Summerville Citizen Petition Proposes Assault Weapons Ban
Nearly 4,000 signatures needed by Aug. 15 for November 2013 ballot.
A petition for an assault weapons ban referendum in the Town of Summerville is in the works.
Summerville resident Louis Smith is the man behind the petition to bring about the November referendum, which he brought up during a Summerville Town Council meeting Wednesday. Language on the definition of an assault weapon and what the ordinance would do is still being hashed out. Smith said he will have language nailed down by February.
To create an ordinance for a S.C. municipality, 15 percent of the registered voters need to have signed the petition, according to Dorchester County Election Commission Executive Director Joshua Dickard. That means less than 4,000 signatures are needed for a Summerville. Those signatures need to be turned into the election board by Aug. 15.
If the petition gets the required signatures, it will be the first time in recent memory that a citizen brought a referendum to the ballot in the county, Dickard said. In November 2012, Dorchester County School District Two's referendum to fund the building and improvement of schools passed with overwhelming support.
The referendum proposed by the referendum is a reaction to the Newtown, Conn., school shooting massacre and an increase in shooting violence in the Summerville community.
Smith, who ran for school board in 2012, said he understands the difficult logistics of just one town banning assault weapons but it's a necessary step to bypass the statewide or national politicians who may be unwilling to take on the National Rifle Association lobby.
"We narrowed the focus to Summerville and hopefully it will catch enough fire for other communities," Smith said. "We cannot expect the politicians to bring it because of the NRA."
Smith said despite his efforts to bring about a ban, he is a strong Second Amendment supporter.
"I'm very much involved in the Southern tradition and part of that tradition is guns, family and God … but we have to make a step soemwhere. Enough is enough with these assault rifles," Smith said. "We do not want to infringe upon the Second Amendment but we have to have some limited regulations."
He said there was "no reason" for more than a dozen shots to be able to be fired at Robynwyn resident John Hancock, who died in 2012. Smith said gun show loopholes and private sales loopholes must be closed to prevent legal guns from ending up in the hands of those who will abuse them.
"We need to limit a lot of access to guns, which will limit the guns on the streets," Smith said. "The less you have, the less the chances are you have a shooting."
Dorchester County Sheriff's Office PIO Maj. John Garrison said the majority of violent gun crime in the county is by those who were unable to legally purchase weapons.
"A good percentage of gun crimes come from people who couldn't have gone out and legally bought it," Garrison said, adding he did not have solid numbers to share yet. "We have very few firearm crimes by just Joe Blow citizens. Most of ours are involved in robberies and assaults, and the assaults are from a drug context ... It's already illegal for (the perpetrator with a criminal record) to possess one anyway."
Will you sign the petition to bring a municipal assault weapons ban in front of voters in November? Tell us in the comments!
Tom Utley
2:44 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
That would be against the South Carolina constitution:
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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.
paul macleod
7:12 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
that is probaably true.. what's more is that they have exactly the wrong premise.. banning assault rifles were not effective for over ten years when they were banned in America .. it got us Columbine in the third year of the ban.. it will not keep guns off the streets, it will not decrease these attacks .. a bozo move that ignores all the evidence... what's really the motivation of someone who doesn't really care about the actually results ? get rid of these dangerous no gun zones.. that would be a good start.. make the kids safe .. more regulation does not work and these people need to bring this up a notch to get done what needs to get done...
reg
1:04 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
A bold interpretation --- apparently you're not familiar with State v. Johnson in 1881.
And eliminating the loopholes that allow convicted felons to purchase weapons is NOT a constitutional violation, tommy boy.
Sick O'Libs
3:59 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
Louis Smith apparently doesn't know or understand what constitutes an assault weapon. I hate to break it to you, Mr. Smith, but I can change the magazine in my pistol pretty quickly - mere seconds - and can cause just as much damage as a so-called assault weapon. Your wants should never infringe upon the rights of others. I will be sure to attend the next council meeting to oppose your ban. Maybe I'll even start my own counter-petition. I guarantee it won't be a problem to find the signatures.
mary shelly
5:07 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
louis smith doesn't know the difference between a RIFLE& assault weapon , merely a fact is a assault weapon is a automatic ( aka machine guns ) a rifle is a semi auto or single shot , maybe louis smith should read the constitution & bill of rights ,also you should read up on germany & russia when guns were taken from the people do you really want millions of people murdered for your feel good petition ,sad to say this isn't the america i grew up in with all these pc wuzzes runing around just remember 1 day someone will break into your kingdom & do you really think they're going to stop when you wave your petition at them ha ha good luck pal
Tom Utley
9:21 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
The difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle is that the assault rifle looks scary. Haha
mary shelly
5:11 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
sic o libs get your petition runing i have 600 people ready to sign
stanley seigler
6:00 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
i admire smith and more power to him...but as we all know the petition is the snowball in hell...but some comments for the sake of discussion and perhaps enlightenment.
i saw nothing in the comments by smith's critics that addressed smith's and other's concern re free access to WMDs by crazies...just read sameoldsameold, tired NRA talking points (aka bs)...eg;
'Your wants should never infringe upon the rights of others'
nobody is infringing on anyone rights...smith is only asking what the SCOTUS interpretation of the 2nd allows:
'The Court stated that the right to keep and bear arms is subject to regulation, such as concealed weapons prohibitions, limits on the rights of felons and the mentally ill, laws forbidding the carrying of weapons in certain locations, laws imposing conditions on commercial sales, and prohibitions on the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. It stated that this was not an exhaustive list of the regulatory measures that would be presumptively permissible under the Second Amendment.'
the opertative phrase: 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'
wish someone would explain why they need a WMD for hunting...you DONT and it's unsportsman like...
also wish someone would explain, if in the impossible event, we are attached by our country how you will take out a tank, drone, marine regiment, etc, with your WMD...
there is NO WAY, NO WAY...one drone you're toast.
paul macleod
7:23 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
there you go again... the 2 nd amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting.. where in the world did you get that idea.? WMD ? even for you , that's a tad over the top.. the point here is that something has to be done to try and prevent the killing of innocent unprotected people.. mostly by nuts with many loose screws.. hint hint.. two words point to a good start.. unprotected and nuts .. address those two things and we really have no need to get all wound up about the 2 nd amendment.. that conversation is going nowhere and I think we all know it..so let's concentrate on the things that will actually have an affect.. oh I know we won't be able to agree.. but we should try the easy stuff first.. the stuff that is more likely to work and then tackle the nasty constitution later.. much much later... so just like the privileged children of those parents who would deny us regular folks protection for our children... we need to arm up in our schools.. just like they do with the pres. kids and congress critter children.. or we remove those armed guards from those schools too... one of the other.. saying it's not a good idea for regular folks but is a good idea for them makes me kinda mad.. I don't see how their childrens lives are any more valuable than the lives of my children of grand kids.. or my neighbors kids.. do you ?
stanley seigler
11:18 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
re: 2nd has nothing to do w/ hunting... .. where in the world did you get that idea...
I don’t now, never did, and never will have such a dumb idea, straw man, NRA argument.
Where in the world did PM get the idea I had this idea...’there he goes again’, attributing stuff to a person, I guess so he can basically argue with himself.
re: really have no need to get all wound up about the 2nd amendment...
couldnt agree more...this excellent point should be brought to the attention of the NRA (more appropriately NWA)...who have forever and now have renewed their effort to make the 2nd an issue...’an end run' around gun control...
“This is not about protecting the Second Amendment,” he [joe scarborough] reiterated.
“This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away?”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/scarborough-tears-into-nra-gun-manufacturers-for-making-millions-over-slaughter-of-20-innocents/
[to be contd]
stanley seigler
12:52 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
cont’d
re: so let's concentrate on the things that will actually have an affect...oh I know we won't be able to agree. but we should try the easy stuff first.
oh we agree the easy stuff, gun control, first...
evidently PM doesn’t have any concept of what it would take to adequately address mental health...this is NOT the easy stuff...especially with cuts to mental health programs, so to provide tax cuts for the 1%.
BTW as strongly as I disagree, it criminal, what the NRA has done to our country...as a bleeding heart liberal I must thank them for destroying the TGOPs...tho, hopefully have not destroyed ‘your fathers’ GOP...this country needs a strong rational GOP...
James Williams
7:19 pm on Monday, February 11, 2013
As for taking out tanks I'm not sure but the Afghan people have done a pretty good job fighting super powers with tanks and super weapons with basic guns for years! As for your definition of a WMD I'd like to know if you are a George W Bush fan? Because if you are that would explain why he thought there were WMD's in Iraq! An AR15 is not a WMD! It is no more dangerous than most semi-auto hunting rifles! Actually the round most of them shoot is too small for deer but good for wild hogs. As for unusual it's been around since the 1960's and is used all over the world. It is prefered for it's modular build, compfortable feel and ease of shooting. If it were fully automatic like the m16 then it would be unsportsman but in semi-auto it's very practical. Speaking of DRONES, the government is already using them here in the US! Now that's a real issue because they can be made into WMD's!
mary shelly
7:54 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
stanley how did you get to wmds from rifles ? take a look around the world most kids are trained with weapons , not wmd's . i myself would rather have armed personal in our schools , remember those crazies only go to GUN FREE ZONES ,not to places where people can defend themselves, by forcing good citizens to comply with laws ,makes no sense when criminals don't , but thats my opinion
stanley seigler
11:33 pm on Thursday, January 10, 2013
re: how did you get to wmds from rifles
how does the NRA (national RIFLE Association) get from rifles to military assault weapons (aka WMD)...what does NRA lemmings call ak47s (whatever) that kill 20 children in a 10 minutes...
as a parent, I call them WMDs.
re: remember those crazies only go to GUN FREE ZONES
this is a NRA talking point to divert attention from WMDs SO to increase gun mfg’s sales/profits from WMD...
guess NRA and lemmings want to return to 'shoot out at the OK coral' days...ordinary folks (teachers, mall shoppers, etc) v. the crazies at the OK coral (schools, malls, theaters)
just what guns should be allowed in schools, theaters, shopping malls...how does one insure he/she will not be out gunned by a crazy w/ a bullet proof vest...should we all arm ourselves with a WMD and wear a bullet proof vest...and is a vest really protection against arm piercing ammo...
stanley seigler
12:09 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
PS
FYI
UK is a gun free zone...even bobbies dont carry guns
stats posted on PATCH threads re gun control
historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year:
USA 10.2; UK 0.25
there are 9 countries with rates higher than USA and 50-60 [relatively] gun free zone countries with lower rates...most european countries have rates around 3.0... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
re: by forcing good citizens to comply with laws, makes no sense when criminals don't
common criminals dont commit mass massacres...crazies do... AND THEY ARE WHAT GUN CONTROL IS ABOUT.
paul macleod
7:31 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
you lie and stretch truths on many fronts Stanley.. stop it.. Bobbies , by the way , do carry guns .. they didn't for many many years.. but now that they have pretty much outlawed guns . the crime rates are through the roof .. why ? oh just figure it out..any way the only ones with guns are the criminals ..oops how is that possible ? and now they .. gov't .. decided they better arm the Bobbies .. so they did.. as for what weapons we should are ourselves with.. well lets start with the same weapons being used by the protectors of the children of the pres. and congress critters. in their schools.. you know that ones that say it's a bad idea to have guns in schools .. the kids will be afraid.. another lie... so let's use their very own program as a guide .. whadda ya think stanley.? do ya think that the life of my kid is as valuable as the life of a senators kid ? mmmm? do ya stanley../??
stanley seigler
3:18 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
re: you lie and stretch truths...
readers (if there are any) can decide who lies, stretches truth and parrots NRA propaganda...
but FYI
re: Bobbies , by the way , do carry guns...
some do most dont...
'London's police department said Friday that ‘a new armed’ unit is carrying out regular sweeps of districts riven by gun battles...The sweeps are being carried out about once a week by officers already attached to the 'specialist firearms unit.' [not all street cops] ... Britain's Home Office said being unarmed is part of the "character of the police" in the U.K.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33448132/ns/world_news-europe/t/some-british-bobbies-gun-comes-job/
PM's hyperbole implying all 'bobbies', vice the facts, just a 'new armed unit'... meets the criteria for a misleading stretched truth...if not a lie...
further, PM conflates violent crimes with school massacres...a favorite tactic (lie, stretched truth) of NRA lemmings.
re: ...the life of my kid is as valuable as the life of a senators kid
for sure...however they are not at the same risk as children of senators.
another irrelevant NRA/lemmings argument to divert attention from gun control...thus allowing kooks access to WMDs so to kill our valuable children...
seems NRA cares more about gun mfg's profit than our children's lives...eg;
“This is about gun manufacturers [and retailers] making millions and millions and millions of dollars." [say GOP joe scarborough]
paul macleod
8:56 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
in my 67 years of life.. and my ..oh let's see now, 60 years or so of owning and operating guns of all shapes and sizes, hunting, going to a war, target shooting, etc.. and yes even a member of NRA... but in all that time I have never heard someone so fessed up about an organization as you are.about the NRA.. and mostly you have it wrong.. so what's up with that Stan.. ? you said they made millions off the tragedy , they meaning the gun manuf. but that's not the case, sales went through the roof because of the left's fettish against guns.. no matter the reason.. and the NRA had nothing at all to do with that.. that was something you did.. and others like you.. come on stan .. bring it up a notch will ya.. like you nutty idea of what an assault rifle is.. your wrong again. on that one.and by the way the ok coral days ? you mean like the wild wild west.. that wasn't so wild after all. check it out stan .. that's a bunch of bull too.. that you promote. you lie stan and you lie alot.. and then you skirt a lie by stretching the truth.. you need to get the NRA thing.. and if you really want to contribute.. try embracing reality some.. there are bad people out there .. they have guns and will always have guns.. having in protected schools is just plain stupid.. I don't figure you are stupid.. so you are driven more by idealology than you are good sense.. the reason I strongly suggest you bring it up a notch.. it's not the guns that's the problem.. it's left wing la la land citizens
paul macleod
8:56 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
in my 67 years of life.. and my ..oh let's see now, 60 years or so of owning and operating guns of all shapes and sizes, hunting, going to a war, target shooting, etc.. and yes even a member of NRA... but in all that time I have never heard someone so fessed up about an organization as you are.about the NRA.. and mostly you have it wrong.. so what's up with that Stan.. ? you said they made millions off the tragedy , they meaning the gun manuf. but that's not the case, sales went through the roof because of the left's fettish against guns.. no matter the reason.. and the NRA had nothing at all to do with that.. that was something you did.. and others like you.. come on stan .. bring it up a notch will ya.. like you nutty idea of what an assault rifle is.. your wrong again. on that one.and by the way the ok coral days ? you mean like the wild wild west.. that wasn't so wild after all. check it out stan .. that's a bunch of bull too.. that you promote. you lie stan and you lie alot.. and then you skirt a lie by stretching the truth.. you need to get the NRA thing.. and if you really want to contribute.. try embracing reality some.. there are bad people out there .. they have guns and will always have guns.. having in protected schools is just plain stupid.. I don't figure you are stupid.. so you are driven more by idealology than you are good sense.. the reason I strongly suggest you bring it up a notch.. it's not the guns that's the problem.. it's left wing la la land citizens
paul macleod
7:49 am on Friday, January 11, 2013
for all you who think that stanley is giving a fair , balanced and truthfull view of his anti gun fetish.. have a look at the unarmed bobbies....Britian is beside themselves now that their crime rate has gone through the roof.. the citizens are afraid , home invasions are the latest craze for the criminals who are the only ones with guns.. the rest of the country is completely defenseless.. oh except for the privileged.. like Fienstien who has an armed guard and she personally carries .. she has a concealed weapons permit .. but doesn't want you to have one.. anyone getting the "real " picture here
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/robert-farago/so-much-for-unarmed-british-bobbies/
stanley seigler
3:29 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
re: the "real " picture here
the link pic is a prime example of NRA/lemmings deliberate attempt to mislead (aka lies and stretched truths)...there is NO resemblance to a street bobbie...as surely PM knows.
donald kramer
4:35 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
One point, the school shooting in the news was not done with an assult weapon. There was an assult weapon, or a rifle that looks like and assult weapon, in the trunk of the car but it was not used in the school. Any banned weapon only means that people who follow the law can not buy one. Someone who is outside the law can and will buy one if he wants.
We do need to regulate sales at gun shows and control private internet sales. Most internet sales require a FFL dealer to recieve the weapons and initiate the registration before delivery to the buyer.
John A. Kauth
8:04 pm on Friday, January 11, 2013
I am against the passing of unenforceable laws. We have enough of those on the books already, I dislike agreeing with the NRA but there are thousands of gun laws that are not being vigorously enforced. Face it, the gun "horse" left the barn a long time ago. There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation already. There seems to be a significant part of the US population that believes they will be fighting the federal government one day. Extreme to some of us but deeply embedded in the American psyche. That is what needs to be addressed, this "gun mentality." Much greater spending is needed to overcome the paranoia of many gun owners and the NRA. Canada has higher per-capita gun ownership than the US and much lower gun deaths.
GunnyHighway
3:42 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
We will never have a meaningful discussion on this subject until we get rid of the confusing and inflammatory term "assault weapon". I highly doubt that the majority of the people posting on this website even know what it means. In my personal opinion, any weapon that is used against another person is, by definition, an "assault weapon". A rifle that looks like a military rifle is fundamentally no different than one that doesn't. You want to ban one and not the other simply because of its appearance? That's just plain silly.
John A. Kauth
10:01 pm on Saturday, January 12, 2013
Yes, assault weapons are the latest boogeyman term that cannot be well defined. Is it a semi-automatic weapon that looks military? Most pistols are semi-automatic. They fire bullets as fast as you can pull the trigger until the clip is empty. Many pistols and rifles fire a larger bullet than the 'assault weapons" and can do much more damage. The assault weapon ban is cosmetic and will do no more good than the last assault weapon ban.
stanley seigler
12:51 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
you're playing a semantics game...believe you know this has nothing to with regulating the purchase of and owning guns...specifics can be worked out in any legislation...
JJ RN
8:27 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
WOW...........Stanley almost made me un-enjoy my coffee this fine Sunday morning, Weapons of mass destruction...really Stan, that's ignorant to even say so stop.
You too Louis, using the word Assault in front of the word rifle just makes you feel good...it's not true so please. The pic of the semi-automatic rifle in this post is NOT an assault rifle, it is NOT an AUTOMATIC, a "machine gun" Which is an assault weapon. It is no different than than any hunting rifle you can buy at Walmart, Dicks, Bass Pro Shops etc. I can fire 50 rounds as fast if not faster using my .22 cal plinker or my Berreta .45 cal. So, sic o libs, get your petition going, we'll beat this like a bad habit too...............
stanley seigler
12:18 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
re: Weapons of mass destruction...really Stan, that's ignorant to even say so stop.
i calls em the way i see em...what do you call a weapon that murders 20 children in a few minutes (seconds)...a deer rifle maybe.
paul macleod
9:07 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
and by the way Stanley said the Senators children are at a higer risk than other children in school and , I suppose, that meant they get security while others don't.. I cringed at that comment but it put ole Stanley in full view.. he's a shill.. I want him to tell the families of those killed in Conn. exactly that.. your children are not in as risky a position as the senators or presidents kids.. a little class warfare for you common folks.... the problem with that comment is it true to extent that people like Stanley actually believe it .. but these senators didn't have to bare the burden of the lose of a child like those in Conn. it's because , in truth, the "Risk" was higher for them as it turns out.. so , once again, Stanley misses the mark by a mile ..but at least we all now know who Stanley is.. Stanley.. a smart, yet ignorant left wing nut with a fetish against guns and the NRA along with a love for the elite..
stanley seigler
12:45 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
re: I suppose, that meant they get security while others don't
sigh, there you go again, supposing stuff no one said or implied...whyowhy do you do it...maybe so you can argue w/ yoself...
BTW do have any facts on just how much more security is provided senator's children...and how much, if any is provided by the government...
if one has the money they can provide any degree of security desired...many senators are wealthy and can send their kids to expensive private schools which probably provides security for all the rich folk's children who attend.
yo argument re senators children security...is just another distraction...absolutely NOTHING to with gun regulation.
try addressing gun control...you may change some ignorant left wing nut's mind...
stanley seigler
11:41 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
'the evil, NRA does will live after them...' but you have to give them credit for a massive, effective, propaganda program...ie,
most all the discussion/debate has been on everything but gun control...eg,
security for senator's children; semantics (assult, automatic, WMDs, etc); how fast one can shoot; what a rifle looks like; adhom attacks, etc...
besides not addressing GUN CONTROL...most distractionS are filled with misinformation (too numerous to point out, readers will have to decide)...AND,
NO ONE:
1. explains why one opposes simple requirements to purchase/own a gun: gun education, testing, then licensening. the same requirements to obtain a drivers license...
2. will/can explain why a WMD (what ever one calls a military type weapon) is needed for hunting...
3. no one can/will explain how the regulation of guns violate the 2nd amendment as interputed by the SCOTUS.
NRA has perfected brainwashing...has replaced brains with NRA 'shooter caps.'
i used to wonder how hitler convinced a reasonable intelligent german people to hate jews...
after witnessing what the NRA (gun mfgs) has(have) done to the american people with their propaganda (and what the kochbros did with voterID)...i no longer wonder...it was a piece of cake for hitler...
course i shudda stopped wondering after what the tobacco industry did to us...wonder if the tobacco lobbyist are now working for the gun mfgs...
stanley seigler
11:55 am on Sunday, January 13, 2013
PS
re: ignorant left wing nut with a fetish against guns and the NRA...
the ignorant, etc, is basically quoting another left wing nut, joe scarborough who say:
“This is not about protecting the Second Amendment,” he reiterated...This is about gun manufacturers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. This is about retailers making millions and millions and millions of dollars. Do you know how much money these people have made over the slaughter of 20 innocents in Newtown? Do you know how much richer these rich gun manufacturers have gotten over the past month, and how the NRA uses that tragedy to gin up fears, and websites use that tragedy to gin up fears that they’re coming to take your guns away?”
BTW as all know adhoms add nothing to a discussion and folks tend to use them when they have no facts, no answers...they only have their too cute by 1/2 adhoms and irrelevant distractions
oh, i may be wrong boot scarborough being a left wing nut...seems somewhere i heard he was a newt GOP.
JJ RN
12:23 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Stan...for the love of God, stop with your (WMD) label, those are missles with serin and mustard gases, nuclear tipped warheads etc. so back down !!!! We're talking a rifle here..... So when you type "millions" 3x in a row, does this make you feel better? Bigger possibly?? More meaningful??? Just one will do................ QUIT using the kids as an example for making money, Ignorant again !! So the Iraqi war didnt make COLT millions? So Afghanistan hasn't made BILLIONS for Winchester, H&K (Columbia, SC), Remington? FORCE(Ladson, SC) Lockheed Martin? How many more do I need to name?? Leave the kids ALONE and stop making them a center point of your own self centered selfish views............really STOP
stanley seigler
1:42 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
indeed the unnecessary iraq war and afghan necessary war did make arms mfgs billions and sadly so has the sale of WMDs in the USA
and so has civilian gun sales...
http://www.peoplesworld.org/guns-profits-and-sandy-hook/
[CLIPS]
1. There are billions of profits being made in the legal civilian gun trade. (Not to mention in military and law enforcement weapons sales.) Corporations also profit from the illegal gun trade.
2. That's where the "gun lobby" steps in. Shrouded in the most right-wing interpretation of the Constitution, the gun lobby peddles fear, racism and paranoia to the American public to pump up gun sales.
3. Newtown itself was a victim of the "gun lobby," which blocked a local law enforcement initiative to bar people from shooting their weapons within 500 feet of a home.
4. Ban assault weapons and high capacity bullet clips to start. That will send a message to the gun profiteers - and the country as a whole - that public safety comes before corporate profits. [end clips]
really stop...STOP parroting NRA anti public safety bs...take off yo NRA shooter cap...the NRA really doesn't give a damn about you and the 2nd...they're all about corp profits.
JJ RN
12:31 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
YES Stan, a deer rifle can kill 20 people, as can a knife....in seconds. A well trained special forces soldier can do it in seconds too.....
stanley seigler
2:03 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
re: a deer rifle can kill 20 people, as can a knife
any recent examples...it took jack the ripper 4-6 years to kill 4-6 people with a knife...
surely you understand the potential killing power of knife/rifle v WMDs...if there were no difference armed forces would be armed w/ a deer rifle not a WMD.
and you also must know there is NO comparison of a trained sp forces soldier and a crazy civilian ... but doubt even a sp forces soldier could kill 20 children in seconds with a knife...
your comments are irrelevant and tend to discredit any opine re gun control...
JJ RN
5:05 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Sir Stan....YOU are a crazed, disillusionist psychopath, I enjoy spirited bantor but your continued ignorant use of WMD along with your now doubt that a Navy Seal etc is ineffective with a K-bar is borderline insane on your part.
So stay at home and lock your doors because there are and will be bad guys waiting for you when you least expect it, and won't give a second thought about putting a WMD between your eyes.............all for your wallet or car keys. As you feel something warm running down both your legs you will wish you had a chance to make a difference in what is about to happen to you, but you will be to late. I'm sure you scoff at this, very sure so do remember to look over your shoulder for the bad guy and hope he will have mercy....as for me, I sleep well at night, because around me and my house, anything within 600 yards....is in range........
stanley seigler
7:58 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
ohmy jj, sigh...your irrelevant rants do nothing to explain why NRA lemmings are opposed to simple gun regulations similar to the process to get drivers license...
actually they further discredit any argument opposing gun control...
re: scoff at this
i do smile at your utterly irrelevant opines...eg, the fact a seal could kill 20 children in seconds w/ a knife...he/she couldn't catch 20 kids in the time they could be murdered with a WMD.
perhaps you are being the joker or can explain how this relates to gun control...if not then when in a hole one should stop digging...
your use of personal attacks is directly proportional to the lack of relevant facts/conclusions...but if you must keep on digging...
i have to believe you are really not serious...
JJ RN
5:07 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
by the way..... that IS relevant !
GunnyHighway
6:34 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
I'm just curious... Can anyone articulate their specific objections to me owning an AR-15 rifle? Exactly what reasons do you have for trying to deny me the right to own an AR-15?
stanley seigler
8:56 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
re: Can anyone articulate their specific objections to me owning an AR-15 rifle?
its painfully obvious easy access to ar15s type weapons were used for mass murder of children and others (eg, a US representative) that said;
tho, i'm personally opposed to military type guns in the community...skeet/trap shooting is more fun...but if there are background checks, gun education, testing, then licensing...reducing easy access to crazies...then guess it's OK for gunny (whoever) to own a WMD.
OTOH
can any explain how gunny (whoever) is going to take out a tank, drone, marine regiment with his ar15 (whatever) also;
can gunny (anyone) explain why a WMD is needed for hunting...seems rather un-sportsman like to me...
these Qs are never answered...anti control folk/freaks just move the target to more irrelevant arguments...eg, a seal can kill 20 kids in seconds with a knife...SAY WHAT?!
BTW
Under the Switchblade Knife Act of 1958 (amended 1986, codified at 15 U.S.C. §§1241-1245), switchblades and ballistic knives are banned from interstate shipment, sale, or importation, or possession within the following: any territory or possession of the United States...knives of any description may be prohibited at airports, schools, public buildings or courthouses, or at public events. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knife_legislation#United_States_of_America
stanley seigler
9:05 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
PS
ask gabby giffords
GunnyHighway
9:18 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Ok, let me try again... can someone please explain exactly what is meant by the term "military type guns"? What are the attributes of these guns that makes them undesirable? How, specifically, do these guns differ from "acceptable" guns?
Can we discuss the actual issue? Or are we destined to continue trading vague, emotional hypotheses that have little or no bearing on the actual subject?
stanley seigler
11:38 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Hard to believe dont understand how military/assault type weapons differ from shotguns and hunting rifles...
Tho, difficulty understanding this is just another distraction...to avoid answers to:
why one needs more than a shotgun for hunting and how a gun advocate cowboy cane defend against drones, tanks, marine regiments with any type military assault weapons
here’s a generally accepted definition (as if you didn't know)
‘an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
what do you see as the actual issue...i have always considered GUN CONTRO the issue...and have tried to find answers...eg;
why one needs more than a shotgun or leaver/bolt action rifle for hunting and how a gun advocate cowboy will/can defend against drones, tanks, marine regiments with any type military assault weapons...
my opine: there is NO reason for more than a shotgun/hunting rifle for sportsman like hunting...and NO ONE is going to bring down a drone with an assault weapon (as defined above)...
another opine: NRA is a lobby for the gun mfgs...nothing more nothing less.
stanley seigler
12:41 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
CORRECTION
Tho, difficulty understanding this is just another distraction...to avoid answers to:
SHOULD READ
Tho, NO difficulty understanding this is just another distraction...to avoid answers to:
JJ RN
10:25 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Gunny, sorry you have to read about Stan's pasty white very personal views, (that only he believes in) I believe he's missed his Lithium and Aricept......
So to correct you Stanley, if you attempt to correct me be accurate, I never said or implied a Seal would kill a kid, I said it earlier, stop using the Newtown victims in your irrelevant rants, you have no right to mention their tender lives in your own sick narrative.....
stanley seigler
12:02 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
stop digging...you in a hole...
no one said you said/implied seals kill children...you implied a seal 'could' kill 20 in seconds with a knife...i said this was BS...
there you go again making up stuff so as to argue w/ yoself...and your increased use of adhoms further indicate you have no facts to back yo irrelevant conclusions...
as evidence by your willingness to allow crazies to purchase WMD...you have no concern or appreciation for the murder of our children...
take off yo NRA shooter cap and try addressing the issue: GUN CONTROL...
paul macleod
7:26 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
JJ... this Stan is a shill.. he represents the left at a higher level, he'll deny that. he has been on a number of these forums under different names.. he shakes up the conversations with foolishness mixed in with a factoid or two but laced mainly with left wing agenda BS.. it took me a while to figure him out but now I know.. his words are framed exactly the same and his positions are always floated with a tad of sarcasim and bullishness.. pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.. he isn't actually a person .. stan is a shill .. a promoter for the left.. he ignores the real problem while using a strawman to divert and direct .. he's good at it.. but , for me, it's now a repeat and boring as heck.. an intelligent dialoge about a serious problem could be a positive thing affecting a positive outcome.. but not when you have agenda based participants ..an example is accusing the NRA of having responsibility for Sandy Hook because they were against a 500 foot perimeter of safety..a law that cannot be enforced.. why ? because the shooters just won't read the signs.. while stanley is accusing the NRA he is ignoring his own responsibility by supporting the gun free zones and making small innocent kids with no defense against the reality of evil, he makes them victims and then a heavy hand at the NRA.. just an example.. oh and he'll deny that as well.. of ignore it. but to take responsibility for the outcome of a policy he supports.. nope.. hunting is not in the 2nd amendment
paul macleod
7:26 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
JJ... this Stan is a shill.. he represents the left at a higher level, he'll deny that. he has been on a number of these forums under different names.. he shakes up the conversations with foolishness mixed in with a factoid or two but laced mainly with left wing agenda BS.. it took me a while to figure him out but now I know.. his words are framed exactly the same and his positions are always floated with a tad of sarcasim and bullishness.. pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.. he isn't actually a person .. stan is a shill .. a promoter for the left.. he ignores the real problem while using a strawman to divert and direct .. he's good at it.. but , for me, it's now a repeat and boring as heck.. an intelligent dialoge about a serious problem could be a positive thing affecting a positive outcome.. but not when you have agenda based participants ..an example is accusing the NRA of having responsibility for Sandy Hook because they were against a 500 foot perimeter of safety..a law that cannot be enforced.. why ? because the shooters just won't read the signs.. while stanley is accusing the NRA he is ignoring his own responsibility by supporting the gun free zones and making small innocent kids with no defense against the reality of evil, he makes them victims and then a heavy hand at the NRA.. just an example.. oh and he'll deny that as well.. of ignore it. but to take responsibility for the outcome of a policy he supports.. nope.. hunting is not in the 2nd amendment
stanley seigler
2:25 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
sigh, ohmy...everbody hates, nobody likes me think i'll go eat a worm...OTOH, FDR's quote, 'i welcome their hate' comes to mind.
re: a shill.. he represents the left at a higher level, he'll deny that. he has been on a number of these forums under different names.. he shakes up the conversations with foolishness mixed in with a factoid or two but laced mainly with left wing agenda BS.. it took me a while to figure him out but now I know
of course you are joking...but as you saw some believe you are serious...they dont know increasing adhoms and hogwash are directly proportional to decreasing facts...ie,
the adhoms/hogwash speak volumes directly to one's creditability (well lack thereof)...
again vice a 'he said/i said' discussion the reader will have to decide where the truth lies. (no pun intended)
but for the record there is NOT one scintilla of truth in PM's ad hominems...
re: it took me a while to figure him out but now I know
you know jack crap...go RE-FIGGER
GunnyHighway
10:43 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
Well so far all I've read is that assault weapons are bad, because they're assault weapons, which are bad. Does that sum it up?
stanley seigler
11:47 pm on Sunday, January 13, 2013
you know better...
assault weapon are bad because they allow crazies to murder our children and are NOT necessary for hunting...andAND cant be use in defense of our country which will NEVER be attacked by our armed forces...
answer the simple Qs
why one needs more than a shotgun for hunting and how a gun advocate cowboy cane defend against drones, tanks, marine regiments with any type military assault weapons
AND
what's wrong with having the same requirements to own a gun as those required to drive a car...
paul macleod
7:38 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
no we do not have to all agree.. but there is agreement about some things.. the nuts who get their hands on guns are very very dangerous.. they don't need an assault rifle to do damage.. serious damage...assault rifles are used to kill people in the USA less than the number of deaths by a hammer.. it's close but the hammer wins by a nose...of all the deaths by guns in USA , if you took out the gang related murders and killings , the USA would have a very small per capita number of murders.. and if you just took the murders done by an assault rifle it would be too small to be a statistic of note....Gunny.. I don't believe the assault weapon should be sold .. but that depends on what the definition is.. doesn't it.. I was in Viet Nam .. there were assault rifles.. a bushmaster 223 is not an assault rifle.. so says he state of Conn.. it's legal weapon.. besides it wouldn't help a thing, it didn't the last time 10 years ..we got columbine a nothing else... get rid of the gun free zones.. arm up the shools at the local level.. tackle the gang violence, close gun show loop holes, get some control over mental health and gun ownership and accessability, and don't allow tanks and nuclear weapons in my neighborhood and I think we've got this thing under control.. doing other gun related things is political and agenda driven but helps no one to be safer.. magazine limits are a joke if you know anything about guns.. limiting guns at all is a joke... a law can't be enforced..
stanley seigler
1:11 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
re: it [GUN REGULATION] wouldn't help a thing, it didn't the last time 10 years..we got columbine a nothing else
do you have stats to confirm that IT didn’t help during the time before it was repealed...i found none ...but did find the following FYI:
'In January 1989, Patrick Purdy raked the [CA] schoolyard with at least 106 bullets from an AK-47 rifle. He killed five children, ages 6 to 9, and one teacher and injured 29 other students...CA enacted some of the country's strictest gun control laws during the 1990s and 2000s...Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, California had a higher gun mortality rate than the average…by 1998, CA's gun mortality rate had fallen below that of the rest of the country, and it continues to drop faster than the average for the other states. From 1993 to 2009, California's gun mortality rate declined by 53.2 percent -- 23.1 percentage points more than the decline in the rest of the country http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18…
also this from m. jones:
A Guide to Mass Shootings in America
[CLIP] 'Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012.'
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
also: historical list of countries by firearm-related death-rate per 100,000 population in one year…USA 10.2; UK 0.25.
GunnyHighway
1:08 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
No, stanley, you've got it all wrong. I don't have to justify why I want to own an AR-15. Just like I don't have to justify why I want to own a house, or a car, or a an airplane (I mean, really, who NEEDS an airplane, right??). And who says that the only reason I can own a gun is for hunting? Or only activities you approve of?
But we're making progress. Now we know that you are opposed to semi-automatic firearms. And, apparently, guns that can be used by some nut-job to kill children. Either way, that's a LOT of guns. Are we talking about ALL semi-autos? Rifles, shotguns, AND pistols? Don't forget, the VA Tech shooter used semi-automatic pistols to kill 32 victims.
For what it's worth, I do support background checks, which are not required in SC for personal sales. And the requirements to carry a gun in public are very similar to the requirements to drive a car on the public roadways. But, there are no requirements to OWNING a car.
stanley seigler
8:58 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
maybe not all wrong...and we are making a lil progress...eg, you say 'I [gunny] do support background checks'...
but 'miles to go...'
re: there are no requirements to OWNING a car
butbut there are requirements to USE/drive a car...eg, driver education, testing and licensing so to reduce accidents...so perhaps a requirement to USE/shoot (hunting or on a gun club range) a gun is needed to reduce mass murders.
re: the requirements to carry a gun in public are very similar to the requirements to drive a car...
more progress...so why not make a similar process required for all gun owners.
re: i (gunny) dont have to justify why I want to own an AR-15...
agree (is this mo progress) but dont understand why one does not want to explain the need for a WMDs...that is unless they are a criminal or crazed mass murderer and can not tell a lie :)
GunnyHighway
11:03 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Sounds like we agree on something! Background checks, as they are currently implemented, do little to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. But, remember, the Newtown killer stole the guns he used.
You're making some pretty big leaps when you try to compare cars and guns. I can own a car and drive it on my private property all day long without any training or licensing. Why shouldn't I be allowed to do that with a gun?
Your point about safety training for new gun owners is something that should be considered, given the number of people who accidentally shoot themselves (or others). But, again, it's off point. The Newtown murderer knew how to use the weapons he armed himself with.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss these specific issues. If you want to discuss any specific firearms, or their characteristics, in relation to the proposed ban (that hasn't been written yet), I would be glad to respond. Continuing to rant hysterically about "WMD's" does nothing to further your cause.
GunnyHighway
11:43 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
We are all troubled by this tragedy. We need to blame someone. We need to DO something. I think that's a natural, human reaction. But this type of emotional knee-jerk reaction does nothing to protect children, or anyone else. The Newtown killer obtained his weapons illegally. If the AR-15 had not existed, he could still have performed his horrible acts using the handguns that he also stole.
We need a thoughtful, measured approach to gun control. One that appropriately addresses the issues, while respecting our constitutional rights. I believe that it is significant that the right to keep and bear arms was the SECOND amendment to the Constitution. I think is an indication of how important it was to the men who created this country. (Any Constitutional scholars out there who know different are free to correct me.)
GunnyHighway
1:40 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
Come to think of it, you can drive a car at age 16, but can't buy a gun until you're 18. So is seems that gun laws are already more restrictive than driving laws.
stanley seigler
11:47 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
re: But this type of emotional knee-jerk reaction does nothing to protect children
it's not a knee jerk reaction...it the straw that broke the camel back...
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map
[CLIP]
It is perhaps too easy to forget how many times this has happened. The horrific mass murder at a movie theater in Colorado on July 20, another at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin on August 5, another at a manufacturer in Minneapolis on September 27—and then the unthinkable nightmare at a Connecticut elementary school on December 14—are the latest in an epidemic of such gun violence over the last three decades. Since 1982, there have been at least 62 mass shootings* across the country, with the killings unfolding in 30 states from Massachusetts to Hawaii. Twenty-five of these mass shootings have occurred since 2006, and seven of them took place in 2012. We've mapped them below [SEE LINK], including details on the shooters' identities, the types of weapons they used, and the number of victims they injured and killed.
NOTHING has been done after each mass murder...it's way past time to protect our children and others...
if not now...when...
stanley seigler
7:49 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
re: discuss any specific firearms, or their characteristics
as old saw say, 'you cant see the forest for the trees'...ie,
one cant see the forest, the need to protect our children...for the trees, the specific firearms and their characteristics...
for gun regulation discussion the previously posted description should suffice:
‘an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
my characterization of weapons as described above, when used to murder children and innocent civilians, is WMD...it's basically shorthand for the lengthy description.
specifics of weapons, my opine, is just an avoidance of the forest.
PS the devil's details can/will be worked out in any legislation...it'll give the legs (their staff) something to do.
GunnyHighway
1:23 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Wow, this topic is really disturbing. I'm getting kinda bummed out. And I just can't stop thinking about all those poor people, many of them children, who are dying in automobiles. It's tragic. I'm so upset about the deaths of these poor, innocent children. We should really do something about it! We should start a petition to ban all cars in Summerville! Who's with me? It's a small town, why do people need to drive, anyway? OK, you're probably right, it's silly to try to ban ALL cars. We can just ban the cars that caused the most child deaths last week. Or, we can just ban cars that stanley doesn't like. Yeah, that will keep the children safe! I feel better already.
GunnyHighway
1:39 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Uh-oh, I just read that the Newtown shooter owned thousands of dollars worth of violent video games. That's obviously the REAL problem! Quick, someone add that to the petition! Hey, we might as well add violent TV shows and movies while we're at it... I'm really starting to feel good about this! We're FINALLY making a difference!
paul macleod
8:29 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
ooops I got the number backwards .. the larger number is with hammers not assault rifles .. the point of the whole comment.. sorry a duh moment
stanley seigler
11:08 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
there is some truth in sarcasm...it can help make point...and think i get your point about just how much government control should we accept...
this is a better argument than NRA straw man arguments, eg: one needs WMDs to defend us against an invasion by the USA; a WMD is needed for hunting; gun regulation violates 2nd amendment rights...
all are false, illogical, arguments...designed to increase sales/profits for gun mfgs.
violent videos/films as well as porn needs to addressed and better regulated...but the issue now is gun control.
JJ RN
8:08 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
Thank you Paul for your most excellent post Re: Stan. It has put me back in line with total clarity as to who this joker is..... And Gunny !! You have made my morning !! I'll be laughing all day with your spirited posts for sure..... I see Stan is absent, bet he's still passed out. Lithium does that....keeps you somulent till about 4pm. Then Medusa will rise !!
paul macleod
8:27 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
496 to 393 those are the actual numbers.. the first is the number of those killed by assault weapons in 2011.. the second is the number killed by hammers in 2011..so I'm all in with Gunner and Stan.. I'm going to turn in my hammers today at home depot.. and I am going to turn in my car to the Chrysler dealer .. after why do I NEED a car . Venice is a small town.. Gunny is right.. we don't need those cars they, too, kill people.. lot's of people.. but I am in doubt about the vids.. kids need them.. how else will they learn how to rape maim and murder. ? Look what the coyote has been doing for years to the road runner and vise versa.. it's bad but please remember .. I am not turning my stuff in because of some gov't nutjob told me to.. I'm turning in my hammer because it's not safe to have one and my car for the same reason.. but I might change my mind at a later date.. now I'm off the gun shop to pick up my bushmaster..it's being fitted with a side mounted scope.. I'm left handed so need that .. NEED that.. otherwise I won't be able to see the target at the range where a bunch of us rednecks are going because we like shooting our non assault rifles.. noisey .. but it's fun and we NEED to have fun.. by the way ,, just so you know.. I'm sick of stan and his bull.. I've seen it before I'd rather discuss these kinds of things with serious folks who see the trouble and can fix it.. having an agenda that's so obvious is typical of those with that DNA problem..no cure
stanley seigler
11:46 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
join the 'NHA', fight, fight, fight for the hammer mfgs rights to furnish hammers of mass destruction
GunnyHighway
1:35 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
<edited>
You can have my hammer when you pry it from my cold, dead hands! Hammer owners unite!
John A. Kauth
10:15 am on Monday, January 14, 2013
I want to commend everyone here for their reasonably restrained replies to Stanley. Most are excellent! Good debate back and forth,
Here's the bottom line. You can pretty much tell by the comments here who may own a gun and who may not. If someone is reading Summerville Patch with the intent of a home invasion whose address do you think they will look up?
stanley seigler
5:38 pm on Monday, January 14, 2013
bet you cant...name just one who may not own....
Lindsay Street
9:01 am on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
To be fair, John, I don't think a home invader 1. Reads Patch, or 2. Is usually deterred by an armed home. Home invasions typically happen so they can grab a person, Rx drugs, money and/or weapons — so guns can be a target.
Burglaries usually happen in unoccupied homes and can be deterred by dogs, who remain behind. An armed home being burgled would be a boon for a burglar, unless the weapons were kept in a safe (I read incident reports weekly of gunowners' homes being broken into and their guns being taken).
Though I won't argue the sound of a shotgun might make someone think twice about entering your home after the door's been busted in! We also had a man with a machete chase off would-be burglars last year, so I guess it doesn't have to be a shotgun!
stanley seigler
12:48 pm on Tuesday, January 15, 2013
re: To be fair...
transparent and honest...very little anecdotal evidence addresses the issue of gun regulations, and practical security to protect our children and innocent civilians from crazies with free (well almost) access to WMDs...
most points presented are distractions so to support profits for the gun mfgs...
note WMD is shorthand for the lengthy description of assault/semiautomatic weapons when used to murder children and innocent civilians:
‘an assault weapon is most commonly defined as a semi-automatic firearm possessing features similar to those of military firearms. Semi-automatic firearms fire one bullet (round) each time the trigger is pulled; the spent cartridge case is ejected and another cartridge is loaded into the chamber, without the manual operation of a bolt handle, a lever, or a sliding handgrip.’ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
PS 'i want to commend everyone ( most everyone) here'... for wearing their NRA shooter caps in defiance of child/civilian safety...ie, in defiance of sensible gun control..
John Reed
5:55 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Mr. Smith seems to have forgotten one tiny little detail in his master plan: that South Carolina has a state firearms preemption act that ensures that firearms laws are uniform throughout the state. Municipalities may not enact bans that restrict the ownership, sale, carry, or transfer of firearms.
John Reed
6:10 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
The controlling language of South Carolina’s preemption statute is set forth as follows:
“No governing body of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision in the State may enact or promulgate any regulation or ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate: (1) the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things.”
Kulius Balume
6:49 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Thank you John Reed for pointing out that the whole proposal and petition is a waste of time. You would think that someone who professes to be knowledgable on the law would know this or have at least gotten advise on it.
John Reed
8:54 pm on Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Title 23 - Law enforcement and public safety
Chapter 31 - Firearms
Article 7 - Local Regulations
SECTION 23-31-510. Regulation of ownership, transfer, or possession of firearm or ammunition; discharge on landowner's own property.
No governing body of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision in the State may enact or promulgate any regulation or ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate:
(1) the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things; or
(2) a landowner discharging a firearm on the landowner's property to protect the landowner's family, employees, the general public, or the landowner's property from animals that the landowner reasonably believes pose a direct threat or danger to the landowner's property, people on the landowner's property, or the general public. For purposes of this item, the landowner's property must be a parcel of land comprised of at least twenty-five contiguous acres. Any ordinance regulating the discharge of firearms that does not specifically provide for an exclusion pursuant to this item is unenforceable as it pertains to an incident described in this item; otherwise, the ordinance is enforceable.
HISTORY: 1986 Act No. 532, Section 2; 2008 Act No. 220, Section 1, eff May 21, 2008.