The governor can 1. sign it into law, 2. not sign it but let it lapse into law in 10 days, or 3. Veto the bill. Since the vote was 13-2, it's likely that a veto would be overridden.

How can our nearest neighbor island under U.S. jurisdiction be so completely different (aka sane, rational, abiding by the Constitution, albeit very late to the party on this issue) than Hawaii?

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20140510/NEWS01/305100009/Legislature-OKs-concealed-firearms

How can our nearest neighbor island under U.S. jurisdiction be so completely different (aka sane, rational, abiding by the Constitution, albeit very late to the party on this issue) than Hawaii?



Must be the Snakes

The governor can 1. sign it into law, 2. not sign it but let it lapse into law in 10 days, or 3. Veto the bill. Since the vote was 13-2, it's likely that a veto would be overridden.

How can our nearest neighbor island under U.S. jurisdiction be so completely different (aka sane, rational, abiding by the Constitution, albeit very late to the party on this issue) than Hawaii?

http://www.guampdn.com/article/20140510/NEWS01/305100009/Legislature-OKs-concealed-firearms

American Samoa is closer to Hawaii than Guam and their gun laws are terrible. You can only own .22 Rifle and Shotguns. All handguns are illegal AND if you bring legal firearms to own in the territory you pay 150% tax on the total cost of the firearm. Ammo also gets a 150% tax as well.

I will probably never move back home...ever.

Interesting.  I've been there numerous times for work, and noticed all the "gun clubs" in Tumon that were geared for Japanese tourists like what we have in Waikiki, but I also noticed a small shop (Moylan's) along the main road through their downtown.  There was also a sign for an outdoor range nearer to the Navy base.  I thought they would lean left just like people do here, and when I was there during campaign season I saw many of their politicians using Obama-like symbols and slogans on their billboards.  However, Guam is much smaller than Hawaii (it's only as long as Oahu is wide), and much of the island is still more rural.  Maybe they haven't lost as much of their common sense?  Maybe they still remember having actually been forcefully occupied by the Japanese during World War 2 and being nearly helpless (their forces tried, but were quickly overwhelmed) to stop the invaders?

Since it was the 9th district court that ruled in favor of "shall issue" could Hawaii CCW advocates now have the leverage they need?

Since it was the 9th district court that ruled in favor of "shall issue" could Hawaii CCW advocates now have the leverage they need?

This wasn't a court issue. For more information on Hawaii's 9th circuit court case check out the following threads:
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=1825.0
https://2ahawaii.com/index.php?topic=14103.0

WOW!  Lucky them!

American Samoa is closer to Hawaii than Guam and their gun laws are terrible. You can only own .22 Rifle and Shotguns. All handguns are illegal AND if you bring legal firearms to own in the territory you pay 150% tax on the total cost of the firearm. Ammo also gets a 150% tax as well.

I will probably never move back home...ever.

I once sent the AS police an Email saying that they need to be versed in LEOSA because if I visit, I will be bringing 2 handguns and they can't do a thing about it.

AS does have terrible gun laws; however, the Marianas Islands is actually worse if you can believe it... Steps are being taken there, but it's slow going.

Wow that's CRAZY! Gotta move to Guam........

Update:

Guam Shall Issue Becomes Law

Governor Calvo of Guam signed Bill 296-32 into law on the 21st of May, 2014.   One of the last changes to be made to the bill before it was sent to the Governor was to change the term of the permit to three years instead of six.  From kuam.com:

...and finally the governor signed Bill 296 into law. The bill changes language for concealed firearms licensing from "may" to "shall." that means concealed firearm licenses shall be issued to an applicant who meets the various specifications.

The Bill 296-32 is now Public Law 32-150.  Here are some of the features of the new law:

Requires that a permit for a concealed firearm be issued if requirements are met.
Includes all handguns, rifles, and shotguns
Includes all concealed weapons other than firearms
Is only available to residents of Guam
Puts a limit on the required, non-refundable fee of $100
Requires issue within 90 days of the receipt of a complete application
Includes methods to regain rights previously lost
Is valid for a period of three years
Provides for a 180 day grace period to renew the permit
Requires a color photograph
Requires fingerprints; if legible fingerprints cannot be made, can be issued by check of ID
Applicants must be 21 years of age
Requires a desire a legal means to carry a firearm for lawful self defense
DD214, NRA, or State Hunter Safety Courses among others, meet training course requirement
Reason for denial required to be given
Notice of renewal requirement will be mailed out 90 days before expiration

Guam now joins the 41 states that have laws that require the issuance of a permit if the legal requirements are met.   California and Hawaii have been required to convert to a "shall issue" status pending the resolution of the Peruta decision.   Vermont does not require the issuance of a permit, and does not issue one.  Only six states now fall into the category where the issuing authority may arbitrarily refuse to issue a permit.    Those states are New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and  Delaware.

Three of those states, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York, have no state constitutional provision protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/05/guam-shall-issue-becomes-law.html

California and Hawaii have been required to convert to a "shall issue" status pending the resolution of the Peruta decision.

Incorrect. Some county sheriffs have begun to issue permits using a "shall issue" model, but no one has been "required" to do so pending the resolution of Peruta

Incorrect. Some county sheriffs have begun to issue permits using a "shall issue" model, but no one has been "required" to do so pending the resolution of Peruta

That wasn't the best sentence construction by Dean Weingarten. Clearer and more accurately might have been something like: "California and Hawaii will be required to convert to a "shall issue" status pending a resolution affirmatively upholding the Peruta decision." That's not all that accurate either because all Peruta does is state that "self-defense" is sufficient "cause" for issuance of the CCW license. Even if Peruta is eventually and finally upheld, I rather suspect that issuing authorities in both states will obstruct issuance of CCW licenses by various other strategies, not the least of which in California will be very demanding criteria for meeting the "good moral character" requirement, which in some jurisdictions even now "prefer" (aka "requires") at least three written references, which they suggest include at least one judge or politician. Not that there is anything wrong with that. We all know judges and politicians who would vouch for us, right? I mean who would be in a better position to testify to good moral character than a politician, say, for instance, Leland Yee?

Let's hope Guam's new law has no such problems. Hope we can get some stats in the not too distant future to see what the rate of issuance/denials is.

On the face of it, that's even better than Colorado's Permit system.  The only thing that bothers me is the "if the requirements are met" part.

A reasonable requirement to me is that you must have been sainted by the Pope.  Your "reasonable" may differ from mine.  Are those "requirements" spelled out in the statute? Or is this another one of those, "Oh, you know what we mean...( wink-wink)" things?