H.3292 passed in House panel

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
I just heard on the news that it passed in a House panel unanimously! The Sheriffs organization is complaining. They want to see a yearly training requirement to be put in the bill.

http://www2.wspa.com/news/2011/feb/24/3 ... r-1502118/

Concealed Gun Bill Advances At SC Statehouse

By Associated Press
Published: February 24, 2011
Updated: February 24, 2011 - 12:16 PM


COLUMBIA, S.C. --

South Carolina citizens could carry a concealed weapon without a permit under legislation advanced by a House panel.

The measure approved unanimously Thursday by a House Judiciary subcommittee applies to any South Carolina resident at least 21-years-old who can legally own a gun.

The bill advances to the full Judiciary Committee.

Supporters say law-abiding citizens should be able to protect themselves from criminals who don't respect gun laws.

State Law Enforcement Division Chief Reggie Lloyd says he has no problem with the proposal. He says women especially need to be able to protect themselves.

Gun rights activist Robert Butler called it a step in the right direction.
 

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
Here's a better article.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/0 ... nding.html

SC panel approves bill expanding gun rights


By SEANNA ADCOX
Associated Press
Posted: Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011

COLUMBIA, S.C. Gun-rights activists applauded a vote Thursday that would allow South Carolina citizens to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.


The measure, which applies to any resident at least 21 years old who can legally own a gun, has bipartisan support in this gun-friendly state. A House panel voted unanimously to advance the amended bill to the full Judiciary Committee.


"You can't prevent a criminal from having a gun," said Byron Chafin of rural Batesburg, who has a concealed carry permit. "A law-abiding citizen should have the right to protect themselves anywhere they go."


South Carolina's top law enforcement officer said allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed guns makes people feel safer and could deter an attack, and he has no problem with it.


"You've got to have a way to defend yourself," said State Law Enforcement Division chief Reggie Lloyd, a former judge and U.S. attorney, noting his strong belief that women especially need to arm themselves against attacks.


Other law enforcement officers say they're concerned about allowing people to carry concealed guns without training.

"It's not that we're anti-gun-freedom," said Jarrod Bruder, executive director of the state Law Enforcement Officers Association. "We understand Second Amendment rights, but we want people to know how to use it."


As of Tuesday, 130,541 people in South Carolina hold permits to carry concealed weapons, according to SLED. The permitting process requires at least eight hours of training, which includes hitting 70 percent of targets with a handgun on a course that ranges from 3 to 25 yards, and education on gun safety and laws.


Opponents of the bill say that education piece is especially important.


Without it, people may assume they can carry a gun anywhere and could get in legal trouble, said Jeff Moore, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriffs' Association. He doubts people would read state gun laws on their own, which specify, for example, that guns are prohibited from school sporting events, bars, and government meetings, and businesses can ban them.


Moore noted the proposal would make it harder for a South Carolinian born after 1979 to hunt than to carry a concealed weapon on the street. Hunting requires an education course and permit.
"It doesn't make sense," he said.


The main sponsor, Rep. Mike Pitts, said he understands the concerns, but it's about honoring residents' constitutional right to bear arms. While people should undergo training and would be safer if they do, the Constitution doesn't require it, he said.


"The bottom line is, we're not talking about a privilege granted by the state," said Pitts, R-Laurens, a retired law enforcement officer known for advocating gun-rights legislation. "Either you believe in the Constitution or you don't."


Nationwide, only three states allow residents to carry a concealed weapon without a permit: Alaska, Arizona and Vermont. Two states - Illinois and Wisconsin - forbid concealed carry, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Rifle Association.


South Carolina is among more than three dozen states that allow a concealed permit process without many restrictions for residents who meet the legal criteria, while other states have strict limits for who can get a permit.


Robert Butler of South Carolina's GrassRoots GunRights called the House measure a positive step that didn't go as far as the group wanted.


Members, for example, wanted to drop the age to carry from 21 to 18, saying if they're old enough to die for their country, they're old enough to carry a gun off the battlefield.


But Carlton O'Neal, a Benedict College political science major, disagreed, saying many 18-year-olds aren't mature enough.


"It should definitely stay at 21," said O'Neal, originally from Rochester, N.Y., who got his concealed weapon permit soon after turning 21 last August. "When you're 18, you do more wild things."


Theodore Hill, another Benedict student at the meeting, said he believes the bill could make the streets safer. The Bloomfield, N.J., native and criminal justice major said criminals may be less likely to rob or attack someone if they're unsure whether their potential victim is packing.


Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/0 ... z1Ev8Phf8G
 

Midnight Raver

Active Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
2,437
I REALLY need to move down there now- Frost, how about me setting up camp in your back yard for a while? I will take care of the land mines for you, ok? :mrgreen:
 

Treedodger

New Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
118
The article only mentioned the permit aspect of it I noticed. There was no mention of other parts relaxing the restrictions on where you can't carry though. Hopefully, the updates on carrying in restaurants serving alcohol, residences, hospitals, etc were kept.
 

jmt2566

New Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2009
Messages
371
Treedodger said:
The article only mentioned the permit aspect of it I noticed. There was no mention of other parts relaxing the restrictions on where you can't carry though. Hopefully, the updates on carrying in restaurants serving alcohol, residences, hospitals, etc were kept.
That was my reaction as well. I think that it is a great step but, like Treedodger, I hope the other sections were kept as well.

Jeff
 

jjwestbrook

New Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
176
ya know this might not be as great as it sounds . if they drop the requirements for training and permits other states might not reciprocate with SC anymore.
 

Dirk Pitt

New Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
183
jjwestbrook said:
ya know this might not be as great as it sounds . if they drop the requirements for training and permits other states might not reciprocate with SC anymore.
I suspect that like Arizona you would still be able to get a permit, you just wouldn't be required to.
 

jjwestbrook

New Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Messages
176
Dirk Pitt said:
jjwestbrook said:
ya know this might not be as great as it sounds . if they drop the requirements for training and permits other states might not reciprocate with SC anymore.
I suspect that like Arizona you would still be able to get a permit, you just wouldn't be required to.
I hope so , dont get me wrong i like the idea i just dont want to lose any other rights . like the ability to carry in other states.
 

Frost

Administrator
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
2,229
I honestly have no problem with a permit being required.
The duty to present it when my drivers license does not bother me either.
I do think 8 hours is a bit much.
I has been a while since I took the course so I don't remember how much filler there actually was.
I would think 4 hours classroom and then the range would probably be plenty.
 

thebrasilian

New Member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
1,433
The biggy for me is the resturant carry. I hate having to take it off even if I go to a nice resturant and not drink. I wonder if what GA take will be on this.
 

Bdbys59

New Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
72
The training aspect of it, you have to remember, is aimed at those with ABSOLUTELY NO WEAPONS training. Those of us who know which end of the pistol the bullet exits, well, we don't need as much, just the legal issues. I have gotten my guys exempt from all but the written test and that takes about an hour. of course they do have 4 hours of dry fire/reload drills and 4 hours of range time! :lol:
 

russell97ta

New Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
30
The problem with that thinking is this: Who makes the decision who needs it and who doesn't?
I will probably catch heck for saying this. I do not like the idea of unlicensed concealed or open carry.
I like the current CWP system with the exception of the restaurant carry. I have always had guns and been taught gun safety. Even with the knowledge that I had when I took the class, I learned a great deal from the class on both legal issues and situational awareness. I took the class from Garner's in Liberty. I very much enjoyed the class (anytime I talk about guns....it's a good time). From others I have spoken to, I think he is one of the better CWP instructors. Very informative, engaging, and entertaining, too.

Don't misunderstand me. I am all for gun rights. But there does need to be common sense. I don't want any Tom, Dick, or (Dirty) Harry carrying a gun that doesn't understand the responsibility they have when they are armed. Will one "8" hour class solve it? No, but it is a good start to make you start thinking. Anyone who will CC, needs to understand the Castle law, alter ego, etc. I wouldn't mind having to take a refresher course to renew your CWP. Why would a hunter be required to take a safety class, and not someone who is going to CC in public?



Bdbys59 said:
The training aspect of it, you have to remember, is aimed at those with ABSOLUTELY NO WEAPONS training. Those of us who know which end of the pistol the bullet exits, well, we don't need as much, just the legal issues. I have gotten my guys exempt from all but the written test and that takes about an hour. of course they do have 4 hours of dry fire/reload drills and 4 hours of range time! :lol:
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
Let the flaming begin! lol j/k

To me, this bill is more than better 2nd amendment rights, it's a step in the direction for less government control.

The government is turning everyone into pansies with all this "protection" they are apparently providing through stupid laws. The anti-gun crowd likes to yell about all of us 2nd amendment supporters wanting to turn the USA back into the "Wild West". Well, that is EXACTLY what I want!

The older I get the more I realize the US is becoming more like a communist country everyday. It seems no matter who is president, who is in control of congress, who the governors of our united states are, and which party these politicians belong to... it feels like everything is becoming more government controlled. Don't get me wrong, I am still proud to live in the USA, it seems better than anywhere else. I say it's just about revolution time, time to take back the states from the "protectionist" crowd who want to control and protect you from everything that may be dangerous. Well shhhit, a rock is dangerous. Come on people!
 

Dave29461

Active Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
1,862
What the government giveth, the government can taketh away. A right is not given. It is, more often than not, fought for and won...over and over again. We can give it up or have it taken away but it is still there like an accusation. We can fight for it and refuse to kowtow to those who feel morally superior because they feel it is beneath them to stand for something as outdated and selfish as individual freedom. We don't need revolution. We need people to get off their dead asses and and vote with their brains instead of their greed. Just a thought.
Dave
 

specialK

New Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2011
Messages
8
I just got off the phone with Rep Mike Pitts and he said a few things that were interesting. This is not quoting directly but what I gathered.

one, the cwp would stay in place for reciprocity and easing the purchase of firearms

two, you must be 21, a US citizen, an SC native, and legally able to purchase a firearm so non mentally challenged and not a felon.

three, as of now, there is no "proof of training requirement" and that Rep. Jakie Knotts is the one pushing for that

four, there are added amendments to make another vote for Tuesday, March 1, 2011. If it passes that there will be a debate in a "week or so"

He also mentioned that Rob Butler of Grass Roots Guns Rights is trying to kill this bill. He is trying to kill it bc he wants all or nothing. Im sorry Mr Butler but ill take what I can get when I can get it!


Columbia Address
327C Blatt Bldg.
Columbia, 29201

Business Phone (803) 734-2830

Home Phone (864) 575-2917

Business Phone (864) 681-0238


Mike Pitts, also stated that if anyone wants clarity or has questions he would be glad to answer any. Here is his contact info.
 

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
That's the same info that I have. Here is the amendment as it stands from the 24th subcommittee vote. http://bellsouthpwp2.net/s/c/scgunguy/Viers.pdf Grassroots is really negative on the changes that were made. None of their recommendations were added to the changes so they are trying to kill it and blaming the NRA for everything. Grassroots is way out of line on this one!
 

Treedodger

New Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
118
From reading GrassRoots post their main beef with it is the section regarding out of state gun owners not being able to have a handgun in their glove box or console while traveling in SC unless they have a permit from state with reciprocity, among others. The bill is better than what we have though and the draft I read said that you could carry in "any" business selling alcohol for consumption on the premises as long as it was not posted no concealed carry and you did not drink. That's a huge benefit in my book.

Granted it is not perfect, but it is an improvement.

Below is link to GrassRoots post.
http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/H ... ndment.pdf
 

Frost

Administrator
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
2,229
Someone should tell the Grassroots guys about this place.

I wonder if the politicians know about it?

I mean this is a dedicated to the state of South Carolina forum
 

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
Treedodger said:
From reading GrassRoots post their main beef with it is the section regarding out of state gun owners not being able to have a handgun in their glove box or console while traveling in SC unless they have a permit from state with reciprocity, among others. The bill is better than what we have though and the draft I read said that you could carry in "any" business selling alcohol for consumption on the premises as long as it was not posted no concealed carry and you did not drink. That's a huge benefit in my book.

Granted it is not perfect, but it is an improvement.

Below is link to GrassRoots post.
http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/H ... ndment.pdf
They are reading this section and claiming that non residents can't have a firearm in their vehicle. To me it means carrying on their person. I know Rep Pitts and others have said that's not the case. This is another item that the wording will be changed.

Non South Carolina residents and non United States citizens
may not carry a handgun unless the person has a South Carolina
concealed weapons permit, satisfies section 23-31-215(N), or is a
peace officer in the actual discharge of his duties.
As far as keeping a firearm in the glove compartment, console or trunk that requirement was removed in the original bill and did not change in the Viers amendment. All the mundane requirements were removed and replaced with this which also confirms that non residents only restriction is carrying a handgun on their person. This is how the section will look without all the struck out lines.

?Section 16-23-20.
It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not with the intent to use the handgun in furtherance of a crime. The intent to use a handgun in furtherance of crime shall not be inferred by the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the handgun. Display of a handgun during the commission of a violent crime is subject to additional penalty under section 16-23-490. Non South Carolina residents and non United States citizens may not carry a handgun unless the person has a South Carolina concealed weapons permit, satisfies section 23-31-215(N), or is a peace officer in the actual discharge of his duties. No person may carry a handgun if under the age of twenty-one or otherwise prohibited to possess a handgun under state or federal law.
 
Top