3 weeks, 3 days ago
Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.
On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.
“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.
The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.
It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.
Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.
Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”
[ … ]
Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.
While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.
“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”
Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.
First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules. Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that. They’re making up their objection to closing debate. It’s just a red herring. Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later. It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all. The vote is what matters.
As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to. You like to conceal, others may not. And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment. Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it. Our way undoes an unnecessary rule. You’re the bad guy here, not us. See how that works, Crosby?
If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle. You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did. We’re watching very closely. Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me. Go ahead. Ignore gun owners one more time. Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina. We don’t forget.
As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry. It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping. And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?
Actually, she did us a service. Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?