SC CWP Increase - Page 2

SC CWP Increase

This is a discussion on SC CWP Increase within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Yes, worth it. But it really BITES that you have to get a permit and pay to exercise your 2A rights. +1 to what Brady ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 36

Thread: SC CWP Increase

  1. #16
    Member Array Topspeed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    88
    Yes, worth it. But it really BITES that you have to get a permit and pay to exercise your 2A rights.
    +1 to what Brady said.


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array dsee11789's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    687
    Ohio's went up about $20 a little while ago too.
    Exodus 22:2 "If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed"

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    I commented in another thread that I find it very telling that the legislature, when they wrote the bill, indicated it did not want the finger printing to cost more than $5 and yet by not accepting anything other than this it will. Now how does that jive with the intent of the law and what authority does SLED have to ignore that portion and the intent and tone of that section? I wonder if it is within their authority to do this? I am for asking some legislators myself what they think of it. I know the reason is to assure themselves of the legitimacy but...it may be a step outside the boundary of the law itself to do this in my humble opinion. I see no legislative change in the law that allows this. I would think SLED would have to get legislative change to do it.

  4. #19
    Member Array H8SPVMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    I commented in another thread that I find it very telling that the legislature, when they wrote the bill, indicated it did not want the finger printing to cost more than $5 and yet by not accepting anything other than this it will. Now how does that jive with the intent of the law and what authority does SLED have to ignore that portion and the intent and tone of that section? I wonder if it is within their authority to do this? I am for asking some legislators myself what they think of it. I know the reason is to assure themselves of the legitimacy but...it may be a step outside the boundary of the law itself to do this in my humble opinion. I see no legislative change in the law that allows this. I would think SLED would have to get legislative change to do it.
    Absolutely, and that is why we're pissed at SLED. They are not following the law, but us CWP holders have to be very exact within the law.
    It stinks, in my book and every citizen wether he has a permit or not, should be screaming to the legislators about their flonting of the law.
    Certified Glock Armorer

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    I know they also dropped sending in a picture, which is still in the law, but no one really minds a dropping for a requirement. An additional and even more inconvenient and expensive one... is not going to be simply ignored I would think. It gets really dangerous when the agencies you enact to enforce the law start thinking they can also write the law. A dangerous precedent setting act to ignore no matter how small some may think it is.

  6. #21
    Member Array H8SPVMT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    264
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    I know they also dropped sending in a picture, which is still in the law, but no one really minds a dropping for a requirement. An additional and even more inconvenient and expensive one... is not going to be simply ignored I would think. It gets really dangerous when the agencies you enact to enforce the law start thinking they can also write the law. A dangerous precedent setting act to ignore no matter how small some may think it is.
    Your picture is gotten from DMV and used on the CWP.
    Certified Glock Armorer

  7. #22
    Member Array Mikhail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Up-State S.C.
    Posts
    130
    This is getting a bit much IMHO. They already have my finger prints and a photo for what they can do numerous things with. I think that they are trying to update the system on our dime.

  8. #23
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by H8SPVMT View Post
    Your picture is gotten from DMV and used on the CWP.

    I know... but it still is in the original and current law for you to send it. Thats the point. No one changed the law... see where I am going with that? We sent them in and they didn't need them nor use them. Fine... but the law remains differently written. But ignoring that part creates no hardship on the applicant.


    Just like it is still the current law for "law enforcement agencies may not charge more than $5 for this service (finger prints for CWP applications).... It says nothing about them being able to force you to go to an outside service and go through that process in the actual law.

    Thats the point. We don't mind the dropping of a requirement but we sure do mind the adding of one. That should be a legal change debated and passed by our representatives and made into law. Not someone sitting at SLED making his own laws for his own pleasure and convenience. The change presents a hardship for some. Not the cost but the location of the offices and the time and effort to go there. Many, if not most, got their finger prints right there in their class of in their home town. And the law, as it still is written, still says to do that. What SLED has put out is NOT law. And the law clearly indicates that the legislators wanted it to be no more than $5 and readily obtainable because they went so far as to exactly write that into the law.

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    The law (that section in discussion here) still reads like this... even today...


    SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.

    (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except subject to subsection (B) of this section, SLED must issue a permit, which is no larger than three and one half inches by three inches in size, to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty one years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon upon submission of:

    (1) a completed application signed by the person;

    (2) one current full face color photograph of the person, not smaller than one inch by one inch nor larger than three inches by five inches;

    (3) proof of residence or if the person is a qualified nonresident, proof of ownership of real property in this State;

    (4) proof of actual or corrected vision rated at 20/40 within six months of the date of application or, in the case of a person licensed to operate a motor vehicle in this State, presentation of a valid driver’s license;

    (5) proof of training;

    (6) payment of a fifty dollar application fee. This fee must be waived for disabled veterans and retired law enforcement officers; and

    (7) a complete set of fingerprints unless, because of a medical condition verified in writing by a licensed medical doctor, a complete set of fingerprints is impossible to submit. In lieu of the submission of fingerprints, the applicant must submit the written statement from a licensed medical doctor specifying the reason or reasons why the applicant’s fingerprints may not be taken. If all other qualifications are met, the Chief of SLED may waive the fingerprint requirements of this item. The statement of medical limitation must be attached to the copy of the application retained by SLED. A law enforcement agency may charge a fee not to exceed five dollars for fingerprinting an applicant.

  10. #25
    DrJ
    DrJ is offline
    Member Array DrJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by tellico View Post
    If you already have your permit, do you have to get prints done again?
    According to the SLED website, the new requirement to have electronic fingerprints applies to both new applications AND renewals. So no matter that you've already been printed, you have to go have it done again. There are only 14 sites throughout the state to do this, and you have to schedule an "appointment" to have it done. This is absolutely ridiculous to me. I will have to take time off work, incur extra travel expenses, and pay more money to do something I'VE ALREADY DONE!!

    According to Grassroots Gun Rights SC, the governor's office may be able to change this with a directive, so it's worth a phone call or e-mail to the governor's office to voice your opposition. I've already sent mine.

  11. #26
    Member Array JPCleary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    182
    Got this from the Grassroots forum...

    This message from Jessica Cross, Outreach Advisor for Governor Sanford, was in response to an email from a Grassroots member expressing his dismay at the recently proposed changes...

    Per our conversation earlier...

    Thank you for getting the word out. The change in policy isn't
    something that we proposed or approved ahead of SLED's proposal. Weshare those same concerns of privacy and additional fees and have been in touch with SLED. The "Easy Path" isn't something they will be pursuing. Please help notify any interested parties that the state will not be going ahead with the program.

    Thanks for your concern and for acting quickly.

    Take care. Keep in touch.

    Jessica Cross
    Outreach Advisor
    Office of Gov. Mark Sanford
    803-xxx-xxxx (w)
    803-xxx-xxxx (m)
    803-xxx-xxxx (f)
    Kimber Tactical Ultra II, Kahr PM45, Kahr PM9, Kahr P380

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array First Sgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florence, SC
    Posts
    7,967
    If you all will check the other post, it appears that the new SLED rules are being put on "HOLD". Just thought I'd point that out.
    Sometimes in life you have to stand your ground. It's a hard lesson to learn and even most adults don't get it, but in the end only I can be responsible for my life. If faced with any type of adversity, only I can overcome it. Waiting for someone else to take responsibility is a long fruitless wait.

  13. #28
    Moderator
    Array RETSUPT99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    44,779
    That's still only about $15 a year...
    The last Blood Moon Tetrad for this millennium starts in April 2014 and ends in September 2015...according to NASA.

    ***********************************
    Certified Glock Armorer
    NRA Life Member[/B]

  14. #29
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by JPCleary View Post
    Got this from the Grassroots forum...

    This message from Jessica Cross, Outreach Advisor for Governor Sanford, was in response to an email from a Grassroots member expressing his dismay at the recently proposed changes...

    Per our conversation earlier...

    Thank you for getting the word out. The change in policy isn't
    something that we proposed or approved ahead of SLED's proposal. Weshare those same concerns of privacy and additional fees and have been in touch with SLED. The "Easy Path" isn't something they will be pursuing. Please help notify any interested parties that the state will not be going ahead with the program.

    Thanks for your concern and for acting quickly.

    Take care. Keep in touch.

    Jessica Cross
    Outreach Advisor
    Office of Gov. Mark Sanford
    803-xxx-xxxx (w)
    803-xxx-xxxx (m)
    803-xxx-xxxx (f)

    I hope this says what I think it does... Good news. SLED still has it posted as being the same as of today. It should be stopped. I don't believe they had the authority to initiate this change anyway.

  15. #30
    Distinguished Member Array Brady's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,427

    "Easy Path" is dead!

    This from a newsletter a local gunstore puts out:

    From: "Allen Arms Indoor Range" <askus@allenarms.net>
    Thursday, July 8, 2010 12:19 PM

    I just talked with Bill Rentiers of GrassRoots SC, and they have been successful in getting Gov. Sanford to cancel the onerous "EasyPath" application/fingerprint program SCLED had devised, which would require all CWP applicants AND renewals to go to one of only THIRTEEN stations in the state for fingerprinting and to complete applications, by appointment only. Previously, renewals were done on line, without fingerprinting, and we could finger print students in-house. SCLED claims 21% of finger print cards were not readable. We have had 1 returned out of some 4,000 submitted. Of course, we used trained and certified technicians.
    We have both the governor and GrassRootsSC to thank for this attack of common sense and consideration. This is only one example of the fine work performed by GrassRoots. I didn't even have time to send an e-mail asking you to call the governor's office before they got it done!They were the driving force behind our CWP program. It wouldn't have happened without them. They have led the push for every improvement in the law. They pressure businesses to recognize permits. They are the real gun lobby in this state, not the NRA. And they are volunteers. I STRONGLY advise you to join and support them. I have belonged for many years before I went into business, generally sending them several times the very minimal dues they ask for. If you want to see gun rights, especially CWP rights, kept and improved in SC, JOIN. Their web site is below. And thank them for getting "EasyPath" stopped.
    BTW- I use quotes because "EasyPath" made it easy for SCLED, not you!
    GrassRoots South Carolina - Our Goal: Citizens carrying arms whenever and wherever they choose.
    Frank Allen
    ...he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Luke 22:36
    USN/VET; NRA; GOA, jpfo.org
    Life in a Jar: The Irena Sendler Project www.irenasendler.com

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

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

Similar Threads

  1. Ohio CHL Increase
    By GTOGuy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2010, 03:22 PM
  2. Impending Crime increase
    By BlackPR in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: October 8th, 2008, 11:41 PM
  3. N.C. CC applications increase
    By Blue in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: July 17th, 2008, 10:57 AM
  4. Walmart Ammo Increase
    By vashooter in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: August 11th, 2007, 10:10 PM
  5. Federal HST price increase
    By gunmetal in forum Defensive Ammunition & Ballistics
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: February 25th, 2007, 08:47 PM

Search tags for this page

cost for a cwp in sc
,
cost of cwp sc
,
cost of sc ccw
,
cwp electronic fingerprint
,
cwp increase
,
electronic fingerprinting in sc
,
fingerprinting for cwp in aiken sc
,
fingerprints aiken sc
,
sc ccw cost
,

sc cwp cost

,

sled turnaround cwp

,
what is the cost for getting a cwp in sc
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors