John Canuck
New member
S 115 Constitutional Carry Update -> Link Removed
SC Constitution Carry
- Thread starter NCIC105
- Start date
John Canuck
New member
Yet another update -> South Carolina Gun Blog - Guns Save Lives.
John Canuck
New member
And again -> Link Removed
AndeyHall
Active member
I'm gonna follow it and support as much as I have time to, but I'm not very optimistic.
Larry Martin is standing in the way of S115. He is going to make sure it goes nowhere. He says it wont keep guns out of the hands of "less than law abiding citizens" and he doesn't want to arm gangs. Well Larry, less than law abiding citizens and gangs ALREADY HAVE GUNS. I have emailed him this little FYI but he still doesn't care. He is in someones pocket for sure.
John Canuck
New member
What would have really helped is if the language in the bill didn't need to get tweaked a half a dozen times when the committee was repeatedly ready to discuss it.
It may or may not have been reported out of committee, but it would have gotten a discussion. Now, I suspect it will take a spot in the lower half of the calendar and stay there.
It may or may not have been reported out of committee, but it would have gotten a discussion. Now, I suspect it will take a spot in the lower half of the calendar and stay there.
Larry Martin emailed me back and said S115 will be up again next Tuesday, Feb. 18th.
This is what he said to me regarding S115 and why he won't vote for it:
"My concern with S. 115 is not with law abiding citizens but with the policy that anybody who can legally own a gun can strap it on and carry it into the public square. South Carolina law permits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction that carries a sentence of two years or less to own a weapon. As many are quick to point out, criminals do not follow the law, and person with a criminal history may unlawfully carry a pistol in his pocket. But, S. 115 would permit thousands of South Carolinians with criminal histories that fall into the category just described to lawfully carry a weapon openly. That's why I strongly support our CWP law so that law abiding citizens, with minimal training and a background check, can exercise their 2nd amendment rights."
This is what he said to me regarding S115 and why he won't vote for it:
"My concern with S. 115 is not with law abiding citizens but with the policy that anybody who can legally own a gun can strap it on and carry it into the public square. South Carolina law permits anyone with a misdemeanor conviction that carries a sentence of two years or less to own a weapon. As many are quick to point out, criminals do not follow the law, and person with a criminal history may unlawfully carry a pistol in his pocket. But, S. 115 would permit thousands of South Carolinians with criminal histories that fall into the category just described to lawfully carry a weapon openly. That's why I strongly support our CWP law so that law abiding citizens, with minimal training and a background check, can exercise their 2nd amendment rights."
huntindogg 0701
New member
now is the time to push hard for passage of s115. i wrote to the major idiot who is trying to block s115 once again Larry Martin. He gave the typical liberterd anti-gun response, "why do you need open carry?" he needs to get a serious dose of reality and wake up. flood his e-mail box .
I woke up to find this in my email from Larry Martin"
>>I can appreciate our difference of opinion about the need for minimal training and a background check in order to carry a weapon. In the community I grew up in and have lived in all my life, we call that common sense. <<<
I wrote back and told him that in the community I grew up in that is called being on a power trip and this isn't about YOU. It's about what the PEOPLE of South Carolina WANT. You seem to have forgotten that you were elected to do the will of the people, not the will of what you prefer or what you like.
And the people WILL remember this very important vote.
>>I can appreciate our difference of opinion about the need for minimal training and a background check in order to carry a weapon. In the community I grew up in and have lived in all my life, we call that common sense. <<<
I wrote back and told him that in the community I grew up in that is called being on a power trip and this isn't about YOU. It's about what the PEOPLE of South Carolina WANT. You seem to have forgotten that you were elected to do the will of the people, not the will of what you prefer or what you like.
And the people WILL remember this very important vote.
CWPSC1968
New member
I think it's a simple equation for Sen. L. Martin to figure out.
Sen. L. Martin + A Vote for S.115 = I keep my job...OR Sen. L. Martin + A Vote Against S.115 = I lose my job. And the same goes for all the other senators that decide to stymie the voters and legal, law abiding citizens of South Carolina.
Sen. L. Martin + A Vote for S.115 = I keep my job...OR Sen. L. Martin + A Vote Against S.115 = I lose my job. And the same goes for all the other senators that decide to stymie the voters and legal, law abiding citizens of South Carolina.
AndeyHall
Active member
What's funny is that pretty much everyone who's against this bill is a hypocrite who thinks they're better than everyone else. Because you know in the back of their mind they're thinking "if everyone was as trust worthy and responsible as I am, I would back this bill all day long. But I'm the only one with sense and everyone else is an idiot who will just go around shooting everyone they come to."
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
I sent an email to half of the SC legislature, informing them to support and push for S 115... I told them why Constitutional Carry matters and why it is the best manner in which to have a protected citizenry, etc... Also, that this is a vote-determining subject. Lean the wrong way, lose as many votes as I can effect!
It's possible that S115 could come up in committee tomorrow. So please contact the members of the committee below, and urge them to pass Constitutional Carry (S. 115) on to the full-Senate floor.
Let them know that anything less than full-support of your gun rights is unacceptable!
Senator Larry Martin (Republican – Pickens)
(803) 212-6610 [email protected]
Senator Greg Gregory (Republican – Lancaster)
(803) 212-6024 [email protected]
Senator Paul Thurmond (Republican – Charleston)
(803) 212-6172 [email protected]
Senator Luke Rankin (Republican – Horry)
(803) 212-6410 [email protected]
The vote could be held as early as Tuesday, so please contact these Senators today!
Let them know that anything less than full-support of your gun rights is unacceptable!
Senator Larry Martin (Republican – Pickens)
(803) 212-6610 [email protected]
Senator Greg Gregory (Republican – Lancaster)
(803) 212-6024 [email protected]
Senator Paul Thurmond (Republican – Charleston)
(803) 212-6172 [email protected]
Senator Luke Rankin (Republican – Horry)
(803) 212-6410 [email protected]
The vote could be held as early as Tuesday, so please contact these Senators today!
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Sent to Senator Thurmond...
Senator Thurmond,
I urge you with the utmost intensity as can be had through words to fully support S. 115 (Constitutional Carry)! It is imperative that you push for this measure if you truly honor your oath of office. Free People maintain the Right to effective self defense at all times and through our sovereignty as individual beings should do so without restriction. Though it may seem trivial to require a permit to legally carry a firearm outside the home, you have to understand that this practice of permitting who may carry and who may not from a financial standpoint puts those of lower income at a disadvantage from the offset. Is it just to place those who live with less and who may not have the sufficient funds from carrying the most effective defense possible? No, it is not. In fact, it's immorality of the first order.
My second point is that when viewed logically, laws and restrictions regarding the Right to carry freely do nothing to prevent or deter criminals form carrying firearms. They are criminals, they have already chosen to abandon the rule of law and morality. As such, restrictions upon the Right to carry put the criminal at a perpetual advantage and the law-abiding citizen at perpetual disadvantage. As it remains more difficult for good people to carry firearms legally, many do not. The criminal understands this and knows that he/she has the advantage based off of pure rationality. If you want a protected citizenry, one capable of it's own defense when it counts and one equipped to reduce criminal elements by reducing the odds and returning them in favor of good, moral people... you will remove any and all restrictions posthaste.
Finally, the permitting system of carry is unconstitutional for the fact that it requires law-abiding citizens to ask permission from the very government that has been illegitimately and illegally requiring such a system... there is no provision within our Second Amendment allowing such infringement. Therefore, any such conditions upon the Natural Right of a free people to "keep and bear arms" is illegal in it's purest form. A refusal on your part to work towards removing such despicable methods of control and taxation will be considered a violation of your duties to The People, thereafter, your authority will not be legally legitimate. You will lose as many votes as I can affect, sir.
I intend full respects, sir. My words are straightforward and come from a concerned citizen, one who seeks good order and reduced crime while respecting the Natural Rights of all good people. Take nothing personal from my words, there is no insult to your position and your person. I wish you good health and a strong resolve in your duties.
Thank you for your time, sir.
Respectfully,
Mr. ********
Senator Thurmond,
I urge you with the utmost intensity as can be had through words to fully support S. 115 (Constitutional Carry)! It is imperative that you push for this measure if you truly honor your oath of office. Free People maintain the Right to effective self defense at all times and through our sovereignty as individual beings should do so without restriction. Though it may seem trivial to require a permit to legally carry a firearm outside the home, you have to understand that this practice of permitting who may carry and who may not from a financial standpoint puts those of lower income at a disadvantage from the offset. Is it just to place those who live with less and who may not have the sufficient funds from carrying the most effective defense possible? No, it is not. In fact, it's immorality of the first order.
My second point is that when viewed logically, laws and restrictions regarding the Right to carry freely do nothing to prevent or deter criminals form carrying firearms. They are criminals, they have already chosen to abandon the rule of law and morality. As such, restrictions upon the Right to carry put the criminal at a perpetual advantage and the law-abiding citizen at perpetual disadvantage. As it remains more difficult for good people to carry firearms legally, many do not. The criminal understands this and knows that he/she has the advantage based off of pure rationality. If you want a protected citizenry, one capable of it's own defense when it counts and one equipped to reduce criminal elements by reducing the odds and returning them in favor of good, moral people... you will remove any and all restrictions posthaste.
Finally, the permitting system of carry is unconstitutional for the fact that it requires law-abiding citizens to ask permission from the very government that has been illegitimately and illegally requiring such a system... there is no provision within our Second Amendment allowing such infringement. Therefore, any such conditions upon the Natural Right of a free people to "keep and bear arms" is illegal in it's purest form. A refusal on your part to work towards removing such despicable methods of control and taxation will be considered a violation of your duties to The People, thereafter, your authority will not be legally legitimate. You will lose as many votes as I can affect, sir.
I intend full respects, sir. My words are straightforward and come from a concerned citizen, one who seeks good order and reduced crime while respecting the Natural Rights of all good people. Take nothing personal from my words, there is no insult to your position and your person. I wish you good health and a strong resolve in your duties.
Thank you for your time, sir.
Respectfully,
Mr. ********
My letter:
Senator,
This is not a vote based on personal agenda or emotion. Personal preferences have no place in deciding laws. The Constitution is the law of the land, which you took an oath to uphold. I think the constituents of SC have made it clear that the majority are in favor of Constitutional Carry.
You want to keep the law abiding citizens from being able to openly carry, and carry when/where they deem needed, but the less than law abiding and gang members are already carrying. They don't care about laws, they do what they want regardless of the law. There is not a law on the books or in your head that will change this FACT. This is why the law abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of "less than law abiding citizens", then make the punishments for doing so harsher.
This vote isn't about what YOU want. It's about what the PEOPLE of South Carolina WANT. You seem to have forgotten that you were elected to do the will of the people, not the will of what you prefer or what you like. You are either for the Second Amendment, or you are against it. There is no middle ground.
And the people WILL remember this very important vote when your term comes due.
You can quote all your pro-gun accomplishments til the cows come home but make no mistake, you will be remembered as the one who let Constitutional Carry die in committee if you vote to kill this bill. Other states have Constitutional Carry, and they have not turned into the Wild West where citizens with misdemeanors on their records went ballistic.
Please vote on S 115 to send to full committee. Let the full Senate decide what happens to this bill.
Senator,
This is not a vote based on personal agenda or emotion. Personal preferences have no place in deciding laws. The Constitution is the law of the land, which you took an oath to uphold. I think the constituents of SC have made it clear that the majority are in favor of Constitutional Carry.
You want to keep the law abiding citizens from being able to openly carry, and carry when/where they deem needed, but the less than law abiding and gang members are already carrying. They don't care about laws, they do what they want regardless of the law. There is not a law on the books or in your head that will change this FACT. This is why the law abiding citizens have a right to protect themselves. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of "less than law abiding citizens", then make the punishments for doing so harsher.
This vote isn't about what YOU want. It's about what the PEOPLE of South Carolina WANT. You seem to have forgotten that you were elected to do the will of the people, not the will of what you prefer or what you like. You are either for the Second Amendment, or you are against it. There is no middle ground.
And the people WILL remember this very important vote when your term comes due.
You can quote all your pro-gun accomplishments til the cows come home but make no mistake, you will be remembered as the one who let Constitutional Carry die in committee if you vote to kill this bill. Other states have Constitutional Carry, and they have not turned into the Wild West where citizens with misdemeanors on their records went ballistic.
Please vote on S 115 to send to full committee. Let the full Senate decide what happens to this bill.
John Canuck
New member
Bill allowing guns in the open, without permits, likely doomed
Link Removed
Link Removed
gunnerbob
PEW Professional
Bummer... We'll see how it goes.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 0
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.