Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
La Verne amends CCW policy: psychological exam will be discretionary, subsidy removed; council approves 3‑0
Summary
The council voted to remove a universal psychological-evaluation requirement for concealed‑carry applicants, making evaluations discretionary when background checks show objective indicators; the city’s $150 subsidy was eliminated. Vote passed 3‑0 with Councilmember Johnson recused.
The La Verne City Council voted on June 15 to amend the police department’s concealed‑carry (CCW) licensing process by ending a universal requirement for psychological evaluations and instead granting the licensing authority (the police chief) discretion to require evaluations when objective indicators emerge in a background investigation.
Police Chief Sam Gonzalez reviewed department experience since launching the local CCW program in 2023. Gonzalez said the department processed 223 applications: 210 approved, six denied and six withdrawn or relocated. He said most suitability concerns are identified through background investigations and statutory checks, and the analysis showed few cases where a universal psychological exam would have added value. He recommended shifting to a case‑by‑case approach and removing the city’s $150 subsidy for the exams.
Public comment was mixed. Several residents urged retaining universal evaluations to reduce risk and limit liability; others supported discretionary use and noted rising exam vendor costs. City attorney noted the city is required by a settlement agreement to subsidize $150 of an exam fee unless that agreement is modified; the applicant may pay additional costs if an exam is required and fees exceed the subsidy.
Council discussion focused on legal liability, operational safeguards, reporting and whether a post‑approval monitoring or review component should be added. Chief Gonzalez said DOJ live‑scan fingerprinting, reference checks and statutory disqualifiers are effective safeguards and that objective indicators (criminal history, restraining orders, relevant disclosures) would trigger evaluations. Councilmember Crosby moved the amendment; Councilmember Lao seconded. The motion passed 3‑0 (Councilmember Johnson recused). The council instructed staff to include monitoring updates to council in quarterly reports.
Provenance: Chief Gonzalez’s presentation began at SEG 1997; public comment and extended discussion ran from SEG 2229 through the vote at SEG 3348–3351.
