SC - Sellers seeks to expand rights for SC. gun permit holders

[Rich-D]

In a state where Second Amendment rights are often viewed as sacred, a T&D Region state legislator wants to take them a step further.

Full Article (http://www.thetandd.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/18ca85fa-6c6d-11df-8419-001cc4c03286.html)

[RealGun]

I am looking for the part that says a person has to secure the weapon or take it with him when they leave the vehicle. That is the part that is associated with "concealed", which usually means carried on ones person, with the single exception of providing for a lady's purse carry. I don't believe that provides for the purse not being in the lady's grasp/control at all times.

My issue is in corrupting the meaning of "concealed" and how that will be misused later. I would be happy to simply see the law repealed that restricts carrying a gun in a vehicle. I believe we already covered the part about penalties for use of a gun in commission of a felony. All this prior restraint business for law abiding citizens has to go.

What I don't want to see is more car break-ins, knowing there are increased odds that one will be able to steal a gun.

My own vehicle has a safe bolted to the floor of the trunk. I wear a fanny pack gun while driving and stash it in the safe when parked or unable to carry. My primary carry is not very accessible while sitting in the car and especially when strapped in. The fanny pack works well for me, because I don't have to be shuffling cocked and ready weapons in view of anyone. Now they want to make the safe illegal, because it could be used to hide drugs. Round and round we go.

In any case, this seems like just a magnanimous gesture to giveback the legal ability to exercise rights that were unconstitutionally restricted in the first place. I would rather see a penitent repeal than a heroic new law, like we should be so grateful. This particular issue is just fly dirt in the grand scheme of gun rights.

Beware the man bearing gifts. A Democrat trying to be the darling of the gun owners is pretty creepy. Makes a nice way to carve off some Republican votes or to neutralize the gun folks during a campaign. Mr. Sellers obviously has ambitions in a State in which a Democrat will have to deal with the issue of gun control in order to gain any real foothold.

[Rich-D]

Beware the man bearing gifts. A Democrat trying to be the darling of the gun owners is pretty creepy.

There are a large number of democrats who are anti-gun, especially those from large urban areas. However, there are many Democrat's who are pro-second amendment and not anti-gun.
I have been the President of a Republican Club for over 23 yrs and was recently elected as a Republican Committeeman in Philadelphia. However, I welcome Democrat's who are not anti-gun who make a stand. If they do so due to the leanings of the constituents who they represent, then they are doing the job they were elected to do.

[RealGun]

You always have to wonder whether a politician will vote with the caucus majority. I am aware of there being pro-gun Democrats, but I don't trust the process.

[Patriotic]

After the health care bill, I don't trust Democrats either.

[Rich-D]

After the health care bill, I don't trust Democrats either.

I totally agree, but once in office we have to work with the pro-gun Dems on gun related issues.

[Patriotic]

I realize that Rich and agree with you. One thing I hate is Party politics where elected officials place Party line above the will of their constituents. We saw this with the health care reform bill and I believe was the cause for the tea parties. I have often said that 51% may have elected a person into office but they should represent 100% of their constituents.

[Rich-D]

One thing I hate is Party politics where elected officials place Party line above the will of their constituents.

Yep! They are enticed, pressured or bought with special project funds to tow the paty line. The health care bill is a perfect example.