Skip to comments.SC Senator Wants Guns Regulated By State
Posted on 12/30/2010 6:54:04 AM PST by marktwain
GREENVILLE, S.C. -- Many South Carolina gun owners will be closely watching a bill that will come before the state Legislature in the new year.
Sen. Lee Bright, of Spartanburg, filed a bill that would bring authority over gun rights and regulations to South Carolina rather than the federal government.
The South Carolina Firearms Freedom Act would ensure that firearms manufactured in South Carolina, that stay in South Carolina, will not have to be federally regulated.
"The state law will still be observed," Bright said. "We're not saying there shouldn't be any kind of regulation. We're just saying that it should be up to the folks in South Carolina to determine it."
The Spartanburg's County Sheriff's Office said this proposal would not change anything for deputies because it still requires background checks. The bill would not change regulations for companies that sell out of state, and country, like Teludyne Tech, in Greenville.
Noel Lasure, of Teludyne, said he agrees with any bill that protects the Second Amendment rights of Americans.
"The closer we can keep that right to the individual, the better off we're going to be," said Lasure. "It's what our founding fathers wanted us to have."
Other states have created similar legislation, and its primary function seems to serve as a statement against the federal government.
"I feel like the states are the last line of defense when it comes to this federal intrusion," Bright said.
Bright proposed this bill more than a year ago, but it died. An Orangeburg lawmaker, who's against the proposal, said in an interview that the time spent on researching the constitutionality of this bill could be spent on more productive legislative endeavors.
The next session of the South Carolina Legislature starts on Jan. 11.
> time spent on researching the constitutionality of this
> bill could be spent on more productive legislative
Inventing new ways to pick the taxpayers’ pockets?
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Wasn’t Montana or Wyoming trying to do the same thing recently?
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.
Great! I’m thinking we need a new party here in my state...instead of “Rent’s too Damn High”...we’ll call it “Machine Guns for Georgia”!
P.S. - remember, the Twilight Zone marathon is on SciFi channel this New Years. I would recommend the episode “To Serve Mankind” at 9pm 1 Jan. See their webiste for a full schedule...Happy New Year!
I see our "Gun Free Zones" as "Victim Pools", and avoid them whenever possible.
what, this isn’t a Lindsay Grahamnesty thread?
We all know how National Socialists just hate wasting any time checking to see if the Constitution will allow new legislation. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I'll help you out, dude -- it's fine. Almost mandatory.
And if in a case pitting a state against the feds, we for some reason decide to let one of the parties decide, and the feds find in favor of....the feds, how many states do you think will find that ruling legitimate?
This article doesn’t match the headline - I was angry until I read that it was about federal overreach and bringing power back to a State, specifically concerning guns.
That was exactly my reaction as well. I think a normal person would read the headline to say “SC Senator Thinks Thousands of State Gun Laws Not Enough, Wants to Add MORE!”, when in actuality, the issue has little to do with state laws (I doubt if this measure repeals any or adds more) but about EXCLUDING the feds from regulating in the states area of authority.