Results Of Today’s Senate Judiciary Committee Meeting

As I said earlier today, the Senate Judiciary Committee was going to resume meeting to discuss three gun related bills and the nomination of Kenneth Gonzales. They have released the results of the meeting and I have posted it below. Gonzales’ nomination was not acted upon nor was Dianne Feinstein’s S. 150. However, both Sen. Chuck Schumer’s S. 374 and Sen. Barbara Boxer’s S. 146 were reported out of committee with amendments.

Results of Executive Business Meeting – March 12, 2013
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a continuation of an executive business meeting to consider pending legislation on March 12, 2013. The Committee was not able to complete action on all pending matters and the meeting recessed subject to the call of the Chair.

I. Legislation

S. 374, Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote, 10-8

Amendment ALB13180 (Schumer)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

S. 146, School Safety Enhancements Act of 2013
Ordered Reported by Roll Call Vote 14-4

Amendment OLL13111 (Leahy)
Adopted by Unanimous Consent

Amendment OLL13112 (Grassley)

 Last week I wrote that I found it strange that Sen. Chuck Schumer’s S. 374 – Protecting Responsible Gun Sellers Act of 2013 – did not have an action component. It merely consisted of findings which were more suited to a Senate Resolution than to actual legislation.

That was then and this is now. The amendment that Schumer made today in committee to S. 374 contains the meat of the bill and it isn’t pretty. Not only does it have universal background checks but it contains a provision that requires gun owners to report stolen weapons within 24 hours to authorities. The bill has also been renamed to the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. There is more to the bill and I will have a separate post up about it after I finishing reading the whole thing.

Here is the link to my separate post on the bill.

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.’.

Out of Touch?

Senator Barbara “Don’t Call Me Ma’am” Boxer is running this ad against Carly Fiorina accusing her of “being out of touch” with California. Why she is even endorsed by (audible gasp) Sarah Palin.

It accuses her of being for “assault weapons” which the Marin County sheriff calls “reckless” and “dangerous”. It says she is in favor of “oil drilling” which will “cost jobs” according to the Sierra Club. Her “plan” would mean “slashing Social Security” according to a group called the Congress of California Seniors which is affiliated with numerous union and public employee groups. And because she is pro-life, Planned Parenthood says she would “make abortion a crime.” I’m surprised it didn’t accuse her of wanting to ship poor undocumented immigrants back to their country of origin.

All of this leads me to ask the obvious question – just who is out of touch? Carly or Boxer.

SF Chronicle’s Non-Endorsement

This past Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle decided not to endorse either Barbara Boxer or Carly Fiorina. Given that newspaper’s reliably liberal leanings, that was quite a surprise. And from subsequent letters to the editor, it has angered their liberal readers.

The reason given for not endorsing Boxer is that she:

has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation.

Her voting record isn’t a problem for them as she is a reliable liberal and they agree with her voting record.

The Chronicle thinks Fiorina would be much more effective and work well in the Senate. However, they don’t like her positions on the issues. One of the one’s that they don’t like is gun control. They say:

her unwillingness to support even the most commonsense gun-control measures to keep assault weapons off the street or to deny guns to suspected terrorists on the federal “no fly list.”

Repealing ObamaCare and no immigration reform until the border is secure also make their list. In other words, Carly Fiorina represents mainstream positions on the issues according to most Americans but not the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board. One could only hope more Californians decide that Boxer is a hack and needs to be replaced than not.