Kevin Bryant

Sen. Jim DeMint Lists his “Top Ten Reasons to Oppose the Senate Amnesty Bill”
For more details on his stand:
http://demint.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=380
1. Rewards Illegal Behavior with Clear Path to Citizenship and Voting Rights – Amnesty
2. Creates Temporary Worker Program That is Neither Temporary Nor Work-Based
3. Unprecedented Wave of Immigrants – 66 Million Over 20 Years
4. Insufficient Border Security
5. Terrorist Loophole Disarms Law Enforcement
6. Social Security Benefits, Tax Credits for Illegal Work
7. Costs Over $50 Billion A Year to Federal Government; States Foot The Bill
8. Hurts Small Business
9. Gives Some Immigrant Workers Greater Job Protection Than American Workers
10. Weak Assimilation/English Requirements

Yesterday, a number of members of the SC House Judiciary Committee walked out to avoid voting on Jessica’s Law. Chairman Harrison has called another meeting today hopefully the bill can get on the House floor. The SC Senate passed my amendment to allow for capital punishment for child rapists receiving a 2nd conviction. The roll call vote was 38-4. The Senate then passed the bill unanimously. Should Jessica’s Law pass the house in its amended form, SC will be only the 2nd state to allow for sentencing this severe. I don’t understand the cowardice to leave a meeting to avoid voting on a measure. While our children’s safety is in danger, we’ve got members of the legislature hiding.
The most popular questions asked:
1-Why are you asking for punishment this severe? When a child is raped something precious is taken from the child’s soul. They will never recover, therefore, I believe that his invasion of a child warrants capital punishment, especially since the bill calls for a 2nd conviction of child rape. This also sends a message across the world, that SC does not tolerate the molestations of our kids! Will this sentencing keep perverts out of SC? I certainly hope so.
2-Does the amendment jeopardize the rest of Jessica’s Law bill or our current capital punishment statutes? A “severability clause” was included in the amendment to prevent this from happening. Also, the language calls for a separate statute that may isolate this sentencing should we get a court challenge.

Just heard that Lt. Gov. Andre’ Bauer and another passenger have been in a plane crash in Cherokee County. I’m told they survived the crash with injuries, but should recover soon. Please keep Andre’ in your thoughts and prayers.

Is YOUR Home Safe? You’ve got a three-story mansion or a 30-year-old doublewide, it is your home. You work hard to pay your taxes and your bills. You try your best to keep your gutters clean and your grass mowed. You look out for your neighbors, and they look out for you. Your home is the very best that you can provide for your family. Your home has been your castle — until now. Your constitutional rights just took a serious blow.
The U.S. Supreme Court stunned us with a redefinition of eminent domain. The town of New London, Conn., approved a private development plan designed to revitalize its ailing economy and then purchased most of the property from willing sellers. When a few homeowners refused, the city condemned their homes. The homeowners sued, claiming that seizing their properties violates the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. Last June the Supreme Court ruled in favor of New London. Consequently, any government entity can lawfully seize private property and hand it over to private developers.
Sen. Chip Campsen (R-Charleston) has spent that last several months crafting legislation to strengthen our state’s eminent domain laws. In the wake of this shocking ruling, we are committed to addressing property rights legislation. We will not rest until the New London scenario becomes absolutely impossible in South Carolina! If you have an opinion on this or any other matter, feel free to post it!

A subcommittee of which I sit, passed H. 4301 commonly known as the “castle doctrine”. It does 3 things:
1-It establishes the presumption that a criminal who forcibly intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause harm, therefore you may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
2-It removes the “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force.
3-It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted nor sued.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.