Constitutional Carry Update?

[Lupinus]

Agreed. Hopefully it wont take to much longer, but I'd rather they take a little extra time and get it right than send it to the full senate with issues and it get shot down.

I was about ready to reach through the screen and smack the one senator that wouldn't shut up.

 

[John Canuck]

My sense is that Bright has one more shot. The problem is the outside forces pulling his chain. My spidey sense is that the next revision of the amendment is going to change the language with regard to the intent to commit a crime and what particular crimes that intent is limited to. Spidey tells me they are going to screw the next amendment up and scuttle the entire effort.

 

[armaborealis]

My sense is that Bright has one more shot. The problem is the outside forces pulling his chain. My spidey sense is that the next revision of the amendment is going to change the language with regard to the intent to commit a crime and what particular crimes that intent is limited to. Spidey tells me they are going to screw the next amendment up and scuttle the entire effort.

I don't think there is sufficient public support for it in SC, frankly. A lot more work needs to be done educating and motivating SC shooters on the issue.

I do think this effort is good suppressive fire for other progun measures. Threaten them with constitutional carry and settle for restaurant carry -- eat the elephant a bite at a time. Heck I'd like to see a companion measure for unlicensed open carry or Utah Carry (no permit = carry with empty chamber anywhere... just passed there but was vetoed), so we can "compromise" down from Con Carry to that.

 

[John Canuck]

My sense is that Bright has one more shot. The problem is the outside forces pulling his chain. My spidey sense is that the next revision of the amendment is going to change the language with regard to the intent to commit a crime and what particular crimes that intent is limited to. Spidey tells me they are going to screw the next amendment up and scuttle the entire effort.

I don't think there is sufficient public support for it in SC, frankly. A lot more work needs to be done educating and motivating SC shooters on the issue.

I do think this effort is good suppressive fire for other progun measures. Threaten them with constitutional carry and settle for restaurant carry -- eat the elephant a bite at a time. Heck I'd like to see a companion measure for unlicensed open carry or Utah Carry (no permit = carry with empty chamber anywhere... just passed there but was vetoed), so we can "compromise" down from Con Carry to that.

Agreed. I have heard the rumor that constitutional carry will be offered as an amendment to restaurant carry, assuming the windbag from Spartanburg runs out of stupid amendments to propose on Tuesday. This of course would sink them both. We will see.

 

[John Canuck]

Well, Constitutional Carry was offered as an Amendment to S 308 as expected.

I had to walk away while they were debating Senate rules. Specifically, if an Amendment of the scope of S 115 was germain to the intent of S 308. I didn't get to hear if it was withdrawn, or was judged to be unrelated to the original bill.

Either way, it wasn't in the final bill for S 308 as it passed the Senate --> http://www.scgunblog.com/Home_Page.html

 

[Tigerstripe]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sen. Shane Martin <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Subject: RE: Second Amendment Alert on SB-115 combined with SB-308
To: Bill Bledsoe <[email protected]>



Bill,



Larry Martin just moved S.115 to the bottom of today?s full Judiciary Committee agenda. It was first on the list last week. All Lee asked for was to get his amendment to everyone last week and let them read it over the weekend before full Committee, which he did. It wasn?t until he told them he was offering an amendment to S.308 that they reacted in this way. I believe it is their intent to kill S.115. I am a co-sponsor of the S.115 amendment to S.308.



Regards,



Shane

 

[Lupinus]

Just great. Idjits

 

[John Canuck]

Well, Constitutional Carry was offered as an Amendment to S 308 as expected.

I had to walk away while they were debating Senate rules. Specifically, if an Amendment of the scope of S 115 was germain to the intent of S 308. I didn't get to hear if it was withdrawn, or was judged to be unrelated to the original bill.

Either way, it wasn't in the final bill for S 308 as it passed the Senate --> http://www.scgunblog.com/Home_Page.html

I finally got to do some reading. The S 115 Amendment was ruled out of order by rule 24 because it introduced new material to the original bill under question. I agree with this and feel we need to keep bills limited to subject matter that is germain.

The downside is that S 115 may not get a vote in the Senate this year. The sponsor has missed his window to get it out of Committee and I think it will die there.