New legislation filed today in SC - No CWP Required :)

[Germanicus]

Look, it's a good, solid point you're making guys. To some extent, fundamentally have I agree with you. I also understand that technically (constitutionally) the gov should not restrict our obtaining firearms and bearing them, even though they continue to do so. True, the Old Dominion with other states have adopted OC with positive results for the most part, but there still were predictable incidents when the police were called, misunderstandings, etc. I think those people reacted the way they did because they consider a civilian carrying a gun (in any manner) as taboo or where afraid. I'm not saying that is my POV, just how some others have reacted. I don't think we should take a position of "get over it" with them, they're voters too. CC has perhaps been more successful due to the fact that it is concealed from the public and doesn't have to be a part of their everyday reality. Of course, this all depends on WHERE we are talking about too...

[maybejim]

This comparison, legally and circumstantially is quite a reach don't you think?

No. I think it is precisely the same thing. It just depends on what ignorant position the complainers are coming from.

Definitions, like laws are written and then interpreted as to their meaning

Ho! Ho! Ho! Another guy talking about what the meaning of is, is.

Depending on where you live, its surprising what is considered 'threatening' legally speaking, some of them far less intimidating than OC.

Only if you are tied up in knots by PC nonsense. It is this kind of weak minded thinking that has given us many of the problems in the country today.

Sir, US history is my business

I hope in your business you pay better attention to what is said and what the definition of the words used actually is.

the so-called Wild West was not a period of sustained law and order like today or better than such.

Which has little semblance to what I said. The problem seems to be that either I am not expressing myself succinctly, or you are not reading simply what I have said rather than jumping to something different.

[Germanicus]

Here we go again-

No. I think it is precisely the same thing. It just depends on what ignorant position the complainers are coming from.

It is not the same, and that comparison would not be relevant in a court of law, at least not in this state. It is a terrible analogy.

Ho! Ho! Ho! Another guy talking about what the meaning of is, is.

You might need to brush up on your language arts here. Ever wonder why words have more than one definition? Just because you see it written a certain way in Websters doesn't mean that the definition of a word cannot change. So again, definitions of words, like legislation, can evolve. Anything can be written, but people usually end up interpreting the full meaning.

Only if you are tied up in knots by PC nonsense. It is this kind of weak minded thinking that has given us many of the problems in the country today.

This is not weak minded, or as you seem to be implying, a so-called 'politically correct' mindset. This brings us back on topic. I see my POV as responsible, especially with regard to the rights of others and not just us. Have you heard of implied rights? Implied rights are rights that a court may find to exist even though not expressly guaranteed by written law or custom, on the theory that a written or customary right must necessarily include the implied right.

I hope in your business you pay better attention to what is said and what the definition of the words used actually is.

Definitions again, hum... you know you've made something of a decent point when the opposition is reduced to picking through your words for definitions and bean counting the irrelevant aspects of your comments.

Which has little semblance to what I said. The problem seems to be that either I am not expressing myself succinctly, or you are not reading simply what I have said rather than jumping to something different.

I read your statement and responded accordingly with facts.

[340mopar]

that's great! We need open carry in this state... I would not do it often but think it would be a good thing... almost as good as the carry in restaurants.... the simple solution to the alcohol problem is to make it illegal to carry while intoxicated.

I'm pretty sure open carry won't float this time...but at least it will be entertaining to read / hear some of the idiotic statements some of our reps will make.

I agree. The one thing I would like to be able to do, is shed my coat or cover shirt when it gets too hot, especialy when I am in the corner of a booth ... I have very little doubt that much of SC would freak over open carry. Mostly the same ones that are oposed to it now.