Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: SC H.3562 TO CHANGE THE NAME ... TO THE SOUTH CAROLINA WELL REGULATED MILITIA ACT

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/3652.htm

    AMEND SECTION 23-31-205, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NAME OF THE ACT THAT ALLOWS THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO ISSUE CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ACT FROM THE "LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SELF-DEFENSE ACT OF 1996" TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA WELL-REGULATED MILITIA ACT"
    When considering legislation, it is best to look at how the law could be used against you by your enemies and not just how it would be used for you by your friends. Why? Because the law will be administered by your enemies at some time in the future. So, what are the possible down sides to this bill?

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    Perhaps they should be doing something like repealing the places off limits to carry and passing universal recognition of all other permits. Why waste people's times with such a useless bill. It's a waste of ink and paper... what a joke.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    Ok..no legal expert here. Just what does that bill mean in normal english?

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    AngelMaker wrote:
    Ok..no legal expert here. Just what does that bill mean in normal english?
    Daggone good question and the answer is no one really knows other than possibly some ulterior motive or an effort to waste time and posture to some group.

    Now that being said since the first part of 2A talks about a "Well regulated militia" maybe in some way they are trying to say that the CWP holders are part of a well regulated militia in order to usurp any attempts to do away with CWP's in SC by the Feds or the antis. However I suspect it is more that someone has too much time on their hands and should be working on other problems in our satate.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    When considering legislation, it is best to look at how the law could be used against you by your enemies and not just how it would be used for you by your friends. Why? Because the law will be administered by your enemies at some time in the future.

    So, what are the possible down sides to this bill? It will take a few days to think this through.

    It could be argued that unless one possessed a SC CWP, one could not be part of the unorganized militia for 2nd Amendment purposes. If so, then look at the power SLED would have to deny people their 2nd Amendment rights.

    Imagine, a couple of traffic tickets a year and you are no longer allowed to claim you have a 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

    If they truly want to make this an unorganized militia bill, then they need to amend more than just the title. They need to delete reference to a "favorable" background check and replace it with language that allows one to possess a CWP as long as it is legal for that person to possess a firearm. That would take away much of the discretion that SLED now exercises over who gets a CWP.

    They could also make a CWP good for life. SLED runs a daily check to see if a CWP holder has been charged with a crime, so a lifetime CWP would not allow a CWP holder to get away with anything that he can not get away with now.

    They could also repeal most of the prohibited carry locations.

    These are just the things off the top of my head. I am sure there are many more changes that would be appropriate for an unorganized militia bill.

    I hope to hear from you about your suggestions to make it a true unorganized militia bill. And, most importantly, tell us how you see this bill could be used against us by our enemies.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    11

    Post imported post

    This was a long read but will post the link to it.

    http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/article...0Finkelman.pdf

    Talks about history and what a "well regulated Militia" is. Not really sure but it sounds about right.

    Still confused as ever.



  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/3652.htm

    AMEND SECTION 23-31-205, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE NAME OF THE ACT THAT ALLOWS THE STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION TO ISSUE CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS, SO AS TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ACT FROM THE "LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SELF-DEFENSE ACT OF 1996" TO THE "SOUTH CAROLINA WELL-REGULATED MILITIA ACT"
    When considering legislation, it is best to look at how the law could be used against you by your enemies and not just how it would be used for you by your friends. Why? Because the law will be administered by your enemies at some time in the future. So, what are the possible down sides to this bill?
    If nothing changes except the way in which the law may be cited without using the "Section 23-31-205, Code of Laws of South CArolina, 1976" format, then the effect of the bill otherwise is a complete zero.

    Since I could see nothing else that the proposed change would effect, I'm guessing that somebody thinks "SOUTH CAROLINA WELL-REGULATED MILITIA ACT" sounds better than "LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SELF-DEFENSE ACT OF 1996". Personally, I think the current title says what is was meant to convey - that the state is creating a way for its citizens to carry out a natural right of self defense.

    Why anyone would want to create the impression that the state was in favor of a militia, since it already has the National Guard, is beyond me. I thought politicians considered militias to be terroristic groups.

    stay safe.

    skidmark
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •