and so it continues.....I am simply posting this as information that I received from a GrassRoots email for those of you with the patience to read. I will allow it to speak for itself.
------------------------------------------
***** 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
<http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3292/H3292_Viers_amendment.pdf>
.
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
<http://www.scstatehouse.gov/citizensinterestpage/HouseJudiciaryCommittee/H3292RepViersProposedAmendment.pdf>
, 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, nor 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
<http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c023.htm>
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:*
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;*
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;*
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;*
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;*
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;*
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;*
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;*
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
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
http://www.scstatehouse.gov
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" <
[email protected]>,
"James Smith" <
[email protected]>,
"George Hearn" <
[email protected]>,
"Karl Allen" <
[email protected]>,
"Bruce Bannister" <
[email protected]>,
"Boyd Brown" <
[email protected]>,
"Alan Clemmons" <
[email protected]>,
"Derham Cole" <
[email protected]>,
"Greg Delleney" <
[email protected]>,
"Laurie Slade Funderburk" <
[email protected]>,
"Daniel Hamilton" <
[email protected]>,
"Jenny Horne" <
[email protected]>,
"Peter McCoy" <
[email protected]>,
"Walt McLeod" <
[email protected]>,
"Wendy Nanney" <
[email protected]>,
"Todd Rutherford" <
[email protected]>,
"Bakari Sellers" <
[email protected]>,
"Garry Smith" <
[email protected]>,
"Mike Sottile" <
[email protected]>,
"Leon Stavrinakis" <
[email protected]>,
"Eddie Tallon" <
[email protected]>,
"Thad Viers" <
[email protected]>,
"David Weeks" <
[email protected]>,
"Seth Whipper" <
[email protected]>,
"Tom Young" <
[email protected]>
*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" <
[email protected]>,
"Dan Cooper" <
[email protected]>,
"Greg Delleney" <
[email protected]>,
"Dennis Moss" <
[email protected]>,
"Chip Huggins" <
[email protected]>,
"Kenny Bingham" <
[email protected]>,
"Bill Hixon" <
[email protected]>,
"Liston Barfield" <
[email protected]>,
"Andy Patrick" <
[email protected]>,
"Garry Smith" <
[email protected]>,
"Dwight Loftis" <
[email protected]>,
"David Umphlett" <
[email protected]>,
"Don Bowen" <
[email protected]>,
"Phil Owens" <
[email protected]>,
"Chris Murphy" <
[email protected]>,
"David Hiott" <
[email protected]>,
"Eric Bikas" <
[email protected]>,
"Bill Sandifer" <
[email protected]>,
"Brian White" <
[email protected]>,
"Peter McCoy" <
[email protected]>,
"George Hearn" <
[email protected]>,
"Steve Parker" <
[email protected]>,
"Shannon Erickson" <
[email protected]>,
"Deborah Long" <
[email protected]>,
"Phyllis Henderson" <
[email protected]>,
"Bill Taylor" <
[email protected]>,
"Rick Quinn" <
[email protected]>,
"Bruce Bannister" <
[email protected]>,
"Daniel Hamilton" <
[email protected]>,
"Eric Bedingfield" <
[email protected]>,
"Mike Forrester" <
[email protected]>,
"Bill Herbkersman" <
[email protected]>,
"Gary Simrill" <
[email protected]>,
"Tom Young" <
[email protected]>,
"Tommy Pope" <
[email protected]>,
"Mark Willis" <
[email protected]>,
"Murrell Smith" <
[email protected]>,
"David Weeks" <
[email protected]>,
"Thad Viers" <
[email protected]>,
"Alan Clemmons" <
[email protected]>,
"Patsy Knight" <
[email protected]>
--
