SC: H 3212 (Reciprocity)

This is a discussion on SC: H 3212 (Reciprocity) within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; SC CWP holder, it is time to act if you haven't. I just found this. Sorry if it's posted, but I couldn't find it. Seems ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 18

Thread: SC: H 3212 (Reciprocity)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array XD in SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    660

    SC: H 3212 (Reciprocity)

    SC CWP holder, it is time to act if you haven't.

    I just found this. Sorry if it's posted, but I couldn't find it.

    Seems the Senate made some changes that may not allow reciprocity to take place.

    Let's get this fixed, before it slips by.


    Current GrassRoots Action Alert


    -----------------------------------------------------

    The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
    South Carolina House of Representatives
    P.O. Box 11867
    Columbia, SC 29211
    The concealed weapon permit (CWP) recognition bill - H. 3212 - passed by the House last year was amended in the Senate. The Senate amendment turns H. 3212 into a horrible bill that could easily make CWP reciprocity with South Carolina worse rather than better. The Senate amendment would change things so drastically that South Carolina could not even get reciprocity with itself!

    The Senate amended H. 3212 to read as follows:


    "(N) Valid out-of-state permits to carry concealable weapons held by a resident of a reciprocal state must be honored by this State , provided, that the reciprocal state requires an applicant to successfully pass a criminal background check and a course in firearm training and safety. A resident of a reciprocal state carrying a concealable weapon in South Carolina is subject to and must abide by the laws of South Carolina regarding concealable weapons. SLED shall make a determination as to those states which have permit issuance standards equal to or greater than the standards contained in this article and shall maintain and publish a list of those states as the states with which South Carolina has reciprocity."


    The logical reasoning that follows below will prove why H. 3212 is a terrible bill as amended by the Senate and why it needs to be amended to actually accomplish that which the NRA inaccurately claims it does now. Then, GrassRoots will provide alternative language to amend H. 3212 so that H. 3212 will actually do what it is claimed that it does now.
    Words have meaning, which is why they are so important in legal matters. Words are so important that the law frequently defines a word as it is to be used in a particular article of law rather than leaving the definition of the word to common usage, which could allow for different interpretations.

    The South Carolina "Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act of 1996" defined certain words. Those definitions can not be ignored when considering amendments to the law. A definition critical to a proper understanding of the impact of the Senate amendment to H. 3212 can found in Section 23-31-210(5), which reads as follows:

    "Proof of training" means an original document or certified copy of the document supplied by an applicant that certifies that he is either:
    (a) a person who, within three years before filing an application, has successfully completed a basic or advanced handgun education course offered by a state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or a nationally recognized organization that promotes gun safety. This education course must be a minimum of eight hours and must include, but is not limited to:


    (i) information on the statutory and case law of this State relating to handguns and to the use of deadly force;
    (ii) information on handgun use and safety;

    (iii) information on the proper storage practice for handguns with an emphasis on storage practices that reduces the possibility of accidental injury to a child; and

    (iv) the actual firing of the handgun in the presence of the instructor;


    (b) an instructor certified by the National Rifle Association or another SLED-approved competent national organization that promotes the safe use of handguns;

    (c) a person who can demonstrate to the Director of SLED or his designee that he has a proficiency in both the use of handguns and state laws pertaining to handguns;

    (d) an active duty police handgun instructor;

    (e) a person who has a SLED-certified or approved competitive handgun shooting classification; or

    (f) a member of the active or reserve military, or a member of the National Guard who has had handgun training in the previous three years.

    SLED shall promulgate regulations containing general guidelines for courses and qualifications for instructors which would satisfy the requirements of this item. For purposes of subitems (a) and (b), "proof of training" is not satisfied unless the organization and its instructors meet or exceed the guidelines and qualifications contained in the regulations promulgated by SLED pursuant to this item.


    Existing South Carolina law - Section 23-31-215(A)(5) - allows a person to qualify for a CWP if that person can satisfy just one of the six legal alternatives for "proof of training" found in Section 23-31-210(5) above. A "course in firearm training and safety" is only one of those alternatives, and what constitutes a proper "course in firearm training and safety" is further defined in Section 23-31-210(5)(a) as a minimum eight (8) hour class.

    Existing South Carolina law Section 23-31-215(N) states:


    Valid out-of-state permits to carry concealable weapons held by a resident of a reciprocal state must be honored by this State. SLED shall make a determination as to those states which have permit issuance standards equal to or greater than the standards contained in this article and shall maintain and publish a list of those states as the states with which South Carolina has reciprocity.

    As can be readily seen from the above cited SC law, existing SC law allows for CWP reciprocity with states that do not necessarily require a "course in firearm training and safety." All that is required under existing SC law is that another state have CWP "issuance standards equal to or greater than the standards contained in this article," and SC legally allows for five alternatives that do not require a "course in firearm training and safety." Thus, if the Senate amendment to H. 3212 is enacted into law, South Carolina would not be eligible for CWP reciprocity with itself because South Carolina does not necessarily require a "course in firearm training and safety" to obtain a CWP as the Senate amendment would mandate. Does the Senate really fear NRA certified instructors, active duty police handgun instructors, or members of the active or reserve military or members of the National Guard who have had handgun training in the previous three years who qualified for a CWP in their home state? GrassRoots will propose an amendment to H. 3212 to remedy this shortcoming that was overlooked, misunderstood, and denied by the NRA.

    There is no excuse for using ambiguous language to draft legislation when clear and concise language would ensure the intent of the legislature was codified. Otherwise, the ambiguous language could lead to years of litigation at best, and possibly great bodily harm or death to those denied the ability to properly defend themselves.

    The NRA has claimed the Senate amendment will allow CWP reciprocity with states that do not require an eight (8) hour "course in firearm training and safety. " Unfortunately, that is not clear from the language used in the Senate amendment.

    Going back to the definitions section of the South Carolina "Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act of 1996," an eight (8) hour minimum class time is required to satisfy the "proof of training" requirement when the classroom alternative is chosen for "proof of training." The Senate amendment to H. 3212 does nothing to change the definition of what constitutes a proper education course. This failure makes for an ambiguous situation.

    If SLED or a court was asked to decide what constituted a proper "course in firearm training and safety," it could easily be argued that the definitions section of the South Carolina "Law Abiding Citizens Self-Defense Act of 1996" controlled, which would mean a minimum eight (8) hour class. Why leave things to chance? Why leave things ambiguous? Why not say exactly what is meant?

    It is important to note the NRA already made errors in drafting the Senate amendment to H. 3212 on March 13, 2008. Only after GrassRoots exposed those drafting errors in a letter to the Senate dated March 17, 2008, did the NRA then draft a new amendment to remedy one of the errors. Over the years, GrassRoots has proven itself as the organization best able to properly draft legislation without errors.

    GrassRoots requests that the House reject the Senate amendment to H. 3212 and return H. 3212 back to the CWP recognition bill passed last year. But, if the House is determined to pass H. 3212 even as a CWP reciprocity bill, then the Senate amendment still needs to be rejected because it does not accomplish that which it is claimed it accomplishes. The Senate amendment to H. 3212 needs to be replaced with a GrassRoots proposed amendment that will accomplish that which the NRA wrongly claims the Senate amendment will do.

    GrassRoots proposes the following language to replace the Senate amendment to H. 3212:


    "(N) Valid out-of-state permits to carry concealable weapons held by a resident of a reciprocal state must be honored by this State, provided, the reciprocal state requires an applicant to successfully pass a criminal background check and either 1) any course in firearm training and safety accepted by the reciprocal state, or 2) other proof of training that would be accepted under South Carolina law. A resident of a reciprocal state carrying a concealable weapon in South Carolina is subject to and must abide by the laws of South Carolina regarding concealable weapons. SLED shall make a determination as to those states which have permit issuance standards equal to or greater than the standards contained in this article and shall maintain and publish a list of those states as the states with which South Carolina has reciprocity."

    The GrassRoots proposed amendment makes it clear the SC CWP reciprocity law should not be interpreted using the definitions section of the South Carolina CWP law, and the GrassRoots proposed amendment will thus ensure the SC CWP law will allow less than an eight (8) hour minimum class time to satisfy the reciprocity requirement. This is exactly what people are now being told the Senate amendment will do, so this should not be a controversial change.

    The GrassRoots proposed amendment will also allow for CWP reciprocity with states like South Carolina that allow alternatives to a "course in firearm training and safety" to satisfy the "proof of training" requirement, i.e., NRA certified instructors, active duty police handgun instructors, or members of the active or reserve military or members of the National Guard who have had handgun training in the previous three years who qualified for a CWP in their home state. This change will allow reciprocity with Florida, which allows for issuance of a CWP upon presentation of "evidence of equivalent experience with a firearm through participation in organized shooting competition or military service.

    If you have any questions concerning H. 3212 or the effects of the intricacies of the various sections of law upon CWP reciprocity, please contact me at XXX.XXX.XXXX.

    Robert D. Butler, J.D.
    Vice President
    GrassRoots GunRights of SC
    Sean
    XD 9SC | XD 45ACP Service | XD 45ACP Compact |Borealis
    "You may know where you are. God may know where you are. If you don't tell your dispatcher where you are, you'd better be on speaking terms with God!"

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    Yea. Its been posted several times at various stages but I think its always good to keep bringing it up...

    One that slipped by me (probably because it didn't affect me) but I heard on the morning news today that Gov. Sanford signed a bill today that made it legal for an 18 year old in SC to buy a Handgun. I didn't even know this was being considered! How did I miss that?

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array AirForceShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    1,155
    Guess SLED got to the Senate.

    OK all you SCers stay home.
    You don't want us, we don't want you.

    At least it sure looks that way.

    AFS
    Gun control is hitting what you aim at

  5. #4
    Senior Member Array Cthulhu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Brevard County, FL
    Posts
    1,154
    People live in South Carolina?!?!



    -JT

  6. #5
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    Who said we don't want you? We doing what we can... even the way the bill is written Florida appears a go. Problem with them adding the verbiage is we lose Georgia.

    And yes... SLED got to some of the Legislators. And now Grassroots is trying to salvage what can be.

    Some of us native Floridians live in South Carolina.

  7. #6
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Senate Approves Bill Expanding Number of States Recognizing Concealed Weapons Permit SCHotline Press Releases

    States that currently recognize South Carolina’s concealed weapons
    permit include: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas,
    Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, North
    Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont,
    Virginia and Wyoming.

    The bill passed today would expand the states recognizing South
    Carolina’s concealed weapons permit to include: Colorado, Florida,
    Maine, Minnesota, Nebraska and Nevada.


    South Carolina currently recognizes the concealed weapons permits of
    the following states: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana,
    Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Tennessee and Wyoming.

    Today’s action will expand that list to include: Colorado, Florida,
    Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New
    Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming
    .

    A reciprocity agreement with West Virginia is pending.
    This was the Senate version of the bill and what the result would have been. The big stumbling block is GA.
    The Senate passed this version t but the House refused to accept it so I suspect now it is dead.

  8. #7
    Senior Member Array XD in SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    660
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post

    One that slipped by me (probably because it didn't affect me) but I heard on the morning news today that Gov. Sanford signed a bill today that made it legal for an 18 year old in SC to buy a Handgun. I didn't even know this was being considered! How did I miss that?
    Yes, how did WE all miss this? and WHY did it happen????

    The rumor is .... because the Military will take you at 18 y.o. to defend and possibly be killed for your country. SO why can't they buy and defend themselves here? I don't agree totally. Don't get me wrong, I support our troops, but I am not keen on the 18 buying age for the general public. If this is the case, then juvenile history needs to be kept and made available for a background check.

    Why don't we just drop the drinking age too?
    Sean
    XD 9SC | XD 45ACP Service | XD 45ACP Compact |Borealis
    "You may know where you are. God may know where you are. If you don't tell your dispatcher where you are, you'd better be on speaking terms with God!"

  9. #8
    VIP Member
    Array dr_cmg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Alabama
    Posts
    10,811
    Quote Originally Posted by cphilip View Post
    One that slipped by me (probably because it didn't affect me) but I heard on the morning news today that Gov. Sanford signed a bill today that made it legal for an 18 year old in SC to buy a Handgun. I didn't even know this was being considered! How did I miss that?
    I would like to see some documentation that that. Title 18 U.S.C paragraph 922(b)(1)states that the minimum age to purchase a firearm other than a rifle or shotgun or ammo for other than a rifle or shotgun is 21 years of age. Now Gov. Sanford may have signed a law making it legal for an individual to sell a handgun to someone under 21, but FFLs would still be prohibited from doing so.
    George

    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. Albert Einstein

  10. #9
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    The bill on lowering the age started out as one to allow 18 year olds to handle guns while working in a gun store. During debate it was ammended to lower the age of carrying a gun or owning one to 18 from 21.

    It started out as:

    H. 4364: A bill to allow the lawful possession of handguns by certain persons under age 21 if engaged in the business of dealing in firearms."
    "(A) It is unlawful for a person to knowingly sell, offer to sell, deliver, lease, rent, barter, exchange, or transport for sale into this State any handgun to:

    (3) a person under the age of eighteen, but this shall not apply to the issue of handguns to members of the Armed Forces of the United States, active or reserve, National Guard, State Militia, or R. O. T. C., when on duty or training or the temporary loan of handguns for instructions under the immediate supervision of a parent or adult instructor;
    The only thing changed was the 18 from 21. It allows a person to purchase a gun in a private sale Federal law still requires one to be 21 to purchase from a FFL. What if any other ramifications are I don't know.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    I got nothing on it... It snuck up on me. What you guys are finding is more than I even knew. It makes some sense that it would apply only to purchasing from a private individual though. Before this it was not illegal for them to have one if it was given to them by a parent or something. So this just adds buying directly from a private individual? They just couldn't buy one that way before or buy ammo for it. I assume the Ammo rule is still not affected by this?

    All I had up until you guys started digging was the blurb I heard on the news.

  12. #11
    Senior Member Array XD in SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    660
    Great now the THUGS can buy all the handguns legally from private party?

    Maybe we should start a new thread for this subject?
    Sean
    XD 9SC | XD 45ACP Service | XD 45ACP Compact |Borealis
    "You may know where you are. God may know where you are. If you don't tell your dispatcher where you are, you'd better be on speaking terms with God!"

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    I dunno about that. You, as the seller, are still obligated to know the person receiving the firearm is eligible to own one. And I gave my Son one for his 20th birthday. Who is now 21 and a Police officer. Then he was in dispatch awaiting coming of age to be an officer. I expect there are plenty of good young kids out there. But... seems a bit of a stretch to do this one with so little public debate.

    Probably does need its own thread. SC would not be the only state to allow it I don't think.... time for some research!

  14. #13
    Senior Member Array XD in SC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    660
    The thing is....now all the little bangers have to do is say "I bought it from a friend, which is now legal in South Carolina." And they don't have to prove it, or give the name.

    Creates a whole new problem for LEO. Doesn't this mean that NOW an 18-20 year old, can carry a weapon in their center console, or glovebox?

    ETA: Maybe I didn't get the explanation correct? Does this mean that an 18-20 y.o. that is WORKING in a gun related business, can now own and handle a firearm legally. Nothing changes for the public side?
    Sean
    XD 9SC | XD 45ACP Service | XD 45ACP Compact |Borealis
    "You may know where you are. God may know where you are. If you don't tell your dispatcher where you are, you'd better be on speaking terms with God!"

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    They could carry them there before the way my take was on it. If it was given to them. I was told to create a document of Gift to cover their and mines ass... but I don't know of a prohibition that ever stopped them from carrying a pistol in the glove box or console. They just couldn't buy one. They had to obtain it either from gift or loan.

    Thread started by another member

    http://www.defensivecarry.com/vbulle...-carolina.html

  16. #15
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    Quote Originally Posted by XD in SC View Post
    ETA: Maybe I didn't get the explanation correct? Does this mean that an 18-20 y.o. that is WORKING in a gun related business, can now own and handle a firearm legally. Nothing changes for the public side?
    The original bill was that those working in a gun store could handle them. During debate it was ammended to the final version.

Page 1 of 2 12 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. SC - H 3212 passes, Good/Bad?
    By FN1910 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: June 12th, 2008, 07:14 PM
  2. SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill)
    By SCGunGuy in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: May 29th, 2008, 09:10 PM
  3. SC Residents: H. 3212 needs YOUR Help
    By SCGunGuy in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: May 7th, 2008, 05:44 PM
  4. South Carolina Bill 3212
    By V65magnafan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2007, 10:48 PM
  5. Sc H 3212
    By fhqwhgads in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: March 7th, 2007, 11:26 PM

Search tags for this page

indiana 46310 hand gun training

,

sc 3212

,

sc bill h.4364

,

sc cwp reciprocity

,

sc h 4364

,

south carolina reciprocity regected

Click on a term to search for related topics.