AB 1006 creates a detailed framework for denying or refusing renewal of California concealed‑carry licenses. It identifies a list of conduct, convictions, orders, and behavioral indicators that make an applicant a "disqualified person," requires a minimum investigative protocol for licensing authorities, and fixes a 90‑day deadline for an initial written determination.
The bill matters because it both expands the reasons licensing authorities can refuse licenses (including validated gang membership, certain recent convictions, failure to report firearm loss, and evidence from psychological assessments) and prescribes concrete administrative steps that sheriffs and police chiefs must follow. It also specifies that these new rules apply to past conduct and orders, which raises practical and legal questions for administrators, applicants, and defense counsel.
At a Glance
What It Does
Sets out 14 categories of disqualifying conduct or status that bar issuance or renewal of a concealed‑carry license and mandates a baseline investigation including an in‑person applicant interview, reference checks, public‑record review, DOJ file review, and CRPOS checks. It requires licensing authorities to issue a written initial determination within 90 days and to either advance the applicant to training/fingerprint submission or deny and notify of a court hearing option.
Who It Affects
County sheriffs and city police chiefs who issue licenses will need to implement the prescribed investigative steps and decision timeline. Prospective and renewing licensees — particularly people with certain prior convictions, restraining orders, substance‑abuse histories, lost or unreported firearms, or validated gang status — face new formal grounds for denial. Mental‑health evaluators and the Department of Justice are also pulled into the process through assessments and data sharing.
Why It Matters
The bill standardizes and widens discretionary grounds for denying carry permits while locking licensing authorities into specific procedural steps and a strict 90‑day clock. Because it applies to pre‑existing conduct, it forces agencies to revisit past records and creates new administrative burdens and legal exposure around retroactive disqualifications.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1006 rewrites the license‑worthiness inquiry for California concealed‑carry permits. It lists 14 distinct reasons to treat an applicant as a "disqualified person," ranging from current substance abuse and being a validated gang member to specified convictions and certain court orders within defined lookback windows.
The bill ties some disqualifications to timeframes (for example, ten‑year and five‑year lookbacks) and singles out conduct like failing to report a lost firearm or brandishing a weapon as standalone disqualifiers.
The statute imposes a minimum investigative template licensing authorities must follow before reaching an initial determination. That template includes an in‑person interview of the applicant (optional for renewals), interviews with at least three character references including a cohabitant when applicable, searches of public‑facing statements, review of the applicant’s submission, and cross‑checks with DOJ records and the California Restraining and Protective Order System.
The licensing agency can add other investigative steps beyond the list, giving officials discretion to pursue additional leads.Administratively, the bill forces a prompt response: within 90 days of a completed application the authority must give a written initial determination. If the authority concludes the applicant is not disqualified, it instructs the applicant to proceed to training and triggers fingerprint submission or a renewal notification to the Department of Justice.
If the authority concludes the applicant is disqualified, it must provide written reasons and inform the applicant of the right to seek a court hearing under the statute identified. Finally, the bill clarifies that the new disqualification rules apply regardless of when the underlying conduct, conviction, or order occurred — i.e., they operate retroactively to the date of those events.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill lists 14 categories that disqualify an applicant, including current substance abuse, validated gang membership, unlawful brandishing, and failure to report a lost firearm.
Several lookback windows apply: ten years for many convictions and certain offenses; five years for incarceration, probation, or commitments tied to controlled substances or alcohol; and five years for certain restraining or protective orders unless vacated earlier.
The licensing authority must conduct a minimum investigation (applicant interview, three reference interviews, public‑record review, DOJ data review, and CRPOS check) before making a determination.
The authority has 90 days from receipt of a completed application to issue a written initial determination that either advances the applicant toward training/fingerprint submission or denies and advises of a court hearing right.
The statute applies retroactively: the listed prohibitions can be enforced even if the relevant conduct, conviction, or order predated the effective date of the law.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Catalog of disqualifying conduct and lookback windows
This subsection enumerates the concrete factual and legal conditions that create a presumption of disqualification. It is granular: some items are categorical (validated gang member; contempt under Penal Code §166), others are conduct‑based (unlawful or reckless brandishing; failure to report firearm loss), and several tie to specific criminal code sections (for example, offenses listed in §§422.6, 422.7, 422.75, 29805). The provision also sets temporal limits for many categories — chiefly ten‑year and five‑year windows — which will determine whether past convictions or orders are disqualifying when an application arrives.
Minimum investigative protocol for licensing authorities
This section prescribes the baseline steps agencies must take before reaching an initial decision: an in‑person applicant interview (renewals may be exempt), interviews with at least three references including a cohabitant and a reference of the type identified in Family Code §273.5 when applicable, public‑record searches, review of the application materials, checking DOJ information under §26185, and consulting the statewide restraining‑order database (CRPOS). Practically, this converts what could have been informal desk reviews into a repeatable, multi‑step vetting workflow and creates checkpoints agencies must document to withstand judicial scrutiny.
Authority to conduct further investigation
The bill explicitly permits licensing authorities to go beyond the minimum list in subsection (b). That language preserves discretion to pursue additional lines of inquiry — for example, contacting employers, subpoenaing records where lawful, or asking for supplemental psychological information — but it also broadens the evidentiary footprint agencies may rely on when making a denial, which can expand both administrative workload and litigation vectors.
90‑day written initial determination and downstream steps
Agencies must issue a written initial determination within 90 days of receiving a completed application. If the initial finding clears the applicant, the notice directs the applicant to the required training and prompts the authority to send fingerprints or a renewal notice to DOJ per §26185. If the initial finding disqualifies the applicant, the notice must explain the rationale, act as the statutory denial notice under §26205, and inform the person of their ability to request a court hearing under §26206. This creates a compressed decision timetable and a clear administrative record entry point for appeals.
Retroactive application of the new prohibitions
The statute states expressly that the disqualifying criteria apply even if the underlying conduct, conviction, or order occurred before the law’s effective date. That retroactivity means licensing authorities will reassess historic records rather than only forward‑looking incidents, which raises evidentiary and fairness questions and will likely increase the volume of cases flagged for denial.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Survivors and petitioners in domestic violence cases — the bill elevates certain protective orders and domestic‑violence related convictions as direct grounds for denial and creates a mandatory CRPOS check that increases the chance such histories block permits.
- Local communities concerned about public safety — by expanding disqualifying criteria (e.g., validated gang membership, repeated firearm loss, brandishing), the law narrows the pool of eligible carry permittees in the interest of reducing risk in public spaces.
- Law enforcement officers reviewing applicants — the required investigative steps and 90‑day decision window produce a standardized process and a written record that can support defensible administrative decisions and subsequent enforcement actions.
Who Bears the Cost
- County sheriffs and municipal police chiefs — agencies must absorb the additional staffing, training, and recordkeeping needed to conduct in‑person interviews, multiple reference checks, CRPOS searches, DOJ coordination, and to meet the 90‑day deadline.
- Prospective and renewing applicants with older convictions or past orders — individuals whose prior conduct predated the law may now face denials under retroactive application, and will have to navigate appeals or court hearings to contest decisions.
- Mental‑health evaluators and forensic assessors — expanded reliance on psychological assessments and 'reasonably likely to be a danger' determinations may shift demand onto clinicians to perform evaluations that feed administrative decisions, potentially without clear procedural safeguards or compensation.
- The Department of Justice and data systems — DOJ will receive increased fingerprint submissions and record requests; local CRPOS and CLETS queries will increase, creating friction unless funding and technical capacity grow.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is straightforward: AB 1006 strengthens public‑safety screening by expanding disqualifiers and formalizing investigative steps, but it does so by increasing administrative discretion and applying rules retroactively — improving preventive capacity for licensors while amplifying due‑process and resource‑allocation concerns for applicants and agencies.
The statute trades clarity in some places for ambiguity in others. Phrases like "reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community" and reliance on psychological assessments give licensing authorities considerable leeway to interpret risk, but the statute does not supply binding standards for that evaluation or spell out who pays for assessments.
That gap invites inconsistent application across counties and will likely generate litigation about what evidence suffices to meet the standard.
Retroactive application is the most consequential operational wrinkle. Agencies must now reassess historic convictions and orders that applicants and communities assumed were settled.
That reassessment creates evidentiary friction — older records may be incomplete, expunged records may complicate background checks, and applicants may have limited ability to rebut ancient or ambiguous allegations. At the same time, the 90‑day clock compresses agency decisionmaking even as the volume and complexity of investigations increase, creating a potential mismatch between required thoroughness and available resources.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.