South Carolina Firearms Retention Bill
BY Herschel Smith
7 years, 6 months ago
The pro-gun bill, H. 3429 sponsored by Republican Rep. Alan Clemmons, was passed last week by the South Carolina Senate on a 35-3 vote. The House unanimously concurred, sending the measure to Gov. Henry McMaster for consideration.
If signed by the governor, the bill will allow those filing for bankruptcy to retain up to three firearms, so long as the total value of those firearms does not exceed $3,000.
Hannah Hill, a policy analyst for the South Carolina Policy Council, a conservative think tank, argued in The Nerve that guns should not be exempted from bankruptcy.
“There is no reason to exempt guns from bankruptcy except for the fact that they’re, you know, guns,” Hill said. “And here’s where Second Amendment rights activists often go off the rails: government may not stand in the way of the free exercise of a right, but it is under no obligation to ensure that you DO exercise that right or that you have the wherewithal to do so. If chronic laryngitis kept you from exercising your First Amendment rights, the government wouldn’t be obligated to pay for your treatment.”
The National Rifle Association has supported the bill all the way, with its Institute for Legislative Action describing the legislation as a measure meant to “recognize the fundamental right to personal protection by ensuring citizens who have fallen on hard times, financially, will not be required to sell all of their firearms maintained for personal protection in order to satisfy their debts.”
And here’s where Hill goes off the rails. Let’s suppose that a woman goes off the deep end, starts running around with another man and then files for divorce, essentially taking the man for just about all he’s worth and forcing him to start over in life in middle age.
Think it can’t happen? I know two men whom I love very deeply to whom that has happened. Bankruptcy was in store for one of them, and he had to liquidate his entire gun collection for her. This bill prevents that from happening.
But here is my disappointment. The South Carolina senate has proven that it can actually pass a pro-gun bill and send it to the governor’s desk. They can also do that with open carry and constitutional carry, but chose to lock it down in committee until it died for this session.
For this reason the S.C. state senators have a bulls eye painted on their backs. I won’t forget. Gun owners won’t forget. This bill is a weak installment for gun rights, and doesn’t even come close to making up for not passing constitutional carry. Weak tea won’t suffice, gentlemen.
|
|
On May 16, 2017 at 7:18 am, Nosmo said:
RE: SC Senators. They’ve got one more chance, next session. But……
We need the list of how they voted, on two issues: Constitutional Carry and the Gasoline Tax Increase (I’m betting there’s a great deal of overlap).
For those on both lists, we need to start cultivating replacement candidates now. The entire Senate is up for re-election in 2020, but today is when the work to replace the worst of the bunch begins so the prep work is complete when the Senate’s primary season gears up in early 2020.
The House recycles in 2018; some of those need to go, the work on that starts now, too. Some of those returning need to be selected and prepped to go after Senate seats in 2020.
If concerned citizens became engaged in a 50 mile radius from home, and that’s door knocking, passing out pamphlets, making phone calls, and perhaps, contributing a few dollars, we can fix this.
On May 16, 2017 at 1:27 pm, Archer said:
Hill: “And here’s where Second Amendment rights activists often go off the rails: government may not stand in the way of the free exercise of a right, but it is under no obligation to ensure that you DO exercise that right or that you have the wherewithal to do so.”
And nobody is proposing, let alone passing, a law that says the government MAKES someone exercise their 2A rights. This bill just says that a person filing for bankruptcy MAY, if they choose, exempt up to three firearms worth a total of up to $3,000 from their liquidable assets.
Even under existing bankruptcy rules, certain possessions are exempt. They have to leave you a bed, for example. A radio and/or television (some way to receive news). A phone (communication). A set of pots and pans, dishes, and silverware. A table and chair. There’s a list of things that are considered basic necessities, and they MUST let you keep at least one set of each. None of the things they leave have to be particularly nice, but they have to be serviceable. The bill just adds up to three firearms to the list of exempt items; just like nobody should be left without a bed to sleep on, nobody should be left without the means of home- and self-defense.
Oh, and: “If chronic laryngitis kept you from exercising your First Amendment rights, the government wouldn’t be obligated to pay for your treatment.”
Nice try. Yes, in fact, the government would, if you were low income, didn’t have private health insurance, and were enrolled under Medicaid. They would pay for your treatments and medication. It’s part of that whole “healthcare is a basic human right” thing “Progressives” like Hill have been pushing for the past several years.
But I suppose we should thank Hill for reminding us, once again, that “Progressives” can — and will — reverse course and trade in all their “gains” at the drop of a hat once the logical conclusions start to apply to a right they don’t like.
If it weren’t for double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all.