Grass Roots Gun Rights' Board of Directors LOSES Law Suit!


Golly gee, you got me. I referenced the wrong statute. Oops!


SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except subject to subsection (B) of this section, SLED must issue a permit, which is no larger than three and one-half inches by three inches in size, to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty-one years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon upon submission of:


How's that for ya?
 

On the requirement for training for getting a CWP I was not disagreeing with the fact that one has to have training. I think it is a good idea to require training in some way before one is allowed to carry either OC or CC. Only the method of requiring the training is in question and needs to be changed.
So what you're admitting to is you approve of another un-Constitutional law. Good for you.

Can you tell me why you think South Carolinians are so stupid that they require training before exercising their Second Amendment right? Can you also tell me how all of the states that require no such training manage to get by without have blood running in the streets?

I too think it's a good idea. It should not be mandatory.
 
- No carry at all for those under 21.


The comment was no carry at all for under 21. The you refernced the law saying that those under 21 can carry. You are correct that you have to be 21 to get a CWP but those who are 18 can carry on private property either OC or CC, can carry in their car under the Glove Box - Console law etc. In fact I am not sure if 16-23-30-(3) has anything to do with carry at all. However the law for thse 18 (which is under 21) is the same as those who do not have a CWP and is exactly what you were stating before you started backtracking and changing your ststements. According to a strict interpretation of 2A as the activists that you referenced it is OK for an 8 year old to carry a loaded AR-15 to school for show and tell. If we are going to adhere to that strict reading of 2A then I think it should be OK for the 10 year old to carry it around with him along with a few gernades and a suitcase nuke.
 
So what you're admitting to is you approve of another un-Constitutional law. Good for you.

Can you tell me why you think South Carolinians are so stupid that they require training before exercising their Second Amendment right? Can you also tell me how all of the states that require no such training manage to get by without have blood running in the streets?

I too think it's a good idea. It should not be mandatory.

Is blood running in the streets the litmus test for a law? When I say mandatory I am not necessarly talking about a class such as the present CWP classes. I think gun safety and law should be taught in the schools somewhere around junior high level. Those that do not want the public schools to do such a thing should get involved with their schools and get things right. This is one of the problems with our schools is some people act and some complain about what those that act come up with.

One of the themes that I find on gun boards expecially is the regular talk of how to get out of jury duty or that schools and colleges are sources of liberal thought and refusal to vote if their favorite cantidate lost in the primary election. Recently in our local area we have had three different mayoral elections decided by three votes or less and in none a majority of the eligible voters voted. You say it is un-constitutional. I don't think it is and right now it would seem that the majority of people that were actual sheep dogs and demonstrated it by voting agreed with me. If the majority disagrees then they need to do something besided complain. There are only nine people that can actually determine if it is un-constutional or not but if the majority of people think differently and get up and work on it they can cause those nine to agree with them.
 
The comment was no carry at all for under 21. The you refernced the law saying that those under 21 can carry. You are correct that you have to be 21 to get a CWP but those who are 18 can carry on private property either OC or CC, can carry in their car under the Glove Box - Console law etc. In fact I am not sure if 16-23-30-(3) has anything to do with carry at all. However the law for thse 18 (which is under 21) is the same as those who do not have a CWP and is exactly what you were stating before you started backtracking and changing your ststements. According to a strict interpretation of 2A as the activists that you referenced it is OK for an 8 year old to carry a loaded AR-15 to school for show and tell. If we are going to adhere to that strict reading of 2A then I think it should be OK for the 10 year old to carry it around with him along with a few gernades and a suitcase nuke.
My mistake was not specifying under 21 CC as not being allowed as opposed to simply saying carry. I assumed you would realize that's what I meant. Let's face it, carrying while on non-public use private property isn't really carry any more than driving an old truck on grandpa's farm is driving in the legal sense. And having a gun inside your car isn't carrying at all - it's having a gun in your car. But you keep on grasping at those straws on the one point where I wasn't sufficiently clear.

The rest of your hyperbole isn't even worth my time or effort. Talking about children with AR's, grenades and nukes does nothing to advance your position. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a self professed anti-gun rights statist.
 
Well a couple of comments. First of all I think the lesson of the attempt at an all inclusive bill like H3292 should be put to rest and bills addressing one or maybe two items be the norm. Secondly as to training; OK you should not be required to have training to PURCHASE a gun. However, time spent at many rental ranges strongly suggest that to carry concealed a minimum knowledge of the gun and which end the bullet comes out should be mandated.

What you did not ask: The first law I want amended is the restaurant carry restriction which in my opinion is not valid anyway. READ the verbiage carefully.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top