A bill introduced in South Carolina is both common sense and closes a seriously dangerous loop in their law. H 3432 will give much needed protections to those that do opt to carry a firearm for self-defense. From the summary of the bill we have the following:
Immunity from prosecution and civil action for stand your ground
A BILL TO AMEND SECTIONS 16-11-440 AND 16-11-450, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BOTH RELATING TO IMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND CIVIL ACTIONS UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER PERSON (STAND YOUR GROUND), BOTH SO AS TO INCLUDE DISPLAYING DEADLY FORCE IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTES.
Brandishing a firearm can come with serious penalties. But what happens when someone is being attacked, they deploy their firearm, and then the attacker turns and runs away? Well, in my book and anyone that has and wits about them would chalk this one up to a big win. The attack stops and no one gets shot. The passage of this bill will protect people from being prosecuted over “brandishing” in such an event. When the commie mommies scream for “common sense” laws, I think a law that does not require someone to shoot another individual after a threat is no longer a threat is about as common sense as it gets. Well, from a The State article we get a different opinion:
The South Carolina chapter of Moms Demand Action, a nationwide volunteer advocacy group that champions legislation to cut down on gun violence, took a stance against it. Jackie Shelly, a volunteer with the group, called the bill “dangerous.”
“It would give people carte blanche to escalate situations to potentially deadly ones by brandishing firearms whenever they feel threatened, which is the last thing we need,” Shelley said.
Okay, so Shelly’s position is one that she’d rather an armed civilian shoot someone in the back if they’re fleeing after engaging the wrong person? Because that is sure what her non-sensical statement sounds like, doesn’t it? If Shelly and the rest of the red shirts wanted to promote “gun safety” why wouldn’t she support a law that literally means less people getting shot? No, the likes of Moms Demand Action are not about real gun safety laws. This law is a threat to them because it protects a gun owner. That is 100% what this outcry is about and Moms Demand Action should be ashamed of this position.
The provisions of the law that are proposed to be changed are solid steps to allowing the responsible self-defender to not have to second guess themselves should they break leather. This is “gun safety”. This is “common sense”. You can’t get much more “common sense” or “safe” than cheerleading for those who don’t use their firearm when getting attacked, and get to walk away unscathed. I thought less shooting is what Moms Demand are all about, but I should have known better. They’re all about fewer legal gun owners and more legal jeopardy for those who exercise their Second Amendment rights.
View original Post