South Carolina: Pro-Gun Bill Expected to be Heard

on Tuesday, May 18!

The South Carolina House of Representatives should take up House Bill 3298, introduced by State Representative Bakari Sellers (D-90), on Tuesday, May 18.  This bill seeks to remove the restriction on transporting a handgun under the seat of your vehicle, and allow a law-abiding gun owner to treat the area under his or her car seat similar to what current law allows regarding transporting a firearm in a closed glove compartment or console.

In addition, there will be an effort to amend this legislation to add language that would prohibit the establishment of any rules that would forbid the storing of firearms in a locked vehicle in parking lots.  This language would protect your right to keep a firearm in your car if you choose to hunt or target shoot before or after work, and would also allow an individual to keep a firearm in his or her vehicle for self-defense during the commute to and from work.  State Representative Garry R. Smith (R-27) has been promoting this amendment, which is based on House Bill 3994, a bill he introduced earlier this year.

Please contact your State Representative and urge him or her to support Representative Smith’s parking lot amendment, as well as the final passage of H. 3298. Contact information can be found here.

Immigration Bill Fallout
A Senate hearing on an immigration bill like Arizona’s controversial new law prompted some heated exchanges Thursday.

H. 3245 is a bill requiring a 24 hour waiting period before a mother can obtain an abortion. The conference committee (Sen. Brad Hutto, Sen. Jake Knotts, Rep. Greg Delleney, Rep. Ted Vick, Rep. Wendy Nanny, and myself) has been meeting for several weeks now.

Here’s a summary of the hangups.

provider of ultrasounds- The Senate version gives the mother the choice of obtaining the optional ultrasound from a variety of sources (abortion clinic, crisis pregnancy clinic, family doctor, ob/gyn, etc.)

The House version only allows for the abortion clinic to provide the ultrasound.

printed materials- The Senate version gives the option of viewing the materials on the internet, receiving in the mail, or picking them up at the abortion clinic.

The House version requires the mother to obtain the materials from the abortion clinic.

I voted for the House version out of  committee, but I now prefer the Senate version for the following reasons:

First of all, I don’t trust the abortion doctor to give a clear view and acurate picture of the baby. He’ll certainly zoom out, tell her its a blob, take her money, and proceed. If she chooses to go elsewhere for the ultrasound, she’ll definitely get more accurate information about organ, tissue, fingers, and toe development.

Also, I can imagine the abortion clinic handing her a stack of materials, tell her she doesn’t want to read the “propaganda”, get her signature of reciept, take her money, and proceed the next day. IF she choosed to gather her information elsewhere, she may read it. The informed conset website by Michigan some very accurate information about fetal development. take a look

Also, the Senate version requires the website and printed materials to contain a list (and links) of free ultrasound providers desiring to be listed. During this reflection period, she may seek advice from outside sources now that she’s aware of them.

In a nutshell, the House version creates barriers and the Senate version encourages the mother to know her child before making this decision.

As I’ve stated many times before, H. 3245 doesn’t ban abortions. If it did, I’d support it. However, H. 3245 can slow the decision process down and encourge the mother to consider all of the available information and options.

It’s way to late in the session to pass this bill, however, we’re going to try to get some discussions going to earn traction on this bill for early January. So far, we’ve got 19 sponsors

S 1446 General Bill, By Grooms, Mulvaney, Reese, Setzler, McConnell, Verdin, Cromer, Bryant, Ryberg, Bright, Thomas, S. Martin, Elliott, Rose, Cleary, Fair, Rankin, Davis and Shoopman

A BILL TO AMEND CHAPTER 1, TITLE 23 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING SECTION 23-1-250 TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS REASONABLE SUSPICION THAT A PERSON STOPPED, DETAINED, OR ARRESTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS AN ALIEN UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED STATES, THE OFFICER OR HIS AGENCY MUST FOLLOW CERTAIN PROCEDURES TO VERIFY… full bill