South Carolina panel approves Concealed Carrybill

[crsides]

Well Grog, I still live in SC and I will have to say yes, yes and yes to CowboyKen. We don't have car inspections and you can still buy fireworks here.

I didn't like having to go to the class, especially the second time after my first CWP expired. They used to send you a notice in the mail, now you have to remember every 4 yrs. plus the cost went from $35 to $80.

But, I also agree with the poster that said a lot of people needed that class, and probably some follow up classes to boot. I will bet that was the first time some in the class ever fired a handgun, and I doubt they have fired one since.


Charlie

 

[kewpie]

Well Grog, I still live in SC and I will have to say yes, yes and yes to CowboyKen. We don't

have car inspections and you can still buy fireworks here.

I didn't like having to go to the class, especially the second time after my first CWP expired. They used to send you a notice in the mail, now you have to remember every 4 yrs. plus the cost went from $35 to $80.

But, I also agree with the poster that said a lot of people needed that class, and probably some follow up classes to boot. I will bet that was the first time some in the class ever fired a handgun, and I doubt they have fired one since.


Charlie

Could you please explain what the 'yesses' are agreeing with? I'm not totally sure I follow.

 

[rickyboy]

I am hoping Michigan will do the same thing that S.C. has.

 

[Grog]

....................

Could you please explain what the 'yesses' are agreeing with? I'm not totally sure I follow.

Why would you think this would be a problem in South Carolina? Are folks there less intelligent then the rest of us? More violent by nature? Have some other disorder? Let us know. Thanks.

 

[tomshilling]

As a SC resident, and a long-time CWP holder in several neighboring states, I hope the legislation does not pass. The current CWP process is at least a minimal deterrant to keep honest but incompetent "gunners" away from carrying concealed weapons.

I agree that the 1st Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms... but the complete text references "an armed militita being necessary to secure freedom. An Armed Militia would be trained in the use of weapons.

As to the comment about since there is no testing involved in free speech or voting.... not even a good analogy since if you are an incompetent speaker, my life would not be in jeapordy if you mis-spoke. Nor would a failed voting attempt on your part put my life in danger. Someone carrying a concealed weapon that didn't know how to safely or properly handle a weapon WOULD jeapordize my life! My CWP class had several people that failed the shooting portion of the class. No, it's not that hard, and if someone can't hit a B27 target at 10 feet, they rightfully are declined a permit to carry a firearm (IMHO).

You are REQUIRED by the state to show that you can safely and properly operate a car before you get a driving license. One rarely reads about someone being killed by accidentally discharging a car. A weapon that can be concealed REQUIRES proficiency testing by the state in order to grant some sense of security to the citizens of that state. I don't care if you own a bazooka as long as you keep it in your home. But if you plan to tote it to the local grocery store, you had better believe I support testing and some sort of proficiency testing by the state to allow you to carry it with you and be in my presence.

God help us if every arthritic senior citizen and judgement-lacking Rambo-wannabe in SC is allowed to carry concealed without any testing or permit class. At least if they have weapons they are incompetent with in their home, they are not endangering the general public. Once they leave their home and are in the presence of me or my family, I support mandatory training, testing, and firing qualifications for Concealed Weapons. The constitutional founders idea of a militia is now a historical footnote... although I would grant a waiver to any active-duty or retired Military or police with a positive discharge and no psychiatric issues tied to their leaving the service.

 

[Grog]

Driving a car on public roads is not a right. Does anyone see stories in VT of people who are not trained having gun accidents and otherwise endangering the public?

 

[st regis]

......big difference between rights and privileges.....often get confused...have worked hundreds of fatal wrecks in the last 24 years...most involved properly licensed, dead drivers......can only think of two accidental shootings.....one - a local high school student shot himself at a basketball game....second-armed robber shot his dugan off causing his accomplice to flee.....already against the law for those two to have a gun.....go figure...

 

[tom turner]

SC has been an odd-ball state in the south for years on CCW. This has locked the good citizens of SC the benefit of reciprocity with other southern states.

THE RUB?

SC required other states have equal "qualifications" for CCW licenses . . . but many other states around them had more minimal requirements. Thus, a licensed person from neighboring states was denied carry in SC. So, the other states denied SC license holders rights to carry in our states.

It's all so stooo-pid anyway. I would have instantly qualified for a SC license, based on my background, if I'd lived there. But, since my state had laxer qualifications, I was denied in SC.

Now they seem to be swinging wildly the other way. It is hurting licensed SC permit-holders the worst. Most other states won't reciprocate.

Frankly, we all shouldn't have to pay our states a gob of money to legally carry our firearms anyway! We shouldn't have to keep paying in order to exercise our rights.

 

[The Big D]

Well said!

Be safe.

As a SC resident, and a long-time CWP holder in several neighboring states, I hope the legislation does not pass. The current CWP process is at least a minimal deterrant to keep honest but incompetent "gunners" away from carrying concealed weapons.

I agree that the 1st Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms... but the complete text references "an armed militita being necessary to secure freedom. An Armed Militia would be trained in the use of weapons.

As to the comment about since there is no testing involved in free speech or voting.... not even a good analogy since if you are an incompetent speaker, my life would not be in jeapordy if you mis-spoke. Nor would a failed voting attempt on your part put my life in danger. Someone carrying a concealed weapon that didn't know how to safely or properly handle a weapon WOULD jeapordize my life! My CWP class had several people that failed the shooting portion of the class. No, it's not that hard, and if someone can't hit a B27 target at 10 feet, they rightfully are declined a permit to carry a firearm (IMHO).

You are REQUIRED by the state to show that you can safely and properly operate a car before you get a driving license. One rarely reads about someone being killed by accidentally discharging a car. A weapon that can be concealed REQUIRES proficiency testing by the state in order to grant some sense of security to the citizens of that state. I don't care if you own a bazooka as long as you keep it in your home. But if you plan to tote it to the local grocery store, you had better believe I support testing and some sort of proficiency testing by the state to allow you to carry it with you and be in my presence.

God help us if every arthritic senior citizen and judgement-lacking Rambo-wannabe in SC is allowed to carry concealed without any testing or permit class. At least if they have weapons they are incompetent with in their home, they are not endangering the general public. Once they leave their home and are in the presence of me or my family, I support mandatory training, testing, and firing qualifications for Concealed Weapons. The constitutional founders idea of a militia is now a historical footnote... although I would grant a waiver to any active-duty or retired Military or police with a positive discharge and no psychiatric issues tied to their leaving the service.

 

[palmetto99]

I have mixed feelings about the no-permit-required law. In theory, in a perfect world, I have no problem. But, I've seen too many people that have no business handling firearms let alone owning one. And it never fails that when you try to make them aware, they will act as if you are the @$$. The yahoo that has an AD in the Wal-Mart spooks me. Can a CWP holder have an AD in public, yeah, but I see it less likely to happen.

I just don't want to give any ammunition (big pun) to the anti-gun side and I fear that the yahoo's get more air time than they deserve.

At this point, I am ready to take my beating.

 

[vytoland]

here in illinopis we are in the rear of the pack..............far , far , in the rear.

 

[kewpie]

....................

I thot that's what it meant but wanted to be sure. I guess it sort of befuddled me, coming from a S Carolinian.

 

[Moondancer]

As a SC resident, and a long-time CWP holder in several neighboring states, I hope the legislation does not pass. The current CWP process is at least a minimal deterrant to keep honest but incompetent "gunners" away from carrying concealed weapons.

I agree that the 1st Amendment gives Americans the right to bear arms... but the complete text references "an armed militita being necessary to secure freedom. An Armed Militia would be trained in the use of weapons.

As to the comment about since there is no testing involved in free speech or voting.... not even a good analogy since if you are an incompetent speaker, my life would not be in jeapordy if you mis-spoke. Nor would a failed voting attempt on your part put my life in danger. Someone carrying a concealed weapon that didn't know how to safely or properly handle a weapon WOULD jeapordize my life! My CWP class had several people that failed the shooting portion of the class. No, it's not that hard, and if someone can't hit a B27 target at 10 feet, they rightfully are declined a permit to carry a firearm (IMHO).

You are REQUIRED by the state to show that you can safely and properly operate a car before you get a driving license. One rarely reads about someone being killed by accidentally discharging a car. A weapon that can be concealed REQUIRES proficiency testing by the state in order to grant some sense of security to the citizens of that state. I don't care if you own a bazooka as long as you keep it in your home. But if you plan to tote it to the local grocery store, you had better believe I support testing and some sort of proficiency testing by the state to allow you to carry it with you and be in my presence.

God help us if every arthritic senior citizen and judgement-lacking Rambo-wannabe in SC is allowed to carry concealed without any testing or permit class. At least if they have weapons they are incompetent with in their home, they are not endangering the general public. Once they leave their home and are in the presence of me or my family, I support mandatory training, testing, and firing qualifications for Concealed Weapons. The constitutional founders idea of a militia is now a historical footnote... although I would grant a waiver to any active-duty or retired Military or police with a positive discharge and no psychiatric issues tied to their leaving the service.

Might want to re-read your Constitution there, bud. First of all, it's the Second Amendment, not the First. Second, your wording is wrong. A quick Google search Let me google that for you will help you there.

And, for me, a politician's take on my right to keep and bear arms is a litmus test that indicates how that politician views me: as a subject or a citizen.
I respectfully must disagree with your opinion. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a right, not a privilege, sir, and is not something we want politicians to play with.

 

[howardsrock]

I am a former South Carolinian and held a CWP when I lived there. I now live in Georgia. I find it odd that SC is making such a big swing in the law. Obtaining a CWP in SC was a pain in the butt, training classes, then background check and then wait for a long damn time (for me it was almost 3 months). In GA you pay about $70 bucks get a background check and wait a couple of weeks. No big deal. I am fine with that. Now for SC to go from one extreme to the other, seems rather odd.

Also, to my knowledge, SC does not reciprocate with GA. This is because SC has never recognized GA due to the ease of obtainment in GA. Using that logic, if this law passes South Carolinians will have no permit to carry which could be reciprocated and thus leave them land locked. Am I missing something here?

Basically, I just wish that SC would follow GA so I could carry there. Also, for those complaining about the background check, it eliminates the need to get one done at time of purchase. So, I'd rather do it once and not have to do it every time I purchase a gun. Again, if SC does away with the background check for carry, then every time you purchase in SC you will have to sit there and wait for the background check.

Anyway, given these two points, if I still lived in SC I would not support this law. I am missing something?

 

[Grog]

Anyway, given these two points, if I still lived in SC I would not support this law. I am missing something?

States that switch to no permit required have still offered permits to those who want them. That way you could still bypass the (sometimes) insta-check and also carry in other states.

 

[dynamike]

Somehow I can't help feeling that this won't fly!