S. 1408 - Permitless Concealed and Open Carry Bill

[carsontech]

A new permitless carry bill, S 1408, was introduced on Tuesday. It include permitless concealed and open carry. It's short and to the point. It's not an omnibus bill like the last few have been. The author also made it so public employers could NOT post "no weapon allowed" signs.

This is how you do it, folks. The author of this permitless carry bill repealed as much of verbiage as he could, instead striking a few lines out here and there and adding tons of other exceptions like the past few permitless carry bill authors did.

This bill is the simplest and straight to the point permitless carry bill I've ever seen in SC.

Here's a link to the bill's verbiage. You can see what's being struck out of current statutes and what little is added:

http://scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/1408.htm


BUT, Representative Jake Knotts opposes the bill because it would allow someone to carry a firearm openly. This is the same man who opposes "restaurant carry" and is blocking all the pro gun bills he can. He throws around that he is a retired cop so people will be on his side. The funny thing is I've heard plenty of other law enforcement officers in SC say they wish everyone would be able to carry openly. Knotts is no friend to gun rights and liberty in general:

http://www.thestate.com/2012/04/10/2228898/sc-republican-wants-to-let-people.html

 

[John Canuck]

Let's hope gun owners in Knotts district are paying attention. My spidey sense tells me they are not :cry:

 

[carsontech]

The only thing I can see wrong with this bill is in Section 23-31-225. It makes a bad law even worse.

The current verbiage of Section 23-31-225 makes it so that anyone with a CWP, that is carrying a "concealable weapon", has to have express permission from a property owner to enter their residence or dwelling place.

Definition of a Concealable Weapon:
"Concealable weapon" means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must be carried in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self-defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property.

Anyway, the current law says nothing about a person that does NOT have a CWP. Basically, with the the way the law is currently written, anyone WITHOUT a CWP, can retrieve a lawfully stored "concealable weapon" from their vehicle and carry the "concealable weapon" into residence of another, without the owner's express permission.

To me, that is rather ridiculous. Personally, I don't think permission should be needed to carry a firearm into a residence of another. If the owner of the residence does not want you to carry a firearm on the property, he/she should tell you. I only ask permission to enter a residence if I'm not invited, if I recieve permission, I don't ask for permission to carry my firearm inside, as well. Whether I'm invited or get permission to enter a property, I believe myself, and anything on my person, is invited/allowed, as well, unless the owner says something about it.

This bill, S 1408, makes it so that anyone, CWP or not, carrying a "weapon" has to have express permission of the property owner to enter a residence or dwelling.

The big kicker is that the term "weapon" is not defined anywhere in the statutes, and the author of the bill didn't define it. Therefore, the term is too ambiguous for me to support using it. With this bill's verbiage, someone could be charged for carrying a small pocket knife, pepper spray, or just by having strong arms by entering a residence/dwelling without express permission to enter with said "weapons".

Here is the current law:

SECTION 23-31-225. Carrying concealed weapons into residences or dwellings.

No person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.

Here's this bill's verbiage:

SECTION 5. Section 23-31-225 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 23-31-225. No person may carry a weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years."

 

[P-1]

I would hope a simple bill gets passed. But usually they want to see exceptions and rules.

You should have a permit to carry. It means you went through some sort of course( good or a bad one) and are in a way protected( well legal anyway). I do not want to see the 'bad tempered' be able to carry in any way. I could keep going on but you all get the point I am trying to make.

J

 

[Tigerstripe]

Carson tec,
it may be my eyes but i dont see the difference in the way they read.

about your other point, its nobodys business what you carry into some ones house, do you want some one walking into your house with a pound of cocaine? if the cops show up in your house its yours.

i like to be able to tell an unresponsible person not to carry at my home. his house is somewhere i dont go.

 

[carsontech]

I would hope a simple bill gets passed. But usually they want to see exceptions and rules.

You should have a permit to carry. It means you went through some sort of course( good or a bad one) and are in a way protected( well legal anyway). I do not want to see the 'bad tempered' be able to carry in any way. I could keep going on but you all get the point I am trying to make.

J

I'm not sure why anyone thinks people should get permission from a government to have the ability to be prepared to exercise the natural right of self defense with any particular tool. I've heard all of the arguments but I just can't justify needing permission from the government to carry a tool around.

Many states do NOT require any sort of permit or training to carry a handguns. In-fact there are 28 states that do NOT require any permit or training for one to carry a handgun around in public. The states where anyone, resident or visitor, can carry a handgun, openly, with no permit or training are listed below:

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Colorado
Delaware
Idaho
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Michigan
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Mexico
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Dakota
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Furthermore, the following states allow anyone, resident or visitor, to carry concealed without a permit or training:
Alaska
Arizona
Vermont

Wyoming allows only residents to carry concealed without any permit or training, but allows resident and visitors to open carry without a permit or training.

I don't recall seeing too much news about the "bad tempered" having gun fights in the middle of the street in any the above states.

Carson tec,
it may be my eyes but i dont see the difference in the way they read.

about your other point, its nobodys business what you carry into some ones house, do you want some one walking into your house with a pound of cocaine? if the cops show up in your house its yours.

i like to be able to tell an unresponsible person not to carry at my home. his house is somewhere i dont go.

I'm not talking about cocaine, just "weapons".

Rhetorical question:
Do you ask for permission to carry a "concealable weapon" into someone's house before you enter their house... even after they already invited you or gave you permission to enter with or without know you carry a "concealable weapon"?

 

[P-1]

Please check your info again. I could be wrong, but in Michigan you do have to have a permit. Or at least it was 3 years ago. I am not arguing the fact you have the right to carry, I just want responsible people to carry.

 

[carsontech]

Please check your info again. I could be wrong, but in Michigan you do have to have a permit. Or at least it was 3 years ago. I am not arguing the fact you have the right to carry, I just want responsible people to carry.

From what I read, Michigan is a pretty happening place for the open carry movement.

Reference the following material for info on carrying a "registered" handgun openly without a permit:

http://miopencarry.org/moc_files/brochure.pdf

I agree, responsible people carrying is always a plus.

 

[John Canuck]

The training I was forced to take to get my permission slip in SC in no way ensured I was competent with a gun. It did test my patience though. Since I was already sufficiently competent, I was forced to waste $100. In VA, I can open carry without any gov'mint mandated training or a permission slip, and can get a CHP with a hunter safety course, or a cheap on-line course, or a number of other cheap options.

I've not heard of blood running in the streets in those states where folks are allowed to be responsible for themselves. Perhaps I missed it

 

[armaborealis]

The training I was forced to take to get my permission slip in SC in no way ensured I was competent with a gun. It did test my patience though. Since I was already sufficiently competent, I was forced to waste $100. In VA, I can open carry without any gov'mint mandated training or a permission slip, and can get a CHP with a hunter safety course, or a cheap on-line course, or a number of other cheap options.

I've not heard of blood running in the streets in those states where folks are allowed to be responsible for themselves. Perhaps I missed it

I totally agree. I only bothered to apply for a SC permit because (A) I'm concerned a lokel yokel uninformed LEO won't honor my resident permit from another state despite reciprocity and (B) because the ATF refuses to honor reciprocity for purposes of the Federal GFSZA.

The only purpose I see to the hoops SC makes people jump through is to keep lower income people and people with limited English proficiency from carrying firearms in public. The expense and time to get a permit is significant if you're on a low or fixed income. And the test is tricky enough that if you are not a native English speaker or are not well educated it could pose problems. Regrettably, it seems that most folks in SC including the ostensibly "pro gun" legislators and even many within the shooting community are just fine with that. So while I'd love to see you fix your firearms laws, I doubt you'll get much progress on a Constitutional Carry measure in SC..

My first experience with firearms was in Alaska and boy there is a very different legal and societal culture about them there. Even in the urban areas like Anchorage and Fairbanks. We have Constitutional Carry and it is not a problem. The people who are going to carry firearms illegally are generally prohibited persons who can't touch a gun legally; being habitual felons, substance abusers, and/or wife beaters, however, they generally have a tendency to ignore laws, so it doesn't matter how elaborate or restrictive your permit system is. The problem people will ignore it anyways. While I am a supporter of training and education, the SC class doesn't help you with much of anything at all (how does it benefit someone who only ever plans to shoot a, say, glock, to have to learn to name the parts of a revolver?) and it only serves as a barrier to entry for the law abiding.

Frankly, while its nice to go for the grand prize (Constitutional Carry) in an election year, if there were actually an effective pro-RKBA lobby here I'd think you'd have more success of passing incremental but serious reforms such as restaurant carry, open carry in some form or another (preferably permitless, but anything is better than nothing), honoring non-resident permits from other states, broadening the definition of "qualified non-resident" for purposes of obtaining SC permits, eliminating the redundant licensing requirements for firearms dealers (they already have their federal firearms licenses, why both with state licensing too?), allowing more car carry options, allowing for a "fast track" permit process for individuals under specific threat of serious bodily injury (for example, if you just got a restraining order against an abusive ex maybe SLED should be able to get you a permit in less than 90 days, no?), cracking down on SLED's desire to bring subjectivity back into what is supposed to be "shall issue" (why do they look at traffic tickets?), etc. There are lots of ways to effectively nibble at the edges and actually make progress. The current restaurant carry bill is a good example. The politicians can make the right noises about Constitutional Carry, nothing will happen and they can rack up more votes in November. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see you guys pass S1408 but I'm not going to hold my breath.