SC CWP's Threatened !

Status
Not open for further replies.

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
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top