Thursday, March 23, 2017

SC: Constitutional Carry Advances, Passes House Committee 15-7




H. 3930, a Constitutional Carry bill is on the move in South Carolina. On March 9th, it passed the Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee. On 21 March, it passed the full committee with a vote of 15 to 7.  Now it will advance to a vote before the full House. Last year a similar bill passed the House, but died in the Senate. From goupstate.com:
The bill by state Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, calls for what is often referred to as “constitutional carry” by allowing people who are legally permitted to own a firearm to carry one – concealed or in the open – without having to obtain a permit from the government.

A House panel sent the proposed law to the floor on a 15-7 vote Tuesday, over the concerns of several legislators – including Richland Democratic Rep. James Smith – who argued the bill has too many gray areas.

From thestate.com:
“The right to carry is a constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights,” Pitts said. “It is a constitutionally protected right, and that’s why I don’t think the government should (issue a) permit” for the carrying of a gun.

Pitts introduced a similar bill in 2016. But this year’s bill also would allow for “open carry,” which means a person can carry a firearm without having to conceal it.

The proposal does not change where firearm owners can carry their weapons. They would still be barred from carrying into schools and other already prohibited locations. And private businesses could still bar firearms from their establishments.

Here is a relevant section of the proposed legislation. The convention is that a strikethrough indicates text to be removed. Underlined text is text that is to be added.  From scstatehous.gov:
SECTION 2. Section 16-23-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

"Section 16-23-20. (A) It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law: with the intent to use the handgun unlawfully against another person. The intent to use a handgun unlawfully against another person must not be inferred from the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the handgun, whether it is loaded or unloaded.
Here is how it looks when the strikethru and underlining purposes are put into effect:
SECTION 2. Section 16-23-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read: 

"Section 16-23-20. (A) It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, , except as follows, with the intent to use the handgun unlawfully against another person. The intent to use a handgun unlawfully against another person must not be inferred from the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the handgun, whether it is loaded or unloaded.
The requirement for an unlawful intent to prosecute the carry of a weapon is similar to Constitutional Carry law in Vermont and Arkansas. Self defense is lawful. Carrying a weapon for self defense would not be a violation of the law.

The bill has a chance of passage. If it becomes law, South Caroling would join the Constitutional Carry club, increasing the number of states with Constitutional Carry to 13. The law would simultaneously decrease the states that routinely ban the open carry of holstered handguns from five to four, leaving only Florida, California, New York, and Illinois in that group. Florida is currently considering an open carry law, but the bill is bottled up in committee.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch






Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article137385668.html#storylink=cpy
SECTION    2.    Section 16-23-20 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:
"Section 16-23-20.    (A)    It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law: with the intent to use the handgun unlawfully against another person. The intent to use a handgun unlawfully against another person must not be inferred from the mere possession, carrying, or concealment of the handgun, whether it is loaded or unloaded.

12 comments:

Nathan Neulinger said...

I think you're missing strikethrough on "except as follows".

Anonymous said...

3 members did not vote or were absent.
1 Rep and 2 Dems.
Committee is 16 Reps and 9 Dems.
Vote was on Party Lines.
Republican FOR, Democrats AGAINST.
Figures.
Good thing Republicans outnumber the Democrats in both the State House and State Senate.
No guarantees, though.
Republican Governor will probably sign if it makes it to his desk.

Grigori Rasputin said...

I would love to see Constitutional Carry pass and become a reality for SC. It is a concept that is long overdue.

That said, for the benefit of both good citizens who might choose to utilize the open carry afforded under such law AND the law enforcement community, I would like to see verbiage added to the law codifying that police could not stop, detain, or otherwise impede citizens who are only carrying within the law and exhibiting no suspicious behaviors other than openly carrying. This would save citizens untold numbers of harrassment incidents and police from being embarrassed on video, as we have seen all too often on YouTube. Dispatchers for all LE agencies should be required to take a one hour training update prior to any open-carry law taking place, instructing them in dealing with unreasonably nervous citizens and anti-gun activists who call to report citizens who are open carrying within the law and doing nothing else wrong. If a citizen is only open-carrying, and doing nothing else suspicious such as threatening people, lurking in shadows behind or beside a business, or looking in car windows in a parking lot, the caller should be informed that it is not against the law to openly carry in SC and no officer will be responding. This will save countless wasted man-hours by police and keep citizens from being unnecessarily harrassed for no good reason.

Dean Weingarten said...

To Nathan:

Thanks, fixed it.

Anonymous said...

That wording exists in the Arizona laws.

Phil said...

This is "permitless" open carry of pistols. "Constitutional Carry" would be carrying your firearm into a publicly owned building in South Carolina such as a library, park office, etc, without getting charged with a FELONY, like what would happen to licensed carriers under current law.

H.3930 is progress, but SC will still have a LONG way to go toward restoring liberty and honoring the Constitution.

Anonymous said...

If gun owners will not learn what the construction of the constitution is and how it works we will continue to have second amendment issues. we will continue to suffer from uninformed incompetent gun grabber opinions, You must educate yourself to know what the argument is. we will continue to have arguments with the ignorant, incapable of being able to change their minds or learn. Some states require us to pay for gun safety courses. True story, California gun safety course instructor shoots himself unloading his own gun IN CLASS. I have been told the course cost is 50 dollars. the federal constitution, superior to state constitution, limits what we can be required to pay for anything to 20 dollars.

Anonymous said...

Phil: will you ever understand that the existing state law is unconstitutional to begin with. the 26 words of the second amendment are in the federal constitution, you need to read the tenth amendment until you understand the separation of powers. find an amendment that changes any word or phrase in the second amendment. acts and laws are not amendments. the US congress can not add words to the second amendment without an amendment ratified by we the people. not one of the gun control acts is constitutional. because the second amendment is in the federal constitution states have no authority to write gun laws, any thing the states write is an infringement. anything the US congress writes is an infringement until the second amendment is changed by a ratified amendment Shall not be infringed is an absolute, all encompassing legal command.

Anonymous said...

These kinds of permit laws violate the fourth Amendment, Amendment IV sections one and two. section one reads "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public Acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the manner in which such Acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof".

Article IV Section Two reads as follows " The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States".

The problem is permits and licenses are unconstitutional to begin with but if they were legal then a permit or a license in one state is required to be recognized by every other state. there is no need for a national reciprocity law. the states have no authority to amendment the second amendment to add the requirement of a permit or a license. by the above even if the state had the right to require a license or a permit, that license or permit must be recognized in every other state.

Anonymous said...

There is so much constitutionally wrong with these state gun laws. I really wish more people would read and understand what the constitution says. Understand the constitution is in fact a contract. Under contract law neither party to the contract can add , remove or ignore words to the contract. only the words written in the contract can and are required to be enforced. changes to a contract can only be made by mutual agreement with all parties to the contract. this is why you never sign anything you have not read and understand. could you be required to buy a car license every time you cross a state line? No. Not until you establish residency. One state can not tax a person from another state.

Anonymous said...

read the constitution and know why these laws are unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

+1