South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson’s Hypocritical Position On Gun Rights
BY Herschel Smith
6 years, 12 months ago
South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson on Tuesday urged Congress to pass legislation that would make states recognize one another’s concealed weapon permits, arguing every citizen’s right to self-defense is at risk without it.
With Wilson’s signature, South Carolina signed onto a letter with four other states — Missouri, Alabama, Louisiana, and Montana — in asking Congress to pass either the U.S. Senate’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017 or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, a House bill.
The bills would require states to recognize the permits of other states, including ones with less-stringent laws.
“States should not be able to deny citizens of other states the basic constitutional right to self-defense,” Wilson said in a statement. “South Carolinians who have gone through the process of getting concealed weapon permits shouldn’t have to worry about whether they can protect themselves and their families when they travel in other states.”
U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-Seneca, is among the Senate bill’s 38 co-sponsors. The House bill is backed by the National Rifle Association. All six of South Carolina’s Republican congressional representatives are among the House bill’s 213 cosponsors.
Well isn’t this just rich? Ms. Lindsey Graham wants to glom onto a gun rights issue. As for Wilson’s position, I didn’t hear him speak up when open carry was before the S.C. legislature. Let me say that again and add a little to it. If you say nothing when open carry rights come up in the state house and senate, you have no right to open your mouth when some other state doesn’t like your version of infringement.
An infringement is an infringement is an infringement. They’re all the same to me.
And Wilson is a hypocrite.
On November 27, 2017 at 7:01 am, Fred said:
National Reciprocity legislation is like the Second Amendment only this time they will really double dog dare mean it? National Reciprocity is federal gun control so why wouldn’t the traitor Graham support it.
If the federal government was serious about the 2A, states attorneys general and governors and legislatures and judges would be up on federal civil rights violations charges.
On November 27, 2017 at 3:02 pm, Michael said:
Even if the goal of national reciprocity is laudable (which I believe it is), having the Federal Government involved in any way, shape, or form is a very bad idea.
On November 27, 2017 at 5:20 pm, Pat Hines said:
I don’t support national gun control because it abrogates state power, granting it to the US government.
If, in the future, the US government elects to curb concealed carry, national concealed carry legislation will be the basis for that.
On November 27, 2017 at 5:29 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@Pat,
I understand and agree. That’s beside the point. The point is your hypocrite AG who, along with the other communists in S.C., don’t support open carry.
On November 27, 2017 at 10:33 pm, Ed said:
I agree with Fred.
See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242
18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law:
“Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.”
So, what right is deprived by government authorities – local, state and Federal? See the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Any scheme of firearm licensing or prohibition of possession of arms meets the definition of “infringement”.
I also agree with a comment by doncline on November 18, 2014 1:32 PM to http://krisannehall.com/2nd-amendment-right
“One might also ask, where does the U.S. Constitution delegate the authority to the U.S. government to license firearm dealers? Where does the U.S. Constitution delegate the authority to the U.S. government to mandate an interrogation under penalty of perjury as a precondition to issuing or denying permission to purchase a firearm, or conduct a NICS check of a purchaser’s papers and effects, all in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, Tenth Amendments, and in a priori restraint of the Second Amendment? Can you say “rogue occupation government?”