Report 2017-101 All Recommendation Responses
Report 2017-101: Concealed Carry Weapon Licenses: Sheriffs Have Implemented Their Local Programs Inconsistently and Sometimes Inadequately (Release Date: December 2017)
Recommendation #1 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that its CCW licensing decisions align with its CCW policy, Los Angeles should only issue licenses to applicants after collecting documentation of specific, personal threats against the applicants so as to satisfy its definition of good cause. If Los Angeles believes that its public licensing policy does not include all acceptable good causes for a CCW license, then by March 2018 it should revise that policy and publish the new policy on its website. It should then immediately begin processing applications according to that revised policy.
Recommendation #2 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it only issues licenses to individuals after receiving evidence of residency, firearms training, and good moral character that aligns with its policy, Los Angeles should only issue licenses after verifying that it has received this evidence. To avoid overlooking required evidence, Los Angeles should create procedures by March 2018 for its staff to follow to ensure that each CCW file contains the evidence its policy requires before issuing the license.
Recommendation #3 To: Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that staff are gathering consistent evidence from applicants to demonstrate residency, good moral character, and firearms training and are including which requirement applicants did not meet in its denial letters, by March 2018 Sacramento should create formal CCW processing procedures and train its staff to follow these procedures. These procedures should require staff to gather and evaluate the information the department believes is required to demonstrate that each of the criteria for a CCW license has been met, and they should also require staff to include which requirement applicants did not meet in its denial letters.
Recommendation #4 To: Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that staff are following its newly established procedures and to identify any need for additional guidance, by March 2018 Sacramento should establish a review process wherein it regularly reviews a selection of license files and denied applications to determine whether its staff are collecting sufficient and consistent documentation in accordance with its policies and are appropriately including which requirement applicants did not meet in its denial letters.
Recommendation #5 To: San Diego County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that its staff appropriately renew CCW licenses, by March 2018 San Diego should establish a routine supervisory review of a selection of renewed licenses.
Recommendation #6 To: San Diego County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it consistently obtains sufficient evidence to demonstrate that an applicant satisfies its requirements for a license, by March 2018 San Diego should develop guidance and train its staff on what good cause documentation staff should request from applicants. Further, it should train its staff regarding the expected documents for residency and training.
Recommendation #7 To: Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it provides all required information to Justice, Sacramento should immediately inform Justice when it revokes a CCW license, including when it receives a prohibition notice from Justice.
Recommendation #8 To: San Diego County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it follows state law's requirements for revoking licenses, San Diego should immediately revoke CCW licenses and should then inform Justice that it has revoked licenses whenever license holders become prohibited persons. Additionally, San Diego should notify Justice when it suspends a license or a license is surrendered.
Recommendation for Legislative Action
The Legislature should amend state law to clarify that licensing authorities can increase fees for CCW applications, renewals, and modifications above $100, $25, and $10, the respective maximum amounts specified in state law, provided that the fee for an initial application does not exceed the authorities' actual costs and that the rate of increase for any of the fees does not exceed that of the CCPI.
Description of Legislative Action
Legislation has not been introduced to address this specific recommendation.
- Legislative Action Current As-of: February 2018
California State Auditor's Assessment of 60-Day Status: No Action Taken
Recommendation #10 To: Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it is only charging fees that state law allows, Los Angeles should immediately cease charging applicants fees in addition to its license processing fee. Los Angeles should reimburse applicants who paid the unallowable fees. Further, if Los Angeles believes its license fee does not recover its entire cost of processing an initial application, it should complete a cost study and, if appropriate, revise its fee according to the results of that study and the maximum allowed fees under state law.
Recommendation #11 To: Sacramento County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it is maximizing allowable revenue from the CCW program and reducing its program deficits, Sacramento should perform a cost study of its initial application processing and, on completion of the study, immediately increase its CCW license fees and begin charging the maximum amounts allowable under state law.
Recommendation #12 To: San Diego County Sheriff's Department
To ensure that it maximizes allowable revenue from its CCW program, San Diego should immediately pursue increasing its initial, renewal, and amendment fees to the maximum amounts allowable under state law.
Agency responses received are posted verbatim.