As for across the river, Illinois bans defensive handgun carry for private citizens
WHAT? It does!?!
I'm 62, and now I find that out. Sheesh.
............... 
Posted on 01/19/2011 3:54:35 AM PST by marktwain
Missouri has had a "shall issue" concealed carry law (meaning that qualified applicants for a permit to carry a defensive firearm cannot be rejected on some government functionary's arbitrary whim or bias against armed self-defense) since 2003, although St. Louis residents had to wait another year-and-a-half, due to the anti-self-defense mindset of St. Louis officialdom (but hey--at least we're #1 at something!)
As for across the river, Illinois bans defensive handgun carry for private citizens, although efforts are being made to correct that, with two bills already filed in this legislative session.
California, unlike Illinois, does not ban defensive firearm carry outright, but, unlike Missouri, leaves issuance of a permit up to the discretion of the local police chief or sheriff. This means that in many cases, such permits are effectively impossible to get--except, perhaps, for cronies or generous supporters of the sheriff.
Why should St. Louis area residents care about California law regarding defensive handgun carry permit issuance? Because United States Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) wants the federal government to overrule the laws of all 50 states, and export California's system nationwide (meaning, I suppose, that the feds would only be overriding 49 states' laws). From the Los Angeles Times:
The senator also wants to federalize California's laws on concealed weapons permits, which require approval from local sheriff's or police chiefs and require applicants to explain why the weapons permit is necessary.
Oh, and she also wants magazine capacity limits (haven't we just talked about those?), an expanded "prohibted purchasers" list, etc., etc.--just like in California.
"I believe we should look at sensible gun laws again. The kind of gun laws we have here in California that give people their gun ownership rights while also preventing the sale of guns to criminals, to people with serious mental illness and people who may abuse a spouse or partner,'' said Boxer, who traveled to Riverside from her home in Rancho Mirage.
Er--laws "that give people their gun ownership rights"? How can rights be given? How, particularly, can "gun ownership rights" be "given," knowing as we do that the Supreme Court, in the 1876 U.S. v. Cruikshank decision, determined that as a natural right that pre-dates the Constitution, the right to keep and bear arms does not "in any manner depend on that instrument for its existence"? One might also question Sen. Boxer's contention that California laws have done much in the way of "preventing the sale of guns to criminals," etc., given the fact that there's no shortage of "gun crime" in California, which is even listed as the second greatest source state of "crime guns" to Mexico.
This isn't to say, by the way, that I have abandoned my disdain for the concept of "permits" for armed self-defense (concealed or otherwise). That citizens are required to go, hat in hand, to the state and ask for (and pay for) a government-issued permission slip, before they can legally equip themselves with an effective means of self-defense is a travesty, and "permit-less," Constitutional carry, as in Vermont, Alaska and Arizona, must be the intended end point of any defensive firearm carry law reform effort worth its salt.
Still, political realities dictate that Constitutional carry is a long way off in many states, and many states do at least offer residents far better options for legally defending themselves than California does, so inflicting a California-style, permit-(or not)-by-whim system on the entire nation would obviously be an enormous step backward.
I have to admit, though, I almost do hope Sen. Boxer manages to get the Senate to pass her little edict, because it would be amusing to see what Constitutional authority would be cited for such a usurpation, when the bill reached the House, and was subjected to that new rule. Would they call that "interstate commerce," too?
Update: Many thanks to Bruce W. Krafft, who left a very instructive comment:
Say, wasn't Sen. Boxer one of the shrieking harridans decrying national recognition of state permits as unconstitutional? Something about "What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne"?
Mr. Krafft was right on the money. From the Congressional Record's log of Senator Boxer's remarks during debates over the Thune Amendment (federally mandated nationwide concealed carry reciprocity, as advocated by South Dakota's Senator John Thune in 2009):
This debate is not about the right to own a gun. That has been settled by the Supreme Court in the Heller case. It is about allowing States to determine their own laws. And I totally get why some more rural States with fewer people would have different laws on conceal and carry than a State of 38 million people, my home State of California. Leave us alone. Leave us alone. You want to have conceal and carry with very few requirements, fine.
Senator Boxer's arguments about state sovereignty, and the federal government's authority to impose such a mandate, were not without merit (as National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea has discussed), but where has her respect for state sovereignty gone now? By the way, be sure to check out Mr. Krafft's great work at KeepandBearArms.com, to keep abreast of the latest developments in gun rights/gun laws--and maybe help support that great work.
Schumer with a bad wig
It’s worked so well in LA, Compton and Long Beach
Senator Boxer can eat my shorts.
Which will go absolutely nowhere. We still have a rat controlled legislature and rat governor. Taxes are the only thing going anywhere with this bunch. State income tax going up 67%.
I thought she was dead or was that just wishful thinking...?
Boxer is a prime example of “ Stupid is as Stupid does “
FU boxer... you want a divided America? Keep it up *unt!
LLS
Sarcasm: Thanks, Senator Boxer, because we all know that gun control really takes guns out of the hands of big, bad criminals everywhere...since they’re all so law-abiding and therefore would follow all gun-control laws to the max!
Not happening, Boxeridiot.......bet.
Boxer, like Schumer and Sanders are products of good ole Liberal Brooklyn NY, and thus have the same mindset.
LOL. To paraphrase what I said to Senator Lugar yesterday when he pushed for renewing the “assault weapon” ban: You go big girl and get that passed in the Senate - we’ll just see what the Tea Party dominated House does with it.
LOL - even Pelosi would not get ANYWHERE NEAR gun control during the 4 years she ran the House. Whoops, actually she did, she supported some pro-gun legislation - not much, but some relatively small stuff.
As for across the river, Illinois bans defensive handgun carry for private citizens
WHAT? It does!?!
I'm 62, and now I find that out. Sheesh.
...............
Its NOT going to happen. It won’t pass the Senate and if it did, its DOA in the House.
She would if she could, but she can’t.
Outlawing guns won’t save little dictators.
Thanks, California, for afflicting the whole nation with that evil b!tch. I despise her almost as much as I despise 0bama.
Boxer is the typical liberal.....40 miles of dead air between her ears.
Oh, didn't you know? She's all about the federalism when it's taking away the rights! Just like the ATF who's written to FFL's in states with Firearm Freedom Acts and told them federal law overrules state law, yet still thinks they have jurisdiction to require ARIZONA ammo sellers to enforce CALIFORNIA infringements. And not just to enforce the actual provisions of the infringing law, but to construe people's actions to imply they intend to break the law regardless of their actual intent.
Wait...knowing what upChuck's hair normally looks like, I don't think I want to see the BAD version!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.