Law Proposed to Strip Repo Agents of Body Armor

Allied Finance Adjusters join CALR’s fight for agent safety

The once great state of California is at it again. This time, they’re trying to make it illegal for anyone outside of a specific group of people to own or wear body armor. Outside of law enforcement and emergency services, included as “eligible professions” are Hollywood actors, attorneys, journalists and building inspectors. But notably absent from California’s new legislation are people in one of the most dangerous civilian occupations of all, repossessors.

Coming from a state with some of the strictest gun laws on record and that wants to defund the police and release more violent felons onto the streets, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that removing the right to self-protection should follow. But that is what they’re doing under the guise of giving law enforcement the upper hand in gun battles with criminal elements. The same criminals they’re letting out of their jails.

As if this contradiction wasn’t mind bending enough, they’re carving out a list of special people outside of law enforcement who can use it. After all, we need to make sure that Hollywood is better protected because some California citizens are more important than others. I mean seriously, we can always find more liquor store clerks and repossessors than we can actors, right?

In typical fashion, the state of California has introduced two similar bills of the same title; Body armor: prohibition. Both AB 301 and AB 92 were first introduced to the state assembly in late January. While AB 301 is still in committee, AB 92 has already cleared committee with a 7-0 vote and is moving on to the appropriations committee.

For decades now, the oldest of all state repossession associations, the California Association of Licensed Repossessors (CALR), has closely monitored the state legislature for any proposed laws that could endanger the repossession industry.

As exemplified during the state’s attempt to impose a repossession moratorium in May of 2020, Joe Collins the Legislative Liaison for the CALR has been helping the repo industry dodge legal bullets for years. Over all, CALR does an outstanding job watching over the well being of the industry in one of the nation’s most litigious and consumer friendly states in the nation.

National Support

While CALR has already penned and distributed their arguments for including the repossession industry as an automatically eligible profession that should be included in any form of these bills should they pass. To bolster their argument, Joe Collins, requested the Allied Finance Adjusters add their endorsement for the inclusion of repossession agents into the short list of persons allowed to wear body armor in the state of California.

Below is their response. View the letter here!

March 2, 2023

Public Safety Committee

Committee Members and Legislative Authors

P.O. Box 942849

Sacramento, CA 94249

Re: AB 92 and AB 301 – Body Armor: Prohibition

Mr. Chairman and Authors,

Allied Finance Adjusters Conference, Inc. is a national trade association that represents the repossession industry and many of the licensed repossession professionals in California.

The State of California has regulated the repossession industry for years. Licensure is required and is regulated by the California Bureau of Security and Investigative Services. Felons and others with convictions for dishonest conduct have been prohibited from working in the repossession industry, pursuant to state and federal law, for a very long time. The profession has always been a dangerous one. Unfortunately, violence against repossessors has risen dramatically in the last few years (as it has in virtually all other industries). Repossession companies across the state rely upon the use of body armor to prevent harm to their employees, as much of their work occurs at night and on property belonging to others. In the repossession industry: “employment, livelihood, or safety is very often dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor”.

In the interest of protecting these licensed professionals, it is imperative that “licensed repossessors” in California be designated as an “eligible profession to possess and use body armor”. These licensees are “likely to use body armor in a safe and lawful manner”, and they do have “a reasonable need for this type of protection under the circumstances” of their profession. They are already required to maintain their licensure on their person during repossession work; therefore, the integration of this designation into the BSIS regulations will be seamless and of very little cost.

In California, licensed repossessors are citizens helping to keep the economy running who try to stay out of sight and out of mind while doing a very difficult job in a very professional manner. It is important that their voices are heard by this Committee, and their profession be placed on the list of those recognized as legitimate users of body armor for self-protection.

Sincerely,

Machelle Morris

Attorney-at-Law

ALLIED FINANCE ADJUSTERS CONFERENCE, INC.

P.O. 3853 | Midland | TX | 79702 | 800-843-1232 | FAX 888-949-8520

HOMEOFFICE@ALLIEDFINANCEADJUSTERS.COM |WWW.AFAREPO.COM

The Devil in the Details

This first of the two bills is AB 92, which amends California Section 31360 of the Penal Code is amended to read:

(a) A person who has been convicted of a violent felony under the laws of the United States, the State of California, or any other state, government, or country, who purchases, owns, or possesses body armor, as defined in Section 16288, except as authorized under subdivision (b), (c), is guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in state prison for 16 months, or two or three years.

(b) (1) A person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under the laws of this state, who purchases, owns, or possesses body armor, as defined in Section 16288, except as authorized under subdivision (c), is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(2) Upon advising a person of their firearm prohibition, a court shall also advise them of their body armor prohibition pursuant to this section. A person shall relinquish any body armor in their possession in the same manner as outlined for the relevant firearm prohibition.

(c) A person whose employment, livelihood, or safety is dependent on the ability to legally possess and use body armor, who is subject to the prohibition imposed by subdivision (a) due to a prior violent felony conviction, or who is prohibited pursuant to subdivision (b), may file a petition for an exception to this prohibition with the chief of police or county sheriff of the jurisdiction in which that person seeks to possess and use the body armor. The chief of police or sheriff may reduce or eliminate the prohibition, impose conditions on reduction or elimination of the prohibition, or otherwise grant relief from the prohibition as the chief of police or sheriff deems appropriate, based on the following:

(1) A finding that the petitioner is likely to use body armor in a safe and lawful manner.

(2) A finding that the petitioner has a reasonable need for this type of protection under the circumstances.

In making its decision, the chief of police or sheriff shall consider the petitioner’s continued employment, the interests of justice, any relevant evidence, and the totality of the circumstances. It is the intent of the Legislature that law enforcement officials exercise broad discretion in fashioning appropriate relief under this paragraph in cases in which relief is warranted. However, this paragraph may not be construed to require law enforcement officials to grant relief to any particular petitioner. Relief from this prohibition does not relieve any other person or entity from any liability that might otherwise be imposed.

In short, it would require repossession agents to file a petition to purchase, own or wear body armor.

The second of the two is AB-301

Similar in content to AB 92, this bill specifies “eligible professions” who would be allowed to purchase, own and wear body armor. While obvious professions in law enforcement, Fire Fighter and security personnel are included as eligible, it goes out there in some odd directions such as, Building Inspectors, Movie actors (movie and not television?), Attorneys and Journalists.

31360.

(a) A person is guilty of the unlawful purchase of body armor when, not being engaged or employed in an eligible profession, they knowingly purchase or take possession of body armor. This subdivision does not apply to individuals or entities engaged or employed in eligible professions.

(b) (1) No person, firm, or corporation shall sell or deliver body armor to any person or entity not engaged or employed in an eligible profession. Before selling or delivering body armor, a person, firm, or corporation shall check proof of engagement in an eligible profession.

(2) No sale or delivery of body armor shall be made unless the transferee meets in person with the transferor to accomplish the sale or delivery.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), proof of engagement in an eligible profession may be satisfied by submission to the seller of a professional license issued by a federal, state, or local government, employment card or other credential issued by an employer, or in the absence of either of those, submission to the seller of a form approved by the Department of Justice that is notarized, verifying that the purchaser is engaged in an eligible profession.

(4) This subdivision does not apply to purchases made by federal, state, or local government agencies for the purpose of furnishing body armor to employees in eligible professions.

(c) For the purposes of this section, “eligible professions” means any of the following:

(1) Peace officers.

(2) Persons in military service in the state or military or other service for the United States.

(3) Federal law enforcement officers.

(4) Armored car guards.

(5) Security guards.

(6) Firefighters.

(7) Emergency medical technicians and paramedics.

(8) Firearms dealers.

(9) Body armor retailers or salespersons.

(10) Private investigators.

(11) Building safety inspectors.

(12) Code enforcement officers.

(13) Animal control officers.

(14) Humane officers.

(15) Violence intervention and prevention workers.

(16) Movie actors.

(17) Attorneys.

(18) Journalists.

Yes. You saw that right. It is literally in the bill. Not television actors, not game show hosts; “Movie actors.” Them, attorneys and journalists, it looks like some of us Californians are more important than others in the eyes of our capitol.

Whether this an oversight or a purposeful omission is unknown, but the state assembly’s response to the combined lobbying efforts of CALR and the AFA will tell. While the AFA as an association has no legal standing in California, as the oldest national repossession association, their vocal support for CALR certainly bolsters the volume of CALR’s lobbying efforts.

For anyone not already a member of their state association, as well as for active members, CALR again shows everyone the value of a vigilant and engaged state association. In their inevitable success over this, they will also show just how powerful a state association can be.