H.3292 just passed in Committee!

[FN1910]

Got a return email from Mr Pitts, the main sponsor. He said unlicensed non residents would still be able to have the loaded gun in a glove box and so other private property too. Don't know how he knows this but he knows better than me I'm sure. Non residents will need a permit to carry on their person.

I don't see that ability in the present form of the bill but may be wrong. However I do think that is an oversight and not the intention of the subcommittee and will be fixed very shortly if needed. Remember that this bill has a long way to go and I am sure many changes. If this bill does eliminate any kind of possession of a gun by non residents it will not pass. The doom and gloom is a little too early but the impact of the bill must be questioned and brought to the attention of those who can make the change.

[mrjam2jab]

I have heard this, but "IF" I'm looking at the right bill I can't see how this is true. Can someone PLEASE tell me where the new ammendment does this?

Page 3, Line 1 removes the closed console, glove box exception...

[hp-hobo]

Mr. Viers:

I hope that once you discover the GrassRoots analysis of the Viers
amendment is absolutely correct, that then you will do the decent
thing and issue an apology for telling people that I lied about your
flawed amendment. That would be the decent thing to do, and whether
you do or not will tell us what kind of person you really are.

It is obvious you have not read the GrassRoots analysis, or else you
would not be saying the things you are saying to the people who have
contacted you. You should go to GrassRoots South Carolina - Our Goal: Citizens carrying arms whenever and wherever they choose. and read the
GrassRoots analysis of your amendment before putting your foot any
further into your mouth. The analysis of your amendment is separate
from the original analysis of H. 3292.

All of this could have been avoided but for your failure to allow
GrassRoots to review the proposed amendment prior to your voting upon
it. I asked for a copy of the amendment prior to the subcommittee
meeting. Your people refused to allow us to review it. I tried to do
the right thing, your people did not. This left us with no other
alternative than to wait and take appropriate action after the fact.
Thus, you caused this mess, not us.

In the future, you might want to consider actually talking with
GrassRoots. We can be a very valuable resource. At least we know the
law better than the people you are listening to that told you your
amendment was only good.

Your accusation that GrassRoots is an all or nothing organization is
simply not supported by the facts. GrassRoots has been working to
restore our rights for over ten years, and we have NEVER been an all
or nothing organization. We support any steps in the right direction.
What we refuse to do is accept any steps backwards. The Viers
amendment takes steps backwards, as you would already know if only you
had bothered to read the GrassRoots analysis of the Viers amendment.

I am still ready to help you fix this mess. The choice is yours.

Robert D. Butler, J.D.
V.P.
GrassRoots GunRights SC

[tcox4freedom]

Page 3, Line 1 removes the closed console, glove box exception...

But doesn't page 4 lines 25-32 add it back in (at least for cwp holders).

I read this bill last night and I can definitely see that the school property and non-res provisions need to be reworked and clarified. (esp the part that says state permits that do not require training & qualification will NOT be recognized.)

I also found the provision that described any knife with a blade over 2" as a deadly weapon. I see that as another potential problen that needs some more work

This "ammendment" definitely needs to be "ammended"!

If I'm reading the bill right, SC residents do get more freedom to carry "without" a permit in some instances. BUT! Unless you have a SCCWP you will "lose" other freedoms such as "glovebox" carry. I'm also concerned about what appears to be a crackdown in the "other" deadly weapons provisions.

[badarac]

Here is a post I made to Rob Butler in the GR group.

Rob,
I fully expect to get blasted over this response but I feel that somebody needs to say it. Your response and analysis of the amendment reads like the tantrum of a spoiled little 2 year old. Your analysis of the original bill was an intelligent, constructive piece of work which provided a valuable tool for the legislators to use to improve the bill. Rather than take that approach with you analysis of the amended bill, you decided to make it a referendum on the NRA, the second amendment, and the sale of Manhattan to the Indians.

When I read the text of the amendment I thought that many of the concerns pointed out in the original analysis had been addressed. Many had not but it was clear to me that the analysis had been read and considered. The amended bill does have it's problems and is sloppily written but in my opinion that was not a good reason for your response. It would have been better to identify the language in the amended bill that needs changing and work to get that done in a more positive way.

I'm sure this won't sit well with many of you but it's how I feel. I'll be
contacting the appropriate reps to get them to work on fixing the problems so the bill can move forward.

[Red Hat]

First of all you can't take one line of the changes and claim that it removes the right. This proposal actually give you more freedom to have your firearm anywhere in your vehicle loaded or unloaded because it removes the requirement to have a firearm in specific areas of your vehicle. If you remove the struck out line you will see the actually wording of the proposal. The whole reasoning behind this bill is to do away with all those mundane requirements so to allow law abiding citizens the constitutional right to carry without all the limiting exceptions of the old law. The only exceptions now will be Line 9 through line 24 on page 1.

Line 1 page 3 is the continuation of line 43 page 2!

7 “Section 16-23-20. It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the
8 person any handgun, whether concealed or not,
42 with the intent to use the handgun in furtherance of a crime. The
43 intent to use a handgun in furtherance of a crime shall not be
1 inferred by the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the
2 handgun. Display of a handgun during the commission of a
3 violent crime is subject to additional penalty under section 16-23-
4 490. Non South Carolina residents and non United States citizens
5 may not carry a handgun unless the person has a South Carolina
6 concealed weapons permit, satisfies section 23-31-215(N), or is a
7 peace officer in the actual discharge of his duties. No person may
8 carry a handgun if under the age of twenty-one or otherwise
9 prohibited to possess a handgun under state or federal law.

This is the same type of wording that allows CC without a permit or to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol.

Without all the confusing lines and numbers...

“Section 16-23-20.
It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not with the intent to use the handgun in furtherance of a crime. The intent to use a handgun in furtherance of crime shall not be inferred by the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the handgun. Display of a handgun during the commission of a violent crime is subject to additional penalty under section 16-23-490. Non South Carolina residents and non United States citizens may not carry a handgun unless the person has a South Carolina concealed weapons permit, satisfies section 23-31-215(N), or is a peace officer in the actual discharge of his duties. No person may carry a handgun if under the age of twenty-one or otherwise prohibited to possess a handgun under state or federal law.

As far as non residents goes the wording is definitely lacking. As I read it it looks like they only wanted to address carrying on their person. If it's only addressing that point then everything else should be good. I also think this will be clarified in later revisions. We have to wait until everything is in a final draft before we decide to through it out!

EDIT: After looking at the way Section 16-23-20 reads I realized that the first line actually clarifies the term 'carry' for non residents/US citizens.

39 (E) Non South Carolina residents and non United States citizens
40 may not carry a handgun unless the person has a South Carolina
41 concealed weapons permit, satisfies section 23-31-215(N), or is a
42 peace officer in the actual discharge of his duties.

Does this bill have problems? Yes it does just as all bills in their infancy!
Will it get straightened out so it's acceptable for most? I think it will. However, some won't like it regardless of the final version.
Do we just give up and go against everything they are trying to do? NO! Some already have though.

[CapGun]

Anyone have a small cheap piece of property in SC 4 sale so I can get my non res permit?
Maybe this law will pass and make it even easier to get one.

[BPStymiest]

I just found this on another forum. Looks like it is dead until later this year.

I just received this from my representative, Eric Bikas. __________________________________________________ ____________________ Hey Eddie: I would have emailed you back on Sunday, but I didn't have any substantial information for you. Now I do, Thad Viers(sub committee chair) and Mike Pitts(original author) have decided to pull 3292 off of the table because of the flak they have received. Instead a new bill will be introduced and become the new gun rights bill. They tell me that we will take the new bill up this year. I am frustrated but sometimes that is how things goinColumbia. I am optimistic about this new bill though. EB _____

[blume357@]

Maybe they will consult with some one who actually understands the existing S.C. Gun laws before they submit the next one... GrassRoots in S.C. would be ideal, but it seems Rep. Viers got his panties in a wad by them because they pointed out he didn't have a clue what he was writing and changing and he can't seem to get it that he screwed up....he'd rather cast dispersions on people that disagree with him than actually own up to having written a really messed up amendment to the original bill.

[spooky_t]

Congratulations!
Hopefully more states to follow!
Oops! Opened my mouth before I read the entire thread.
Sorry to hear that SC is having so many problems with something that should be simple.
We have the same problem here - in Michigan.
With any luck you bill sponsors will re-write and make it much better.
Good luck and keep up the vigil. Hold then accountable.