Texas trails SC in restoring 2A Freedom

[Conagher]

Look what SC can do with only 2,000 signatures and freedom loving legislators!

For Immediate Release – January, 2008 ----

Representative Dan Cooper Introduces Bill to Decriminalize the Open Carry of Handguns In South Carolina[1]


South Carolina is one of only 6 states banning the open carry of handguns. In most states, adults may lawfully carry unconcealed handguns without any permit.[2]

But now Representative Dan Cooper (R – Anderson County) wants to change that.

Cooper has introduced H. 3003, a bill to make South Carolina like most states where anyone legally allowed to own a handgun may carry it openly without any permit. Folks who want to carry their handguns **concealed** will still need a concealed weapons permit. And with 32 co-sponsors, including some heavy hitters, and considering that Cooper is the influential Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, it sure looks like H. 3003 is goin’ to have some legs!

H. 3003 comes on the heels of an online petition in South Carolina with almost 2,000 signatures calling for the decriminalization of open carry. See the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/scocp/petition.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. [3]

The United States Supreme Court said recently in the DC Gun Ban case that the Second Amendment secures the right to keep "carry" arms, but not concealed arms, citing to a line of cases upholding the constitutional right to open carry.[4] Notably, neighboring North Carolina’s Supreme Court has held that under that state’s constitution, no license may be required to openly carry handguns. See State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (1921).

OpenCarry.org strongly endorses Representative Dan Cooper’s effort to decriminalize open carry in South Carolina, and our South Carolina members will be actively working to ensure this effort’s success.

[agbullet2k1]

South Carolina is one of only 6 states banning the open carry of handguns. In most states, adults may lawfully carry unconcealed handguns without any permit.[2]

Something about that doesn't seem right. I can only think of a few states that allow unlicensed open carry.

[flb_78]

Illinois is considered an "open carry" state because one can openly carry on unincorporated private property.

Figure in all the states that allow open carry of some sort on private property, then there's probably that many.

[seamusTX]

Let me try to explain a few facts about the Texas legislature.

Every bill that becomes law in Texas must have at least one "author" or sponsor in each house. The bill must be approved by a committee in each house, passed in identical form by each house, and finally signed by the governor.

The Texas legislative process makes it difficult to pass a bill and easy to kill it.

The following individuals can effectively veto a bill:

• the Speaker of the House
• the chairman of the House committee that has to approve the bill
• the Lieutenant Governor (who controls the Senate calendar)
• the chairman of the Senate committee that has to approve the bill
• the Governor

Furthermore, a majority of either committee can kill a bill regardless of what the Chairman wants. One-third of the Senators can also bottle up legislation.

The Texas Legislature has only 60 days every two years when it can consider new legislation.

So if you want a bill to become law, you have to lobby all the people who can kill it, including the committee members, and you need majority support in each house.

If you don't line up that support in advance, you are just whistling in the wind.

Here is a more detailed explanation of the process: http://www.hro.house.state.tx.us/focus/hwbill80.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, Illinois is no way an open carry state. The only circumstances where you can open carry are hunting and events such as cavalry re-enactments. Even on private property, you can be prosecuted for Illinois's version of brandishing.

- Jim

[anygunanywhere]

Look what SC can do with only 2,000 signatures and freedom loving legislators!

Look up South Carolina firearms laws and you will consider retracting that statement.

No carry at all where alcohol is served.

Gunbuster signs prohibit licensed carry.

Compared to South Carolina I will take 30.06 signs and 51% anyday.

Anygunanywhere

[Charles L. Cotton]

For Immediate Release – January, 2008
-----
. . .

The United States Supreme Court said recently in the DC Gun Ban case that the Second Amendment secures the right to keep "carry" arms, but not concealed arms, citing to a line of cases upholding the constitutional right to open carry.[4] Notably, neighboring North Carolina’s Supreme Court has held that under that state’s constitution, no license may be required to openly carry handguns. See State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (1921).

OpenCarry.org strongly endorses Representative Dan Cooper’s effort to decriminalize open carry in South Carolina, and our South Carolina members will be actively working to ensure this effort’s success.

Heller most assuredly did not say the Second Amendment secures a right to "carry" arms! OpenCarry.org keeps saying this but it is not true. Heller was a "keeping" (owning) case, not a "bearing" (carrying) case. Although the history of carrying firearms was discussed at length in the opinion in terms of the history of the Second Amendment being an individual right, the opinion did not incorporate the "carrying" of firearms. Remember, the reference to carrying in the home was based upon a D.C. law that required a permit to carry, if a person had a handgun registered prior to 1976 and they wanted to carry it from one room to another room within their own home! (Yeah, that's the absurdity of the D.C. law.) Since Gura stupidly conceded in oral arguments that licensing was constitutional, the Court didn't have to over turn an absurd requirement to have a "carry" permit to carry your firearm from one room to another in your own home.

Chas.

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2–53.


. . .

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed
weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast
doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms
in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.

3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to
self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense
of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional
muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the
home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible
for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and
is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument
that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily
and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy
his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment
rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and
must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.

[Conagher]

Thanks to everyone that replied. I appreciate everyone’s well thought out, germane and focused reply. I have a follow-up question for you:

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

[AWB09]

Thanks to everyone that replied. I appreciate everyone’s well thought out, germane and focused reply. I have a follow-up question for you:

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[anygunanywhere]

Thanks to everyone that replied. I appreciate everyone’s well thought out, germane and focused reply. I have a follow-up question for you:

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

There are quite a few states that have less restrictive firearms laws than Texas and striving to regain our infringed freedoms here is our goal. To go along with my previous post, with the possible exception of this single issue, SC is not my idea of a truly free state with respect to firearms freedom.

If your idea of firearms nirvana is South Carolina then more power to you.

How many states are they reciprocal with? I remember! Only the ones the South Carolina Highway Patrol thinks are deserving of reciprocity. I believe our backwards law of mandating our fine attorney general to seek and establish reciprocity agreements is quite neanderthal compared to SC.

Anygunanywhere

[seamusTX]

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

I would not bet that open carry is going to be legal in South Carolina in the foreseeable future.

Do you know the current status of H. 3003? Do you know which committee has to approve it, and who the chairman of that committee is? What is his position on this bill? What support does it have in the Senate? What is the governor's position?

If you don't have a legislative strategy, a bill disappears like a rock dropped in a well. It is an empty gesture at best. At worst, it mobilizes and strengthens the opposition.

- Jim

[Conagher]

Thanks to everyone that replied. I appreciate everyone’s well thought out, germane and focused reply. I have a follow-up question for you:

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

http://ammunitionaccountability.org/Legislation.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry, but I seem to have missed your answer to the question; was that a "yes" or a "no"?

Thanks!

[Conagher]

Thanks to everyone that replied. I appreciate everyone’s well thought out, germane and focused reply. I have a follow-up question for you:

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

There are quite a few states that have less restrictive firearms laws than Texas and striving to regain our infringed freedoms here is our goal. To go along with my previous post, with the possible exception of this single issue, SC is not my idea of a truly free state with respect to firearms freedom.

If your idea of firearms nirvana is South Carolina then more power to you.

How many states are they reciprocal with? I remember! Only the ones the South Carolina Highway Patrol thinks are deserving of reciprocity. I believe our backwards law of mandating our fine attorney general to seek and establish reciprocity agreements is quite neanderthal compared to SC.

Anygunanywhere

Thanks for the response but after reading it a couple times I'm still not sure what your answer was to the referenced question, was it "yes" or "no"?

Thanks!

[Conagher]

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

I would not bet that open carry is going to be legal in South Carolina in the foreseeable future.

Do you know the current status of H. 3003? Do you know which committee has to approve it, and who the chairman of that committee is? What is his position on this bill? What support does it have in the Senate? What is the governor's position?

If you don't have a legislative strategy, a bill disappears like a rock dropped in a well. It is an empty gesture at best. At worst, it mobilizes and strengthens the opposition.

- Jim

Thanks for the response. I'll take this as a "no" answer to the question; please correct me if I misunderstand. I'll try to maintain the responses and just for fun we can revisit them in September.

Thanks!

[Purplehood]

No.

[Morgan]

Come September 1st, do you believe SC will be exercising their newly regained freedom while us Texans are still squabbling over the who’s, what’s and how’s?

I would not bet that open carry is going to be legal in South Carolina in the foreseeable future.

Do you know the current status of H. 3003? Do you know which committee has to approve it, and who the chairman of that committee is? What is his position on this bill? What support does it have in the Senate? What is the governor's position?

If you don't have a legislative strategy, a bill disappears like a rock dropped in a well. It is an empty gesture at best. At worst, it mobilizes and strengthens the opposition.

- Jim

Thanks for the response. I'll take this as a "no" answer to the question; please correct me if I misunderstand. I'll try to maintain the responses and just for fun we can revisit them in September.

Thanks!

The problem is your question makes an assumption - that SC will be exercising newly regained freedom. Your question should have been posed thusly:

Do you believe SC will be exercising newly regained freedom? And if so, do you believe TX will still be squabbling?

Clearly, anyone reading his reply can see that his answer to the first question is "No" and therefore the second question isn't asked.

A better question is, "In Texas, will someone propose an open carry bill that won't screw gun owners in Texas?" Because anyone who supports a gun bill in Texas that screws Texas gun owners isn't doing gun owners any favors, I'm sure you must agree.