second amend alerts

[Tigerstripe]

latest alert. quote..........

This was forwarded from Sharon Clark.

It's a little emotional and name calling but is true factually as far as I can tell.

She explains what happened yesterday to the SB-115 as an amendment to Restaurant Carry SB-308.


Maybe Senator Shane Martin or Senator Lee Bright would like to correct this information for us?


They can email me a letter to their constituents and I'll pass it on to you.



I'm a real person.

If you want to be deleted from this list, just email me.

If you want to be added to this list, just email me.


Bill Bledsoe - [email protected]


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sharon Clark <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Subject: [They Ignore Constituents-Constitutional Carry Issue
To: [email protected]



They Ignore Constituents-Constitutional Carry Issue

The Statists have shown their behinds today on Constitutional Carry and we are going to be sure that no one ever forgets it.

In the discussion of Constitutional Carry, one Senator on the Senate Floor, indicated that sometimes it's up to the legislators "to protect them (the citizens) from themselves." Another also indicated the same statist point of view.

Finally, Larry Martin asked the Chair to decide that the Constitutional Carry provisions could not be attached to S-308, Restaurant Carry, and Glen McConnell decided to accept Larry Martin's request.

Larry Martin essentially killed the Constitutional Carry this evening.

Perhaps we all might want to let Larry Martin know how much we think of that:

Senator Larry Martin Dist. 2 (R) Pickens County
Senate Office: 803 212 6610 Room 101 Gressette Bldg.
Business Office: 864-306 2126
Home: 864-878 6105

Quite a show - Democrats enjoyed watching Republicrats weasel out of going on record for or against Constitutional Carry.

Senators Bright and Shane Martin gave the Senate a really wonderful lesson on Constitutional rights. Of course, it fell on deaf ears. That is why we must continue to reiterate the points they outlined.
Please thank Senators Bright and Shane Martin for all they did to get South Carolina to return our Second Amendment rights to us, rights that the State has unconstitutionally taken away.

We knew we would have problems with the Democrats, but it was the Republicrats and their unwillingness to allow a vote and go on record regarding the Constitutional Carry Amendment -- that is what defeated Constitutional Carry. If they did not put their names on this bill, you can be sure that they need some education on Constitutional Rights.

If they are our Senators, perhaps we should give them a lesson each week while the legislature is in session.
This is where we get their contact information:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/index.php


We believe that Senators Scott and Gregory need some education as well. We might well ask "How did becoming a legislator suddenly make you superior in knowledge about what is best for us, the citizens?" A state that protects its citizens from themselves is a tyranny.

Senator John Scott (D) Dist. 16 Richland
Legislature: 212 6048 Room 612 Gressette Business: 803 733 5176

Senator Chauncey Gregory (R) Dist 19 Lancaster & York
Legislature 212 6024 Room 606 Gressette Business: 803 289 6211

 

[John Canuck]

The motion to amend S 115 to S 308 was out of order. Under the rules, an amendment must be germain to the original bill. We would not like it if the assault weapon ban bill were offered as an amendment to S 308 and would have been happy when it was set aside because it wasn't in compliance with the rules. This is no different.

S 115 should have its own day in the Senate. It had that opportunity this year, but has been stuck in committee because it kept getting set aside at the request of Senator Bright. It was at the top of the agenda for three weeks and the ongoing effort to tinker with the language in concert with outside lobbying entities has lost it support in the Judiciary Committee. It will die this year at the bottom of the agenda.

I understand why he wanted to get it a vote in the Senate, but am not interested in using political maneuvers to glom any old thing onto a bill just for a vote. We need to insist that bills are written in as succinct and compact manner as possible, which includes blocking the piling on of only loosely related bills. If not, we end up with bills that are far too long and convoluted to understand. Anyone remember the giant stack of paper involved in "affordable care" or the 80+ pages in the Schumer Toomer?

I suggest Senato Bright re-tool, get the language straight and take another Swing at S 115 next year.