Raising prices on CWP applications...

[AndeyHall]

I've been hearing about this for a while but tonight was the first time I hears a reasoning behind it. According to our local news channel the reason they're going up is because SLED is so backed up with applications. Now I hope this is not true because it means 1 of 2 things or possibly both: 1)they're trying to discourage people from going through the process of obtaining a CWP by raising the price or 2)they doing it simply to increase state revenue because the demand is so high.
I thought about #1 today and my thought was that if I were an applicant for a CWP I would be harassing the hell out of SLED telling them that I worked 7 days a week and didn't have the time or money at my disposal to have the luxury of taking a CWP course, and them denying me my 2nd amendment right to bear arms because of that is 100% unconstitutional! Not that they would care though.
But then in the case of #2...I've also heard this argument when S115 was introduced, that the state would lose all the money it gets from CWP applications. But if SC is exploiting the people's interest in taking advantage of their 2nd amendment right in an attempt to increase revenue, then we are no better than NY or CT or CO!

 

[nca_mm]

What's the cost rising to?

 

[cwm1611]

That's one thing I love about Ks, when they ended up with a surplus for three years running --- they REDUCED the application cost and are talking about whether or not to reduce it again!

 

[AndeyHall]

What's the cost rising to?

$75 if the bill passes.

 

[nca_mm]

$75 if the bill passes.

I bet that's an amendment to a pro-gun bill that got porked in there

 

[AndeyHall]

$75 if the bill passes.

I bet that's an amendment to a pro-gun bill that got porked in there

Well perhaps if S115 gets pushed hard enough then we won't have to worry about it.

 

[melloyello]

Andey,

Where did you see a price of $75

SC House bill H 3822 doubles the price, $100, for the CWP permit but also creates a non-resident permit for $150.
I think they are combining the good and bad to get it passed.

"...INCREASE THE APPLICATION FEE FOR A PERMIT FOR RESIDENTS OF THE STATE TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND CREATE A NONRESIDENT APPLICATION FEE OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS.."Link Removed

 

[AndeyHall]

Andey,

Where did you see a price of $75

SC House bill H 3822 doubles the price, $100, for the CWP permit but also creates a non-resident permit for $150.
I think they are combining the good and bad to get it passed.

"...INCREASE THE APPLICATION FEE FOR A PERMIT FOR RESIDENTS OF THE STATE TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND CREATE A NONRESIDENT APPLICATION FEE OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS.."Link Removed

That's what was said on the news. Who knows what they were talking about.

 

[nca_mm]

Andey,

Where did you see a price of $75

SC House bill H 3822 doubles the price, $100, for the CWP permit but also creates a non-resident permit for $150.
I think they are combining the good and bad to get it passed.

"...INCREASE THE APPLICATION FEE FOR A PERMIT FOR RESIDENTS OF THE STATE TO ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS AND CREATE A NONRESIDENT APPLICATION FEE OF ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS.."Link Removed

Gosh ahmighty!! Wonder what ass hole put that amendment in there?!

 

[melloyello]

Which one.. -- Reps. Pitts, Loftis or Funderburk?

Even if Constitutional Carry passes, I want my CWP.

 

[AndeyHall]

Which one.. -- Reps. Pitts, Loftis or Funderburk?

Even if Constitutional Carry passes, I want my CWP.

Yeah me too cause it only allows you to carry in SC without a permit. You have to have a permit in order to have reciprocity with other states.

 

[nca_mm]

This is also found in this bill. Someone interpret for me.

"AND TO REVISE THE LIST OF PLACES WHERE A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON AND PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON INTO A PLACE CLEARLY MARKED WITH A SIGN PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF A CONCEALABLE WEAPON"

 

[AndeyHall]

This is also found in this bill. Someone interpret for me.

"AND TO REVISE THE LIST OF PLACES WHERE A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON AND PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON INTO A PLACE CLEARLY MARKED WITH A SIGN PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF A CONCEALABLE WEAPON"

I guess they just want to add more places you can't carry and make signs hold more legal weight.

If they pass the constitution carry bill and allow open carry, does that mean that any business with a sign that says "no concealable weapons" won't apply to open carry? I'd love to get in that argument with the cop at our local theater.

 

[melloyello]

This is also found in this bill. Someone interpret for me.

"AND TO REVISE THE LIST OF PLACES WHERE A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON AND PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON INTO A PLACE CLEARLY MARKED WITH A SIGN PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF A CONCEALABLE WEAPON"

I thought it meant that every place you can't carry must be clearly marked, i.e. Bars, courthouse all need to post.

 

[AndeyHall]

This is also found in this bill. Someone interpret for me.

"AND TO REVISE THE LIST OF PLACES WHERE A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON AND PROVIDE THAT A PERSON MAY NOT CARRY A CONCEALABLE WEAPON INTO A PLACE CLEARLY MARKED WITH A SIGN PROHIBITING THE CARRYING OF A CONCEALABLE WEAPON"

I thought it meant that every place you can't carry must be clearly marked, i.e. Bars, courthouse all need to post.

Could be...who knows.