An act to add Section 7583.45.5 to the Business and Professions Code, relating to professions and vocations.
Summary
AB 2049 would amend the Business and Professions Code to regulate the use of certain BB devices by employees of licensed private patrol operators under the Private Security Services Act. The bill defines the covered BB device by specific physical characteristics, including caliber, projectile weight, velocity, magazine capacity, and CO2 cartridge use, and prohibits an employee from carrying or using such a device unless the person has completed the training required by Section 643 of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations.
In practical terms, the bill extends training and use restrictions that already exist for firearms in the private security context to a category of less-lethal or imitation weapons used by private security personnel. It also states that a violation would fall within the scope of the Private Security Services Act’s criminal penalties, while declaring that no state reimbursement is required for local agencies or school districts.
Impact
The bill would add a new Section 7583.45.5 to the Business and Professions Code and create a new compliance requirement for private patrol operators and their employees who use specified BB devices. It would affect licensed private security businesses, their employees, and the Bureau/Department responsible for administering the Private Security Services Act by making training a prerequisite to carrying or using the covered devices. Because the measure expands conduct regulated under an existing misdemeanor framework, it is treated as a state-mandated local program, though the bill expressly disclaims reimbursement.
Sentiment
Based on the available context, the bill appears to have been introduced as a regulatory/public-safety measure rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The digest indicates a majority key vote, but there are no recorded committee transcripts or roll-call votes provided, so there is little direct evidence of debate. The bill’s re-referral to the Assembly Business and Professions Committee suggests it remained under committee consideration as of the last action date.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is whether BB devices used by private security personnel should be regulated in the same way as firearms or other weapons, and whether the training requirement is appropriately tailored to the devices described. Another possible issue is the bill’s treatment as a crime-expanding measure, which triggers state-mandated local program language even as the bill denies reimbursement. Any opposition would likely come from private security employers or industry stakeholders concerned about added training burdens, compliance costs, or ambiguity in defining the covered BB devices.