Wednesday, February 2, 2011

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.

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,


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


(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.'.


  1. Does reciprocity among the states enter into this legislation at all -- or are we still at the whim of capricious state regulators?

  2. Reciprocity. Barbara Boxer. Surely you jest!

    Sorry, I couldn't help myself. No, there is nothing about reciprocity in the bill. The bill is mandating that the 48 states with concealed carry essentially adopt the California standard which is quite restrictive.

  3. Has Claire Wolfe's clock run out yet?

  4. So, where is the justification in the bill of Congress' power to mandate this? This seems like a lot of useless interference in the states' internal affairs.

  5. What chance does this really have of getting to a vote? any ideas?

  6. @JD - Given the bill has no co-sponsors yet - not even Lautenberg or Feinstein - I don't think it is going anywhere. I hope I am right.

    @PT - I haven't found any justification in this bill for the Feds to interfere in state's internal affairs.

  7. Why won't she just go away? I've suffered for years at the hands of this woman's leadership. She's as corrupt and cancerous as most other politicians, yet she has this holier than thou attitude. She seeks to protect people 'from themselves' but is so far removed from the common man that she couldn't help even if it was profitable for her. She does realize that not-issuing CCW's isn't going to affect criminals right? How many of the recent shootings involved a CCW? Virginia Tech? Nope. Ft. Hood? Nope Arizona? Nope My question is how does this help ANYTHING?

  8. This is why I cringe whenever the idea of national reciprocity comes up. Once the feds have that in place, they have a ready-made excuse to dictate minimum requirements and training standards to all the states. How restrictive will they make those standards?

  9. Hypothetically, if this became law, and I somehow managed to get a permit issued through some compelling "need" - does that imply that I'm extra trustworthy, since the sheriff had to really think about it first?

  10. Even if the Senate DOES pass it, which is unlikely given the number of (D)s who want to get re-elected, do you really think that the House will take it up?

    About as likely as woodchucks chucking wood.

  11. @Sean - It probably means that you gave a good contribution to the Sheriff's election/re-election fund.

  12. Any time a leftist says something is "common sense" you know it isn't.