Legislative Alert in SC
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Legislative Alert in SC

  1. #1

    Legislative Alert in SC

    Found this on the nra.org site and already contacted one Representative and one Senator I know encouraging support for these. There are two bills being heard next week in SC Legislature. One concerns privacy of CWP records, the other makes SC honor any Carry Permit from any other state.

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3639

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina's Riverfront
    Posts
    39

    Thanks for the post

    I have contacted my representative urging his support on these two important bills. I urge everyone to do the same.

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934
    Did it, now if they just get on them!
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

  5. #4
    TY for the post stan,
    Glock Carrier in SC.

    MufDady

  6. #5
    I just heard from Senator Thomas Alexander on H 3212. It came before the senate today, was amended to include the requirement that the reciprocal state requires an applicant to pass the federal background check and a course in firearm training and safety. He also said he believe it will become law before the session is over in June. This is good news.

  7. Question Fair News

    There seems to be confusion about whether the amendments are good or not. NRA says the amendment is OK. SC Firearms does not like it. I have conversed with Massey who supports the amendment instead of the original bill. His reasoning is fairness to SC residents. They have to take courses so why should residents of other states who don't have to take courses be allowed to carry in SC. Not sure I am on that page since I would like the additional potential states we would gain with blanket reciprocity. Any other comments on the bill as amended?

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    South Carolina's Riverfront
    Posts
    39

    I Agree

    I agree with you Nittanylion, isn't that how they determined reciprocity anyway? The states that had similar or like requirements as SC got the reciprocity agreement and any that were less strengent did not? I am not sure this legislation is going to change anything. Since I live on the GA border I am really wanting any legislation to include GA. The legislation to keep the CWP list private is a good move though.

  9. #8
    I guess I better call my brother who lives in SC (and has his CCW) to see what he knows about this. We here in Ohio have reciprocity with SC. To obtain a CHL we have to successfully complete 10 hours of classroom instruction, pass a written test, do two hours of range time, and pass a shooting practical "exam."
    "What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

  10. I too live on the GA/SC line and like to travel to FL. NH permit gets me into GA but FL is another story. Not sure this new bill will help at all.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Gray Court, SC
    Posts
    2,934
    Leave it to them to screw up a good bill. The new bill basically leaves us where we are now. Instead of a CWP recognition bill we now have a CWP reciprocity bill. I received this from Grassroots the other day...


    18 March 2008
    “Thank you!” to all of you who emailed and called the senators representing your county just as we asked you to do yesterday in the GrassRoots GunRights Action Alert on H. 3212.

    Congratulations! Your voices were heard! But, ...

    There is both good news and bad news. And, you will need to take action once again if you want to protect your rights.

    First, the good news.

    Due to your emails and phone calls, the SC Senate amended H. 3212 again. The new amendment makes one important change - it deletes the mandate that other states must perform federal background checks to satisfy SC CWP reciprocity requirements. This change means SC should not lose any reciprocity agreements as we would have done if the Knotts/Anderson amendment had passed. But, we will not gain any states either.

    Now, the bad news.

    H. 3212 started out as CWP recognition bill, which means SC would recognize CWP permits from other states without need of a reciprocity agreement between SC and another state. This would have allowed SC CWP holders to carry in 30+ states, including Georgia and Florida. But, unfortunately, the Senate changed H. 3212 into a CWP reciprocity bill instead of the CWP recognition bill that came out of the House, which means SC and another state must legally agree to honor each other's CWP before we can carry elsewhere.

    The Senate's amendments to H. 3212 have created new problems due to the Senate's not thinking of all the consequences of the changes they are making.

    If SC is going to remain a CWP reciprocity state instead of a CWP recognition state, then someone needs to be legally responsible for determining and entering into CWP reciprocity agreements with other states. Current law charges SLED with determining which states satisfy the requirements for CWP reciprocity. The Senate amendments to H. 3212 delete SLED's responsibility to do this. The Senate amendments also fail to legally charge anyone else with determining which states satisfy the CWP reciprocity requirements. This is a serious failing on the Senate's part.

    When no one is legally charged with doing something, that something does not get done. We can't get SLED to do a good job of keeping track of CWP reciprocity agreements now, even though SLED is legally charged with doing so. Imagine how bad things will get when no one is legally charged with doing this job. CWP reciprocity agreements will not get made if no one is legally charged with the responsibility of making them. The Senate needs to fix this problem they created.

    The Senate also failed to change the legal definition of a course of “training,” which means that H. 3212 still requires both SC and other states to mandate an eight (8) hour minimum class to satisfy CWP reciprocity requirements. Thus, the Senate changes - or failures to make changes - can not increase the number of states eligible for reciprocity with SC.

    As last amended on Tuesday, March 18, H. 3212 now only restates existing CWP law - but with one very important difference. Instead of saying a CWP reciprocity agreement can only be entered into with a state which has CWP issuance standards equal to or greater than SC standards (which are an 8 hour class, state and federal fingerprint review, and local background check), H. 3212 would change the law to now say a CWP reciprocity agreement can only be entered into with a state which has CWP issuance standards that require an 8 hour class, state and federal fingerprint review, and local background check. As you can see, this is exactly the same thing. So, why bother to make such a worthless change?

    As pointed out in the GrassRoots Action Alert yesterday, this worthless change is a necessary first step before changing the SC CWP law to require re-training every four years without also destroying all existing CWP reciprocity agreements. There is no other reason for making these worthless changes proposed by the Senate. Make no mistake, the real reason for the Senate changes is to require CWP re-training in the future.

    BOTTOM LINE:

    As currently drafted and amended by the Senate, H. 3212 is worthless at best and is the first step towards CWP re-training every four years at worst.

    The Senate needs to amend H. 3212 back to the CWP recognition bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and stop trying to turn H. 3212 into a CWP reciprocity bill.
    USAF Retired, CATM, SC CWP, NH NR CWP, NRA Benefactor
    To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them... -- Richard Henry Lee, 1787

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast