User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 2:17:56 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man: This. Many of the places on that list is unchanged from the previous version. I agree with this and why I said that the "other's home" was moved from a different bill to this one. The thing is, those who don't go through the training and just carry might not know it. Especially since it doesn't seem to be being talked about in the media. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 2:26:35 PM EDT
[#2]
I read the language of the bill over the past couple of days. I could not find if it defines that these constitutional carry rights are only given to residents of SC or if out-of-state citizens can participate. For example, in Alabama, it's anyone over 19 and 18 with a LE/military background.
The question: Can residents of other states carry in SC without a CWP? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 2:28:02 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RoccoOnFire: I agree in principle. I just don't think it should be backed by the government. I think a business should maintain the right to ask someone to leave for any reason, or have that person be trespassed if they refuse. If you get made carrying a gun and are asked to leave I believe that the owner has a right to ask you to leave. If they want to go so far as to put up metal detectors or some other invasive measure to weed out people bringing in weapons, sure go ahead. They're just going to suffer from the business repercussions of being invasive as to what is under someone's clothing. I don't believe it should automatically be a crime to walk into a business open to the public because the owner doesn't want an object in their store that isn't visible and has no effect on anyone. If they want to take measure to enforce their policy, let them do it on their own, and use trespass mechanisms or others means to enforce their policies. We shouldn't be supporting their policies by handing out three year prison terms because someone found out you walked into a posted, but not otherwise prohibited by law, building. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Originally Posted By BlackRifleJihad: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: The next step is to de-fang carry signs. I think private business should be able to do what they want or are you talking about public property? Let private business suffer with their choices to exclude a certain type of customer! Vote with your wallet! I agree in principle. I just don't think it should be backed by the government. I think a business should maintain the right to ask someone to leave for any reason, or have that person be trespassed if they refuse. If you get made carrying a gun and are asked to leave I believe that the owner has a right to ask you to leave. If they want to go so far as to put up metal detectors or some other invasive measure to weed out people bringing in weapons, sure go ahead. They're just going to suffer from the business repercussions of being invasive as to what is under someone's clothing. I don't believe it should automatically be a crime to walk into a business open to the public because the owner doesn't want an object in their store that isn't visible and has no effect on anyone. If they want to take measure to enforce their policy, let them do it on their own, and use trespass mechanisms or others means to enforce their policies. We shouldn't be supporting their policies by handing out three year prison terms because someone found out you walked into a posted, but not otherwise prohibited by law, building. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well may be, it's been a while since I took my class and trying to read that mess gives me a headache, but if you have a permit you don't get charged unless you refuse to leave (trespass with the add on weapons charge) do you? Not that I'd ever ignore a sign. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 2:54:42 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By rhutchinson759: I read the language of the bill over the past couple of days. I could not find if it defines that these constitutional carry rights are only given to residents of SC or if out-of-state citizens can participate. For example, in Alabama, it's anyone over 19 and 18 with a LE/military background. The question: Can residents of other states carry in SC without a CWP? I've been reading it too and I don't even see a legal age specific in the bill. There is also no reference to home state of residence mentioned either. I take that as adult (18) and anyone regardless of home state of records/residence. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 3:30:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sandboxmedic: Correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well may be, it's been a while since I took my class and trying to read that mess gives me a headache, but if you have a permit you don't get charged unless you refuse to leave (trespass with the add on weapons charge) do you? Not that I'd ever ignore a sign. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sandboxmedic: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Originally Posted By BlackRifleJihad: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: The next step is to de-fang carry signs. I think private business should be able to do what they want or are you talking about public property? Let private business suffer with their choices to exclude a certain type of customer! Vote with your wallet! I agree in principle. I just don't think it should be backed by the government. I think a business should maintain the right to ask someone to leave for any reason, or have that person be trespassed if they refuse. If you get made carrying a gun and are asked to leave I believe that the owner has a right to ask you to leave. If they want to go so far as to put up metal detectors or some other invasive measure to weed out people bringing in weapons, sure go ahead. They're just going to suffer from the business repercussions of being invasive as to what is under someone's clothing. I don't believe it should automatically be a crime to walk into a business open to the public because the owner doesn't want an object in their store that isn't visible and has no effect on anyone. If they want to take measure to enforce their policy, let them do it on their own, and use trespass mechanisms or others means to enforce their policies. We shouldn't be supporting their policies by handing out three year prison terms because someone found out you walked into a posted, but not otherwise prohibited by law, building. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well may be, it's been a while since I took my class and trying to read that mess gives me a headache, but if you have a permit you don't get charged unless you refuse to leave (trespass with the add on weapons charge) do you? Not that I'd ever ignore a sign. For people with a permit I believe the sign satisfies the warning requirement in 16-11-620, the part of the sentence before the word "or" bolded below. If there was no sign, or "without warning", and then refused to leave would also trigger the violation after the word "or". Below from unupdated code of laws SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits. (M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a: (10) place clearly marked with a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon on the premises pursuant to Sections 23-31-220 and 23-31-235. Except that a property owner or an agent acting on his behalf, by express written consent, may allow individuals of his choosing to enter onto property regardless of any posted sign to the contrary. A person who violates a provision of this item, whether the violation is wilful or not, only may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620 and must not be charged with or penalized for a violation of this subsection. SECTION 16-11-620. Entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request; jurisdiction and enforcement. Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 3:41:25 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By turtle2472: I've been reading it too and I don't even see a legal age specific in the bill. There is also no reference to home state of residence mentioned either. I take that as adult (18) and anyone regardless of home state of records/residence. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By turtle2472: Originally Posted By rhutchinson759: I read the language of the bill over the past couple of days. I could not find if it defines that these constitutional carry rights are only given to residents of SC or if out-of-state citizens can participate. For example, in Alabama, it's anyone over 19 and 18 with a LE/military background. The question: Can residents of other states carry in SC without a CWP? I've been reading it too and I don't even see a legal age specific in the bill. There is also no reference to home state of residence mentioned either. I take that as adult (18) and anyone regardless of home state of records/residence. I agree, absent a restriction it is allowed. The only age reference in the bill is changing 23-31-215(A) minimum age requirement from twenty-one to eighteen years of age for application and issuance of CWPs. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 3:51:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RoccoOnFire: It's kind of a pain to compare the bill updates to the code of laws since they haven't been updated yet, but I'll do my best. The law sections were rearranged by the bill and aren't going to be reflected below. For people with a permit I believe the sign satisfies the warning requirement in 16-11-620, the part of the sentence before the word "or" bolded below. If there was no sign, or "without warning", and then refused to leave would also trigger the violation after the word "or". Below from unupdated code of laws Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Originally Posted By sandboxmedic: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Originally Posted By BlackRifleJihad: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: The next step is to de-fang carry signs. I think private business should be able to do what they want or are you talking about public property? Let private business suffer with their choices to exclude a certain type of customer! Vote with your wallet! I agree in principle. I just don't think it should be backed by the government. I think a business should maintain the right to ask someone to leave for any reason, or have that person be trespassed if they refuse. If you get made carrying a gun and are asked to leave I believe that the owner has a right to ask you to leave. If they want to go so far as to put up metal detectors or some other invasive measure to weed out people bringing in weapons, sure go ahead. They're just going to suffer from the business repercussions of being invasive as to what is under someone's clothing. I don't believe it should automatically be a crime to walk into a business open to the public because the owner doesn't want an object in their store that isn't visible and has no effect on anyone. If they want to take measure to enforce their policy, let them do it on their own, and use trespass mechanisms or others means to enforce their policies. We shouldn't be supporting their policies by handing out three year prison terms because someone found out you walked into a posted, but not otherwise prohibited by law, building. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well may be, it's been a while since I took my class and trying to read that mess gives me a headache, but if you have a permit you don't get charged unless you refuse to leave (trespass with the add on weapons charge) do you? Not that I'd ever ignore a sign. For people with a permit I believe the sign satisfies the warning requirement in 16-11-620, the part of the sentence before the word "or" bolded below. If there was no sign, or "without warning", and then refused to leave would also trigger the violation after the word "or". Below from unupdated code of laws SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits. (M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a: (10) place clearly marked with a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon on the premises pursuant to Sections 23-31-220 and 23-31-235. Except that a property owner or an agent acting on his behalf, by express written consent, may allow individuals of his choosing to enter onto property regardless of any posted sign to the contrary. A person who violates a provision of this item, whether the violation is wilful or not, only may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620 and must not be charged with or penalized for a violation of this subsection. SECTION 16-11-620. Entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request; jurisdiction and enforcement. Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days. Thanks for attempting to clarify that. As I read it, and again I may be completely off base here, the key is in red. If I'm reading that right, again, feel free to correct me as I am definitely not a lawyer, if you refuse to leave them you can "...be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days." (and probably trespassed so that you can't come back) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 4:12:40 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sandboxmedic: Thanks for attempting to clarify that. As I read it, and again I may be completely off base here, the key is in red. If I'm reading that right, again, feel free to correct me as I am definitely not a lawyer, if you refuse to leave them you can "...be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days." (and probably trespassed so that you can't come back) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sandboxmedic: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Originally Posted By sandboxmedic: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Originally Posted By BlackRifleJihad: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: The next step is to de-fang carry signs. I think private business should be able to do what they want or are you talking about public property? Let private business suffer with their choices to exclude a certain type of customer! Vote with your wallet! I agree in principle. I just don't think it should be backed by the government. I think a business should maintain the right to ask someone to leave for any reason, or have that person be trespassed if they refuse. If you get made carrying a gun and are asked to leave I believe that the owner has a right to ask you to leave. If they want to go so far as to put up metal detectors or some other invasive measure to weed out people bringing in weapons, sure go ahead. They're just going to suffer from the business repercussions of being invasive as to what is under someone's clothing. I don't believe it should automatically be a crime to walk into a business open to the public because the owner doesn't want an object in their store that isn't visible and has no effect on anyone. If they want to take measure to enforce their policy, let them do it on their own, and use trespass mechanisms or others means to enforce their policies. We shouldn't be supporting their policies by handing out three year prison terms because someone found out you walked into a posted, but not otherwise prohibited by law, building. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I very well may be, it's been a while since I took my class and trying to read that mess gives me a headache, but if you have a permit you don't get charged unless you refuse to leave (trespass with the add on weapons charge) do you? Not that I'd ever ignore a sign. For people with a permit I believe the sign satisfies the warning requirement in 16-11-620, the part of the sentence before the word "or" bolded below. If there was no sign, or "without warning", and then refused to leave would also trigger the violation after the word "or". Below from unupdated code of laws SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits. (M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a: (10) place clearly marked with a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon on the premises pursuant to Sections 23-31-220 and 23-31-235. Except that a property owner or an agent acting on his behalf, by express written consent, may allow individuals of his choosing to enter onto property regardless of any posted sign to the contrary. A person who violates a provision of this item, whether the violation is wilful or not, only may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620 and must not be charged with or penalized for a violation of this subsection. SECTION 16-11-620. Entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request; jurisdiction and enforcement. Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days. Thanks for attempting to clarify that. As I read it, and again I may be completely off base here, the key is in red. If I'm reading that right, again, feel free to correct me as I am definitely not a lawyer, if you refuse to leave them you can "...be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days." (and probably trespassed so that you can't come back) Yes, but what you highlighted in red is only one of the two situations described in the law. The first situation which you can be charged is highlighted in green below. In my opinion, a legally conforming no concealable weapons sign would constitute the "warning" to not enter and ignoring it would be in violation of that part. The second situation which you are talking about is in red below. My interpretation here is that without having been warned, meaning in this case there is no legally conforming "no concealable weapons" sign, you are then asked to leave and have the opportunity to do so without being in violation, but if you refuse to you are then in violation. Either situation you would be in violation. SECTION 16-11-620. Entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request; jurisdiction and enforcement. Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 4:43:12 PM EDT
[#9]
I told my wife I was going downtown Greenville to see the teenagers on parade with their drop leg holsters! I told her nothing should go crazy. Besides, I asked her how she liked Gatlinburg and Pigeon Forge the last two years? She said she's ready to go back any time. Her mouth fell open when I told her that Tennessee has had the same laws since 2021.
I could understand the apprehension if SC was one of the first states making a change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 8:59:54 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Yes, but what you highlighted in red is only one of the two situations described in the law. The first situation which you can be charged is highlighted in green below. In my opinion, a legally conforming no concealable weapons sign would constitute the "warning" to not enter and ignoring it would be in violation of that part. The second situation which you are talking about is in red below. My interpretation here is that without having been warned, meaning in this case there is no legally conforming "no concealable weapons" sign, you are then asked to leave and have the opportunity to do so without being in violation, but if you refuse to you are then in violation. Either situation you would be in violation. Gotcha, thanks. I've honestly walked right by them and not noticed them until I was on my way out as so few places have them I don't even bother to look for them. Of course you've got faggy places like Whole Foods who put them prominently on both doors. They carry boxes of a beef jerky I like but I was just ordering it from another gun hating place without having to worry about freaking out some peacock looking lesbian weirdo who would want to call the cops on me. I decided to quit eating that stuff anyways. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/8/2024 10:27:27 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2024 9:43:15 AM EDT
[#12]
Article 16-11-620
So if you have been warned (sign) its a $200 fine or 30 days. If you havent been warned but asked to leave by a homeowner or buisness and refuse, then again a $200 fine or 30 days. At least thats what I'm reading. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2024 1:36:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RoccoOnFire]
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampvol: Article 16-11-620 So if you have been warned (sign) its a $200 fine or 30 days. If you havent been warned but asked to leave by a homeowner or buisness and refuse, then again a $200 fine or 30 days. At least thats what I'm reading. Yep, that's what it has been, and still is for people with a permit. Essentially that first part is the one we should get removed from having the force of law. The sign requirement and sign prohibited area section also, for good measure. Also the graduated penalty for non-permit holders, since that will be a separate section. edit to add - not for homeowners. You need permission to enter and there are stiffer penalties. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2024 2:15:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Yep, that's what it has been, and still is for people with a permit. Essentially that first part is the one we should get removed from having the force of law. The sign requirement and sign prohibited area section also, for good measure. Also the graduated penalty for non-permit holders, since that will be a separate section. To be clear; I can lawfully carry into a residence without permission if they haven't warned first? I just have to leave if they tell me to or face charges? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2024 2:24:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: sandboxmedic]
[#15]
That's always been one (of many) hangups I've had with these retards that made the laws. If you're going to allow the signs, it should have always been, ask the person to leave if you're such a panty waist, and if they refuse then trespass them like you would any other disruptive person, but a fine and penalty for someone not causing a problem, especially someone who has already gone through a background check, is ridiculous.
 ETA That "...without legal cause or good excuse..." could be easily construed as "traveling" (to kinda borrow a sovereign citizen argument, never thought I'd say that) and self defense is a legal as well as a good excuse to a rational person (if we're applying a rational basis review). We all know most folks these days can't seem to grasp the concept of reason and logic though... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/9/2024 2:25:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: RoccoOnFire]
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampvol: To be clear; I can lawfully carry into a residence without permission if they haven't warned first? I just have to leave if they tell me to or face charges? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampvol: Originally Posted By RoccoOnFire: Yep, that's what it has been, and still is for people with a permit. Essentially that first part is the one we should get removed from having the force of law. The sign requirement and sign prohibited area section also, for good measure. Also the graduated penalty for non-permit holders, since that will be a separate section. To be clear; I can lawfully carry into a residence without permission if they haven't warned first? I just have to leave if they tell me to or face charges? No, not a residence. That is covered by a different section of law, SECTION 23-31-225. eta I see I missed the homeowner part in your other post. SECTION 23-31-225. Carrying concealed weapons into residences or dwellings. No person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years. In regards to 16-11-620 we're just talking about the penalty for a violation of SECTION 23-31-215(M)(10), or whatever it will be after the update. (10) place clearly marked with a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon on the premises pursuant to Sections 23-31-220 and 23-31-235. Except that a property owner or an agent acting on his behalf, by express written consent, may allow individuals of his choosing to enter onto property regardless of any posted sign to the contrary. A person who violates a provision of this item, whether the violation is wilful or not, only may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620 and must not be charged with or penalized for a violation of this subsection. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2024 2:28:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistorySLED's guidance is up: https://www.sled.sc.gov/forms/regulatory/Constitutional%20Carry%20Guidance.pdf |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2024 2:44:37 PM EDT
[#18]
So it appears they have taken the word pistol/handgun (less than 12" I think?) out and now just say firearms.
One question I always had was if an AR pistol in the car was covered by my CWP or not. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2024 5:17:54 PM EDT
[#19]
Here is another guideline published by 15th Circuit Solicitor Jimmy Richardson.
https://www.scribd.com/document/711821004/Constitutional-Carry-Summary#from_embed https://wpde.com/news/local/constitutional-carry-law-governor-mcmaster-signed-open-carry-bill-without-permit-training-fifteenth-circuit-solicitor-jimmy-richardson-cheat-sheet-effective-immediately-sled-firearm-training-classes-south-carolina-march-8-2024 |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/10/2024 9:17:59 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampvol: So it appears they have taken the word pistol/handgun (less than 12" I think?) out and now just say firearms. One question I always had was if an AR pistol in the car was covered by my CWP or not. So the 12 inch rule is gone? I've been carrying on wildlife management land under the CCW rules. However, my Ruger Super Single 6 with 6.5 inch barrel is too long. Is it good now? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2024 4:32:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Here is another link to some explanations.
https://mailchi.mp/palmettoliberty/const-carry-10522178? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2024 7:08:30 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SandHillsHillbilly: Here is another link to some explanations. https://mailchi.mp/palmettoliberty/const-carry-10522178? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SandHillsHillbilly: Here is another link to some explanations. https://mailchi.mp/palmettoliberty/const-carry-10522178? Ugh, kinda makes you wonder how much of a "win" it actually is. SECTION 4 [TRAP] Adds increasing penalties for carrying into a prohibited location a second or third time. (amends Section 16-23-50(A)(2) of S.C. Code) Previously, if you accidentally carry into a prohibited location you could be charged with a misdemeanor and be fined up to $1000 and imprisoned up to a year. This was already a pretty stiff penalty for accidentally carrying into a prohibited location. Now, there is a list of increasing penalties if you do it more than once. What makes it worse, is that there is no time limit. So, if you carry into your church you could be convicted of a misdemeanor and get a year in jail and a $1000 fine. Five years later, you could carry into one of the buildings at the state farmer’s market and again be convicted of a misdemeanor, but this time get a three-year jail sentence. Then ten, fifteen, or even twenty years later... there is no time limit, if you carried into a library, you’d could be convicted of a felony and get five years in prison. And, because you are now a felon, you’d lose your right to keep and bear arms for the rest of your life! None of these “crimes” for carrying into a prohibited location has a victim. They are victimless “crimes”. Yet, you can become a felon by inadvertently violating these prohibitions. SECTION 9 [BAD] This adds a penalty for a permit holder who carries into a prohibited location to have his permit revoked for up to five years. See notes on SECTION 4 for reasons why it is terribly difficult in South Carolina to know every location that is prohibited. (amends Section 23-31-215(M) of S.C. Code) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/11/2024 9:40:12 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sandboxmedic: Ugh, kinda makes you wonder how much of a "win" it actually is. No kidding. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 5:05:21 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By swampvol: No kidding. Right. That's what I was saying. It's better for people who don't have a CWP but worse in several ways for those of us who do. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 5:16:59 AM EDT
[#25]
Can we keep a pistol anywhere in our vehicle now? I have one of those magnets mount near my lower right leg to stick on when driving.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 6:15:58 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bossco14: Can we keep a pistol anywhere in our vehicle now? I have one of those magnets mount near my lower right leg to stick on when driving. Yes. See the 3rd bullet point of the SLED guidance.  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 9:24:58 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bossco14: Can we keep a pistol anywhere in our vehicle now? I have one of those magnets mount near my lower right leg to stick on when driving. It appears its no longer limited to a pistol and their old definition of what a pistol is. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 9:49:13 AM EDT
[Last Edit: sandboxmedic]
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By radioshooter: So the 12 inch rule is gone? I've been carrying on wildlife management land under the CCW rules. However, my Ruger Super Single 6 with 6.5 inch barrel is too long. Is it good now? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By radioshooter: Originally Posted By swampvol: So it appears they have taken the word pistol/handgun (less than 12" I think?) out and now just say firearms. One question I always had was if an AR pistol in the car was covered by my CWP or not. So the 12 inch rule is gone? I've been carrying on wildlife management land under the CCW rules. However, my Ruger Super Single 6 with 6.5 inch barrel is too long. Is it good now? Good question. Can I open carry my AR pistol in one of those big kydex "holsters" now? The old Sam Brown belt with the shoulder cross belt might become popular again.  To be honest, it does make me want a Flux more, not that I have any plans to change what I do now (or pay what Flux wants for their chassis). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 1:35:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: MitchbSC]
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By radioshooter: So the 12 inch rule is gone? I've been carrying on wildlife management land under the CCW rules. However, my Ruger Super Single 6 with 6.5 inch barrel is too long. Is it good now? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By radioshooter: Originally Posted By swampvol: So it appears they have taken the word pistol/handgun (less than 12" I think?) out and now just say firearms. One question I always had was if an AR pistol in the car was covered by my CWP or not. So the 12 inch rule is gone? I've been carrying on wildlife management land under the CCW rules. However, my Ruger Super Single 6 with 6.5 inch barrel is too long. Is it good now? I doubt they changed SECTION 23-31-210 (5) for CWP holders. 12" is still 12". https://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c031.phpMore SC Con Carry guidance recommended by Rob Butler on the old SCFirearms mailing list: https://mailchi.mp/palmettoliberty/const-carry-10522178 . Rob was legislative director of the most effective gun rights org in SC that got law-fare'd out of existence by a state senator. eta beat. SandHillsHillbilly posted this earlier. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 3:11:09 PM EDT
[#30]
Earlier this morning I spoke with one of the guys who works the gun counter at Simpson Hardware concerning the level of interest immediately following passage of the bill into law. He said that last Friday and Saturday there was a noticeable increase of question-askers, tire-kickers, and glass-lickers
with a bit more handgun sales than usual this time of year. But he also said that there was no crush of people. He did say that he's been fielding phone calls from people concerning the new law with only one moron: a 20 year-old who became upset because he mistakenly interpreted the law as allowing him to buy a handgun. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2024 4:03:31 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ThePontificator: Earlier this morning I spoke with one of the guys who works the gun counter at Simpson Hardware concerning the level of interest immediately following passage of the bill into law. He said that last Friday and Saturday there was a noticeable increase of question-askers, tire-kickers, and glass-lickers with a bit more handgun sales than usual this time of year. But he also said that there was no crush of people. He did say that he's been fielding phone calls from people concerning the new law with only one moron: a 20 year-old who became upset because he mistakenly interpreted the law as allowing him to buy a handgun. Poor 20 year-old gets demoted to counter-humper. PSA Fern. Corner of death where the suppressors were. "Why no, young man. I am not giving your girlfriend an exam. I'm just trying to see which Rugged Suppressor models are in the case." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/14/2024 3:17:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: ThePontificator]
[#32]
Reading the comments to the article published in Cola Daily it's clear that those opposed to the bill have zero idea what's in it; they've only digested what the local media spoon-fed them the open carry narrative.
One reader commented that he hoped that the police would roust everyone openly carrying and subject them to a criminal background check on the spot. My response? Not happening. Being armed in and of itself is not grounds for being detained. Cry harder, bitches. Freedom is sometimes unpleasant.  Attached File |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2024 9:57:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By sandboxmedic: Good question. Can I open carry my AR pistol in one of those big kydex "holsters" now? The old Sam Brown belt with the shoulder cross belt might become popular again. To be honest, it does make me want a Flux more, not that I have any plans to change what I do now (or pay what Flux wants for their chassis). Ever see those M1 Carbine leg holsters? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2024 10:48:57 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ColtComanche: Ever see those M1 Carbine leg holsters? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ColtComanche: Originally Posted By sandboxmedic: Good question. Can I open carry my AR pistol in one of those big kydex "holsters" now? The old Sam Brown belt with the shoulder cross belt might become popular again. To be honest, it does make me want a Flux more, not that I have any plans to change what I do now (or pay what Flux wants for their chassis). Ever see those M1 Carbine leg holsters? Yep, but I'm not a paratrooper so I'd hate to be accused of stolen valor.  They made them in WWII for the fixed and folding stock versions then I believe it was Universal that made leather leg holsters for their commercial guns.
|
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
