Until this week, S.C. Rep. Chip Limehouse (RINO-Charleston) was the lead sponsor of H.3052, one of several knee-jerk, anti-Second Amendment bills pushed by big government backers in response to last December’s Newtown, Connecticut school shooting.
Now? Not so much …
Limehouse’s name no longer appears alongside Democrats Wendell Gilliard and Mia McLeod as sponsors of the anti-handgun legislation, which is currently sitting in the S.C. House Judiciary Committee awaiting a hearing. That’s good … Limehouse should have never supported this bill in the first place.
Of course to hear him tell it, he never did … which is where our story gets interesting.
Limehouse, you see, is one of sixteen candidates seeking the GOP nomination for the first congressional district seat vacated earlier this year by newly appointed U.S. Sen. Tim Scott. In fact after pumping more than $600,000 of his own money into the race, Limehouse is viewed as one of the five or six frontrunners for the seat (despite his fiscally liberal voting record).
Obviously a big anti-gun controversy on the eve of a big election wouldn’t do … which is why steps appear to have been taken on Limehouse’s behalf to scrub any record of his previous sponsorship of this bill.
More on that in a moment …
Limehouse took to social media to address the controversy, posting a hunting picture (below) along with a message in which he reaffirms his supposed pro-Second Amendment views.
(Click to enlarge)
“I am proud of my A+ rating from the National Rifle Association,” Limehouse wrote. “As a gun owner and sportsman, I have stood up for our freedoms and will do the same in Washington. False, last-minute attacks on the eve of an election don’t change my proven record. I am a life member of the NRA and will always stand up for South Carolina.”
Wait … what?
“False, last-minute attacks?”
As much as Limehouse might wish otherwise, you can’t just make things disappear from the internet.
For example, the website Palmetto Gun Rights – which opposes Limehouse’s bill – still lists him as its primary sponsor on its bill tracking page. Then there’s the website Legiscan, which as of this week still listed Limehouse as the primary sponsor of the bill.
Of course the most compelling evidence attesting to Limehouse’s prior sponsorship of this legislation is this archived screen capture from the S.C. General Assembly’s home page – SCStateHouse.gov – which clearly shows Limehouse as the primary sponsor of the bill (as of last week).
Take a look …
(Click to enlarge)
Here’s Limehouse’s problem: Whenever a member of the S.C. General Assembly adds or removes their name as a sponsor of specific legislation (as it appears he did in this case), the clerk of their respective body is required to make a note of it.
That’s how the public is able to hold their lawmakers accountable.
So … why didn’t that happen here? Could it be that the lawmaker in question is at a very critical moment in a political campaign which has drained him of more than half a million dollars?
Calls to Charles Reid, clerk of the S.C. House of Representatives, were not immediately returned. Limehouse’s campaign also did not immediately return a call seeking comment.