Boxer announces Common Sense CHL ACT

[rufus]

<broken link removed> < Linky

January 21, 2011

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (Dumbass-CA) today announced that next week she will introduce the Common-Sense Concealed Firearms Act of 2011, which would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons in public to have minimum standards for granting permits.

Senator Boxer said, “The tragic events in Tucson earlier this month are a reminder of why we need common-sense gun laws. This measure will establish reasonable permitting standards for Americans who wish to carry concealed firearms. According to a recent poll, more than 60 percent of respondents believe there should be a reasonable permitting process for those who wish to carry concealed firearms.”

Senator Boxer’s legislation would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm.

Currently, two states do not permit residents to carry concealed firearms, while three states, including Arizona, allow residents to carry concealed firearms in public without a permit. The other 45 states require residents to obtain permits to carry concealed firearms, but the majority of these states would not meet the standard set in this bill.

Senator Boxer plans to introduce the legislation when the Senate reconvenes next week.

*************************************************

Anyone know if this was actually brought to the floor of the Senate?

Read More

 

[clearconscience]

Did the shooter in AZ have a CHL? No.
Would this bill have prevented the shooting? No.
Does the bill offer the LEOs with the extra budget to handle the manforce that it would take to meet with each candidate for a CHL? No, and their cutting more and more budget so would that mean we wouldn't get a CHL?

Here in KY to get a CHL you have to take a class and show competency with a firearm. Which means you take a class, and you have to shoot at a target and get I think like 18 of 20 rounds on a human size target. Which if you can't do that you shouldn't own a firearm. And I even think they have done away with that.

But I do believe you should have to show competency on a range with a firearm, and have to take a class that teaches you the basic firearms rules, and laws.

I've met some people with a CHL that I wouldn't trust with a BB gun. So I think there are some changes that need made, but not restricting firearms, accessories, wait times for arms or permits.

 

[Jamie6.5]

We'll see if her buddy Chuck Schumer supports her efforts. Considering her past record on guns and gun ownership, I must say this seems to be quite an improvement.
Of course, Bab's idea of "common sense" and mine probably differ extensively.

Knowing how things go with her circle of political cronies though, I'll bet they are looking at this as a way to get closer to gun/owner registration.

 

[deadeye]

What the anti's fail to comprehend is the criminal in every case known is a criminal hence the monicur. If they plan on commiting a crime do any laws stop them from carrying it out... NO, hence the word crime. No new laws are going to stop someone who is intent on accomplishing their goal. If they would just follow through on instituting/enforcing the current laws, the criminals would be fewer on the streets and higher in the prison system. In the case of Arizona the guy was a clear case of someone that should have had a red flag on him as being mentally ill but the government dropped the ball several times in regaurds to actually doing its job and listening to the warning signs. Why didnt the school he attended say something, why didnt the multiple people coming out of the woodwork saying he was strange say something. If the government (police) come into a guys house confiscate all his firearms and hold him, all because he lost his job and had bought some guns (Southern Oregon incident) then what stopped them from investigating this guy just a little. Never ceases to amaze me why the all knowing government thinks more laws will save everyone from harm. Maybe just maybe a small amount of profiling isnt such a bad thing after all.

 

[clearconscience]

Yeah but that sad truth is they will profile regular gun lovers like us and won't profile the crazy people, terrorist, illegal immigrants, white supremists, etc.

We don't want to hurt their feelings, just ours.

 

[rufus]

What the anti's fail to comprehend is the criminal in every case known is a criminal hence the monicur. If they plan on commiting a crime do any laws stop them from carrying it out... NO, hence the word crime. No new laws are going to stop someone who is intent on accomplishing their goal. If they would just follow through on instituting/enforcing the current laws, the criminals would be fewer on the streets and higher in the prison system. In the case of Arizona the guy was a clear case of someone that should have had a red flag on him as being mentally ill but the government dropped the ball several times in regaurds to actually doing its job and listening to the warning signs. Why didnt the school he attended say something, why didnt the multiple people coming out of the woodwork saying he was strange say something. If the government (police) come into a guys house confiscate all his firearms and hold him, all because he lost his job and had bought some guns (Southern Oregon incident) then what stopped them from investigating this guy just a little. Never ceases to amaze me why the all knowing government thinks more laws will save everyone from harm. Maybe just maybe a small amount of profiling isnt such a bad thing after all.

Well said. I'm all for profiling, without it law enforcement is basically neutered when it comes to crime prevention. No doubt about it, profiling would have stopped the Arizona nut-case - not more restrictive gun laws.

 

[Dell_dude]

Wow.

That bill is completely wrongly titled.

I saw it and expected something like 50 state reciprocity (like a DL). That's common sense to me.

What I read isn't common sense. It's a kneejerk reaction that isn't going to solve anything.

 

[Trlsmn]

She being from California where none of the "little people" are allowed CHL's need to STFU about what other states can do with their CHL standards!

:angry:

 

[The Cheese]

bet there is some extra tax bs and something that bans all guns slipped in there waaay in the back. That way we will have to pass it to see what it does

 

[Trlsmn]

bet there is some extra tax bs and something that bans all guns slipped in there waaay in the back. That way we will have to pass it to see what it does

Most likely this new "common sense" CHL ACT will require a your CHL pistol to be registered and a bullet sample to be on file, I mean it's on common sense right?

 

[deadeye]

My question would be, what is she worried about introducing new bills when the state of California is on the verge of being bankrupt. Maybe she should concentrate on current issues in her own state before she attemps to fix / mess up others.

 

[HollisOR]

If it leads to all states recognizing each others CWP, sure. I do have a problem with Boxer anything on firearms. I just don't trust her.

 

[The Cheese]

Senator Boxer's legislation would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm.

The 2 parts to this paragraph are what really are disturbing about this proposal. It will bring about Cali style process with permits. The average citizen, unless they have a really good/cool sheriff, will probably not be able to obtain a license/permit. While I doubt this bill will fly, it is kind of scary to see this kind of thing being proposed. It does seem to stand to get more people to jump onto the wagon as its "common sense" but in the end I think they will just end up depriving people of the right to carry or make it so complex or expensive or a major PITA that few people will want to go through with it. All I can say is buyer beware on this one. That c u next tuesday is up to something with this and its not good what ever it is.

 

[VW_Factor]

the state of California is on the verge of being bankrupt.

I believe that they essentially are sir.

 

[Bazooka Joe]

"Senator Boxer's legislation would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm."

This reminds me of a short story I read back in elementary school. To get a driver's license you went in and took a test. It was a virtual reality test and in the test you had an accident and killed a person in another vehicle. If you still asked for the drivers license, then you "had mental problems" and were denied a drivers license. I expect "meaning consultation" means that anyone asking for a CHL will be considered paranoid and delusional and not only be denied a permit but be added to the list of people disqualified from owning firearms.

 

[deadeye]

I believe that they essentially are sir.

I was being nice, they havent actually conceeded to the fact yet, still hoping the feds will bail them out more.

 

[VW_Factor]

I was being nice, they havent actually conceeded to the fact yet, still hoping the feds will bail them out more.

I wouldn't be nice to any part of CA for any reason these days.. My wife and I moved down to CA about 3 years ago, to live in a house owned by my grandmother. Get some jobs, get into school, etc. Apparently the neighborhood had gone down hill a bit more than I remember, but after being beat down by 3 hispanic guys in my own front yard, and DA refused to press any charges.. (I'm sure you all know how well restraining orders work too.) We cut our losses and moved back to Oregon.

I have nothing fond for CA at all anymore. Break off into the ocean for all I care.

No sir.. No need to be nice for CA's sake at all. The state has set themselves up to fail, and we should let them.

 

[deadeye]

I lived in Costa Mesa back in the 70's,moved here to get away from the Cal. mentallity,sadly it is following us. I wouldnt move back for anything and limit any visits back and that is only to Redding or Bakersfield.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Senator Boxer's legislation would require all states that allow residents to carry concealed weapons to establish permitting processes that would include meaningful consultation with local law enforcement authorities to determine whether the permit applicant is worthy of the public trust and has shown good cause to carry a concealed firearm.

I hope nobody explains the term "shall issue" to her.
She probably doesn't understand that under the "shall issue" laws of the states, that obstruction by LE's whim is not allowed. Particularly not of the type/kind they use in her home state. In "shall issue" states, "cause" does not enter into it. That's the way it used to be here in Oregon. One had to show cause (or reason) for wanting a CHL. The sheriff had final say as to whether that cause was valid/adequate.
At least if things get too contentious, we may have a chance under the 14/10thA with shall issue laws in place.
At least until her and her cronies vote to appeal the 14/10th anyway.

 

[rufus]

I'm making yet another business related trip down to Perris, CA next week. I hate that place. Grew up in Huntington Beach, sure don't miss it at all.