FACT-CHECK: Calif. Assembly Bill 2510
Earlier today, we received a few messages from gun owners saying that they’re getting conflicting information about California Assembly Bill 2510, a dangerous bill that we strongly oppose in its current form.
Given the understandable confusion, we wanted to take this opportunity to explain AB 2510 and reiterate our policy position / analysis.
BACKGROUND
AB 2510 is authored by Assemblyman Eric Linder, a Republican who just last year voted to ban Second Amendment rights and outlaw carry on school grounds by law-abiding gun owners and handgun carry (“CCW”) licensees.
(Thanks to Assemblyman Linder and his anti-gun colleagues, FPC, 3 other civil rights groups, and 11 individuals were forced to file a federal civil rights lawsuit over that bill.)
According to Linder, AB 2510 is “needed” to create a “uniform” CCW license in California. But, as you’ll quickly see below, that’s just a bunch of made-up BS from a politician you can’t trust. (Don’t take our word for it—read the bill and see for yourself.)
Since AB 2510 was introduced, on many occasions, we’ve tried to help Linder fix AB 2510. He’s so far refused for political reasons—see below, where we show that he’s been endorsed in the 2016 election by the bill’s sponsor, the generally-anti-gun California State Sheriffs’ Association.
FACTS AND FALSEHOODS
FACT: California law already requires a uniform carry license: “Applications for licenses, applications for amendments to licenses, amendments to licenses, and [CCW] licenses under this article shall be uniform throughout the state, upon forms to be prescribed by the Attorney General.” (Cal. Penal Code. section 26175(a)(1).)
FACT: According to Eric Linder’s own [amusingly-named] AB 2510 “fact sheet“, some (many?) sheriffs are already breaking the law and giving out their own licenses — their very acts gutting California’s existing uniform license.
FACT: The bill’s sponsor, California State Sheriffs’ Association, opposed the Peruta CCW decision and supports “may-issue” gun control regulations, supported the dangerous “Gun Violence Restraining Order” bill AB 1014, supports so-called “universal background checks” and waiting periods for all firearm purchases, and endorses Assemblyman Eric Linder. (Shocked? Neither are we.)
FACT: California State Sheriffs’ Association co-sponsored a bill last year to make CCW licenses even more difficult to get and undermine a pro-gun lawsuit brought by The Calguns Foundation against former Los Angeles County Sheriff Lee Baca. That bill, AB 1134, allows a county sheriff to force carry license applicants to first apply to their police chief, pay fees, and get denied before applying to the sheriff’s department.
FALSE: “In addition to the information already required on the card by the CA DOJ, the new CCW identification cards would become more standardized across the state.” (Source.)
Uhm, no. AB 2510 would allow hundreds of local licensing authorities to deviate from the state standard license and create their own. And under AB 2510, every local license can be different in size, color, shape, construction, and process.
FALSE: “To ensure a smooth transition to this program, officers will be trained to recognize these new identification cards…” (Source.)
Huh?! Who writes this stuff? There is no training mandate in AB 2510. And there’s no funding for training in AB 2510. Oh, and we’re still 3 decades behind on training tens of thousands of law enforcement officers how to (correctly) identify California “Assault Weapons” — do you think that cops are going to use their photographic memories to keep up on California CCW license formats?
FALSE: “A critical aspect of this bill is that counties can opt in and are not mandated to issue these identification cards. By codifying this program as an alternative option to the one already in place, elected officials are creating an opportunity for better cooperation and communication between local law enforcement and the CA DOJ.” (Source.)
That doesn’t even make a little bit of sense. The law already says that licenses must be uniform. (See facts, above.) So, under AB 2510, “counties can opt in and are not mandated” to use the state-standard CCW license. They can just make up their own. Like they are now, illegally, which is the real reason for AB 2510.
(Seriously, go read AB 2510. Look for the words “shall” and “may” — decide for yourself.)
CLOSING THOUGHTS
If Eric Linder and California sheriffs really wanted a modern carry license….
- Why are sheriffs breaking the law and doing the opposite of that right now?
- Why don’t they draft and support a bill that actually mandates a modern, uniform license type?
- Why can’t sheriffs spend some of the CCW fees they’re already collecting ($100) on a decent plastic ID card printer that can print the same license format everywhere?
If you want to stand with us and oppose AB 2510 until it’s fixed, please click here. (You can also click-to-call Eric Linder’s office at (916) 319-2060 and sound off on AB 2510.)
And for even more information, watch FPC legislative liaison Craig DeLuz explain why we oppose AB 2510 in this short bill update video:
