SC on the verge of Constitutional Carry

[Jake4U]

One more state added to the list.

Looks like it's gonna happen

 

[Jake4U]

For what it's worth I'm of a mind that Well Regulated means you know what you're doing when you carry. Every state has differing laws about carrying as well as when it's legal to pull a trigger. Folks should know those laws as well as be able to hit what they're shooting at.

I think the amendment to offer free CWP classes is a winner as well as the increased penalties for prohibited persons caught carrying. Constitutional Carry with a free class in case you want a permit for reciprocity carry elsewhere. The Senate bill being sent back to the House might be one of those times the process worked.

 

[Afrikeber]

Good

 

[Some Guy]

The free training is a good feature.

 

[Jake4U]

The free training is a good feature.

The details of that should be interesting. There's already a robust network of instructors in SC and the one day class is inexpensive, at least mine was. Hopefully the state will contract with some of them regionally to offer it.

There's no provision currently to wave the training except the shooting qualification part for active duty armed services, instructors, etc. I went through the whole class. Lordy, half the class I was in could barely keep it on the paper. IMHO the reps who wanted the keep the training part likely knew that which is why I like the compromise of free training.

 

[alucard0822]

Training is important, but should NEVER be a requirement to exercise a right. Logically, they don't require training to carry most any other defensive weapon, and criminals basically ignore the law ,and don't have training certs either. This is a case where the more that government can get out of the way of citizens arming and defending themselves the better. Next major problem is their insane "no weapons" and "business that serves alcohol for on premises consumption" law. It is worth 2 years in prison and $2K fine, and I'll bet thousands unknowingly violate this daily. Many grocery stores, gas stations and big box stores have a "beer garden" and fall under this. LOTS of businesses have the sign on the door as well. In this case, much of the insane laws preventing carry in perhaps most businesses was built by Republicans in the interest of "property rights", as is the republicans opposing constitutional carry due to a lack of training requirements. It is also a good reminder that Democrats don't have a monopoly on stupidity and laws that violate our rights.

SC Code § 16-23-465 (2022)
(A) In addition to the penalties provided for by Sections 16-11-330, 16-11-620, 16-23-460, 23-31-220, and Article 1, Chapter 23, Title 16, a person convicted of carrying a firearm into a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
In addition to the penalties described above, a person who violates this section while carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 must have his concealed weapon permit revoked for a period of five years.
(B)(1) This section does not apply to a person carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to and in compliance with Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23; however, the person shall not consume alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine while carrying the concealable weapon on the business' premises. A person who violates this item may be charged with a violation of subsection (A).
(2) A property owner, holder of a lease interest, or operator of a business may prohibit the carrying of concealable weapons into the business by posting a "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" sign in compliance with Section 23-31-235. A person who carries a concealable weapon into a business with a sign posted in compliance with Section 23-31-235 may be charged with a violation of subsection (A).
(3) A property owner, holder of a lease interest, or operator of a business may request that a person carrying a concealable weapon leave the business' premises, or any portion of the premises, or request that a person carrying a concealable weapon remove the concealable weapon from the business' premises, or any portion of the premises. A person carrying a concealable weapon who refuses to leave a business' premises or portion of the premises when requested or refuses to remove the concealable weapon from a business' premises or portion of the premises when requested may be charged with a violation of subsection (A).
HISTORY: 1977 Act No. 45; 1993 Act No. 184, Section 190; 1996 Act No. 464, Section 5; 2002 Act No. 274, Section 2, eff May 28, 2002; 2014 Act No. 123 (S.308), Section 1, eff February 11, 2014.

 

[RFBfromDE]

That doesn’t sound much like Constitutional Carry to me….

 

[jef955]

I agree that training is important, but I don't agree with it being MANDATED BY THE GOVERNMENT. What's next, mandated speech sensitivity training, for commentary in any sort of a public space (thinking first ammendment training here) ? No thanks, I'll take my chances, without some government-ninny making sure we don't kill ourselves commenting on everything someone else doesn't want to hear.

They can't even fill a pothole in the middle of the street right...

 

[Occam]

I'm of a mind that Well Regulated means you know what you're doing when you carry

But that's very definitely NOT what the founders meant when they used that phrase. They meant that should there be a need for militia activity, it's solid functionality is only possible if you have a population INDIVIDUALLY free to keep and bear arms, thus having them be part of their regular civilian life. A "gun culture," if you will, is exactly what they had in mind. A well regulated (meaning, in the vernacular of the time, "reliably functioning") militia is a lot easier to pop up on demand if you have a robust individual, civil gun culture.

 

[Rockzilla]

The details of that should be interesting. There's already a robust network of instructors in SC and the one day class is inexpensive, at least mine was. Hopefully the state will contract with some of them regionally to offer it.

There's no provision currently to wave the training except the shooting qualification part for active duty armed services, instructors, etc. I went through the whole class. Lordy, half the class I was in could barely keep it on the paper. IMHO the reps who wanted the keep the training part likely knew that which is why I like the compromise of free training.

This ^^
There's plenty of instructors, the class (8hr.) we took was $95, including class, picz, fingerprints, live fire and done..
Free training is a great idea. As mentioned seeing some of these people shoot was very interesting to say the least, also seeing people with newly acquired pistols with Red Dots was "PRICELESS", class was at the gun shop in their conference room, live fire was at a range, one thing is for sure that little like food thlng inside was awesome, beef brisket sandwich, BBQ sauce...yum

-Rock

 

[Biggfoot44]

Does this only apply for SC Residents ?

 

[thomfantomas]

Good for them.

 

[alucard0822]

Does this only apply for SC Residents ?

As far as I can tell it removes the requirement for a permit to lawfully carry, nothing more, nothing less. So it should apply to residents and non residents unless they add more amendments. SC has been one of the worst in the south for gun rights, non-res permits required owning property in the state, and they only allow res permits for the states they have reciprocity with, but the law on reciprocity basically viewed them as having a "valid permit", all others were not valid. In this case they no longer require a valid permit, res, non-res or reciprocal, but will still issue permits under the prior requirements.

Also to elaborate on the signage. Per the law ignoring a "no weapons" sign can be chargeable under the statues above, but there is near 0 caselaw where it actually happened. Almost all instances were because a person refused to leave. Seems in many cases the business doesn't have the sign posted exactly as the law requires, and is therefore not enforceable. Seems in practice someone is spotted carrying, then asked to leave, and nothing further. To each their own on what your acceptable risk is, but IMO if you decide to carry anyway, make sure your pistol conceals well.

 

[JDH146]

South Carolina recognizes Maryland permits . Plaese see the map here. https://www.sled.sc.gov/cwp#WhatStates

 

[Jake4U]

This ^^
There's plenty of instructors, the class (8hr.) we took was $95, including class, picz, fingerprints, live fire and done..
Free training is a great idea. As mentioned seeing some of these people shoot was very interesting to say the least, also seeing people with newly acquired pistols with Red Dots was "PRICELESS", class was at the gun shop in their conference room, live fire was at a range, one thing is for sure that little like food thlng inside was awesome, beef brisket sandwich, BBQ sauce...yum

-Rock

Watching some of the students shoot got me edging to the side of training, maybe even a range qualification being required. The thought of what might happen when they needed to defend themselves for real makes me hope I won't be nearby. If the state provides it for free (well, from their taxes) that's about the best alternative I can imagine. You can carry if you want and we'll connect you with an experienced instructor to give you confidence to carry, know when to pull and be assured of your skills when needed.

 

[alucard0822]

Watching some of the students shoot got me edging to the side of training, maybe even a range qualification being required. The thought of what might happen when they needed to defend themselves for real makes me hope I won't be nearby. If the state provides it for free (well, from their taxes) that's about the best alternative I can imagine. You can carry if you want and we'll connect you with an experienced instructor to give you confidence to carry, know when to pull and be assured of your skills when needed.

I would be more worried about the armed criminal sending rounds in random directions than a person defending themselves. The training requirement is BS, most states don't have one, many states removed it in favor of constitutional carry, there has been basically 0 evidence a training requirement did anything other than provide an obstacle to exercising a right. It has been abused by governments in that way repeatedly, look at MD's insane 16 hour requirement, and onerous application process for a good example. Training requirements basically allow a government to infringe on everyone's rights, and force would be victims to throw a punch or rely on the mercy of a criminal for their survival.

F-that, would rather have EVERY SINGLE PERSON ARMED, and let it sort itself out than most every discriminatory practice that governments have tried, as they all seem to fail on top of being openly unconstitutional. I say that as an NRA credentialed former instructor, the "free" and optional training might be ok, outside of the fact it's yet another expense for taxpayers to fund. Seems in a way it is a self-policing mechanism, people that care enough to defend themselves and purchase a firearm are extremely likely to be responsible and capable of using it.

 

[Jake4U]

I would be more worried about the armed criminal sending rounds in random directions than a person defending themselves. The training requirement is BS, most states don't have one, many states removed it in favor of constitutional carry, there has been basically 0 evidence a training requirement did anything other than provide an obstacle to exercising a right. It has been abused by governments in that way repeatedly, look at MD's insane 16 hour requirement, and onerous application process for a good example. Training requirements basically allow a government to infringe on everyone's rights, and basically force would be victims to throw a punch or rely on the mercy of a criminal for their survival.

F-that, would rather have EVERY SINGLE PERSON ARMED, and let it sort itself out than most every discriminatory practice that governments have tried, as they all seem to fail on top of being openly unconstitutional. I say that as an NRA credentialed former instructor, the "free" and optional training might be ok, outside of the fact it's yet another expense for taxpayers to fund. Seems in a way it is a self-policing mechanism, people that care enough to defend themselves and purchase a firearm are extremely likely to be responsible and capable of using it.

OK. I disagree as in I think anyone carrying should at the very least be able to keep their shots on a silhouette target at a nice, calm, take your time range. If you can't keep it on the paper there what happens under stress? I post a stupid, ill-informed opinion no innocent bystander dies. Not all rights have an immediate possibility of death if careless in their use.

 

[SummitCnty]

That doesn’t sound much like Constitutional Carry to me….

Kinda my thought also.

 

[alucard0822]

OK. I disagree as in I think anyone carrying should at the very least be able to keep their shots on a silhouette target at a nice, calm, take your time range. If you can't keep it on the paper there what happens under stress? I post a stupid, ill-informed opinion no innocent bystander dies. Not all rights have an immediate possibility of death if careless in their use.

In the same way, I believe that competent grappling and striking skills should be part of a defensive plan, and basic fitness is a necessary component of proficiency. I have seen and worked with instructors that would basically die in the case of a gun grab or surprise attack, and leave behind a better armed criminal. Should a person have to demonstrate reasonable hand-to-hand skills? should there be fitness standards? at what point does advocating for government to withhold a basic constitutional right for arbitrary and often abused criteria demonstrate that a person does not believe that our right to keep and bear arms is indeed a right. Currently more than half of states don't require a permit or training at all, live fire training is only required in 16 states. Want to bet on what states have more firearm accidents and violent crime? Training is a good idea, training requirements are a feel good measure, but lack data to illustrate they make a difference at all. Of course that is before you consider that a training requirement is clearly unconstitutional, and has been abused as a form of gun control for decades.

 

[Jake4U]

Firearms owners around the time of the constitution were, for the most part, accomplished shots. It went with how they used them. The framers knew those firearms were in the hands of people who knew what they were doing. But you keep on, pretend somehow a person buying a handgun for the first time, picking out an IWB, a box of ammo and heading out ready for Constitutional Carry is somehow equivalent to 1791 in mastery of the tool they're carrying for protection. With freedom comes responsibility. Anyway, if you're in Maryland enjoy the people's republic. I live in America where constitutional carry is about to become reality and training offered for free.