SC Constitution Carry

[mrjam2jab]

Are you asking what makes OC illegal as the law is written now?

Yes. The way I read the current law, OC is legal with a permit.

SECTION 16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions.

It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law:

with having a permit as one of the exceptions....unless i'm reading it incorrectly?

 

[John Canuck]

One of the exceptions is having a permit. What does that permit give a person permission to do in 23-31-210?

 

[AndeyHall]

Are you asking what makes OC illegal as the law is written now?

Yes. The way I read the current law, OC is legal with a permit.

SECTION 16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions.

It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law:

with having a permit as one of the exceptions....unless i'm reading it incorrectly?

That is correct, one of the exception being a person pursuant to article 4 chapter 31 title 23, which gives the pursuant permission to carry a concealable weapon, not open carry.

(6) “Concealable weapon” means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must be carried in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property.

 

[AndeyHall]

I mean if you think about it, if open carry was part of it, would they call it a "CONCEALED weapons permit"?

 

[hp-hobo]

I mean if you think about it, if open carry was part of it, would they call it a "CONCEALED weapons permit"?

Because they're the government and it sounds better than "Unconstitutional Permission Slip from Big Brother to Exercise a Naturally Born Right".
.
For example, in Mississippi you have to have a "License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver" to open carry. I'm not saying there's any logic to it, just telling you the way it is...
.
See "summary";
Mississippi | OpenCarry.org

 

[AndeyHall]

I mean if you think about it, if open carry was part of it, would they call it a "CONCEALED weapons permit"?

Because they're the government and it sounds better than "Unconstitutional Permission Slip from Big Brother to Exercise a Naturally Born Right".
.
For example, in Mississippi you have to have a "License to Carry a Concealed Pistol or Revolver" to open carry. I'm not saying there's any logic to it, just telling you the way it is...
.
See "summary";
Mississippi | OpenCarry.org

Well that was just a side note. The SC CWP laws say it has to be concealed.

 

[John Canuck]

Proposed Amendment Language and observations here --> Link Removed

 

[mrjam2jab]

Proposed Amendment Language and observations here --> Link Removed

Getting an error msg?

Error while rendering.

 

[John Canuck]

It loads for me. Call your IT support

I've updated the blog entry with some new thoughts regarding the proposed amendment.

 

[John Canuck]

S 115 is on the Judiciary Committee Agenda.
S 115 Constitutional Carry on the Judiciary Committe Agenda ? South Carolina Gun Blog

 

[AndeyHall]

I'm curious as to how this law will work in conjunction with the CWP laws. For example, if this passed and the CWP laws are left as they are, then someone without a CWP would have no obligation to notify a LEO that they are carrying, but the person who has their CWP would be required to notify (not necessarily that they're carrying, but that they at least have a permit).

 

[kelcarry]

Referring to reply #51 by AndeyHall:
Not sure what you are saying but common sense (and, of course that is not legal sense) tells me that the restaurant carry is for CCWP holders only as an expansion of the CC laws currently on the books. Ya gotta gave a CCWP to be CC and the new law now allows you to use your license to CC in the restaurant---this would also mean that you would be required to "notify" if you have police business with an LEO at that time. If an LEO comes into a restaurant and sits near you and carries on a personal customer to customer conversation---IMO--you are NOT required to notify--it is not LEO/police business--he is just someone eating in a restaurant.

 

[John Canuck]

23-31-215 says in part:

When carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4 of Chapter 31 of Title 23, a permit holder must inform a law enforcement officer of the fact that he is a permit holder and present the permit identification card when an officer (1) identifies himself as a law enforcement officer and (2) requests identification or a driver's license from a permit holder.

South Carolina Legislature Mobile

I see no confusion. If you are carrying a concealed weapon under the circumstances identified above, you follow the quoted section of SC Code. If not, don't. That doesn't mean your local LEO won't be confused. I expect a lot of that.

 

[AndeyHall]

Referring to reply #51 by AndeyHall:
Not sure what you are saying but common sense (and, of course that is not legal sense) tells me that the restaurant carry is for CCWP holders only as an expansion of the CC laws currently on the books. Ya gotta gave a CCWP to be CC and the new law now allows you to use your license to CC in the restaurant---this would also mean that you would be required to "notify" if you have police business with an LEO at that time. If an LEO comes into a restaurant and sits near you and carries on a personal customer to customer conversation---IMO--you are NOT required to notify--it is not LEO/police business--he is just someone eating in a restaurant.

I wasn't saying anything about restaurant carry, and I wasn't questioning the circumstances under which you must notify an officer. That part is perfectly clear. What I'm asking is, if 115 passes, and the "pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23" part is stricken out, but the CWP laws themselves (there's a whole section of laws about how to get a CWP and what a CWP holder's responsibilities are) are left on the books, then if I get pulled over and I'm carrying and still have a valid CWP, must I present it or not? Am I still carrying pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 or not?

Also, say this passes this session. People are going to see hopefully here in a couple of weeks how restaurant carry passes all over the news. Then a couple months later they're going to see on the news how they no longer need a CWP. What the news more than likely isn't going to explain is that there are several things still on the books that you will need a CWP, like restaurant carry or reciprocity in other states. I also doubt very seriously they're going to hop on SLED or the state house's website and study up. It just seems like it's going to make criminals out of a lot of people who are going to assume that they can carry all the same places they could had they have gotten a CWP. I'm all for the law, I just think they need to either get rid of the CWP process entirely and remove Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 from the books, or the media needs to invest a lot of effort and time into informing people that just because they no longer need a CWP doesn't necessarily mean that they no longer need a CWP.

 

[mrjam2jab]

Also, say this passes this session. People are going to see hopefully here in a couple of weeks how restaurant carry passes all over the news. Then a couple months later they're going to see on the news how they no longer need a CWP. What the news more than likely isn't going to explain is that there are several things still on the books that you will need a CWP, like restaurant carry or reciprocity in other states. I also doubt very seriously they're going to hop on SLED or the state house's website and study up. It just seems like it's going to make criminals out of a lot of people who are going to assume that they can carry all the same places they could had they have gotten a CWP. I'm all for the law, I just think they need to either get rid of the CWP process entirely and remove Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 from the books, or the media needs to invest a lot of effort and time into informing people that just because they no longer need a CWP doesn't necessarily mean that they no longer need a CWP.

FWIW....when AZ went ConCarry these were things that the news did indeed cover. So it is possible.

RE: must inform...It does specifically state "a permit holder must inform"...so if one is carrying without a permit then DTI goes out the window. My interpretation of course.

 

[AndeyHall]

FWIW....when AZ went ConCarry these were things that the news did indeed cover. So it is possible.

RE: must inform...It does specifically state "a permit holder must inform"...so if one is carrying without a permit then DTI goes out the window. My interpretation of course.

I believe I'll just let my permit expire then if it passes.

 

[jhodge83]

I believe I'll just let my permit expire then if it passes.

then you have to worry about carrying out of state in states that dont allow open or constitutional. same reason AZ kept their permit in place.

 

[AndeyHall]

then you have to worry about carrying out of state in states that dont allow open or constitutional. same reason AZ kept their permit in place.

I was actually thinking about letting it expire anyways cause I'm covered under LEOSA. This way if I don't have it then there's no obligation to notify.

 

[kelcarry]

Questions and points of clarification from an old and lazy man to recent repliers.
1. Are you telling me that I do not have to have a CCWP if new firearm laws in SC are enacted? I should note that I do not CC outside of SC
2. Restaurant carry: Must I have an SC CCWP for CC in restaurant or, per Item 1, CCWP in SC is just becoming a moot point.
I would like to thank many repliers for providing information that, as a responsible firearm owner and current CCWP holder, is finding very enlightening and informative, given my age and laziness. I kind of have allowed the forum comments to guide my knowledge without sitting down and really reading these new and pending firearm laws. Thanks again members.

 

[AndeyHall]

Questions and points of clarification from an old and lazy man to recent repliers.
1. Are you telling me that I do not have to have a CCWP if new firearm laws in SC are enacted? I should note that I do not CC outside of SC
2. Restaurant carry: Must I have an SC CCWP for CC in restaurant or, per Item 1, CCWP in SC is just becoming a moot point.
I would like to thank many repliers for providing information that, as a responsible firearm owner and current CCWP holder, is finding very enlightening and informative, given my age and laziness. I kind of have allowed the forum comments to guide my knowledge without sitting down and really reading these new and pending firearm laws. Thanks again members.

Since this bill mentions nothing outside of just carrying itself, then I would assume you need a CWP to be able to have your gun in your vehicle on public school properly, or to apply at all to anything in S308. There may be other things I don't know. But we know what happens when we assume so I don't know for sure.