Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

I was in contact with South Carolina Carry today asking if they had a comprehensive email contact list for South Carolina legislators.  They don’t.

As followup to this post I had intended to begin making contact and learned that they (SC legislators) have begun to use the absurd contact forms.  In other words, they have cloistered themselves off and insulated themselves from their constituency.

This makes it very hard, as intended.  If anyone knows how to make contact with South Carolina legislators, especially if you have a comprehensive distribution list, that would be great.  Or if not, if there is some retired gun rights advocate who just wants to help in this endeavor, please feel free to post here, or email me.  Perhaps there is someone who has contacts inside the SC government who could assist us with this?

South Carolina Carry is also interested in such a list.

David Codrea.

Gun owners can thank supposed “originalist” Justice Antonin Scalia for perpetuating and solidifying the “confusion,” although it’s fair to suspect his motives were more deliberate than speculative.

[ … ]

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia volunteered, seemingly desperate to apologize for the majority ruling and to make a concession the gun-grabbers could use to later advantage.

I think Scalia was appealing to the beltway elitists for forgiveness.  As we’ve observed elsewhere:

Heller offers a Second Amendment cleaned up so that it can safely be brought into the homes of affluent Washington suburbanites who would never dream of resistance-they have too much sunk into the system–but who might own a gun to protect themselves from the private dangers that, they believe, stalk around their doors at night. Scalia commonly touts his own judicial courage, his willingness to read the Constitution as it stands and let the chips fall where they may. But Heller is noteworthy for its cowardice.

Rather than being a great victory for the second amendment, I believe the Heller decision was one root of our interpretational problems with it.

Codrea does offer the remedy.

“For someone represented by the establishment as an “originalist,” Scalia’s views were anything but. In A View of the Constitution, which colleague Brian Puckett writes “was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860,” William Rawle, “a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General,” offered a vastly different opinion.

“No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people,” Rawle declared. “Such a flagitious (think “shameful,” “wicked,” “criminal,” “villainous”) attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”

Speaking of shameful, wicked, and criminal villains, fast-forward to the present. There is a Democrat eye-rolling feeding frenzy to strip Americans of what Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe called “the birthright of an American,” which he specifically identified as “every other terrible implement of the soldier.”

“[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people,” Coxe continued.”

News from South Carolina.

A bill that would allow people to carry guns without concealing them in South Carolina is heading to the House floor.

The House Judiciary Committee approved so-called open carry of weapons for people who already have a concealed-weapons permit by a 16-8 vote Tuesday.

South Carolina is one of only five states without open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

The committee ignored amendments by Democrats that would remove the ban on weapons at the Statehouse and would refine rules on weapons at public events like festivals.

The bill is enthusiastically backed by many Republicans and conservatives, who said it makes sense to let people carry the weapons they can already have in a visible holster. Laws against pointing a gun at someone or threating someone with a gun without a legal reason would remain on the books.

Of course laws against assault will remain on the books, just like laws against brandishing.  Why does that even need to be stated?

Now.  Since the committees have apparently taken their job seriously and refused to allow this bill to perish in committee like it always seems to do, the real struggle begins.

From here on we take names and make lists.  Every member of the House will have to cast a vote, since as I understand it, turning this bill over from committee constitutes a motion and second.  It’s a live bill.

Oh, there are still parliamentary tricks that could be played, like someone could make a substitute motion to do something like send it back to the committee to study this more, or some such nonsense.  But that also requires a vote by every member of the House.

So we take names, and no one gets to hide behind the fact that there is no live bill to vote on.  That horse has left the barn.

It’s time to ramp up the comms to House members, and after that, members of the senate.  They need to hear from people, especially if you live in South Carolina.  I frequently visit relatives in South Carolina and so I should have a say, but they won’t listen to me like they would from my readers in South Carolina.

Get busy.

Update on South Carolina open carry.

The Open Carry Training Act would allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry a handgun out in the open.

Reaction to the proposed law is mixed.

“I understand good faith opposition to guns, I do, I get it, but the reality is this law is very narrowly tailored to address one specific concern and that is people who have CWPs if they are going to be criminalized for having that gun exposed,” Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, said.

Lowcountry pediatrician Dr. Anne Andrews cited 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating firearms are the leading cause of death for children in South Carolina between the ages of 1 and 19, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.

Let’s stop there.

First of all, there is no “good faith” opposition to open carry or to guns.  This is a God-given right.  Self defense is a God-given right to which objections should be appealed to the sovereign of the universe, not men and women who want to defend home and hearth.

Next up, Lowcountry pediatrician Dr. Anne Andrews must be an idiot.  ““Guns that are going to be open carried are most likely going to be loaded” has to be the most stolid statement I’ve ever heard in the context of weapons.

Is she implying that concealed firearms aren’t loaded?  Or is she implying that since guns must be assumed to be loaded, a child is going to intentionally attempt to assault an open carrier who is carrying without a weapon retention holster?  This is an equally ridiculous assertion, unless she’s referring to miscreant criminal teens, in which case they aren’t children.  The reference to this person in the article reeks of having to fill in white space by the author.  The objection has no place, makes no sense, and breaks the train of thought and flow of the report.

“One way to look at this bill is, what it does is say, if you’ve got a valid concealed weapon permit you won’t be penalized for this gun being exposed,” Caskey said. “So, if you got your coat caught behind your concealed weapon right now that would be a violation of state law. We are trying to decimalize that.”

Well that itself is a good enough reason to pass the bill, but let’s call this what it is.  It’s an open carry bill, or in other words, it’s a bill to undo what the law currently says about openly carried firearms and pull South Carolina into agreement with what 46 other states know: openly carried weapons don’t cause blood to run in the streets.  Open carry is legal in North Carolina, right across the border, and apparently no one has thought to investigate whether open carry in North Carolina causes blood to run in the streets.

“For people who are not familiar with me, I’m just another minority walking the streets,” he said. “I do have concerns if I would be able to open carry the same as my white counterparts.”

Bamberg defines himself as a pro-Second Amendment gun owner. But he is concerned about sheriffs who have spoken out against the idea.

Well, Rep. Justin Bamberg has given us a disorganized, random pile of mess to unravel.

First, if a minority doesn’t wish to open carry, he doesn’t have to.  This bill doesn’t require open carry.  Second, I think he’s lying and he isn’t really a 2A supporter, at least, not if he’s opposed to open carry.

Third, I’m perfectly comfortable seeing open carry, and I’ve walked right by black guys who were openly carrying in my own state.  But this isn’t about my comfort, nor his comfort, nor the comfort of anyone else.  Rights are not contingent upon comfort.  Many people are uncomfortable listening to street preachers.  I’ve seen people on the sidewalks change to the other side of the road to avoid them, while I’m happy to walk up and talk to them.

We don’t discuss limits on the first amendment because people are uncomfortable with street preachers, nor should we.  And I would hasten to repeat what I’ve pointed out before.  “Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.”

We don’t infringe on God-given rights because of psychological problems.  Finally, there is this misdirect from Bamberg (whom we quoted earlier).

That’s simply a lie.  This piece of legislation is before the committee.  It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s clear, and it deserves a hearing before the entire legislature.  If Bamberg wants to reign in law enforcement in the state of South Carolina, that’s a worthy goal.  I’m with him on that one, whether LEOs who shoot first and investigate later, LEOs who shoot innocent victims through the doors of their own homes, and on the list could go.

But that all has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.  It’s irrelevant, and the excuse that “we have more important things to work on” is exactly what jettisoned this bill every time it has been brought up, as if the judiciary committee is trying to protect the rest of the legislature from having to stake out a position and cast a vote on it.  You see, killing the bill protects the closet gun controllers from self-identifying and answering for their position in the next election.  They know that.  They plan for it.  Maybe the author of the article, Adam Mintzer, could investigate the real reasons for killing this bill so many times before in his next article.  Perhaps it will be better than this one.

To the South Carolina legislature: it’s okay not to be like the four states who still live in the dark ages, and it’s okay not to be like the control freaks who live in New York.  You can admit that you’re supposed to be a free state.

Pass this bill through committee.  Let the legislature take a vote.  Make everyone take a stand.  It’s time.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag (many articles)

Expected news.

“As I’m sure you know, the president is a strong supporter of gun control and has been an advocate all of his life, professional life, on this question. The role of the Justice Department is to advance the policy program of the administration as long as it is consistent with the law,” Garland told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“And as I said, so far we have a little indication from the Supreme Court as to what this means. But we don’t have a complete indication. And where there is room under the law for the president’s policies to be pursued, then I think the president is entitled to pursue them.”

[ … ]

Garland is expected to be easily confirmed by the Senate with many Republican votes.

And remember that the next time you are tempted to believe that the republicans are your 2A friends.

This is all as expected.  He is capitalizing on the facts that (1) he’s a communist, the one who holds the presidency is a communists, most of the congress is communists and none of them speak the truth concerning God-given rights, and (2) the SCOTUS is full of communists too and have vacillated and equivocated until there is nothing left of the covenant under which we all agreed to live (the constitution).

So … here we are.  As soon as he is confirmed he will direct the DoJ to direct the ATF to enact new intolerable acts to infringe on God-given rights.

This is horrific.

Brooklyn: Flatbush Avenue & Parkside Avenue, person #CaughtOnCamera beating up a biker with a bat until he falls to the ground unconscious. pic.twitter.com/3PXr06gCNc

— NYC Scoop (@NY_Scoop) February 18, 2021

The victim is still not conscious and is in critical condition.  But the problem is easy to solve.  Shoot him.

Put a slug into the thug’s belly to stop him, and then put another into his head to make sure he doesn’t get back up and start again.  The upshot is that he would never be able to harm someone like this again.

Move from New York where you cannot defend yourself.  Get out of there.  It is the land of communists.

And remember Herschel’s Dictum.  Always.

News from New Hampshire.

The New Hampshire House is considering recommending a constitutional amendment that would prevent future state laws from restricting firearm ownership, one of a series of gun rights bills proposed this year.

The proposal, officially called Constitutional Amendment Concurrent Resolution 8 would prevent the Legislature from passing any law “restricting the right to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories.”

But some gun rights groups say that the amendment needs to be workshopped, and could have unintended consequences for firearms use in the state.

New Hampshire’s constitution already contains a version of the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution, which states: “All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the State.”

This legislation would add two following sentences. “The Legislature shall enact no law that limits the right of a person to own, carry, or use firearms or firearm accessories in any manner that would create a greater burden than that in federal law,” the amendment states. “Any federal law that infringes upon rights guaranteed in this New Hampshire Constitution shall be unenforceable by New Hampshire law enforcement.”

Rep. Terry Roy, the bill’s sponsor, said the amendment was intended to protect firearm rights, and stop the see-sawing of gun legislation between Republican and Democratic legislatures.

“The reason I’m introducing this bill is because I’ve heard from many constituents that they are frankly a little tired of every two years, or four years, or whatever it may be, that power shifts in the State House, and they are concerned about having their rights infringed upon based on whatever political winds are blowing in Concord,” said Roy, a Deerfield Republican.

The constitutional amendment would recognize the federal government’s ability to pass its own firearms restrictions, Roy said, but it would prevent local and state law enforcement from enforcing it. Those new restrictions could only be enforced by federal agents, Roy added.

Roy said he would prefer the amendment to prevent any federal firearms laws from taking jurisdiction, but thought that it wouldn’t be constitutional.

This would be a step in the right direction for New Hampshire, but it doesn’t go far enough.  As for Mr. Roy, he’s kicking the can down the road.  This is all going to come to a head sooner or later, and when it does, the question of constitutionality won’t come up except in law offices here and there.

On the street, the people will demand what they are demanding in other states like Missouri, namely, that state and county LEOs arrest and charge federal agents for enforcing federal gun control laws.

You can run, but you cannot hide.  This is coming, and it’s better to get state legislators on board now with what must be done.

It proceeds apace.  This can be seen in recent movements towards gun control, or away from it.

Consider first the case of Utah.

Friday, February 12^th, Utah Governor Spencer Cox signed HB 60 into law … House Bill 60, sponsored by Representative Walt Brooks (R-75), allows a law-abiding adult to carry a concealed firearm in the State of Utah, without first needing to obtain government permission. This ensures that citizens have their right to self-defense without government red tape or delays. Additionally, this legislation maintains the existing Concealed Firearm Permit (CFP) system, so citizens who still wish to obtain a permit may do so.

Next up, consider the cases of Wyoming and Missouri.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (Feb. 4, 2021) – A bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate would take on federal gun control; past, present and future. Passage into law would represent a major step toward ending federal acts that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms within the state.

A coalition of 19 Republicans and a Libertarian introduced Senate Bill 81 (SF81) on Feb. 3. Titled the “Second Amendment Preservation Act,” the legislation would ban any person, including any public officer or employee of the state and its political subdivisions, from enforcing any past, present or future federal “acts, laws, executive orders, administrative orders, court orders, rules, and regulations that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

SF81 is similar to a bill moving forward in Missouri.

The bill includes a detailed definition of actions that qualify as “infringement,” including but not limited to:

• taxes and fees on firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition not common to all other goods and services that would have a chilling effect on the purchase or ownership of those items by law-abiding citizens;
• registration and tracking schemes applied to firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition that would have a chilling effect;
• any act forbidding the possession, ownership, or use or transfer of a firearm, firearm accessory, or ammunition by law-abiding citizens;
• any act ordering the confiscation of firearms, firearm accessories, or ammunition from law-abiding citizens.

As we’ve noted before, the state must be serious about it, serious enough to dispatch local and state law enforcement to arrest federal agents enforcing federal laws, with provision in the code to prosecute them.

There is also a permitless carry bill before the legislature in Tennessee.  Finally, South Carolina is considering open carry again.  It should be shameful to South Carolinians that the last holdout state on the last vote on dissolution of relations with Britain in the continental congress, their very own state, is also one of the final few states who disallows open carry.

If they’re able to hold the communists in Charleston, Columbia and Greenville in check, they may have a chance.  It’s died in committee before many times, and at least this time it’s getting a hearing.  We’ll see just how serious South Carolina is about driving a stake in the ground and saying, “Here I make my stand.”

Contrast that now with Rhode Island.

In our last email we referenced upcoming bills we knew were coming since some legislators had given us a heads-up. After their release we can confirm they are worse than anyone could have imagined and are, at this point, the most restrictive proposals in the country.

What’s so egregious about these bills? Just a single bill, their so-called high capacity magazine ban, would ban almost every single firearm on the market in addition to the ones you already own. Any magazine with a “removeable floorplate and the ability to be extended” will be illegal. This encompasses all semiautomatic handguns, rifles and some manually operated firearms. No purchasing, transferring nor grandfathering. It would require less effort to list the firearms you CAN own rather than the restrictions themselves.

Additional bills call for the removal of shall-issue gun permitting, a ban on most semi auto rifles and full medical release forms when purchasing a firearm.

And in California they can’t let a session go by without more anti-gun bills.  These are only a few of the examples we could cite.

These actions aren’t by accident, of course.  State and local governments know exactly what’s coming, and the resistance can be organized or chaotic, with bite, or without any, meaningful or meaningless.

Polarization is occurring, the pace has quickened, and the stakes for the future of liberty are very high.  It will all happen on the state and local level.  But make no mistake about it, sides are organizing and preparing the field.

Dean Weingarten has a discussion up at Ammoland of South Carolina open carry, something we’ve pushed for years as regular readers know.

There are only five states which currently ban the open carry of handguns in most public areas, most of the time. They are: Illinois, New York, California, Florida, and South Carolina. New Jersey and Hawaii ban open carry in practice, but legally, anyone with a permit can open carry. It is just extremely difficult to obtain a permit.

South Carolina is moving toward restoring the right to openly carry handguns in public with House Bill 3094, labeled “Open Carry with Training”.

They’ve been moving for years, only to get torpedoed by the controllers who appear to control the controllers in South Carolina.

I’ve sent blast emails to every legislator in South Carolina before, but it has limited utility compared to communications a South Carolina resident would send.

To my readers in South Carolina: you’re on top of this, aren’t you?  You’re involved, aren’t you? Unless you’re involved, don’t complain when your state looks just like New York.

I can complain when I drive into South Carolina because my rights are not honored, but I don’t live there and they won’t listen to me.  They’ll listen to you, maybe, if you speak forcefully enough.

So you can’t complain.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag

News from South Carolina.

Some South Carolina Republican lawmakers are trying to get the decidedly conservative state to join 44 others that allow people to carry guns without concealing them.

South Carolina is one of only five states without so-called open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

A House panel voted 3-1 along party lines to advance a bill Wednesday that would allow people who already have concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns without hiding them under a coat or other clothing.

The proposal has a long way to go before becoming law. But like another bill proposed each session that would ban almost all abortions, the open-carry bill got a boost when Republicans gained five seats in the General Assembly in the 2020 elections.

Before voting Wednesday, the subcommittee listened to the public speak for about two hours, both in person and virtually. Some speakers said the proposal would make them feel safer protecting their family, while doctors said they feared more gun violence and domestic killings in a state that is often among the worst in the country.

Doctors.  Experts in public policy, or so someone thinks.  Yea, that blood running in the streets thing hasn’t materialized anywhere open carry is legal, and they know it.

Some gun owners said the concealed-weapons law is just fine as it is. But Charleston’s police chief asked lawmakers to focus instead on laws ensuring that violent criminals serve more time in prison.

Chief Luther Reynolds, testifying by video, told lawmakers open carry is a bad idea given the recent increase in protests over racial injustice, which often involve angry people pitted against each other in close quarters.

“Adding the open carry of firearms raises tension,” Reynolds said. “It makes it even harder for law enforcement officers to determine who has and who has not been committing a crime.”

Both local and state law enforcement officials have been a significant force in preventing the bill from passing in previous years.

About a half-dozen of the 28 people who testified Wednesday were in favor of the bill.

Mark Roote said he carried his gun openly in Pennsylvania, which doesn’t require a permit, before moving to South Carolina. He said as a disabled veteran, a gun helps him defend himself and his family even if he can no longer physically fight.

“Having a pistol concealed on my hip requires extra motion,” Roote said.

I certainly wouldn’t deny a disabled veteran the right to choose what best suits his self defense needs, but the real issue is whether it is right and just to dictate to a man how he carries his weapons.  The answer is no, whether he’s a disabled veteran or simply doesn’t like IWB carry.

At least one speaker Wednesday said the proposal doesn’t go far enough. Tommy Dimsdale, who identified himself as belonging to a group of tens of thousands of gun owners in the state called Palmetto Gun Rights, said South Carolina needs to join about 16 other states that allow legal gun owners to carry their weapons any way they wish, without a permit.

“We’re disappointed that lawmakers think this bill adequately addresses the concern of gun owners,” Dimsdale said.

None of the lawmakers spoke about the bill before voting Wednesday. In the past, some African American legislators have suggested the measure might pose a danger to Black gun owners, who they said could be mistaken for criminals by police or other armed civilians.

“My reality is I am Black, and because of the color of my skin, I am feared by some of those same gun owners who have no idea I could be a good guy with a gun,” speaker Butch Kennedy said. “Open carry to me means open season on the hundreds of thousands of people who look like me.”

Good for Tommy.  He pressed the issue to constitutional carry.  As for the dude who is black being afraid of open carry, the answer is simple.  Then don’t open carry.  Lot’s of people don’t like it, just like lots of people don’t like concealed carry.

Much of this group sounds like a bunch of New Yorkers.  I suspect most of the naysayers came from law enforcement, gun control advocate groups, Greenville, Columbia and Charleston.

Maybe New York could annex those three cities and spare South Carolina the trouble of coddling their emotions.