Grass Roots Gun Rights' Board of Directors LOSES Law Suit!

[mappow]

I'm currently working with my State Senator on a proposal to amend State Law to include allowing OC and being able to CC in a restaurant the serves alcohol. Can't be pre-filed until December with a first reading in January but that's not really that far off. I'm also hitting up my State Rep, but he's on the Liberal side and haven't got a good read of his help yet.
I ask ALL in SC to contact your State Rep for the district you live in and see if they'll sign on to an amendment to current Law. Just by pinging off them with the idea, the message will spread. WE want change in SC Law, WE all have to work at it. Let me know via PM if you want or just add to the thread.

[FN1910]

Lets see if we can take these one at a time

- No open carry except in extremely limited circumstance, mostly on private property. SC is one of only 7 states (plus DC) without public OC.

Mostly on private property - How about any privately owned property unless you are an employee of the business that owns the property. How about while hunting or fishing or traveling to and from. I don't know that I would call that extremely limited. Maybe limited but covers more than 50% of the state.

- SC requires a government permission slip to lawfully conceal carry.

Only in public which is much more than most states

- And to get that CWP you have to submit to government mandated training.

I am not so sure that I disagee with that totally.

- No carry at all for those under 21.

I am not sure where you come up with that completely false statement.

- No campus carry.

On this you are correct but SC is not in the minority on that

- No carry in establishments that serve alcohol

Remember it is for on premisis consumption only that is barred and some states are much worse. Bot again for the most part correct

- No carry in government buildings.

I think you are missing the real point here as it is not a restriction on government buildings but any publicly owned building which covers a lot that you would never think of. Definitely needs changing.

- No "parking lot" law.

If the parking lot law you are thinking of is what was in H3292 I am definitly against it 100%, A reasonable version would be OK but not that BS that was proposed.

- Vehicle carry only allowed in specific locations.

I suppose you are referring to the glove box carry but ay least you don't have to leave it on your dash if you leave it in your car.

- Melting point laws that discriminate against lower income individuals.

I didn't know that Hi-Points fell under the melting point law and that is about the cheapest gun I know of that is not more dangerous for the shooter than the shootee. (Hi-Points are very good, just ugly)


- Regulations, licensing and equipment requirements above and beyond what is required by federal law.

The only addition that I am aware of is the state firearms license for dealers which is just a tax and servers no real purpose or requirement other than the fee.


I would like to point out some that you forgot

In SC we don't get to go down to the sheriff's office for a piece of paper saying that it is OK for us to purchase, inherit, or receive a gun as a gift like our neighbors in NC.

In SC we don't get to take the CWP course and receive our permission slips before we can take a gun off of our property either OC, CC or in our car like our friends up in TN.

If we have a CWP we don't have to leave our guns at home to watch the Fourth of July parade like our buddies in NC.

YOu wanna walk around with an AR-15 or 12Ga on your back in public? No state law against that in SC.

Tired of the NICS when you buy a gun. With a SC CWP don't have to worry with it.

Oh, not buddies with the judge so he says I don't think your reason for a permit is good enough. Shall issue rather than may issue.

[hp-hobo]

Lets see if we can take these one at a time

Yeah, let's do that Chief.


- No open carry except in extremely limited circumstance, mostly on private property. SC is one of only 7 states (plus DC) without public OC.

Mostly on private property - How about any privately owned property unless you are an employee of the business that owns the property. How about while hunting or fishing or traveling to and from. I don't know that I would call that extremely limited. Maybe limited but covers more than 50% of the state.

You just agreed with me. Limited circumstances. Thank you.


- SC requires a government permission slip to lawfully conceal carry.

Only in public which is much more than most states

Huh?


- And to get that CWP you have to submit to government mandated training.

I am not so sure that I disagee with that totally.

You can't disagree with it at all. It's a fact.


- No carry at all for those under 21.

I am not sure where you come up with that completely false statement.

I'm not sure where you came up with that completely ignorant statement. Maybe you should familiarize yourself with 16-23-30(3).


- No campus carry.

On this you are correct but SC is not in the minority on that

I'm correct on all of them. But you already know that.


- No carry in establishments that serve alcohol

Remember it is for on premisis consumption only that is barred and some states are much worse. Bot again for the most part correct

No, once again it's exactly correct. I said "serve" not sell.


- No carry in government buildings.

I think you are missing the real point here as it is not a restriction on government buildings but any publicly owned building which covers a lot that you would never think of. Definitely needs changing.

Semantics. But once again I was correct.


- No "parking lot" law.

If the parking lot law you are thinking of is what was in H3292 I am definitly against it 100%, A reasonable version would be OK but not that BS that was proposed.

I don't agree with parking lot laws at all because they infringe upon property owner's rights. I was speaking strictly from an activist's point of view. But I was still correct.


- Vehicle carry only allowed in specific locations.

I suppose you are referring to the glove box carry but ay least you don't have to leave it on your dash if you leave it in your car.

In other words, once again I'm correct.


- Melting point laws that discriminate against lower income individuals.

I didn't know that Hi-Points fell under the melting point law and that is about the cheapest gun I know of that is not more dangerous for the shooter than the shootee. (Hi-Points are very good, just ugly)

Hi-Points are not affected by the melting point law for reasons you're probably unable or unwilling to comprehend. More to the point, who are you to decide what kind of gun is dangerous and at what income level people should be able to provide for their defense? You speak on the melting point law like a true gun snob. And once again I'm exactly correct.


- Regulations, licensing and equipment requirements above and beyond what is required by federal law.

The only addition that I am aware of is the state firearms license for dealers which is just a tax and servers no real purpose or requirement other than the fee.

Then you obviously need to become more aware. But that might take effort on your part.


I would like to point out some that you forgot

In SC we don't get to go down to the sheriff's office for a piece of paper saying that it is OK for us to purchase, inherit, or receive a gun as a gift like our neighbors in NC.

In SC we don't get to take the CWP course and receive our permission slips before we can take a gun off of our property either OC, CC or in our car like our friends up in TN.

If we have a CWP we don't have to leave our guns at home to watch the Fourth of July parade like our buddies in NC.

YOu wanna walk around with an AR-15 or 12Ga on your back in public? No state law against that in SC.

Tired of the NICS when you buy a gun. With a SC CWP don't have to worry with it.

Oh, not buddies with the judge so he says I don't think your reason for a permit is good enough. Shall issue rather than may issue.

Blah, blah, blah. I don't really care about Tennesee or North Carolina (which according to the Bradys has sticter gun laws than us), but nice try on the redirect. The fact remains that South Carolina has fairly restrictive gun laws. More restrictive than 30 other states. Maybe you should explain why you think an un-Constitutional law is alright as long as it doesn't directly affect you. If you're confused about the law I'm speaking of, just look at your response twice in this thread concerning melting point. Or maybe you're just happy being an anti-rights statist. You should be proud of yourself.

[FN1910]

SC Code of Laws 16-23-30

(3) a person under the age of eighteen, but this shall not apply to the issue of handguns to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, active or reserve, National Guard, State Militia, or R. O. T. C., when on duty or training or the temporary loan of handguns for instructions under the immediate supervision of a parent or adult instructor; or

On the requirement for training for getting a CWP I was not disagreeing with the fact that one has to have training. I think it is a good idea to require training in some way before one is allowed to carry either OC or CC. Only the method of requiring the training is in question and needs to be changed.

The reason I brought up NC et. al. was that you were comparing the gun laws of SC to other states. I will admit that for carry in public SC laws are more strict than many other states but otherwise SC laws are very lax for the acquisition of guns and use on private property.

One can compare the laws of SC to other states or to what we would like them to be or what the Brady Bunch wants but other than those involving carrying on public property, primarily OC there is very little that I want changed.

The argument about the melting point law is a joke. The law needs to be repealed but if it is I doubt that anyone will even notice it.

From an activists point of view there may be many changes needed but there are a lot of activist that I don't agree with. Like that fellow in San Francisco that wants to make circumcision completely illegal but is all in favor of abortion.

[hp-hobo]

Golly gee, you got me. I referenced the wrong statute. Oops!


SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.
(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except subject to subsection (B) of this section, SLED must issue a permit, which is no larger than three and one-half inches by three inches in size, to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty-one years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon upon submission of:


How's that for ya?

[hp-hobo]

On the requirement for training for getting a CWP I was not disagreeing with the fact that one has to have training. I think it is a good idea to require training in some way before one is allowed to carry either OC or CC. Only the method of requiring the training is in question and needs to be changed.

So what you're admitting to is you approve of another un-Constitutional law. Good for you.

Can you tell me why you think South Carolinians are so stupid that they require training before exercising their Second Amendment right? Can you also tell me how all of the states that require no such training manage to get by without have blood running in the streets?

I too think it's a good idea. It should not be mandatory.

[FN1910]

- No carry at all for those under 21.

The comment was no carry at all for under 21. The you refernced the law saying that those under 21 can carry. You are correct that you have to be 21 to get a CWP but those who are 18 can carry on private property either OC or CC, can carry in their car under the Glove Box - Console law etc. In fact I am not sure if 16-23-30-(3) has anything to do with carry at all. However the law for thse 18 (which is under 21) is the same as those who do not have a CWP and is exactly what you were stating before you started backtracking and changing your ststements. According to a strict interpretation of 2A as the activists that you referenced it is OK for an 8 year old to carry a loaded AR-15 to school for show and tell. If we are going to adhere to that strict reading of 2A then I think it should be OK for the 10 year old to carry it around with him along with a few gernades and a suitcase nuke.

[FN1910]

So what you're admitting to is you approve of another un-Constitutional law. Good for you.

Can you tell me why you think South Carolinians are so stupid that they require training before exercising their Second Amendment right? Can you also tell me how all of the states that require no such training manage to get by without have blood running in the streets?

I too think it's a good idea. It should not be mandatory.

Is blood running in the streets the litmus test for a law? When I say mandatory I am not necessarly talking about a class such as the present CWP classes. I think gun safety and law should be taught in the schools somewhere around junior high level. Those that do not want the public schools to do such a thing should get involved with their schools and get things right. This is one of the problems with our schools is some people act and some complain about what those that act come up with.

One of the themes that I find on gun boards expecially is the regular talk of how to get out of jury duty or that schools and colleges are sources of liberal thought and refusal to vote if their favorite cantidate lost in the primary election. Recently in our local area we have had three different mayoral elections decided by three votes or less and in none a majority of the eligible voters voted. You say it is un-constitutional. I don't think it is and right now it would seem that the majority of people that were actual sheep dogs and demonstrated it by voting agreed with me. If the majority disagrees then they need to do something besided complain. There are only nine people that can actually determine if it is un-constutional or not but if the majority of people think differently and get up and work on it they can cause those nine to agree with them.

[hp-hobo]

The comment was no carry at all for under 21. The you refernced the law saying that those under 21 can carry. You are correct that you have to be 21 to get a CWP but those who are 18 can carry on private property either OC or CC, can carry in their car under the Glove Box - Console law etc. In fact I am not sure if 16-23-30-(3) has anything to do with carry at all. However the law for thse 18 (which is under 21) is the same as those who do not have a CWP and is exactly what you were stating before you started backtracking and changing your ststements. According to a strict interpretation of 2A as the activists that you referenced it is OK for an 8 year old to carry a loaded AR-15 to school for show and tell. If we are going to adhere to that strict reading of 2A then I think it should be OK for the 10 year old to carry it around with him along with a few gernades and a suitcase nuke.

My mistake was not specifying under 21 CC as not being allowed as opposed to simply saying carry. I assumed you would realize that's what I meant. Let's face it, carrying while on non-public use private property isn't really carry any more than driving an old truck on grandpa's farm is driving in the legal sense. And having a gun inside your car isn't carrying at all - it's having a gun in your car. But you keep on grasping at those straws on the one point where I wasn't sufficiently clear.

The rest of your hyperbole isn't even worth my time or effort. Talking about children with AR's, grenades and nukes does nothing to advance your position. But I wouldn't expect anything less from a self professed anti-gun rights statist.

[SCfromNY]

Well a couple of comments. First of all I think the lesson of the attempt at an all inclusive bill like H3292 should be put to rest and bills addressing one or maybe two items be the norm. Secondly as to training; OK you should not be required to have training to PURCHASE a gun. However, time spent at many rental ranges strongly suggest that to carry concealed a minimum knowledge of the gun and which end the bullet comes out should be mandated.

What you did not ask: The first law I want amended is the restaurant carry restriction which in my opinion is not valid anyway. READ the verbiage carefully.