AL.com:

The Alabama Senate, divided sharply along party lines, has passed a bill eliminating the requirement for a permit from a county sheriff to carry a concealed handgun.

The Senate passed the bill by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, after voting to cut off debate.

Democrats in the Senate opposed the bill and sought to amend it.

The bill passed by a vote of 25-8, with all eight Democrats in the Senate voting against it. It moves to the House of Representatives.

Allen said people should not have to buy a pistol permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

“It’s unthinkable that you have to pay a fee for a constitutional right. That’s really the heart of the whole issue,” Allen said.

Some law enforcement officials had argued against the bill in committee, saying it would take away an important enforcement tool.

People would still have the option of buying pistol permits, Allen noted, which he said would be important for those who want to carry in other states that recognize Alabama’s concealed carry law.

Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said the bill would not promote public safety but would turn the state into the “wild, wild West.”

The bill was one of a set of controversial bills on the Senate calendar today that Democrats generally opposed.

Sen. Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, said Republicans were trying to polish their public image after the resignation of Gov. Robert Bentley, suspension of Chief Justice Roy Moore and ethics conviction of House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

“This is called rebuilding a brand day,” Ross said.

No, this is called a change to state law, and what Sen. Rodger Smitherman said is called a lie.  That’s when something is untrue, in case you needed help understanding what I just said.  “The Wild, Wild West” is make-believe.  Smitherman apparently watched too much television when he was a kid.

I like how they did this.  There was no protracted and useless debate over a bill about which nobody’s mind was going to change.  Take note, South Carolina state senate.  The S.C. House cut off debate and did constitutional carry, the Alabama senate cut off debate and did constitutional carry.  Apparently they didn’t want to see Alabama Sheriffs Association Executive Director Bobby Timmons get away with his lies to the public.

As for the S.C. senate, don’t be such weaklings and pussies, boys.  Get it done.  They showed you how, they showed you it can be done, and no one really believes this thing has to die in committee.  We all know better than that.

The State:

Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.

On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.

“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.

The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.

It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.

Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”

[ … ]

Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.

While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.

“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.

First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules.  Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that.  They’re making up their objection to closing debate.  It’s just a red herring.  Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later.  It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all.  The vote is what matters.

As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to.  You like to conceal, others may not.  And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment.  Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it.  Our way undoes an unnecessary rule.  You’re the bad guy here, not us.  See how that works, Crosby?

If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle.  You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did.  We’re watching very closely.  Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me.  Go ahead.  Ignore gun owners one more time.  Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina.  We don’t forget.

As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry.  It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping.  And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?

Actually, she did us a service.  Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?

WISTV.com:

COLUMBIA, SC (WIS) – Critics are promising to push back on a new bill that would allow gun owners to carry their weapons with or without a permit, but it’s not clear when the proposal will be up for further debate.

Republican members of the South Carolina House Judiciary subcommittee approved H. 3930 late last week in a meeting lasting only minutes and without input from two Democrats who could not attend.

The bill was introduced just two days before the subcommittee vote by lead sponsor Rep. Mike Pitts of Laurens.

Pitts was the only subcommittee member to comment during the meeting.

The bill is similar to a measure backed by Pitts that gained full House approval last year but failed in the Senate.

Senators also overwhelmingly rejected similar so-called “Constitutional carry” legislation in 2014.

Right now, 31 states allow the unconcealed carrying of guns, and they also allow owners to do so without a permit, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

But the proposed legislation still concerns even some gun owners who have permits. Jeff Diehl is one of them. He runs a restaurant called Chickadee’s in Columbia, where he welcomes gun owners with CWP’s, but feels open carry could be dangerous and bad for business.

“That’s an open gun,” Diehl said. “That’s not a police officer. Nothing that says police officer. That’s scary to me. Let’s get out of here. Let’s fight, let’s run, let’s panic. Whatever. To me, it’s inherently dangerous, whether it’s a restaurant or hospital.”

There are some who love their enslavement to the state.  They traffic in hysteria, and they revel in contradiction such as a concealed handgun isn’t dangerous but an openly carried one is.  And those people use tactics like this to shame gun carriers who desire to carry openly.

You understand that, don’t you?  Laws against open carry are for the purpose of shaming.  I don’t disparage concealed carry, and I do it myself under certain circumstances.  I would rather it be customary to openly carry at all times, because I believe that’s more gentlemanly and well-bred, while it’s ill-bred, pedestrian, ill mannered and coarse to conceal weapons.  You may disagree, but that’s my position and it is incorrigible.  I only do it sometimes to avoid the kerfuffle with people who want to shame gun owners, just like the man in the article.

Laws against open carry are bigoted, prejudiced, vengeful, ill tempered and spiteful.  Oppose such laws and don’t be like those people.  And point out to anyone who makes remarks like Mr. Diehl that he is attempting to shame peaceable, good men for no reason other than the hatred in his own heart.  You should be able to carry concealed if that’s your wish.  So too open carriers should be able to carry openly.  It’s a matter of minding one’s own business, another characteristic of well bred and educated men.

The State:

COLUMBIA – S.C. residents will have four chances this fall to weigh in on the state’s gun laws.

A special S.C. Senate committee has scheduled public hearings on “gun issues” for Greenville, Charleston, Hartsville and Columbia. The hearings start Sept. 15.

State Sen. Gerald Malloy, D-Darlington, the committee’s chairman, said the hearings could address a variety of gun-related issues, including expanding the waiting period to buy a firearm, currently three days.

Malloy and another committee member, state Sen. Marlon Kimpson, D-Charleston, unsuccessfully pushed to lengthen that waiting period during the 2016 legislative session. They say that change would give authorities more time to investigate potential red flags found in FBI background checks.

Malloy said he expects to hear plenty from both sides – 2nd Amendment advocates as well as gun-violence victims. Any legislation that can pass the GOP-controlled Legislature must balance the right of responsible residents to own guns and the protection of society from the dangerous and mentally unstable, he said.

Oh, there is a never ending stream of chances to do nefarious things to the rights and liberties of the people.  “Receptive to the issues of fellow South Carolinians” is shorthand for we want a bilateral committee to infringe on the free exercise of rights in the name of cooperation and collegiality.

Resist this temptation, folks.  Just don’t do it.  There shouldn’t be any more gun control laws.  No one elected you to infringe on their God-given rights and liberties, no matter what you were taught by your Marxist college professors.  Don’t try to be the family, church and state all wrapped up into one totem like Molech.  You cannot solve problems of morality by laws.  The state doesn’t have salvific powers.

But here is one bill we need to see come from your pens, as a committee, or individually, or from the pens of someone else in the Senate or House.  We need to see a bill legalizing open carry in South Carolina, like the vast majority of other states.  Reject that awful, racist, communist, Jim Crow legacy and finally bring South Carolina into the twenty first century.

The Greenville News:

Jon Bailey spent a Friday afternoon over Christmas break taking his 13-year-old son, Connor, to shoot pistols at Allen Arms Indoor Range in Greenville.

He showed Connor how to load, aim and fire the weapon, but he also instructed him on what to do if he ever saw friends playing with a gun or found a gun lying around.

“He knows to get the heck out of the room and talk to adults,” Bailey said.

Bailey doesn’t call himself a gun fanatic. He wanted to demystify the idea of guns for his son.

But he does think more children should have knowledge of gun safety.

Who instructs children on the gun rights and safety has traditionally been left out of the state’s school systems, but bills pre-filed in both chambers of the South Carolina Legislature would bring gun rights squarely into focus in the classroom.

Whether schools are the right place to instruct students about firearms will be up for debate.

Zero-tolerance policies regarding guns at South Carolina schools has led to a backlash against citizens’ gun rights and a lack of knowledge on how to safely use firearms, Republican state legislators said as they prepared to open a new session in the state Legislature.

State social studies standards that instruct teachers to explain how the Constitution and Bill of Rights helps protect limited government. But schools don’t go far enough to explain gun rights, they said.

One bill — pre-filed in the state House — would create a Second Amendment Awareness Day to be held on Dec. 15 each year in all state schools, complete with a poster or essay contest centered on the theme “The Right To Bear Arms: One American Right Protecting All Others.”

Students — at every grade level — would receive at least three weeks of education on their gun rights based on a curriculum chosen by the state Department of Education and approved or recommended by the National Rifle Association.

[ … ]

His idea for the bill came after an incident in a Summerville high school in September where police were notified and a 16-year-old student’s locker searched after he wrote a fictional essay that mentioned purchasing a gun to kill his neighbor’s pet dinosaur.

The student was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct after police said he became belligerent.

Clemmons said the incident “shocked” and “offended” him.

“In this case, it squelched a student’s first amendment rights, in responding to an assignment, to talk about the second amendment,” he said.

Students are being punished when they choose to “write about one of their precious American rights,” he said.

Rep. Garry Smith, R-Simpsonville, who co-sponsored the bill, along with Rep. Richard Yow, R-Chesterfield, said the second amendment deserves more instructional time than other amendments because it is the lynchpin for the rest of democracy.

This is all well and good, but I have a better idea.  If South Carolina citizens really want to teach children about the second amendment, then get rid of gun-hater and elitist establishment ruler S.C. State Senator Larry Martin (from Pickens) and institute open carry throughout South Carolina.  Patriots need to initiate a beat-down to establishment GOP in South Carolina.  Until then, it’s just all bluster and hot air to me.

Greenville News:

Marina Lambrou, owner of the Boston Pizzeria on Woodruff Road, said she knew some of her customers had permits to carry concealed weapons before the law changed in February to allow permit holders to take their guns into establishments that serve alcohol.

Lambrou chose not to prohibit guns, and she said the issue hasn’t been a problem.

“I don’t prohibit and I don’t encourage it,” she told The Greenville News. “I just feel this is a free nation, and if someone feels like they need the extra protection, then God willing, let them do it.”

State law enforcement and restaurant officials say they know of no problems since the law went into effect seven months ago. The law allows permit holders to take guns into places that serve alcohol but allows businesses to prohibit guns and doesn’t allow permit holders to consume alcohol.

Erin Dando, leader of the South Carolina Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun reform group, said more businesses would prohibit guns but the new law requires the signs banning guns be 8 by 12 inches with 1-inch lettering.

“Frankly, the size requirement is alarming for business owners and it’s prevented some from putting them up,” she said. She said one business that has posted a sign has heard negative feedback from members of a gun rights organization.

Gun owners said on The Greenville News‘ Facebook page they are voting with their feet if restaurants choose to ban weapons.

“Only a couple of the restaurants where I have eaten decided to post signs after the new law went into effect,” posted Stephen Combs. “Their food wasn’t exceptional enough for me to feel the need to disarm and patronize them.”

“If there have been any incidents, I’m not aware of them,” said Jerrod Bruder, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriffs Association.

He said the organization’s concerns about the changes in the law had to do with training and education. The new law still requires training of permit holders but has dropped the number of mandatory hours of training.

Thom Berry, a spokesman for the State Law Enforcement Division, said he wasn’t aware of any incidents involving concealed weapons permit holders and businesses that serve alcohol under the new law.

Sgt. Jennings Autrey, a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s office, also said he wasn’t aware of any such incidents.

Board members of the South Carolina Restaurant and Hotel Association said they think the new law hasn’t produced any problems.

My goodness.  Is that what we have to do to make an informative news report?  Ask everyone and their cousin too about it?  How about my dog?  Wonder what Heidi thinks about it?  Does she know of any issues resulting from the law?

No, there aren’t any issues.  There won’t be with concealed carriers, and the next step is to get open carry passed in South Carolina, over the objections and opposition of communist State Senator Larry Martin.  Martin opposed recent attempts at legalization of open carry in S.C. because those horrible Negros down around Charleston might open carry and thus affect the tourism industry in South Carolina.  Yes.  Seriously.  Really.  I wouldn’t be able to make this up if I tried.  That’s why he opposed open carry.

But open carry worked as well in Mississippi as I said it would.  My readers in South Carolina might want to tell Larry what you think about him – one way or another.