Archive for the 'Second Amendment' Category

News from South Carolina.

Gun owners permitted to carry concealed weapons in the state of South Carolina are soon likely to join residents in 45 other states who can carry their hand guns openly in public — a proposal that has frustrated gun-control advocates, doctors and top law enforcement leaders but was a resounding win for many Republican lawmakers.

With three days left on the legislative calendar, the Senate voted 28-16 mostly down party lines after a more than 12-hour debate to pass H. 3094, a House-sponsored bill that would allow only concealed weapons permit holders the right to carry their hand gun in the open.

Charleston Sen. Sandy Senn was the lone Republican to vote against the legislation.

The Republican-controlled Senate made a handful of changes to the bill. They ranged from removing the $50 cost of the permit application fee, to limiting the federal government’s intervention and to requiring clerks to report pertinent information to the State Law Enforcement Division within five, not 30, days that would prohibit someone from buying or owning a gun.

But senators also rejected dozens of amendments that included a Republican-pushed attempt to expand the measure by eliminating the law’s existing permit and background check requirement entirely, and also Democrat-led efforts to enhance background checks.

“I’d be lying to you if I said I wasn’t a little bit disappointed, but I actually, I have absolutely no regrets,” said state Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, who pushed but lost 25-21 his effort to remove the permit requirement. “I won’t give up advocating for it. I was so close.”
Obviously, Martin said, “the Senate’s not ready for it yet.”

The bill goes back to the House, likely to reject the changes, triggering a six-member joint panel to hammer out differences.

Congratulations to senators Massey and Martin.  Shane Massey was the S.C. senator who successfully got the bill pulled from the SC senate judiciary committee where they intended to stall it until dead this calendar year, aided by turncoat SC senator Luke Rankin.

Actually, the attempt to remove the permitting requirement entirely, i.e., constitutional carry, was opposed by Shane Massey.  I don’t know if the opposition was real, or if the attempt to amend the bill to remove permitting would have been a poison pill for the bill, losing S.C. senators who would have otherwise been in favor of open carry.  But at least Mr. Massey did his part to strip the bill from the hands of Mr. Rankin, who needs to be primaried and thrown from office.

Also to senator Martin, who led a valiant effort for constitutional carry this term.  As you might expect, I approve of his goals and I hope for the best during the next legislative season.

As I observed before, “The ninnies, frightened and the tepid must see for themselves when the state is let out of its cage that the sky doesn’t fall like law enforcement and “The Karens” said it would.  They’re like a frightened, psychologically stunted animal who has been caged its entire life, afraid to leave the confines of its own imprisonment.”

When the world doesn’t end and blood doesn’t run in the streets as predicted by law enforcement and “Karens against Everything,” the time will be ripe for this again soon.

I listened to much of the debate today.  Most of it was ridiculous.  The ninnies tried everything in the book, from stalling tactics to endless yapping, to poison pill amendments.  One awful senator, an obvious law enforcement sycophant, worked hard for an amendment that would have had LEOs confiscating weapons in any encounter for the sake of “officer safety.”

So he would have had men handling others’ weapons, a stupid, awful, terrible idea.  I’ve discussed this before.  Weapons might be modified, the officer may never have seen that particular weapon before, rounds might be chambered, or they might not be, safeties might be engaged, or they might not be, hammers may be cocked, they may not be, striker fired pistols may be half cocked, or they might not be, trigger jobs may have lightened the pull, or maybe not, the pistol might be single action, or it might be SA/DA, guns could drop if they’re handled (causing people to try to catch them), and all manner of NDs can occur.  Some holsters are retention, others not, and on and on the variations could go.

It is a profoundly, terribly, incredibly stupid thing to begin handling weapons just because someone likes authority, walks up and demands it.  It’s a great thing that amendment was defeated.

Now.  It’s important not to let up.  First, the little differences between the House and Senate versions must be hammered out, and that, quickly so.  Then finally, the governor’s office must be flooded with mail, email and phone calls to ensure he keeps his word and signs the bills into law.

This has been a long slog, but it’s not over just yet.

Then next session we’ll focus on constitutional carry.

Listening while I work.

This is out of control.  They have no control over what’s going on.  There are delays, discussions on impertinent issues, bringing things up that are not germane, attempts to delay, long winded yapping and yapping, more delays, attempts to amend, more attempts to amend, and on and on and on.

What a bunch of yappy red neck pols.  The senator from Charleston is the absolute worst, and no one will shut him up.  He can barely speak comprehensible English.  He’s just droning on and on and on and on, and my prediction is that the parliamentary rulings will allow this bill to die due to complete incompetence.

Do they not follow Robert’s Rules of Order?  Can no one shut all of this up?  Can no one “call the question?”

UPDATE: Unbelievable.  One senator is trying to amend the bill to force open carriers to “wear some sort of identification to let law enforcement know they are legally openly carrying.”

Wear the scarlet letter, peasant!  What a bunch of rednecks.

UPDATE #2: Now one senator is arguing that this is going to be Tombstone, and people should even refrain from answering knocks in the middle of the night while carrying a weapon because it might put law enforcement ill at ease.  Seriously.  Bad things are going to happen.  Awful things.  The sky is falling.  The boogey man is coming for us.  Run, hide.  The boogey man is coming!!!!

It’s going to be the wild west.  Blood running in the streets.  Blue lives matter.  Gore everywhere.

This is almost too hard for me.  I’m doing this so you don’t have to.

UPDATE #3: Senator offers up an amendment to allow open carry of weapons inside the chambers of the S.C. senate.  I’m certain this was offered up as a poison pill.  While I would be in favor of this amendment, I would probably vote against it because they just want to kill the bill.  The amendment fails.

They’re pulling every trick in the book.  I’m sure they’ve been schooled by “Moms against everything.”

UPDATE #4: Amendment to expand the bill to include open carry allowed in all state buildings, including county and city owned buildings (he’s the first senator I’ve heard at the podium who can actually speak English).  One senator objects that people can carry guns on the beach.  We all know that this is pointing towards businessmen worried about Myrtle Beach tourism and the objections of “The Karens.”

UPDATE #5: Good grief.  Senator is lobbying for an amendment for LEOs to temporarily confiscate firearms.  Good grief.  LEOs should never touch another man’s weapon.  This is stupid.

UPDATE #6: They’re making all the same mistakes that Texas did, where LEOs will be confiscating weapons until permits have been shown.  Handling of weapons causes NDs.  Stupid.

News from S.C.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCSC/AP) – State lawmakers are expected to hold a final vote Thursday on a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to openly carry their guns.

So it comes down to a vote today.  At this point I’m not sure what else can be done.  Calls to senate aids might still help if you’re so inclined.

News.

South Carolina senators debating a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns on Wednesday rejected an attempt to get rid of the requirement for the permits.

Senators voted 25-21 against the so-called constitutional carry amendment after several hours of debate.

It would have allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it anywhere the weapons are legally allowed.

The Senate was on its second day of debate on a gun bill that Republicans rapidly brought to the Senate floor. The bill would allow anyone who passes the background check and a roughly eight-hour course to get a South Carolina concealed weapons permit to carry their pistol in the open.

Senators adjourned about 7:15 p.m. Wednesday and said they expected a final vote on the bill after several hours of debate Thursday.

Well I could be disappointed in Shane Massey, and it was a valiant effort on the part of the 21 who voted in favor of the amendment.  But as for disappointed, maybe not.

Maybe Shane knows something we don’t.  Perhaps he knows that this was a poison pill, one that would doom open carry from passing because he knows whether they have the votes.

If that’s the case, then let’s move on.  As I’ve said before, let’s be incrementalists.  Open carry this year, constitutional carry next year.

The ninnies, frightened and the tepid must see for themselves when the state is let out of its cage that the sky doesn’t fall like law enforcement and “The Karens” said it would.

They’re like a frightened, psychologically stunted animal who has been caged its entire life, afraid to leave the confines of its own imprisonment.

Let’s be smart about this.  Move on.

We’re watching.

Open carry.  Let’s get it done guys.  Proceed with intentionality and purpose.

Move it.

Via WiscoDave, this wonderful account serves as an example for us all.  It mirrors what I’ve observed elsewhere.

In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a “competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;” one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection for each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected “by divers persones,” a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the “trayned hand” was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks. They were also commanded to wear armor, which consisted of “coats basted with cotton-wool, and thus made defensive against Indian arrows.” In 1650 so much dread and fear were felt of Sunday attacks from the red men that the Sabbath-Day guard was doubled in number. In 1692, the Connecticut Legislature ordered one fifth of the soldiers in each town to come armed to each meeting, and that nowhere should be present as a guard at time of public worship fewer than eight soldiers and a sergeant. In Hadley the guard was allowed annually from the public treasury a pound of lead and a pound of powder to each soldier.

No details that could add to safety on the Sabbath were forgotten or overlooked by the New Haven church; bullets were made common currency at the value of a farthing, in order that they might be plentiful and in every one’s possession; the colonists were enjoined to determine in advance what to do with the women and children in case of attack, “that they do not hang about them and hinder them;” the men were ordered to bring at least six charges of powder and shot to meeting; the farmers were forbidden to “leave more arms at home than men to use them;” the half-pikes were to be headed and the whole ones mended, and the swords “and all piercing weapons furbished up and dressed;” wood was to be placed in the watch-house; it was ordered that the “door of the meeting-house next the soldiers’ seat be kept clear from women and children sitting there, that if there be occasion for the soldiers to go suddenly forth, they may have free passage.” The soldiers sat on either side of the main door, a sentinel was stationed in the meeting-house turret, and armed watchers paced the streets; three cannon were mounted by the side of this “church militant,” which must strongly have resembled a garrison.

[ … ]

… a community that always began and ended the military exercises on “training day” with solemn prayer and psalm-singing; and that used the army and encouraged a true soldier-like spirit not chiefly as aids in war, but to help to conquer and destroy the adversaries of truth, and to “achieve greater matters by this little handful of men than the world is aware of.”

The Salem sentinels wore doubtless some of the good English armor owned by the town,–corselets to cover the body; gorgets to guard the throat; tasses to protect the thighs; all varnished black, and costing each suit “twenty-four shillings a peece.” The sentry also wore a bandileer, a large “neat’s leather” belt thrown over the right shoulder, and hanging down under the left arm. This bandileer sustained twelve boxes of cartridges, and a well-filled bullet-bag. Each man bore either a “bastard musket with a snaphance,” a “long fowling-piece with musket bore,” a “full musket,” a “barrell with a match-cock,” or perhaps (for they were purchased by the town) a leather gun (though these leather guns may have been cannon). Other weapons there were to choose from, mysterious in name, “sakers, minions, ffaulcons, rabinets, murthers (or murderers, as they were sometimes appropriately called) chambers, harque-busses, carbins,”–all these and many other death-dealing machines did our forefathers bring and import from their war-loving fatherland to assist them in establishing God’s Word, and exterminating the Indians, but not always, alas! to aid them in converting those poor heathen.

The armed Salem watcher, besides his firearms and ammunition, had attached to his wrist by a cord a gun-rest, or gun-fork, which he placed upon the ground when he wished to fire his musket, and upon which that constitutional kicker rested when touched off. He also carried a sword and sometimes a pike, and thus heavily burdened with multitudinous arms and cumbersome armor, could never have run after or from an Indian with much agility or celerity; though he could stand at the church-door with his leather gun,–an awe-inspiring figure,–and he could shoot with his “harquebuss,” or “carbin,” as we well know.

No picture here of Jesus as a Bohemian, peacenik flower child.  No, this is a picture of a church militant.

Men ready to protect themselves, their centers of worship, and the families.

Take note that not only did men go about armed (I’ve always claimed that true gentlemen don’t hide their weapons, that’s for criminals), but they took them to the place their families are most vulnerable.

That’s where they are sitting in one place with their attention focused on something other than threats, ingress and egress, and inside a confined space.  When vulnerable, men didn’t cower and call someone else to protect them, or “run, hide and fight.”**  They met this God-given duty themselves.

Because liberty and responsibility.  That’s why.

** The most recent video I’ve seen of run, hide and fight has men throwing potted plants at armed assailants after cowering behind doors and in dark rooms, a picture of effeminate cowardice.

Editorial from low state South Carolina where the southern liberals live.

There’s probably nothing we can say at this point to convince S.C. senators who don’t already realize that it’s a bad idea to let concealed-weapon carriers start carrying their guns on their hips.

After all, they’ve heard all the arguments against it, and still they voted more than 2-to-1 last week to bypass committee and put a House-passed open-carry bill at the top of their agenda for debate as early as Tuesday.

They’ve heard from people who say they would feel threatened if they encountered someone wearing a gun, even if that person does nothing (other than wearing the gun) to threaten them. And from those who argued that having those guns visible puts everybody on edge, increasing the risk that disagreements will escalate into deadly violence.

They’ve heard from police who warn that it’ll be even tougher to distinguish the bad guys from the good guns in active-shooter situations. And more commonly, they’ll be placed in a legally precarious situation when citizens call to complain about someone walking around their neighborhood with a holstered gun — because that’s not a crime, and legally speaking, they have no more justification for questioning someone walking down the street with a gun than someone walking down the street without a gun. (Retired SLED Chief Robert Stewart warned that the bill could get a lot of permit holders killed, because carrying a handgun openly would make them target No. 1 if they were present when a crime was being committed.)

Read the rest.  A veritable catalog of stupidity.  None of that has ever happened in open carry states.  Ask me how I know.

Feel threatened.  As if rights are subject to how it makes people feel when they are exercised, a standard never applied to street preachers.

Tough on cops.  As if cops won’t be able to tell perpetrators from people defending themselves, or can’t slow down enough to understand what and who they’re shooting at.

Target #1.  Oooo … such dramatic language.  “Get a lot of permit holders killed.”  Not one, not a few, but a LOT.  Get a LOT of permit holders killed.  That’s what he said.  Those are his words, not mine.  I just want to make sure you aren’t ascribing his stupid words to me.  Besides, whether a man wishes to openly carry and be target #1 is his own business, not yours.  Because freedom.  This bill doesn’t force anyone to do anything he doesn’t choose to.

But you know the general gist of their position when you read the caption under the top photo: “No one has presented a good reason to allow anyone other than police to carry guns openly.”

Because cops, and special rights, and you’re not special, you see.

To which I respond, “No one has presented a good reason to allow you to tell me what to do.”

So we discussed the awful Luke Rankin, head of the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee, and how the committee managed to stall open carry just long enough that it wouldn’t be heard this year.

But there is news from S.C.

A state Senate often resistant to loosening South Carolina’s gun regulations could next week pass legislation that would further expand those rules by allowing legal gun owners to carry their weapon out in the open.

In a 3-2 vote down party lines Thursday morning, a Senate Judiciary Committee panel advanced a House-sponsored bill — H. 3904 — that would still restrict where someone could carry their gun, but allow permitted gun owners with the required training to carry their gun out in the open in the public if they so choose.

But hours later, and minutes before the Senate adjourned for the week, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey successfully pulled the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, placing the bill on the chamber’s priority list when senators return Tuesday.

The Legislature only has six days left on its regular work calendar, and Republicans have called for the measure to be a priority before the legislative session ends.

“That’s the only way we’re going to have an opportunity to have a full debate on it before the session ends is to do that,” said Massey, who chairs the Senate Rules Committee. “There’s significant interest among our caucus to try to move forward with it, so we made it an issue that we want to try and address this year.”

So after the “panel” heard it (a subcommittee of the full committee, no, I’m not making this up) and then sent it on to the full committee, who doubtless would have further stalled it, Shane Massey apparently got sick of it and pulled the bill from the committee.

There must be some thick, heavy politics going on in South Carolina.

From here we hope this gets a vote.  The real name taking and vote counting starts.  Every word will be recorded, every vote tallied, and the record permanent.

Take care what you do, gentlemen.  We’re watching you.

Epoch Times.

A group of Senate Republicans, led by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), have introduced a bill that would allow individuals with concealed carry privileges in their home state to exercise those rights in any other state with concealed carry laws.

“This bill focuses on two of our country’s most fundamental constitutional protections—the Second Amendment’s right of citizens to keep and bear arms and the Tenth Amendment’s right of states to make laws best-suited for their residents,” Cornyn said in a statement. “I look forward to working with my colleagues to advance this important legislation for law-abiding gun owners nationwide.”

Says the man who, along with Lindsey Graham and Rubio is pushing federal red flag laws.  No thanks Senator quisling.  I’ll do without your bill.

Besides, if you really cared, you’d make it applicable to more than just “any other state with concealed carry laws.”  And I have no desire to get on any federal list of persons with permits.

This is pandering to idiots.  Don’t be one.  Just say no to this bill.

Ammoland.

This correspondent has been involved in the struggle to restore Second Amendment rights for more than 50 years. For much of that period, many of those who wanted the Second Amendment to be honored in the United States asked a simple question:

Why doesn’t the NRA[or any other pro 2A group] bring a case to the Supreme Court?

[ … ]

So our example group, the NRA, would not bring a case, because the courts had made clear they would not enforce the Constitution. The courts routinely chipped away at Constitutional checks and balances, including the Second Amendment, for decades after the revolution in the courts brought about by Progressives.

The Heller case was not brought by the NRA. It was brought by Robert A. Levy of the Cato Institute, a Libertarian think-tank. They believed the time was finally ripe for a case.

[ … ]

President Reagan was able to place Justice Scalia, an originalist, to the Supreme Court in 1986, and wishy-washy Kennedy in 1988. President G.W. Bush appointed the stalwart Thomas in 1991. Chief Justice Roberts, who claims to be an originalist, was appointed in 2005.  Justice Alito, an originalist, was appointed in 2006. Those five were just enough to overturn the ban on the ownership of handguns in the District of Columbia in D.C. vs Heller in 2008.  The decision was severely restricted by the insistence of including limitations on the Second Amendment, to obtain the vote of Justice Kennedy, as engineered by Justice Stevens.

From the abajournal.com:

Stevens previously has called for repeal of the Second Amendment or a clarification saying it applies only to people serving in militias.

In the book, Stevens said he had hoped to persuade Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas to agree with him that the amendment was intended to prevent the disarmament of state militias. He circulated his dissent emphasizing historical texts supporting his view in hopes it would prove persuasive.

His only success, he said, was in getting Kennedy to persuade Justice Antonin Scalia to include language limiting the reach of his majority decision in Heller.

Here is the limiting language Justice Stevens claims to have been influential in having inserted, in trade for Justice Kennedy’s vote:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

A major point of disagreement among Second Amendment supporters was how to approach the problem.

One group claimed anything but full and complete recognition of Second Amendment rights was futile and counter-productive. The argument was: any lesser legislation, moving incrementally toward full Second Amendment rights, would only legitimize infringements on those rights. They were/are the “All or Nothing” group. Some called/call themselves “principled”.

The other group of Second Amendment supporters argued Second Amendment rights could be restored bit by bit. Pass legislation first, for a permit system. Keep reforming and improving the permit system. Reduce requirements, reduce fees, reduce “gun-free zones”.  Keep on incrementally improving the law, until Second Amendment rights were fully restored. They were/are the “Incrementalists”.  In the middle 1990’s it was not clear if either approach would be effective.

Twenty years later, it was clear. Second Amendment Incrementalism worked.

He goes on to outline some of the success.  This is an educated and valuable read, and I commend it to you.

I am an incrementalist as I’ve explained before.  But this isn’t the same thing as what Dean is describing.

I support incrementalism when it is in our benefit.  Thus, I support open carry for South Carolina now, and then work on constitutional carry next year.  We can’t let perfect become the enemy of good.

Where I differ with Dean is his invoking the example of the NRA.  While I have no comment on NRA refusal to take a case to the Supreme Court, the incrementalism Dean is describing of the NRA isn’t really the incrementalism for which they’re hated.

They sided with the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, the initial AWB, and the bump stock ban, and against open carry in many states.  They haven’t just incrementally or judiciously surveyed the court scene to ascertain the best time or strategy to ensure 2A rights.

They have incrementally given away recognition of God-given rights.  They will always be hated for that, as they should be.

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.