| Author | Post |
|---|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sun Nov 1st, 2009 12:18 pm |
|
http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1007203.html
Be careful, there are assertions in the article that I do not recall as true, e.g, "The permit allows people to hide guns beneath their clothes or in their purses, briefcases and backpacks."
|
Statkowski
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 02:49 pm |
|
| Concealed means concealed. Hidden beneath their clothes? Gee, that's concealed.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:57 pm |
|
Purses and backpacks have not been tested in court. A briefcase may have been.
The effective paragraph of SC Stats is
(6) "Concealable weapon" means a firearm having a length of less than twelve inches measured along its greatest dimension that must be carried in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self-defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property.
Not mentioning purses, backpacks or purses.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 04:59 pm |
|
Master Doug Huffman wrote: http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1007203.html
Be careful, there are assertions in the article that I do not recall as true, e.g, "The permit allows people to hide guns beneath their clothes or in their purses, briefcases and backpacks."
As far as I know that statement is correct. The law says under normal wear of clothing but the AG has issued an opinion that a ladies purse is normal clothing and includes such things as briefcases for men. I am not completely sure about the backpacks in all cases but if you are carrying it then it would fall under the same category as a briefcase.Last edited on Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:59 pm by PT111
|
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 07:12 pm |
|
What is wrong with the people who write this stuff? Pack heat... 'hide' guns... 'least the writer stpooed short of the usual 'strutting around strapped' nonsense.
It's called Concealed 'cause OC is denied in SC. 'Least people are allowed to defend themselves. I mean... we don't generally carry thse chunks of iron for fashion statements. If it wasn't for BG's we wouldn't carry at all. But... such is not the world we live in.
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Nov 2nd, 2009 09:45 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: Master Doug Huffman wrote: http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1007203.html
Be careful, there are assertions in the article that I do not recall as true, e.g, "The permit allows people to hide guns beneath their clothes or in their purses, briefcases and backpacks."
As far as I know that statement is correct. The law says under normal wear of clothing but the AG has issued an opinion that a ladies purse is normal clothing and includes such things as briefcases for men. I am not completely sure about the backpacks in all cases but if you are carrying it then it would fall under the same category as a briefcase.
Please cite/link to it if you expect people to risk their freedom on your assertion.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 02:43 am |
|
Master Doug Huffman wrote: PT111 wrote: Master Doug Huffman wrote: http://www.thestate.com/local/story/1007203.html
Be careful, there are assertions in the article that I do not recall as true, e.g, "The permit allows people to hide guns beneath their clothes or in their purses, briefcases and backpacks."
As far as I know that statement is correct. The law says under normal wear of clothing but the AG has issued an opinion that a ladies purse is normal clothing and includes such things as briefcases for men. I am not completely sure about the backpacks in all cases but if you are carrying it then it would fall under the same category as a briefcase.
Please cite/link to it if you expect people to risk their freedom on your assertion.
As you are so fond of saying that one should do their own research rather than relying on the word of someone else, I do not understand why you think that someone would soley rely on my statements here on this board. I do not have a copy of the AG opinion handy but I will quote from the book "South Carolina Gun Law" in which the foreword was written by your good friend and associate Mr. Robert D. Butler, D.C., J.D.. On page 27, third paragraph "(It should be noted that a woman's purse and a man's briefcase are considered articles of clothing for the purposes of the statute.)" Since the book was written by two attorneys and a policeman, forwarded by a third attorney I would consider it to be reliable. In addition I have also been told that by more than one CWP instructor and other reliable sources that this is the proper interpretation.
You can do your own research as you prefer to do but I feel very confident that a purse or a briefcase does constitute concealment for purposes of SC law. Therefore I cannot find fault with The State article with this statement other than the possibility of a backpack which has not be specifically defined as being included but understood.
Edited to note that under Federal non discrimination guidelines this probably would include a man's purse and a woman's briefcase.
Last edited on Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 03:57 am by PT111
|
Master Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 04:16 pm |
|
PT111 wrote: The law says under normal wear of clothing but the AG has issued an opinion that a ladies purse is normal clothing and includes such things as briefcases for men. I am not completely sure about the backpacks in all cases but if you are carrying it then it would fall under the same category as a briefcase.
So much for the AG 'opinion' and OCDO Rule 7).
See, here is an effective citation;
http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum1/1.html
7) If you state a rule of law, it is incumbant upon you to try to cite, as best you can, to authority. Citing to authority, using links when avaiable, is what makes OCDO so successful. An authority is a published source of law that can back your claim up - statute, ordinance, court case, newspaper article covering a legal issue, etc.
|
PT111
Regular Member
|
Posted: Tue Nov 3rd, 2009 09:58 pm |
|
| I am not the one tat said that The State article was incorrect in their interpretation on the law. You said that they are incorrect and have not provided anything to prove otherwise. How about you citing a source that says that a purse or briefcase is not normal wear of clothing in SC since you good friend says that it is. Or are you calling your friend a liar. I was only trying to point out that he had a basis for his interpretation whether or not it is factual. I have seen the AG opinion but I am not going to research it as it merely restated the present laws of SC and not a new opinion on anything.
|
Current time is 01:15 am | |
|
