South Carolina Legislature Passes Pro-Gun Bills!

The South Carolina General Assembly saw a flurry of firearm-related activity this week, as it worked to wind down session for the year.

On Tuesday, May 30, the House of Representatives voted to override Governor Sanford’s (R) veto of H 3402, and the Senate did the same on Wednesday, May 31. This legislation allows the formation of legislative special interest caucuses, and was inspired by the desire to form a Sportsmen Caucus.

On Thursday, June 1, the Senate passed H 4301, the Castle Doctrine bill that would remove the “duty to retreat” if a law-abiding citizen is attacked anywhere that person may lawfully be. The Senate amended the legislation by adding sections unrelated to the Castle Doctrine, the House concurred with some of the amended language and sent it back to the Senate, where the final bill was passed and sent to Governor Sanford.

Finally, a conference committee took up S 1261, a bill originally introduced to allow qualified individuals who own property in South Carolina but do not reside in the state, to apply for a Right-to-Carry (RTC) permit. After passing the Senate in early May, the House amended the bill to remove the ability of local governments to restrict the use, sale, or transportation of firearms during a state of emergency, and to prohibit South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) from releasing the personal information of RTC permit holders unless the request for the information is part of an investigation by law enforcement.

Unfortunately, the anti-gun media decided it needs to know which law-abiding citizens have been issued RTC permits, and lined up enough support to kill the legislation if the privacy language remained a part of the bill. The conferees removed the privacy language, leaving the bill weakened but still solidly pro-Second Amendment.

Tarheel Larouuse 2 here ya'll:

Please read "You Can't Sit On the Fence About Immigration" Freeper thread,

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1639907/posts

#673:

Does this imply charges would specifically be against "citizens," allowing non-citizens the right to set up their own government and get rid of the government in power?

You may be interested in this (some folks are aware of the detention centers, others may be unaware of Sen. Graham (R) (yes, that's an "R") stated:

A subsidiary of Halliburton (KBR) has been awarded monies for building retention centers across America:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 24, 2006

KBR AWARDED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY CONTINGENCY SUPPORT PROJECT FOR EMERGENCY SUPPORT SERVICES

"The contract, which is effective immediately, provides for establishing temporary detention and processing capabilities to augment existing ICE Detention and Removal Operations (DRO) Program facilities in the event of an emergency influx of immigrants into the U.S., or to support the rapid development of new programs. The contingency support contract provides for planning and, if required, initiation of specific engineering, construction and logistics support tasks to establish, operate and maintain one or more expansion facilities."

"The contract may also provide migrant detention support to other U.S. Government organizations in the event of an immigration emergency, as well as the development of a plan to react to a national emergency, such as a natural disaster. In the event of a natural disaster, the contractor could be tasked with providing housing for ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) personnel performing law enforcement functions in support of relief efforts."

In February 2006, the New York Times reported that "KBR would build the centers for the Homeland Security Department for an unexpected influx of immigrants, to house people in the event of a natural disaster or for new programs that require additional detention space."

According to this article, Bush's Mysterious 'New Programs':

"Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration’s domestic operations -- Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy."

“The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements,” Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

“I stand by this President’s ability, inherent to being Commander in Chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that,” Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.

I'll gladly attempt to find the transcripts referred to in this article.

If the "plan" is for rounding up illegals," why didn't they follow through with their "plan" during the May 2006 boycotts, where there were HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of illegals marching in U.S. streets?

What "new programs" is the government envisioning would require the arrests of so many people, so rapidly that detention centers are anticipated to be needed?

If, as the government keeps saying, it's impossible to deport the millions of illegal immigrants, and Bush has clearly stated that again just this past week, who will be put into these detention centers and why is it possible that "all of a sudden" it looks like there's a CAN DO attitude in arresting what would have to be hundreds of thousands?
673 posted on 06/03/2006 9:03:42 AM EDT by nicmarlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

Yes, in SC you have a duty to retreat. Even if someone is kicking down your door and you shoot through the door and kill/wound the idiot, you are at fault because the door separated the two of you. Your life was not in immediate danger. According to my local LEO's, wait until the door is breached before squeezing the trigger.

I looked at packing.org and here is their summary for South Carolina's deadly force legal situation:

Deadly force law summary

Date updated: Jul 29, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (SLED)
USE OF FIREARMS OR OTHER WEAPONS
Use of Deadly Force
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d 328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina. These are:

you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;

you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;

if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your own life;
you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

Duty to Retreat
As a general matter, before using deadly force, even in self-defense, you have a duty to retreat in the following circumstances:

on a public street or highway, even when in own automobile. State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).
in a store where the public is invited. State v. Peeples, 126 S.C. 422, 120 S.E. 361 (1923).

As a general matter, before using deadly force, even for self-defense, there are situations in which you have no duty to retreat. These include:

in addition to in your home, there is no duty to retreat within your home’s curtilage. State v. Jackson, supra, or beyond the curtilage. State v. Quick, 138 S.C. 147, 135 S.E. 800 (1926).
in your place of business, even if the aggressor also has a right to be there. State v. Kennedy, 143 S.C. 318, 141 S.E. 559 (1928).
if a guest in home of another unless required to leave by the householder. State v. Osborne, 202 S.C. 463, 25 S.E.2d 492 (1942).
where attacked in your “club room”. [“A man is no more bound to allow himself to be run out of his rest room than his workshop.”]
where both parties own the premises, neither has the duty to retreat where the other is the aggressor. State v. Gibbs, 113 S.C. 256, 102 S.E. 333.
Where both live in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Grantham, 224 S.C. 41, 77 S.E.2d 291 (1953).
Where both are guests in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Smith, 226 S.C. 418, 85 S.E.2d 409 (1955).
Where both are fellow workers on same job site, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is the aggressor. State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 122 S.E. 501 (1924).
you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase [your] danger.” State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).

Defense of Others
In State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 168, 113 S.E. 362, 363 (1922), the Court approved a “defense of others” instruction, as follows:
The right to take the life of an assailant during an unprovoked assault extends to any relative, friend, or bystander if the use of deadly force is necessary to save the victim wrongfully assaulted from imminent danger of being murdered by the assailant, if the assault is malicious and unprovoked and with a deadly weapon, with the apparent malicious intention to take the life of the victim and thereby commit murder, and if such murder is imminent, then any relative, friend, or bystander has the right to take the life of the assailant if necessary to prevent such murder, provided there was no other reasonable means of escape for the victim so assailed, and provided both the person assailed and the person coming to his defense were without legal fault in bringing on the difficulty.
South Carolina has adopted the so-called “alter-ego” rule with respect to the defense of others. In State v. Cook, 78 S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907), the Court summarized this rule:
If you intervene on behalf of another, you will not be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense, unless that plea would have been available to the person you assisted if he himself had done the killing.
In other words, the person intervening is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening. If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party is also protected by that right. If, however, the party [victim] had no right to use force…then the intervening party will also assume the liability of the person on whose behalf he interfered.” McAninch and Fairey, p. 494.
The “defense of others” rules apply to “any relative, friend or bystanders…” State v. Hays, supra. The same principles of retreat and withdrawal apply as if the individual himself were acting in self-defense rather than on behalf of someone else. If there was no duty to retreat by the person being assisted, there is no duty imposed upon the intervenor.

Defense of Property
“…in the protection of one’s dwelling, only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force would be authorized by the law of self-defense.” McAninch and Fairey.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.