The California Constitution authorizes the Legislature to permit private, nonprofit organizations to conduct raffles as a funding mechanism to support beneficial and charitable works, if, among other conditions, at least 90% of the gross receipts from the raffle go directly to beneficial or charitable purposes in California. The California Constitution further authorizes the Legislature to amend the percentage of gross receipts required to be dedicated to beneficial or charitable purposes by a statute passed by a 23 vote of each house of the Legislature. Existing statutory law implements those provisions and requires the Department of Justice to administer and enforce those provisions. Existing statutory law, until January 1, 2024, authorizes a major league sports raffle at a home game conducted by an eligible organization, as defined, for the purpose of directly supporting specified beneficial or charitable purposes in California, or financially supporting another private, nonprofit, eligible organization, as defined, that performs those purposes if, among other requirements, 50% of the gross receipts generated from the sale of raffle tickets are used to benefit or provide support for beneficial or charitable purposes, as defined, the other 50% is paid to the winner, and the winners of the prizes are determined by a manual draw, as specified. This bill would permanently extend the operation of those provisions beyond January 1, 2024. By extending the operation of provisions that revise the percentage of gross receipts required to go to beneficial or charitable purposes pursuant to the California Constitution, this bill would require a 23 vote of each house.
Sponsored bills
Existing law establishes a low-income housing tax credit program for which the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) provides procedures and requirements for the allocation, in modified conformity with federal law, of state insurance, personal income, and corporation tax credit amounts to qualified low-income housing projects that have been allocated, or qualify for, a federal low-income housing tax credit, and farmworker housing. Existing law limits the total annual amount of the state low-income housing credit for which a federal low-income housing credit is required to the sum of $70,000,000, as increased by any percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the preceding calendar year, any unused credit for the preceding calendar years, and the amount of housing credit ceiling returned in the calendar year. Existing law governing the taxation of insurers, the Personal Income Tax Law, and the Corporation Tax Law provided an allocation of $500,000,000 for the 2020 calendar year and, for calendar years beginning in 2021, also provides for an additional amount that may be allocated, up to $500,000,000, to specified low-income housing projects that are new buildings that are federally subsidized, as specified. Existing law provides that this additional amount is only available for allocation pursuant to an authorization in the annual Budget Act. Existing law requires specified regulatory action by CTCAC aimed at increasing production and containing costs, including a scoring system that maximizes the efficient use of public subsidy and benefit created through the low-income housing tax credit program, as specified. This bill would require CTCAC to consider amending the regulatory scoring system to also award maximum points to farmworker housing projects under the housing needs category, and an initial 5 points in the category for site amenities beyond those required as additional thresholds. This bill would include a change in state statute that would result in a taxpayer paying a higher tax within the meaning of Section 3 of Article XIIIA of the California Constitution, and thus would require for passage the approval of 23 of the membership of each house of the Legislature. This bill would take effect immediately as a tax levy.
Existing law establishes the New Motor Vehicle Board in the Department of Motor Vehicles, and requires the board to hear and decide certain protests presented by a motor vehicle franchisee in regard to a dispute with the vehicle manufacturer. Existing law prohibits a franchisor from engaging in specified proscribed business practices. A violation of the Vehicle Code is punishable as an infraction. This bill would prohibit additional acts, including allocating vehicles and parts inconsistent with specified standards. Existing law prohibits a licensed manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, distributor branch, or affiliate from engaging in specified proscribed business practices, including establishing or maintaining a performance standard, sales objective, or program for measuring a dealer's sales, service, or customer service performance, unless specified requirements are satisfied. A violation of the Vehicle Code is punishable as an infraction. This bill would prohibit additional acts, including exercising a right of first refusal in bad faith and implementing or modifying a vehicle reservation system for the sale or lease of motor vehicles that does not comply with specified requirements. This bill would additionally provide that a licensed manufacturer, manufacturer branch, distributor, distributor branch, or affiliate is not unlawfully competing with a franchise by providing an update or repair of motor vehicle software over-the-air at no cost or by creating a new line of motor vehicles and using new or existing franchisees to sell and service those vehicles. The bill would also declare the severability of its provisions. Because a violation of these new provisions would be punishable as a crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill includes legislative findings and declarations and would make other conforming changes. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Existing law authorizes the Public Utilities Commission to fix the rates and charges for every public utility, and requires that those rates and charges be just and reasonable. Existing law requires the commission to enforce rules governing the extension of service by electrical corporations. This bill would require the commission to determine the criteria for timely service for electric customers to be energized, including, among other things, categories of timely electric service through energization, as specified. The bill would require each electrical corporation that energized less than 35% of customers with completed applications exceeding 12 months in duration by January 31, 2023, to submit a report to the commission, as specified, on or before December 1, 2024, demonstrating that the electrical corporation has energized 80% of customers with applications deemed complete as of January 31, 2023, as specified. To improve the accuracy of projected demand and facilitate achievement of the goal of timely electric service through energization, the bill would require each electrical corporation to evaluate and update, as necessary, its existing distribution planning processes. In order to inform the commission's determination of criteria for timely service, the bill would require the commission to annually collect certain information from each electrical corporation until new reporting requirements are established. Under the Public Utilities Act, a violation of an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirements of the commission is a crime. Because the above-described provisions would be a part of the act, a violation of which would be a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the California Coastal Act of 1976, requires anyone wishing to perform or undertake any development in the coastal zone, except as specified, in addition to obtaining any other permit required by law from any local government or from any state, regional, or local agency, to obtain a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission or a local government with a certified local coastal program, as provided. The act authorizes the commission to process and act upon a consolidated coastal development permit application if a proposed project requires a coastal development permit from both a local government with a certified local coastal program and the commission and if the applicant, the local government, and the commission consent to consolidate the permit action. This bill would require the commission to process a consolidated coastal development permit for any new development that requires a coastal development permit and that is associated with, appurtenant to, or necessary for the construction and operation of offshore wind energy projects, and transmission facilities needed for those projects, located in the coastal zone, provided that public participation is not substantially impaired by the review of the consolidated coastal development permit, as provided. The bill would require the commission to forward an application for a consolidated coastal development permit to local governmental agencies having land use and related jurisdiction in the area in which the project would occur and would authorize those local governmental agencies to review and comment on the application, as provided. (2) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA also requires a lead agency to prepare a mitigated negative declaration for a project that may have a significant effect on the environment if revisions in the project would avoid or mitigate that effect and there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, would have a significant effect on the environment. This bill would require the State Lands Commission to be the lead agency for purposes of CEQA for offshore wind energy projects and to prepare, or cause to be prepared, all environmental documents required by law. The bill would require the California Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commission to coordinate with relevant local, state, and federal agencies to encourage and facilitate the preparation of joint environmental documents pursuant to CEQA and the federal National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 for proposed offshore wind energy projects. (3) Existing law requires the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (Energy Commission) , in coordination with specified state entities and other relevant federal, state, and local agencies, to develop a strategic plan for offshore wind energy developments installed off the California coast in federal waters, and requires the Energy Commission to submit the strategic plan to the Natural Resources Agency and the Legislature on or before June 30, 2023. This bill would establish the California Offshore Wind Energy Fisheries Working Group, composed of representatives of the California Coastal Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Lands Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, representatives of the commercial and recreational fishing industries, the offshore wind energy industry, representatives of relevant federal agencies, representatives of California Native American tribes with affected tribal fisheries, and other stakeholders, as determined by the California Coastal Commission. The bill would require the California Coastal Commission, in coordination with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to convene the working group on or before January 1, 2025, for the purpose of developing a statewide strategy for ensuring that offshore wind energy projects avoid and minimize impacts to ocean fisheries to the maximum extent possible, avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to fishing and fisheries in a manner that prioritizes fishery productivity, viability, and long-term resilience, and fairly and reasonably compensate persons engaged in the commercial and recreational fishing industries and tribal fisheries for economic impacts to ocean fisheries resulting from offshore wind energy projects. The bill would require the statewide strategy to include best practices for addressing impacts to the commercial and recreational fishing industries, tribal fisheries, and environmental resources associated with offshore wind energy projects, as specified, and to be completed on or before January 1, 2026. The bill would require the California Coastal Commission to adopt the statewide strategy on or before May 1, 2026, and to review the statewide strategy as needed to determine if changes are necessary. The bill would require an applicant seeking approval or concurrence from a state agency for an offshore wind energy project to comply with the terms, recommendations, and best practices established in the statewide strategy. The bill would require the working group to develop a framework for reasonable compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts associated with offshore wind energy projects, including a payment structure to reasonably compensate commercial, tribal, and recreational fisheries and impacted commercial fish processors. The bill would require the payment structure to include, among other things, investments in fleet improvements to promote resiliency, reasonable compensation for the commercial fishing industry for personal property losses caused by offshore wind energy projects, and reasonable compensation for lost commercial and tribal revenue due to reduced fishing grounds, as specified. The bill would require the State Lands Commission or a local trustee of granted public trust lands to consider including within a lease for an offshore wind energy project reasonable compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to fishing and tribal interests. The bill would create the Offshore Wind Energy Resiliency Fund and would require the State Lands Commission to deposit revenue generated from an offshore wind energy project lease in the fund. The bill would make moneys in the fund available, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for reasonable compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts associated with offshore wind energy projects.
The California Wildlife, Coastal, and Park Land Conservation Act (conservation act) , an initiative bond measure approved by the voters at the June 7, 1988, statewide primary election, authorizes grants to be made by the Department of Parks and Recreation to cities, counties, districts, and nonprofit organizations for specified purposes, including purposes related to parks. As part of the conservation act, the City of Davis was appropriated moneys for acquisition of, or for grants from the city to nonprofit organizations for acquisition of, wildlife and riparian habitat, wetlands, and potential wetlands within the 1987 Davis General Plan Study Area. The conservation act requires property acquired, developed, rehabilitated, or restored pursuant to the conservation act to be used only for purposes of the conservation act and prohibits any other use of the property, except as authorized by the Legislature. This bill would authorize the City of Davis to convey conservation easements, leases, or licenses for habitat conservation projects located on, the geologic storage of carbon dioxide in the pore spaces in the geologic reservoir located below, monitoring wells or any other equipment or facilities that are required by law for the geologic storage of carbon dioxide and that are located on, and agricultural activities that provide wildlife habitat and are located on, specified parcels acquired by the city with a grant made pursuant to the conservation act, as specified. The bill would require the city, in the conveyance of these easements, leases, or licenses, to maintain the scenic, recreational, and wildlife values of the real property.
The Horse Racing Law vests the California Horse Racing Board with jurisdiction and supervision over horse racing meetings in the state. The Horse Racing Law requires the board to issue licenses to associations and fairs that participate in horse racing meetings with parimutuel wagering and to allocate racing dates to those associations and fairs in accordance with that law. The Horse Racing law authorizes the board to issue a license to an association or a fair to conduct a horse racing meeting in accordance with its provisions at the track specified in the written application, as specified. Under the Horse Racing Law, the board may allocate racing weeks to an applicant, subject to specified limitations, and specify the racing days, dates, and hours for horse racing meetings that will be in the public interest and will subserve the purposes of that law. The Horse Racing Law requires the board to make allocations of racing weeks as it deems appropriate and specifies the maximum number of racing weeks that may be allocated for horse racing other than at fairs, including, for thoroughbred racing, a maximum of 44 weeks per year of racing weeks in the northern zone and a maximum of 49 weeks per year in the combined central and southern zones. If the board does not license a thoroughbred race meet to be conducted by a racing association at a racetrack located in a specified location in the northern zone after July 1, 2024, this bill would deem a thoroughbred racing association, or racing fair, licensed to meet in the southern or central zone to be operating in the northern zone during certain racing weeks for the purpose of conducting all permissible forms of wagering in the northern zone and making and receiving required distributions from those wagers. The bill would require mandatory distributions to be made in accordance with requirements applicable to the northern zone, as specified, and would require amounts generated for purses and commissions to be distributed in accordance with prescribed requirements. The Horse Racing Law authorizes the board to permit fairs to operate satellite wagering facilities at their fairgrounds, under certain conditions. In addition, the Horse Racing Law permits any fair in the Counties of Kern or Shasta, with the approval of the Department of Food and Agriculture and the authorization of the board, to operate one satellite wagering facility within the boundaries of the fair, as specified. This bill would permit any fair in the County of Stanislaus, with the approval of the Department of Food and Agriculture and the authorization of the board, to operate one satellite wagering facility within the boundaries of the fair, on the same conditions as apply in the Counties of Kern and Shasta.
(1) Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of various categories of medical professionals by boards within the Department of Consumer Affairs, including, among others, the Medical Board of California and the Dental Board of California. Existing law makes specified actions by licensed health care providers unprofessional conduct and, in certain cases, a criminal offense. This bill would prohibit a healing arts board, as defined, from denying an application for a license or imposing discipline upon a licensee or health care practitioner on the basis of a civil judgment, criminal conviction, or disciplinary action in another state if that judgment, conviction, or disciplinary action is based solely on the application of another state's law that interferes with a person's right to receive sensitive services, as defined, that would be lawful if provided in this state, regardless of the patient's location. The bill would further provide that the performance, recommendation, or provision of a legally protected health care activity by a licensee or health care practitioner acting within their scope of practice for a patient who resides in a state in which the performance, recommendation, or provision of that legally protected health care activity is illegal, does not, by itself, constitute professional misconduct, upon which discipline or other penalty may be taken. In this connection, the bill would define a "legally protected health care activity" to mean specified acts, including, among others, the exercise and enjoyment, or attempted exercise and enjoyment, by a person of rights related to reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services secured by the Constitution or laws of this state or the provision of by a health care service plan contract or a policy, or a certificate of health insurance, that provides for those services. (2) Existing law, the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, generally prohibits a health care provider, health care service plan, contractor, or corporation from sharing, selling, using for marketing, or otherwise using medical information for a purpose not necessary to provide health care services to the patient. This bill would prohibit a person or business from collecting, using, disclosing, or retaining the personal information of a person who is physically located at, or within a precise geolocation of, a family planning center, as defined, except as necessary to perform the services or provide the goods requested. The bill would prohibit the sale or sharing of this information. The bill would authorize an aggrieved person or entity to institute and prosecute a civil action for a violation of these provisions and specify damages and costs authorized to be recovered. The bill would specify these provisions do not apply to a provider of health care, a health care service plan, or a contractor, as defined. (3) Existing law, the Reproductive Privacy Act, declares as contrary to the public policy of this state a law of another state that authorizes a person to bring a civil action against a person or entity that engages in certain activities relating to obtaining or performing an abortion. Existing law prohibits the state from applying an out-of-state law described above to a case or controversy in state court or enforcing or satisfying a civil judgment under the out-of-state law. This bill would state that California law governs in any action against a person who provides or receives by any means, including telehealth, reproductive health care services or gender-affirming health care services, as specified, if the care was legal in the state in which it was provided at the time of the challenged conduct. The bill would state that interference with the right to reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services, or gender-affirming mental health care services, as those terms are defined, is against the public policy of California. The bill would declare as a violation of public policy a public act or record of a foreign jurisdiction that, among other things, authorizes a person to bring a civil action against a person, provider, or other entity in California for, among other acts, seeking or providing reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services, or gender-affirmative mental health care services. The bill would declare the intent of the Legislature that nothing in the bill be interpreted to undermine or decrease any existing protections under California law. The bill would authorize a person to institute a civil action against a person who engages in abusive litigation, as defined, that infringes on or interferes with a legally protected health care activity, among other things. The bill would specify damages and costs authorized to be recovered and would specify circumstances under which a court may exercise jurisdiction over a person in such a civil action. The bill would authorize an aggrieved person, provider, or other entity, as defined, to move to modify or quash a subpoena issued in connection with abusive litigation. The bill would specify the laws of California govern in a case or controversy heard in California related to reproductive health care services, gender-affirming health care services, or gender-affirming mental health care services, except as required by federal law. (4) Existing law permits a judgment creditor to apply for the entry of a judgment based on a sister state judgment by filing an application with a superior court and requires the court clerk to enter a judgment based on the application. Existing law also requires courts to grant a stay enforcement of such a judgment under specified circumstances. This bill would additionally require a court to grant a stay of enforcement of a sister state judgment if a money judgment or lien on real property was obtained for the exercise of a right guaranteed by the United States Constitution, a right guaranteed by the California Constitution, or against a person or entity for aiding and abetting the exercise of those rights, as specified. (5) Existing law prohibits an abortion from being performed upon an unemancipated minor unless she first has given her written consent to the abortion and also has obtained the written consent of one of her parents or legal guardian. Existing law provides specified judicial procedures to be followed if one or both of the unemancipated pregnant minor's or her guardian refuse to consent or if the minor elects not to seek their consent. This bill would repeal these provisions. (6) Existing law defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought. Existing law creates an exemption for a person who commits an act that results in the death of a fetus under specific circumstances, including if the act is solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the person pregnant with the fetus. This bill would expand that exemption to include a person pregnant with a fetus who committed the act that resulted in the death of the fetus. (7) Existing law prohibits a state or local law enforcement agency or officer from knowingly arresting or knowingly participating in the arrest of any person for performing, supporting, or aiding in the performance of an abortion or for obtaining an abortion, if the abortion is lawful in this state. Existing law prohibits a state or local public agency from cooperating with or providing information to an individual or agency from another state or a federal law enforcement agency, as specified, regarding a lawful abortion. This bill would additionally prohibit a state or local government employee or a person acting on behalf of the local or state government, among others, from providing information or expending resources in furtherance of an investigation that seeks to impose civil or criminal liability or professional sanctions on an individual for a legally protected health care activity that occurred in this state or that would be legal if it occurred in this state. The bill would require any out-of-state subpoena, warrant, wiretap order, pen register trap and trace order, or other legal process to include an affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury that the discovery request is not in connection with an out-of-state proceeding relating to a legally protected health care activity, except as specified. By requiring an individual seeking to discovery under these provisions to declare certain conditions are present under penalty of perjury, this bill would expand the crime of perjury and impose a state-mandated local program. (8) Existing law authorizes a magistrate to issue a warrant, upon application by a bail bondsman, as described, for an individual fleeing bail in another state and found in this state upon a finding of probable cause for believing that the person is a fugitive. Existing law makes it a misdemeanor to take a person who is a fugitive admitted to bail in another state into custody, except pursuant to a magistrate's order. This bill would prohibit a magistrate from issuing a warrant for the arrest of an individual whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of the laws of another state that authorize a criminal penalty to an individual performing, receiving, supporting, or aiding in the performance or receipt of sexual or reproductive health care, including, but not limited to, an abortion, contraception, or gender-affirming care if the sexual or reproductive health care is lawful under the laws of this state, regardless of the recipient's location. The bill would make a bail bondsman who takes such an individual into custody without a warrant guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of $5,000 and ineligible for and subject to forfeiture of specified licenses. The bill would create a civil cause of action for an individual taken into custody in violation of this provision. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. (9) Existing law, the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act, prohibits a person, other than a certified law enforcement officer, from apprehending, detaining, or arresting a bail fugitive unless the person is a licensed bail fugitive recovery agent, or both a bail licensee and private investigator who are also bail fugitive recovery agents. Existing law makes a violation of the Bail Fugitive Recovery Persons Act a misdemeanor. This bill would prohibit a person authorized under the act from apprehending, detaining, or arresting a bail fugitive who has been admitted to bail in another state and whose alleged offense or conviction is for the violation of a law of another state that authorizes a criminal penalty to an individual performing, receiving, supporting, or aiding in the performance or receipt of sexual or reproductive health care, including, but not limited to, abortion, contraception, or gender-affirming care, if the sexual or reproductive health care is lawful under the laws of this state, regardless of the recipient's location. The bill would make a violation of this provision an infraction punishable by a fine of $5,000 and make the authorized individual ineligible for and subject to forfeiture of specified licenses. The bill would create a civil cause of action for an individual taken into custody in violation of this provision. By expanding the application of a crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. (10) Existing law establishes a process by which a material witness in this state may be ordered to attend and testify in a pending prosecution or grand jury in another state. This bill would prohibit a judge from ordering a witness to appear pursuant to these provisions if the criminal prosecution is based on the laws of another state that authorizes a criminal penalty to an individual performing, receiving, supporting, or aiding in the performance or receipt of sexual or reproductive health care, including, but not limited to, an abortion, contraception, or gender-affirming care if the sexual or reproductive health care is lawful under the laws of this state. (11) Existing law provides for the California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs) program, under which each county provides cash assistance and other benefits to qualified low-income families and individuals. Existing federal law establishes the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) , known in California as CalFresh, under which supplemental nutrition assistance benefits allocated to the state by the federal government are distributed to eligible individuals by each county. Existing federal regulations disqualify a fleeing felon, as defined, from receiving benefits under the CalFresh program. This bill would require a determination that a person is fleeing to avoid prosecution for purposes of eligibility in the CalWORKs program if a federal, state, or local law enforcement officer in their official capacity presents an outstanding felony arrest warrant containing specified National Crime Information Center Uniform Offense Classification Codes. (12) Existing law refers to "unborn children" and "unborn persons" in various contexts, including, among others, defining low-risk pregnancy conditions for determining the scope of authorization of a certificate to practice nurse-midwifery, defining active labor for health facility licensing provisions, and defining spouse for California State Teachers' Retirement System benefits. This bill would replace "unborn child" and "unborn person" with "fetus" in those provisions. (13) Existing law also refers to "unborn persons" in various contexts, including naming unknown defendants in real property actions, allowing a court to appoint a guardian ad litem to advocate for inadequately represented interests in probate proceedings, allowing a guardian ad litem to give consent on behalf of a beneficiary who lacks legal capacity, and providing an exception for requiring a personal representative to file an account of the distributions of a decedent's estate. This bill would replace "unborn person" with "unborn beneficiary" in those provisions. (14) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. (15) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 2746.5 of the Business and Professions Code proposed by SB 667 to be operative only if this bill and SB 667 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if good cause exists for the issuance, and subject to certain other criteria including, among other things, the applicant is of good moral character and has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Under existing law, the required course of training for an applicant is no more than 16 hours and covers firearm safety and laws regarding the permissible use of a firearm. This bill would require the licensing authority to issue or renew a license if the applicant is not a disqualified person for the license and the applicant is at least 21 years of age. The bill would remove the good character and good cause requirements from the issuance criteria. Under the bill, the applicant would be a disqualified person if they, among other things, are reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. This bill would add the requirement that the applicant be the recorded owner, with the Department of Justice, of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. This bill would change the training requirement to be no less than 16 hours in length and would add additional subjects to the course including, among other things, the safe storage and legal transportation of firearms. The bill would require an issuing authority, prior to that issuance, renewal, or amendment to a license, if it has direct access to the designated department system to determine if the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm. The bill would require an issuing authority without access to that system to confirm the ownership with the sheriff of the county in which the agency is located. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would require a licensing authority to provide the applicant notice if a new license or license renewal is denied or revoked. If an application is denied or a license is revoked based on a determination that the applicant is a disqualified person, the bill would permit the applicant to request a hearing to challenge the license denial or revocation, and require the licensing authority to inform the applicant of the ability to seek a hearing. If a new license or license renewal is denied or revoked for any other reason, the bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate from a superior court within 30 days of receipt of notice of denial or revocation, and require the licensing authority to inform the applicant of the ability to seek a writ of mandate. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires an agency issuing a license described above to set forth specified information on the license, including, among other things, the licensee's name, occupation, and reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon. This bill would revise that information to include, among other things, the licensee's driver's license or identification number, fingerprints, and information relating to the date of expiration of the license, and would remove the requirement that the license detail the reason for desiring a license to carry the weapon. Existing law requires an applicant for a license described above to provide fingerprints, as specified. Existing law exempts an applicant from this requirement if they have previously applied to the same licensing authority and the applicant's fingerprints have previously been forwarded to the department, as specified, and instead requires that authority to note data that would provide positive identification in the files of the department, on the copy of any subsequent license submitted to the department. This bill would require the licensing authority to submit fingerprint images and related information to the department for each applicant applying for a new or renewal license. The bill would require the department to notify the licensing authority if the department is unable to ascertain, among other things, the final disposition of an arrest or criminal charge under state or federal law that would prohibit the person from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. This bill would prohibit a license from being issued or renewed unless the department reports to a licensing authority that the applicant is eligible to possess, receive, own, or purchase a firearm. Existing law requires a licensing authority to charge an additional fee in an amount equal to reasonable processing costs for a new license. Existing law also prohibits a licensing authority from imposing, among other things, a requirement or condition that an applicant pay additional funds or obtain liability insurance. This bill would authorize a licensing authority to charge the additional processing cost fee for a license renewal and would permit the licensing authority to collect the first 50% of the fee upon filing of the application. The bill also removes the prohibition on licensing authority requirements for additional fees or liability insurance. Existing law requires that licenses and applications for licenses be uniform throughout the state, and to be submitted upon forms prescribed by the Attorney General. When revising the standard application form for licenses, existing law requires the Attorney General to convene a committee to review and revise the existing application form. Existing law requires the Attorney General to develop a uniform license that may be used as indicia of proof of licensure throughout the state. Existing law also requires the committee to convene to review and revise the design standard for a uniform license. This bill would authorize the Attorney General to revise the standard form for licenses and the design standard if the committee does not revise the form or issue a design standard within a specified time period. Under existing law, it is a crime to bring a firearm into a state or local building, and makes it a crime to bring a loaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. Existing law exempts a licensee from that prohibition if, among other things, the licensee has a valid license to carry the firearm. This bill would remove those exemptions, except as specified. The bill would make it a crime to bring an unloaded firearm into, or upon the grounds of, any residence of the Governor, any other constitutional officer, or Member of the Legislature. The bill would also prohibit a licensee from carrying a firearm to specified locations, including, among other places, a building designated for a court proceeding and a place of worship, as defined, with specific exceptions. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law prohibits a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in a sterile area of an airport, passenger vessel terminal, or public transit facility, as defined. This bill would additionally prohibit a person from knowingly possessing a firearm in any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport or passenger vessel terminal, as specified. By expanding the scope of an existing crime, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law, the Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1995, makes it a crime to possess a firearm in a place that the person knows, or reasonably should know, is a school zone. Existing law defines a school zone as an area in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school providing instruction in kindergarten or grades 1 to 12, inclusive, or within a distance of 1,000 feet from the grounds of the public or private school. Existing law provides exceptions to that crime, including if a person with a valid concealed carry license who is carrying the firearm described in the license in an area that is not in, or on the grounds of, a public or private school and when a firearm is an unloaded pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person and is in a locked container or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle. This bill would revise the exception for a person who has a valid concealed carry license to permit them to carry a specified firearm in an area that is not within any building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public or private school, or on a street or sidewalk immediately adjacent to a building, real property, or parking area under the control of that public or private school, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to revoke a license to carry a firearm if the licensing authority is notified by the department or the licensing authority determines that a licensee is prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm under state or federal law. This bill would also require a licensing authority to revoke a license if, among other things, a licensee has provided inaccurate or incomplete information on their application for a new license or license renewal. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, manner, and circumstances when a licensee may carry a firearm capable of being concealed. While carrying a firearm, this bill would prohibit a licensee from, among other things, consuming an alcoholic beverage or controlled substance and from falsely representing that the licensee is a peace officer. The bill would authorize the department to adopt emergency regulations to implement the concealed firearm licensing system, as specified. This bill would make conforming changes. The bill would additionally make various findings and declarations of the Legislature. The bill would state that its provisions are severable. This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 29805 of the Penal Code proposed by SB 368 to be operative only if this bill and SB 368 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. This bill would also incorporate additional changes to Section 30370 of the Penal Code proposed by AB 135 and SB 135 to be operative only if this bill and either of those bills are enacted and this bill is enacted last. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The measure would apply to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment relating to firearms, as specified.