Legislative Alert in SC

[stan29678]

Found this on the nra.org site and already contacted one Representative and one Senator I know encouraging support for these. There are two bills being heard next week in SC Legislature. One concerns privacy of CWP records, the other makes SC honor any Carry Permit from any other state.

Link Removed

 

[SCjeeper]

Thanks for the post

I have contacted my representative urging his support on these two important bills. I urge everyone to do the same.

 

[Red Hat]

Did it, now if they just get on them!

 

[MufDady]

TY for the post stan,

 

[stan29678]

I just heard from Senator Thomas Alexander on H 3212. It came before the senate today, was amended to include the requirement that the reciprocal state requires an applicant to pass the federal background check and a course in firearm training and safety. He also said he believe it will become law before the session is over in June. This is good news.

 

[nittanylion]

Fair News

There seems to be confusion about whether the amendments are good or not. NRA says the amendment is OK. SC Firearms does not like it. I have conversed with Massey who supports the amendment instead of the original bill. His reasoning is fairness to SC residents. They have to take courses so why should residents of other states who don't have to take courses be allowed to carry in SC. Not sure I am on that page since I would like the additional potential states we would gain with blanket reciprocity. Any other comments on the bill as amended?

 

[SCjeeper]

I Agree

I agree with you Nittanylion, isn't that how they determined reciprocity anyway? The states that had similar or like requirements as SC got the reciprocity agreement and any that were less strengent did not? I am not sure this legislation is going to change anything. Since I live on the GA border I am really wanting any legislation to include GA. The legislation to keep the CWP list private is a good move though.

 

[slugger6]

I guess I better call my brother who lives in SC (and has his CCW) to see what he knows about this. We here in Ohio have reciprocity with SC. To obtain a CHL we have to successfully complete 10 hours of classroom instruction, pass a written test, do two hours of range time, and pass a shooting practical "exam."

 

[nittanylion]

I too live on the GA/SC line and like to travel to FL. NH permit gets me into GA but FL is another story. Not sure this new bill will help at all.

 

[Red Hat]

Leave it to them to screw up a good bill. The new bill basically leaves us where we are now. Instead of a CWP recognition bill we now have a CWP reciprocity bill. I received this from Grassroots the other day...

18 March 2008
“Thank you!” to all of you who emailed and called the senators representing your county just as we asked you to do yesterday in the GrassRoots GunRights Action Alert on H. 3212.

Congratulations! Your voices were heard! But, ...

There is both good news and bad news. And, you will need to take action once again if you want to protect your rights.

First, the good news.

Due to your emails and phone calls, the SC Senate amended H. 3212 again. The new amendment makes one important change - it deletes the mandate that other states must perform federal background checks to satisfy SC CWP reciprocity requirements. This change means SC should not lose any reciprocity agreements as we would have done if the Knotts/Anderson amendment had passed. But, we will not gain any states either.

Now, the bad news.

H. 3212 started out as CWP recognition bill, which means SC would recognize CWP permits from other states without need of a reciprocity agreement between SC and another state. This would have allowed SC CWP holders to carry in 30+ states, including Georgia and Florida. But, unfortunately, the Senate changed H. 3212 into a CWP reciprocity bill instead of the CWP recognition bill that came out of the House, which means SC and another state must legally agree to honor each other's CWP before we can carry elsewhere.

The Senate's amendments to H. 3212 have created new problems due to the Senate's not thinking of all the consequences of the changes they are making.

If SC is going to remain a CWP reciprocity state instead of a CWP recognition state, then someone needs to be legally responsible for determining and entering into CWP reciprocity agreements with other states. Current law charges SLED with determining which states satisfy the requirements for CWP reciprocity. The Senate amendments to H. 3212 delete SLED's responsibility to do this. The Senate amendments also fail to legally charge anyone else with determining which states satisfy the CWP reciprocity requirements. This is a serious failing on the Senate's part.

When no one is legally charged with doing something, that something does not get done. We can't get SLED to do a good job of keeping track of CWP reciprocity agreements now, even though SLED is legally charged with doing so. Imagine how bad things will get when no one is legally charged with doing this job. CWP reciprocity agreements will not get made if no one is legally charged with the responsibility of making them. The Senate needs to fix this problem they created.

The Senate also failed to change the legal definition of a course of “training,” which means that H. 3212 still requires both SC and other states to mandate an eight (8) hour minimum class to satisfy CWP reciprocity requirements. Thus, the Senate changes - or failures to make changes - can not increase the number of states eligible for reciprocity with SC.

As last amended on Tuesday, March 18, H. 3212 now only restates existing CWP law - but with one very important difference. Instead of saying a CWP reciprocity agreement can only be entered into with a state which has CWP issuance standards equal to or greater than SC standards (which are an 8 hour class, state and federal fingerprint review, and local background check), H. 3212 would change the law to now say a CWP reciprocity agreement can only be entered into with a state which has CWP issuance standards that require an 8 hour class, state and federal fingerprint review, and local background check. As you can see, this is exactly the same thing. So, why bother to make such a worthless change?

As pointed out in the GrassRoots Action Alert yesterday, this worthless change is a necessary first step before changing the SC CWP law to require re-training every four years without also destroying all existing CWP reciprocity agreements. There is no other reason for making these worthless changes proposed by the Senate. Make no mistake, the real reason for the Senate changes is to require CWP re-training in the future.

BOTTOM LINE:

As currently drafted and amended by the Senate, H. 3212 is worthless at best and is the first step towards CWP re-training every four years at worst.

The Senate needs to amend H. 3212 back to the CWP recognition bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and stop trying to turn H. 3212 into a CWP reciprocity bill.

 

[SCjeeper]

Politics

Thanks for the post Red Hat, this is very disturbing but politics at it's best (worst). We need to start the ball rolling to get this changed.

 

[over50]

What does this mean

This is from earlier today

H. 3212--NONCONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
The Senate Amendments to the following Bill were taken up for consideration:

H. 3212 (Word version) -- Reps. Delleney, M. A. Pitts, Haley, Crawford, Chellis, G. R. Smith, Owens, Rice, Weeks, Viers, Simrill, Bedingfield, Vick, Duncan, Mulvaney, Stavrinakis, Clemmons and Young: A BILL TO AMEND SECTION 23-31-215, AS AMENDED, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMITS, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT VALID OUT-OF-STATE PERMITS TO CARRY CONCEALABLE WEAPONS HELD BY A RESIDENT OF ANOTHER STATE MUST BE HONORED BY THIS STATE AND TO DELETE THE PROVISION THAT THIS STATE WILL ONLY HONOR OUT-OF-STATE PERMITS ISSUED BY A STATE WITH WHICH SOUTH CAROLINA HAS RECIPROCITY.

Rep. DELLENEY explained the Senate Amendments.

The House refused to agree to the Senate Amendments and a message was ordered sent accordingly.



I just checked the legislature website and found this, does this mean the bill is dead or will the house make another amendment and send it back to the senate? Does anyone know what they are doing?
I live in Florida now but own property in SC, I know I can get a SC CWP but I don't see any reason to reward SC with the permit fee for their arrogance, I already pay them property taxes on what I own and SC would only expand my legal states by 1. I really feel bad for you folks up there, SLED seems to have a strangle hold on you and you can' break free of them.

 

[Red Hat]

We will have to wait and see when they pick it back up. The last version of the bill is here. Link Removed Basically the Senate just wants to take the determination from SLED and keep everything else as it was. I bet the Senate will set on it for a while. We need to contact the Senators and tell them to pass the bill just as the House has it written.

 

[SCjeeper]

New Wording

Yep, I think we should contact our representatives and support getting this passed. Thanks for the info. It looks like some or the reps didn't like the bill and are trying to get it worded like it was in the first place. It will probably stay in politic hell for a while.

 

[SCjeeper]

Responsibility

My mistake, after reading your link above it does look like they are just trying to take the responsibility from SLED for issuing permits. I think that is a step in the right direction but who would the responsibility fall to?

 

[Red Hat]

It doesn't say. The problem is they are wanting to still require background checks and like training in order to be recognized. The purpose of the original bill was to accept all states permits. Even though I like the idea of requiring training because some people have no idea of the do's and the do not's in CC, it seems that those states don't have any more problems with people breaking the law than states with training.

 

[FN1910]

Red Hat, you make an interesting point that just like you I am in favor of training I can't say how much good it does in combating the law breaking or shootings. Stats are pretty much meaningless in trying to determine actual results because they can be used to justify anything you want.

On the stories put out about the failure of H 3212 there is a group that seems to be putting out misleading information.

The version that the House passed was a full recognition bill that said that SC would recognize all permits but had no provision for reciprocity. This meant that SC would recogize permits from any state but there was no incentive for any other state to recognize SC permits other that goodwill.

The first Senate version had several very restrictive clauses and could have led to all sorts of problems. This was recognized by the NRA, SC Grassroots, SLED and immediately brought to the attention of the Senate. Several news releases were put out that day calling for the Senate to go against the bill because it could have been worse than what we have now.

The next day the Senate revised the bill to the form that was passed. The Senate and SLED confered that the following list of states would be covered in the version that passed the Senate and returned to the House:

States that currently recognize South Carolina’s concealed weapons permit include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Wyoming.

The bill passed today would expand the states recognizing South Carolina’s concealed weapons permit to include: Colorado, Florida, Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska and Nevada.

South Carolina currently recognizes the concealed weapons permits of the following states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee and Wyoming.

The Senate action will expand that list to include: Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming. A reciprocity agreement with West Virginia is pending.
Link Removed

As you see the big concern is GA is missing.

The key points of the Senate version was provided, that the reciprocal state requires an applicant to successfully pass a criminal background check and a course in firearm training and safety. It simply says pass a backgorund check and a course on handgun safety and training. Where all of the other hoopla is coming from I don't know other than from the previous version.

Since teh House rejected the Senate version it will probably go to a joint House-Senate conference committee to see if they can work something out. Otherwise we are stuck with getting a NH permit to add GA or a Non-resident FL permit for FL.