My Mom lives in a small historic town full of old houses and families whose lineage traces back to the founding of the town. However, rules and regulations are as much a part of that town as the sidewalks they walk and the antique chifforobes they hang their clothes in.
Doing some research for Mom about her small town, York, South Carolina, I found something that amazed me in the town’s ordinances. The ordinances of her town state in part:
“The discharging of firearms within the city, the discharging or shooting of air rifles in the city and the discharging or shooting of toy guns on any of the streets of the city is prohibited; provided, however, that the city chief of police [sic] is authorized to issue temporary permits permitting the discharge of firearms and air rifles within the city, if in the opinion of the chief of police [sic], such permission is necessary to protect property within the city from animals or fowl. The permit must state the purpose for discharging firearms, or air rifles, briefly describe the property to be protected, set forth the date such discharging is permitted and shall be issued only to a person 21 years of age or older who has a valid hunting license. [my bolding and italics]”
I kid you not: “shooting of toy guns” and the Chief of Police needs to issue a permit. “Toy guns” is not defined within the ordinance the “toy guns” statement could cover everything from paint ball guns and cap guns to water pistols. Water pistols are “discharged” or “shot” to make the water come out: so a water pistol is included.
In the City of York, a seven-year-old has to have a permit from the Chief of Police in order to go outside and have a squirt gun fight with his six-year-old brother if they leave the confines of their own yard. That’s IF the Chief of Police considers a squirt gun fight necessary for the protection of property within the city from animals or fowl. That’s what the ordinance says. Unbelievable.
The whole idea is repugnant to me. A portion of the Second Amendment states,
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Would the City of York, SC, even recognize those words: even for a squirt gun? Or maybe the words don’t apply to kids playing with squirt guns in the City of York. Of course, why would the Second Amendment apply?
Our Founding Fathers admittedly did not have squirt guns in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment. I seriously doubt that they even thought of the concept of squirt guns. Maybe that’s the reason City of York accepts the limitations?
Why else would they do something like that? Was this ordinance in reaction to a specific incident that happened years ago and the ordinance just hasn’t been amended yet? Or could it be that it’s part of the effort of the left to make our children afraid of guns? An effort to make them part of the hate gun crowd so that they won’t want a Second Amendment right when they’re older?
To tell you the truth, their motivations are not the problem. The problem is the fact that the law exists. The limiting of even “toy guns” limits freedom from a very young age.
It limits freedom and gets our children used to the idea of being incapable of “discharging” or “shooting of toy guns”: which leads to the acceptance of limits on the Second Amendment when they are adults. Limited freedom — of any sort — in childhood leads to acceptance of a limited freedom as an adult. If they grow up that way, they’re less likely to know what they don’t have.
When you have a law that limits even children having a squirt gun war that may leave their own yard and wander into the empty lot next door, across the street into their friend’s yard, or anywhere else within the city limits without a permit from the Chief of Police, there’s a problem with freedom in America.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” — Edmund Burke
In York, it looks to me as though the good men have all done nothing. This in the state of Nikki Haley?