The next state to pass constitutional carry looks like it’s going to be South Carolina. In the race between the Palmetto State and Florida to become the 26th member of the Permitless Carry Club, S.C. seems to have the inside position.
From the AP . . .
The 90-30 vote brings the conservative state one step closer to joining 25 others with some form of so-called “constitutional carry” laws. The fate of the state’s latest effort to loosen gun restrictions once more falls to the Senate, where lawmakers rejected a similar proposal two years ago.
“This will open up options for families to protect themselves without a permit,” said Republican Rep. Bobby Cox, the bill’s leading sponsor. “South Carolinians can still get the training they need. But they don’t need a permission slip to exercise that right.”
Well no, they shouldn’t. And soon more than half the country will have removed that hurdle.
The measure would restrict people from bringing guns into detention centers, courthouses, polling places, government offices, school athletic events, schools, religious sanctuaries and doctor’s offices, among other locations.
On-duty law enforcement, Armed Forces, National Guard, state militia and members of the judiciary are exempt from those restrictions. After some discussion, lawmakers added public defenders and county clerks of court to the list but explicitly barred them from carrying concealed weapons into correctional facilities.
The measure would effectively lower the age at which South Carolinians can carry a concealed gun. State law allows anyone 18 or older to purchase a gun. But concealed weapons permits have only been available to people over 21 years old.
The bill also reiterates the prohibition on carrying by people convicted of felonies, not that convicted felons who carry guns now pay much attention to what’s already on the books that prohibits that kind of thing.
“When you show up to a crime scene and everyone’s carrying guns on their hip, guess what, that’s dangerous,” [Democratic Rep. Seth] Rose said. “Law enforcement doesn’t know who the good guys are and the bad guys are. And a lot of times we don’t want good guys acting like law enforcement and making a bad situation worse.”
[Republican Rep. Bobby] Cox supported the effort he said both protects law abiding gun owners and targets violent criminals. Cox said lawmakers worked extensively on the bill with the National Rifle Association, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and local sheriffs.
Republican Rep. Weston Newton suggested the additional “felon-in-possession statute” was necessary to secure support from law enforcement groups who wanted more tools to crack down on repeat offenders charged with misdemeanor gun possession.
Whatever. The usual horse-trading. If it allows supporters to claim law enforcement doesn’t oppose constitutional carry…fine. As a practical matter, that language will have zero influence on whether criminals carry firearms, whatever their record may be.
![By Larry Keane President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them. It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal. Blaming the ‘Resistance’ President Biden was joined by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams for a “Gun Violence Strategies Partnership” meeting to talk about how to solve the crime surge, particularly those involving firearms. Instead of real solutions, the focus devolved into blaming law-abiding gun owners and again pushing a gun control agenda. “Enough is enough,” President Biden said. “Because we know we can do things about this, but for the resistance, we’re getting from some sectors of the government and the Congress and the state legislatures, and the organizational structures out there.” That “resistance” the president spoke of is the American people. Over the past two years they’ve become fed up with police defunding policies and soft-on-crime prosecutors, like Manhattan’s Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg. They’ve invested in their own safety. The “resistance” is the 21 million lawful gun buyers in 2020, including more than 8.4 million first-time buyers, and the 18.5 million gun buyers in 2021, with more than 5.4 million first-timers. The ”resistance” has backstopped Congress from passing federal gun control that don’t address crime. It also stopped President Biden’s nominations of paid gun control lobbyist David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and banking activist Saule Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency because not even all U.S. Senate Democrats could support them. They would have turned those agencies into bludgeons to hammer the firearm industry to achieve a special interest, gun control agenda. Favorite Falsehoods The president turned his aim from lawful gun owners towards the firearm industry and repeated a lie he’s rehearsed several times before. “Imagine had we had a liabil… [sic] they’re the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. Only one,” the president protested. “Why the gun manufacturers?… It’s got to end. They’ve got to be held responsible for the things they do that are irresponsible.” He repeated the claim for emphasis. “And I find that outrageous.” This is flatly false. The president knows by now, or his speechwriters do and they don’t bother with the facts. CNN, Politicfact and Washington Post have all checked President Biden on his remark, including after he said it in the White House Rose Garden. CNN cleanly rebuked it. “This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.” Politifact rated it “false.” Washington Post wasn’t kinder, saying, “Biden is wrong to claim the gun industry is totally immune.” The firearm industry has liability protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), bipartisan legislation enacted under former President George W. Bush. The firearm industry cannot be held liable when unaffiliated third-parties, in this case criminals, misuse a legal, lawfully sold product. It’s fundamental tort law and is similar to an individual attempting to hold Ford and Budweiser responsible for drunk driving deaths. The law was passed in direct response to lawsuits filed against the industry by control groups and municipalities like the city of New York and the state of New York. These type of lawsuit continue to be filed, now even by foreign governments represented by the same gun control group, the Brady Center. Colonial-Era Error President Biden continued to ignore facts on the Second Amendment and its history. He even erred when speaking about the Revolution-era days and why the right to keep and bear arms was so sacrosanct. “When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” President Biden remarked. “You couldn’t buy a cannon, and when – the – when this, uh, this amendment was passed.” It did, and does, say the right of the People “shall not be infringed.” Even The Washington Post was brutal in their assignment of “Four Pinocchio’s” to this statement. “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.” In fact, the Constitution of early America – before the Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, was even ratified – granted and encouraged “special waivers” to American merchants and sailors, “allowing private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it.” Americans given waivers and who owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle. In fact, it is still perfectly legal to buy a cannon today. It is the presidents’ fundamental misunderstanding and blatant lying about the Second Amendment that informs his gun control agenda and misguided approach to solving the crime problem. Millions of law-abiding Americans took ownership of their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, understanding the president won’t. Instead of mangling the meaning of the right and pushing for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, the president should keep it simple. Take on the criminals and punish them for breaking the law.](https://cdn-ilbhaoh.nitrocdn.com/bgKlmMbwrWXRONuqEtcbCEpELIavckvt/assets/images/optimized/rev-5059075/cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/download-26-218x150.jpeg "Harris is a Human Disinformation Campaign When It Comes to Guns")
““When you show up to a crime scene and everyone’s carrying guns on their hip, guess what, that’s dangerous,” [Democratic Rep. Seth] Rose said.”
Stupid bitch…
Quoted from a concerned Democrat legislator as per the article:
“…Law enforcement doesn’t know who the good guys are and the bad guys are. And a lot of times we don’t want good guys acting like law enforcement…”
News flash. Most of us don’t know who the good guys are and the bad guys are. Hence the entire notion of carrying in order to protect oneself in the case that something goes unexpectedly sideways. And as far as good guys acting like law enforcement, if LE isn’t immediately present at a criminal shooting, do you really want the bad guy(s) to continue shooting because you don’t like the idea of a good guy stepping in and saving lives?
“What a moroon…”
– Bugs Bunny
Yep. And as is demonstrated on an unfortunately frequent basis, sometimes the “bad guys” ARE the law enforcement. Sorting out the perps from the victims and bystanders is just part of the job. Shouldn’t make any difference either way – and even when bad guys are caught with guns, usually the firearms charges are the first to be plea bargained away. Might as well just rescind those laws, given how infrequent they are used to convict a truly bad guy.
I’m troubled by the prohibition on carrying a firearm at church. The default position should be that you can automatically carry at church, unless the church tells you otherwise.
I always carry at church, and would not attend a church where they wouldn’t allow it.
In a common law, constitutional Republic, the public servants can only do those things permitted to them by privilege.
=
What is not specifically allowed, is absolutely denied.
=
As RKBA is DOUBLY protected by the lack of privilege to act upon RKBA and with the Second Amendment, then all current gun laws on possession of RKBA are patently unconstitutional.
=
“I’m troubled by the prohibition on carrying a firearm at church.”
Florida used to be that way, so we lobbied the state government, and got it changed.
(In my church’s situation, we ignored the law, so it didn’t change what we were doing…)
I agree. There has been too many shootings by nut a case in church. Also, only felons that were convicted of violent crimes should be restricted from carrying a gun. The rest of them paid their debt to society and are no more of a threat than anyone else.
Muck, who knew 20 cops showing up with guns an their hips is dangerous. Or is it the legal firearms owner who hasn’t actually committed any crimes that are dangerous?
We had a hero here in Colorado that stopped a murderer. He was shot and killed by a responding officer that was nervous and quick to shoot. I forget the exact circumstances of the incident but I think I would feel more comfortable with 20 open carriers and I’m sorry to have to say I feel that way.
As a learning issue never pick up the murderers weapon and holster yours immediately after the threat is over.
Was that the guy who picked up the perp’s AR and was holding it when the responding cop arrived on scene and assumed the good guy was bad?
https://www.crimeonline.com/2021/06/25/cops-colorado-good-samaritan-was-holding-suspects-ar-15-when-he-was-shot-by-police/
Unfortunately that’s him.
Yes! Just kick it out of the way if it is too close to a shooter who is not dead, but never pick it up.
“When you show up to a crime scene and everyone’s carrying guns on their hip, guess what, that’s dangerous,”
you mean the police?
That must be her problem, she is afraid of “everyone” and even more so if everyone is permitted to carry without a permission slip from the government. They don’t get it that even if everyone is permitted that no one is required.
Long ago came to the conclusion that most politicians and others in power who do not support civilian firearm ownership have ideas of what to do to people that they are afraid they would get shot for trying.
souf calinky.
Any Republican in the State Senate that votes to deny the citizens their Constitutional rights need to be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail. At the very least their pictures should be put up on billboards across the state so everyone knows who is responsible for denying you.
Why only the R’s?
Democrats are scum in most instances. See people like Schumer and Schiff. But those that claim to be conservative and followers of our Constitution that subsequently deny us our God given Constitutional rights are absolute traitorous trash that deserve hot tar and ridicule and also have no business pretending to represent us.
Meant to say Constitutionally confirmed rights listed in the Bill of Rights.
“As a practical matter, that language will have zero influence on whether criminals carry firearms, whatever their record may be.”
Amen!
Rename it the severely restricted carry permitless law, like we have in Texas.
With a side of carve outs.
End carveouts entirely. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
This “some animals are more equal than other animals” nonsense needs to be called out and stopped.
California considering ending police carve outs in regards to the permitted handgun models allowed to be purchased in state. Ironically a good piece of gun legislation coming from there
@ De Facto….“some animals are more equal than other animals” nonsense needs to be called out and stopped.
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?ei=UTF-8&hsimp=yhs-att_001&hspart=att&p=viceo+of+chimpanzee+shooting+an+ak47#id=1&vid=b487939cc31b628b065435610cb30133&action=click
@Ed,
I can go one better…here in CA, open carry is prohibited by law since 2012 (thanks for nothing, former Gov Jerry Brown), so the only option we have is to apply for a CCW.
But wait…you can still be denied if your County’s Sheriff doesn’t want to approve you. You’d think Bruen would have dismantled our “good cause” requirement, but it’s simply been given a new term, and you still must go through the application process, the exorbitant fees, the BGC, the interview, and the insanely lengthy waiting period. At least in Los Angeles. As some of you already know, I applied for mine before Bruen and passed the “good cause” interview, but the entire process took 12 months, with others telling me it took them 14 months. One of my friends submitted his application at the time Bruen was finalized, and he’s still waiting 8 months later to receive any word of its status because our new Democrat Sheriff Luna doesn’t believe in CCWs for private citizens and the CCW Dept has not been properly staffed under his watch. So it’s anybody’s guess how long an application will take for final approval.
Which circles us back around to the question…if we can’t OC, and must still request permission to CC, and you must wait a very long time and pay a lot of money to get that permission, is California really following Bruen at all?
Methinks no.
@Ed Schrade Considering handgun carry was almost impossible 20 years ago in Texas, we are doing quite well. While carrying a rifle or shotgun was always allowed, carrying a useful knife or handgun was verboten just a few years ago. Strangely liberal stronghold Vermont was the only truly free unrestricted open carry /concealed carry for the entire state’s existence.
“The measure would restrict people from bringing guns into detention centers, courthouses, polling places, government offices, school athletic events, schools, religious sanctuaries and doctor’s offices, among other locations.”
This part makes the whole bill almost pointless and will require us to either leave our guns in our vehicles or at home.
“Cox said lawmakers worked extensively on the bill with the National Rifle Association, South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and local sheriffs.”
Ah found the problems. Wouldn’t want any actual freedom to get voted into law, now would we.
We can carry almost everywhere is South Carolina. The restricted places generally have armed security. The ones that don’t you hardly ever go to. We can even carry at the beach and state parks.
The Dems here in CA are actively working on a bill that will severely restrict CCW holders from carrying in most places. Has absolutely no effect whatsoever on criminals, only the law-abiding who have already gone through all the BGC & training process to obtain their permits. Both Newsom and the bill authors have openly stated they’re doing this as an attempt to poke Constitutional Carry states in the eye.
Meanwhile, crime continues to rise here. But whatever, right?…
In reality when the utter madness of this far right political stunt is finally realized, which will result in untold amounts of unnecessary deaths, South Carolina will realize that without proper training of both the State’s deadly force laws as well as knowledge of safe gun handling they will bring back training and permits before a person is permitted to carry a deadly weapon. In the meantime the undertakers will make hordes of morbid cash.
Just like the other 25 states with typically even less restrictive laws? Pretty sure my neighbors in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine would find this assertation funny.
It’s just the paranoid far left fascists that fear honest folks with guns. How can you oppress an armed people?
That’s okay Dacian. The dried blood in the streets will help protect the asphalt from excessive traffic wear. Although there may be some runoff issues that could clog the storm sewers.
You’re almost certainly aware, given your superior leftist intellect, that the vast majority of gun-related homicides are by those who neither possess, or would qualify to possess, a valid CCW?
I’d submit that even if permitless carry resulted in more deaths, it wouldn’t necessarily be “unnecessary” deaths if the correct people are being shot. In fact, ultimately it may result in a decline in homicides if you remove a significant number of the serial criminals from the population – permanently.
“I’d submit that even if permitless carry resulted in more deaths, it wouldn’t necessarily be “unnecessary” deaths if the correct people are being shot.”
But your Honor! He needed killing!
Thar ya go…case dismissed.
Heh. Roy Bean has dead for a long time.
Another MARXIST foot soldier “CRYING WOLF”!!!
😂
Great to hear that South Carolina might be going to the permitless carry for firearms. Can I assume that when, and if, the Permitless carry passes, it won’t have anything to do with the “Open Carry” provision of SC. law in which CWP license holders can also carry open as well as concealed. Honestly, I prefer the system we have now in SC. Even though I have the CWP, which entitles me to carry openly as well as concealed, I prefer carrying concealed since I feel that if the “bad guys” don’t know I’m carrying, then I have a slight edge if I have to bring my weapon into play. Will the “Permitless carry” do away with the concealed/open carry option we have now? Thanks.
Is a valid question. I live in UpState SC and was wondering that listening to the radio news about this. To be honest, I’ve seen exactly one person Open Carry and he was an ancient man with a 1911.
The Open Carry option did solve an issue if someone happened to notice, such as if your clothes rode up while reaching for something on a top shelf in a store. Either way it goes it will not affect me as I carry concealed at all times.
“To be honest, I’ve seen exactly one person Open Carry and he was an ancient man with a 1911.”
Thats how he got to be ancient!
Likewise, I carry almost all the time. Why? Because the police are not able to protect ordinary citizens. The Supreme Court says that police are not required to do so. As I wrote in earlier email, the Supreme Court has decreed that the police are not required to protect everyone, just “society as a whole”, whatever that means! ‘So, basically, I am responsible for my own safety, so I will be prepared and equipped to do so.
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/bills/3594.htm
No mention of nonresident, out of state gun owners, or changes to reciprocity so on to waiting for more details.
I haven’t read the bill, but if it doesn’t address these specific things, and is passed and signed as it is written, then current law that does address them would govern.
Yeah worst case locked glovebox for the car.
I believe that most states with permitless carry also have a permit option. This covers the accidental open carry (wind blows your jacket open) exposure, but probably more importantly provides reciprocity between states that are not permitless, but do recognize out-of-state permits.
Where I live we can carry premit-less both open and concealed, no concerns here with your gun being revealed by the wind blowing a coat open. Can still get a permit though if you want one.
Basically the same in OH now that we have permitless carry. We’ve had open carry with no license requirement forever (except in vehicles), then added concealed carry with a CHL some time in the ’90s, then recently added permitless carry. The wife and I will maintain our CHLs, and our daughter will soon get one, for state reciprocity purposes. Also, the CHL may be acccepted in lieu of the NICS check, but most FFLs run it anyhow for liability purposes.
“prefer carrying concealed since I feel that if the “bad guys” don’t know I’m carrying, then I have a slight edge if I have to bring my weapon into play.”
just curious… why do you ‘feel’ you would have a slight edge with concealed carry?
I’m interested in why people say they ‘feel’ or ‘believe’ that concealed carry gives them an ‘edge’.
Cool now to see if I can carry with NY as the resident CC permit if this makes it through the senate and gets a signature.
It’s not a done deal. Beware state senate RINO’s.
One day there may be a waaaaay past due vote to overwhelmingly Abolish Gun Control. Followed by an overwhelming vote to stop in one way or another the criminal misuse of firearms, bricks, bats, knives, fists, feet, vehicles, etc.
i would vote against it
for the no church carry provision
because church
is the last place
that i wont carry
Understand the sentiment but it has no place in the fight for our rights. Take everything you can get no matter how small, deny the opponent any ground wherever possible and return to take more when you reinforce your position. It is decades past time we respond in kind.
“It is decades past time we respond in kind.”
Exactly! Tired of the go along to get along routine.
It seems the “go along to get along” has only gotten POTG behind.
SAFEupstateFML has a great point – voting against any incremental victory out of principal may sound like holding a hardline but it’s self-defeating in the long run. And that’s also a case for the (certainly) odious carve outs but those carve outs assure support from interest groups and voting blocks. Even though I’ve been included in a carve out or two I don’t like them but I get why they happen. Eventually, hopefully, the need for any carve outs wither on the vine to reuse be of the Gipper’s favorite phrases.
SAFEupstateFML has a great point – voting against any incremental victory out of principal may sound like holding a hardline but it’s self-defeating in the long run. And that’s also a case for the (certainly) odious carve outs but those carve outs assure support from interest groups and voting blocks. Even though I’ve been included in a carve out or two I don’t like them but I get why they happen. Eventually, hopefully, the need for any carve outs wither on the vine to reuse one of the Gipper’s favorite phrases.
Tell that to the families of those who were killed the last time there was a shooting at a church.
I did, lost family of my own to firearms but the shooters were government officials in the former USSR so sorry but freedom trumps feelings.
The good is no override is needed “only” the senat must act
https://apnews.com/article/bills-gun-politics-south-carolina-henry-mcmaster-7c3942eb0d154efaa58061e77902a815
I have a couple questions for those who are demanding more restrictions, bans, confiscations, licensing schemes, or other laws.
First is just what law would have prevented someone who ignores the law from finding a way of arming themselves? Second, how do you plan to enforce such laws when even current laws are being ignored or are not enforced?
Do you not realize those with criminal intent will find a way of arming themselves or giving themselves an advantage over their potential victims?
If someone could make every single firearm on the North American continent disappear today, within minutes some enterprising criminal would be on their phone, computer or other means of communication and figuring out how to smuggle in shipping containers of arms and ammunition. With the sheer numbers of shipments coming into the country every day, at least half would get past customs and border control. Just as smuggled drugs or firearms do now.
So my question now is, what is the makeup of the Senate.
If it is better than a 2/3 majority, they should be able to pass it veto proof regardless of what the governor does or says, and then it becomes law.
According to SC senator Shane Martin, who authored the bill two years ago that failed 21-25, it’s 23-23 before needing to apply pressure.
Poor dacian, his home state of Ohio has constitutional carry. “How dare they” he says.
And now,,,,,,,,,
Out in the streets there was violence
And lots of work to be done
Working so hard like a soldier
Still cant kill everyone
Ohh No
We’ve got to rock down to an electric gatling gun
And then we’ll take the body count higher
Higher
Calm down, possum. Take your Valium and relax. Same people argued back when concealed carry was passed, that there would be a wave of deaths due to that concealed carry being passed. Turns out, not so much of a wave. The person who chooses to carry, whether concealed or open, should get training in using his/her weapon. After all, there are plenty of Liberal politicians who think an inanimate object (gun) is so evil that it must be destroyed. As a responsible gun owner/carrier, I chose to get the training necessary to safely carry and use that weapon, just as I would with any tool that I purchased
All this is moot unless the bill has a chance passing the state senate and going to the governor’s desk for a signature. How is the political wind blowing in the Palmetto state?
Comments are closed.