. 2025]. ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

6. The Effects of Concealed Carry Laws (July 16, 2024) RAND <https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

7. California Concealed Carry Reciprocity and Gun Laws (Feb. 3, 2025) United States Concealed Carry Association <https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/ca-gun-laws/#changelogs> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

8. Concealed Weapons License Reciprocity, Idaho State Police <https://isp.idaho.gov/bci/cwl-reciprocity/> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

9. Concealed Carry Weapon Information, State of Wisconsin Department of Justice <https://www.wisdoj.gov/Pages/PublicSafety/concealed-carry-weapon-license-information.aspx> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

10. Permit Fees (Mar. 11, 2023) City of San Jose Police Department <https://www.sjpd.org/records/fees/permit-fees> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

11. Concealed Weapons License Application, State of Idaho < https://isp.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/BCI/Reciprocity/Training/CWL-Application.pdf> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

12. See, supra, at note 9. ↑

13. How long does the new Concealed Carry Weapon process take? County of Placer <https://www.placer.ca.gov/FAQ.aspx?QID=832> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

14. State Population Totals and Components of Change: 2020-2024 (Dec. 2024) U.S. Census Bureau <https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/popest/2020s-state-total.html#v2024> [as of Mar. 24, 2025].

    ↑

15. Ibid. ↑

16. The Effects of Concealed Carry Laws (July 16, 2024) RAND <https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html> [as of Mar. 24, 2025]. ↑

17. Ibid. ↑

18. Ibid. ↑

19. Ibid. ↑

20. Ibid. ↑

21. Ibid. ↑