|
|
|
OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > South Carolina > OpenCarry.org Press Release re South Carolina Open Carry Bill
|
|
||
| OpenCarry.org - Discussion Forum > Stories From The States > South Carolina > OpenCarry.org Press Release re South Carolina Open Carry Bill
|
|||
| Moderated by: jpierce | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
OpenCarry.org For Immediate Release – January, 2008 Representative Dan Cooper Introduces Bill to Decriminalize the Open Carry of Handguns In South Carolina[1] South Carolina is one of only 6 states banning the open carry of handguns. In most states, adults may lawfully carry unconcealed handguns without any permit.[2] But now Representative Dan Cooper (R – Anderson County) wants to change that. Cooper has introduced H. 3003, a bill to make South Carolina like most states where anyone legally allowed to own a handgun may carry it openly without any permit. Folks who want to carry their handguns **concealed** will still need a concealed weapons permit. And with 32 co-sponsors, including some heavy hitters, and considering that Cooper is the influential Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, it sure looks like H. 3003 is goin’ to have some legs! H. 3003 comes on the heels of an online petition in South Carolina with almost 2,000 signatures calling for the decriminalization of open carry. See the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/scocp/petition.html. [3] The United States Supreme Court said recently in the DC Gun Ban case that the Second Amendment secures the right to keep "carry" arms, but not concealed arms, citing to a line of cases upholding the constitutional right to open carry.[4] Notably, neighboring North Carolina’s Supreme Court has held that under that state’s constitution, no license may be required to openly carry handguns. See State v. Kerner, 107 S.E. 222 (1921). OpenCarry.org strongly endorses Representative Dan Cooper’s effort to decriminalize open carry in South Carolina, and our South Carolina members will be actively working to ensure this effort’s success. ### Last edited on Wed Jan 7th, 2009 09:49 pm by Mike |
|||||||||
|
Count Founder's Club Member
|
Great! Texas needs some heavy hitters, too! |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Awesome Mike. Let us know where were needed. Edit: I got your email Mike. Still trying to get w/ Bob and then we'll round up some volunteers. Richard Last edited on Wed Jan 7th, 2009 09:23 pm by AllAmerican |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
And we got picked up here already: http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/alert-south-carolina-considers-decriminalizing-open-carry |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Im gonna be making some calls tomorrow. I think I can get on at least one station in my area. Ive got some contacts for a focus group too. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Sure - spread the press release to all your SC press contacts - try to get them to link to the petition and mention OpenCarry.org. |
|||||||||
|
mdgary Regular Member 
|
Just emailed the story to local news paper... |
|||||||||
|
Brimstone Regular Member 
|
I grew up in SC and it has pissed me off that I can't carry there for some time. I can't even carry concealed since there is no reciprocity with Utah. It boggles my mind that great states like SC and Texas that have always stood for freedom would deny the right to open carry. Good Luck from Utah!  |
|||||||||
|
mdgary Regular Member
|
I posted the press release on SCDNR forum and already picked up a few signatures hopefully some opencarry.org members. |
|||||||||
|
Shorts Lone Star Veteran 
|
This is great great news SC! Glad to see Mr Cooper step up. Folks, send that man your support and see the rest of it through! |
|||||||||
|
Patiwack0 Regular Member 
|
News Release emailed to Florence Morning News, WPDE TV-15, and WBTW TV-13. |
|||||||||
|
mdgary Regular Member
|
Sent to news channel 7 , WYFF news 4 and fox carolina . Last edited on Thu Jan 8th, 2009 07:46 pm by mdgary |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Ive got calls in to a few stations. Ill hear back shortly. I think Ill be able to get on one of them sometime next week for sure. Florence area... |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
We are in contact today with 2 radio stations in the Florence/Myrtle Beach area. We should be able to get the info out on those 2 stations withing the next week. Gathered a list of ALL daily papers in SC and will begin calling today. |
|||||||||
|
carryall Regular Member 
|
Hello, I've just read the bill and I can't seem tofind the laguage decriminalizing open carry. Did I miss it or just not understand it? Thanks, Carry All  |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
carryall wrote: Hello, The bill repeals 16-23-20. |
|||||||||
|
Prophet Regular Member 
|
This is great news. I wasn't sure if any of the six other than Texas was currently looking to overturn their OC ban. If this passes as well as Texas' that knocks OC bans down to 4 states. If Florida can get its act together than I think its only a matter of time before Oklahoma and Arkansas get on board. Of course, im not holding my breath for New York but if the number of states that ban OC goes from 6 to 1 inside of the first year or so of Obama's presidency that might make him think twice about his Brady bunch lovin gun grabbin ways. Now before you inundate me with how much of a gun grabbin liberal obama is let me say "I KNOW". But i think he is more of a political opportunist than a true idealogue and won't piss in the wind if its blowing hard enough in his face. |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Unfortunately, H. 3003 is not as clean a bill as one would want it to be. There are some very negative aspects to this bill, which are detailed in the GrassRoots analysis of H. 3003. Please read the GrassRoots analysis before committing to full support of H. 3003. Unless this bill gets amended to fix the identified problems, it is not deserving of our support. Rob *** GrassRoots Legislative Watch *** H. 3003 This is a Legislative Watch announcement from GrassRoots GunRights of SC. This email is sent for information purposes only. No immediate action is required. If immediate action becomes needed on a gun-related bill, GrassRoots will send out a GrassRoots Action Alert email with information and instructions on what to do. 15 January 2009 The following gun-related bill has been sponsored in the South Carolina General Assembly! Bill H. 3003 sponsored by Representative Cooper (R-Anderson). A full GrassRoots analysis of the bill can be found at: http://scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3003.html Bill Rentiers Executive Officer GrassRoots GunRights of SC |
|||||||||
|
springerdave Regular Member
|
All of Michigan wishes South Carolina GOOD LUCK!springerdave. |
|||||||||
|
ProguninTN Regular Member
|
Good luck, SC. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Robert Butler wrote: Unfortunately, H. 3003 is not as clean a bill as one would want it to be. There are some very negative aspects to this bill, which are detailed in the GrassRoots analysis of H. 3003. I understand your concerns, and agree with most of the analysis in the link above, but disagree with the conclusion that under H. 3003, "gun owners give up something (i.e., vehicle carry for CWP holders[)]." The cannon of statutory construction to try to give meaning to every word of a statute applies to the text of the statute, not the bill or bills that got it there - I see no problem with removing the currently superfluous CWP exception for vehicle carry - in fact, leaving exceptions in a statue where none need to be there often causes other problems - in this case, looking at the code as a whole post H. 3003, keeping the CWP exemption for vehicles could actually call into question the right of open carriers to open carry in vehicles without any permit. These are just my constructive thoughts - I agree with your other concerns and conclusions and agree that leaning forward in the saddle on this bill is important. |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: I understand your concerns, and agree with most of the analysis in the link above, but disagree with the conclusion that under H. 3003, "gun owners give up something (i.e., vehicle carry for CWP holders[)]." Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree over what the law says and how it is interpreted. The courts will see that Section 16-23-20 was moved into Section 23-31-215(O) and give the moved language - and the implications from the non moved language - the same meanings that the law now gives to that language. BTW, which law school did you graduate from? I graduated near the top of my class from the USC School of Law. Rob |
|||||||||
|
Ian Lone Star Veteran 
|
They have an unlicensed OC bill introduced with a petition less than 2,000 signatures and we have one almost 53,000 signatures and nothing's even introduced yet?! WTF! |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Robert Butler wrote: The courts will see that Section 16-23-20 was moved into Section 23-31-215(O) and give the moved language - and the implications from the non moved language - the same meanings that the law now gives to that language. Hmm. Maybe somthing specific about SC statutory construction - can you give me cite to authority where SC state courts look beyong the statute's text to former bill machinations? |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Ianmtx wrote: They have an unlicensed OC bill introduced with a petition less than 2,000 signatures and we have one almost 53,000 signatures and nothing's even introduced yet?! WTF! Well, get this - a bil for open carry has been drafted by an Arkansas Rep already too, though not yet introduced. |
|||||||||
|
Prophet Regular Member
|
Robert Butler wrote:
USC? Ranked 18th by US News and Reports for Law Schools and 14th by Law School 100...not bad. If memory recalls Mike credentials come from Georgetown's law school. You know, Ranked 14th by US News and Reports and 7th by Law School 100. But maybe you didn't actually mean to sound as pompous and childish in touting your laurels (of which none can be substantiated) and was just curious of Mikes law school background. Seeing that Mike is educated by one of the premier Law schools in the nation (top 15 and top 10 by two reputable sources) I am going to presume to think he knows what he is talking about and I'll view any attempt by you to passive aggressively dismiss his opinion by stating you did well at a second tier school will just go to invalidate your opinion as one would often do when listening to an ass. But as I said, maybe you didn't mean it the way it sounded. |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Prophet wrote: "USC? Ranked 18th by US News and Reports for Law Schools and 14th by Law School 100...not bad." Nope, not THAT USC. The University of South Carolina. "But maybe you didn't actually mean to sound as pompous and childish in touting your laurels (of which none can be substantiated) and was just curious of Mikes law school background." Nope, I meant it exactly as it sounded. There are a lot of people who offer their opinions on the law who have no real knowledge of the law. So, in order to allow the reader to determine whose opinion should get more credence, I offered some facts that should be important to the reader. If doing so makes me sound "pompous and childish" in your opinion, so be it. As too your assertion that "laurels" can not be substantiated, that is simply not true. You may not feel it is worth the effort, but it can be done. I also have the benefit of years of experience dealing with the legislature and the laws here in SC. You can weight that as you please, too. Rob |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member 
|
I thought it just lawyer talk. When I meet a fellow test engineer then I am quite likely to ask from what class of our specialized training he graduated. My peer community is much smaller than lawyers'. That said, I honor no acquaintance more highly than Robert Butler. As to offense... Good Lord ..., my beauty, though but mean, IOW, offense, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder and is not utter'd by innocent tongues. And Rob's beauty is vicious mean. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Robert Butler wrote: I also have the benefit of years of experience dealing with the legislature and the laws here in SC. Great Robert, but we still need that cite to SC case law showing SC courts look to bills modifying criminal statutes to construe what the current text of the statute means - that's a new one for me and everybody else. |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: Great Robert, but we still need that cite to SC case law showing SC courts look to bills modifying criminal statutes to construe what the current text of the statute means - that's a new one for me and everybody else. Well it should be since that is not what I wrote. I wrote about a rule of statutory construction. It was taught to me in law school and can be found in Black's Law Dictionary and in various online sites. Since I do not have access to Westlaw any more, nor do I enjoy doing legal research at the law library, I simply refuse to take the time to research something that you should have already known while I have more important things to get done. What I wrote is that the courts will use "the current text of the statute" and the interpretations attached to "the current text of the statute" "to construe" what the new statute means when the language of the new statute is copied word for word from an existing statute that is being moved from one section of the law into another section of the law both of which make exceptions to prohibiting the possession of handguns except under certain conditions. As I said before, we will will have to agree to disagree. But, please at least disagree with what I actually write, not a misinterpretation of it. Rob |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
Robert Butler wrote: What I wrote is that the courts will use "the current text of the statute" and the interpretations attached to "the current text of the statute" "to construe" what the new statute means when the language of the new statute is copied word for word from an existing statute that is being moved from one section of the law into another section of the law both of which make exceptions to prohibiting the possession of handguns except under certain conditions. This new reformulation is kind of hard to follow - your web posted analysis of the original insertion of the vehicle exemption was that it was not needed and you opposed; now after it is there, you oppose removing it because the courts will think removal means somthing that continues silently to belie the plain meaning of the text. I do have access to WestLaw and can try to find authority to support your position but I doubt I am going to find it as criminal statutes are usually construed only by the text in force at the time the person comits the offense. But clearly you can see my point - that under ordinary statutory construction, adding a CWP exemption for vehicles into the bill implies that absent a CWP you can't open carry in vehicles - defeating the major pupose of the bill. Last edited on Sat Jan 17th, 2009 02:25 pm by Mike |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Mike wrote: "This new reformulation is kind of hard to follow" This is not a reformulation. Please reread what I originally wrote and you will see that both formulations are the same. "your web posted analysis of the original insertion of the vehicle exemption was that it was not needed and you opposed;" That is correct, it was not needed. BUT, law enforcement continued to act as if it was, and here in SC anything like a police state is welcomed. So, the legislature enacted a law that essentially agreed that law enforcement's interpretation was correct since a new law was "needed" to protect the privilege of CWP holders to carry in a vehicle. So, whatever I thought and whatever the SC AG opinion stated was no longer material. The legislature spoke loud and clear and enacted another law which had the effect of agreeing with law enforcement that CWP carry in vehicles was NOT legal before the passage of the new language. "now after it is there, you oppose removing it because the courts will think removal means somthing that continues silently to belie the plain meaning of the text." That is correct. Many SC Supreme Court opinions state that the courts are to interpret the law in accordance with the legislature's intent. If the language is removed, it will take expensive litigation to get the matter resolved. And, most likely, the courts would resolve the issue against CWP carry in vehicles since the legislative history of the law regarding this issue shows the legislature felt the law without the specific CWP carry provision did not allow CWP carry in vehicles - or else they would not have enacted the law. "I do have access to WestLaw and can try to find authority to support your position but I doubt I am going to find it as criminal statutes are usually construed only by the text in force at the time the person comits the offense." I understand. But, the appellate courts here constantly refer to interpreting the laws as the legislature intended the laws to be - if at all possible. And, it is very easy to see how the courts would rule against CWP carry in vehicles if the existing language is removed when the other existing language is moved to the new section of law. If this was totally new language without a legislative history, things would be different. We would be where we were at before the legislature added the specific CWP carry in vehicles language in 2007. And, we would most likely win in a court of law. BUT, we are not in that situation any more. We are where we are, and that is post legislative enactment of a specific CWP carry in vehicles law even though we felt the existing law allowed CWP carry in vehicles. And, we are dealing with moving language from one section of law to another, not the enactment of virgin language with no history. Thus, the courts will take that into consideration when interpreting the law as amended by H. 3003. "But clearly you can see my point - that under ordinary statutory construction, adding a CWP exemption for vehicles into the bill implies that absent a CWP you can't open carry in vehicles - defeating the major pupose of the bill." No, I do not agree. If it is not prohibited by statute, then it should be legal. The vehicle carry provision moved into the CWP law simply allows a person to possess a handgun concealed in the glove compartment, console, or trunk to do so without need of a CWP even though the weapon is concealed and easily accessible - which would be all it took to get a person charged with possession of a concealed weapon without a permit. As I pointed out in my analysis of H. 3003, open carry would be allowed under H. 3003 since there would be no law prohibiting such, while CWP carry would no longer be allowed. That is why I stated we needed to watch H. 3003 for changes that would prohibit open carry in vehicles because if open carry in vehicles gets prohibited, then we need to provide a way for CWP holders to legally transfer their sidearms from their person to a storage place in their vehicle when they are forced to disarm to enter a prohibited carry location. You can rest assured that law enforcement will aggressively fight open carry in vehicles. Law enforcement has fought against allowing a handgun to be possessed under a vehicle's seat as an officer safety issue. How a handgun under the seat is more of an officer safety issue than a handgun in the console is beyond me. But, law enforcement usually fights any pro gun legislation in SC. Rob PS - Mike, thank you for trying to keep this discussion focused on the issues and not on the personal attacks that only serve to distract from the real goal of getting good legislation passed. |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Doug Huffman wrote: I thought it just lawyer talk. Oh believe me, we know LOL So the conversation about this bill has been going on over here and not at the GRGR forum. I missed some as I was busy the last few days faxing the press release to some papers and stuff. When will we move the "can we get a piece of property and divide it between a hundred people so they can get a CWP" thread over here? You know the one where folks are asking to find out if time shares qualify for a CWP LOL I agree that Robert should not have to teach law here. What should be happening is getting the correct verbage on H3003 together before its too late to do anything. The momentum could be huge for this bill AND it can be the bill WE want with the whole CWP in a car, bar owner carrying a gun etc... Last edited on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 01:52 am by AllAmerican |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
There is not a "the conversation". What would be gained by moving a disciplined dialogue to a less disciplined forum? Would the sockpuppet 'Anony Mouse' contribute more here than his puppeteer does there? If you've an on point contribution to make then make it here or there and see if it flies. Your complaint about missing postings is being addressed by responsible parties. I have suggested that it is due to to a technical problem amongst the various mail servers. |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
I did try to make a point there but it didnt go through. I asked why the dividing up of land in order to get a non res permit was important. The only response I got was not an answer but rather a question and that from you. The thread over there is also asking whether time shares owners are legal to get a CWP. More CWP and not enough H3003 IMO. But Ive stated my thoughts on why this is and I stand by it. I dont want to be taken as not supporting GRGR but man to come on here with the attitude of "Im a lawyer so I know what Im talking about and you do not" is BS and not really how Id like to be represented. The laws are not that difficult to understand. If they were everyone would be locked up. If you can read you can understand the laws. By what Robert stated above, only lawyers can become lawmakers. And, thats why lawyers are hated and have ruined and continue to ruin what we have. Which, BTW is why I plan to run for office in SC. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
AllAmerican wrote: Which, BTW is why I plan to run for office in SC. Hiding behind a nom de 'net? I am Town Board Supervisor and half way through my first term. The question of shared ownership is relevant to the requirements for a resident/non-resident permit. There is much more law than firearms and/or criminal law. And here's a blast of e-mail to tend to, some from scfirearms/grassroots_leadership. Good day Last edited on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 03:41 pm by Doug Huffman |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Im not hiding Doug. My name is easily found out. In fact I use my real name on several forums. Great, I appreciate your being in office. Actually I plan to run for much the same office. Of course I dont know if that will make me as good as the engineers and lawyers. You know cause HVAC contractors surely cant be as smart as lawyers and engineers. LOL Last edited on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 04:28 pm by AllAmerican |
|||||||||
|
mdgary Regular Member
|
The thread is about H. 3003 bill not about you guys, It's great both of you have educations but if you want to get into a Pissing match please do so privately, there is enough of this shezit on this forum , stick to the topic..I read this thread to find out how the bill is doing and find the topic has changed to I got this, I can do this, WHO CARES just stick to the topic............ |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Yeah you're right... Ill keep your wishes in my mind. |
|||||||||
|
Tex4OC Regular Member
|
Good Luck, From an anxiously awaiting Texan. We are trying our own, may God be with us all, for the battle goes decidedly in the other direction starting tomorrow. 1-20-2009 the beginning of an ERROR. |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member 
|
This is my 1st post- Great site! I live in Florence and hope this bill passes. I'm still waiting on SLED to approve my CCP and hope it becomes legal to OC. I remember back in the seventies; I open carried "gunslinger" style in N. MS and rural TN. There never were any problems. I just don't get some of the arguments that OC makes you more of a target. My family ran a small country store. OC allowed people to realize there were always at least 4 people they'd have to fight if robbery or assault was on their mind. NOTHING ever happened until we needed to carry concealed. Then some BG's tried to rob the place- they were shot (not dead unfortunately). However, we were considered the bad guys. The now democrat controlled local politicians including the sherrif arrested my aunt and uncle. All I can say is thank God for right to jury! I'm convinced if we were allowed to OC, the attemped robbery would never of happened. BTW; another robbery was never attempted- the store was sold last year. |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
Welcome to the forum. Im just to the northwest of you. |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
Thanks for the welcome. I'm new to all this legal and activist stuff! However, I think it's time we do like the NRA and other gun rights organizations have been telling us to do for decades get involved, stay involved and hold lawmakers accountable. It's good to know I'm not alone in belief OC should be legal. Tim |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
AllAmerican wrote: Welcome to the forum. Im just to the northwest of you. Maybe we can meet a Bill BBQ for lunch sometime? No, scatch that ANYTIME! Tim |
|||||||||
|
AllAmerican Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: AllAmerican wrote:Welcome to the forum. Im just to the northwest of you. Hmmmm BBQ! |
|||||||||
|
carryall Regular Member
|
I have written everyone of my state representatives in my district asking them to support or otherwise explain their stance on the legislation and after 2 months the only respondent has been Alan D. Clemmons of Myrtle Beach. No others have bothered to respond to my inquiry. Mr. Clemmons indicated his support of the pending legislation. To all other in my district, shame on your lack of response. I will respond more actively each and every November. |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Robert Butler wrote: Mike wrote:I understand your concerns, and agree with most of the analysis in the link above, but disagree with the conclusion that under H. 3003, "gun owners give up something (i.e., vehicle carry for CWP holders[)]." I just received a phone call from Rep. Mac Toole regarding H. 3003. Rep. Toole stated he had received the letter from GrassRoots detailing the problems with H. 3003. Rep. Toole wanted to know what we wanted him to do with regards to H. 3003. I told Rep. Toole he should submit the letter to the General Assembly's staff attorneys to verify that what GrassRoots said about H. 3003 was correct before going any further. Rep. Toole stated he had already done so and that the GrassRoots analysis of H. 3003 was correct. I told Rep. Toole we would like to see H. 3003 fixed and then passed. But, we would rather see H. 3003 die than have it passed in its present form because we did not feel that we should have to give up any of our gun rights in order to get a different gun right in return. Rep. Toole stated he signed on to H. 3003 to show his support for our gun rights. But, before he would be part of giving away any of our gun rights, he would withdraw his name as a co-sponsor. So, Rep. Toole will be withdrawing his name as a co-sponsor until the bill gets fixed. We doubt H. 3003 will get fixed because there are more important issues facing the General Assembly than trying to fix a bill that will not pass even if fixed. Rob |
|||||||||
|
carryall Regular Member
|
Hello, Please help me understand the problems with this bill as I am only an ordinary citzen and not a lawyer. Resepctfully submitted, carryall |
|||||||||
|
hp-hobo Regular Member 
|
carryall wrote: Hello, This should help you to understand where it's at (H. 3003) and where GrassRoots feels it needs to be. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/3003.htm http://scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3003.html http://www.scfirearms.org/ |
|||||||||
|
carryall Regular Member
|
Thank you for the information. I now understand how something so simple can be made so unnecessarily complex . Last edited on Wed Mar 4th, 2009 12:55 pm by carryall |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
carryall wrote: Thank you for the information. I now understand how something so simple can be made so unnecessarily complex All they needed to do was repeal Section 16-23-20 and Section 16-23-460. Then, we would have Alaska carry, i.e., no permit needed to carry either openly or concealed in SC and a concealed weapon permit available for reciprocity when needing to carry in other states. I would suggest you join GrassRoots GunRights SC. Then, you would be able to stay on top of these issues and help us get pro gun legislation enacted into law, defeat anti gun legislation, and fix poorly drafted legislation. Rob |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
Here's my two cents- I believe there is nothing wrong with requiring a permit for CC. (I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) Being able to check on permit to carry concealed has led to the arrest of MANY a bad guy! I also believe it should be completely legal to OC "without" a permit. Other states have these types of OC and CC laws on the books and it works fine. So if you ask me; (nobody has; BUT should!)- If I desire to carry concealed "sometimes" as NOT to draw attention to myself, then a permit should be required. If I want to OC (which I will do MOST of the time); NO permit should be required; PERIOD! But alas; here's the rub. Right now; it is currently legal to CC in the glovebox or consol of my vehicle "without" a permit. Correct? However, the OC bill as it stands if passed will make it "illegal" to carry in my vehicle without a CWP. Also Correct? (NOT GOOD!) So? Why can't we word a bill that will uphold a persons legal right to safely secure his/her handgun in the glovebox or consol of the vehicle. (That law ALREADY exist!) It seems to me that's all that needs to be done! It also seems to me, some people want to do away entirely with current CC requirements. IMO; THIS is over reaching! I believe my feelings are the same as most people. (At least in my circle of influence) I certainly do NOT want some arrogant ass**** destroying the progress that has already been made! To win WARS, one must pick his battles carfefully! IMO; it is WRONG to be demanding that the entire CWP laws be abolished in order to make it legal to OC. Those that have this ALL or NOTHING agenda, have a gross mis-understanding of people and politics. Get over it and STOP being SELF absorbed! You do NOT speak for me! It is these type of people that SUBSTANCIALLY increase the risk of losing popular support of gun owners that do NOT desire to carry. NOT to mention NON gun owners who currently SUPPORT gun rights! Last edited on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 03:38 pm by tcox4freedom |
|||||||||
|
hp-hobo Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: ...But alas; here's the rub. Right now; it is currently legal to CC in the glovebox or consol of my vehicle "without" a permit. Correct?... I'll let Rob respond to the rest of your post because it seems as though it's mostly directed at him. As to the above statement/question. In the state of South Carolina, if you are lawfully allowed to own a firearm (obviously handgun in this case), you can carry a loaded weapon in your vehicle as long as it is in a glove box or center console that is closed. There is no requirement for a lock, latch or permit. "16-23-20 (9) a person in a vehicle if the handgun is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle; however, this item is not violated if the glove compartment, console, or trunk is opened in the presence of a law enforcement officer for the sole purpose of retrieving a driver’s license, registration, or proof of insurance;" http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx?MenuID=CWP#1 I think most of the anger you displayed in your post is because of your own misunderstanding of the current and proposed laws. Have a nice day. Carry on. Last edited on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 05:21 pm by hp-hobo |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: (I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) EVERYONE is a "potential" bad guy, including you. Rob |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: It also seems to me, some people want to do away entirely with current CC requirements. IMO; THIS is over reaching! I guess it all comes down to whether one believes "the right to keep and bear arms" is truly a right or just a privilege. One does not need a permit to exercise a God given or natural right, only to exercise a privilege granted by government. Unfortunately, those who believe there is no right to keep and bear arms seem to be in the majority. Rob |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
Robert Butler wrote: tcox4freedom wrote:(I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) Please Explain Yourself! You Don't know me well enough to make that statement. If your such a great lawyer, you must realize you have just publically defamed my character! Last edited on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 05:52 pm by tcox4freedom |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: Robert Butler wrote:tcox4freedom wrote:(I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) Look up the word "potential" in the dictionary. I do not need to know you or anyone else to know that EVERYONE has the "potential" to do something bad. If you think you have been publicly defamed simply because I stated a truism, then sue me. Rob |
|||||||||
|
Robert Butler Regular Member
|
Robert Butler wrote: Rep. Toole stated he signed on to H. 3003 to show his support for our gun rights. But, before he would be part of giving away any of our gun rights, he would withdraw his name as a co-sponsor. So, Rep. Toole will be withdrawing his name as a co-sponsor until the bill gets fixed. Rep. Toole has officially removed his name as a co-sponsor of H. 3003. Rob |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
Robert Butler wrote: tcox4freedom wrote:It also seems to me, some people want to do away entirely with current CC requirements. IMO; THIS is over reaching! I am in complete agreement with the 2nd ammendment. If you read my previous post, I say I am for OC without any regard to permit. BG's usually do NOT OC! Therefore, I think we need some type of law when it comes to CC. Bad guys always try to conceal their intentions until they commit a crime. The truth is CC laws have prevented crime as well as OC laws. I am in favor of OC; solely because I DO believe in the second ammendment! It is not some kind of macho thing with me; as it seems to be with others. It is entirely a Constitutional "Rights" issue. For someone to accuse another of not being for the "right to bear arms" is another inflamatory and slanderous statement; made in a public forum! Again; YOU DO NOT KNOW ME WELL ENOUGH! |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
Robert Butler wrote: tcox4freedom wrote:Robert Butler wrote:tcox4freedom wrote:(I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) If you keep defaming my character I might! BUT. That might be what you want? I wonder if you are who you want us to believe you are. I think you are the type of person who secretely wants our gun rights to fail. I would even wager, you probably voted for Obama! JMHO BYW; My attorneys are in Columbia. "Barry,Quackenbush and Stuart" is one of the firms I've used in the past. |
|||||||||
|
hp-hobo Regular Member
|
WOW!  |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote:For someone to accuse another of not being for the "right to bear arms" is another inflamatory and slanderous statement; made in a public forum! Thank goodness! And will not. BQS serves a diverse client mix with principal emphasis on business, corporate, real estate, governmental relations and litigation. Last edited on Thu Mar 5th, 2009 07:30 pm by Doug Huffman |
|||||||||
|
DKSuddeth Regular Member 
|
tcox4freedom wrote: Robert Butler wrote:tcox4freedom wrote:Robert Butler wrote:tcox4freedom wrote:(I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) you might want to learn a little something of the law yourself before you go threatening lawsuits for something that doesn't even come close to defamation. you might want to look up defamation as well, just as a starter. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
And 'inflammatory' and 'amendment', just off the top of my head. |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
Doug Huffman wrote: And 'inflammatory' and 'amendment', just off the top of my head. F.U. |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
DKSuddeth wrote: tcox4freedom wrote:Robert Butler wrote:tcox4freedom wrote:Robert Butler wrote:tcox4freedom wrote:(I DO NOT want potential bad guys to be able to carry legally!) Its because of DUMBASS F**KS like you guys that we will never see an OC law approved! That's OK I'll still CC! Dumb F**KS!!! |
|||||||||
|
tcox4freedom Regular Member
|
The D***k H**ds in SC have just lost TWO supporters to OC that will now NEVER pass out fliers or try and convince their 100 member club to get behind ANY OC LAW. WAY to GO!!!! |
|||||||||
|
hp-hobo Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: Its because of DUMBASS F**KS like you guys that we will never see an OC law approved! That's OK I'll still CC!tcox4freedom wrote: The D***k H**ds in SC have just lost TWO supporters to OC that will now NEVER pass out fliers or try and convince their 100 member club to get behind ANY OC LAW. Now wait just a minute. The two people in this thread that you have an argument with are in no way related to the open carry petition or handing out pro-OC flyers at gun shows. One is the VP of GRGRSC and the other is only a member of the organization (I think). Those of us who are actively spreading the word about open carry would be happy to have your help and support along with the help and support of your club membership. There is power in numbers. This in no way is meant to marginalize the fine work done by GRGRSC in securing our gun rights. However, they cover all facets of gun rights in South Carolina and we are focused primarily on open carry. If you have any questions on the matter, please feel free to shoot ma a PM. Have a great day. Carry on. P.S. On a more personal note. I don't think personal attacks and name calling are appropriate on this forum. I would appreciate it if you would in the future carry yourself in a more mature manner. After all, you represent not only yourself, but also gun owners and citizens of South Carolina. Thank you. P.P.S. Part of the reason that you have to opportunity to lawfully CC in South Carolina is because of the efforts of GRGRSC. Keep that in mind before you have a fit and then threaten to take your ball and go home. Last edited on Fri Mar 6th, 2009 08:32 pm by hp-hobo |
|||||||||
|
DKSuddeth Regular Member
|
tcox4freedom wrote: DKSuddeth wrotelet's see if we all have this straight.you might want to learn a little something of the law yourself before you go threatening lawsuits for something that doesn't even come close to defamation. YOU threaten defamation lawsuits because people smarter and more versed in the laws than you advise you to actually research and discover the actual laws and definition of words before you throw around threats of lawsuits, and SOMEHOW we're the Dumb F**KS? And because we TRY to advise you of these things, now you're no longer going to support open carry in SC? If this is your typical attitude when people try to help you out, then I'd say we are the lucky ones that you won't be helping us out. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
So much for the prohibition on F-bombs. Please PM the owner/moderator protesting the violation of Rule 3) Keep the profanity to a minimum - and then, after you find yourselves using it, go back after you have reflected and edit it out, especially those F-Bombs!Please go back and search your posts and edit out those F-bombs, thanks! Though this area of the web site is a bit of free speech area, the threads necessarily reflect upon the open carry movement as the press and general public do read our postings. I have but then I have also sinned previously. |
|||||||||
|
Hef Regular Member 
|
tcox4freedom wrote: The D***k H**ds in SC have just lost TWO supporters to OC that will now NEVER pass out fliers or try and convince their 100 member club to get behind ANY OC LAW. Way to go, genius. |
|||||||||
|
Doug Huffman Regular Member
|
A quote box cannot be edited by the OP, such as to remove his F-bombs. |
|||||||||
|
Mike Super Moderator
|
tcox4freedom wrote: But alas; here's the rub. Right now; it is currently legal to CC in the glovebox or consol of my vehicle "without" a permit. Correct? And this is where I disagree with Robert - the bill does not make it unlawful to conceal carry in vehicle glove box without CWP - but Robert thinks judges will simply decide it does (or maybe police will construe it as such and cause headaches for many) based upon some "legislative intent" in this bill (which I cannot seem to find in the bill's text). This is not generally the way statutes are construed - criminal statutes' meanings are drawn from the text within in the four corners of the statute and ties on meaning go to the Defendant under the Rule of Lenity. The South Carolina Supreme Court's most recent pronouncment on the matter of legislative intent follow's Justice Scalia's persistent suggestion that legislative intent can only be derived from the statute's text anyway. On February 23, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court released the opinion in Hardee v. McDowell and said that Hardee v. McDowell, --- S.E.2d ----, 2009 WL 427101 (2009). But then again, see the recent Hayes ruling by S. Ct. (holding that Congress' apparent "clear intent" overrides Rule of Lenity for misdemeanor crime of domestic violence gun disability statute). Hayes got only 2 votes for RUle of Lenity: Roberts and Scalia. Scary. Also Robert objects to the bill's apparent removal of certain business owners ability to carry concealed without permit. This objection can be cured by amending the bill. And even the fear of misinterpretation of the bill as eliminating unlicensed conceal carry in glove box can be assuaged by tacking on a savngs clause, somthing like "nothwisthstanding any other provision of this statute, nothing shall be construed to make it unlawful for a person without a CWP to carry a handgun in a glove box." |
|||||||||
|
KBCraig Regular Member
|
Isn't it interesting that so much bile and anger is being spewed by someone using the same avatar that N*trov*c used to use? (No, I don't think they're related; entirely different style.) |
|||||||||
|
warlockmatized Regular Member 
|
I must have missed something....So I will simply ask... ANY news on this? Last edited on Fri May 1st, 2009 11:40 pm by warlockmatized |
|||||||||
|
hp-hobo Regular Member
|
That'll be a big negative there Ghostrider. No (known) change since mid to late February. The legislative process move excrutiatingly slow. |
|||||||||