This legislative session could be one of the most positive in recent history in South Carolina.  Already, we are seeing a push for a Personhood bill that would openly recognize human babies as just that, human and criminalize those who seek to murder them.  However, we’re also seeing another aspect of obeying God’s command, “You shall not murder,” and that is in the protection of life from those who wish to take it.  An “open carry” bill has been filed in the South Carolina House.

Reps. Michael Pitts (R-Laurens) and W. Brian White (R-Anderson) filed House Bill 3363 (H.3363) on Dec. 18.

The Tenth Amendment Center reports:

Currently, South Carolina gun owners must first attend training through a certified South Carolina CWP instructor before they can get a concealed weapons permit.

H.3363 would amend Section 23-31-210(5) of the 1976 Code concerning “concealable weapons” so that they “may” be carried concealed “or openly on one’s person.” The bill complements another bill prefiled for the 2019 session that would allow people to conceal carry without a permit.

If passed, H.3363 would take a small step returning to the original vision of the founders, in which citizens had a duty to be armed rather than need permission to carry. In the original 13 colonies, all but Quaker (pacifist) Pennsylvania required able-bodied men to have a working musket and respond to musters. It’s why George Mason said at the Virginia Ratifying Convention that the militia was “the whole of the people, except for a few public officials.” The Founders wanted militia to defend the colonies, not a standing military that could threaten liberties.

It’s amazing to me that we even have to have such legislation considering what both our state and federal Constitutions declare clearly about “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Government was never given authority to restrict or regulate our arms, whether we bear them concealed or open.  Personally, I think it a wiser thing to carry concealed yet, that is a liberty for the individual bearing said arms.

As constitutional scholar Publius Huldah has eloquently pointed out, all federal gun laws are unconstitutional, but I would go further and declare that since this is a right we are speaking about, so are all state laws that seek to infringe on those rights.

That begs the question of just how would this legislation affect federal pretended law.

While state bills loosening restrictions on carrying firearms do not directly affect federal gun control, the widespread passage of laws like this subtly undermines federal efforts to regulate guns. As we’ve seen with marijuana and industrial hemp, a federal regulation becomes ineffective when states ignore it and pass laws encouraging the prohibited activity anyway.

The federal government lacks the enforcement power necessary to maintain its ban, and people will willingly take on the small risk of federal sanctions if they know the state will not interfere. This increases when the state actively encourages “the market.”

Less restrictive state gun laws will likely have a similar impact on federal gun laws. It will make it that much more difficult for the feds to enforce any future federal gun control, and increase the likelihood that states with few limits will simply refuse to cooperate with federal enforcement efforts.

State actions such as passing H.3363 would lower barriers for those wanting to the option of defending themselves with firearms and encourages a “gun-friendly” environment that would make federal efforts to limit firearms that much more difficult.

Currently, the bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. It needs a majority vote in order to advance forward.  With respect to that, if you are a citizen of South Carolina, please contact your representatives and encourage them to protect your rights by pushing for H.3363.

Don't forget to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.