SC House passess permitless CC, not OC
- Thread starter swinokur
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
The bill also has full-on reciprocity!
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/prever/3025_20150423.htm
If I'm reading it correctly, non-resident permits should work.
IANAL
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess121_2015-2016/prever/3025_20150423.htm
If I'm reading it correctly, non-resident permits should work.
IANAL
redeemed.man
Ultimate Member
Nice! Fingers crossed it doesn't end up like the NH bill once it hits the Senate. Of course NH was struck down by the Governor instead of an @sshat Senator.
Reciprocity with other states would be significant for those folks traveling to FL. This would effecetively allow FL permit holders to drive from VA to FL without having to put their firearm in the glovebox when in SC.
Hope it passes.
Hope it passes.
SC governor Haley will most likely sign it, unlike the NH governor. We'll see where it goes but it'll be a big accomplishment considering how backward SC has been about public carry. There may still be forces opposed (and yes, they may be GOP) who'll try to derail the bill.
One of the big kickers for non-residents has been the resident permit only reciprocity. This appears to accept all non-res permits.
Even opening it up to allow MD (and other iron curtain states) residents to carry on a FL permit, for example, would be a great thing.
That's what I meant. I didn't word my post well. Yes, MD residents carrying on a FL NR permit could carry from VA to FL with no issues.
sorry
sorry
Fingers crossed.
Paperpounder
Active Member
Very nice ! So if it passes my FL non-res will work in SC?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
if the Gov. signs it into law.
yes.
yes.
alucard0822
For great Justice
Nice, it does suck to be limited to "glovebox carry" when on vacation down there.
ericoak
don't drop Aboma on me
Finally. There CCW laws sucked. How can you not have reciprocity with your neighbor GA?
WeaponsCollector
EXTREME GUN OWNER
"Kansas recently passed legislation making it the sixth state to have constitutional carry (where people who may legally own guns have the right to carry them openly or concealed)."
All of America already has constitutional carry, all 50 states but unfortunately most states don't like it so they make criminals out of everyday citizens who are unfortunate or careless enough to get caught exercising our basic right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
All of America already has constitutional carry, all 50 states but unfortunately most states don't like it so they make criminals out of everyday citizens who are unfortunate or careless enough to get caught exercising our basic right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.
WeaponsCollector
EXTREME GUN OWNER
I'm amazed at how the "KEEP" part of the second amendment is taken seriously while the "BEAR" part of it is ignored by what seems like a large majority of Americans.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nobody says we the people don't have a right to own(keep) guns. But when you bring up the fact that we the people also have a right to carry(bear) arms people get their panties all in a bunch. Why do we have the "keep" but not the "bear" when clearly it says "the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, shall not be infringed."?
I guess I'm confused, or maybe most other people are confused?
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nobody says we the people don't have a right to own(keep) guns. But when you bring up the fact that we the people also have a right to carry(bear) arms people get their panties all in a bunch. Why do we have the "keep" but not the "bear" when clearly it says "the right of the people to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, shall not be infringed."?
I guess I'm confused, or maybe most other people are confused?
