Why Do People Say South Carolina is Gun Friendly?

[Evergreen]

Since this is a big concern for you then you need different friends and girlfriend.

Right, people never have arguments and sometimes do actions they regret.

No you don’t understand that the Bill of Rights puts restrictions on the Government not the individual.

Umm.. An individual does not get to wield the authority of law punishing gun owners, when determining who is at their home. A person having force of law to turn you into a "gun criminal" very clearly, from my perspective, "infringes" upon your right to keep and bear arms. What they have the authority to do is to dictate who is allowed on their property and who is not and that is it. Anyone not respecting the property rights of the owner is committing the crime of trespassing, not being a gun offender. Punishing people for a gun offense violates our Bill of Rights, when in fact all they are committing is a trespassing offense. Go back to my example of the plumber, refrigerator repair guy, electrician etc working in some very crime ridden neighborhood. Since, a person has the power to turn you into a "gun violator" which has serious long term repercussions, this essentially means another law abiding citizen has been forced to be disarmed and cannot defend himself. So, when this man is walking back to his car with his tools and some thug or desperate junkie sticks a gun to him, since he knows he is unarmed, shoots him and robs him, will you say its justified, since the property owner was protected from the law abiding citizen carrying a gun into his house? Once again, remember that gun control laws only protect criminals, not law abiding citizens.

I don’t have “right to do…is to turn a person into criminal for exercising their 1st or 2nd Amendment right.” That is done through the legal system.

And our legal system has in fact enforced laws that are unconstitutional and contradict our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Some may argue that Jim Crow laws were justified, because maybe they thought the constitutional laws only applied to white people. Some also will argue the 2nd Amendment only applies to the military. However, it has been proven that these misinterpretations of our laws are in violation to the Constitution.

A person should suffer no more penalty for carrying a gun in a person's house then they should suffer for being of a different skin color, religion, lifestyle, appearance, etc. As far as inanimate objects, carrying a gun into someone's home should incur no greater penalty than someone who has issued a de facto ban on cell phones in their home. If they call the police because someone is yapping on their cell phone, the person should suffer same penalty as someone who is legally exercising their 2nd Amendment Right to carry a gun with them.

Actually if you will study American history the United States has had laws such as what you describe. Research segregation in the South during the late 19th and up to the 1960’s.

So, since our country had unconstitutional laws, that makes it acceptable? In fact, a lot of the gun control laws on the books were used as a means of keeping guns out of the hands of ethnic groups that the governing bodies saw as threats or inferior, etc.

Again why is this such a big concern for you?

Because, I am a strong believer in gun rights and personal freedoms and feel the administering of unconstitutional laws is a threat to the well-being of our society. Also, one bad law can result in even worse laws from being issued. As well, the more power and authority the government has to incriminate gun owners and any other people, the more the power and authority can be abused, as I stated in above posts.

One thing you should keep in mind is the differences in culture. Folks from California make a lot of fun of Kansans as they consider us 10 years behind California. This is a common attitude also by folks from the NorthEast. You know what? We kind of like being behind California.

This has nothing to do with culture, but has to do with civil liberties and personal freedoms. I do not respect the politicians of the state and who ever voted for the unconstitutional laws, assuming it is not a result of bureaucracy managing to institute such laws without the people's support. This can also be the case in many instances. Maybe people in the more liberal enclaves of the state, such as Charleston, e.g. , dictate the laws for the rest of the state. That is EXACTLY the situation we are faced with in Washington and Oregon, where two cities push a lot of bad laws that the rest of the state must suffer with.

ANyway, I don't know why anyone would consider gun control laws something to be proud about. This is exactly why places like the Northeast and California suck. And, if Washington, Oregon or whatever state has some gun freedoms that South Carolina doesn't have, I don't know why someone would defend that. Everyone should strive to make their state as constitutionally sound as they can. I am not saying any place is perfect in this day and age.. Well, except Arizona, may be perfect with gun laws (or gun rights), but couldn't live through the 120 degree days.

I understand people shunning change for the worse, but who would shun change for the better? People who get their feelings hurt because people point out some very restrictive gun laws, need to re-assess whether they are more loyal to their state or to freedoms and liberties guaranteed to us at a federal level, which states are not suppose to infringe.

As discussed the gun laws on the books should only be one part of a decision where to move. For some it is more important than others. For me living in a State with many firearm freedoms is important. Like you about 4 years ago I was laid off from my job for 18 months. We discussed moving with Texas being a big consideration. As it turned out I was rehired by my company after agreeing to a big pay cut. We had to make some adjustments to our lifestyle but such is the price of staying put.

My story about losing my job is pretty horrible.. I got screwed big time after being used like a slave, underpaid, overworked, abused and tossed in the dirt in family business for which I worked for over 15 years. I won't go into the gory details. I need to live very cheaply for a year and well with 1 bedroom apartments renting for $1700/mo, the Seattle area is just not a place you can live cheaply anymore. The Californians, esp have driven prices through the roof and they keep going up. My home state of Oregon is essentially the same.

Another above poster mentioned Indiana, will have to look into that. Cheap living, gun freedoms and higher pay. As much as I will miss living in mountains, I guess a man has got to eat. Hard to take a mountain man away from his mountains where he grew up, but that's life. I'm not saying I hate Washington, I do like it, but I cannot afford to live here anymore. A lot of jobs here also go to H1Bs with Microsoft, etc and Amazon is just horrible employer to work for. Oregon has become totally fiscally socialist, 9% state tax, low wages and skyrocketing living costs. I fled my home state a while ago now. Also, want to get the heck away from my family, a whole other issue.

 

[mgkdrgn]

From what I was told, SC doesn't accept GA carry permit is they don't have to take a class for their permit. Don't hold this a gospel,it's what a firearm dealer told me.

Yep, that is pretty much it.

We generally get a UTAH non-resident permit to cover the places SC permit does not. NO state permit is good EVERYWHERE.

 

[mgkdrgn]

If you view the SC laws as "draconian"... there are going to be VERY few places where you are going to be able to live.

 

[Midwest]

Umm.. An individual does not get to wield the authority of law punishing gun owners, when determining who is at their home. A person having force of law to turn you into a "gun criminal" very clearly, from my perspective, "infringes" upon your right to keep and bear arms. What they have the authority to do is to dictate who is allowed on their property and who is not and that is it. Anyone not respecting the property rights of the owner is committing the crime of trespassing, not being a gun offender. Punishing people for a gun offense violates our Bill of Rights, when in fact all they are committing is a trespassing offense. Go back to my example of the plumber, refrigerator repair guy, electrician etc working in some very crime ridden neighborhood. Since, a person has the power to turn you into a "gun violator" which has serious long term repercussions, this essentially means another law abiding citizen has been forced to be disarmed and cannot defend himself. So, when this man is walking back to his car with his tools and some thug or desperate junkie sticks a gun to him, since he knows he is unarmed, shoots him and robs him, will you say its justified, since the property owner was protected from the law abiding citizen carrying a gun into his house? Once again, remember that gun control laws only protect criminals, not law abiding citizens.

100% + Excellent! Very well put!
.

 

[oneounceload]

Because, I am a strong believer in gun rights and personal freedoms

Yet you do not want to respect the personal freedoms and rights of property owners?

YOUR rights end at the edge of someone's personal property; the Constitution is about you and the Federal government.

 

[Sam1911]

Once again, we're talking RIGHT PAST each other.


Evergreen isn't saying that someone doesn't have the right to refuse entrance to your property to someone for whatever reason, including a firearm if that's a problem for you.

You do. You always do.

Evergreen (and most of us) are saying that it is improper to have a law that says you are a CRIMINAL if you enter a place without first asking the owner whether he or she wants you to X,Y,or Z (in this case, carry a concealed firearm) while you're there.

Trespassing laws are perfectly serviceable to handle any such "property rights" need. Stacking additional automatic criminal penalties because there's a concealed firearm involved on top is draconian and pointless. ESPECIALLY considering that these laws generally would make one a criminal the moment they entered a property, armed, even if that was PERFECTLY fine with the owner!, if they did not first obtain expressed permission for that.

 

[BSA1]

Evergreen (and most of us) are saying that it is improper to have a law that says you are a CRIMINAL if you enter a place without first asking the owner whether he or she wants you to X,Y,or Z (in this case, carry a concealed firearm) while you're there.

I find the idea that a person has to have the express permission of the homeowner by law before carrying a firearm onto their property very interesting. This is something I have never given thought to.

Trespassing laws are perfectly serviceable to handle any such "property rights" need. Stacking additional automatic criminal penalties because there's a concealed firearm involved on top is draconian and pointless. ESPECIALLY considering that these laws generally would make one a criminal the moment they entered a property, armed, even if that was PERFECTLY fine with the owner!, if they did not first obtain expressed permission for that.

We know that being arrested and convicted of certain non-firearm laws can result in the loss of concealed carry permits in the States that issue them as this is also a violation of the State's conceal carry law.

We also know that stacking criminal charges are not uncommon.

What cases are there where a person has been arrested and convicted of solely carrying a firearm onto another's property without their expressed permission?

 

[Theohazard]

Yet you do not want to respect the personal freedoms and rights of property owners?

YOUR rights end at the edge of someone's personal property; the Constitution is about you and the Federal government.

Stop with the strawmen arguments already! Nobody is saying that homeowners should give up their property rights!

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Did you ready anything of what Evergreen posted? Either you didn't read it or you didn't understand it. Either way, your post is absolutely ridiculous; nobody is making any of the arguments that you seem to be arguing against, at least not in this thread.

 

[MoreIsLess]

Time for a GA resident to weigh in

I live in GA and we are one of the most going friendly states in the country. I agree, the SC/GA reciprocity issue sucks as well as having to tell the officer you have a gun. I have family in SC and every time I go to visit them I have to stop at the border and put my gun in the trunk. I have gotten to the point where I just put the gun in the trunk when I leave my house in GA and leave it there so I won't have to fool with it. In addition, the speed limit in SC on the interstates is mostly 55 - 65 so it's almost as if they are looking for a reason to hassle you. I hate driving on I-85 through SC.

If you like green space and trees you would love North Georgia, it is close to the mountains and very hilly and lots of forests. Atlanta is IT paradise and only about 90 minutes from the mountains and there is plenty to do in Atlanta. Atlanta is about 90 minutes from Greenville, SC. The winters are not real harsh but we still have seasonal change. The big problem is the traffic, though. I have lived in IN, FL, NC and GA and I like GA best

 

[lawson4]

As Evergreen and others are saying, suppose I enter your house with a concealed weapon, and in the course of the visit the police are called for an unrelated reason. During the interaction with the LEO it becomes known that I am carrying and the homeowner is asked if I asked permission; he says no, but he doesn't mind. The LEO has the legal justification to arrest me for entering without expressed permission. I violated the law as written. I haven't violated the homeowner's rights, I violated the law.
I doubt this has ever happened, but...

Rick

 

[ClemsonAl]

Gun Friendly States 2015

According to Guns & Ammo Magazine, South Carolina ranked 14th, and Washington ranked 40th as the best gun friendly states. Also, anyone who can legally own a handgun, can have a loaded handgun in their glovebox or console in SC.

 

[Cowhide Cliff]

If you have reservations about South Carolina, there are other fine states to settle in the South. And don't overlook other States like Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana and West Virginia they are pretty good too.
.

I'm actually quite confused as to why Kentucky is not got a higher rating in the Travelers Guide. For example, why do they have Texas rated higher than Kentucky when you can't even open carry in Texas?

I'm yet to find another state other than Vermont that appears more gun friendly than Kentucky. In fact reading all these laws and regulations in other places makes me think I am pretty lucky to have lived and grown up in Kentucky where guns seem to be just common place.

 

[aeriedad]

I just rather not live in this type of America, being in constant fear of being a criminal for exercising 2A rights...

Anyhow, I am now making new assessment where I will live. It sucks about South Carolina, because it looks like a nice state, with lot of good scenery and decent people.

I'm also going to consider moving to Georgia , which after reviewing its laws, looks to be as friendly, if not more gun friendly, than my home state of Oregon. Also, looking at Tennessee and North Carolina. From reviewing the laws of Tennnesse and North Carolina, they look pretty on par. The couple laws they have that suck are the "No Gun Zone" signs that have force of law and no religious institution carry, therefore Church/State are still intermingled and if another Dylan Roof or whoever comes around, I am just a sheep to be slaughtered during the religious service. Ironic, South Carolina, a state that bans church carry is where a church mass shooting took place?

I appreciate the responses here and I am glad to be learning the laws of different states of the country more deeply. I'm only hoping South Carolina, being a so called "Conservative/Gun Friendly" state can eradicate its unconstitutional gun laws. Then I may reconsider moving there.

It's not hard to pick out the faults in any state's laws regarding the people's RKBA. I moved to SC upon retiring from the Marine Corps eight years ago. Every single year the legislature has improved the state's RKBA-friendliness. Very often the best failed measures one year gain sufficient support to pass the next year. One recent example is restaurant carry. Last year we almost got "permit-less carry," (i.e., no permit required for concealed carry, but open carry would still be prohibited). Of course you and I would hold that even those limited measures are still short of true Constitutional RKBA. And so yes, some of your concerns about SC's other laws are justified, though IMO, a bit overblown:

1) Requirement for homeowner's permission to carry concealed. I also do not like it that this is a criminal offense, especially, as Sam notes, it probably even applies in cases where the homeowner doesn't object but was not asked permission in advance. But in a practical sense, it's something people just learn to deal with. And please don't misunderstand; I do not mean to justify this silly law. I hate having to decide between disarming in advance or potentially introducing a touchy subject unnecessarily. It's just that this seems a more theoretical avenue to accidental crime than a practical one. It's probably more often an "add on" charge to someone already guilty of worse offenses.

2) "No Concealable Weapons Allowed" signs have force of law. But look again at that awkward phrasing. There are two movie theaters nearby that "say" they prohibit firearms. However, apparently only one theater means it, because they have posted the property according to state law. That's the theater we don't visit. The other theater has a "No Guns Allowed" sign, so while they may ask me to leave if they somehow discover I'm carrying, I would not be in violation of any state gun laws (but could still invite a simple trespassing charge by refusing to leave). If you're interested, you can see just how specific the sign requirements are to achieve force of law: http://scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c031.php (scroll down to "SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements."

3) Prohibited carry in places of worship / doctor's offices / schools. Actually, this is not exactly true. You can carry legally in such places, but it's entirely at the discretion of people unlikely to grant the necessary permission. Essentially, permission can come only from those responsible for the property (which pretty much rules out public schools and most large hospitals). But owners of private businesses, private school administrators or boards of directors, church pastors or the board of deacons or trustees etc. can grant Concealed Weapon Permit holders permission to carry on the premises. Obviously, obtaining such permission will almost always be an unwelcome burden, with the practical effect being such places are nearly "gun-free" zones. While I don't know of any specific proposals yet, I would not be surprised to see a push to ease restrictions on carry in places of worship in the next legislative session.

4) No Open Carry. This seems to be a personal thing with a few powerful legislators, some of whom are so-called conservatives. I would like to see it changed, but mostly as a matter of principle and as an indication that we are still moving in the right direction. For a number of off-topic reasons, I doubt I would ever open-carry, but believe I should have the option if one day it happens to be more convenient for whatever I'm doing. I'd say there's a fair chance open carry will be allowed here within the next five years.

5) Reciprocity with nearby states. Until recently, my SC CWP was not recognized in GA, AL or MS--all of which I traversed on frequent visits to family in Memphis, TN. Of those, only GA continues to disregard my SC CWP. In any case, I obtained a UT Concealed Firearm Permit the month after receiving my CWP, so I can carry in just about every state I'm likely to visit (except IL!). As others have noted, the GA / SC issue is political. Of course you and I and many others here would like our 2A rights to be respected across all state lines, just like our driver's license, marriage contracts etc.

I sometimes visit NC, VA, TN and other nearby states. Not going to dig into their laws here, but there are things to not like in those places too. Not that they are worse...or better...just different.

Now, while we do have much room for improvement in SC, it's worth noting (again) that things do improve every year. As annoying and unnecessary as some of our restrictions are, none of them seem sufficient reason to consider moving to a more RKBA-friendly state. However, OR and WA recently passed laws requiring universal background checks that seem to have potential for turning into backdoor universal registration programs. I can avoid becoming an accidental criminal in SC by asking my neighbor's permission before carrying on his property. If I lived in the northwest, I might be afraid that next year the legislature will begin outlawing guns they know I have, and I would be powerless to stop them. I would be very attuned to the mood of the legislature this year, where things may be trending, and perhaps begin looking elsewhere.

Evergreen, what is your sense of the trends in the northwest? Are things getting better or worse?

 

[stevekozak]

Come to Arizona. We are gun friendly. The only permit you need here to carry open or concealed is the United States Constitution. It doesn't get any better than that!

 

[Theohazard]

According to Guns & Ammo Magazine, South Carolina ranked 14th, and Washington ranked 40th as the best gun friendly states.

That's idiotic, and it shows the ignorance people have about the Pacific Northwest and Washington State in particular.

Back in 2012 I moved to the Seattle area from San Antonio, Texas. Before I moved, a friend of mind commented, "Man, I'll bet the gun laws suck up there!"

So I looked into it, and I found that with a few inconsequential exceptions, the gun laws in WA were even better than TX for two primary reasons: A concealed pistol license is much easier to get than in TX and there are fewer restrictions on where you can carry here in WA.

WA has some of the best gun laws in the entire country with only the following exceptions:

-You have to go through a waiting period if you want to buy a handgun and you don't have a concealed pistol license. But considering it takes about 15 minutes at your local law enforcement headquarters to apply for a CPL, and it only costs $52.50 and is good for 5 years, there's no reason to not have one.

-Short-barrelled shotguns and machine guns are illegal. This is no big deal to me; I could never afford to buy or shoot a machine gun, and while a short-barreled shotgun would be nice to have, I really don't have an interest in one.

-Our stupid new law regulating private sales. Technically this law makes anyone who even touches someone else's gun into a criminal with only a few exceptions. In reality, nobody is enforcing it and it's become an ongoing joke in this state. This law is really the only valid complaint to have about WA gun laws, but I can tell you it's only objectionable in principle and not in reality.

 

[dh1633pm]

Look on the bad side. You can move to NY. No jobs and no guns. SC is great when compared to what we have to put up with.

 

[Hondo 60]

NRA-ILA website has pages for each state

https://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-gun-laws/

Hope this helps someone

 

[Evergreen]

That's idiotic, and it shows the ignorance people have about the Pacific Northwest and Washington State in particular.

Back in 2012 I moved to the Seattle area from San Antonio, Texas. Before I moved, a friend of mind commented, "Man, I'll bet the gun laws suck up there!"

So I looked into it, and I found that with a few inconsequential exceptions, the gun laws in WA were even better than TX for two primary reasons: A concealed pistol license is much easier to get than in TX and there are fewer restrictions on where you can carry here in WA.

I agree fully with your post Theo.. It boggles my mind how Guns & Ammo and these other magazines/websites will rate Washington so low on gun freedoms because of the private sale background check, lack of full autos, etc, but somehow rate South Carolina high despite the fact it bans open carry and has considerably more restrictions on conceal carry, such as this unconstitutional "Permission to Enter Residence" law. As Sam stated, this law can be manipulated to turn a person into a gun violator, for something as simple as a police call and a person not asking "permission" to the home owner. I will not live in any state that enforces that one law alone, I don't care if they even allow bazookas if they have unconstitutional laws like that on the books that affect my every day life. Another fact people forget is that when most other states in the country restricted Conceal Carry or were May Issue, Washington was still a "Shall Issue" state. Washington is one of the earliest "Shall Issue" states in the country.

It is true that Washington state and Oregon took a step backwards in gun rights when they voted to enforce mandated background checks in all private sales. It really sucks, but as you say, this law is completely unenforceable and the law could be easily struck down due to its poor implementation after the first person prosecuted for the offense decides to challenge the law. Very few sheriffs in the state will even want to enforce this law, which has many grey areas. However, for those who say this will be one step from a complete gun grab in Washington that is absurd. The government knows the people who have guns anyway and there is too many gun toting people in this state who would not let the government disarm them. In fact, outside of Seattle, and even more, the Puget Sound, Washington is one of the most gun toting and friendly states I have been, even more so than Montana and Idaho, which surprised me.

At least as of now, I cannot predict the future, Washington is one of the most gun friendly states I have been. The state is practically constitutional carry, open carry is legal and protected. The only reason Washington requires a permit is because of $$$$. Washington is Shall Issue to even out of staters, no additional requirements. As far as open carry, read about the guy in Bellingham who sued the police department and won a civil law suit. They were forced to buy him a new motorcycle and hand him some additional cash in the settlement. I actually got the meet the guy, who at the time, was carrying his sidearm openly with him in downtown Bellingham. Washington has a few restrictions that have given it a bad rep, but also has made progress. Suppressors and SBRs are now legal and readily available all over the state. We have several firearm and firearm accessory manufacturers here. I'm hoping that the Californian/NOrtheasterner/Chicagoan transplants, etc don't try to ruin the freedoms. But all places in our country are at risk of that.

Anyway, I really do love Washington state, but it's just dang expensive and salaries are not making the grade for the rising costs. I got crushed and taken advantage in my business and now I am struggling. I am sad to leave, but a man has got to eat. I'm hoping to go to a place that is as gun friendly and hopefully even more. It was just a shocking revelation to me to see how restrictive some states were, like South Carolina, that I kept reading where very gun friendly. I too was confused when reading the high ratings from NRA or Guns & Ammo to find out that I would need permission to go here, cannot do this, cannot do that, when in my so-called gun "unfriendly" state of Washington I had all the freedoms and liberties to do the things I couldn't do in this so-called gun "friendly" state.

Come to Arizona. We are gun friendly. The only permit you need here to carry open or concealed is the United States Constitution. It doesn't get any better than that!

I would have said Northern Arizona would been on my radar, but it is really expensive and no jobs in that part of the state. I don't think I could survive the intense heat of Phoenix area. Arizona is a great state though.

Look on the bad side. You can move to NY. No jobs and no guns. SC is great when compared to what we have to put up with.

Yeah, you cannot get much worse than New York.. I think even most European countries have more liberties than New York, especially the city-state of New York City.

 

[Plan2Live]

Just a few bullet points, pun intended.

The idea of carrying an AR-15 into my state capital has never even crossed my mind. I'm not sure why this is such a point of contention.

Can anyone cite a single case in SC where someone was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm into a friend's home without asking permission? I only go into the homes of friends. I know the ones who wouldn't want me to carry into their homes and I either honor their wishes or I don't go. My house, my rules, their house, their rules. Same for a business. If I don't like the sign on the door then I don't have to shop there.

Why would anyone want to carry and consume alcoholic beverages? In the unlikely event you have to use your carry weapon to defend yourself, why would you want to give someone wanting to prosecute you or sue you under a wrongful death civil suit any grounds for questioning your sobriety or decision making ability? Wasn't it Jeff Cooper who said "don't go to stupid places with stupid people and do stupid things"?

I have stood behind hundreds of CWP applicants on the shooting range coaching them through the live fire qualifying and trying desperately to keep them from shooting their little toes off as they qualify for their carry permits. I have visited many indoor and outdoor shooting ranges and seen bullet holes where bullet holes shouldn't be. The accuracy requirements required to obtain a carry permit in SC are a joke.

As for non-permissive places in SC, the Post Office is a Federal rule, not state rule, the remainder seem to make sense to me. However, I work downstairs from a weight loss doctor's office and regularly see uniformed officers going upstairs, with guns on their hip before receiving medical treatment. As civilian I can't do that. Shiny badges shouldn't grant you special privileges unless you have received advanced training that justifies you skipping the restrictions I am subject to and I can't think of a single law enforcement agency that provides specific training on carrying your duty weapon into a medical facility.

 

[Theohazard]

Why would anyone want to carry and consume alcoholic beverages?

Because it's nice to be able to have a beer or two with dinner and not worry about it. Here in WA, if you're legal to drive you're legal to carry.

Anyone who says they'd never have even a single drink while carrying, do they have the same personal rule for driving? Because alcohol is far more likely to cause problems for me when I drive than if I'm just carrying a gun.

 

[TheRealJQP]

Part of it could be regional. California and Washington are awful compared to many western states like Arizona, Utah, etc. South Carolina is great compared to many eastern states like Maryland and New York.

I will give you a bit of non-legal advice, though: our cops are pretty laid-back in this state. Nothing at all like the Nazi cops I experienced in Maryland and California. This is because of wages. Cops are low-paid here, and take a pretty hands-off attitude.

 

[Sam1911]

Why would anyone want to carry and consume alcoholic beverages?

Because it's nice to be able to have a beer or two with dinner and not worry about it. Here in WA, if you're legal to drive you're legal to carry.

Anyone who says they'd never have even a single drink while carrying, do they have the same personal rule for driving? Because alcohol is far more likely to cause problems for me when I drive than if I'm just carrying a gun.

I'd rather not drag this thread off into that discussion, which we've had many times here before, but one thing to ponder is why any gun owner and gun carrier would desire to have a law requiring that s/he's got to worry not just about the practical and potential liability issues of such a choice, but faces jail and loss of rights due NOT to any injury or damage they cause, but because of the "malum prohibidum" thou-shalt-not terms of yet another law?

 

[TheRealJQP]

carry a loaded gun in your glove compartment or center console without a permit.

Same thing in SC.

Sorry, but can you show me where in our Constitution that a private citizen has the right to incriminate you by rule of law, for exercising your 2nd Amendment rights in their home?

Maybe you should look into the actual case history. Just a suggestion, I have no idea if your fears are well-founded or not. But, I wouldn't be surprised if your concerns are overstated. Maybe in reality, it amounts to a "he said she said" thing, and reasonable doubt means carriers are effectively protected from what you assume to be a reality? In theory, I can see the reasoning behind having to inform a homeowner that you're armed before going into his house.

This law, that South Carolina has, can easily be used in an abusive way to incriminate gun owners.

I'd say that would depend on how the law is enforced and interpreted.

And South Carolina is one of only 9 states that require you to notify the LEO that you are carrying upon official contact.

Personally, I'm fine with this.

No written permission required. You verbally ask the homeowner if permission to enter with your firearm is granted. Same goes for AK,AR and LA.

I think EG has a point, in that this law could be abused. The rub is finding out how it has actually played out. If there's a presumption of innocence when a carrier says he asked and got permission, then I think EG's fears are reasonably allayed.

Very often the best failed measures one year gain sufficient support to pass the next year. One recent example is restaurant carry. Last year we almost got "permit-less carry,"

From your lips to God's ears. Let's hope.

Can anyone cite a single case in SC where someone was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm into a friend's home without asking permission?

I would like to know this as well.

 

[Sam1911]

I have no idea if your fears are well-founded or not. But, I wouldn't be surprised if your concerns are overstated. Maybe in reality, it amounts to a "he said she said" thing, and reasonable doubt means carriers are effectively protected from what you assume to be a reality?

But that's a big risk. Laws have a tendency to be enforced. Some times they aren't. But they CAN be, and that sort of officer or prosecutor discretion can turn quite nasty towards one when everyone was going along fine, assuming such things are "never" enforced. Fixing these problems so that discretion is removed is very important. Sure, we may say it's ok because you, I, and our grandpappys were not hassled, arrested, and convicted. But that's no guarantee at all that we won't be tomorrow, or our kids won't be in the future.

In theory, I can see the reasoning behind having to inform a homeowner that you're armed before going into his house.

Really? I certainly would not want to have that conversation with every single person who's home I might enter!

This law, that South Carolina has, can easily be used in an abusive way to incriminate gun owners.

I'd say that would depend on how the law is enforced and interpreted.

See above, though. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

And South Carolina is one of only 9 states that require you to notify the LEO that you are carrying upon official contact.

Personally, I'm fine with this.

Lots of problems with it, though. Again, "it usually is no problem" isn't a good thing to rely on. Sometimes it IS a problem, sometimes it's a BIG problem. And who is it a problem for? The guy who's trying to follow the law and goes ahead and notifies Officer "Friendly." Not so much for the murderous gang member who's not going to be following that particular law today... Who do we WISH would admit to being armed? The bad guys. Who are the only people who are actually going to admit to being armed? The folks who never would pose a danger to us anyway... And so it goes.

No written permission required. You verbally ask the homeowner if permission to enter with your firearm is granted. Same goes for AK,AR and LA.

I think EG has a point, in that this law could be abused. The rub is finding out how it has actually played out. If there's a presumption of innocence when a carrier says he asked and got permission, then I think EG's fears are reasonably allayed.

But if he DIDN'T ask and get permission, then he is lying. And guilty of a CRIME simply because he didn't stop and have a rather awkward and pointless conversation with a homeowner about something having nothing at all to do with his visit.

That's something very important to remember in all these "there aught ta be a law!!!" sorts of conversations. These laws make it a CRIME, as in you are a CRIMINAL, if you fail to meet the non-intuitive, usually ineffective and pointless, terms of the law. So, you may feel it is a nice thing to do to have a little conversation with every homeowner you meet about your concealed carry weapon. Do you want to be a CRIMINAL if you forget or overlook that step?

Can anyone cite a single case in SC where someone was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm into a friend's home without asking permission?

I would like to know this as well.

Does it have to be a friend? Why does that matter?

 

[BSA1]

SECTION 23-31-225. Carrying concealed weapons into residences or dwellings.

No person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate. A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.

I am a retired Government bureaucrat. Which means I had a fancy job title, office and spent most of my time reading, interpreting and applying the appropriate State laws and department regulations when making decisions (and I got paid for doing it) . The reasons I bring this up is Government terminology is different than use by laymen.

Evergreen has made much ado over the word “express” in the phrase “without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession…” However in doing so he has failed to take one more very important step. This is he has not researched the legal definition by South Carolina of the word “express.”

Government regulations and laws are accompanied by a glossary of definitions. This is the same for this law.

See SECTION 23-31-210 of Title 23 - Law Enforcement and Public Safety, CHAPTER 31, Firearms.

Reading through the definitions listed there is no definition given for “express.”

Evergreen has presented a extreme interpretation of what he thinks “express” means by saying that he needs written permission before entering onto the property. However I do not find any definition that supports his position.

Merriam-Webster gives the definition of express as;

1. 1 a : directly, firmly, and explicitly stated <my express orders>b : exact, precise
2. 2 a : designed for or adapted to its purposeb : of a particular sort : specific <for that express purpose>

But Merriam-Webster gives layman's definitions and is not a legal source.

Black’s Law Dictionary gives a definition of;
1. 1 a : directly, firmly, and explicitly stated <my express orders>b : exact, precise
2. 2 a : designed for or adapted to its purposeb : of a particular sort : specific <for that express purpose>

Neither source states how permission must be given (i.e verbally, written, signage, sign language), when it must be given (i.e at the edge of the property, upon entering the residence, within 5 minutes of entering the residence) and how often it must be given (i.e everytime he comes to visit, once a month, once a year, forever until withdrawn. Nor is there any discussion in the law about how and when the permission is to be withdrawn.

So as it is written it is an unenforceable law. It is necessary to turn to the Courts to find out what definition they have given it which we don’t have in this discussion.

What the O.P. has stated he has had arguments and done actions he has sometimes regretted (Post # 51). In doing so he has opened up another side of the original intent of this law.

Evergreen’s point about the laws in some States are not as liberal as one is led to believe is well-taken. Such is beauty of the 10th Amendment.