Legislators' wish listBills filed in advance address 4-wheeler safety issues, immigration reform, homeowner woes and more By Yvonne Wenger (Contact)
The Post and Courier
Saturday, December 8, 2007
COLUMBIA — In time for holiday shopping this time next year, guns in South Carolina could be tax-free if enough lawmakers sign on to the "Second Amendment Recognition Act." A bill filed in advance of state legislators' return next month would leave a little jingle in shoppers' pockets for a 48-hour period starting at 12:01 a.m. on Black Friday. The bill, sponsored by Laurens Republican Rep. Mike Pitts, is among 69 others introduced this week that will be taken up when the lawmakers reconvene. Also up for debate will be an issue that's been dominating Lowcountry dinner tables and watercoolers — illegal immigration. The state's two most powerful lawmakers — House Speaker Bobby Harrell and Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, both Charleston Republicans — have pledged to make immigration matters a top priority in 2008. "The only way for the states to be free is to make it extremely uncomfortable for illegal immigrants to stay or for Washington to delegate the power for the states to get it at constitutional convention," McConnell said. McConnell first aired his call for a constitutional convention in October, after he said frustrations mounted because of a lack of federal reform. The goal is to force Congress to act or give the states the power to amend the U.S. Constitution as it pertains to illegal immigrants. A majority of states would have to agree. The state should pursue that avenue in tandem with other measures within its jurisdiction, McConnell said. He also introduced a bill that would prohibit the state Department of Motor Vehicles from handing out remaining copies of the driver's manual in Spanish, as well as banning it from ever printing it again. The bill would also prohibit the agency from offering a computerized driving test in any language other than English. On another topic, Rep. Joe Jefferson, D-Pineville, is lead sponsor of the South Carolina Home Lemon Law. The bill is designed to help homeowners force builders to make prompt and timely repairs, and could in certain cases require a home replacement or refund, he said. Jefferson said he is prepared for an "uphill battle" to get the legislation into law, knowing other states that have considered such measures have faced fierce resistance. But considering all the construction in the Charleston area, he said it's a fight worth taking on. "With all of the housing being built here, there has been an influx of complaints from people moving into their houses," Jefferson said. "It is extremely frustrating for them, especially when they're looking at that monthly payment." Also up for consideration are bills that would: --Establish the State Highway Repaving Trust Fund to accept individual donations on income tax returns for the repair and maintenance of roadways. Sponsored by Rep. Mac Toole, R-West Columbia. --Make it a felony for sex, even if it is consensual, between a teacher or school employee and student, even those 16 years old and older. The age of consent in South Carolina is 16. Sponsored by Rep. Alan Clemmons, R-Myrtle Beach. --Create a DNA database for unidentified human remains. The bill would allow family members of a person who has been missing for more than 30 days to submit samples of the missing person's DNA samples to the State Law Enforcement Division for inclusion in the database. Fees for processing would be paid for by the missing person's family. Sponsored by Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms. --Strip the state Department of Natural Resources of its enforcement powers by transferring those duties to the Department of Public Safety. Sponsored by Rep. Dan Cooper, R-Piedmont. --Create penalties, including a felony charge on a second offense, for possession of fake driver's licenses, Social Security cards or other documents used as proof of citizenship or residency in the United States. Sponsored by Rep. Rex Rice, R-Easley. --Increase the fine from $200 to $1,000 or 90 days in jail for knowingly providing false information when enrolling a child in a school they're not eligible to attend for residency reasons or on other grounds, in addition to paying tuition costs. Sponsored by Rep. Chip Huggins, R-Columbia. --Crack down on ATV operations. Two similar bills have been introduced in the House, sponsored by Reps. Herb Kirsh, D-Clover, and Kris Crawford, R-Florence, to put restrictions in place over who can operate an all-terrain vehicle. Kirsh's bill would put safety regulations in place for children under 16 to drive an ATV while Crawford's proposal would limit operation to a person who is eligible for a driver's license or permit. The next chance for lawmakers to file bills before session reconvenes is Wednesday. Reach Yvonne M. Wenger at 803 799-9051 or ywenger@postandcourier.com. |
Article tools
Sponsored Links |
|||
|
Notice about comments: Charleston.net is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Charleston.net does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not charleston.net. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "suggest removal" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Full terms and conditions can be read here. |
Comments
This article has 23 comment(s)
Posted by waterbug on December 8, 2007 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
DO OUR LAWMAKERS NOT HAVE FORESIGHT? Did they not see this problem and others years ago?
Posted by draftdot on December 8, 2007 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Nothing says Christmas more than tax-free guns...
We require a car owner and/or home owner to purchase insurance and current registration/taxes-but God forbid we have any similar restrictions on the use of guns.
Homes (& usually cars) are essential in our society; Guns (except in a few cases) are a luxury item and should be treated as such-same, if not more, taxes & restrictions than essential items.
PS-the 2nd Amendment is to protect the people from their government; I've never purchased a gun, but another 4-year term of Bush/Cheney would sure tempt a lot of people to get one....
Posted by draftdot on December 8, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Question for Laurens Republican Rep. Mike Pitts:
Does the tax-free exemption for guns include assault weapons (like the one used @ the shopping mall in Omaha)?
Mr. Pitts, I've heard of pandering to your base; but this is more like playing Larry "Power-Bottom" Craig to your base. Do you really need votes that badly?
Posted by mlm on December 8, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)
P&C said: "--Increase the fine from $200 to $1,000 or 90 days in jail for knowingly providing false information when enrolling a child in a school they're not eligible to attend for residency reasons or on other grounds, in addition to paying tuition costs. Sponsored by Rep. Chip Huggins, R-Columbia."
FINALLY SOMEONE IN THE STATE HOUSE APPEARS TO UNDERSTAND HOW FRAUD IS HURTING OUR SCHOOLS...LIKE THE FAKE ADDRESS SCAM AT BUIST ACADEMY!! The troubling thing is this legislator isn't from Charleston and probably isn't even aware of what CCSD is allowing to go on at Buist Academy. I still want to say thanks to Rep. Huggins and ask that our Charleston representatives add their names to this bill.
Posted by misfit on December 8, 2007 at 11:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I believe in the right to bear arms, but this is outrageous. We pay taxes on food, clothing, and shelter, but lets not pay taxes on a gun?
Typical South Carolina legislation. Maybe at the same time we can increase the property taxes on house trailors, to cover the loss in taxes on guns.
OK, we did just reduce the state portion of the sales tax on food, but the local part still remains.
Posted by Diamondhead on December 8, 2007 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Draftdodg...
I remember a time when there was no sales tax and my father lived through an era when there was no income tax. Liberals are in favor of expanding the role of government and as government gets bigger, it requires more taxes.
The second amendment is a right. It's not a need or a want. As to that individual in Omaha he could have exploded a bomb and got the same results. The problem is not the gun or type of gun but the nutcase behind the gun.
Posted by draftdot on December 8, 2007 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Di**head
"Liberals are in favor of expanding the role of government"; I guess that makes Bush/Cheney the most liberal administration in US history.
Consumption of alcohol is also a right (although, it was revoked for a short time)-so I guess we shouldn't tax or regulate alcohol either. Hey, let's abolish the minimum drinking age too.
"The problem is not the gun or type of gun"; Well, then let's sell rocket launchers,RPG's, & bombs in SC and just hope they stay out of the hands of the nuts...
Posted by JohnS on December 8, 2007 at 6:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Folks:
They should just do another all around sales tax holiday. This is not a fair tax savings as it does not apply to all shoppers over the age of 21. If can can't pass the instant background check you can't get your purchase. The bill would also not be fair to taxpayers with prior criminal problems or Latino's who don't have vaild ID's. They are taxpayers too according to Bush.
Posted by beenthere on December 8, 2007 at 6:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Draftdot: Is that short for draft dodger? Hope your neighbor can cover you if you need help in the future, which is quite possible! Gangs have overtaken this country and life to them means death.
Posted by Diamondhead on December 8, 2007 at 7:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Draftdodg…I see you’re a bona fide and a true blue liberal.
Who ever expands the role of government is a liberal plain and simple. If that puts Bush into this category I have no problem with that. There are a lot of republicans who are RINOs that belong to the liberal wing of the party. Bush is surrounded and advised by neo-conservatives. A neo-conservative is nothing but a former or ex-liberal. Even the National Review have finally came to the conclusion that Bush is not a conservative. It took a while for the magazine to figure that out.
I realize liberals have a hard time dealing with the behavior of that individual in Omaha and others like him but we still have to deal with it, just like we have to deal with Islamic terrorists. It’s the behavior of that individual in Omaha, just like the abnormal behavior that comes from the belief system of radical Islam that should concern us. For some reason liberals have a hard time dealing with bad or abnormal behavior. I don’t a problem with a responsible person owning a pistol, assault weapon, or a machine gun. The goal is to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible people but they’re still going to get them no matter how hard we try, just like bad countries like Iran will get nuclear weapons. What bothers me is that liberals don’t seem upset over a country like Iran with nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact some liberals think they have right to nuclear weapons even though their behavior says otherwise.
Banning guns is not the answer. You're taking away the first line of defense for the average citizen. The uni-bomber terrorize people for twenty years before he was apprehended. It's all about behavior and dealing with it.
Posted by Diamondhead on December 8, 2007 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
draftdodg...
I'm looking at the bills of rights and I'm unable to find the right to drink alcohol? The 18th amendment deals with the manufacture, sale and distribution of liquors but no mention of the right to drink alcohol? You need to bring me up to speed on this one.
Posted by Scorpion on December 8, 2007 at 8:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Diamondhead, you said "you're taking away the first line of defense for the average citizen". Seems to me that if we didn't have all these guns floating around, purchased by people utilizing their "constitutional right", they wouldn't have much to defend against. When was the last time we had to worry about the Redcoats coming ashore and starting a fight? And the uni-bomber used what? Let's say it together, kids-BOMBS. Otherwise, he would have been called the uni-handgunner. And what do you constitute "responsible"? That kid in Omaha apparently STOLE the gun he used. I guess that gun-owner was responsible enough to buy the thing, but not to make sure it was out of reach of a psychopath.
Beenthere, did you notice the user name was spelled "draftdot"? How do you get draftdodger out of that? For the record, I agree with draftdot. "Honey, what should we get the kids for Christmas?" "Well, Bob, Tommy has been hinting about a Glock, and Susie has had her eye on that cute little .38 snubnose in the Guns and Ammo magazine. I think we should get them in customized colors, so they can match their cars." "Great idea, Helen!"
Posted by Mon_Kie on December 8, 2007 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Take advantage of the tax free holiday and buy guns for yourself and your loved ones.
The quickest solution to the rule by street thugs that has taken over Charleston and North Charleston is to arm the law abiding citizens.
Posted by da9 on December 8, 2007 at 8:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Geez, this got wierd. I just wanted to say that I don't agree with all the ideas out there on the wishlist. Misfit said it right...if we can eliminate the tax on guns-even if for just a few days-why can't we do the same for necessities.
Also, I think that a draftdot is what is used while interpreting blueprints-so where does draftdodg (what I'm assuming should end with an 'e' or 'er' suffix)come from that? Just wondering.
Another question (for JohnS), when did Bush say that illegal immigrants are tax payers? I don't recall that speech or particular comment and would like to know where to find it. This would change my Republican views if it is shown to me where to read, view, or listen to this speech or article in its entirety.
Posted by hairy1663 on December 8, 2007 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Scorpion & draftdot... Do you ever research a topic before you post, obviously not because you don't know jack about what your talking about when it comes to this.
Posted by hairy1663 on December 8, 2007 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Diamonhead... you don't see the right to drink alcohol, just look for Ted Kennedy's signature, you'll find it :)
Posted by majorjohnson on December 8, 2007 at 9:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The right to drink alcohol is in the constitution you dolts...
Article 10...The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
As long as the federal government doesn't prohibit it, and the state allows it, you have the right to it.
Posted by Diamondhead on December 8, 2007 at 10:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Major major...
I'm not sure how we got on this alcohol trip but I don't think it really matters. I've seen the future and if California, Vermont, Massachusetts is any indication of the direction we are heading then I don't see much hope for this republic. Every civilization plants the seeds for it's own decline and the barbarians are inside the gates. Enjoy your evening.
Posted by JohnS on December 8, 2007 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To DA9
Your answer to the below question: This fall President Bush was all for the failed imigration plan. Bush stated many times that he wants to make these folks legal. He gave many reasons to make them legal including showing many of these folks are already adding to the Gov coffers using fake documents. If the folks were legal Bush thought it would stop the average 7.9 million w2 forms who get sent out each year with fake social security numbers. The figures come to about 8 billion dollars added to the Federal Gov in unclaimed social security witholdings. You can get this information from the Dept of Treasury Internal Revenue Service and from various Congressional and news reports.
In a case of a sales tax we are all taxpayers for that if we buy something. This proposed holiday would not be for everyone. Only those with proper
ID and background history can partipate.
"Another question (for JohnS), when did Bush say that illegal immigrants are tax payers? I don't recall that speech or particular comment and would like to know where to find it. This would change my Republican views if it is shown to me where to read, view, or listen to this speech or article in its entirety".
Posted by hairy1663 on December 8, 2007 at 11:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Doh! Major how did I miss that! I can see that they are plainly referring to the consumption of alcohol in article 10. It reads just as plain as, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Posted by majorjohnson on December 9, 2007 at 9:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amendment 10 is referring to everything that is not listed as a power of the federal government...alcohol consumption is not listed there, thus there is a right to it. Because it is not there the power to restrict or regulate falls to the state, and if the state does not restrict or regulate it falls to the people.
Posted by hairy1663 on December 9, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
But it is regulated by the feds. ATF that stands for Alcohol Tobacco & Firearms. The drinking age is a national drinking age, enacted at the federal level. Don't believe everything Ron Paul tells you.
Posted by majorjohnson on December 11, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They used the Interstate Commerce Act to do that, and they did it in an unconstitutional manner. That's also how they regulate marijuana and WHEAT! They used it to rule that a farmer could not grow wheat for his own cattle! If you think that was the intent of the ICA or allowed by the constitution, you must be a liberal.