uhs8ft0_1

In 2014, Guam passed a “shall issue” concealed carry bill reforming the existing “may issue” system. The bill’s chief sponsor was Senator Anthony Ada. At the time, Senator Ada said the Ninth Circuit’s Peruta v. San Diego County ruling was the main reason he pushed for “shall issue.” (Guam falls under the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit.) From guampdn.com:

“P.L. 32-150 was enacted in May of 2014,” Ada said. “It makes sense that any jump in the number of concealed (firearms licenses) issued thereafter beyond the previous norm can be attributed to the law’s enactment.”

According to Ada, the law eliminated subjectivity in the language from “GPD may issue” to “GPD shall issue” a concealed firearms license if applicants meet requirements stated in the law. He said changing the language was important to get Guam back in compliance with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants the right to keep and bear arms.

Subsequent to the change, the number of Guam concealed carry licenses rose from about 100 to 700. In 2015, 800 more licenses were added. While not precise, firearms registrations indicate that about ten percent of Guam’s population are firearms owners. More than one percent of the inhabitants of Guam now have a concealed carry permit.

In 2016, Senator Ada introduced a bill changing the requirement that a concealed carry license holder be a citizen of the United States, to mandating they be a legal resident. This change removed an unconstitutional aspect of the previous law. Bill 236-33, passed the Senate and was signed into law by the Governor.

Guam is much friendlier to Second Amendment restoration than the neighboring Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI). In the CNMI, the legislature and local elites are fighting the establishment of Second Amendment rights at every opportunity. Here’s hoping they see the light.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.

Gun Watch

Recommended For You

12 Responses to Guam Shall Issue: Popular, Safe, Expanded

    • Is there much crime in Guam? Not that it matters, more liberty is always good – I’m just genuinely curious…

      • Wow, never mind.
        Just googled it and learned the place is a near third-world type sh!thole…
        Welp, maybe more legal gun packers can turn that around soon…

  1. “He said changing the language was important to get Guam back in compliance with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which grants the right to keep and bear arms.”

    The 2nd Amendment does no such thing. It simply recognizes an existing right and tells the government, “hands off”.

  2. Gun Restrictions — Preventing lawful people from doing what they want, because unlawful people might do something bad.

    “May issue” assumes that law enforcement people have super judgment about who’s dangerous, based on their knowledge and experience. “May issue” became “shall issue”, and the kill rate didn’t spike 6x. Seems like law enforcement is judging who “may” have guns based on something other than people’s safety.

    Just sayin.

    Unless current “gun violence” in that berg has jumped by 6x, the point of gun restriction is what, exactly?

  3. This is awesome news. If I ever need to move to a tropical island, now there is one I can go to that is at least vaguely 2nd amendment friendly.

  4. Too bad the state of Hawaii doesn’t recognize the Second Amendment like neighboring Guam. Not one single CCW license in the entire state. The de facto “no issue” policy makes a mockery of the “may issue” claim. Yes, there have been 4 (four) licenses issued in the past 17 years since reporting by the county police departments was mandated. Two of those, in 2001 in Maui, have no extant records (claims Maui PD), so we know nothing about those two at all. The two issued on Kauai were both issued illegally, because the sole stated term of the license is “one year”, while KPD issued the 2006 license for six months, and the 2013 license for NINE DAYS. KPD has resisted all efforts to gain transparency and accountability regarding their violations of the Hawaii Revised Statutes by issuing for illegal terms, including not even responding to my official Uniform Information Practices Act (Hawaii’s version of Freedom of Information Act) request, the UIPA appeal, and a letter from the state UIPA attorney telling them they had to respond withing the 10 days legal requisite. Not a peep. Go figure.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *