South Carolina Firearms Liberty Act

[Gottahaveone]

"

A BILL

TO AMEND CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23 OF THE 1976 CODE, BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 TO ENACT THE "SOUTH CAROLINA FIREARMS LIBERTY ACT", TO PROVIDE THAT A FIREARM, FIREARM ACCESSORY, OR AMMUNITION POSSESSED OR MANUFACTURED AND RETAINED IN SOUTH CAROLINA IS EXEMPT FROM FEDERAL REGULATION UNDER THE COMMERCE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, TO PROVIDE THAT ANY FEDERAL LAW TO RESTRICT THE POSSESSION, OWNERSHIP, OR MANUFACTURE OF A FIREARM PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE MAY NOT BE ENFORCED BY FEDERAL, STATE, OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, AND TO PROVIDE FOR PENALTIES FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS SEEKING TO ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER; AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 11 TO PROVIDE THAT FEDERAL ACTION TO RESTRICT OWNERSHIP OF A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM OR MAGAZINE OF ANY FIREARM, OR THE REGISTRATION OF A FIREARM OR MAGAZINE, IS UNENFORCEABLE IN SOUTH CAROLINA."

We have a good record of getting things like this passed, and Governor Haley is very good about signing them.

I'll be keeping an eye on this one, and will update as things progress

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/bills/117.htm

 

[Sam1911]

That will be awesome! Especially when they add the clause, "Should any person be arrested and charged under a law nullified by this Article 9, the State of South Carolina shall provide legal counsel for their defense, and/or shall direct agents of the State to secure the freedom of said individual by force of arms if needed..."



'Till then, maybe this is more of a "gesture" than it is effective legislation.

 

[maxxhavoc]

So, how exactly is that supposed to work?

If this passes, the way I read it, the State would give me permission to buy a PSA lower, and build a suppressed SBR. Directly breaking federal law, twice.

I am not sure how well the Palmetto State can protect us against the feds. I certainly would not want to be the test case.

 

[Sam1911]

It doesn't.

All the state can really do is refuse to arrest or prosecute you, itself, for violating this sort of law. It cannot make these things legal under federal law or absolve you from having broken federal law. It also cannot (practically) stop the BATFE and FBI, etc., from acting against you to enforce federal law if they choose to.

They say they will apply "penalties" against federal officials who do...let's guess how well that would work out on YOUR end of things.



What one of these states who've enacted this kind of law could do is set up a series of cases about the basis of federalism and whether or not any state can nullify any federal law. Considering the unpleasantness of the last kerfuffle over that question, I don't think I'll be wagering any money.

 

[Plan2Live]

When you consider how hard it was to get out recent (and flawed) changes to the existing CWP laws passed I don't see this getting much traction.

Personally I would rather they revisit our existing CWP laws and make some additional changes there, something more day to day useful and attainable. For instance, it is still illegal to even momentarily or unintentionally flash your concealed pistol (or any portion of it or its holster) if the right cop wants to pursue that. During the next legislative session we will likely hand scorned women a huge intimidation weapon by passing the proposed changes to domestic violence offenders. There are more practical issues we should be concentrating on rather than trying to go to war with the Feds.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So, how exactly is that supposed to work?
...

I am not sure how well the Palmetto State can protect us against the feds. I certainly would not want to be the test case.

As Sam mentioned, it doesn't work, and it can't really work. State nullification of federal law is a chimera.

1. The Founding Fathers provided in the Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2, emphasis added):

   This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

   
   
2. There's some 200 years of Supreme Court precedent rejecting State nullification of federal law:
   
   
   • United States v. Peters, 9 U.S. (5 Cranch) 115 (1809)
     
     
   • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 304 (1816)
     
     
   • Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264 (1821)
     
     
   • McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)
     
     
   • Osborn v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 738 (1824)
     
     
   • Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832)
     
     
   • Prigg v. Pennsylvania, 41 U.S. 539 (1842)
     
     
   • Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859)
     
     
   • Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958)
     
     
   • Bush v. Orleans Parish School Board, 188 F. Supp. 916 (E.D. La. 1960), aff'd 364 U.S. 500 (1960).
   
   
3. The Ninth Circuit has specifically ruled against Montana in a "firearm freedom law" case, Montana Shooting Sports Association v. Holder, No. 10-36094, (9th Cir., 2013).
   
   
4. A State may decide not to enforce federal law or assist with the furtherance of federal policy (Printz v. U.S., 521 U.S. 898, 117 S.Ct. 2365, 138 L.Ed.2d 914 (1997)), but a State may not nullify federal law; and the federal agents may still enforce federal law without a State's help.
   
   
5. See also Willis v. Winters, 253 P.3d 1058 (Or., 2011) in which the Oregon Supreme Court ruled that a Sheriff was required under Oregon law to issue a concealed handgun license to Cynthia Willis even though she was a medical marijuana user. But the Oregon Supreme Court specifically noted (at pp. 1065 - 1066, emphasis added):

   ...Neither is the statute [the Oregon CHL law] an obstacle to Congress's purposes in the sense that it interferes with the ability of the federal government to enforce the policy that the Gun Control Act expresses. A marijuana user's possession of a CHL may exempt him or her from prosecution or arrest under ORS 166.250(1)(a) and (b), but it does not in any way preclude full enforcement of the federal law by federal law enforcement officials...

So these sorts of laws are only symbolic.

 

[jimbo555]

I wish South Carolina and Georgia would honor each others licenses.

 

[CoalTrain49]

So these sorts of laws are only symbolic.

Well, state legislators need another tool to help them get re-elected. "I support your right to ________________," fill in the blank.

Looks good on your resume around election time.

 

[Plan2Live]

Jimbo - the issue is SLED runs South Carolina's CWP program and SLED will never recommend the legislature honor any state's permits that don't have similar requirements (background checks, training, etc.) as our permit process. Georgia won't honor ours because we won't honor theirs.

S308 that passed last year could have been a much better Bill but "their side" spent too much time fretting over the carrying in bars part and "our side" spent too much time trying for a straight "Constitutional" approach. What we ended up with is a badly worded compromise with flaws and omissions. Too bad it worked out that way.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Jimbo - the issue is SLED runs South Carolina's CWP program and SLED will never recommend the legislature honor any state's permits that don't have similar requirements (background checks, training, etc.) as our permit process. Georgia won't honor ours because we won't honor theirs.

S308 that passed last year could have been a much better Bill but "their side" spent too much time fretting over the carrying in bars part and "our side" spent too much time trying for a straight "Constitutional" approach. What we ended up with is a badly worded compromise with flaws and omissions. Too bad it worked out that way.

I believe that the legislature tells SLED what to do, not the other way around.

Now that Jakie Knox is gone, maybe GA and SC can settle their differences and honor each others permits someday.

 

[Plan2Live]

I believe that the legislature tells SLED what to do, not the other way around.

Now that Jakie Knox is gone, maybe GA and SC can settle their differences and honor each others permits someday.

While you are technically correct, the Legislators aren't going to pass a Bill that SLED strongly disagrees with. I sat in a room twice and heard SLED's director say he would not support reciprocity with Georgia until their permit requirements were more in line with ours. Jake Knotts was in the room during one of those discussions (after his failed reelection bid) but he was there simply as a CWP Instructor with no say in the matter.

 

[jimbo555]

South Carolina can at least honor my Florida non resident license. The training for that license should be in line with yours.