John Canuck
New member
So now it's back to the House with something new?
No. The Senate is still hearing proposed amendments.
So now it's back to the House with something new?
No. The Senate is still hearing proposed amendments.
LEO's don't have to get a CWP...that's federal law. HR218 makes them exempt from all state firearm carry laws. I'm a reserve deputy in the upstate and we have been told we can carry into restaurants that serve alcohol so long as we don't drink. They don't want us drinking period, carrying or not, unless we're in a different county.Language mostly. For one thing, the House bill created some confusion with regard to how active duty LEO and a retired LEO get a CWP. He's just trying to make it more consistent. Frankly I'd prefer that everyone got treated the same, but I'm not going to get too hung up on it.
Edit: correction from military to LEO.
So when they reconvene @ 11:00 this morning, they'll still be in discussion of the 308 amendments? Will that idiot Scott still have the floor?
LEO's don't have to get a CWP...that's federal law. HR218 makes them exempt from all state firearm carry laws. I'm a reserve deputy in the upstate and we have been told we can carry into restaurants that serve alcohol so long as we don't drink. They don't want us drinking period, carrying or not, unless we're in a different county.
I just read the whole thing at length and at the end I noticed that it says that with a CWP, it can be under the seat and any other passenger compartment, opened or closed. Am I reading this correctly?That may be the case. Regardless, the version of S-308 returned from the House makes provision for retired LEO's to meet the proof of training requirement, but not for active duty LEO's. They want to change that so it's consistent for both. As I said, I think they should be treated like everyone else, but it's not really priority one as far as I'm concerned.
Don't like that example, here's another. The version of S-308 returned from the House limited a "valid photo ID" to a drivers license (for most people). The amendment offered attempts to fix that little faux pas.
I just read the whole thing at length and at the end I noticed that it says that with a CWP, it can be under the seat and any other passenger compartment, opened or closed. Am I reading this correctly?
I also just got an email about the legislative updates and it says it was "returned to House with amendments". So I'm confused as to how this whole legislative process works. Does the House now just have to approve the senate's new amended version and that's that?
I believe I'm correct in saying that if the House doesn't change it one bit, then votes to pass it, on to the governor's desk it goes.
My question is.....what are the amendments?
LEO's don't have to get a CWP...that's federal law. HR218 makes them exempt from all state firearm carry laws. I'm a reserve deputy in the upstate and we have been told we can carry into restaurants that serve alcohol so long as we don't drink. They don't want us drinking period, carrying or not, unless we're in a different county.
"Packing heat where drinks are served could soon be legal in South Carolina" was the little news teaser on WYFF just now. Regardless of what the media's opinion is, they make it sound bad on purpose to get people to watch. Makes me sick.
S308 Goes back to House with Amendments.
Link Removed
Looks like it was advanced? I guess the Governor can sign it now?
SC Senate GOP: CWP Restaurant Bill Advances » FITSNews
"Packing heat where drinks are served could soon be legal in South Carolina" was the little news teaser on WYFF just now. Regardless of what the media's opinion is, they make it sound bad on purpose to get people to watch. Makes me sick.