Right-to-Carry Reform Bill Introduced

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
From what I have read this is a major revamping of our CC laws. It covers just about everything we've been wanting. You don't have to have your permit on you to CC. Restaurant carry is in it. Right to have firearms in your vehicle on private/workplace parking lots. All out of state permits must be honored. School carry is unclear whether you can carry on your person in a vehicle or have to secure it like before.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=6120

Friday, January 14, 2011 The 119th South Carolina General Assembly began its session this week, and on Wednesday, Jan. 12, State Representative Mike Pitts (R-14) introduced H. 3292, a comprehensive Right-to-Carry reform bill.
Joining Rep. Pitts as cosponsors are Representatives Dan Cooper (R-10) and Greg Delleney, Jr. (R-43). H. 3292 seeks to reform current law to remove certain restrictions on where one may lawfully carry a concealed firearm, establish that property owners may not set policies or rules that would prohibit the transportation or storage of legally-possessed firearms or ammunition if it is locked, out of sight, within a privately-owned motor vehicle, and create a straight recognition standard for valid permits issued by other states.
We will be giving a more detailed analysis of this legislation, as well as report on other firearm-related bills, in the near future. In the meantime, please take a moment to call your State Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H. 3292. Their contact information can be found here
Link for the Bill.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess119_201 ... s/3292.htm
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
I have been trying to make sense of the changes since I heard about them.

It appears concealed carry permit holders might be able to carry into places that serve alcoholic beverages as long as the CWP holder does not partake in drinking said beverages, and if there is no legit "No Concealable Weapons Allowed" sign. ???
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
My head hurts after reading and re-reading the bill and it's changes.

I am gathering that with these changes, it is possible for CPW holders non-CWP holders to conceal carry and/or to open carry. ???

"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 it unlawfully against another person. The intent to use a handgun unlawfully against another person shall not be inferred from the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of a loaded or unloaded handgun."

...

SECTION 6. Section 16-23-460 of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 337 of 2008, is further amended to read:

"Section 16-23-460. A person carrying a deadly weapon concealed about his person with the intent to use the weapon in furtherance of a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor, must forfeit to the county, or, if convicted in a municipal court, to the municipality, the concealed weapon, and must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days. The intent to use a weapon in furtherance of a crime shall not be inferred by the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the weapon, including the possession, carrying or concealment of a loaded or unloaded firearm.

BUT, section 8 goes on about SLED issuing a permit "to carry a concealable weapon".

Does all this mean that there will be no permit needed to conceal carry, and possably open carry, in SC , as long as you are a resident of SC? AND that the purpose for the SC CWP, in this reformed bill, is to keep reciprocity with other states, so that a CWP holder may go into another state that accepts SC CWPS while carrying concealed?

I am so bad at reading legal documents and bills, but that's my take. I doubt that is what the changes are proposing, as it looks to good to be true to me. Hopefully my eyes aren't deceiving me and we we will get rights like the fine citizens Arizona have had for the past few months, concealed carry without a permit. That and open carry would be awesome!
 

thebrasilian

New Member
Joined
May 7, 2010
Messages
1,433
There is also another bill about redefining what an "Assult Weapon" is. I have it posed up in another section.
 

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
carsontech said:
My head hurts after reading and re-reading the bill and it's changes.
I had the same problem. Hopefully over the life of the bill it will be refined to an acceptable format so there will be no gray areas.
 

Low Branch

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
79
I know GrassRoots does a lot of working with language in bills (in an effort to make them less vague), but who initially writes these? I passed out and had a seizure...
 

Frost

Administrator
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
2,229
When I first saw this I went to Grassroots site but alas there was nothing beyond a link to the text.
Surely they are working diligently to interpret this for us.
 

Red Hat

New Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
547
By separating the first part of the bill I found it helped me a lot to get an idea of what they were trying to do.

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-23-510 SO AS TO PROVIDE A LIST OF LOCATIONS WHERE CERTAIN PERSONS ARE PROHIBITED FROM CARRYING A HANDGUN;

BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 TO CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN PERSONS MAY NOT PROHIBIT AN INDIVIDUAL FROM TRANSPORTING OR STORING LEGALLY-POSSESSED FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION IN THE INDIVIDUAL'S PRIVATELY-OWNED MOTOR VEHICLE, AND TO PROVIDE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS ARTICLE;

TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-20, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUNS, SO AS TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT CONSTITUTE THE UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF A HANDGUN;

TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-420, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE POSSESSION OF A FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH A PERSON CAN CARRY A FIREARM ON SCHOOL PROPERTY;

TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-430, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO CARRYING WEAPONS ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, SO AS TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH A PERSON MAY CARRY A WEAPON ON SCHOOL PROPERTY;

TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-460, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF A DEADLY WEAPON, SO AS TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH IT IS UNLAWFUL TO CARRY A DEADLY WEAPON;

TO AMEND SECTION 16-23-465, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR CARRYING A FIREARM ONTO THE PREMISE OF A BUSINESS THAT SELLS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, SO AS TO REVISE THE PENALTIES AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH THEY MUST BE IMPOSED;

TO AMEND SECTION 23-31-215, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALABLE WEAPON PERMITS, SO AS TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT HOLDER TO HAVE HIS IDENTIFICATION CARD IN HIS POSSESSION WHENEVER HE CARRIES A CONCEALABLE WEAPON AND INFORM A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THAT HE IS A PERMIT HOLDER UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, TO REVISE THE LOCATIONS UPON WHICH IT IS LAWFUL TO CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON WITH AND WITHOUT A PERMIT, AND TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH A VALID OUT-OF-STATE PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON MUST BE HONORED; AND

TO AMEND SECTIONS 23-31-220 AND 23-31-225, RELATING TO THE CARRYING OF CONCEALABLE WEAPONS UPON THE PREMISES OF A BUSINESS OR A RESIDENCE, SO AS TO REVISE THE CIRCUMSTANCES UPON WHICH IT IS LAWFUL TO CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON ON THESE PREMISES.
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
Awesome, it's much easier to read when separating that first part like that.

After reading it like that and re-reading the changes, it absolutely sounds like the changes to the bill are to make the bill almost like Airzona's right-to-carry "system", no permit to carry concealed and possibly open carry in some places.

As mentioned on my last post, it's seems like a CWP holder's only benefit in this reform bill would be reciprocity, and maybe a few other little benefits over non-CWP holders..

I would love for this thing to pass.
 

Low Branch

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
79
I like the idea of allowing legal gun owners the right to carry inside of the state, but at the same time I also like the current system where the gun owner must show at least a minimal proficiency with the weapon. What is the consensus here?
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
I had a discussion with one of my friends about this, and the incident in Arizona, here is what I ended up telling him at the end of our discussion:

"Tons of situations would go down differently if every citizen had the right to carry openly and concealed (Duh). People could use their weapons knowledgeably or, like you said, they could kill others in the process of defending themselves and the people around them.

Here is where the ?sheeple? are going to think I am crazy, if they don't think so already. I AM ALL FOR THAT KIND OF FREEDOM. The government shouldn't have the right to tell law abiding citzens, the non-insane, and non-felons they can't carry a gun. The government should only have the right to punish/execute people for unjustly/accidentally killing someone, committing crimes, etc. What I think American people need is more freedom but harsher and swifter punishment for crimes, whether premeditated, accidental, ect. This would mean more capital punishment, and making it very public and known when that punishment is served on criminals (like back when public hangings were legal). No more having convicted murderers sit in jail for more than a few weeks.

While this bill doesn't include those changes, passing this bill could help get SC to that point, and hopefully the rest of the US. If an incident occurs, like a mass shooting or someone accidentally shoots others while defending themselves, if this reform bill passes, then the SC government should see it as a warning to increase the penalties/punishment exponentially. This should "help" coerce the part of the public sector that is uneducated about firearms to want to learn how to use them properly and train with them, should they want to bear arms.

While it would be best if harsher consciences/punishments were to be implemented along with this bill, sometimes we have to take (fight for) what we can, or possibly be able to, get. If the bill is passed in its current form, and some innocent people die because of it, that would be a very unfortunate, yet necessary evil. The government should see that as a wake up call to reform how fast and hard justice should be served (swiftly and harshly, insane or not).

'God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS. IT IS ITS NATURAL MANURE.' - Thomas Jefferson"
 

Pigpen

New Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
49
Low Branch said:
I like the idea of allowing legal gun owners the right to carry inside of the state, but at the same time I also like the current system where the gun owner must show at least a minimal proficiency with the weapon. What is the consensus here?
How about presenting a DD-214 instead of proof of training?

The Corps is where I learned that I can shoot really well with a pistol and rifle.

On second thought, do the Airforce people even still qualify with weapons? :lol:

Just ribbin you Airforce guys!!
 

Frost

Administrator
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
2,229
Really an excellent book.
Such a shame the movie by the same name was one of the worst ever produced.
 

Low Branch

New Member
Joined
May 6, 2010
Messages
79
Pigpen said:
How about presenting a DD-214 instead of proof of training?

The Corps is where I learned that I can shoot really well with a pistol and rifle.

On second thought, do the Airforce people even still qualify with weapons? :lol:

Just ribbin you Airforce guys!!
You would think that would be allow already...
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
thebrasilian said:
@ carsontech:

Did you read the book for Starship Troopers?
That's a negative. I know of it, though. Think it would be up my alley?

Frost said:
Really an excellent book.
Such a shame the movie by the same name was one of the worst ever produced.
I have seen the movie multiple times, it was a little blah to me. I did dig the nuke grenade though.
 

carsontech

Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2010
Messages
510
carsontech said:
I had a discussion with one of my friends about this, and the incident in Arizona, here is what I ended up telling him at the end of our discussion:

"Tons of situations would go down differently if every citizen had the right to carry openly and concealed (Duh). People could use their weapons knowledgeably, or, like you said, they could kill others in the process of defending themselves and the people around them.

Here is where the ?sheeple? are going to think I am crazy, if they don't think so already. I AM ALL FOR THAT KIND OF FREEDOM. The government shouldn't have the right to tell law abiding citzens, the non-insane, and non-felons they can't carry a gun. The government should only have the right to punish/execute people for unjustly/accidentally killing someone, committing crimes, etc. What I think American people need is more freedom but harsher and swifter punishment for crimes, whether premeditated, accidental, ect. This would mean more capital punishment, and making it very public and known when that punishment is served on criminals (like back when public hangings were legal). No more having convicted murderers sit in jail for more than a few weeks.

While this bill doesn't include those changes, passing this bill could help get SC to that point, and hopefully the rest of the US. If an incident occurs, like a mass shooting or someone accidentally shoots others while defending themselves, if this reform bill passes, then the SC government should see it as a warning to increase the penalties/punishment exponentially. This should "help" coerce the part of the public sector that is uneducated about firearms to want to learn how to use them properly and train with them, should they want to bear arms.

While it would be best if harsher consciences/punishments were to be implemented along with this bill, sometimes we have to take (fight for) what we can, or possibly be able to, get. If the bill is passed in its current form, and some innocent people die because of it, that would be a very unfortunate, yet necessary evil. The government should see that as a wake up call to reform how fast and hard justice should be served (swiftly and harshly, insane or not).

'God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms.
The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?
THE TREE OF LIBERTY MUST BE REFRESHED FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH THE BLOOD OF PATRIOTS AND TYRANTS. IT IS ITS NATURAL MANURE.' - Thomas Jefferson"
 

Treedodger

New Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2010
Messages
118
Grassroots Email on H. 3292.

They have links and contact info for every subcommittee member. Please take the time to send emails and call them along with your rep also this weekend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***** Action Alert - H. 3292 *****

February 9, 2011

H. 3292 - if amended as GrassRoots proposes - could be the most
important pro gun bill this legislative session!

H. 3292 could - if properly amended - resolve many gun rights issues
in just one bill.

Gun owners can - and should - push hard to get H. 3292 amended, and
then enacted into law. Why fight many small wars when we could - and
can -
get it all with one big war.

After you read the GrassRoots analysis of H. 3292, you will understand
just how important H. 3292 is to you, if it is properly amended.

Click here <http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3292_analysis.pdf>
to read the ?GrassRoots GunRights Analysis
of H. 3292 with Proposed Amendments? posted on our website. Yes, it
is long and detailed. But, something as important as how H. 3292 could

impact your gun rights needs to be accurate and thorough. Unless you
understand exactly what H. 3292 does and does not do, you can not know

just how important it is that H. 3292 be amended as GrassRoots
proposes, and then enacted into law. Anything less thorough would
require you
to have faith in, but not knowledge of, what is truly contained in H.
3292.

After you read the GrassRoots analysis of H. 3292, you will understand
how important it is for you - and everyone else you can enlist to join
us - to print
out and mail in those post cards without delay. Click here
<http://www.scfirearms.org/postcard/WhyPostCards.html>
to
read why postcards are so important.

H. 3292 could come before the House General Laws subcommittee as early
as Thursday, Feb 17. We - you, me, and everyone else we can get to
join
us - must start doing all we can to get H. 3292 amended and enacted
into law.

It is time to use the card stock and stamps GrassRoots recently asked
you to purchase to get your voice heard in support of H. 3292! If you
have not
yet purchased the card stock and postage, please do so quickly. We
have heard that some stores have sold out of the orange card stock. If
you can
not get orange, then get whatever color you can get. It is more
important that you send the postcards now rather than miss out because
you could not
find orange. See Action Steps below.

It is time to make phone calls to our elected representatives in
support of H. 3292!

It is time to send emails to our elected representatives in support of
H. 3292!

GrassRoots has created a document with eight post cards addressed to
the five members of the House General Laws subcommittee and to the
three
principal sponsors of H. 3292.

*ACTION STEPS TO TAKE NOW:*

1. Download and print out the post cards. Click here
<http://scfirearms.org/postcard/H3292postcardsv3.pdf>

to download the post card file. (Click here
<http://www.scfirearms.org/postcard/PostCardsPrintingInstructions.html>
if you need
instructions for printing the post cards.)

2. Cut the card stock into four post cards.

3. Sign the bottom of the message side of each post card.

4. Write your return address in the upper left corner of the address
side of each card.

5. Put at least a 28 cent stamp on each post card and mail them.

6. CALL and email each member of the House General Laws subcommittee
and tell them ?GrassRoots GunRights Speaks for Me!? Then, call the
three
principal sponsors of H. 3292 and tell them the same thing.

Members of the SC House General Laws Subcommittee:

Rep. Thad Viers

(803) 734-3064

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Rep. Dan Hamilton

(803) 212-6795

[email protected] <mailto:D[email protected]>

Rep. George Hearn

(803) 212-6796

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Rep. Laurie Funderburk

(803) 734-3044

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Rep.David Weeks

(803) 734-3102

[email protected] <mailto:D[email protected]>

The three principal sponsors of H. 3292:

Rep. Mike Pitts

(803) 734-2830

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

Rep. Dan Cooper

(803) 734-3144

[email protected] <mailto:D[email protected]>

Rep. Greg Delleney

(803) 734-3074

[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

If you are unable to reach any of these Representatives at their
individual office numbers listed above, call the House Judiciary
Committee
(803) 734-3120 and ask to be transferred.

Once you have done this, you should also send post cards to every
House member in the county in which you live. GrassRoots has created
a separate document for each county with post cards for each House
member.
Click here
<http://www.scfirearms.org/postcard/PostCardsH3292Delegations.html>
and download the
post cards for your county House members and follow the same Action
Steps as 1 through 5 above. Give any extra postcards to your
friends and neighbors to send in.

The politicians MUST hear what good, law-abiding gun owners like YOU
think about H. 3292, and they need to hear it NOW!

Gun owners have the power to win. The question is whether gun owners
have the will to win. If gun owners work together and follow the
Action Steps above, we can get H. 3292 amended and enacted into law.

Thank you for taking immediate action on this very important gun
rights issue!

Bill Rentiers

Executive Officer

GrassRoots GunRights of SC
 
Top