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 3 years from the date of the license. The bill would make conforming changes.

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 3 years from the date of the license. The bill would make conforming changes.

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 3 years from the date of the new license and 6 years from the date of the license for renewal. license. The bill would make conforming changes.

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 3 years from the date of the new license and 6 years from the date of the license for renewal. The bill would make conforming changes.

 CONSENT  

Bill No: AB 1948

Author: Ramos (D) and Valencia (D)

Amended: 3/19/26 in Assembly

Vote: 21

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 3/26/26 (Consent) - See last page for vote

SENATE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE: 6-0, 6/9/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Caballero, Cortese, Pérez, Wiener

SUBJECT: Firearms: concealed carry licenses

SOURCE: San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department

DIGEST:

This bill extends the duration of a license to carry concealed firearms (CCW) from two years to three years, except as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Prohibits, generally, the possession of firearms in most public areas, with specified exceptions. (Pen. Code § 25300 et seq.)
2. Exempts persons with CCW licenses from the laws prohibiting possessing a firearm in a public area. (Pen. Code § 25655.)
3. Provides that when a California resident applies for a new CCW license or license renewal, the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county shall issue or renew a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:
   1. The applicant is not a disqualified person to receive such a license, as defined.
   2. The applicant is at least 21 years of age, and presents clear evidence of the person’s identity and age, as defined.
   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 defined.
   5. The applicant is the recorded owner, with the Department of Justice (DOJ), of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. (Pen. Code, §§ 26150, subd. (a)(1)-(5); 26155, subd. (a)(1)-(5).)
4. Sets forth separate requirements for non-California residents apply for a new CCW license or CCW license renewal, including that the non-California resident must attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which they have applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time. (Pen. Code, §§ 26150, subd. (b); 26155, subd. (b).)
5. Requires applicants for a new CCW license to complete a course of training that meets specified criteria, including that the course be no less than 16 hours in length and include live-fire shooting exercises. (Pen. Code, § 26165.)
6. Establishes that, unless a court makes a contrary determination, an applicant shall be deemed to be a disqualified person and cannot receive or renew a license if, among other things, the applicant is reasonably likely to be dangerous, has been convicted of specified crimes, has engaged in the reckless use of a firearm, or is currently abusing any controlled substance, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 26202, subd. (a)(1)-(10).)
7. States that in determining whether an applicant is a disqualified person and cannot receive or renew a license, the licensing authority shall conduct an investigation that includes, among other things, an in-person interview unless otherwise stated, interviews with three character witnesses, and a review of information provided by DOJ. (Pen. Code, § 26202, subd. (b)(1)-(6).)
8. Authorizes a person issued a CCW license to apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license for one of several specified purposes, but specifies that an amendment to the license does not extend the original expiration date of the license and that the license shall be subject to renewal at the same time as if the license had not been amended. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subds. (a), (c).)
9. States that except as otherwise provided, a CCW license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 2 years from the date that the license is issued. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (a).)
10. Provides that if the licensee’s place of employment or business was the basis for issuance of a CCW license, the license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the license, unless the license was issued to a custodial officer who is an employee of the sheriff of a county, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (b).)
11. Provides that a CCW license is valid for any period of time not to exceed three years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of the following individuals:
    1. A judge of a California court of record.
    2. A full-time court commissioner of a California court of record.
    3. A judge of a federal court.
    4. A magistrate of a federal court. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (c).)
12. Provides that a CCW license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 4 years from the date of the license if the license is issued to a custodial officer who is an employee of the sheriff of a county, as specified, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion of the person’s employment if the four year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition does not limit the validity of the license. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (d).)
13. Provides that a CCW license issued to a reserve or auxiliary peace officer or sheriff’s deputy, as provided, is valid for any period of time not to exceed four years from the date of the license, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion of the person’s appointment if the four-year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition does not limit the validity of the license to a shorter time period. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (e).)

This bill:

1. Extends the duration that a standard CCW license may be valid from 2 years to 3 years.
2. Strikes the existing provision specifying that a CCW issued to certain judicial officers may be valid for any period of time not to exceed three years.
3. Clarifies that the provisions specifying the duration that a CCW is valid when issued to a sheriff’s department custodial officer or a reserve officer of a police or sheriff’s department applies to both new and renewal licenses.

Comments

Since the enactment of SB 2 (Portantino, Chapter 249, Statutes of 2023 which shifted California from a “may-issue” CCW regime to a “shall-issue regime” where licensing authorities have less discretion to deny applications, many counties have been plagued by CCW processing delays and application backlogs. San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto recently issued a formal apology after processing delays caused several timely requested permit renewals to expire without action, citing staffing shortages. Other reports suggest that wait times and administrative hurdles have been greater particularly for Black and Latino Californians, with some applicants in Los Angeles County waiting 16-20 months for a screening interview. In response to such claims, the United States Department of Justice sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department in September 2025, alleging that such delays infringed on the applicants’ Second Amendment rights. For context, SB 2 provided that the licensing authority must give written notice to the applicant indicating approval or denial of the application within 120 of receiving the completed application or 30 days after receiving background check information from the California Department of Justice, whichever is later.

Existing law enacted by SB 2 provides that a CCW license is valid for a maximum of 2 years from the date of issuance, except in the case of judicial officers, for whom CCW licenses are valid for up to 3 years before requiring renewal. Additionally, CCWs issued to custodial officers employed by a sheriff’s department or to reserve police officers are valid for a maximum of 4 years. Last year, Assemblymember Castillo authored AB 1092, which would have extended the validity of a CCW issued after January 1, 2026 and before January 1, 2027 from 2 years to 3 years, and of a CCW issued on or after January 1, 2027 to a maximum of 4 years. That measure failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. This bill is similar to AB 1092, except that it simply specifies that all standard CCWs are valid for a maximum of 3 years, and strikes the consequently unnecessary language granting a 3-year CCW to judicial officers. This bill also clarifies that the 4-year CCW available to custodial officers and reserve officers applies to both new and renewal CCWs.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No

SUPPORT: (Verified 6/9/26)

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department (source)

California Civil Liberties Advocacy

California Rifle & Pistol Association

California State Sheriffs Association

Peace Officers Research Association of California

OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/9/26)

None received

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 3/26/26

AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Elhawary, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Berman, Carrillo, Dixon, Ellis, Flora, Mark González, Celeste Rodriguez

Prepared by: Alex Barnett / PUB. S. /

6/10/26 16:58:17

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY

Senator Jesse Arreguín, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 1948 Hearing Date: June 9, 2026

Subject: Firearms: concealed carry licenses

HISTORY

Source: San Bernardino County Sheriff Shannon Discus

Prior Legislation: AB 1078 (Berman), Ch. 570, Stats. of 2025

AB 1092 (Castillo), failed in Assembly Public Safety, 2025

AB 1006 (Ramos), held in Assembly Appropriations, 2025

AB 1483 (Valencia), Ch. 246, Stats. of 2023

AB 1133 (Schiavo), held in Senate Appropriations, 2023

SB 2 (Portantino), Ch. 249, Stats. of 2023

SB 918 (Portantino), failed on Assembly Floor, 2022

AB 1621 (Gipson) Ch. 76, Stats. of 2022

SB 715 (Portantino), Ch. 250, Stats. of 2021

SB 941 (Portantino), vetoed by Governor, 2020

SB 914 (Portantino), held due to COVID-19, 2020

SB 118 (Committee on Budget), Ch. 29, Stats. of 2020

AB 879 (Gipson), Ch. 730, Stats. of 2019

AB 376 (Portantino) Ch. 738, Stats. of 2019

SB 746 (Portantino), Ch. 780, Stats. of 2018

Support: California Civil Liberties Advocacy; California Rifle & Pistol Association; California State Sheriffs Association; Peace Officers Research Association of California; San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department

Opposition: None known

Assembly Floor Vote: 71 - 0

PURPOSE

The purpose of this bill is to extend the duration of a license to carry concealed firearms (CCW) from two years to three years, except as specified.

Existing law generally prohibits the possession of firearms in most public areas, with specified exceptions. (Pen. Code, §§ 25300 et seq.)

Existing law exempts persons with CCW licenses from the laws prohibiting possessing a firearm in a public area. (Pen. Code, § 25655.)

Existing law provides that when a California resident applies for a new CCW license or license renewal, the sheriff of a county or the chief or other head of a municipal police department of any city or city and county shall issue or renew a license to that person upon proof of all of the following:

• • The applicant is not a disqualified person to receive such a license, as defined.
    
  • The applicant is at least 21 years of age, and presents clear evidence of the person’s identity and age, as defined.
    
  • 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.
    
  • The applicant has completed a course of training, as defined.
    
  • The applicant is the recorded owner, with the Department of Justice (DOJ), of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. (Pen. Code, §§ 26150, subd. (a)(1)-(5); 26155, subd. (a)(1)-(5).)

Existing law sets forth separate requirements for non-California residents apply for a new CCW license or CCW license renewal, including that the non-California resident must attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which they have applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time. (Pen. Code, §§ 26150, subd. (b); 26155, subd. (b).)

Existing law requires applicants for a new CCW license to complete a course of training that meets specified criteria, including that the course be no less than 16 hours in length and include live-fire shooting exercises. (Pen. Code, § 26165.)

Existing law establishes that, unless a court makes a contrary determination, an applicant shall be deemed to be a disqualified person and cannot receive or renew a license if, among other things, the applicant is reasonably likely to be dangerous, has been convicted of specified crimes, has engaged in the reckless use of a firearm, or is currently abusing any controlled substance, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 26202, subd. (a)(1)-(10).)

Existing law states that in determining whether an applicant is a disqualified person and cannot receive or renew a license, the licensing authority shall conduct an investigation that includes, among other things, an in-person interview unless otherwise stated, interviews with three character witnesses, and a review of information provided by DOJ. (Pen. Code, § 26202, subd. (b)(1)-(6).)

Existing law authorizes a person issued a CCW license to apply to the licensing authority for an amendment to the license for one of several specified purposes, but specifies that an amendment to the license does not extend the original expiration date of the license and that the license shall be subject to renewal at the same time as if the license had not been amended. (Pen. Code, § 26215, subds. (a), (c).)

Existing law states that except as otherwise provided, a CCW license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 2 years from the date that the license is issued. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (a).)

Existing law provides that if the licensee’s place of employment or business was the basis for issuance of a CCW license, the license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 90 days from the date of the license, unless the license was issued to a custodial officer who is an employee of the sheriff of a county, as specified. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (b).)

Existing law provides that a CCW license is valid for any period of time not to exceed three years from the date of the license if the license is issued to any of the following individuals:

• A judge of a California court of record.
• A full-time court commissioner of a California court of record.
• A judge of a federal court.
• A magistrate of a federal court. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (c).)

Existing law provides that a CCW license is valid for any period of time not to exceed 4 years from the date of the license if the license is issued to a custodial officer who is an employee of the sheriff of a county, as specified, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion of the person’s employment if the four year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition does not limit the validity of the license. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (d).)

Existing law provides that a CCW license issued to a reserve or auxiliary peace officer or sheriff’s deputy, as provided, is valid for any period of time not to exceed four years from the date of the license, except that the license shall be invalid upon the conclusion of the person’s appointment if the four-year period has not otherwise expired or any other condition does not limit the validity of the license to a shorter time period. (Pen. Code, § 26220, subd. (e).)

This bill extends the duration that a standard CCW license may be valid from 2 years to 3 years.

This bill strikes the existing provision specifying that a CCW issued to certain judicial officers may be valid for any period of time not to exceed three years.

This bill clarifies that the provisions specifying the duration that a CCW is valid when issued to a sheriff’s department custodial officer or a reserve officer of a police or sheriff’s department applies to both new and renewal licenses.

COMMENTS

1. Need for This Bill

According to the author:

The current process for CCW licenses issuance creates significant and reoccurring costs for gun owners and additional workload on county resources which could otherwise support other essential public safety priorities. By extending the duration of these permits, we help reduce administrative costs for local governments and ease the financial strain on law abiding gun owners.

1. Bruen and California’s Updated CCW Framework

In June of 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, (2022) 597 U.S. 1 (hereinafter, “Bruen”), in which it invalidated a New York State law requiring applicants for a concealed carry license to show “proper cause,” or a special need distinguishable from the general public, as well as good moral character, when applying for license. In a 6-3 decision along ideological lines, the Court ruled that the New York law’s “proper cause” requirement was an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment, and that the “Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home,” effectively establishing a constitutional right to publicly carry a firearm under the Second Amendment.^[1]

Moreover, the Bruen decision abrogated the existing two-part test established by the Court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) 554 U.S. 570, and established a new test for determining whether a law or regulation comports with the Second Amendment. Step one of that new test involves asking whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the individual conduct at issue.^[2] Next, in defense of a law regulating firearms, the government must show more than that the regulation promotes an important governmental interest – rather, the law must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”^[3] Under the Bruen decision, “how and why the regulations burden a law-abiding citizen’s right to armed self-defense” matters, and further, “whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that burden is comparably justified are ‘central’ considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry.”^[4] Nevertheless, the Court made clear that regulations consistent with historical precedent, such as those that prohibit weapons in “sensitive places,” would likely pass constitutional muster.^[5]

In reaching its decision in Bruen, the Court recognized that California was among the limited number of states that had an analogue to New York’s “proper cause” standard in their concealed carry laws, suggesting that California’s law was similarly unconstitutional. Namely, California’s CCW law provided that licensing authorities (primarily law enforcement agencies) had discretion to deny CCW applications when a determination was made that the applicant was not “of good moral character” or when “good cause” did not exist for the issuance of the license. These types of “may-issue” licensure regimes granting broad discretion to the licensing authority were exactly what the Court invalidated in Bruen. Thus, in response, the Legislature passed SB 2 (Portantino), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2023 which revised the state’s concealed carry laws to no longer require a showing of good cause or good moral character to obtain a CCW and prohibited the carrying of concealed weapons in several specified sensitive locations, including schools, government buildings, public transit, medical facilities, public parks, sporting facilities, places of worship, correctional institutions, and several others.^[6]

1. Effect of This Bill

Since the enactment of SB 2, which shifted California from a “may-issue” CCW regime to a “shall-issue regime” where licensing authorities have less discretion to deny applications, many counties have been plagued by CCW processing delays and application backlogs. San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto recently issued a formal apology after processing delays caused several timely requested permit renewals to expire without action, citing staffing shortages.^[7] Other reports suggest that wait times and administrative hurdles have been greater particularly for Black and Latino Californians, with some applicants in Los Angeles County waiting 16-20 months for a screening interview.^[8] In response to such claims, the United States Department of Justice sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department in September 2025, alleging that such delays infringed on the applicants’ Second Amendment rights.^[9] For context, SB 2 provided that the licensing authority must give written notice to the applicant indicating approval or denial of the application within 120 of receiving the completed application or 30 days after receiving background check information from the California Department of Justice, whichever is later.^[10]

Existing law enacted by SB 2 provides that a CCW license is valid for a maximum of 2 years from the date of issuance, except in the case of judicial officers, for whom CCW licenses are valid for up to 3 years before requiring renewal.^[11] Additionally, CCWs issued to custodial officers employed by a sheriff’s department or to reserve police officers are valid for a maximum of 4 years.^[12] Last year, Assemblymember Castillo authored AB 1092, which would have extended the validity of a CCW issued after January 1, 2026 and before January 1, 2027 from 2 years to 3 years, and of a CCW issued on or after January 1, 2027 to a maximum of 4 years. That measure failed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee. This bill is similar to AB 1092, except that it simply specifies that all standard CCWs are valid for a maximum of 3 years, and strikes the consequently unnecessary language granting a 3-year CCW to judicial officers. The bill also clarifies that the 4-year CCW available to custodial officers and reserve officers applies to both new and renewal CCWs.

1. Argument in Support

According to the California Rifle and Pistol Association:

This common-sense legislation amends Penal Code Section 26220 to extend the validity period of concealed carry licenses (CCWs). Under the amended bill, new licenses would be valid for up to three years, while renewal licenses would be valid for up to six years. This change reduces unnecessary bureaucratic burdens on law-abiding Californians while maintaining all existing public safety requirements, including training, background checks, and good cause/good moral character standards. Current law limits most CCW licenses to a maximum of two years, forcing responsible gun owners to renew far more frequently than necessary. AB 1948 aligns California’s renewal cycle with more practical standards already used in many other states, saving time and money for both license holders and local licensing authorities without compromising rigorous vetting processes.

CRPA supports this bill for the following key reasons:

• Reduces Unnecessary Burdens on Law-Abiding Citizens: Frequent renewals create significant time and financial costs (application fees, training, fingerprinting, and processing). Extending license durations to 3 years for new licenses and 6 years for renewals provides meaningful relief while preserving all safety safeguards.
• Maintains Strong Public Safety Standards: The bill makes no changes to eligibility requirements, training mandates, or the ability of licensing authorities to deny or revoke licenses. It simply modernizes an outdated renewal schedule.
• Increases Efficiency for Licensing Authorities: Local law enforcement agencies will benefit from reduced administrative workload, allowing them to focus resources on higher-priority public safety matters.
• Aligns with Practical Policy: Many states have successfully implemented longer CCW validity periods. AB 1948 brings California in line with reasonable, efficient practices that respect the rights of qualified individuals.

-- END --

1. Id. at p. 8. ↑

2. Id at pp. 22-23 ↑

3. Id. at pp. 27-30 ↑

4. Id. at p. 29. ↑

5. Id. at pp. 29-30. ↑

6. Pen. Code, §§ 26150, 26155, 26230 ↑

7. “San Francisco Sheriff Blames Budget Cuts for CCW Renewal Failures, Issues Public Apology.” USA Carry. 12 December 2025. https://www.usacarry.com/san-francisco-sheriff-blames-budget-cuts-for-ccw-renewal-failures-issues-public-apology/ ↑

8. “Some California Gun Owners Are Frustrated by Long Wait Times for Concealed Carry Permits.” The Observer. 3 March 2025. https://www.theobserver.media/california/some-california-gun-owners-are-frustrated-by-long-wait-times-for-concealed-carry-permits-050f38e9/ ; See also, Pre-Litigation Demand Letter from California Rifle and Pistol Association to City of Los Angeles, available at: https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Pre-litigation-Demand-to-LAPD-re-CCW-Wait-Times.pdf ↑

9. “Justice Department lawsuit alleges LASD processes concealed carry licenses too slowly.” ABC7 Los Angeles. 30 September 2025. https://abc7.com/post/justice-department-lawsuit-alleges-los-angeles-county-sheriffs-processes-concealed-carry-licenses-slowly/17911015/ ↑

10. Pen. Code, § 26185, 26205. Existing law is silent on the timeframe in which DOJ must notify the licensing authority of the results of a background check for a new applicant, which could potentially be the source of the delay. ↑

11. Pen. Code, § 26220, subds. (a), (c). ↑

12. Pen. Code, § 26220, subds. (d), (e). ↑

Date of Hearing:

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY:

Extends the duration of a concealed carry firearms license from two years to three years for individuals, except as specified.

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, § 26220, 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, § 26220, 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, § 26220, 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 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, subds. (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).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “The current process for CCW licenses issuance creates significant and reoccurring costs for gun owners and additional workload on county resources which could otherwise support other essential public safety priorities. By extending the duration of these permits, we help reduce administrative costs for local governments and ease the financial strain on law abiding gun owners.”
2. Effect of the Bill: AB 1948 would authorize concealed carry weapon (CCW) licensure duration of three years for individuals, beginning January 1, 2027.

By extending the licensure duration, there could be longer-term benefits to processing efficiency by a reduction over time in the number of license and renewal applications received each year. Administrative processing burdens may be eased by extending the license duration period. While the initial period of license applications may be overwhelming due to pent up demand and applicants who want to immediately take advantage of the longer permitting cycle, it could also create longer-term efficiencies and consistency in the application cycle.

Extending the licensure duration may help ease the financial burden on applicants and could in the long term improve permit processing times. Some counties, like San Francisco and San Diego, are still experiencing long application cycles.^[1]

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^[2] and the stay-at-home orders across most of the country depressed demand for passports.^[3] Like passports, concealed carry licenses are issued by government agencies and generally require 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.^[4] This caused enormous backlogs, which produced much higher-than-average wait times for passports to be processed.^[5] It took until December 2023 for the Department to get control of the backlog and its processing times back to normal.^[6]

Longer license renewal periods should help affordability for applicants, but it is unclear whether extending license durations ultimately will improve application cycle processing times.

1. Permitting Schemes and Bruen: This bill would extend the concealed carry license period from two years to three 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.”^[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, California totals $1,443, 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 can have 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, California.^[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] 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, AB 1948 could make licenses more affordable due to the reduction in cost on a per-year basis afforded by extending the validity of licenses for one year.

High fees and lengthy processing times risk contravening the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen, which established the Second Amendment right to publicly carry a firearm. (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1.) A full evaluation under Bruen would not be as relevant here, compared to other firearms bills, because the burden of the law is not really placed on those who want to exercise their Second Amendment rights. (Id. at p. 20.) Yet, because this bill would impact Second Amendment conduct and the Court has suggested shall-issue permitting schemes are presumptively valid, AB 1948 would impact some of Bruen’s commands.

In Bruen, the Court 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.) There has been some improvement, especially among more populous California counties, in shortening processing times, but many applicants still encounter both long wait times and high fees. Santa Clara County is reported to take more than a year to issue a permit while charging residents nearly $2,000 in total costs for initial permits.^[16] Santa Clara County has been sued by prospective permit holders and gun rights groups, arguing the county’s permitting process runs afoul of Bruen.^[17]

It is unclear whether California counties with more expensive license applications and lengthier processing times are exceeding the bounds of Bruen’s footnote 9 warning. Even longer wait times, however, likely will cause additional lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of those counties’ permitting schemes. Counties may feel like they have a bit more breathing room to process applications with the extra year the license would be valid, though it is unclear whether the courts would also see the extra year in this way. The outcome of the Santa Clara County lawsuit, among others in state and federal courts, should offer more clarity on the constitutional boundaries for firearms permits. Certainly, it is likely that the more expensive the licenses, and the longer the processing times, in either the short- or long-term, the higher the risk the permitting regime is found unconstitutional.

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

California has been a relative outlier regarding CCW license duration times. California, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia are the only places with a flat two-year duration on all licenses (Maryland allows for a three-year renewal after a two-year initial permit, while New York allows for a three-year permit).^[18] California is also a relative outlier in reduced rates of firearms deaths per 100,000 people.^[19] While there is some link between stricter firearms laws and rates of firearms deaths, it is unclear whether the length of CCW licenses specifically has an impact on firearms deaths.^[20]

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.^[21] Four of those studies found higher rates of firearms homicide.^[22] For suicide, mass shootings, and unintentional injuries and deaths, however, a review of studies showed uncertain effects.^[23]

States with more permissive carry laws tend to lead to an increase in people publicly carrying concealed firearms.^[24] 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.^[25] There is evidence showing that permitted firearms owners, however, are some of the more law-abiding groups in the country and rarely are found involved in violent crime.^[26] Some evidence also shows that criminal access to firearms is greater in more permissive permitting states due to increases in the theft of those firearms.^[27] Ensuring carriers keep their firearms safe, secure, and difficult for anyone but them to access may help reduce those rates. Given this data, longer license durations seem unlikely to result in significant increases in firearms-related violent crime. But, ultimately, it is difficult to predict whether extending permit durations will have any impact on public safety.

1. Argument in Support: According to the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC), “We are pleased to support AB 1948 relating to concealed carry licenses.

“This bill would extend the validity period for licenses to carry a concealed firearm, allowing new licenses to be issued for up to three years and renewal licenses for up to six years, rather than the current two-year limit. The bill maintains existing eligibility requirements and training standards while providing a longer licensing period for applicants. By reducing the frequency of renewals, the measure helps streamline the licensing process and reduces administrative workload for both applicants and issuing authorities.”

1. Argument in Opposition: None submitted.
   
2. Related Legislation:
   1. AB 1453 (Wicks), would authorize firearm trace data to be shared with California universities, community colleges, and most localities for academic and policy research purposes. AB 1453 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   2. AB 1589 (Chen), would exempt specified level I reserve peace officers from the prohibition on possessing firearms suppressors. AB 1589 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
   3. AB 1615 (Nguyen), would authorize a peace officer employed by a county probation department and using an unsafe handgun as a service weapon to satisfy the above-described training requirement by completion of the firearm portion of a training course prescribed by POST and who qualifies with the handgun, as specified, at least every 3 months. AB 1615 is pending hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
3. Prior Legislation:
   1. AB 1006 (Ramos), of the 2025-2026 Legislative Session, would have treated the spouse of the recorded owner of the firearm as the recorded owner for licensing purposes. The bill would include additional specified acts that would deem an applicant as a disqualified person, including providing any information that the applicant knew or should have known was inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with the application. AB 1006 was held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
      
   2. AB 1092 (Castillo), of the 2025-26 Legislative Session, would have extended the concealed carry licensure duration from two years to four years. AB 1092 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   3. AB 3064 (Mainschein), Chapter 540, Statutes of 2024, among other things, required 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.
   4. SB 2 (Portantino), Chapter 249, Statutes of 2023, among other things, established 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.
   5. SB 899 (Skinner), Chapter 544, Statutes of 2024, required 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.
   6. 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 five years. AB 1931 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Arcadia Police Officers' Association
Brea Police Association
Burbank Police Officers' Association
California Association of School Police Chiefs
California Coalition of School Safety Professionals
California Narcotic Officers' Association
California Reserve Peace Officers Association
California Rifle and Pistol Association, INC.
California State Sheriffs' Association
Claremont Police Officers Association
Corona Police Officers Association
Culver City Police Officers' Association
Fullerton Police Officers' Association
Los Angeles School Police Management Association
Los Angeles School Police Officers Association
Murrieta Police Officers' Association
National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action
Newport Beach Police Association
Palos Verdes Police Officers Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association
Pomona Police Officers' Association
Riverside Police Officers Association
Riverside Sheriffs' Association
San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department

Opposition

None Submitted

Analysis Prepared by:

1. See, e.g., Coakley, How to obtain a Concealed Carry Weapons permit in San Diego County (Apr. 5, 2025) Fox 5 San Diego <https://fox5sandiego.com/news/local-news/how-to-obtain-a-concealed-carry-weapons-permit-in-san-diego-county/>, McCoy, San Francisco Sheriff “Blames Budget Cuts” for CCW Renewal Failures, Issues Public Apology (Dec. 2, 2025) USA Carry <https://www.usacarry.com/san-francisco-sheriff-blames-budget-cuts-for-ccw-renewal-failures-issues-public-apology/> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

2. 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. 7, 2026]. ↑

3. 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. 7, 2026].

   ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Coleman, Unprecedented Demand (May 2024) State Magazine <https://statemag.state.gov/2024/05/0524feat02/> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

6. Ibid. ↑

7. The Effects of Concealed Carry Laws (July 16, 2024) RAND <https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/concealed-carry.html> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

8. Concealed Weapons License Reciprocity, Idaho State Police <https://isp.idaho.gov/bci/cwl-reciprocity/> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

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. 7, 2026]. ↑

10. Permit Fees (Mar. 11, 2023) City of San Jose Police Department <https://www.sjpd.org/records/fees/permit-fees> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

11. Concealed Weapons License Application, State of Idaho < https://isp.idaho.gov/wp-content/uploads/BCI/Reciprocity/Training/CWL-Application.pdf> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

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. 7, 2026]. ↑

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. 7, 2026].

    ↑

15. Ibid. ↑

16. Pho, Santa Clara County concealed carry permits will cost more (Dec. 10, 2024) San Jose Spotlight <https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-concealed-carry-permits-will-cost-more/> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

17. Salonga, Gun rights groups, residents sue Santa Clara County sheriff over ‘onerous’ concealed-carry weapon requirements (Sep. 22, 2025) San Jose Mercury News <https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/09/22/gun-rights-groups-residents-sue-santa-clara-county-sheriff-over-onerous-concealed-carry-weapon-requirements/> [as of Mar. 7, 2026]. ↑

18. Concealed Carry Reciprocity & 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. 12, 2026]. ↑

19. Firearm Mortality (Aug. 20, 2025) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/state-stats/deaths/firearms.html> [as of Mar. 12, 2026]. ↑

20. Ibid. ↑

21. 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]. ↑

22. Ibid. ↑

23. Ibid. ↑

24. Ibid. ↑

25. Ibid. ↑

26. Ibid. ↑

27. Ibid. ↑