SC CWP's Threatened !

R

Ragin Cajun

New member
It would appear there are some SC house representatives who call them selves republicans. But are anything BUT.

The bill they are sponsoring sounds good in the title,


"Concealed weapon permits, unlawful for convicted felon to carry; Crimes and Offenses, Weapons"


ie, denying felons from having guns. But buried in the bill is the provision to . . .

" REPEAL ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS" !

Talk about underhanded tactics. Otherwise known as lies. These guys must be "closet" Klinton supporters.


I have verified this by logging on to the SC house web site whose URL is . . .
http://www.scstatehouse.net/bills/4889.htm


The following is what I am sending to these so called "representatives."

QUOTE:

Today I was informed of bill H4889 for which you are a sponsor. The title sounds good,

"Concealed weapon permits, unlawful for convicted felon to carry; Crimes and Offenses, Weapons."

But buried in the bill appears to be the true purpose, to deny all South Caroliana citizens the constirutional to bear arms. In this particular case, to "REPEAL ARTICLE 4, CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS." In other words, you are proposing to deny us the right to protect ourselves.

Let me make my position quite clear. I am OPPOSED in the strongest manner to this bill. I am also disgusted by the UNDERHANDED manner you seek to deny us our CWP rights. I am telling everyone I know of your true intentions and reminding them that they should remember this when they cast their vote this November. END QUOTE

Pass this on! These anti's will do anything to take our rights away.
 
Careful, here...I'm certainly not familiar with the bill (and no, I don't have time ATM to read through all the legal gobbledygook on that link :)), but are you certain that such a repeal is not in fact stating this: repeal the existing law regarding issuance of permits and replace it with THIS law regarding issuance of permits (or with some provision within this bill dealing with issuance of same)?

Frequently in legal matters contracts and laws are set up just that way; they take the old law off the books (or at least null and void it) when a new bill is proposed, if they deal with substantially the same issue.

I dunno if thats the case here, not having read the law. But it _could_ be. And I don't want you to jump the gun (so to speak).

Mike


------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
 
Uhh... I hope you haven't sent that letter yet Cajun. Take some time to completely read through the bill.

If I'm reading this right (and someone correct me if I'm wrong) the passage of this bill would give you a Vermont-style carry law. Basically it would no longer be illegal to carry a pistol, concealed or not and therefore, the permit issuance code would be unecessary.

I think I'd re-word that letter a bit... :)

------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
********** ALERT *******

I just got off the phone with one of the sponsors of this bill. He was not happy with the way the bill APPEARS. But the NET result of the bill is also repealing another part of the Code (Section 16-23-20) that caused the need for CWP's.

The purpose of this bill is to make SC like Vermont where CWP are NOT NEEDED to carry concealed.

In spite of the way the bill looks on the surface, it is GOOD! ! !

Thanks, TheBluesMan, you are correct. And we wonder why laws can be so confusing. To preserve a right we must repeal one law (partially granting a right) caused by another law (that must be repealed) that took away a right. Got that? I hope so!

Who's on first! I don't know!
 
Who's on first! I don't know!
Third Base!

If SC can really get Vermont carry, so much the better. Carry "licenses" are, IMNSFHO, a Great Leap Backwards.
 
RC - take a look at GRSC. Good site, great list server for updates.
http://www.scfirearms.org/

We are trying to get the Vermont style carry-permits passed here. We could use your support and the GRSC is the best of the local organizations.

Drop me an email - I'm in Columbia.

Giz
 
"Carry "licenses" are, IMNSFHO, a Great Leap Backwards."

They have one very very very potent advantage over the vermont-style system; statistics.

Under a system where anyone and everyone is free to carry a gun, there is nothing to differentiate the good guys from the bad. You can be lumped, statistically, in with every thug on the street corner with a Jennings J-22. At least when you are required to hold a license you CAN point out that the rate of gun crime in general is X, and the rate of gun crime for license holders is basically nil.

In an ideal world, this would not matter...but this place ain't ideal.

Just a thought.

Mike


------------------
"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -Robert Heinlein
 
Good point, Coronach.

But such data are useful only to justify CCW by “approved” citizens. When the government controls the approval, it frequently becomes expensive and/or restricted.

Furthermore, the registration of gun owners and/or weapons makes many people nervous and the act of approval changes a Right into a mere privilege.

Still, we hope CCW will remain better than nothing.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
coronach, bingo buddy! You hit it right on the head. This could be one of those unintended consequences which only feed the anti's fervor. Documentation is important in a statistics driven society.
 
You can be lumped, statistically, in with every thug on the street corner with a Jennings J-22.

Coronach, the bannits do that anyway. :(
 
Another unintended downside to the "Vermont Style Law" is a loss of reciprocity with other states. I may not be able to carry concealed in a lot of other states, but at least I can carry in some.

This bill, as currently written, does have some problems, which the folks at GrassRoots are addressing.

[This message has been edited by DMSC (edited May 03, 2000).]
 
I just hope that additional laws are passed making it against the law for anyone to possess a weapon while engaged in illegal activity. Criminals who don't have prior convictions usually don't get carry permits, and I like to thwack 'em with everything I can. I like the idea of the free carry, but it makes my (already impossible) job harder. I would hate to see a thug get his gun back because it was legal for him to have it while committing a crime....

------------------
I don't CARE about pretty....I just want dangerous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top