The last time I got up to look out my window it was pretty obvious to me that the sky was not falling here in South Carolina. I’m sure I am not the only one keeping a close watch on the heavens these days because there are a few folks around here that seem to believe that Chicken Little was not exaggerating.
Considering the “dangerous anti-vax legislation” that has recently been proposed, this may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for liberals (Marxists) living in South Carolina. All is not lost, however. I would like them to know that there are still safe states where they could take refuge. They may not be as enthusiastic as they are about inviting illegal immigrants to live there but I suspect they would not be reluctant t accept new residents that will probably vote for the right people. These places have names like like New York, California and Massachusetts, among others. I strongly encourage our resident Marxists to take a serious look at relocating since they appear to be losing the battle here in the Palmetto State and I expect that to continue as more conservatives flee Marxist states in favor or places where voters have not embraced Communism.
If you’re wondering what some people might be so worried about now, you may have may not have heard that a new law has just been enacted here in the Palmetto State. It’s a law that has already been enacted in 28 other states and is commonly referred to as “Constitutional Carry.” In simple terms, it is aligned more with our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms that is so clearly recognized in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment reads as follows: “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.”
You’ll notice that it does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, except by state and local regulations, arbitrary approval by law enforcement agencies or by absence of government-approved training.” No, it says, “shall not be infringed.” Period. The end.
And to those who will dredge up the well-worn and obviously invalid argument indicating that the Second Amendment applies only to the National Guard because it begins with, “a well regulated Militia,” you’ll notice that it ends with the following: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Did you catch that? It’s “the right of the people” that I am talking about. Not the right of the militia. The right of the people. That leaves no doubt about who the Second Amendment applies to. It is blatantly obvious that it applies the same “people” that The Founders reference at the very beginning of the document: “We the people.”
With Constitutional Carry here in South Carolina, and again, this is a simplified description, law-abiding adults can carry firearms in public either openly or concealed without pre-approval by the state in the form of a permit or license. There are, of course, places where carrying a firearm is not allowed and those places are specified in the legislation. There is no requirement for training but the state will provide it for free for any resident that wants it. And let me be entirely clear on this. I absolutely do believe that anyone who wants to own or carry a firearm should definitely, absolutely and without a doubt seek training. I don’t believe it should be a requirement but I absolutely encourage it.
I am not going to pretend that I am not disappointed that it took this long for South Carolina to get around to getting this done. South Carolina has long been recognized as one of the most conservative states in the nation. So why did it take so long? States that are arguably less conservative than South Carolina adopted Constitutional Carry years ago. Arizona did it in 2010. Kansas did it in 2015, as did Maine. New Hampshire did it in 2017 and that’s a state that borders rabidly anti-gun Massachusetts; a state I am now almost ashamed to admit as the one where I was born and raised.
From what I have heard about how this latest legislative drama played out in our State House, I am have the impression that some of our legislators may be a bit stubborn and perhaps somewhat selfish. The proposed legislation had been bounced around between the Senate and the House numerous times due to disagreements over the details. Disagreements, that for whatever reason, seem more challenging to resolve in South Carolina than in other states. While I am happy that the new law has finally been enacted, I am disappointed that it took this long in a reliably red state.
As one would expect, the Marxist media and their followers have decried the enactment of Constitutional Carry in South Carolina. They have dusted off the same old bogus arguments that have been employed in every other state that has adopted Constitutional Carry. Since the Marxist shills in the state legislature failed in their efforts to derail the measure, their ideological brothers and sisters in the media were duty bound to take up the mantle and lecture us over what a dangerous development this is.
Let’s consider this article from TV station WCIV in Charleston, owned and operated by the Marxist Sinclair Broadcast Group. In this masterpiece entitled “South Carolina opens ‘gates of hell’ with new open carry gun law says Rep. Gilliard,” Marxist state representative Rep. Wendell Gilliard rails against the new law. The provocative quote attributed to Gilliard featured in the title of the article pretty well sums up what he expects to happen after the new law takes effect. As we have come to expect, Marxists do little other than lie, and this ludicrous declaration is no exception. Clearly, he expects an increase in crime and violence to sweep across the state with shootouts breaking out on every street corner.
Not to be outdone, Sheriff Leon Lott of Richland County honors his obligations as a good Marxist by revealing that he offered up a prayer with the hope that his “greatest fears don’t come true.” He goes on to explain that the fear that has him seeking the Lord’s assistance is that “South Carolina becomes the Wild, Wild West.” I guess you could say that’s pretty standard stuff for Marxist law enforcement officials to offer up when regular folks have their government-applied shackles loosened a little, but I do find it a bit strange for a Marxist to admit that he prays. Perhaps even Marxists in South Carolina tend to lean just a little more right.
Maybe the good sheriff should have had the sense to consider the same ridiculous predictions that were made by freedom-hating law enforcement officials in other states that spoke out against Constitutional Carry where it has been the law of the land for years. Those predictions failed to materialize just like they will here in South Carolina. And let’s face it, allowing any law-abiding adult to carry a firearm probably bruises the egos of some law enforcement officials since they probably believe they are the only people qualified to go out in public carrying a firearm.
Richland County, as you might expect, is a left-leaning county that encompasses the city of Columbia. In the 2020 election, Richland County favored Joe Biden over Donald Trump 68 to 30 percent. What is it about packing people together in close quarters that seems to diminish their intellectual capacity? In Richland County they seem incapable of making a reasonable choice for president or for sheriff.
I am unable to continue without acknowledging the thoroughly expected, worn out and intellectually bankrupt reaction of the anti-freedom crusaders we know as “Everytown for Gun Safety” who reacted to the new law with the following statement: “Let’s make one thing clear: lawmakers are preparing to strip us of one of our last remaining public safety laws – and a decision that will make communities less safe and cost lives.” Among other things too ridiculous to waste space repeating here.
Sadly for the “Everytown” hand-wringers, it is abundantly clear that few towns actually buy their gun-grabbing propaganda. A total of 29 states with Constitutional Carry make that pretty clear. They would fare better concentrating their efforts in states like those I listed above such as New York, California and Massachusetts where stripping essential freedoms from the citizenry is much easier to sell. Then again, given that those states have been so thoroughly stripped already, perhaps there just isn’t much left for groups like “Everytown for Gun Safety” to do. Even so, I’m sure they could come up with something.
Since 28 other states have enacted Constitutional Carry over the decades, it should be easy to find out how the measure influenced crimes that involved the use of firearms in those states. Those who oppose the idea predict that crimes involving firearms will increase because more people will be carrying firearms. Those that support the measure predict that crimes involving firearms will decrease because more armed law-abiding citizens will make life as a criminal more dangerous.
Let’s take a look at some actual crime statistics to see how those claims hold up, shall we?
Arizona adopted Constitutional Carry in April of 2010. Crime statistics indicate that the violent crime rate in that state during 2009 was 426.5 (per 100,000 residents) and in 2010 it dropped to 413.6. Apparently, Constitutional Carry did not create a “wild wild west” atmosphere in Arizona despite that state’s geographic location. In 2011 that number remained pretty steady at 414.2, pretty well proving that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms without government approval did not cause an increase in violent crime.
In Kansas Constitutional Carry was enacted in March of 2015. During 2014 the violent crime rate there was 352.6 and that rose to 395 in 2015. However, during that period the national crime rate also increased and in Michigan a similar increase took place. Guess what didn’t happen in Michigan in 2015? They did not adopt Constitutional Carry and still haven’t. In 2016 the rate increased only slightly, rising to 401.2. I guess there were no prayers required to keep crime from surging in Kansas when Constitutional Carry was enacted.
On February 22, 2017 the governor of New Hampshire signed Constitutional Carry into law in the Granite State. New Hampshire has one of the lowest crime rates in the country and that did not change when any law-abiding adult in the state was allowed to carry a firearm without a permit or license. The violent crime rate in New Hampshire was 199.8 in 2016 and that dropped slightly to 195.7 in 2017. It declined again in 2018 to 177.6 and has declined steadily since that time. Perhaps Sheriff Lott should make a call to a sheriff in New Hampshire to find out if their “greatest fears” materialized after Constitutional Carry was enacted there. Maybe he could ease up a bit on the panic-praying when he finds out New Hampshire did not become a war zone overnight after Constitutional Carry was signed into law.
It’s pretty obvious that allowing law-abiding adults to carry firearms does not cause an increase in violent crime, much less a “wild, wild west” scenario featuring streets running red with blood. Law-abiding citizens will remain law-abiding when they are carrying a firearm and criminals will carry on committing crimes regardless of any laws or restrictions just as they always have.
Will a few law-abiding adults who also happen to be morons decide to start carrying a firearm and do something stupid like shoot someone that did not need to be shot? Absolutely. That’s pretty much guaranteed to happen and likely already has. However, will some other law-abiding adult use the firearm they decided to start carrying to save their life or the life of someone else? Indeed. That has surely happened as well. Just as some people will misuse an automobile by driving drunk or driving too fast, some people will misuse firearms. But that happens far less frequently.
Here’s another glaring bit of logic that always seems to escape those who desire more restrictions on firearm ownership. Laws intended to limit, restrict or control the ownership of firearms or the ability to carry them in public will affect the behavior only of those who are willing to obey the law. Isn’t that about as obvious as anything could ever be? Someone who is making plans to use a gun to rob someone on the street, hold up a 7-11, shoot their cheating spouse or attack a school is already planning to commit a crime far more serious than owning or carrying a firearm. Does it seem reasonable to think that someone in that position will decide to abandon their plan because they realize that possessing or carrying a firearm is prohibited by law? Of course not! That’s utterly ridiculous!
Laws only influence the behavior of the law-abiding and do little or nothing to dissuade those bent on harming others. So why make it more difficult for the law-abiding (the good guys!) to protect themselves from the law-breakers?
I actually do know the answer to that question. Gun control actually has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with power. Those who seek to exert ever more control over the citizenry know that the right to own and carry firearms makes it much more difficult than it would otherwise be to enslave them. If you want a contemporary example, compare how police and other officials in places like China, Australia and Canada enforced restrictions during the Covid-19 “pandemic.” Police in those countries were much more willing and much quicker to use violence against those who dared to violate the Covid-19 restrictions. We did not see that kind of force used in the United States and the reason is that we are armed and we have the ability to push back when government pushes people too far.
Dictators always seek to disarm the populace and that is a time-honored practice that has been employed with great success in places like Communist China, the former Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba and yes, to a lesser extent, Australia and Canada. I suspect there are those in both Australia and Canada that might question my use of “to a lesser extent.” Although it is more difficult here in the U.S. to go down that road, we are seeing efforts now that we have never seen before. Authorities have failed to prosecute violent, destructive Marxist rioters in cities across the country while elderly women and bystanders were prosecuted to the fullest extent possible as a result of the fake “insurrection” on January 6th, 2021. There is no mistaking what that’s about.
By the way, how in the world could an “insurrection” ever happen without firearms? How could anyone ever imagine in their wildest dreams that the U.S. Government could be overthrown by people without guns? I never have heard of anyone being arrested in connection to the January 6th fiasco being armed at the time. Who would go to an actual insurrection without a gun?
What’s particularly astounding about these negative comments regarding a law that makes it easier for ordinary citizens to protect themselves is the current state of affairs in this country. We are living in a time where our country is being invaded by millions of illegal immigrants from all over the world. How much easier could it be for potential terrorists from just about anywhere to cross the wide-open southern border and make themselves at home while they formulate their plans to injure and kill as many Americans as they can? Many people with far more knowledge than I regarding national security are expecting that to happen. And this is the time that the Marxist mainstream media, Marxist sheriffs and Marxist anti-gun groups find appropriate to speak out against the right to protect ourselves? That tells us quite clearly what gun control is all about and it has nothing to do with protecting innocent lives.