Logically, the statement below might suffice since the majority of CA counties are close to being "Right-To-Carry" or "shall-issue," and obviously such broad issue for "personal protection" should not be considered violative of "state mandated requirements."
However, some would complain the candidate's written platform is not clear enough as to what those "state mandated requirements" are, noting that Hutchens interprets the good cause requirement as implicitly involving some sort of elevated risk not usually found in the population. Is elevated risk a state-mandated requirement? It would help if the candidate would answer that with a resounding NO.
It would be great if he would simply endorse "personal protection" or at least "self protection" as good cause, but I might accept something along the lines of a statement that good cause must be applied as if it's 2010 and not still the 1970's, taking into account the good effect of shall-issue laws spreading to 32 states over the last several decades, none of which have been repealed, and the good experience of 40 Right-To-Carry states which freely issue permits or otherwise allow concealed. In other words, a statement that in light of all this, he would issue reasonably and not in the arbitrary and capricious manner of the Kelly-girl temporarily occupying the office.
I believe he came pretty close to this at the recent fundraiser. Having something more definitive in the written platform would help.
Protecting Our Rights… I will issue concealed weapons permits (CCW) to any applicant who is a law abiding resident of the county, meets state mandated requirements and is not prohibited by law from possessing a firearm. There have been less than 1200 issued CCW’s in a county of 3 million. The majority have been given to reserve police officers, judges, prosecutors and to reward political supporters. I will depoliticize the process and establish an annual audit to review each application to ensure the process is unbiased, non-political and equitable.