Permitless Carry in SC (H 3025)

[bilall]

This was offered as an amendment to the original bill that would require that SC recognize Georgia permits when Ga. agrees to recognize SC permits.

COLUMBIA ? H: 3025 as amended -
A bill allowing South Carolinians to carry concealed weapons without a permit was approved on Thursday by the SC House.
The proposal, passed as an amendment to a more limited bill, would require that people carrying guns still pass a background check and be eligible to buy a weapon.
Permits would still be offered so that concealed weapons could be carried in other states that require them and honor permits issued by South Carolina, said Rep. Mike Pitts, the Laurens Republican who proposed the amendment.

Pitts said he pushed the idea as an alternative to unsuccessful ?open carry? bills that would have allowed guns to be carried openly in public.

He said he hopes there are less objections to concealed as openly carried weapons.

The proposal now heads to the state Senate.

 

[RK3369]

so what does this bill mean? No training requirement because it appears the background check is still required. And without some kind of id card,etc, how is LEO supposed to know that you are legal to carry if you are confronted? I'm guessing that there still would have to be a permit "card" of some type to show you passed the background check, at the least. So basically it's the same as the law now, just removing any training requirement. At least it sounds that way.

 

[bilall]

Good point. It needs clarification. I'm sure this will never get through the Senate without severe amendments . It will be interesting to follow.

Even if it becomes law, I will still maintain my permit for reciprocity. (The law as written does not remove permits. It removes the requirement for in-state concealed carry.
It makes extensive changes in the Concealed Carry law and I'm sure that there will be lots more changes/amendments before it either passes or is defeated.)

 

[Tigerstripe]

just more pointless politics. i smell a rat.

as it is now if you can legally buy a gun all you need is a state hunting license to carry in your car, to and from hunting, fishing or target shooting and who is to say thats not where you have been or are going.

 

[RK3369]

you don't need a hunting license to carry in your car. Your car is considered a part of your personal property, so you can carry in your car (in glove compartment, console) without any permit. If you take it out of the car or carry it concealed in the car, then that's another story.

I'll also be retaining my permit for reciprocity. There's probably going to be a lot of Senate opposition to removing the training requirement. the anti gun forces will argue that it makes things less safe to do that,, in spite of the fact that the training doesn't really do much other than prove you can shoot the gun and "supposedly" handle it safely and a limited exposure to the gun law.

what it will do if it becomes law is to put a lot of firearms trainers out of business who are presently offering the classes for the Concealed Carry permit process. You still have to pass a Federal instant background check to buy a handgun anyhow, so I'm guessing this law is pointed towards maintaining the permit system but eliminating the training requirement, which basically changes nothing other than to put those currently licensed trainers out of business. You'll still have to have some kind of id card issued by SLED saying you passed the background check and are not a prohibited owner, so that part won't likely change. Probably still have to at least go through a Federal NCIS check and get some sort of approval for that to send to SLED so they can issue you an id card.

 

[SCXDm9]

I see this leading to a huge number of new NO CONCEALED WEAPONS signs.


my first post... cwp holder, reloaded and shooter from Irmo.

 

[RK3369]

You could be right. I did see a lot more of them after the change in the law allowing CC into bars. A lot of those are now gone. It wasn't as big an issue as the anti's made it seem.

If you can pass a background check, what's the difference where you carry? It's only for self defense, not for criminal activity, so it should make no difference where you carry it. Now if you're dealing with a property owner who is just philosophically opposed to guns to begin with, well them wish them well and tell them you'll take your business elsewhere.

 

[Bestoink]

Pardon me. I'm new to SC...moving from CT where all guns are registered, AR's are banned, you have to have a permit to buy .22 shells, and your neighbor, during permit application review, is asked whether he thinks you are suitable to carry. So, I'm wondering where the SC liberty lovers hang out on the Internet. I see that SC house just passed 2nd reading of a bill that would allow anyone, who presumably can legally acquire and possess a firearm to carry. I'm ready to toss this random CWP permit in the trash where it belongs. But all I hear is whining and skepticism on the web and FB. If you love the 2nd it would seem that we should be throwing it into high gear to pass this. SC can jump in front of the nation on this question. So, can someone direct me to the folks in charge of chasing this goal?

 

[Tigerstripe]

Pardon me. I'm new to SC...moving from CT where all guns are registered, AR's are banned, you have to have a permit to buy .22 shells, and your neighbor, during permit application review, is asked whether he thinks you are suitable to carry. So, I'm wondering where the SC liberty lovers hang out on the Internet. I see that SC house just passed 2nd reading of a bill that would allow anyone, who presumably can legally acquire and possess a firearm to carry. I'm ready to toss this random CWP permit in the trash where it belongs. But all I hear is whining and skepticism on the web and FB. If you love the 2nd it would seem that we should be throwing it into high gear to pass this. SC can jump in front of the nation on this question. So, can someone direct me to the folks in charge of chasing this goal?

ok ill admit it. im the one to get this done.

please sell your house and send me the proceeds.

(just being a smartass, please take no offense). but isnt that what they all say? "im working for you, send money"

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

Pardon me. I'm new to SC...moving from CT where all guns are registered, AR's are banned, you have to have a permit to buy .22 shells, and your neighbor, during permit application review, is asked whether he thinks you are suitable to carry. So, I'm wondering where the SC liberty lovers hang out on the Internet. I see that SC house just passed 2nd reading of a bill that would allow anyone, who presumably can legally acquire and possess a firearm to carry. I'm ready to toss this random CWP permit in the trash where it belongs. But all I hear is whining and skepticism on the web and FB. If you love the 2nd it would seem that we should be throwing it into high gear to pass this. SC can jump in front of the nation on this question. So, can someone direct me to the folks in charge of chasing this goal?

There is only one thing that unites gun owners: owning a gun. Not politics and certainly not an appreciation of liberty or justice.

The overwhelming majority of people love the false security of tyranny just so long as it disadvantages someone else more than themselves, even of it doesn't actually afford any discernable protection or advantage.

 

[bigfutz]

The thing about permitless concealed carry...

Criminals do it all the time, why can't I? Oh, wait, it's CONCEALED! So unless I have to use my weapon as a weapon in self defense, or unless my 4th Amendment rights are violated, the law really is irrelevant. Just ask any repeat offender.

It's all just political posturing.

 

[RK3369]

The thing about permitless concealed carry...

It's all just political posturing.

most likely. I don't think the Senate will go with it.

 

[RK3369]

any update on this where this bill is in the senate?

 

[flareback]

04/29/15 Senate Introduced and read first time (Senate Journal-page 6)
04/29/15 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary (Senate Journal-page 6)
05/06/15 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Hutto (ch), Bright, Scott, Gregory, Shealy

So I'm not up on government procedures. What happens after the above (which I pulled from http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3025&session=121&summary=B)

 

[RK3369]

I think It has to come out of committee with a recommendation to proceed by a certain date> If not, I believe it's dead for this session. It would then have to be reintroduced next session in the House, I believe. If it went to the Senate judiciary committee, the head of that committee is not in favor of permitless carry. Last I heard, I think he was pretty well in favor of sticking with the permit system. Had concerns about "allowing just anybody to get their hands on a gun"...

I think it won't come out of committee this session, and end up dead. Someone else said it's all about "posturing' and I suppose it is. I don't see how we will ever get to a permitless system in this state unless there was overwhelming support for constitutional carry, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon, unless the level of criminal violence just goes up by leaps and bounds.

 

[Lupinus]

I think It has to come out of committee with a recommendation to proceed by a certain date> If not, I believe it's dead for this session. It would then have to be reintroduced next session in the House, I believe. If it went to the Senate judiciary committee, the head of that committee is not in favor of permitless carry. Last I heard, I think he was pretty well in favor of sticking with the permit system. Had concerns about "allowing just anybody to get their hands on a gun"...

I think it won't come out of committee this session, and end up dead. Someone else said it's all about "posturing' and I suppose it is. I don't see how we will ever get to a permitless system in this state unless there was overwhelming support for constitutional carry, and I just don't see that happening anytime soon, unless the level of criminal violence just goes up by leaps and bounds.

Entirely possible it dies.

It's also a remote possibility it comes out as is. I'm pretty sure it can also be amended in committee can't it? If so, it's slightly more likely for it to come out removing the aspects that could allow for permitless carry.

 

[RK3369]

Entirely possible it dies.

It's also a remote possibility it comes out as is. I'm pretty sure it can also be amended in committee can't it? If so, it's slightly more likely for it to come out removing the aspects that could allow for permitless carry.

I believe it could be amended in committee and come out of committee, but then I think there would have to be some sort of compromise session between the house version and the senate version. but I guess the larger question is, what could be amended by the committee that would still allow permitless carry? As I understand the house version, you still have to go through a background check, etc so if you have to do that anyhow, why not just get a permit and be done with it, then you have the reciprocity advantages with other states. I guess I'm asking what is to be gained by "permitless" concealed carry if you still have to do the background check? Maybe the only thing is not having to go through the training class, but if that's the desire, just change the present law to remove the training requirement, I guess. Don't see all the hub bub about this effort other than "posturing" by someone,, as another poster here has already pointed out. I think Lee Bright just wants to be able to go back home and tell his constituents that he's still working hard for constitutional carry.

 

[Lupinus]

I'd rather they just strike the parts from the bill that would allow for permitless carry.

I'm all for removing the requirement to get a permit, but this bill and the way it's done wasn't the way to do it. Strip it from the bill, leave as many of the other items in there as possible that wont kill the bill, and pass it. As the bill was written, it had a reasonable chance of passage. Even with some of the more minor things that were added, it had a decent chance. Its chances go down drastically as it went to the senate.

 

[phil1979]

H 3025 was originally a bill to allow reciprocity with other states, I thought.

Permit-less carry was a "poison pill" amendment designed to kill the bill, and it worked.

Gov. Nikki Haley supports permit-less carry (as do I), so it should have had better support. She must not have much pull with the lawmakers.

The bill apparently stays alive next year, and next year is an election year, so it should fare better next time. Though for years we have kept hearing "next time". <sigh>

This Georgia boy will not spend any more money in South Carolina until I can exercise my right of self-defense while there. I've emailed that sentiment to both the Governor and the Speaker of the House.

This isn't about training, either. Several Georgia folks have taken the SC firearms training in SC and were denied permits merely because they did not own property in SC.

I hope SC realizes how much money it is losing as long as it keeps playing these games with our safety.

 

[Bestoink]

So, here's a question. I wrote multiple SC legislators, rep, senator, all judicial sub-committee senators voicing support for H3025. I used the official SC Governmental web-based facility that the NRA-ILA points you to when they ask us to pile on to an issue. I heard nothing back. No "thanks for your input", "thanks for your interest", "thanks for caring", "kiss my ass", nothing. I know that it's unreasonable to hear back from all of them...especially those for which you are not a part of their voting constituency. So...calibrating here...is this typical for SC? Maybe, I'll hear after the session. But, I'd be truly shocked if an elected official won't personally acknowledge any voter advocacy. That makes no sense to me. I'm used to getting a rise from CT politicians, most of whom totally suck. Many knew me well. Some even grew to hate and despise me. But they'd still answer their mail.