H.3292 just passed in Committee!
- Thread starter Red Hat
- Start date
mappow
New member
"which includes hitting 70 percent of targets with a handgun on a course that ranges from 3 to 25 yards" 25 Yrd Line?
Also do see a dam thing about OC. I do agree that current Law needs amending with exception of OC anytime/anywhere and restaurant CC that serve alcohol. Other then that, I would say. Leave it the way it is. BUT definitely add OC to the amendment!
Also do see a dam thing about OC. I do agree that current Law needs amending with exception of OC anytime/anywhere and restaurant CC that serve alcohol. Other then that, I would say. Leave it the way it is. BUT definitely add OC to the amendment!
leasantry: First hurdle cleared.Danieljoe1
New member
Congrats to all those in South Carolina!! Nevada has a bill similar to this one in the works, but unfortunately the reps from Vegas will more than likely kill it.
Really wish they'd drop the business can ban thing. If they can't stop a seeing eye dog why should they be able to stop people from saving their lives in their businesses. At least make them liable if someone gets harmed by a criminal in their business or force them to provide armed security. Just a dream though, never happen.
Evidently you haven't read the bill then. Under it you will be able to OC or CC witout a permit. Permit will only be required for persons from out of state or for reciprocity when you travel. That is unless I have badly misread it or they changed it after I read what I thought was the latest version.
Will I now need a DL to drive a vehicle? Do not get me wrong, I am pro 2A. This is kinda a slap in NOW our faces to permit holders who have proved both academic as well as proficiency of a firearm. Privileges VS constitutional yes I know. Then 18 year olds should carry on that fact. 14 for that matter per our founding fathers. People, I can go on and on. A step forward? How about our neighboring state of Georgia, NO classes, apply for a permit and yet get OPEN carry. What a concept. Which I do when I cross the savannah with a non resident Pa license. Which brings up another issue here. Reciprocity. Will SC still offer the CWP license which is required by the way to obtain non resident carry rights? I know this is bill is a hot topic and in the beginning phases. It's just my opinion and maybe someone could shed some light for me?
mappow
New member
Wouldn't be the first time I didn't read something thoroughly. I'm just adamant about OC in SC.
hp-hobo
New member
The title of this thread should be something more like "H.3292 Gutted of All Worthwhile Changes to Existing Law". Or maybe something simpler like "H.3293 Good As Dead".
I don't know what meeting these "reporters" attended today, but I'm pretty sure it's not the same one I did.
The subcommitee did vote unanimously to ammend H.3292. Unfortunately, the amendments have made it a feel good bill that will give us little or nothing. Backwards changes off the top of my head;
- Constitutional carry only for South Carolina citizens
- Carry only for age 21 and up
- No CWP recognition, we'll still be at the mercy of SLED to determine reciprocity (same as now)
- No carry on college campus (same as now)
- Additional restrictions as to where we can carry (same as now)
- Must inform language added (same as now)
- School parking lot carry will now require the gun is unloaded (a big step in the wrong direction)
- Cannot consume alcohol with supper while carrying
- No employer parking lot protection (we knew this was coming)
That's all I've got but remember, that's off the top of my head. There are more changes for the worse.
So... Somebody tell me again what we have to celebrate about. They've taken a bill with potential and turned it into shite.
I don't know what meeting these "reporters" attended today, but I'm pretty sure it's not the same one I did.
The subcommitee did vote unanimously to ammend H.3292. Unfortunately, the amendments have made it a feel good bill that will give us little or nothing. Backwards changes off the top of my head;
- Constitutional carry only for South Carolina citizens
- Carry only for age 21 and up
- No CWP recognition, we'll still be at the mercy of SLED to determine reciprocity (same as now)
- No carry on college campus (same as now)
- Additional restrictions as to where we can carry (same as now)
- Must inform language added (same as now)
- School parking lot carry will now require the gun is unloaded (a big step in the wrong direction)
- Cannot consume alcohol with supper while carrying
- No employer parking lot protection (we knew this was coming)
That's all I've got but remember, that's off the top of my head. There are more changes for the worse.
So... Somebody tell me again what we have to celebrate about. They've taken a bill with potential and turned it into shite.
hp-hobo
New member
Apparently so...
For the one who are proclaiming that this bill is a backwards step and reducing our rights I will try to point out some of the positives and some of the negatives as I understand it by reading the bill. I will admit that it has some shortcomings but it is also a looooooooooong way from being law and will go through many changes before making it to the Governor's desk if ever.
Correct to a point but does include those with a reciprocal state permit to be able to OC or CC so it does not exclude all out-of-staters but this needs to be reworked. This is not a backwards step as it is the same as before but with OC added. It recognizes the right for any state resident over the age of 21 to carry either openly or concealed without a permit unless they are restricted by some other law. This is a big step forward with or without the other parts that we want. To say that this is and anti-gun bill or a step backwards is not correct.
They just lowered the age to carry a gun in cars and on private property to 18 last year so I am surprised that this was raised back to 21. This is a back step that I am not sure what will happen with it. It does seem strange.
Yup, same as now. We haven't lost anything but we have gained anything either.
Same as now and I don't know when or that will be addressed. This could be a positive move toward that goal or not.
The restrictions on where one can carry remain the same except Churches and Medical facilities are no longer included. I am very dissappointed that they left the part about any publicly owned building in. That should be removed as it causes too much confusion.
This parts confuses me that you do not have to have a permit to carry concealed so why do you have to inform if you have one. What if you are OC but have a permit. What if you don't have a permit. I don't know what the thinking is on this one but it does say that you don't have to keep your permit on you. This definitely need to be reworked.
Now with this one we have to read very carefully. Right now you must have a CWP to have a gun in your car at a school and it must be in the console etc. This changes the law where if you have a CWP then you can keep it on your side or in your console etc. If you do not have a permit then you can have it on the school grounds as long as it is unloaded. There is considerable gain in this part of the bill but is still crazy and needs changing. The wording on this part is terrible, confusing and whoever wrote it was either not thinking or smoking something. A gain but still screwed up.
Since I don't normally drink alcohol this would be fine with me but the whole thought process in this one is ass-backwards. The thought is to to keep guns out of the honky-tonks and bars but let those eating a meal in a restaurant carry. This one says that you can't drink while eating a meal but you can go to the dew drop inn and shoot a game of pool with your drunk buddies while OC as long as you don't drink. Appears to me that someone else was tokin' while writing. A definite gain for gun toters of all types but the family man who wants to enjoy a glass of wine with his meal.
The wording in the original bill concerning this made we want to reject the entire thing if it was not modified. To me it went way too far and I can not support any bill that had that wording in it. I don't have a problem with the employer parking lot portion of the bill but I don't get excited about it either but don't get carried away with it.
This bill is a positive step forward but is nowhere near what the original thought was and what caused all the excitement. I think that too many people got their hopes up to high and too fast and the letdown is causing many to take a real negative look at it. The bill has cleared subcommittee and has 38 sponsors. From here it will have to clear the full committee and then the entire House. After that the process will start all over in the Senate. If it makes it through that it will then probably sent to a joint committee and finally to the Governor. All of this has to be done before May of 2012. So don't get too excited about any detailed wording of this bill but keep supporting it and working with your legislators to keep it moving. There will be many, many changes before it can ever be final so keep a positive attitude rather than giving up because there is something you don't like or didn't get.
Correct to a point but does include those with a reciprocal state permit to be able to OC or CC so it does not exclude all out-of-staters but this needs to be reworked. This is not a backwards step as it is the same as before but with OC added. It recognizes the right for any state resident over the age of 21 to carry either openly or concealed without a permit unless they are restricted by some other law. This is a big step forward with or without the other parts that we want. To say that this is and anti-gun bill or a step backwards is not correct.
They just lowered the age to carry a gun in cars and on private property to 18 last year so I am surprised that this was raised back to 21. This is a back step that I am not sure what will happen with it. It does seem strange.
Yup, same as now. We haven't lost anything but we have gained anything either.
Same as now and I don't know when or that will be addressed. This could be a positive move toward that goal or not.
The restrictions on where one can carry remain the same except Churches and Medical facilities are no longer included. I am very dissappointed that they left the part about any publicly owned building in. That should be removed as it causes too much confusion.
This parts confuses me that you do not have to have a permit to carry concealed so why do you have to inform if you have one. What if you are OC but have a permit. What if you don't have a permit. I don't know what the thinking is on this one but it does say that you don't have to keep your permit on you. This definitely need to be reworked.
Now with this one we have to read very carefully. Right now you must have a CWP to have a gun in your car at a school and it must be in the console etc. This changes the law where if you have a CWP then you can keep it on your side or in your console etc. If you do not have a permit then you can have it on the school grounds as long as it is unloaded. There is considerable gain in this part of the bill but is still crazy and needs changing. The wording on this part is terrible, confusing and whoever wrote it was either not thinking or smoking something. A gain but still screwed up.
Since I don't normally drink alcohol this would be fine with me but the whole thought process in this one is ass-backwards. The thought is to to keep guns out of the honky-tonks and bars but let those eating a meal in a restaurant carry. This one says that you can't drink while eating a meal but you can go to the dew drop inn and shoot a game of pool with your drunk buddies while OC as long as you don't drink. Appears to me that someone else was tokin' while writing. A definite gain for gun toters of all types but the family man who wants to enjoy a glass of wine with his meal.
The wording in the original bill concerning this made we want to reject the entire thing if it was not modified. To me it went way too far and I can not support any bill that had that wording in it. I don't have a problem with the employer parking lot portion of the bill but I don't get excited about it either but don't get carried away with it.
This bill is a positive step forward but is nowhere near what the original thought was and what caused all the excitement. I think that too many people got their hopes up to high and too fast and the letdown is causing many to take a real negative look at it. The bill has cleared subcommittee and has 38 sponsors. From here it will have to clear the full committee and then the entire House. After that the process will start all over in the Senate. If it makes it through that it will then probably sent to a joint committee and finally to the Governor. All of this has to be done before May of 2012. So don't get too excited about any detailed wording of this bill but keep supporting it and working with your legislators to keep it moving. There will be many, many changes before it can ever be final so keep a positive attitude rather than giving up because there is something you don't like or didn't get.
hp-hobo
New member
Correct.
mrjam2jab
New member
When where these changes amended? Is there a newer version online yet? The latest update I see is 2/24/11.
hp-hobo
New member
Were you at the sub-committee meeting yesterday morning? Are you aware of the amendment that was proposed and unanimously accepted by the sub-committee and the changes it makes to the original bill? Do you have access to said amendment, which I did not last night when posting, but do now? Those are all rhetorical questions because we both know that the answers are no. Your post proves it.
In your hurry to cheer lead a bill because it has some good things for South Carolina gun owners in it, you fail to take the time to see the bad things, in some cases a step backward from where we are now. The original bill as written was pretty good but needed work. The changes that were made and turned into the amendment are almost all bad. I highlighted the ones I remembered off the top of my head but you're apparently in denial about them. I'm sorry if the facts do not support your opinion. And I'm sorry if you don't understand what the original bill or amendments say. Again, that is apparent from your post.
To quote the person with probably more knowledge of SC gun laws than anyone else, H.3292 as amended "the new version (of H.3292) is anti-gun". And in my layman’s opinion he's absolutely correct. More details to come as the changes are read, re-read and analyzed for impact.
Sorry but I'm with FN on this one. No I wasn't at the meeting either but I (and he, near as I can tell based on his comments) have read the amendments to the original bill and think that there are some huge upsides to the bill as written. Open and concealed carry without a permit for SC residents, Carry in restaurants unless posted, no need to disclose and get permission to carry on private property, and other things were positives in my opinion. Yes many things stayed the same but I don't consider those as going backwards except when compared to the original language in the bill. Like you I'm eagerly awaiting Rob's analysis of the amended bill to see why he thinks Grassroots should oppose it but so far I can't see a reason why I would do that.
I have access to the following that I understand was what was unamilusly passed by the subcommittee. If this is not correct then I would like to have the corrected version and not something false being circulated. I received this version about 2:30 yesterday and assumed that it was the correct version but it appears that there was another put out last night.
Link Removed
I also have access to what I understand was the original ammendment:
2011-2012 Bill 3292: Handguns - South Carolina Legislature Online
Can someone please post what was actually passed by the subcommittee as I do not seem to have it.
And no I was not at the meeting.
Link Removed
I also have access to what I understand was the original ammendment:
2011-2012 Bill 3292: Handguns - South Carolina Legislature Online
Can someone please post what was actually passed by the subcommittee as I do not seem to have it.
And no I was not at the meeting.
I understand now, you are saying that all of this is a step backward because it doesn't include all of the original amendments. You seem to say that unless all of the amendments in the original bill are passed then we have lost. That is one way to think of it. I thought you were comparing what we have now to what the bill includes rather than your "wish list" and will admit that the bill coming out of the committee lacks much of what the original bill had. However there was much of the original bill and the proposed changes by Grass Roots that I did not agree with and were enough that I would oppose both if those parts had been left in.
With this bill I can and will support it along with trying to get some changes made along the process. Now you can oppose it and try to get it killed since it is not to your liking so it looks like we are still working against each other and will get nothing in the end. I do plan on continuing to work on keeping this bill moving forward and expressing my concerns on certain parts of it but to say that it is a step backwards from what we have now is beyond my comprension and I will admit that.
Can you point me to the correct version of the subcommittee proposal?
That's my plan. Work to try and correct and improve on the bill as it moves through the process. If it was coming up for a vote as written I certainly wouldn't oppose it though.
New Threads
-
-
-
-
-
Mystic Seaport Museum, Shelburne Museum Vermont
- Started by Harry45255
- Replies: 0
Members online
No members online now.