PDA

View Full Version : What is a PC 26150 license you may ask?


hoffmang
01-15-2011, 8:44 PM
Some of you may recall two bills that passed last year to create a comprehensive renumbering of the State's dangerous weapons laws.

Well, that renumbering and reordering has taken place. PC 26150 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=15255216986+7+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve) is the new version of the old PC 12050 - aka carry license.

What's interesting is that the Legislature's website lists both versions in the Penal Code. PC 12050 is still there as well as PC 26150. I'm going to do some digging (and am hoping one of you might know or care to dig into the renumbering bills) to see how long we get to be able to dual cite...

The Legislature's site is also not the most friendliest to get an order and overlay. The actual pattern of the old code is changed somewhat as most all of the definitions have been removed from their sections and placed in a single section of definitions. Just when you finally have it mostly memorized...

-Gene

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 8:47 PM
I wonder how long it will take CADOJ to post the new PC on the webste. They haven't updated it since 2008. hopefully, they will have it updated around the first of the year to cover the new 2012 numbering.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 8:52 PM
I'm totally in denial this is happening. It goes into effect in 2037, right?

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 8:54 PM
this would appear to be the controlling portion of the act, that explains what happens with the new numbering, trying to wrap my head aroud what it really says.

DIVISION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS


16000. This act recodifies the provisions of former Title 2
(commencing with Section 12000) of Part 4, which was entitled
"Control of Deadly Weapons." The act shall be known and may be cited
as the "Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010."
16005. Nothing in the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010
is intended to substantively change the law relating to deadly
weapons. The act is intended to be entirely nonsubstantive in effect.
Every provision of this part, of Title 2 (commencing with Section
12001) of Part 4, and every other provision of this act, including,
without limitation, every cross-reference in every provision of the
act, shall be interpreted consistent with the nonsubstantive intent
of the act.
16010. (a) A provision of this part or of Title 2 (commencing
with Section 12001) of Part 4, or any other provision of the Deadly
Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, insofar as it is substantially
the same as a previously existing provision relating to the same
subject matter, shall be considered as a restatement and continuation
thereof and not as a new enactment.
(b) A reference in a statute to a previously existing provision
that is restated and continued in this part or in Title 2 (commencing
with Section 12001) of Part 4, or in any other provision of the
Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, shall, unless a contrary
intent appears, be deemed a reference to the restatement and
continuation.
(c) A reference in a statute to a provision of this part or of
Title 2 (commencing with Section 12001) of Part 4, or any other
provision of the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, which is
substantially the same as a previously existing provision, shall,
unless a contrary intent appears, be deemed to include a reference to
the previously existing provision.
16015. If a previously existing provision is restated and
continued in this part, or in Title 2 (commencing with Section 12001)
of Part 4, or in any other provision of the Deadly Weapons
Recodification Act of 2010, a conviction under that previously
existing provision shall, unless a contrary intent appears, be
treated as a prior conviction under the restatement and continuation
of that provision.
16020. (a) A judicial decision interpreting a previously existing
provision is relevant in interpreting any provision of this part, of
Title 2 (commencing with Section 12001) of Part 4, or any other
provision of the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, which
restates and continues that previously existing provision.
(b) However, in enacting the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of
2010, the Legislature has not evaluated the correctness of any
judicial decision interpreting a provision affected by the act.
(c) The Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 is not intended
to, and does not, reflect any assessment of any judicial decision
interpreting any provision affected by the act.
16025. (a) A judicial decision determining the constitutionality
of a previously existing provision is relevant in determining the
constitutionality of any provision of this part, of Title 2
(commencing with Section 12001) of Part 4, or any other provision of
the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010, which restates and
continues that previously existing provision.
(b) However, in enacting the Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of
2010, the Legislature has not evaluated the constitutionality of any
provision affected by the act, or the correctness of any judicial
decision determining the constitutionality of any provision affected
by the act.
(c) The Deadly Weapons Recodification Act of 2010 is not intended
to, and does not, reflect any determination of the constitutionality
of any provision affected by the act.





What's interesting is that the Legislature's website lists both versions in the Penal Code. PC 12050 is still there as well as PC 26150. I'm going to do some digging (and am hoping one of you might know or care to dig into the renumbering bills) to see how long we get to be able to dual cite...

I wonder if the reasoning for the legislature to dual-list the PC like that is so that legislators have the new code available to them so that when they write a new bill, that they quote the new PC. for instance, it would not be a good idea to write an amendment to 12050 that goes into effect on 1/1/12, when on that date, there won't be a section 12050.

QuarterBoreGunner
01-15-2011, 8:57 PM
This is interesting... eyes on.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:00 PM
This is interesting... eyes on.

No, really. There's nothing interesting here. As we noted in the threads when this passed, there's no conspiracy. Our side was involved in the cleanup, there's nothing subtle going on here. The main effect is all the numbers changes, and you have to memorize a bunch of new ones.

QuarterBoreGunner
01-15-2011, 9:07 PM
I guess my interest is piqued whenever there's a change in the PC, glacial as it may be.

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 9:09 PM
I guess my interest is piqued whenever there's a change in the PC, glacial as it may be.

here is the new PC as passed last year, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1080_bill_20100930_chaptered.html if you want to take a look at it.


did I miss that starting July 1, 2012, long guns are to be registered into AFS like handguns are?
SEC. 6.27. Section 26905 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
26905. (a) On the date of receipt, a licensee shall report to the
Department of Justice, in a format prescribed by the department, the
acquisition by the licensee of the ownership of a handgun, and
commencing July 1, 2012, of any firearm.
and for personal "firearm" importers as well?
SEC. 6.40. Section 27560 is added to the Penal Code, to read:
27560. (a) Within 60 days of bringing a handgun into this state,
and commencing July 1, 2012, within 60 days of bringing any firearm
into this state, a personal firearm importer shall do one of the
following:
(1) Forward by prepaid mail or deliver in person to the Department
of Justice, a report prescribed by the department including
information concerning that individual and a description of the
firearm in question.

this is gonna suck, having to pay a DROS fee for each long gun purchased (albet a reduced fee for additional long guns purchased at the same time). Although this should eliminate the debate between 10% and kemasa about adding long guns to a pistol DROS:Dnevermind, misread the bill

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:14 PM
I'm going to do some digging (and am hoping one of you might know or care to dig into the renumbering bills) to see how long we get to be able to dual cite...


Reading the act, I don't see a sunset. So, it's still a 12050 license...it's just also a 26150 license.

Memorizing one set of arbitrary numbers was bad enough. That's it, I give up. Think HCI has any open slots?

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 9:31 PM
I see this:

SEC. 4. Title 2 (commencing with Section 12000) of Part 4 of the
Penal Code is repealed.with no indication that it isn't repealed unti 1/1/2012. is it possible that there is currently no "Dangerous Weapons Control Laws" currently in effect in CA after 1/1/2011?

nevermind, covered here, SEC. 10. Sections 7 and 9 of this act become operative on January
1, 2011. The remainder of this act becomes operative on January 1,
2012.


it would appear that on 1/1/2012, that section 12050 would no longer exist, since it would be repealed. So, there would be no 12050 license, and all PC sections appear to point to the new 21650 license.

safewaysecurity
01-15-2011, 9:38 PM
I'm confused. What's going on here exactly?

Librarian
01-15-2011, 9:40 PM
here is the new PC as passed last year, http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1080_bill_20100930_chaptered.html if you want to take a look at it.


did I miss that starting July 1, 2012, long guns are to be registered into AFS like handguns are?

and for personal "firearm" importers as well?


this is gonna suck, having to pay a DROS fee for each long gun purchased (albet a reduced fee for additional long guns purchased at the same time). Although this should eliminate the debate between 10% and kemasa about adding long guns to a pistol DROS:D

Some of that needs to be unwound -- the renumbering bill says This bill would incorporate additional changes proposed by AB
1810, AB 1934, AB 2263, AB 2358, AB 2668, SB 282, SB 1062, and SB
1190, contingent on the prior enactment of those bills.
but AB 1810 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1810&sess=PREV&house=B&author=feuer), the one that would have made the registration to include all firearms, failed.

I've been hoping Wests or Findlaw or somebody will provide the 'translation table' for the old and new numbers.

RomanDad
01-15-2011, 9:40 PM
Yeah.... Im just going to keep saying 12050.

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 9:41 PM
I'm confused. What's going on here exactly?

you can read this for the back story, http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=276865

hoffmang
01-15-2011, 9:43 PM
did I miss that starting July 1, 2012, long guns are to be registered into AFS like handguns are?


I think you were seeing the conforming amendments that would be applied if and only if the long gun registration bill passed (which it did not.) The chaptered version of 26905 doesn't have the long gun registration language:

26905. (a) On the date of receipt, a licensee shall report to the
Department of Justice, in a format prescribed by the department, the
acquisition by the licensee of the ownership of a pistol, revolver,
or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person.
(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any of the
following transactions:
(1) A transaction subject to the provisions of Sections 26960 and
27660.
(2) The dealer acquired the firearm from a wholesaler.
(3) The dealer acquired the firearm from a person who is licensed
as a manufacturer or importer to engage in those activities pursuant
to Chapter 44 (commencing with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United
States Code and any regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(4) The dealer acquired the firearm from a person who resides
outside this state who is licensed pursuant to Chapter 44 (commencing
with Section 921) of Title 18 of the United States Code and any
regulations issued pursuant thereto.
(5) Until July 1, 2010, the dealer is also licensed as a
secondhand dealer pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section
21625) of Chapter 9 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions
Code, acquires a handgun, and reports its acquisition pursuant to
Section 21628 of the Business and Professions Code.
(6) Commencing July 1, 2010, the dealer is also licensed as a
secondhand dealer pursuant to Article 4 (commencing with Section
21625) of Chapter 9 of Division 8 of the Business and Professions
Code, acquires a handgun, and reports its acquisition pursuant to
Section 21628.2 of the Business and Professions Code.

-Gene

trashman
01-15-2011, 9:44 PM
I'm confused. What's going on here exactly?

Well, for one it appears Brett is drinking while posting :p

--Neill

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 9:45 PM
Some of that needs to be unwound -- the renumbering bill says but AB 1810 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_1810&sess=PREV&house=B&author=feuer), the one that would have made the registration to include all firearms, failed.

I've been hoping Wests or Findlaw or somebody will provide the 'translation table' for the old and new numbers.


gotcha,

I found this in the bill, and many others that deal with an unsucessfull ab1810

SEC. 8.40. Section 6.40 of this bill adds Section 27560 to the
Penal Code, and incorporates into that section amendments to
paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 of the Penal Code
proposed by AB 1810. It shall only become operative if (1) both bills
are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2011, (2)
AB 1810 amends paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) of Section 12072 of
the Penal Code, (3) this bill adds Section 27560 to the Penal Code,
and (4) this bill is enacted after AB 1810, in which case Section
27560 as proposed to be added by Section 6 of this bill shall not
become operative.

the_quark
01-15-2011, 9:46 PM
Well, for one it appears Brett is drinking while posting :p


I would never do something like that.

ke6guj
01-15-2011, 9:50 PM
I think you were seeing the conforming amendments that would be applied if and only if the long gun registration bill passed (which it did not.) The chaptered version of 26905 doesn't have the long gun registration language:



-Gene

yah, I missed that section 5 laid out the entire new PC numbering system, and then all the Section 6.xx stuff was to deal with other pending bills that may or may not be passed. So, section 5 lays it out, and then section 6.xx deals with any amendments that get passed during the time that all this is in play.

trashman
01-15-2011, 10:19 PM
I would never do something like that.

And to be fair, I would only posit the idea because I am somewhat familiar with it myself...

--Neill