imported post
Assemblyman Tom Ammiano,
Re: AB 357
I have recently become aware of a bill before the assembly, enumerated as AB 357, which seeks to amend Section 12050 of the California Penal Code in order to modify the conditions under which county Sheriffs process licensure for the carrying of Concealed Firearms within the State of California (such a license is referred to in PC 12050 as a "License to carry concealed a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person").
In brief, I urge Assemblyman Ammiano to support AB 357. This bill provides numerous public safety, legal, and financial benefits to the residents of San Francisco, and of California as a whole. Most importantly, clarifying the conditions under which Licenses to Carry are granted allows law-abiding & nonaggressive, trained Californians the means to best defend themselves when the police -- subject to ever-tighter budget restraints -- are simply not available, and seconds count. Reading the current text of PC 12050, county Sheriffs imagine for themselves unreasonable latitude in their issuance standards from the phrase "may issue" as it appears in PC 12050. The result is that, in some counties licenses are issued whenever "good cause" is determined to exist, and in others they are denied regardless. AB 357 amends this phrase to read "shall issue", thus requiring Sheriffs to issue permits wherever "good cause" is determined to exist.
Furthermore, there are serious Constitutional ramifications to the current state of PC 12050. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (which our own State Constitution reiterates as the Supreme Law of the Land) requires that every person be entitled to equal protection under the law. When taken into consideration the broad and well-defined State preemption in Firearms regulation, it is clear the intent of PC 12050 is to create a State-wide system for licensing qualified Californians in the carrying of concealed Firearms. However, from actual practice, whereby each county follows their own rules, and no homogeneity can be found in the issuance standards from county to county, it is clear that Californians are not afforded equal protection under the law with regard to Firearms licensure and county of residence. This is not an issue of local politics and government because, as would be the case with analogous driver's licensing, when the law is written to be uniform across the state, but is applied so as to be irregular from locale to locale, individuals are receiving different application of the same law depending upon where they reside, which can hardly be described as "equal protection under" (also interpretable as "equal application of...") the law.
There is one final benefit of AB 357 which I feel it worthwhile to point out. I applaud Assemblyman Ammiano's introduction of AB 390, which would (most relevant here) bring in numerous tax monies to the State of California through the taxation of Cannabis production and distribution. AB 357 could provide similar desperately needed financial assistance to the State, which already has the mechanism in place to license and tax the carrying of concealed firearms, but which mechanism is vastly underemployed due to the confusion engendered by the irregular application at the county level of PC 12050. Countless peaceful and nonaggressive Californians would avail themselves of this privilege, but it is commonly believed among ordinary Californians who possess firearms for the defense of their persons and family that such licensure is only for the rich and famous here in the Golden State. We should be ashamed that so many have so low an opinion of the fairness of our fine State's government at the county level! (I need not dwell on political corruption regarding the involvement of "may-issue" licensure in recent political patronage scandals.)
What we have in AB 357 is a chance to simultaneously acknowledge and shrug off this shame, render our laws in accordance with the Fourteenth Amendment, and enable the State to reap the full financial rewards of a tax system already in place, at a time when it needs them most.
Thank you for your attention,
xxxx
...
