June 1, 2015 The Honorable Senator Loni Hancock, Chair Senate Committee on Public Safety State Capitol Building, Room 2031 Sacramento, CA 95814 Regarding: Assembly Bill 1134 (Stone) Position: OPPOSE Dear Senator Hancock, On behalf of the members and supporters of Firearms Policy Coalition, I urge a “NO” vote on Assembly Bill 1134 (Stone) (“AB 1134”). I. ASSEMBLY BILL 1134 WOULD UPSET PRIOR LEGISLATIVE ACTS AND NEARLY FOUR DECADES OF CASELAW AB 1134 is a transparent effort to undermine a well-considered court ruling (Lu v. County of Los Angeles, Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, 2014, no. BC480493; 2d Dist. no. B257371 (app. pending)) that simply upheld the clear meaning of the statutes enacted by this Legislature as confirmed by nearly 40 years of case law. See, e.g., Salute v. Pitchess (1976) 61 Cal.App.3d 557, 560-561; CBS, Inc. v. Block (1986) 42 Cal.3d 646, 656. The author’s fact sheet bears this out: “There is nothing in the Penal Code that allows the sheriff to defer to a police chief in handling CCW applications. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) instituted a policy requiring CCW applicants to apply for a CCW with the police chief in the city in which the person lives rather than the sheriff. In 2013, the Los Angeles Superior Court held that the Penal Code did not provide that option and ordered the LASD to process any applicants filed with the LASD. (Lu v. County of Los Angeles, BC480493) [sic] AB 1134 amends current law to allow for these mutual agreements between law enforcement agencies.” The measure’s sponsors confirm AB 1134’s true intent is to avoid liability for the LASD’s refusal to fulfill its statutory duty to consider each application for a concealed-carry license on an individual basis. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”) (a co-sponsor with California State Sheriff’s Association, which represents other state sheriffs’ departments facing the threat of litigation for having similar policies) seeks a statutory means of avoiding liability for its brazen continuing enforcement of policies and practices that the Court of Appeal held to be unlawful in 1976. See Salute, 61 Cal.App.3d at 560-61. Page 1 of 4 970 Reserve Drive Suite 111 Roseville, CA 95678 (855) 372- 7522 firearmspolicy.org Firearms Policy Coalition AB 1134 (Stone) – OPPOSE Page 2 of 4 In Lu, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Deirdre Hill held that California’s statutes and long-standing precedent were perfectly clear—and that the LASD was willfully [and openly] refusing to follow them. Lu is the culmination of decades of outright recalcitrance by the LASD. The irony here is that the Lu trial court decision simply mirrored the holding of Salute, 61 Cal. App. 3d 557, a case decided on the same grounds and on materially similar facts against the very same agency—the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department—nearly 40 years earlier: “It is the duty of the sheriff to make [] an investigation and determination, on an individual basis, on every application under section 12050 [section 26150].”1 Id at 560-561. AB 1134 isn’t about California’s sheriffs having a newly recognized “need” at all. Rather, AB 1134 is a means for sheriffs to abrogate important ministerial duties and re-introduce treacherous political dynamics into a system methodically crafted by the Legislature to establish reasonable procedural standards. The political precedent set by passing AB 1134 is frightening. AB 1134 stands for the proposition that if a local agency ignores for decades the Legislature’s well-considered commands, gets sued for it, and loses in court, the Legislature will save that agency from responsibility by passing a bill to bail them out. A municipality’s recalcitrance to follow the Legislature’s mandates should not be rewarded. II. ASSEMBLY BILL 1134 IS BAD PUBLIC POLICY To put it plainly, AB 1134 would turn back the clock on our statutes and allow a sheriff's department with a nearly 40 year history of contempt of the courts—now that it has finally been forced to comply with long-standing court orders and Cal. Penal Code section 26150, et seq.—to rewrite that law to ratify its malfeasance. But AB 1134 also introduces dangerous, and un-democratic, new dynamics into a system that was shaped by the Legislature many decades. This measure’s many serious defects include, but are not limited to: 1. Providing an express statutory means for a county sheriff to abdicate all of its discretionary and ministerial functions under Cal. Penal Code section 26150, et seq., to one un-elected municipal chief of police, destroying the checks and balances established by the Legislature; 2. Not providing any clear guidelines or objective requirements for delegations of authority under the added code—leading to possibility that                                                                                                                 California’s Dangerous Weapons statutes were reorganized and renumbered since the Court of Appeal’s Salute decision. The new penal code section is found in brackets. 1 Firearms Policy Coalition AB 1134 (Stone) – OPPOSE Page 3 of 4 such could be accomplished by a simple verbal agreement, without the advice or consent of any other chief of police in that county; and, 3. Giving unelected local officials the ability to change the rules whenever they want—without transparency, public notice, hearings, or even a requirement that agreements be published. Put simply, AB 1134 will reduce government accountability and undermine the democratic process. No matter which side of the aisle you find yourself on, AB 1134 is bad public policy and should not be passed. III. ASSEMBLY BILL 1134’S TEXT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE AUTHOR’S PRIOR TESTIMONY AND IS NOT APPROPRIATELY LIMITED IN ITS APPLICATION While the author claims that AB 1134 only allows the sheriff of a county to enter into an agreement with a chief or other head of a municipal police department of a city for that city’s residents, the clear text of the measure says otherwise. AB 1134, as currently written, would amend section 26150 of the Penal Code to add the following subdivision: (c) Nothing in this chapter shall preclude the sheriff of the county in which the city is located from entering an agreement with the chief or other head of a municipal police department of a city for the chief or other head of a municipal police department to process all applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, and amendments to licenses pursuant to this chapter. But AB 1134 lacks a limiting provision to bound the authority of a sheriff to enforce against applicants an agreement they make with the “chief or other head of a municipal police department of a city” in which an applicant resides. Said differently, under the text of AB 1134, the sheriff of a county could enter into an agreement with a chief or other head of a municipal police department of a city in that county “for the chief or other head of a municipal police department to process all applications for licenses, renewals of licenses, and amendments to licenses” under Penal Code section 26150 for all residents of the county in which the sheriff has jurisdiction. For example, AB 1134 would allow Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones to enter into an agreement with City of Sacramento Chief of Police Samuel D. Somers, Jr., for the City Police Department to accept and process all applications for the residents of the County of Sacramento (and, worse still, any other cities the sheriff has an agreement with under existing section 25155(c)). Firearms Policy Coalition AB 1134 (Stone) – OPPOSE Page 4 of 4 Under AB 1134, all respective chiefs of police for cities in a county but one could defer their carry license application processing to the sheriff of the county in which their respective cities are located, and then that sheriff could subsequently enter into a separate agreement with the so far un-bound chief for the processing of all of those applications. AB 1134 creates virtually limitless possibilities for the consolidation and rearranging of local powers and duties; a never-ending shell game of delegated authorities, wherein the law-abiding public plays the game’s cup-tipping sucker. IV. CONCLUSION AB 1134 is a shameless attempt by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department to duck liability in a properly-decided lawsuit—with vital due process protections and voter accountability being the collateral damage. AB 1134 is chock-full of terminal deficiencies, not the least of which is the text’s total disagreement with the author’s statement of intent. And the fact that the bill contains no requirements for the nature of and process for establishing agreements between sheriffs and chiefs of police underscores the need for appropriate amendments, if not outright rejection. If California's sheriffs are concerned about processing an increasing number of carry license applications, a better solution would be to remove that burden from them entirely by way of a standardized, objective, and fair process at the state level. AB 1134 is a step backwards for California, its people, and the law. The measure should be opposed and we respectfully ask for your “NO” vote. Sincerely, Brandon Combs President