News.

But maybe they stalled it the first time just long enough to prevent the full committee from hearing and passing it, and then the senate.  This was a subcommittee.

What a ridiculous protocol.  The bill could have just been sent to the floor of the senate when passed by the House.  But that would have given South Carolina open carry, and that’s what they don’t want South Carolinians to have.

So they got what they were after.  They played politics with God-given rights.

Whew!

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.

Shooting Illustrated.

Tennessee joined 19 other states that allow constitutional carry when Gov. Bill Lee signed Senate Bill 765/House Bill 786 into law earlier this month. The measure takes effect July 1, applies to law-abiding citizens 20 and older, and a provision includes those serving in the military who are 18 to 20 years of age.

“This bill is a great step forward in the advancement of self-defense rights and Second Amendment freedoms for all Tennessee gun owners,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director Jason Ouimet. “It simply means law-abiding Tennessean’s no longer have to pay a tax to exercise the right of self-protection.”

The number of states joining those with constitutional carry has grown quickly in 2021. On Feb. 18 Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 102 into law, allowing constitutional carry for state residents. Iowa became the 19th state to enroll on April 2. The measures become effective June 1 and July 1, respectively.

The other 17 states with constitutional carry laws are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah (effective May 5), Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The merits of similar or nearly identical measures are currently being considered by a number of other state legislatures. One passed muster in a Louisiana Senate committee and is headed for debate on the body’s main floor. Texas lawmakers are also considering a permitless carry provision and South Carolina’s House recently approved a constitutional carry measure. Others are in the works across the nation.

What?  And there isn’t blood running in the streets as the Karen’s predicted?

Shooting Illustrated.

Yea, if you pop my range bag open you’ll find a $4000 Wilson Combat pistol.

No, not really.  You’ll find lots of tools, including hex-head wrenches of all sizes, rags (both clean and dirty), clothespins, oil, cleaning supplies, bore/barrel mops, patches, hearing protection of all kinds, loose rounds, spent cases, sand and dirt, dead bugs, towels, uncleaned lead powder, maybe a scope or a scope mount, etc., etc., and probably no replacement batteries for hearing protection or scopes.

All thrown in together in the most unorganized way possible.  In a different world – but certainly feasible in terms of possible world metaphysics if I was just more disciplined – it would be clean, organized, fully stocked with everything, and able to be used by anyone.

It’s not any of those things.  It is what it is, and we are who we are.  If I didn’t have a day job I could do a lot of other things.

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?

PJM.

On Monday, the Supreme Court decided to take up its first Second Amendment case in more than ten years.

The Court decided to take up the case New York State Rifle et. al. v. Corlett, focusing on the question of “Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for licenses to carry firearms outside their homes in New York, SCOTUS blog reported. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had “failed to show ‘proper cause’ to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished them from the general public.”

This has a chance of doing good for folks in states like Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and Hawaii.

If decided wrongly, this also has massive implications for the rest of America.  Or if weak like the Heller decision, it has the chance to encode and enshrine state power, and to be a catalyst for heavy social unrest and massive noncompliance.

If they plan on a weak or wrongly decided opinion, I would have preferred they just not take up the case at all.

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.

Bearing Arms.

A bill introduced in South Carolina is both common sense and closes a seriously dangerous loop in their law. H 3432 will give much needed protections to those that do opt to carry a firearm for self-defense. From the summary of the bill we have the following:

Immunity from prosecution and civil action for stand your ground

A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-11-440 AND 16-11-450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON (STAND YOUR GROUND), BOTH SO AS TO INCLUDE DISPLAYING DEADLY FORCE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTES.

Brandishing a firearm can come with serious penalties. But what happens when someone is being attacked, they deploy their firearm, and then the attacker turns and runs away? Well, in my book and anyone that has any wits about them would chalk this one up to a big win.

I agree, and the notion that law enforcement would arrest and charge someone with brandishing is ridiculous if that action stopped an attacker.  But that would require intelligence by LEOs, and moral scruples by prosecuting attorneys, neither of which is realistic.

This is a worthy bill, but if it hasn’t already been heard in committee and passed on, it’s unlikely to get a vote this session.