Off The Wall
On The Record
Dr. Skip Myers
Registered Sex Offenders for Edgefield
E-mail the Editor
PO Box 972
State and Federal
Local Political Parties
Chamber of Commerce
New York Times
New York Post
Los Angeles Times
past articles please visit our Archives
South Carolina Moves Closer to the Second Amendment With Proposed Law
A Column by the Editor
web posted February 28, 2011
COLUMN – The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights,
and those of every state constitution enshrines in some form or
fashion: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not
be infringed". Many states, now including South Carolina and Wyoming,
are on the move to join other states who are moving away from a
Concealed Weapons Permit in order for a citizen to carry arms and
claims the Second Amendment makes it clear there is no law needed for
an individual to carry open or concealed weapons.
Those supporting the measure in South Carolina, such as House
Subcommittee chairman Rep. Thad Viers, R-Myrtle Beach, reportedly says,
"We firmly believe that if criminals are going to get guns illegally,
we have to even the playing field and allow South Carolina citizens to
have a right to defend themselves as well."
The Bill, " The South Carolina Law-Abiding Citizens Protection Act,"
simply states that anyone 21-years of age or older who is not barred
from purchasing a firearm should be able to carry it in order to
provide personal protection.
The House Travel, Recreation, Wildlife and Cultural Resources Committee
in Wyoming voted
8-1 Friday in favor of the bill, sponsored by Casper
Republican Senator Kit Jennings, earlier this month. It already has
cleared the Senate and now goes to the full House for a vote. The
committee amended the bill to specify that people couldn't carry
concealed guns while intoxicated.
Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, a retired Greenville police officer, who
the South Carolina bill, has been reported as saying it's
important to remember that the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right
not just to keep, but also to bear arms.
That is an argument that is growing across the nation as more and more
law biding citizens trust government less, including the information
they obtain on them, and even more so when it comes to the registration
of firearms. To them, "shall no be infringed," is fairly clear cut
language guaranteed, supported and upheld by the US Supreme Court as an
individual right not one overseen by the federal government or the
Currently Arizona, Alaska, Texas, Montana, and Vermont have similar
laws in place removing control of firearm regulations by the states and
federal government and giving way to the constitution.
reported shortly after President Obama's State of the Union
Address: "Obama intentionally did not mention gun control in his
of the Union, but aides say that in the next two weeks the
administration will unveil a campaign to get Congress to toughen
Though no state has been brazen enough to state Pres. Obama's far left
wind agenda is behind their call to action to codify in law citizens'
and State's Rights, it seems obvious his refusal to abide by the US
Constitution is no doubt putting fear in the hearts of state
legislators and citizens in a wholesale fashion. A huge majority -
which threw out his loyalists in the Democrat Congressional majority in
2010 - handed control to the US House and narrowed the control of the
US Senate to Republicans for his over-reach of Federal control over
Opponents of the laws say that it would mark an increase of shooting
incidents between law enforcement officers and criminals or even
private citizens. Criminals, mind you, who are already armed and are at
the basis of shooting incidents with officers already, care nothing
about the laws they are breaking.
They count on law-biding citizens to be unarmed, unprepared, and
fearful of retaliation against protecting themselves from the crimes
committed against them.
In other words - a criminal does not care about the laws some hot-shot
political leader passes to govern their behavior - and they never will.
The current "laws" prohibit citizens from defending themselves (and in
fact makes them the "criminal" for protecting themselves) from
criminals who pay about as much attention to the laws as they do what
color underwear they wear.
Within my own generation the right to bear arms has been under assault
at an alarming rate. A "Right" that "Shall not be infringed", has been
infringed upon like none other in our history.
A fact sorely missed in the discussion is that this basic right to
"bear arms" has nothing to do with convicted felons, criminals, or the
criminal element. This right is entrenched in our Constitution and
founding documents in order to allow the citizens to defend themselves
against a tyrannical federal government, or any other threat to their
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
The Founding Fathers did not need 2,000 plus pages to make that clear.
They needed only 27 words.
© Copyright 2011 All original
material is property of EdgefieldDaily.com and parent company and
cannot be reproduced,
redistributed without the expressed written permission of Edgefield Daily.com
We still need recipes for Cooking Section
WEBNEWS – Send in your favorite or
favorites. There is no limit to the number of recipes you can send in.
Help create an exchange of local favorites, home cooking,
grilling, sauces, and deserts! Send in your submissions here.