Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News.

The chances of South Carolina joining most other states allowing licensed people to openly carry pistols and not hide them under a jacket dimmed Tuesday as a small group of senators didn’t find time to vote on a House-passed bill.

A Senate subcommittee set a 90-minute deadline to hear testimony about the open carry bill. Several senators held long conversations with witnesses and when the hour-and-a-half was up, the subcommittee adjourned without taking a vote and with several other witnesses waiting to speak online.

Sen. Tom Young, a Republican from Aiken, said he would hold another hearing “as soon as possible,” but with eight days left in the General Assembly’s regular session, it seems doubtful the bill can make it through the subcommittee, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the full Senate.

[ … ]

During the House subcommittee hearing on the open carry bill, lawmakers set a three-minute timer for witnesses and asked almost no questions.

The Senate hearing Tuesday meandered a bit more. Senators asked almost every witness a question and former State Law Enforcement Chief Robert Stewart spent about 30 minutes telling them why he opposed open carry.

So there you go.  They limited the pro-speakers to 3 minutes, let a cop speak for half an hour, chatted some and then walked out without so much as a how do you do?

That’s the sort of consideration they give their constituency.  Their names are here.  Luke Rankin presides.  We suspected he was a controller, and he is.

With the influx of foreign voters into S.C., this may be the last, greatest opportunity to pass open carry in S.C.  Apparently no gun owner in S.C. cares about this enough.

I’ll just file this one under gun control.  I guess South Carolinians are okay with it.

Reason.

There are at least five major differences between Clement’s QP and the Court’s QP.

First, the Court’s QP focuses on the state’s decision to deny “concealed-carry licenses” to the petitioners. Clement’s QP challenged the law on its face, and as applied. Is the Court’s decision now limited to an as-applied challenge, rather than a facial challenge? Might the Court leave open the possibility that other may-issue regimes are unconstitutional? Are there some unique aspects of the New York law that would distinguish it from other may issue regimes? Is there the possibility the Court will need to remand for further explication of the regime? Is there some evidence that the state improperly denied licenses to these particular plaintiffs? Might there be some Due Process Clause argument? Then again, the QP references the Second Amendment, so a Due Process issue would not be squarely presented. I see this slippery change as a way for the Court to issue a very, very narrow decision that will leave the issue unsettled.

But of course.  Cowards and totalitarians.

There is more at the link.  Zelman Partisans makes is simple for us.

By changing it from a question about law-abiding citizens carrying in public, to denial of licenses Period — no mention of “law-abiding” people carrying — the InJustices can now say, Gee, states have to be able to deny some licenses, otherwise prohibited persons could apply and get licenses. No one wants that to happen.

They’ve dodged the entire issue of denial of rights based on an arbitrary you didn’t show good enough need to carry a gun. The point of contention was shall versus may issue, and if the Second Amendment applies outside the home. Now it’s is licensing constitutional?

Prediction: 5/4 denial of licenses does not not violate the Second Amendment; Roberts with the majority. “May issue” remains because the Court refused to look at that.

Although it could go 6/3. Gorsuch is such an insufferable hair-splitter that he may go along with the majority, too. On the other hand, he might object to the reframed question itself. Hard to say.

As I observed, I’d rather that the SCOTUS not have taken the case up at all.  Is there anything requiring courage that the SCOTUS is actually willing to do?  They take the easy ones, leave aside the hard ones, and when they do take a hard one they limit the scope of the review so they don’t have to actually decide anything of significance.

Of what worth are they?  Why do we even have a supreme court?  Wouldn’t we be better off without them?

News.

On April 27^th, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee is hearing House Bill 3094, to legalize the open carry of handguns. Please contact subcommittee members and ask them to SUPPORT HB 3094.

House Bill 3094 allows citizens who hold a concealed weapons permit, to carry a handgun in the manner they choose. Currently, South Carolina is one of just five states that does not explicitly allow open carry, among them Illinois, New York, and California. Self-defense situations are difficult to predict and everyone has different circumstances. It is unreasonable for the law to impose a one-size-fits-all method of carrying a handgun for self-defense.

This is very good news.  We’re tracking names, yes?

This narrows the field substantially.  We let Luke Rankin know just very recently that we expected him to pass this bill on for a vote in the senate.

If this fails, the House isn’t to blame.  Right now the finger of attention points to the senators in this subcommittee.  We’re watching you.  Luke, we’re still watching you too.

Should this pass on to a vote in the senate, if the bill fails, I’ll publish the votes of every senator, along with the city they live in and area they represent.

The field is being winnowed.  You cannot hide from this vote.  The only thing you can do is take it and be prepared for what comes.

From a reader, this one took me off guard and surprised me.

North Carolina would scrap its pistol permit system, which requires local sheriffs to sign off on handgun purchases, under a proposal unveiled Tuesday with support from the North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association.

Gun rights advocates have pressed for the change for years, but the sheriffs’ association – a lobbying force at the General Assembly – always opposed it. Under the current system, anyone who doesn’t already have a concealed carry permit must file with a sheriff to buy a handgun. That’s not a requirement for rifles.

With recent advances in the database checks gun dealers run at purchase, the pistol permit is no longer needed, Sheriffs’ Association Executive Vice President and General Counsel Eddie Caldwell said Tuesday. The administrative arm of the North Carolina courts system finished uploading involuntary commitment records to the system in 2019, he said.

“Now that those records are uploaded, the [National Instant Criminal Background] check and the pistol permit are duplicative,” he said.

House Bill 398 would do away with that system, and the bill moved through an initial House committee Tuesday on a divided vote. Several Democrats, backed by gun-control groups, said they fear the change will open a loophole, since only licensed firearm dealers have to run background checks.

Regular people who sell a gun to a friend, or to someone they meet at a gun show, for example, don’t have to.

As you know, this isn’t a “loophole.”  That’s just a madeup word the communists like to use for something they don’t like.

Not all Sheriffs support this.  I suspect the Mecklenburg County Sheriff didn’t go for this, and I know the Wake County Sheriff didn’t.  Listen to his interview.  He exudes all the intelligence and mastery of the facts as a second grader.

North Carolina has this antiquated system where you must demonstrate fealty to the CLEO and prove yourself by turning over fees to be licensed to carry or purchase a handgun.

This initially surprised me, but I think I know what’s happening.  The communist governor of NC, the awful, terrible, loathsome, despicable, reprehensible Roy Cooper, will veto it – that’s a sure thing.  There aren’t enough votes to override his veto.  The Sheriff’s association having come out in favor of repealing the permitting scheme is good cover for the Sheriffs who run as republicans.

Politics.  Do you see how this works?  They can take a vote that helps reelect them, but their vote on a bill that will never be approved is as meaningless as the permitting system – except for the revenue it provides.

The only update I can find.

First of all, that’s an idiotic objection.  Her problem is psychological.  The fact of a weapon not being visible means nothing concerning whether an individual has a weapon or is a “bad guy.”

Second, this is the page for Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Luke Rankin.  The future may look bleak for open carry in South Carolina.  It appears that Luke Rankin has pulled open carry before and is possibly anti-gun.

Perhaps Luke Rankin needs to meet the same fate as Larry Martin and be ejected from the S.C. Senate.  So what gives, Luke?  Where do we stand?  Why hasn’t action been taken?

Here is his place of employment and here is his contact page.  Are you a gun controller, Luke?

The Hill.

The Supreme Court on Monday denied appeals from three people who sought to have their right to own guns reinstated after being convicted of nonviolent crimes, a move that disappointed gun rights advocates.

The denials, which were issued without comment or noted dissent, left intact lower court rulings which found that the lifetime bans did not run afoul of Second Amendment protections.

One case involved a Pennsylvania man who sought to have his right to own a firearm restored after he was subjected to a lifetime ban following a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence in 2005.

The other cases involved a Pennsylvania woman convicted of lying on her tax returns and a man convicted of copyright violations and smuggling counterfeit cassette tapes in 1987.

For a case to be heard, or granted a writ of certiorari, at least four justices must vote to take up the case.

How sad.  The Supreme Cast Of Clowns couldn’t even find four justices to agree to hear these cases.  Thus, they ensured that if these three people, or thousands of people just like them in America, want means of self defense, they must obtain it illegally.

They have ensured the very thing the system claims to want to repair, i.e., that people must become lawbreakers in order to do things usual and typical humans do.

How arbitrary.  How cruel.  How utterly detestable.  How expected and customary from the court.

Somebody named Madonna.

The video was captioned: “There’s a new Vaccination! It’s called GUN CONTROL! Should be mandatory. It will SAVE lives!”

I don’t know this person.  Apparently she’s popular among people who have no minds of their own.

You have to hand it to them.  They did accomplish masks and vaccinations through fear, and the lemmings went right along with it.  Gun control is next on their agenda.

Via David Codrea.

Biden Adviser Richmond: Republicans Need to Stop Hiding Behind Second Amendment — It’s Not Meant for ‘Weapons of War’ [More]

The second amendment isn’t the source of anything for me.  The Almighty God of the Holy Scriptures grants the right and even duty of self defense and protection of my family, whether from criminals with badges or without.

I don’t hide anywhere you can see.  I find refuge under the wings of the Lord, whose pinions cover me from evildoers like you (Psalm 91:4).

And yes, I believe that, and yes, the Scriptures speak eternal truth.

This is an ugly picture.  The new nominee to head the ATF went on Chinese television (CGTN America) to shill for gun control in America.