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.

Ammoland.

For the 2021 legislative session, Representative Bobby Cox (R-19) introduced House Bill 3094 to allow 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 do 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.

Yet another chance.  This has been on the agenda of some patriots for a long time in South Carolina, but alas, they have to fight three lobbies: (1) Columbia, S.C., (2) Greenville, S.C., and (3) Lower State (esp. Charleston, S.C.).

What will happen this time?  Here’s a prediction.  The cowards in South Carolina won’t even let it get to the floor for a vote.  If it does, the progressives have to self identify, and we couldn’t have that, could we?

West Virginia civil rights attorney.

Breaking news just this afternoon: the Walker case has been accepted for oral argument by the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, tentatively set for March 8 through March 12, 2021. This is the case with the video showing my client, Michael Walker, walking down the side of a public roadway in Putnam County, West Virginia, on his way coyote hunting. The video is at the link.

This is good news, being that we’re the ones appealing. Most appeals are decided with a written order and no oral argument. The ones with a good likelihood of success, or which are important issues of law, are generally set for oral argument.

I’ve been following this case for a while now, and the Fourth Circuit had better be consistent with their ruling in U.S. v. Nathaniel Black.  If they don’t, then they’re siding with a black man and leaving the white man at the mercy of tyrannical LEOs.

Yea, in Black, “Officer Strayer stated that although it is legal in North Carolina for a person to openly carry a firearm, in his years in the Eastway Division, he had never seen anyone do it.”

Well, officer Strayer is an idiot, poorly trained in the law, and lacks the temperament to be a LEO.  I live in N.C.  I see open carry all the time.  I do open carry.  I’ve seen kids open carry in uptown Charlotte before, walked right by them, nodded at them.  Strayer needs to get out more.

By the way, Mr. Walker was under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to provide the LEO with ID.  None.  He was under absolutely no legal or moral obligation to supply an answer for where he was going or what he was doing, or even why he was carrying a long gun.  None.

The only failure in this case was (a) the LEO who stopped him, and (b) the dispatcher who failed to fisk the caller to find out exactly what crime was being alleged.  They missed a great educational opportunity to teach the public the West Virginia law.

If they can’t do even that, then what good are they?  Why do they draw a paycheck?

Dean Weingarten.

Wisconsin Statute 948.60 regulates the possession of a dangerous weapon by persons under 18 years old. In paragraph (2) (a) it states:

(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Paragraph (3) lists exceptions. (3)(c) excludes most people who are under 18, except those in violation of 941.28 or 29.304 and 29.539.

(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.

Statute 948.60 only applies to a person under the age of 18 who are in violation of 941.28 or not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593.

What does it take to be in violation of 941.28? Here is the statute:

(2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

In the statute, short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles are those which require a special license under the National Firearms Act. In general, those are rifles with a barrel less than 16 inches in length or shotguns with a barrel less than 18 inches in length, or either which have an overall length of less than 26 inches.

The rifle carried by Kyle Rittenhouse, as an ordinary AR15 type and does not fall into those categories, so Kyle was not violating 941.28.

Was Kyle in violation of Wisconsin statute 29.304 and statute 29.539? These statutes deal with hunting regulation and with people under the age of 16 carrying rifles and shotguns. First, statute 29.304:

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

(b) Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. No person 14 years of age or older but under 16 years of age may have in his or her possession or control any firearm unless he or she:

Kyle is reported to be over 16 years old, so he was not violating statute 29.304.

How about statute 29.539?

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.

Kyle was not hunting, so statute 29.539 does not apply.

To sum up: Wisconsin statutes 940.60 only forbid people under the age of 18 from possessing or carrying dangerous weapons in very limited cases. If a person is 16 years of age or older, the statute only applies to rifles and shotguns which are covered under the National Firearms Act as short-barreled rifles or shotguns. People who are hunting have to comply with the hunting regulations, and there are general restrictions for people under the age of 16.

If only folks at Politifact and the rest of the MSM were that good at research and analysis.  They can only dream and wish.

News from Florida.

“This is an easy one for me” to support, Commissioner Kristine Isnardi said.

“I’m happy that it went through,” Lober said after the County Commission meeting, although he noted that it may be a challenge to get an open-carry bill approved by the Florida Legislature in the form he wants.

Commission Vice Chair Rita Pritchett voted against Lober’s resolution.

Pritchett said she encourages people to get concealed weapons permits and carry their weapons, and believes 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds “should have complete adult rights.”

But Pritchett said she has qualms about having open-carry in Florida.

“I do believe that people should carry guns,” Pritchett said. “I’m just struggling right now with where I’m landing on open-carry.”

[ … ]

Three states (California, Florida and Illinois) and the District of Columbia generally prohibit people from openly carrying firearms in public. Two states (New York and South Carolina) prohibit openly carrying handguns, but not long guns. And another three states (Massachusetts, Minnesota and New Jersey) prohibit openly carrying long guns, but not handguns.

[ … ]

Indialantic resident Fred Rotz, who has a concealed weapon permit, said he is not against guns, but strongly objects to open-carry, saying it’s “provocative and unnecessary and unproductive.”

What a shame that South Carolina gets brought up again as being aligned with New York in disallowing open carry.  What an embarrassment to the Palmetto state.  Say, why doesn’t Palmetto State Armory get involved in the politics behind this?  They have substantial pull in S.C., and the resources to effect change.  So does FN, right down the road from PSA in Columbia.

This is weak tea.  All the county is doing is suggesting a new state law.  It would have been better for this county to have gotten into a knock-down drag-out fight with the state over this.  At least it would show Florida LEOs and pols how stupid they have been.

Ridiculous news.

Bottoms explained that the shooting violence is “happening across the country” and is a combination of a “lack of access to healthcare,” unemployment, coronavirus and injustices seen across the country. She then added that Georgia is an “open carry state,” which allows people to “walk down the streets with assault weapons” without being stopped for probable cause.

“What’s happening in Atlanta is what’s happening across the country. There is a combination of things,” Bottoms replied. “There are … these systemic issues, including lack of access to healthcare, including people being unemployed, people are dying of COVID-19. We witness the injustices that have happened in front of our eyes, and it’s boiling over into our streets. It’s happening in Atlanta. It’s happening across the country.”

“The irony of it is that our overall crime rate is down by 18%. But in Georgia, an open carry state, people are allowed to walk down the streets with assault weapons and we don’t have probable cause to stop them,” she continued. “You don’t get to pick and choose which demographic you get to stop and question as to why they are walking in our streets with open weapons. It is an issue in Atlanta. It’s an issue in other cities across this nation, and it is one that we take very seriously.

Shut up, she explained.

So no I won’t shut up.  And I’ll explain a few things.  Braselton, Ga., has a violent crime rate of 0.09 per year per 1000 residents.  And yet open carry is legal in Braselton just like it is in Atlanta.

The Atlanta crime rate, on the other hand, is 7.69 per 1000.  So now that I’ve explained this, I’ll turn it back over to idiot mayor Bottoms.

Take it away.  Now explain how open carry is responsible for crime in Atlanta.  Go ahead.

Dean Weingarten writing at Ammoland.

I open carry in Wisconsin on a very regular basis, rarely do I have someone say anything to me about it, but every now and then…

Last fall I was standing in line to pay for a coffee at our local Kwik Trip convenience store. I was openly carrying my Glock 22. I noticed a man look at me and then go about his business. As I went out to my truck he came outside.

He said, “sir, is it legal to carry a pistol like that in public?”

I replied yes it is, both our American constitution, as well as our Wisconsin constitution, protect the right to keep and carry arms.

“He then said oh, you have a permit to carry.”

I replied, no permit is required to carry openly in the State of Wisconsin.

This man was both shocked and excited. He thought he must have a permit to carry, and confided that he was wanting to do that, but was afraid the process would be long and expensive. I informed him it is not; while waiting, he should study up on our gun laws and carry. He was very thankful.

Several weeks ago I walked into an Aldis grocery store. Several people took note I was openly carrying, but did not say anything.

As I walked out of the store, a car was approaching. I waited for it to pass and then proceeded to cross the parking lot.

The driver of the vehicle got out of his car and crossed the parking lot and said, “sir, I want to thank you.”

I asked him “What for?”

He replied, “I want to thank you for carrying your sidearm in plain view. It does my heart good when I see people doing that. I feel safe and comforted in knowing if a wacko walks into an establishment with malicious intent, and sees someone who is armed, most likely he will change his mind, as he is looking to hurt, not be shot.  Thank you for using your rights.”

As we talked he thanked me again for open carrying and said that I had given that push he needed to start carrying himself. I told him, more people need to be using their liberty. Liberty unclaimed, unused, is easier to lose.

Today, a buddy and I walked into Wal-Mart.

I go into Wal-Mart several times a week open carrying.

I have never had anyone say anything to me, but today was different. I was carrying my Glock 22. Today was a two mag day.

My buddy was carrying his nickle plated .45 Long Colt on a western style gun belt. It is a very flashy pistol.

We did our shopping. Upon entering the checkout line, a look of panic appeared on the face of a cashier standing near by.  She called the manager.

As I’ve said before, I open carry “For the peace, good and dignity of the country and the welfare of its people.”  I’ve also said that “There is no prima facie reason that open carry cannot be legitimately for the reason of making a statement or for education purposes.”

Honor both the first and second amendments, and open carry when you can.

Report from South Carolina.

“We’re at a standstill both with gun reform and gun expansion,” Charleston Democratic Sen. Marlon Kimpson said this week. “I don’t think you’ll see any of those bills come to the floor this year and, if they do, it will be purely for political posturing.”

Senate Bill 139, which  would allow anyone to carry a weapon without a permit, is on the Senate calendar for second reading, but falls further behind every day on the chamber’s contested slate. Carrying weapons without a permit is known by supporters as “constitutional carry.”

But most bills on either side of the issue remain without hearings in committees. Kimpson is a sponsor of Senate Bill 731, which would expand background checks, also known as closing the Charleston loophole. The bill has been pushed every year since a white supremacist slayed nine black church goers in Charleston in 2015. It would extend the wait time for FBI background checks from three days to five days in South Carolina.  It is stuck without a hearing in the Judiciary Committee.

A guy by the name of Peter Zalka is at the root of trouble-making on this.  Listen to his reasons, and make sure to notice the headline (“Pro-Second Amendment Group Concerned Over ‘Open Carry’ Bills).

“Passage of this bill will allow anyone to openly carry a revolver or semi-automatic handgun in any public establishment such as a grocery store, movie theater, or Walmart. Spending legislative time and effort to pass any laws that would make legal the open carry of handguns (with or without a permit) makes South Carolina no safer at best, with significant negative effects on our communities a given.”

Zalka called the proposed legislation a threat to public safety and public health.

“The world would look like a different place,” he said. “Imagine being in Charleston at a park or Spoleto, something like that, and all around us there are folks wearing their guns on their hip. They have no training, no permit, no understanding of South Carolina laws.”

Zalka said he spent the day hand-delivering letters of opposition to lawmakers, including letters from physicians, law enforcement, and other nonprofit organizations.

[ … ]

Groups like South Carolina Carry feel the opposition is simply fearmongering.

“We are surrounded by open carry states. North Carolina has open carry, Georgia has open carry, Tennessee has open carry,” said Dan Roberts, Outreach Director for South Carolina Carry. “They all have vibrant tourism industries and no problem with people being terrified at the sight of a firearm. So, is South Carolina somehow special? It’s ridiculous.”

He had a moment of truth there.  This is all about the effete gentry class in Charleston wanting to make sure their tourism isn’t affected.

But the truth is also told by South Carolina Carry.  ““We are surrounded by open carry states. North Carolina has open carry, Georgia has open carry, Tennessee has open carry,” said Dan Roberts, Outreach Director for South Carolina Carry. “They all have vibrant tourism industries and no problem with people being terrified at the sight of a firearm.”

There won’t be blood running in the streets, and that lie was told in Texas, Oklahoma and everywhere open carry has been legalized.  It’s been debunked, so let that one go, controllers.

So if you’re a South Carolina reader, have you joined South Carolina Carry?  Are you active in this fight?  The enemy sure is.  Because if you’re not active, you have no right to complain when you’re compared to California, Hawaii and New York.

The traitor responsible for the continued violations of the constitution of the U.S. and of Texas law is none other than a sworn defender of the same, Olmos police chief Rene Valenciano.  He is an awful person who cares not the least about lying and abandoning his oath.

So the claims on their web site are all lies.  He and his traitor officers have no intention of obeying Texas law, in which open carry is legal.  This also raises yet another question: where the hell is the Texas attorney general?  A police chief is violating Texas law and infringing on constitutionally protected rights.  Where is the Texas attorney general on this?  Missing in action?

Police chief Rene Valenciano’s email address is: policechief@olmospark.org.  Feel free to tell him he’s a traitor.  The city manager is Celia DeLeon, and her email address is: citymanager@olmospark.org.  Is she a coward?  Just why hasn’t she shut down Valenciano’s traitorous henchmen yet?  Is she waiting for a massive lawsuit that bankrupts the city?

By the way, police chief.  That fat boy officer in the video, yea, him.  Tell him to go on a diet, put on a backpack, and hit the trails.

And as for my readers in Texas (I know I have a lot of them), you know what to do next.

Opinion.

I am asking everyone to consider the folly of passing State Law S-139 (Open Carry).

As a gun owner, concealed carry weapons permit holder and a member at a local shooting range. I applaud our state’s concealed carry permitting program and my fellow South Carolinians who have taken advantage of it. It is comforting to know that so many of our residents are responsible and committed gun owners.

The proposed changes to S 139 (with or without a permit) do nothing to ensure gun rights. In fact, they would do more to erode the rights of the majority of our population who do not choose to arm themselves every time they leave home. Instead, they would become vulnerable to a minority of individuals who, for reasons of their own, feel they must display their power on their hip.

Perhaps the armed stranger has had hours of classroom and range time … perhaps not. How would we know?

I have written before that “I don’t want an amateur with a gun anywhere near me. I certainly don’t want to be one.” By passing constitutional carry/open carry, we are not serving our citizens. In fact, it is just the opposite. We allow a portion of our population to endanger themselves and their neighbors.

If we have learned anything from the opioid epidemic, it is that a large number of people simply cannot be trusted to behave. We fail this population and their victims by promoting open carry and the display of firearms with or without a permit.

We have an opportunity in South Carolina to set the bar for gun rights, gun safety and responsible stewardship of the Second Amendment. With or without a permit, constitutional/open carry accomplishes none of this.

Bill Ware, Spartanburg

Well Bill, I think you have psychological problems.

First, as to your remark “Perhaps the armed stranger has had hours of classroom and range time … perhaps not. How would we know?,” you’ve neglected to address the very issue that defeats your argument.  Concealed carry, which you allege to support.

You also don’t know whether a person is carrying concealed, you see?  You’ve stated that the only problem as you see it is that when someone hides a weapon, you don’t have to think about the fact that someone could intend to bring your harm, but when they openly carry, you must think about that fact.

This is entirely a mental problem with you, you see?  This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question can someone be safe with a firearm, can someone bring you harm, can someone be trusted.  It has only to do with your mental state.  I refuse to be part of your twisted mental world where hiding problems makes them go away.  I hope South Carolina residents see this the way I do.

Second, as to your statement that “a large number of people simply cannot be trusted to behave,” you don’t know that.  You just made it up.  You’re in the same category of the chicken little naysayers in Texas, Oklahoma and elsewhere who said “There will be blood running in the streets” if this law passes.

And none of that happened.  In fact, I live in an open carry state, and there isn’t blood running in the streets.  So you see, you made a problem out of something that isn’t.  You fabricated a falsehood.

Finally, since the RKBA is a God-given right, I’m not beholden to your views of making the world a better place for you and other collectivists.  That’s not the purpose of the second amendment.  The second amendment is a right, not a license for you to try to control other people.

You have things exactly backwards.