South Carolina Introduces Secession Bill In Response To Latest Attacks On Gun Owner Rights

-snip -Three House representatives introduced a bill that would allow for representatives to debate the issue of secession “if the federal government confiscates legally purchased firearms in this State.”

The bill was sponsored by Republican Representative Mike Pitts (Laurens) and was co-sponsored by Republican Representatives Jonathon Hill (Anderson) and Ashley Trantham (Greenville).

While Pitts acknowledges that the bill has no chance of passing this year, he referred to the issue of secession as a defense of the Bill of Rights.

“Without a Bill of Rights, our nation is not what it is,” Pitts said. “I see a lot of stuff where people even talk about totally repealing the Second Amendment, which separates us from the entire rest of the world.”

The Washington Times reports:

Pitts, an ardent supporter of gun rights, said he had been mulling such a proposal for a while and felt it was necessary to bring the bill forward. He said he wasn’t spurred by recent comments by retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who recently wrote in an op-ed that a repeal of the Second Amendment “would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union before the Civil War, voting in December 1860 to make the decision based on “increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of Slavery.” Other states have proposed secession-related measures. In 2013, several counties moved to secede from Colorado and form their own state, an unsuccessful movement was in part driven by new gun control laws passed by the Democratic legislature.

As for Pitts, he is not seeking secession but is ready to have open debate on the issue should things continue in the manner they are going.

“I’m not promoting secession,” said the Army veteran.  “I served this country, and I don’t want to see it broken up.”

Secession has been touted by California and Oregon, and even people from all 50 states have called for it over the past couple of years.  There really isn’t anything wrong with secession.  In fact, our forefathers who established the Constitution seceded from England.


“More often than not, after a lesser government declares secession from a greater civil government, war generally follows between the two governments,” Hampton reminds us.  “However, secession should be the last option after all other attempts at reform and protest have failed. Just like church discipline, the proper order must be followed; otherwise the Christian would be in violation of God’s law. The Christian’s duty is to try to live peacefully with others if at all possible (Heb. 12:14). But when peace is not an option, God does allow for civil disobedience, and this disobedience may just be secession from a greater tyrannical government through a lesser government. In short, there comes a point in which secession in some situations may be appropriate if Christians have exhausted all other options.”

This goes without saying that there must be attempts exhausted to right the wrongs, but when that time has ended and the patience of the governed has been used up by those they have elected, then it is indeed time to consider secession and establishing new government in place of the old one that has become corrupt.

No doubt, Pitts and the other representatives are merely seeking to lay the groundwork to consider all the option on the table in light of the continued path the federal government remains on in violating the Constitution.  I wish them well, and fully support them in their efforts.

Original Article