H.3292/Viers Amendment Action Alert/Update

[hp-hobo]

*** GrassRoots Action Alert ***

H. 3292 Update

March 6, 2011

This Action Alert might well be the most important Action Alert we have ever sent out. PLEASE read it carefully. Then, YOU NEED to TAKE ACTION. If YOU fail to read and take action, the future of YOUR gun rights will be put at risk.

There is much misinformation concerning what is happening with H. 3292, and people are getting confused. Unfortunately, when people get confused, they tend to just give up trying. Politicians are counting on this confusion to hide the truth. YOUR gun rights are too important to let them be taken away because you are confused. GrassRoots wants to clear things up for you.

GrassRoots sent out an Action Alert on Feb 26 warning you of how the Viers amendment to H. 3292 passed on Feb 24, 2011, would violate YOUR constitutional rights and take away gun rights we now have. Rep. Thad Viers immediately denied his amendment violated or took away anyone's constitutional gun rights, and told you GrassRoots was being "dishonest." So, who is telling the truth?

GrassRoots pointed out how the official Viers amendment would violate both the constitutional rights of out of state gun owners and the constitutional rights of 18 to 20 year old young adults. Taking away the constitutional rights of others to possess a handgun is gun control. GrassRoots stated we could not support unconstitutional gun control, and we asked YOU to take action. It was the unconstitutional taking away of gun rights that GrassRoots objected to in the Viers amendment. Any accusations to the contrary are meant to CONFUSE YOU. Do not allow yourself to get confused by false accusations.

Before we go any further, GrassRoots wants YOU to see what the SC Supreme Court said about the constitutional rights of young adults 18 to 20 years old. The SC Supreme Court was quite clear when it stated "the state constitution precludes the General Assembly from prohibiting this age group's [18 to 20 year old young adults] possession of handguns." See State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96; 662 S.E.2d 38 (2008).

The SC Constitution in Article I, Section 3 protects the rights of out of state gun owners with these words:


"The privileges and immunities of citizens of this State and of the United States under this Constitution shall not be abridged, nor shall any person be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."

GrassRoots makes no apologies for supporting YOUR Constitutional rights, standing firm on principle, or refusing to give away the gun rights of others so that we might get something else in return. There is nothing politicians can offer to gun owners to justify taking away the constitutional rights of others. GrassRoots wants to get whatever goodies politicians offer to gun owners, but NOT if we have to violate the constitutional rights of others to get them.

Make no mistake about H. 3292, the original version of H. 3292 introduced by Rep. Mike Pitts DID NOT violate the constitutional rights of anyone! It was not until Rep. Viers introduced the official Viers amendment that any constitutional rights were put in jeopardy! GrassRoots and others realized the original version of H. 3292 needed some improvements, and we all asked for reasonable amendments - not violations of our constitutional rights. It is important to remember that the Rep. Mike Pitts version of H. 3292 protected the constitutional rights of all, and that is what we need to continue to do.

GrassRoots is and has been willing to support the original version of H. 3292 introduced by Rep. Mike Pitts, which can be fixed with a few simple amendments to protect gun owners. If YOU are not confused and already oppose more gun control on principle, then you can jump to the Action Steps at the end of this alert.

So, lets get back to the Viers amendment. Ideally, you would just read the amendment and see for yourself who was telling the truth. But, the official Viers amendment passed by the General Laws subcommittee on Feb 24 was NEVER posted online. GrassRoots obtained a copy of the Viers amendment passed on Feb 24 from the staff attorney after the subcommittee meeting, and posted it on our web site here.

Rep. Viers - in response to YOUR emails and phone calls - finally realized his official amendment did exactly what GrassRoots said it did, but Rep. Viers refused to admit the truth. Instead, Rep. Viers created a new unofficial amendment on March 1, posted it online here, told people GrassRoots was being "dishonest" about his official amendment, and referred people to this new unofficial amendment as if it was the official amendment GrassRoots wrote to you about. If you look at the top of the new unofficial amendment, you will see it says "Amendment to be Proposed By Rep. Viers at Full Judiciary." Notice it says "to be proposed." But, this is NOT the official amendment Rep. Viers pushed through the General Laws subcommittee on Feb 24, nor is it the official Viers amendment that GrassRoots told you about in our Action Alert of Feb 26, no r is it the official Viers amendment that is sitting in the Judiciary Committee right now. This is causing confusion because the official amendment passed by subcommittee is drastically different - and worse - than the unofficial amendment posted online.

Why did Rep. Viers only post his new unofficial amendment online? Why did Rep. Viers fail to post online the official amendment passed by the subcommittee, which has already been sent to the Judiciary Committee, and which was the one GrassRoots warned you about?
The answer is simple: Politicians want YOU to get confused so that YOU stop contacting them! Then, they can get away with taking away YOUR rights.

The ONLY reason Rep. Viers created a new unofficial amendment is because GrassRoots told YOU about how the official Viers amendment contained unconstitutional gun control, and YOU let him know YOU did NOT appreciate his trying to take away YOUR gun rights. If YOU had not contacted Viers, he would never have created a new unofficial amendment.

Politicians are watching to see whether gun owners can be duped, or whether gun owners will stand up and protect their gun rights. What YOU do - or fail to do - today will impact YOUR gun rights for many years to come.

The official Viers amendment to H. 3292 that passed unanimously out of the General Laws subcommittee on Feb 24 changes Section 16-23-20 of our current South Carolina law. Current law found in Section 16-23-20 makes it illegal to carry a handgun unless you fit into one of the 16 listed allowable carry exceptions. ANY person can now carry a handgun in South Carolina whether the person is from South Carolina or from out of state as long as the person can fit into one of the 16 allowable carry exceptions. But, the official Viers amendment deletes all 16 allowable carry exceptions from the law, and then makes it a crime for out of state people or young adults 18 to 20 years old to carry a handgun - period, the only exception being for an out of state person with a concealed weapon permit (CWP) and only if their home state has CWP reciprocity with SC.


Let us count some of the ways that current law now allows an out of state person or a young adult 18 to 20 years old to legally carry a handgun in SC. But, the official Viers amendment will make all of these a crime for most people from out of state - including all people from Georgia, and all young adults 18 to 20 years old - including military veterans. It will be crime for most out of state people and all young adults 18 to 20 years old to carry a handgun when:

1. Target shooting, or going to and from the gun range either as a member or guest of a gun club (this is exception 3 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 3 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - say goodbye to out of state shooters in handgun competitions and the dollars they now spend in SC;
2. Hunting or fishing or going to or from their places of hunting or fishing while in a vehicle or on foot (this is exception 4 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 4 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - GA and NC fishermen better not let their boat drift across state lines, and handgun hunters will take their guns and money to GA;
3. In his home or upon his real property or a guest of the owner or the person in legal possession or the person in legal control of the home or real property (this is exception 8 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 8 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - out of state family and friends can not shoot handguns on Uncle Fred's farm anymore;
4. In a vehicle if the handgun is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle (this is exception 9 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 9 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - tourists and travelers will take their money elsewhere;
5. Carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or fixed place of business or while in the process of changing or moving one's residence or changing or moving one's fixed place of business (this is exception 10 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 10 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - out of state business owners will stay out of state along with their investment money;
6. He is the owner or person in legal possession or the person in legal control of a fixed place of business, while at the fixed place of business (this is exception 13 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 13 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - those out of state people should know their investment money is not wanted here;
7. Engaged in firearms-related activities while on the premises of a fixed place of business which conducts, as a regular course of its business, activities related to sale, repair, pawn, firearms training, or use of firearms (this is exception 14 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 14 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - this will stop factory representatives who provide safety inspections and cleanings for their products from coming to SC;
8. Transferring a handgun directly from or to a vehicle and a location specified in this section where one may legally possess the handgun (this is exception 15 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 15 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - a visitor used to be able to keep a handgun in her vehicle and take it into the home of a friend, but not after the Viers amendment - say good-bye to self-defense for out of state visitors; and
9. On a motorcycle when the pistol is secured in a closed saddlebag or other similar closed accessory container attached (this is exception 16 in Section 16-23-20, but exception 16 is deleted in the official Viers amendment) - say good-bye to all those motorcycle rallies that bring in tourist dollars from all over the US and Canada.

The above are examples of how the official Viers amendment - the Viers amendment that GrassRoots warned you about in our Feb 26 Action Alert - would take away rights we now have. These are just some of the problems with the official Viers amendment, and there are more. But, these examples are enough to show the GrassRoots analysis was correct and YOU needed to know how YOUR rights were being attacked.

Thanks to YOUR emails and phone calls, the new unofficial Viers amendment will remove the unconstitutional taking away of gun rights for out of state gun owners, if it gets passed. But, if GrassRoots had not told YOU about the official Viers amendment and how it took away the gun rights of others, or if YOU had failed to contact politicians as GrassRoots asked you to do, then there would never have been a reason to create the new unofficial Viers amendment. THANK YOU!!!

But, the unofficial Viers amendment still violates the constitutional rights of 18 to 20 year old young adults even though the SC Supreme Court has told the General Assembly it can not do so, and even after GrassRoots and YOU have told Viers to stop taking away the constitutional gun rights of these young adults. While the new unofficial Viers amendment contains some goodies for most of us, it still violates the constitutional rights of young adults 18 to 20 years old and makes them second class citizens in violation of the SC Constitution.

Some people will say "I don't care about out of state gun owners or young adults 18 to 20 years old." Well, that is exactly why more and more gun control gets enacted into law. Once we allow the constitutional rights of some to be violated, we create a precedent to allow more of our rights to be violated.

If every state started doing as Viers wants SC to do, our right to keep and bear arms would stop at the state line. If we want people in other states to protect our rights, then we must protect their rights here. The 2nd Amendment protects people anywhere in the USA regardless of what state they are in or from. Together we stand, divided we fall.

As to young adults, the SC Supreme Court was quite clear when it stated "the state constitution precludes the General Assembly from prohibiting this age group's [18 to 20 year old young adults] possession of handguns." See State v. Bolin, 378 S.C. 96; 662 S.E.2d 38 (2008).

Any self respecting pro gun rights organization could never support legislation that tries to deny honest law abiding people - including young legal adults - their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It has been said many times that it is crucial that young people be exposed to firearms early on so that young people will grow up knowing the importance of firearms in a free society. How can violating the constitutional rights of young adults 18 to 20 years old help promote the long term protection of YOUR gun rights?

If we allow the government to deny a constitutional right to one minority, then what is there to stop the government from denying a constitutional right to another minority? If young adults can have their constitutional rights denied because we fear they are not mature enough to act like older adults, then older people can have their constitutional rights denied because we fear they might be at risk of senility. The number of imagined justifications for denying a person their constitutional rights is virtually limitless. We must not allow ourselves to be duped into taking away the rights of "others" because we are the "others" to everyone else.

In an effort to confuse people, some politicians are falsely claiming GrassRoots demands an "all or nothing" effort to both H. 3292 in particular and gun rights in general. That is a lie meant to confuse you and cause you to stop contacting politicians.

In 2000, GrassRoots pushed to get the Shooting Range Protection Act passed. GrassRoots did not get everything we wanted, but we still supported the bill because we got something more without giving away anything.

In 2002, GrassRoots pushed for CWP and gun law improvements. GrassRoots did not get everything we wanted, but we still supported the bill because we got something more without giving away anything.

In 2004, GrassRoots pushed for more CWP and gun law improvements. GrassRoots did not get everything we wanted, but we still supported the bill because we got something more without giving away anything.

In 2009, GrassRoots pushed for a CWP carry on school grounds law. GrassRoots did not get everything we wanted, but we still supported the bill because we got something more without giving away anything.

As any reasonable person can clearly see, GrassRoots has a long history of accepting what we can reasonably expect to get. But, GrassRoots has NEVER agreed to give away any of the rights we already had.

Do not let the politicians to confuse you with their lies about H. 3292. GrassRoots has always been willing to accept and support H. 3292 with less than we ask for. Why? Because that is the political reality in which we live. But, GrassRoots refuses to violate the constitutional rights of others or give away any of our existing rights in order to restore some other rights. GrassRoots is not in the trading away of our gun rights game. GrassRoots is dedicated to restoring our gun rights - and it is NOT a game.

Remember, politicians want you to get confused and then stop contacting them. If YOU stop contacting politicians because they confused you, then they win and YOU lose.

Here is what Viers wrote to one person who asked Viers to respond to the GrassRoots alert:


"You are wrong. Follow these instructions and you are welcome to call me:
Go to South Carolina Legislature Online
Its on the citizens interest page.
8037343000 if you are still having problems."


Notice that Rep. Viers referred the person to the new unofficial Viers amendment even though the person was asking about the original official Viers amendment. That is dishonest. The new unofficial Viers amendment removed most of the unconstitutional things that GrassRoots wrote about. But, that would not have happened unless YOU put the pressure on Viers to change.

Then Viers wrote:


"You are being duped by folks who are taking an all or nothing approach. The legal analysis is flawed in logic, approach and conclusion! Read my amendment. It does not do those things. There is a massive misinformation campaign out there. I am cosponsor of the bill.

There is nothing in the amd that has anything to do with Dudley Brown or gunrights is putting out. All current rights under the law do not change. Rights are increased.

This is amazing! The amount of disinformation is staggering!"


As can be clearly seen, the one doing all the duping is Rep. Thad Viers. The "misinformation" and "disinformation" comes from Rep. Thad Viers, not GrassRoots. Current rights are being taken away.

Yes, GrassRoots did read the official Viers amendment, and the official Viers amendment did terrible things to the rights of gun owners. Yes, GrassRoots also read the unofficial Viers amendment - the one created to confuse people, and it does remove most of the unconstitutional things from the official Viers amendment. But, even the new unofficial Viers amendment continues to violate the constitutional rights of young adults 18 to 20 years old. And yes, both of the Viers amendments gave some goodies to gun owners in order to tempt them into violating the constitutional rights of others.

What Viers is failing to tell people is that the original official anti-gun Viers amendment - the one that is now officially sitting in front of the Judiciary Committee - is NOT the one posted online. It is the original official anti-gun Viers amendment that was passed by the subcommittee, it is the original official anti-gun Viers amendment that the House Judiciary Committee must vote to accept or reject on Tuesday March 8, and - most importantly - it is the original official Viers amendment that GrassRoots GunRights wrote about in its Action Alert.

Gun owners need to let the Judiciary Committee know it must reject the original official Viers amendment. Then, the Judiciary Committee can consider other amendments to H. 3292. One of those other amendments will be the new unofficial Viers amendment - the one that still contains constitutional violations of the gun rights of young adults 18 to 20 years old.

GrassRoots alerted YOU about this taking away of rights. Then, YOU took action and temporarily stopped it. YOU have won a temporary victory. What YOU do next is important.

We need to reject all amendments that contain gun control. We need to fix the Rep. Mike Pitts version of H. 3292, which did NOT contain any gun control.

ACTION STEPS TO TAKE NOW!

1. Call the Judiciary Committee at (803) 734-3120 and tell them "GrassRoots GunRights speaks for me! Remove all constitutional violations from H. 3292."

2. Email each member of the Judiciary Committee - email addresses are below - and tell them "GrassRoots GunRights speaks for me! Remove all constitutional violations from H. 3292."

3. Email each co-sponsor of H. 3292 - email addresses are below - and tell them "GrassRoots GunRights speaks for me! Remove all constitutional violations from H. 3292."

4. Call the Judiciary Committee at (803) 734-3120 and ask to be transferred to whichever member you are calling from the list of email addresses below.

5. Forward this to everyone you know who is concerned about protecting our Constitutional rights, and ask them to take action too.

Thank you,

Robert D. Butler, J.D.
V.P
GrassRoots GunRights


The following email addresses should allow you to send an email to each member of the House Judiciary Committee with a simple "cut and paste" into your email "To" field:

"James Harrison" <JimHarrison@schouse.gov>, "James Smith" <JamesSmith@schouse.gov>, "George Hearn" <GeorgeHearn@schouse.gov>, "Karl Allen" <KarlAllen@schouse.gov>, "Bruce Bannister" <BruceBannister@schouse.gov>, "Boyd Brown" <BoydBrown@schouse.gov>, "Alan Clemmons" <Clemmons1@aol.com>, "Derham Cole" <DerhamCole@schouse.gov>, "Greg Delleney" <GregDelleney@schouse.gov>, "Laurie Slade Funderburk" <LaurieFunderburk@schouse.gov>, "Daniel Hamilton" <DanHamilton@schouse.gov>, "Jenny Horne" <JennyHorne@schouse.gov>, "Peter McCoy" <PeterMcCoy@schouse.gov>, "Walt McLeod" <WaltMcLeod@schouse.gov>, "Wendy Nanney" <WendyNanney@schouse.gov>, "Todd Rutherford" <ToddRutherford@schouse.gov>, "Bakari Sellers" <BakariSellers@schouse.gov>, "Garry Smith" <GarrySmith@schouse.gov>, "Mike Sottile" <MikeSottile@schouse.gov>, "Leon Stavrinakis" <leonstav@schouse.gov>, "Eddie Tallon" <EddieTallon@schouse.gov>, "Thad Viers" <tviers@yahoo.com>, "David Weeks" <DavidWeeks@schouse.gov>, "Seth Whipper" <SethWhipper@schouse.gov>, "Tom Young" <TomYoung@schouse.gov>

The following email addresses should allow you to send an email to each co-sponsor of H. 3292 with a simple "cut and paste" into your email "To" field:

"Mike Pitts" <MikePitts@schouse.gov>, "Dan Cooper" <DanCooper@schouse.gov>, "Greg Delleney" <GregDelleney@schouse.gov>, "Dennis Moss" <DennisMoss@schouse.gov>, "Chip Huggins" <ChipHuggins@schouse.gov>, "Kenny Bingham" <KennyBingham@schouse.gov>, "Bill Hixon" <BillHixon@schouse.gov>, "Liston Barfield" <ListonBarfield@schouse.gov>, "Andy Patrick" <AndyPatrick@schouse.gov>, "Garry Smith" <GarrySmith@schouse.gov>, "Dwight Loftis" <DwightLoftis@schouse.gov>, "David Umphlett" <DavidUmphlett@schouse.gov>, "Don Bowen" <DonBowen@schouse.gov>, "Phil Owens" <PhilOwens@schouse.gov>, "Chris Murphy" <ChrisMurphy@schouse.gov>, "David Hiott" <DavidHiott@schouse.gov>, "Eric Bikas" <Ericbikas@schouse.gov>, "Bill Sandifer" <BillSandifer@schouse.gov>, "Brian White" <BrianWhite@schouse.gov>, "Peter McCoy" <PeterMcCoy@schouse.gov>, "George Hearn" <GeorgeHearn@schouse.gov>, "Steve Parker" <SteveParker@schouse.gov>, "Shannon Erickson" <ShannonErickson@schouse.gov>, "Deborah Long" <DeborahLong@schouse.gov>, "Phyllis Henderson" <PhyllisHenderson@schouse.gov>, "Bill Taylor" <BillTaylor@schouse.gov>, "Rick Quinn" <RickQuinn@schouse.gov>, "Bruce Bannister" <BruceBannister@schouse.gov>, "Daniel Hamilton" <DanHamilton@schouse.gov>, "Eric Bedingfield" <EricBedingfield@schouse.gov>, "Mike Forrester" <MikeForrester@schouse.gov>, "Bill Herbkersman" <BillHerbkersman@schouse.gov>, "Gary Simrill" <GarySimrill@schouse.gov>, "Tom Young" <TomYoung@schouse.gov>, "Tommy Pope" <TommyPope@schouse.gov>, "Mark Willis" <MarkWillis@schouse.gov>, "Murrell Smith" <MurrellSmith@schouse.gov>, "David Weeks" <DavidWeeks@schouse.gov>, "Thad Viers" <tviers@yahoo.com>, "Alan Clemmons" <Clemmons1@aol.com>, "Patsy Knight" <PatsyKnight@schouse.gov>

[hp-hobo]

I can't help but wonder if "some people" think that GOA is also incorrect in their assessment of what's going on with H.3292.

Gun Owners of America
supports "Constitutional Carry"

Viers Concealed Carry Bill: Less than Half a Loaf

Citizens have an individual, fundamental right to keep and bear arms—both at home and outside the home. But carrying a firearm for self-protection is turned into government-granted privilege if citizens first have to obtain "permission" to carry concealed.

Violent criminals don't stand in line at the police station or sheriff's office to apply for a concealed carry permit. The permitting system only impedes the good guys, while not affecting the criminal element.

So it is disappointing that a bill (H. 3292) that started out with the intent to pass real Constitutional Carry in South Carolina is not living up to its original expectations.

Under this legislation, amended by Rep. Thad Viers in a House subcommittee on February 24, you can carry without a permit—that is, in those limited number of places where the bill allows you to exercise your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

And that’s just it: Not only does the bill not eliminate the myriad of restrictions on where you can carry. It reenacts them, and thus seems to endorse them.

Example: Recently, in Louisville, Kentucky, an adult student was fired from his university job because he had a gun in his car, parked on university property over a mile away from the university hospital where he worked.

Under the Viers language, he could be a criminal if he didn’t jump through a gauntlet of legal hoops.

Want to carry your gun to a government function in a rough neighborhood—or a college athletic event? Criminal.

Want to lock your car with your gun in it in your employer’s parking lot or conceal it while having dinner in a restaurant that serves alcohol? Yeah, well, that may be a problem too.

The Viers language doesn’t just not repeal this stuff. It reenacts it. It endorses it.

But the bill also takes steps in the wrong direction. For instance, most statutes similar to this make it a crime to carry a firearm with intent to commit a violent felony. But this bill criminalizes carrying a gun with intent to commit any crime. This means that there is at least a possibility that you will be thrown in the slammer for jaywalking or some other minor “offence” while carrying.

It also restricts the rights of non-residents to carry handguns in certain situations that are allowed to carry under current law. Visitors from other states should not lose any of their right to self-protection simply by crossing the South Carolina border.

This is no time to make compromises or steps backward. When H. 3292 comes up before the full House Judiciary Committee this week, it should be sent back to the subcommittee where its problems could be fixed, and true Constitutional Carry be implemented.

Action: Please contact the Judiciary Committee and urge that H. 3292 be sent back to the subcommittee for revisions and not to settle for any compromises to our Second Amendment liberties.

Please go to http://www.scstatehouse.gov/housepage/hemail.php
and then click on “Judiciary Committee” to send a message.


Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
703-321-8585
www.gunowners.org

[stateisevil]

It amazes me how complicated this bill has become. It would have been much easier and workable to simply delete the permit requirement for carry, whether open or concealed, in all the places permit holders can now carry plus restaurants. SC borders open carry states, with NC not even requiring a license. Most states allow carry in restaurants. It could have been pointed out SC is the state out of the mainstream here. Any person able to read and write could make the necessary changes in about 15 minutes.


Anything more IMO would scare fence sitting lawmakers and give the anti-gun media apoplexy. So removing other "prohibited places" could come at a later date or in a separate bill.

[hp-hobo]

That's what happens when a well intentioned legislator writes and introduces a bill with seeking input from the local gun rights organization.

We knew from the start that it would be an uphill battle because an omnibus bill motivates all of the anti-gun forces to fight together against it. Then it gets even tougher when it gets amended, again without input from pro-gun people, to where it is now.

It would be much easier if this was broken down into six or eight different bills that tackled a specific area of existing law. It also makes it more difficult when some so called pro-gun individuals remain intentionally ignorant of the problems with the bill and amendments and just want to get it passed for the sake of getting something passed. But it is what it is and we have to deal with it as best we can.

[mappow]

Keep the permit process alive for CC.
ADD establishments that primarily serve food to be able to CC in.
ADD OC to current Law.
ADD "NO processing Fee" on applications for ALL Active Duty, Retired or Honorably discharge Vets to CC in SC.
Bout sums it up for me, keep it simple!!!

[FN1910]

H.3292 is dead, never to rise again. The Pitts bill was so horribly written that it couldn't even be considered by a high school civics class. The GRSC analysis cleaned up some of the language but when they were to present it to the subcommittee backed off of part of it and refused to even mention it but are now raising hell about Viers eliminating it. To say that the Pitts bill even with the GRSC changes did not violate anyones rights is a damn lie and that is putting it nicely. Viers made a point of that to the full committee that SC is and always has been a state that respects the rights of private property owners and the original proposals trampled all over the rights of every property and home owner in SC.

Viers refused to present the subcommittee amendment at the full committee meeting becasue it became clear that it had no chance of passage in the committee. His only hope was to rewrite it before presenting it and the subcommittee refused to reconsider the bill.

H.3292 is dead and any meaningful reform of gun rights in SC is also dead for a long time. No other member of the legislature is going to get involved with this mess again so thanks to GRSC our chances of meaningful change is shot.

Even S.122 which came out of committee to the Senate floor with no objection from anyone is now just sitting there without even a second reading, and you think 3292 is going to make it to the governor's desk.

[hp-hobo]

H.3292 is dead, never to rise again. The Pitts bill was so horribly written that it couldn't even be considered by a high school civics class. The GRSC analysis cleaned up some of the language but when they were to present it to the subcommittee backed off of part of it and refused to even mention it but are now raising hell about Viers eliminating it. To say that the Pitts bill even with the GRSC changes did not violate anyones rights is a damn lie and that is putting it nicely. Viers made a point of that to the full committee that SC is and always has been a state that respects the rights of private property owners and the original proposals trampled all over the rights of every property and home owner in SC.

Viers refused to present the subcommittee amendment at the full committee meeting becasue it became clear that it had no chance of passage in the committee. His only hope was to rewrite it before presenting it and the subcommittee refused to reconsider the bill.

H.3292 is dead and any meaningful reform of gun rights in SC is also dead for a long time. No other member of the legislature is going to get involved with this mess again so thanks to GRSC our chances of meaningful change is shot.

Even S.122 which came out of committee to the Senate floor with no objection from anyone is now just sitting there without even a second reading, and you think 3292 is going to make it to the governor's desk.

Please cite, very specifically, where the original bill or the GRGR suggested amendments "trampled all over the rights of every property and home owner in SC".

I'm pretty sure I'll get the same response as the last time I asked for a citation concerning this bill. Why? Because it isn't in there. We'll all be watching for a response, but we won't be holding our breath.

[hp-hobo]

[FN1910]

Please cite, very specifically, where the original bill or the GRGR suggested amendments "trampled all over the rights of every property and home owner in SC".

I'm pretty sure I'll get the same response as the last time I asked for a citation concerning this bill. Why? Because it isn't in there. We'll all be watching for a response, but we won't be holding our breath.

For starters it denied the right of private property owners to ban guns from their property unless it was a single family detatched residence. This meant you no longer had any sayso over your farm, your garden, your lake house or even if your mother-in-law lived with you. Your rights as a private property owner were gone and the slippery slope had just been made very steep.

Second as Viers pointed out that the burden of maintaining your home, your castle became the burden of you to have to enforce your rules in your home. The rights of guests to do what they wanted unless you told them not to was now in place. If someone walked into your house with their radio blaring etc. or with a gun on it became your burden to tell them not to rather than them having the courtesy to ask if it was acceptable in your home. Again that slippery slope became a downhill run. In the Japanese culture I understand it is customary to take your shoes off before entering someone's home. One should not have to be told to do it and embarass the home owner or make him submit to your ideas. When entering someones home you are their guest not their master.

[hp-hobo]

For starters it denied the right of private property owners to ban guns from their property unless it was a single family detatched residence. This meant you no longer had any sayso over your farm, your garden, your lake house or even if your mother-in-law lived with you. Your rights as a private property owner were gone and the slippery slope had just been made very steep.

Second as Viers pointed out that the burden of maintaining your home, your castle became the burden of you to have to enforce your rules in your home. The rights of guests to do what they wanted unless you told them not to was now in place. If someone walked into your house with their radio blaring etc. or with a gun on it became your burden to tell them not to rather than them having the courtesy to ask if it was acceptable in your home. Again that slippery slope became a downhill run. In the Japanese culture I understand it is customary to take your shoes off before entering someone's home. One should not have to be told to do it and embarass the home owner or make him submit to your ideas. When entering someones home you are their guest not their master.

Pretty much what I expected. You're unable to cite any specific items so instead of speaking to the facts, you just parrot what you've heard. No doubt from someone who wants you to be confused. No surprise there. So let's see if I can show you where what you think is not supported by the facts.

Point A. Single family detached residence. Really? This is exactly what the amendment says;

** Note: Stricken items in amendment are deleted for this post because forum software does not allow strikes.

Section 23-31-220. Nothing contained in this article shall in any way be construed to limit, diminish, or otherwise infringe upon:
1) the right of a public or private employer to prohibit a person, including a person who is licensed under this article, from carrying a concealable weapon upon the premises of the business or work place or while using any machinery, vehicle, or equipment owned or operated by the business;
(2) the right of a private property owner or person in legal possession or control of private property to allow or prohibit the carrying of a concealable weapon including a person who possesses a concealable weapon permit, upon his premises.
Section 23-31-225. No person including a person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person if asked not to by the owner or person in legal control or possession, nor may any person remain on the premises while in possession of the weapon if asked by the owner or person who is in legal control or possession of the premises to leave or to remove the weapon from the premises. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.

Nothing there that specifies "single family detached residence". My farm is my private property so I can prohibit carry if I choose. Same for my business property. So how does that negatively affect private property? The truthful answer is that it doesn't. But that's just a documented fact that doesn't support your opinion...

Point B. There is no possible citation for this because it's not in the bill. It's blather from someone who's trying to save face, Still, I'll do my best to respond. A person lawfully carrying a concealed weapon is doing so lawfully. Someone with a "blaring radio, etc" is creating a disturbance. So your argument is an aplles/oranges, strawman, Bradys, VPC style of argument. If someone comes to your home do they have to declare all lawfully carried items before entering? Their cell phone? Their wallet? Their underwear? No, they don't. You're simply being ridiculous. Again, no surprise.

But here are the best parts of your argument. Good for me and bad for you that is.

You pretend to be concerned for private property owner rights. But the way the current law is written tramples those same rights. How? A perfect example is the owner of a bar or restaurant who currently cannot allow carry because of the law. What about their rights to let people carry on their private property? Damnit, more confusing facts.

But this is the best. You say you don't like the bill because it tramples private property owners rights, yet in another thread you advocate doing just that;

I would like the restaurant bill but unless the parking lot bill is changed I am 100% against it and from some of the comments at the committee hearing on H.3292 it has no chance without those changes.

H.3292 is dead and I doubt that we see anything close to it for some time. At one time I thought it had a good chance but now I give it less than 5% of making it through the House and less than 1% through the Senate. After what has happened to Viers no one is going to touch it.

You'll only support the bill if the parking lot portion is changed. In other words you want a law that would force business owners to allow you to have a firearm on their private property. That sounds an awful lot like trampling private property owners rights to me.

Actually it sounds an awful lot like you're a hypocrite, and an ignorant one at that.

If you support the Viers amendment, either the first one or the second one, you've either been duped or you're anti-gun. Maybe both. About the only other option is that you're so totally sure that anything I say is wrong or you hate GRGR so much that you'll do anything you can to sabotage the rights of fellow South Carolinians and the rights of any gun owner who wishes to enter our state. You should really wake up and support those who are working hard to support you.

2011-2012 Bill 3292: Handguns - South Carolina Legislature Online