PDA

View Full Version : Sen Boxer- S. 176, the Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011


One78Shovel
03-21-2011, 5:47 PM
This I would think has been discussed but I can not find it in the archives. So if it's a repeat, I apologize but what a real piece of work.

-178S

http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/californication-of-concealed-carry.html


The Californication Of Concealed Carry
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced S. 176, the Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011, last week. The text has finally become available.

This bill, if passed, would convert "shall issue" concealed carry back to "may issue" nationwide. Moreover, it would abolish constitutional carry. The bill sets the requirement to show "good cause" which is at the center of lawsuits such as Kachalsky v Cacace, Peruta v San Diego, Muller v Maenza, and Woollard v Sheridan.

Nowhere in the bill is any justification or finding that a Federal standard for concealed carry is constitutional. Traditionally, police powers, i.e. relating to health, safety, and welfare, have been left to the states.

A BILL

To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C, the following:

`Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits

`(a) In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall--

`(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and

`(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).

`(b) Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall--

`(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and

`(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm--

`(A) be a legal resident of the United States;

`(B) be not less than 21 years of age;

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and

`(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.

`(c) Law Enforcement Agency Report- If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process shall require that--

`(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to the agency responsible for issuing permits a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the standards of the State to carry a concealed firearm; and

`(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in the file of the applicant.

`(d) Definition- In this section, the term `local law enforcement agency' means a law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm resides.

`(e) Compliance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section, each State described in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Concealed firearms permits.'.

Librarian
03-21-2011, 8:06 PM
Actually, it's a dupe, but it was buried under the thread title "Latest Federal attack on CCW (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=388379&highlight=176+Boxer) "

Thomas says no co-sponsors, and still in the Judiciary Committee.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:s.00176:

I don't do this often, but this one actually belongs in 2nd Amendment, and this will be the 'master thread' for the bill.

B Strong
03-21-2011, 8:18 PM
A great example of a "feel-good" bill proposed with as much chance of passing as Pelosi has of playing center on an NBA team.

Insert laugh track, file for future reference, move on to important matters.

willm952
03-21-2011, 8:28 PM
No surprise. This would make the 6th bill she's introduced in 18 years now. The other five involve naming some bridge or building after someone no one's heard of. Unbelievable, she got reelected for 18 years of doing nothing. I swore Fiorina was going to win. At least, she's a cancer survivor. That schmuck is in there until her retirement now. What a bunch of losers on the westside, except myself and some others. Would you believe there's a Republican headquarters around there?

InGrAM
03-21-2011, 8:31 PM
Sounds like an infringement on states rights. Just like nation wide health care....

Vtec44
03-21-2011, 8:39 PM
So what's "good cause" again?

Window_Seat
03-21-2011, 8:40 PM
On a more serious note, I seriously doubt that this would even pass the Senate, considering we have HR-822, which (according to Stearn's staff, today), it (822) will pass both the House & Senate.

Boxer's bill (and other anti-2A bills in the Congress) are DOA because the House won't even think about allowing it.

Erik.

stix213
03-21-2011, 8:42 PM
Based on the definition of "Local Law Enforcement Agency" above, wouldn't this require that college campus police dept's have to create a CCW permit process?

bulgron
03-21-2011, 9:09 PM
One thing's for sure; after we get done tearing "good cause" statements apart in court, the entire rest of the country should sit up and give us a great, big "attaboy."

What we're doing in this state is setting the foundation to stop some future congress from doing what that evil old witch is trying to do right now with SB 176.

Skidmark
03-21-2011, 9:54 PM
Apart from this one line:

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;

what's wrong with the proposed bill?

CEDaytonaRydr
03-21-2011, 10:05 PM
This will NEVER clear the house...

DOA when it hits the house floor....

Fear not, my brethren!!!

Werewolf1021
03-21-2011, 10:18 PM
Apart from this one line:

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;

what's wrong with the proposed bill?

It would destroy Constitutional Carry.

Ubermcoupe
03-21-2011, 10:21 PM
Apart from this one line:

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;

what's wrong with the proposed bill?

Too much room for interpretation. It would be much like the more "progressive" (liberal) areas of CA (ahem Santa Clara County ahem).
Any and Every excuse to NOT issue them will be used.

The sad thing is if this were to happen one of the 47 other states (IL & HI excluded) she might actually be voted out of office...
I have hope, that one day, I will see this happen.:mad:

G60
03-22-2011, 12:10 AM
Not trying to criticize the OP...but Sen. Boxer and the words common sense in the same line make an oxymoron don't you think? :rolleyes:

Paul S

Umm, that's actually what the proposed bill is called!! Truth is stranger than fiction!

PBRStreetgang
03-22-2011, 1:36 AM
I met Boxer once at law enforcement seminar when she was pimping campaign funding. A correctional officer asked her why they were not allowed to carry off duty, and she responded "I do not understand why you feel it necessary to carry a firearm off duty, you are as safe as I am, and I do not feel the need to carry one." The Correctional officer pointed to the two guys standing with her, who were packing pretty heavy, and said, "I would like to feel as safe as you too, can I have a couple of guys with machine guns follow me around?"

Librarian
03-22-2011, 11:24 AM
While I'm no fan of Babs, the thread is about the not-going-anywhere-at-the-moment bill, not the politician who introduced it.

753X0
03-22-2011, 12:33 PM
Apart from this one line:

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit;

what's wrong with the proposed bill?

It also takes a giant dump on the tenth A....

zhyla
03-22-2011, 12:45 PM
It's always good to be able to read proposed federal legislation and laugh. This will never go anywhere.

Anchors
03-22-2011, 4:49 PM
I'm glad she deserves a CCW, but I don't.
I really hope this bill goes down in flames with a lot of publicity.

It seems like they are just going to keep launching anti-gun bills that get shot down until one finally sneaks it in or the public sees it so much that they start to agree.

HondaMasterTech
03-22-2011, 6:31 PM
Thanks to the hard work of a great deal of highly educated, talented and dedicated individuals who actually possess "common sense", this bill has absolutely no chance of passing.

Skidmark
03-23-2011, 7:32 PM
Shall not be infringed! Every gun control law is an infringement. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Well, since we're all Constitutional scholars around here...

I have no problem with CCW permits being done in a "well-regulated" manner. If'n I'm not a prohibited person, I should be able to get a CCW pewrmit for no other reason than I applied. The "showing good cause" part of the proposed bill is a problem, but I'm not seeing an issue with the rest of it.

Not that's even going anywhere in this dysfunctional Congress.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-24-2011, 5:34 AM
You're all missing the biggest & greatest part of this. One of the biggest & most dedicated gun grabbers in the Senate has introduced a CCW Bill. Yes, its horribly flawed. No, it won't pass. But just by introducing this, one of the biggest & most dedicated gun grabbers in the Senate has clearly accepted that national CCW is on its way. She's acknowledging that the fight is lost & that all that can be done is to try to limit the "damage" (as she sees it).

If even she can see that the fight is lost, how far away are we from making the rest see that as well?


The Raisuli

Uxi
03-24-2011, 8:19 AM
That can give even the most ardent supporter of the 2A reason to feel uncomfortable. All you have to do is drive down the freeway, and see what people are willing to from behind the wheel of their cars at 70 mph to understand why.

As a basic natural right, the government shouldn't infringe on decent law abiding citizens because of the recklessness of others. Punish the reckless as they break whatever laws, but that has no bearing on the constitutional right to self defense.

FWIW, I don't consider 70mph all that bad, though... nor 80. But then we're getting into a whole different area on arbitrary speed limits as a mechanism for revenue collection.

I'm thinking this bill should be seen as an opportunity more than anything, though. Republicans should promote and advance her bill, putting the necessary amendments to make it essentially a Shall Issue Federal CCW law with reciprocity inside of it. ;)

NotEnufGarage
03-24-2011, 11:02 AM
As a basic natural right, the government shouldn't infringe on decent law abiding citizens because of the recklessness of others. Punish the reckless as they break whatever laws, but that has no bearing on the constitutional right to self defense.

FWIW, I don't consider 70mph all that bad, though... nor 80. But then we're getting into a whole different area on arbitrary speed limits as a mechanism for revenue collection.

I'm thinking this bill should be seen as an opportunity more than anything, though. Republicans should promote and advance her bill, putting the necessary amendments to make it essentially a Shall Issue Federal CCW law with reciprocity inside of it. ;)

Wouldn't that be priceless, to have Babs Boxer as the author of the bill which mandates "shall-issue" and reciprocity?

While they're at it, they should overturn any existing magazine or firearm configuration bans or limitations implemented by any state, ie. equal protection for all gun owners regardless of current location.

Quser.619
03-24-2011, 11:51 AM
Funny I read it to the Mrs. who's a huge liberal & she said its mainly so Babs can go back to her base & say look what I've done. She even said that there's no way that it'll pass. I can't decide what's more disgusting proposing a bill that violates rights or doing it to garner support knowing that it'll fail.

CEDaytonaRydr
03-24-2011, 1:17 PM
Common Sense:

Not too common anymore. :(

HondaMasterTech
03-24-2011, 4:30 PM
While I'm no fan of Babs, the thread is about the not-going-anywhere-at-the-moment bill, not the politician who introduced it.

Is the problem the weed or is the problem the root?

cmaynes
03-24-2011, 4:44 PM
your tax dollars at work....

I wonder if DF is still carrying herself?

ken worth
03-24-2011, 5:02 PM
the federal government can't make state law.
they need to be reminded about article 1 sec.8 of the us constitution that tells them what they can do and nothing else. they seem to forget that a lot.

bulgron
03-24-2011, 5:05 PM
the federal government can't make state law.
they need to be reminded about article 1 sec.8 of the us constitution that tells them what they can do and nothing else. they seem to forget that a lot.

I'm sure they could find a way to claim that minimum federal CCW regulations are allowed under the Interstate Commerce Act. :mad:

CelticRanger
03-24-2011, 5:05 PM
...
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/02/californication-of-concealed-carry.html

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and

`(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.
...

I have a problem with (D); "Worthy of public trust"? Prove I'm not trust worthy. It's still innocent until proven guilty, right?

Skidmark
03-24-2011, 5:08 PM
I have a problem with (D); "Worthy of public trust"? Prove I'm not trust worthy. It's still innocent until proven guilty, right?

True, all is open to interpretation. I read (D) as describing persons already prohibited from owning firearms.

Mulay El Raisuli
03-26-2011, 4:22 AM
A
I'm thinking this bill should be seen as an opportunity more than anything, though. Republicans should promote and advance her bill, putting the necessary amendments to make it essentially a Shall Issue Federal CCW law with reciprocity inside of it. ;)


Because turn-a-bout is always fair play!


The Raisuli

press1280
03-26-2011, 4:38 AM
It's kind of funny in a way. The may-issues use the "demonstration of need" to deny whoever they wish because the language is so vague. If this were to pass(it won't but just for giggles) the vagueness could also be interpreted as just saying "self-defense" could be a local officials' "demonstration of need". So then you'd have the same shall-issue states doing the same thing they do now, only they may require you just put "self-defense" on the application. So other than the constitutional carry states, the bill could effectively be next to worthless.
But of course, I don't see this thing even getting out of committee and even if it does, it probably won't get any more than 15 votes in the senate, with the usual states' senators voting for it-CA,NY,NJ,HI,MD.

2Bear
06-22-2011, 7:20 PM
Is anything happening with this other than the Senate Judiciary Committee has it?

Apparently this bill as worded will turn "shall issue" states back into "may issue" and end the concept of "constitutional carry."

Kill it before it multiplies...?

Or is there really hope to embrace it and redirect?

S.176
Latest Title: Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/25/2011)
Cosponsors: (None)
Latest Major Action: 1/25/2011 Referred to Senate committee.
Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

SUMMARY AS OF:
1/25/2011--Introduced.
Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011 - Amends the federal criminal code to direct each state that allows its residents to carry concealed firearms to establish a process through which a resident must obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Requires a state to: (1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and (2) require that an applicant be a legal resident of the United States, be not less than 21 years of age, demonstrate good cause for requesting the permit, and demonstrate that he or she is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.

Requires any such process that allows an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue such permits to require: (1) a local law enforcement agency to submit to the agency responsible a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the state's standards to carry a concealed firearm, and (2) the agency responsible to maintain such report in the applicant's file.

S.176 -- Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011 (Introduced in Senate - IS)

S 176 IS

112th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 176
To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.


IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

Mrs. BOXER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


A BILL
To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011'.
SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C, the following:
`Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits

`(a) In General- Each State that allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall--
`(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and
`(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).
`(b) Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall--
`(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and
`(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm--
`(A) be a legal resident of the United States;
`(B) be not less than 21 years of age;
`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit; and
`(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public.
`(c) Law Enforcement Agency Report- If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process shall require that--
`(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to the agency responsible for issuing permits a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the standards of the State to carry a concealed firearm; and
`(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in the file of the applicant.
`(d) Definition- In this section, the term `local law enforcement agency' means a law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm resides.
`(e) Compliance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section, each State described in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.'.
(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:
`926D. Concealed firearms permits.'.

epilepticninja
06-22-2011, 8:27 PM
Does Barbara enjoy making California the laughing stock of the gun owning world? Who keeps voting this tard into office? Isn't me, I assure you.

oni.dori
06-22-2011, 8:34 PM
It is funny how "common sense" is their new buzzword to help fool people in to ignoring their attempts to stifle Civil Rights, since it sounds "neutral" and "bipartisan", and none of the other fear mongering they used to use works any more since just about everyone can see right through it now. Any chance of this gaining any ground? This could become a SINCERE hinderance to the Sunshine Initiative if it is inacted.

oni.dori
06-22-2011, 8:39 PM
Wouldn't that be priceless, to have Babs Boxer as the author of the bill which mandates "shall-issue" and reciprocity?

While they're at it, they should overturn any existing magazine or firearm configuration bans or limitations implemented by any state, ie. equal protection for all gun owners regardless of current location.

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Although, I'm sure that's a long-shot right there.

drdarrin@sbcglobal.net
06-22-2011, 8:50 PM
For some reason, the words "Barbara Boxer" and "Common Sense" can not be used in the same sentence without my BS alarm going off.

BigDogatPlay
06-22-2011, 9:01 PM
You're all missing the biggest & greatest part of this. One of the biggest & most dedicated gun grabbers in the Senate has introduced a CCW Bill. Yes, its horribly flawed. No, it won't pass. But just by introducing this, one of the biggest & most dedicated gun grabbers in the Senate has clearly accepted that national CCW is on its way. She's acknowledging that the fight is lost & that all that can be done is to try to limit the "damage" (as she sees it).

If even she can see that the fight is lost, how far away are we from making the rest see that as well?


The Raisuli

Have to agree to a great degree. The bill, which has zero chance in either side of Congress as currently constituted and has even less chance of withstanding a 10A challenge, reads essentially like the Senator is trying to build a firebreak. Quick and dirty.

Good on her. :whistling:

Andy Taylor
06-22-2011, 9:10 PM
Does Barbara enjoys making California the laughing stock of the gun owning world?. Who keeps voting this tard into office? Isn't me, I assure you.


Fixed it for you.

stix213
06-22-2011, 9:12 PM
Requiring all Americans eat two servings of dog meat a day has a better chance of being passed in the house than this bill.

I'd like to see it get to the floor though, then amended to require all local agencies go shall issue. It would be hilarious to have that woman's name on what turns into a shall issue CCW bill hahaha

Milsurp Collector
06-22-2011, 9:13 PM
Does Barbara enjoy making California the laughing stock of the gun owning world? Who keeps voting this tard into office?

5,208,389 of your fellow Californians.

Boxer won the blue counties.

http://i55.tinypic.com/ay9474.jpg

Brown Rock
06-22-2011, 9:16 PM
:thumbsup: San Diego.

Bigtime1
06-22-2011, 9:33 PM
If you type "common sense" and "Barbara Boxer" in the same sentence you risk being struck by a lightening bolt.



OUCH!

ubet
06-22-2011, 9:35 PM
I really wish all of you bastards on the coast, would figure out how to vote! This state is so damned conservative its not funny, if it wasnt for all the **** wads on the coast. Can all of you who vote for boxer please take a long walk off a short pier with an anvil tied to your leg.

hornswaggled
06-22-2011, 9:45 PM
Why is it that whenever politicians use the term "common sense" it's not common nor does it make any sense?

jamesob
06-22-2011, 10:09 PM
So what's "good cause" again?

being an elected official?

five.five-six
06-22-2011, 10:12 PM
If you type "common sense" and "Barbara Boxer" in the same sentence you risk being struck by a lightening bolt.



OUCH!



it's right up there with dividing by zero :eek:

Mesa Tactical
06-23-2011, 7:23 AM
A great example of a "feel-good" bill proposed with as much chance of passing as Pelosi has of playing center on an NBA team.

Yeah, but once again I find myself asking: "What urgent problem are we trying to solve here?"

Whether you are for or against gun control, this should be the overriding question for any proposed new legislation.

Boxer would be really hard-pressed to prove that the expansion of Shall Issue CCW has become a social problem in any manner whatsoever.

Wherryj
06-23-2011, 8:44 AM
No surprise. This would make the 6th bill she's introduced in 18 years now. The other five involve naming some bridge or building after someone no one's heard of. Unbelievable, she got reelected for 18 years of doing nothing. I swore Fiorina was going to win. At least, she's a cancer survivor. That schmuck is in there until her retirement now. What a bunch of losers on the westside, except myself and some others. Would you believe there's a Republican headquarters around there?

I'd like to go on record as stating that I voted for Fiorina. I would have voted for Joseph Stalin had he run against Boxer-anything would be better than another term for her.

ubet
06-23-2011, 9:23 AM
I'd like to go on record as stating that I voted for Fiorina. I would have voted for Joseph Stalin had he run against Boxer-anything would be better than another term for her.

I thought she was Stalins' wife.

advocatusdiaboli
06-23-2011, 9:42 AM
So what's "good cause" again?

Pretty much being a member of a legislative body, a crony, or a big campaign donor with one exception for the rest of us: alien attack, Godzilla, or zombies.

BigDogatPlay
06-23-2011, 9:56 AM
[off topic]

I really wish all of you bastards on the coast, would figure out how to vote! This state is so damned conservative its not funny, if it wasnt for all the **** wads on the coast. Can all of you who vote for boxer please take a long walk off a short pier with an anvil tied to your leg.

Broad brush much? Perhaps all the **** wads up in the hills and the big valley should breed more?

Look, I've lived within 20 miles of the coast my entire life, and have lived with Boxer as my county supervisor, member of Congress and now as Senator. And in over 30 years I have not voted for her once. But I have voted in every single local, state and federal election held since I gained the vote in the middle 1970's.

The population of the state, the closer in you get to the ocean, is decidedly not conservative. We are so out numbered in some counties that conservatives, like me, can't get elected dog catcher, let alone to any meaningful political office. Those that are conservative tend, unlike me, to be very quiet about it because they seem to care more about appearances and getting along than they do about principle.

Perhaps I missed your sarcasm? Or perhaps I didn't because it wasn't there?

[/off topic]

Bhobbs
06-23-2011, 9:56 AM
This is exactly why the rest of the country wants CA to break off and sink into the ocean.

Uxi
06-23-2011, 10:04 AM
We don't need the whole State to break off. Just the coast and bay area, in particular

choprzrul
06-23-2011, 10:08 AM
A BILL

To establish minimum standards for States that allow the carrying of concealed firearms.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Common Sense Concealed Firearms Permit Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.

(a) In General- Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C, the following:

`Sec. 926D. Concealed firearms permits

`(a) In General- Each State that shall allows residents of the State to carry concealed firearms shall and--

`(1) establish a process to issue permits to residents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and

`(2) require that each resident of the State seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State obtain a permit through the process established under paragraph (1).

`(b) Requirements- In establishing a process to issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection (a), a State shall--

`(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency participates in the process; and

`(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm--

`(A) be a legal resident of the United States;

`(B) be not less than 21 18 years of age;

`(C) demonstrate good cause for requesting a concealed firearm permit Good Cause shall include "To exercise civil rights"; and

`(D) demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in publicmeet the federal regulations to qualify for firearm's purchase.

`(c) Law Enforcement Agency Report- If a State establishes a process under subsection (a) that allows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process shall require that--

`(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to the agency responsible for issuing permits a written report that describes whether the applicant meets the standards of the State to carry a concealed firearm; and

`(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in the file of the applicant.

`(d) Definition- In this section, the term `local law enforcement agency' means a law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a concealed firearm resides.

`(e) Compliance- Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this section, each State described in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.'.

(b) Technical and Conforming Amendment- The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

`926D. Concealed firearms permits.'.


There, that should just about do it.

We'll call it the Boxer Rebellion Bill.

.

jrr
06-23-2011, 10:59 AM
Yeah... cant see this gathering much steam now. According to Govtrack HR822 currently has 236 sponsors. That is OVER 50% of the house signed on as a co-sponsor. Which means chances of it geting out of committee and getting voted on successfully should be good, I assume. So this competing bill is unlikely to get much if any support.

Interestingly... at least two of the co-sponors are CA DEMOCRATS. Either hell needs to stock up on cold weather gear, or I need to look out the window to see if there are any porcine aviators around.

Mesa Tactical
06-23-2011, 11:12 AM
The population of the state, the closer in you get to the ocean, is decidedly not conservative.

Very true. And it's not going to become conservative. So the only answer to protecting gun rights is to prove to liberal Californians that gun control is a bad idea. There are a number of approaches to accomplish this.

The first step is to stop calling them ****wads.

IGOTDIRT4U
06-23-2011, 11:15 AM
[off topic]



Broad brush much? Perhaps all the **** wads up in the hills and the big valley should breed more?

Look, I've lived within 20 miles of the coast my entire life, and have lived with Boxer as my county supervisor, member of Congress and now as Senator. And in over 30 years I have not voted for her once. But I have voted in every single local, state and federal election held since I gained the vote in the middle 1970's.

The population of the state, the closer in you get to the ocean, is decidedly not conservative. We are so out numbered in some counties that conservatives, like me, can't get elected dog catcher, let alone to any meaningful political office. Those that are conservative tend, unlike me, to be very quiet about it because they seem to care more about appearances and getting along than they do about principle.

Perhaps I missed your sarcasm? Or perhaps I didn't because it wasn't there?

[/off topic]

I'm sure it was mainly sarcasm with a hint of truth.

I'm in the same boat as you, but at least I am in OC. Your post exemplifies my life's voting record.

BigDogatPlay
06-23-2011, 12:31 PM
Very true. And it's not going to become conservative. So the only answer to protecting gun rights is to prove to liberal Californians that gun control is a bad idea. There are a number of approaches to accomplish this.

The first step is to stop calling them ****wads.

Indeed.... best way I know is to invite them out to go shooting. Then let the common sense loose to wash over them. While they may still be politically left of center, they quite often come away with a fresh understanding of the issue that the propaganda from the gun grabbing left doesn't give them.

ETA: One of the things that is often forgotten about Senator Boxer is that she carried the Senate's version of the Federal Flight Deck Officer (aka armed airline pilots) legislation post 9/11. So while she has certainly authored or sponsored her fair share of PITA bills, like a blind squirrel finding a nut once in a while, she occasionally can do somewhat the right thing.

Again, this bill of hers while it would never make it out of committee in either chamber at this point, is (to me) a clear signal that we have people's attention on both sides of the aisle now. As such, we must keep the pressure on them with every legitimate means at our disposal, be it in the legislatures or in the courts. Or in the court of public opinion.

ccmc
06-23-2011, 12:42 PM
5,208,389 of your fellow Californians.

Boxer won the blue counties.

http://i55.tinypic.com/ay9474.jpg

I'm curious about this map. Does it show the counties Boxer carried in 2010? Or the counties Obama carried in 2008? Or the majority of the electorate in each county?

Milsurp Collector
06-23-2011, 1:07 PM
I'm curious about this map. Does it show the counties Boxer carried in 2010? Or the counties Obama carried in 2008? Or the majority of the electorate in each county?

It shows the counties won by Boxer (blue) or Fiorina (red) in the 2010 election http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/election-results-2010/#/senate/CA

Looking at that map is deceptive because it isn't scaled to population. The counties that voted for Fiorina are large geographically but are sparsely populated. The Boxer counties are smaller geographically but have most of the population. A geographic map like that exaggerates the importance of rural areas over urban areas. The state is much more blue than that map makes it appear.

If you look at a similar map of the 2008 presidential election it makes it look like McCain (red) won a large area of the country:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png

But when you scale county size for population it gives a different picture:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartredblue1024.png

You can see how huge the LA and SF Bay areas are by population.

If you allow shades of purple to show counties that were not solidly Republican (red) or Democratic (blue) you get this. Notice how solidly blue (Democratic) LA and SF Bay areas are, with the rest of the state mixed, and very little solid red in California.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countycartnonlin1024.png

jrr
06-23-2011, 4:15 PM
is it just me, or does CA scaled for population look like a bird smashed against the window of a semi? Oddly, thats how I feel when we get crummy gun bills railroaded through in our lovely legislature.

2Bear
06-23-2011, 11:14 PM
It shows the counties won by Boxer (blue) or Fiorina (red) in the 2010 election

Wow. Awesome data visualizations, Tufte would tip his hat.

donw
06-24-2011, 8:04 AM
since when has congress (or california state legislature) had "Common sense"?

:(:(:(

2Bear
06-24-2011, 12:05 PM
http://www.toonpool.com/user/496/files/senator_boxer_634505.jpg
Heh.

Wernher von Browning
06-24-2011, 12:21 PM
What a bunch of losers on the westside, except myself and some others. Would you believe there's a Republican headquarters around there?

There's an old joke in Chicago.

"...Brought to you by the Chicago Republican Party -- two of the nicest guys you could ever hope to meet."

MolonLabe2008
06-24-2011, 12:27 PM
This bill, if passed, would convert "shall issue" concealed carry back to "may issue" nationwide. Moreover, it would abolish constitutional carry.


LMAO!

Good luck with that.

This woman is pure evil.

Connor P Price
06-24-2011, 12:34 PM
Its easy to lose faith in the American spirit watching california politics, but when stuff like this comes up its such a nice reminder that most of the rest of America still believes in freedom. I love watching these bills die.

Sent from my SGH-T959 using Tapatalk

Joewy
06-24-2011, 12:41 PM
This bill, if passed, would convert "shall issue" concealed carry back to "may issue" nationwide. Moreover, it would abolish constitutional carry.

Not here in Wyoming. Good luck on trying to enforce that on people.