Right-to-Carry Reform Bill Introduced
- Thread starter Red Hat
- Start date
South Carolina Sheriffs' Association ?
More like the South Carolina Wanna-Be- Politicians Association.
Does any money from the cw permits trickle down to the sheriff offices ?
Wonder if the current CWP system will stay the same for that or a simple picture for the card, a little fee and your done ?
hp-hobo
New member
H.3292, or whatever it'll be called now that it's been killed and being rewritten, will not affect the current CWP process in any way, shape or form.
Please read the bill and familiarize yourself with it.
2011-2012 Bill 3292: Handguns - South Carolina Legislature Online
melloyello
New member
Let's remember who they are and get them out of office or does Jeffery Moore,m Executive Director speaking for himself?
Board of Directors
President Sheriff P.J. Tanner Beaufort
First Vice President Sheriff Herman Young Fairfield
Second Vice President Sheriff Jason Booth Saluda
Sergeant-at-Arms Sheriff Steve Loftis Greenville
Secretary/Treasurer Sheriff David Stone Pickens
hp-hobo
New member
As I stated in another thread, H.3292 has been amended to shite.
http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3292/H3292_GRGR_analysis_of_bill_after_subcommittee_amendment.pdf
Again, I apologize if the facts don't support anyone's opinion. Please read and take action.
http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3292/H3292_GRGR_analysis_of_bill_after_subcommittee_amendment.pdf
Again, I apologize if the facts don't support anyone's opinion. Please read and take action.
carsontech
New member
"The House Judiciary Committee postponed its vote for a week. The subcomittee, Viers as head, essentially said they'd kill the bill if it got sent back to subcommittee. So, now GrassRoots is working to come up with an amendment to replace the Viers amendment, and the Judiciary committee will have the chance to defeat the Viers amendment and replace it with the new one." - SCGUNGUY (NOT ME!)
Judiciary's meeting video below:
YouTube - House Judiciary Committe Mtg H.3292 3-1-11 Hugh Staples Photography©2011 All Rights Reserved
Judiciary's meeting video below:
YouTube - House Judiciary Committe Mtg H.3292 3-1-11 Hugh Staples Photography©2011 All Rights Reserved
Red Hat
New member
If Grassroots is putting out this narcissistic gibber and after seeing the video it confirms that Grassroots doesn't speak for me. I will not recommend anyone join this group. Where they got this diatribe from that meeting is beyond me!
hp-hobo
New member
It's too bad that some people on this forum aren't smart enough to know when they're being lied to by a politician. But then I wouldn't expect anything else from... Some people.If Grassroots is putting out this narcissistic gibber and after seeing the video it confirms that Grassroots doesn't speak for me. I will not recommend anyone join this group. Where they got this diatribe from that meeting is beyond me!
Other people can play the "some people" game too.
Red Hat
New member
Too bad some people are so one minded that they become sheeple and fail to see the good in something. I guess children will be children. The only way this bill will fail is if Grassroots has their way. I'm calling all my reps and tell them to shy away from Grassroots and recommend everyone else to do the same!
hp-hobo
New member
You, I mean some people, should be very proud for supporting an anti-gun, anti-rights amendment. How much do you contribute per year to the Brady Campaign and VPC?
Red Hat
New member
That's where you are and Grassroots are all wrong! How anyone can get an anti-gun and anti-rights out of this bill is ridiculous. All you do is call people names and disrupt any discussion on this bill. You have really shown us what Grassroots is all about!
hp-hobo
New member
Tell ya what little fella. Show us all just one point of the GrassRoots analysis of the original bill or of the original Viers amendment that is incorrect. Note the operative word "original", not the amended amendment that Viers snuck in a week after the original without telling anyone.
Oh, you don't... I mean some people don't know about that. Say, you are well informed, aren't ya?
Of course that begs the question, if the original amendment was so good, why did he have to fix it? And why are all of the fixes he put in it what GrassRoots suggested. Make ya wonder, doesn't it.
Unfortunately it still contains some regressive regulations, but some people are just so focused on getting handed that shiney penny that they completely forget about the guy stealing the the $10 bill out of their back pocket.
That's you my friend.
So, show us exactly and in great detail where the GRGR analysis of the original bill or the original amendment is wrong. It's time for you to put up or shut up.
And while you're at it, explain why Rep Viers is making threatening phone calls (recorded) to GRGR members even after being convicted of the same sort of thing a few years back. He sure is a great guy...
Link Removed
Go ahead and deny that too. Have fun, we'll be waiting.
I have only followed this fiasco via the SC firearms forum... but it seems the politicians could and should run their ideas by folks who understand S.C.'s existing gun laws and how throwing out a section and pushing in another is going to effect the overall situation.
there were problems with Pitt's original bill and Grassroots tried to give suggestions to fix these and the committee intentionally disregarded all this... then Viers threw in an amendment that on the face of it looked good until you understand what the words 'carry' and 'non resident' means...
the way I understand it... Vier's original amendment would have made it illegal for anyone from out of state to even have a handgun in S.C. unless they have a permit from their home state and S.C. has reciprocity with that state... they could not have it in their car stored in the glove box or I think even in the trunk unloaded... let alone go to a shooting event.
that was just a classic mistake and could be 'forgiven' but in stead of owning up to this, Viers claimed it was not a problem... then when he discovered Grassroots was right he slipped in a 'newer' amendment on the state's web page and claims this is his original one....
it appears the guy is showing his true colors.
there were problems with Pitt's original bill and Grassroots tried to give suggestions to fix these and the committee intentionally disregarded all this... then Viers threw in an amendment that on the face of it looked good until you understand what the words 'carry' and 'non resident' means...
the way I understand it... Vier's original amendment would have made it illegal for anyone from out of state to even have a handgun in S.C. unless they have a permit from their home state and S.C. has reciprocity with that state... they could not have it in their car stored in the glove box or I think even in the trunk unloaded... let alone go to a shooting event.
that was just a classic mistake and could be 'forgiven' but in stead of owning up to this, Viers claimed it was not a problem... then when he discovered Grassroots was right he slipped in a 'newer' amendment on the state's web page and claims this is his original one....
it appears the guy is showing his true colors.
Red Hat, I am with you on this. I have no idea what Mr. Butler and GRSC is screaming and throwing tantrums about. I agree that the bill that came from the subcommittee was screwed up but it was not a major problem to fix it if only the problem had been politely pointed out and the subcommittee notified. I seriously think that they did not realize the effect of the bill due to someones misinterpretation of it. As it is now the bill is in great danger of being killed and we will wind up with nothing.
After all the screaming and name calling the subcommittee as I understand has refused to reconsider the bill and will let it die rather than try to change it. However Rep. Viers has rewritten it and will submit his proposal to the full Committee on Tuesday. In the previous meeting he was granted a week to rewrite it and present it to the full committee.
His rewritten proposal is posted on line at the following link:
Link Removed
His proposal is a long way from being perfect but does make the major change that I assume that GRSC was so inflamed about. The parts about restaurant and school carry were left intact from the subcommittee version as well as the 21 carry regulation. It does not change any of the reciprocity agreement regulations which would have to be in a different bill due to the sentiment in the legislature about that and fought at a different time. The parking lot carry is the same as there is already another bill to cover that.
I think it is a good bill but not perfect and if it can get through the process I will be happy but I am sure that GRSC will not. I can find nothing in this bill, but I am subject to be corrected, that removes any rights that we now have.
Red Hat , I like you cannot say that Grass Roots speaks for me unless they will fully support this version.
After all the screaming and name calling the subcommittee as I understand has refused to reconsider the bill and will let it die rather than try to change it. However Rep. Viers has rewritten it and will submit his proposal to the full Committee on Tuesday. In the previous meeting he was granted a week to rewrite it and present it to the full committee.
His rewritten proposal is posted on line at the following link:
Link Removed
His proposal is a long way from being perfect but does make the major change that I assume that GRSC was so inflamed about. The parts about restaurant and school carry were left intact from the subcommittee version as well as the 21 carry regulation. It does not change any of the reciprocity agreement regulations which would have to be in a different bill due to the sentiment in the legislature about that and fought at a different time. The parking lot carry is the same as there is already another bill to cover that.
I think it is a good bill but not perfect and if it can get through the process I will be happy but I am sure that GRSC will not. I can find nothing in this bill, but I am subject to be corrected, that removes any rights that we now have.
Red Hat , I like you cannot say that Grass Roots speaks for me unless they will fully support this version.
Red Hat
New member
I'm tired of trying to have a one way discussion on this. Grassroots and their spokesman hp-hobo have taken a page out of the liberal/brady handbook. Put out a point sheet and defend it by calling people names, belittling people, confuse the facts by misdirection and claiming everyone that doesn't agree as anti-gun and anti-2A. I've said all along that this bill has problems just as every bill in it's infancy. Instead of working with them to get the best bill possible they have decided to denigrate it since they didn't get their changes implemented. Let see why they are mad, didn't get carry age changed to 18, didn't get the change to allow drinking while carrying, didn't get officer notification removed and didn't get homeowners requirement to post signs if they didn't want someone carrying on their property. In fact they couldn't get support from any member on any of their changes. How demeaning...
Just like any bill the very first version is just a draft that sometimes receives major changes in committee. Compromises and deals are made to insure the votes are there. You have to remember that we are not losing anything if it's not in the law already. This All-or-Nothing attitude will be a bill killer no matter how minor or major the changes are.
blume357@, I addressed your concerns in this post. http://www.usacarry.com/forums/sout...-3292-just-passed-committee-5.html#post185644
As far a Viers and his "No contest" plea, June 14, 2007, for threatened to beat up his estranged wife's lover no one can defend that. But that doesn't give Grassroots members the right to do the same to him.
If you look at all the pro gun bills in SC you'll find Mike Pitts and until last year Jeff Duncan at the top of the sponsor list. Luckily in SC we have somewhat of bipartisan support on most gun bills and a lot of other states envy us for that. We are not moving as fast as some like AZ but we're chipping away to get there. Instead of being pessimistic we need to be optimistic and work for changes not throw them away!
I took the existing bill, removed all the deleted line and added the sub-committee changes so you could see the meaning of this bill. If anyone wants to look at it I'll post it.
This is my last post on this issue!
Just like any bill the very first version is just a draft that sometimes receives major changes in committee. Compromises and deals are made to insure the votes are there. You have to remember that we are not losing anything if it's not in the law already. This All-or-Nothing attitude will be a bill killer no matter how minor or major the changes are.
blume357@, I addressed your concerns in this post. http://www.usacarry.com/forums/sout...-3292-just-passed-committee-5.html#post185644
As far a Viers and his "No contest" plea, June 14, 2007, for threatened to beat up his estranged wife's lover no one can defend that. But that doesn't give Grassroots members the right to do the same to him.
If you look at all the pro gun bills in SC you'll find Mike Pitts and until last year Jeff Duncan at the top of the sponsor list. Luckily in SC we have somewhat of bipartisan support on most gun bills and a lot of other states envy us for that. We are not moving as fast as some like AZ but we're chipping away to get there. Instead of being pessimistic we need to be optimistic and work for changes not throw them away!
I took the existing bill, removed all the deleted line and added the sub-committee changes so you could see the meaning of this bill. If anyone wants to look at it I'll post it.
This is my last post on this issue!
hp-hobo
New member
In other words, you can't find a single item that is wrong in GrassRoots analysis of the bill. What a shocker.
If anyone in this thread adheres to the uneducated liberal mindset it would be you. You don't want to be confused with the facts, you're only concerned with how you feel.
Good job.
New Threads
-
Recent TX Appeals Court declaration that ATF arm brace rule is unconstitutional
- Started by lw07
- Replies: 0
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.