Right-to-Carry Reform Bill Introduced

[Red Hat]

I haven't had time to read through this bill but it looks like there are a lot of changes!

Link Removed

Friday, January 14, 2011 The 119th South Carolina General Assembly began its session this week, and on Wednesday, Jan. 12, State Representative Mike Pitts (R-14) introduced H. 3292, a comprehensive Right-to-Carry reform bill.
Joining Rep. Pitts as cosponsors are Representatives Dan Cooper (R-10) and Greg Delleney, Jr. (R-43). H. 3292 seeks to reform current law to remove certain restrictions on where one may lawfully carry a concealed firearm, establish that property owners may not set policies or rules that would prohibit the transportation or storage of legally-possessed firearms or ammunition if it is locked, out of sight, within a privately-owned motor vehicle, and create a straight recognition standard for valid permits issued by other states.
We will be giving a more detailed analysis of this legislation, as well as report on other firearm-related bills, in the near future. In the meantime, please take a moment to call your State Representative and urge him or her to cosponsor H. 3292. Their contact information can be found here

Link to the full bill.

2011-2012 Bill 3292: Handguns - South Carolina Legislature Online

 

[Red Hat]

From what I have read this is a major revamping of our CC laws. It covers just about everything we've been wanting. You don't have to have your permit on you to CC. Restaurant carry is in it. Right to have firearms in your vehicle on private/workplace parking lots. All out of state permits must be honored. School carry is unclear whether you can carry on your person in a vehicle or have to secure it like before.

 

[6shootercarry]

From what I have read this is a major revamping of our CC laws. It covers just about everything we've been wanting. You don't have to have your permit on you to CC. Restaurant carry is in it. Right to have firearms in your vehicle on private/workplace parking lots. All out of state permits must be honored.

You mean positive changes? Not adding more restrictions and creating other laws to make exceptions to the confusing laws?

Well get me a chair and a glass of water I think I'm getting dizzy.

Amen to South Carolina. At least some states are getting it right..

Thanks I needed some good news.

 

[mrjam2jab]

Looks like will also remove the "resident only" part of the reciprocated permits? So would honor any permit issued by any state to resident or non?

 

[jdjon]

This is going to be interesting to see how S.C. lawmakers react to these proposed changes with the Arizona shooting in the rear view mirror.
I agree, it looks like many very positive changes....still reading it.

 

[FN1910]

I have only skimmed this bill so I don't know what it really says. I hopefully am wrong but on first glance I don't think it has a chance but we will see.

 

[tcox4freedom]

I'm sure it's in for some strong debate; and ultimately some compromises will be made. But, we seem to have the best chance we've had in a long time for some REAL positive changes in SC gun laws.

I hope we can even get OC this year.

 

[Red Hat]

OC

After reading it again I think 16-23-20 is allowing OC.

Section 16-23-20. It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person. The intent to use a handgun unlawfully against another person shall not be inferred from the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of a loaded or unloaded handgun.

 

[blume357@]

I'll be interested in finding out how they vote in committee on it.

I've heard of reps putting their names on a bill like this and then killing it in committee.

 

[kudzu]

After reading it again I think 16-23-20 is allowing OC.

Help me with your reasoning. I don't doubt what you are saying, I just don't see how you get there from the portion of the proposed statute cited.

If you are pinning it on: "...whether concealed or not...," it seems to me that that could cut both ways.

BTW, my interest is purely academic, the only interest I have in OC is the principle that the Second Amendment means exactly and literally what it says. I have no need/desire to OC.

 

[Red Hat]

Help me with your reasoning. I don't doubt what you are saying, I just don't see how you get there from the portion of the proposed statute cited.

If you are pinning it on: "...whether concealed or not...," it seems to me that that could cut both ways.

BTW, my interest is purely academic, the only interest I have in OC is the principle that the Second Amendment means exactly and literally what it says. I have no need/desire to OC.

Section 16-23-20. It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, with the intent to use it unlawfully against another person. The intent to use a handgun unlawfully against another person shall not be inferred from the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of a loaded or unloaded handgun.

Under this I read as long as you are not carrying, OC, for unlawful reasons then it's not unlawful to OC also if CC was the only option then carrying wouldn't be in there. My head is still spinning after reading through it again. All I can say is some new lawyer just out of school wrote this for the Sponsor. :wacko:

It's also stated this way in this section: This being the first draft there is no way we can really know the real intent of these sections. Hopefully it will be revised in more concise language!

"Section Link Removed. (A) A person carrying a deadly weapon usually used for the infliction of personal injury concealed about his person with the intent to use the weapon in furtherance of a crime is guilty of a misdemeanor, must forfeit to the county, or, if convicted in a municipal court, to the municipality, the concealed weapon, and must be fined not less than two hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than ninety days. The intent to use a weapon in furtherance of a crime shall not be inferred by the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the weapon, including the possession, carrying or concealment of a loaded or unloaded firearm.

 

[mappow]

Lets hope this will be meaningful reform, especially to OC. I for one WOULD like the option. Gotta follow up with my State Rep. House Seat 102 .

 

[tcox4freedom]

After reading it again I think 16-23-20 is allowing OC.

That was my take away on the bill as well.

Anybody know what the chatter is concerning this subject on Opencarry.org?

 

[mrjam2jab]

That was my take away on the bill as well.

Anybody know what the chatter is concerning this subject on Opencarry.org?

Not much

Link Removed

 

[mappow]

I add to all that live in SC, please be proactive and write your Rep and Senator. NOT SURE ??? South Carolina Legislature Online

 

[FN1910]

I tried to study this bill and understand it today and from what I see so far is that there is zero chance of it passing in its present form and that is good. Really I have never seen any bill as confusing and screwed up as this one. For starters it says that except in subsection C and there is no subsection C that I can find. To me the bill then gets worse. I have no idea how or if it will ever come out of subcommitte (hasn't even made it that far yet) but if it ever gets to the house floor it will not be close to this version.

This is not to say that the bill is doomed or will not be acted on but before any vote is taken on this bill it will be completely rewritten into a legible form. Remember that they have until May 2012 to act on it so don't be surprised if no action at all is taken this year.

Also remember that a similar bill was filed last session and never made it to subcommittee. This time I think it will be considered but it is a long way from being law right now.

 

[kudzu]

Under this I read as long as you are not carrying, OC, for unlawful reasons then it's not unlawful to OC...

OK, I see where you're coming from. There does appear to be a hole there. Is it intentional? Will it stand? I certainly don't know.

 

[Hubs]

Hopefully, we will get more reciprocity with more states, despite the fact that SC requires a didactic course. I am also hopeful for restaurant carry. OC, hmmmm...don't know about that yet(doubt it would pass anyway). Maybe our new governor will give the new proposals the jumpstart it needs since she is a CWP'er herself.

 

[hp-hobo]

Hopefully, we will get more reciprocity with more states...

Hopefully we won't. Reciprocity requires both states to enter into an agreement to accept the other states permit. Some states currently won't accept our CWP only because we won't accept theirs, normally because their training does meet South Carolina's standards. Reciprocity can be cancelled at any time.

What we want is recognition. This is how drivers licenses work. If you're licensed to drive in one state, you can legally drive in any other state as long as you follow their laws. Much easier and much more encompassing.

... Maybe our new governor will give the new proposals the jumpstart it needs since she is a CWP'er herself.

Gov Haley will sign any pro-gun bill that comes across her desk. We just need to ensure the right bills get to her. H.3292, with a few tweaks, just might be that bill. Unfortunately, she has her hands full with more pressing matters so I doubt she'll be leading the way in the gun rights arena.

 

[flat]

Looks good. If it makes it past the house it will be interesting to see where mrs. Haley stands on the issue.