I don’t know about anyone else, but this was the first I’d heard about ‘this‘ little gem…
JANUARY 24 (legislative day, JANUARY 3), 2013
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.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Common Sense Con
5 cealed Firearms Permit Act of 2013’’.
6 SEC. 2. CONCEALED FIREARMS PERMITS.
7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United
8 States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C
9 the following:
1 ‘‘§ 926D. Concealed firearms permits
2 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Each State that allows residents
3 of the State to carry concealed firearms shall—
4 ‘‘(1) establish a process to issue permits to resi
5 dents of the State to carry concealed firearms; and
6 ‘‘(2) require that each resident of the State
7 seeking to carry a concealed firearm in the State ob
8 tain a permit through the process established under
9 paragraph (1).
10 ‘‘(b) REQUIREMENTS.—In establishing a process to
11 issue permits to carry concealed firearms under subsection
12 (a), a State shall—
13 ‘‘(1) ensure that a local law enforcement agency
14 participates in the process; and
15 ‘‘(2) at a minimum, require that an applicant
16 for a permit to carry a concealed firearm—
17 ‘‘(A) be a legal resident of the United
18 States;
19 ‘‘(B) be not less than 21 years of age;
20 ‘‘(C) demonstrate good cause for request
21 ing a concealed firearm permit; and
22 ‘‘(D) demonstrate that the applicant is
23 worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed
24 firearm in public.
25 ‘‘(c) LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY REPORT.—If a
26 State establishes a process under subsection (a) that al-
1 lows for an agency other than a law enforcement agency
2 to issue permits to carry concealed firearms, the process
3 shall require that—
4 ‘‘(1) a local law enforcement agency submit to
5 the agency responsible for issuing permits a written
6 report that describes whether the applicant meets
7 the standards of the State to carry a concealed fire
8 arm; and
9 ‘‘(2) the agency responsible for issuing permits
10 maintain a report submitted under paragraph (1) in
11 the file of the applicant.
12 ‘‘(d) DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘local
13 law enforcement agency’ means a law enforcement agency
14 of the unit of local government with jurisdiction of the
15 area in which the applicant for a permit to carry a con
16 cealed firearm resides.
17 ‘‘(e) COMPLIANCE.—Not later than 270 days after
18 the date of enactment of this section, each State described
19 in subsection (a) shall be in compliance with this section.’’.
20 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—
21 The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United
22 States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relat
23 ing to section 926C the following:
‘‘926D. Concealed firearms permits.’’.
Lines 10-24 my highlight and underline…
And 18 USC 926C is HERE.
“MY” take I think this bill is proposing to take away states rights to “Shall Issue and replace it with a federal “Good & Substantial” definition.
To me it does this two ways, one it would now require a ‘good reason’, and it brings local police into the mix officially…
So basically, the states can remain shall issue by defining G&S to be ??? But the local LEOs also have to approve your app rather than at the State level. So a possibility would be let’s say Philly- Local police would always deny, where the rural places would continue to be shall issue.
Another problem is states that have NO wording in their state constitutions supporting 2A, e.g. Maryland, other than that the US Constitution is the law of the land. Depending on how they ‘parse’ that, it ‘could’ exclude the Bill of Rights, and poof, no 2A and no issue.
Am I being totally stupid here, or reading too much into this??? Or just overly paranoid???
“or reading too much into this??? Or just overly paranoid???”
No you aren’t. That’s exactly what it is, an attempt to destroy Shall Issue.
S. 147 was referred to the Juciciary Committee. GovTrack gives it a 4% chance of getting through the committee. But this is a good bill to follow. The good news is that Ted Cruz is on the committee.
S. 147 was referred to the Juciciary Committee. GovTrack gives it a 4% chance of getting through the committee. But this is a good bill to follow. The good news is that Ted Cruz is on the committee.
Interesting. Not to mention that it fully undermines states like Arizona that don’t require a permit at all.
The bastards (and bitches) never stop. Thanks for shining a light on this.
This sounds an awful lot like what we have in California. It is impossible, virtually, for a non law-enforcement type to get a concealed carry permit in CA. It’s for our own good, doncha know.
Don’t let them pass this nationally. Or we will all be Californicated.
Hmmm. I’ve read and read and read. I don’t find anywhere in the Constitution where the congress is given authority to regulate concealed carry permits. In fact, I’m pretty sure the last words of the only part of the Constitution that says anything about it says “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”
So, under the 10th Amendment, this law is unconstitutional.
(BTW, this is also why I believe national CCW reciprocity laws are unconstitutional. Sorry.)
It’s not being paranoid if they really are out to get you.
This is precisely what California has in place.
But then again, California has no violence. Just act Senator Boxer, who travels around with body guards and a police presence anywhere she lands on her broom to address the little people.
Something tells me this is a “Preemptive Strike” because of the upcoming Illinois “Shall Issue” case that is in the System. IF that one goes to SCOTUS, and they rule like they did in Heller and McDonald, then every State and City that does “No Issue/May Issue” has to Surrender to the RKBA.
Of course, even if that Case becomes a “Win” for us, you can bet your Bottom Dollar that Holder and the DOJ will NOT force the Anti-Gun States and Cities to Comply. Those Bastards in places like Chicago and NYC and Kalifornia will still just arrest you, take your Guns, send you to Court, where the Charges will be Dropped, but forget getting your Gun Back.
But I can also see this being Trashed, because Pat Leahy wants to stay in Power, and I don’t think Vermont would like to have a Senator who takes away their Freedom.
Even if it’s full of Dope Smoking Hippie Liberal Tree Huggers!
I am cross posting this.
You’re reading & interpreting correctly. It’s a direct strike at most of the States’ laws and at gun owners in general.
I’m with “fill yer hands” here. They don’t even make a lame attempt to tie it in with “interstate commerce”. Patently unconstitutional.
Although, that’s never stopped them before.
I wonder how many democratic Senators wish that Babs would just shut the hell up. None of this helps red state (D)s.
How do you comply with pp 22(D) ?
“demonstrate that the applicant is worthy of the public trust to carry a concealed firearm in public. This is so subjective…
Sean- Thanks… dammit…
PE- Yep, but he is ONE vote.
Jenn- That it does, and AK and VT
WSF- Doing what I can…
Opus- Yep, and Californicated IS becoming a four letter word… sigh
FYH- Yep, but so is/was AWB, but it never went to SCOTUS.
Tim- Yeah…
LL- Oh you can ‘buy’ a permit out there…
Les- Some other folks on email agree with your idea…
Rick- Feel free!
Rev- Damn…
Sailor- Agree
BP- I don’t think she, or Feinstein or Pelosi CARE.
Gerry- I don’t think it’s playing well in ANY red state…
Tom- I think ‘that’ is the out they want to use to push Local LEOs to deny.
Don’t they ever learn.
They tried something like this in the “Brady bill” “… to compel state officers to execute Federal law.”
SCOTUS Smacked them down.
cite: Printz v. United States
I had to read up on this one..it had a lot of legalese in it. Anything from “Babs” is suspect..she is one of the worst leftist out there in the Senate.
Ratus- Thanks, I couldn’t find that link!
MrG- Good point!