S.115 Constitutional Carry

[John Canuck]

New update to the S 115 Sub Committee meeting list.


Monday, February 25, 2013
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
North Charleston City Hall
Third Floor, Council Chambers
2500 City Hall Lane
North Charleston, S.C. 29406

Monday, March 4, 2013
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
York Technical College
Baxter Hood Center, Barnes Theater
452 S. Anderson Road
Rock Hill, S.C. 29730

Monday, March 11, 2013
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Greenville County Council Chambers
301 University Ridge
Greenville, S.C. 29601
Use entrance by flag pole, Chambers on right

Monday, March 18, 2013
7:00 - 9:00 p.m.
Ted C. Collins Law Enforcement Center
Council Chambers
1101 North Oaks Street
Myrtle Beach, S.C. 29577

Wednesday, March 20, 2013
11:00 a.m.
Room 105 of the Gressette Building
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/contact.php

 

[John Canuck]

New reminder. Details here ---> http://scgunblog.com/?no_redirect=true

 

[ramsey88]

What's the realistic probability of this actually going through to become law?

 

[armaborealis]

What's the realistic probability of this actually going through to become law?

Probably <50%. But >10%. Worth trying.

Plus, every push on Constitutional Carry makes "compromise" on restaurant carry, open carry, etc more likely too.

This is a good bill worthy of support.

 

[John Canuck]

Richard Hopkins was in the minority Monday night when he spoke out against the bill. He said making it easier for people to carry guns would only increase violence.

Senator Shane Martin asked Hopkins if he had numbers or evidence to prove that, because the research he has seen contradicts Hopkins? belief.

Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2013/0 ... rylink=cpy

 

[John Canuck]

Last one ---> viewtopic.php?f=30&t=6843

 

[John Canuck]

Constitutional Carry makes a step forward. Details here --> http://www.scgunblog.com/Home_Page.html

 

[armaborealis]

John, thanks for keeping people mobilized and informed.

 

[John Canuck]

Thanks, but I'm just trying to help folks keep on top of it all. I really hope it helps them. Check out my latest blog on S 115.

 

[John Canuck]

Proposed Amendment Language and observations here --> http://www.scgunblog.com/Home_Page.html

 

[Lupinus]

Reading through it none of the amendments seem to be poison pills or unexpected. I do take some issue though with Section 23-31-220 B. Wording is bad if it just applies to employee/employer or everyone.

If everyone, I can't support a bill that takes away or makes conflicting laws on sign requirements.

 

[John Canuck]

You're right. The language in the sign requirements needs some attention. I re-read it this morning and I'll be calling Sen Brights office Monday morning to provide some feedback.

 

[armaborealis]

You're right. The language in the sign requirements needs some attention. I re-read it this morning and I'll be calling Sen Brights office Monday morning to provide some feedback.

I can't open the PDF on your sky drive. I'd be happy to review the wording but can't get at it... Maybe you can post in the clear at your blog?

 

[John Canuck]

You should have been able to download it. The download button is at the top left next to the skydrive logo.

I've updated the post. Check it out now.

 

[Lupinus]

You're right. The language in the sign requirements needs some attention. I re-read it this morning and I'll be calling Sen Brights office Monday morning to provide some feedback.

The very specific nature of the signs is about the only thing that makes their legal status palatable.

If such loose wording as "no guns allowed", with no other requirements, becomes legal notification and ignoring or missing it means FELONY. It aint worth it, not by a long shot.

 

[John Canuck]

Agreed. I suggest you make a call and tell them.

 

[Lupinus]

Agreed. I suggest you make a call and tell them.

I've emailed the five senators proposing the amendments the following message-

Hello,

I am writing regarding your proposed amendments to bill S.115.

While I have strongly supported this bill that would change if the proposed amendments are made to Section 23-31-220 B as I feel it conflicts with and confuses current law under SECTION 23-31-235.

As it exists now, section 23-31-220 allows a property owner to prohibit concealable weapons by placing a sign as laid out under 23-31-325 in terms of text, size, location, etc.

In the proposed amendment, section 23-31-220 is being amended but 23-31-325 is not. This is an important oversight as it potentially removes the clear language and could raise legal questions were it to go in to effect as written.

If a property owner posts a sign that says ?no concealable weapons allowed?, and it?s in compliance with the sign requirements, does it still have the force of law with regard to open carriers?

If a business posts a little sign in an obscure location, or at only some entrances, that says ?no weapons allowed?, will it have the force of law for everyone? Permit holders? No one?

23-31-325 provides extremely important protections by insuring a sign is clear, noticeable, and at all entrances. It is my hope that the amendments be adjusted accordingly so this protection is maintained in clear language as it is under current law.

Thank you for your time,
******************

 

[Lupinus]

That was fast.

I received a reply with a draft amendment Senator Bright may be introducing. It would basically transfer over the current sign requirements with some very minor tweaking in language to account for open carry-

(C)(1) If the owner or person in legal possession or control of a private property as described in subsection (A)(3) or the owner or person in legal possession or control of a public or private business or work place as described in subsection (A)(4) requests that handguns not be brought upon the premises, the owner or person in legal possession or control shall conspicuously post signs as provided in this subsection.

(2) Signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a person is prohibited from carrying a handgun and must:

(a) be clearly visible from outside the building;

(b) be eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

(c) contain the words ?NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED? in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(d) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal; and

(e) be placed not less than forty inches nor more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.

(3) If the premises where handguns are prohibited does not have doors, the signs must:

(a) be thirty-six inches wide by forty-eight inches tall in size;

(b) contain the words ?NO HANDGUNS ALLOWED? in black three-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(c) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle thirty-four inches in diameter with a diagonal line that is two inches wide and runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

(d) be placed not less than forty inches nor more than ninety-six inches above the ground; and

(e) be posted in sufficient quantities to be clearly visible from any point of entry onto the premises.

(4) The posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of handguns pursuant to this subsection and concealable weapons pursuant to Section 23-31-235 may be accomplished by singular signs that contain the words ?NO HANDGUNS OR CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED?, provided the signs comply with the remaining requirements of this section and Section 23-31-235.

(D) This section must not be construed to expand, diminish, or affect the duty of care owed by and liability accruing to, as may exist at law immediately before the effective date of this section, the owner of or individual in legal possession of real property for the injury or death of an invitee, licensee, or trespasser caused by the use or misuse by a third party of a handgun. Absence of a sign prohibiting handguns must not constitute negligence or establish a lack of duty of care.?

Looks good to me. If he proposes the above and the language makes it into the bill I'd be fine with it.

 

[John Canuck]

I guess enough people called to point out the problem.

Was that all that was in the email, or was the whole amendment there?

 

[Lupinus]

I guess enough people called to point out the problem.

Was that all that was in the email, or was the whole amendment there?

Whole draft amendment was in the email so I figured it was a little long to quote here. Nothing submitted yet, as the email said he was considering submitting it to address concerns that have come up. Not sure if there were other differences, I didn't notice and the area I quoted was pointed out to me. I'll be reviewing the whole thing a little later.

If you want to shoot me a PM with your email I will forward it on to you.