SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill)

This is a discussion on SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill) within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I really don't have a problem with the House version of the bill but rather than the underhanded, misleading way that both versions have been ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 20 of 20

Thread: SC: H. 3212 action needed by Senate (Reciprocity bill)

  1. #16
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    I really don't have a problem with the House version of the bill but rather than the underhanded, misleading way that both versions have been portrayed to the legislature and to the public. When the possible problems with the House version were pointed out instead of directly addressing the possibility the ones asking the question were called fools and made fun of saying that it couldn't possibly be true and then pointing out problems with the Senate version that had already been corrected.

    I have lost all respect for SC GrassRoots on the way they have handled this by even resorting to name calling and making fun of representatives names. SLED pointed out the possiblilty of the underage carrying being legal and no one has directly addressed this rather trying to use some obscure reference to the definition of training and that SC could not even get reciprocity with itself under the version.

    Where in this bill is the ability for anyone in SC to make a formalized agreement with FL to recognize each others permits and who has the authority to even make such an agreement. It sure appears that this is the exact same argument the SCGR is using about SLED being removed from verifying training or whatever their latest complaint is.

    All I want is an honest assessment of the results of either bill and what the benefits and pitfalls of either are. So far all I have gotten is that it will result in being able to carry in 30+ states. I have asked for a list of those states and no one will respond with what those states are because they can't be sure what the results of the law will be. At least with the Senate version I have been supplied with a list of states that will be the result of its passage.

    I cannot shake the feeling that with the House verion I am being fed another bunch of "Trust Me's, I know what's best for you" but "I really have an ulterior motive for it" and the main one is to prove that I am better than the NRA.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislativ...om_re_3212.pdf

    I did some searching and found this letter from Mr. Robert Butler concerning the recognition of permits for those under the age of 21. I agree with Mr. Butler that it may very well be that SC cannot recognize a NH permit for someone who is 16 due to Federal law as Capt. Dorton of SLED told the committee. However it does appear that Mr. Butler agrees with Capt. Dorton that SC would recognize someone with a NH permit who is 18 and no longer considered a juvenile. I will not argue whether an 18 year old should or should not be permitted to have a CWP but it does appear that Mr. Butler is well aware of the "loophole" concerning permits from other states with different restrictions that SC that I have referenced. All I ask is that Mr. Butler and SCGR to be truthful and not try to hide behind loopholes and inuendos.

  4. #18
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    I'll address several points, in no particular order, so please bear with me and read my whole post.

    You ask
    Where in this bill is the ability for anyone in SC to make a formalized agreement with FL to recognize each others permits and who has the authority to even make such an agreement. It sure appears that this is the exact same argument the SCGR is using about SLED being removed from verifying training or whatever their latest complaint is.
    You show a fundamental misunderstanding of how recognition differs from reciprocity. Reciprocity requires a negotiated agreement among two states, wherein state A agrees to recognize the permits issued by state B and vice versa along with any stipulations and limitations (such as that state A will recognize resident permits issued by state B but will not recognize non-resident permits issued by state B.)

    Recognition requires no such 1-to-1 agreement; instead, state A passes a law that states one of several things 1) We will recognize a permit issued by any other state 2) We will recognize a permit issued by any other state, provided that any permit held by a resident of a state other than the one issuing the permit or a permit held by a person younger than age xx will not be recognized or considered valid in this state. or 3) We will recognize a permit issued by any other state that also recognizes our permits.

    In other words, there is, under the recognition model, no need for a state agency to enter into such agreements. Earlier today, I found a Florida website that mentioned the process they went through--they mailed letters to every other state asking "Will you honor permits issued by Florida?" and then based their recognition of permits from other states based on the response received. Currently, Virginia honors our permit though we don't honor theirs. That wouldn't change under the recognition model offered by the House version of H. 3212, but we would automatically receive recognition from Florida.

    I honestly don't know what to say to your charges re: GrassRoots, as I have been involved in this process for several years. I sat in the Senate Judiciary committee meeting wherein Sen. Knotts asked SLED's Capt. Dorton leading questions, eliciting known falsehoods from Capt. Dorton (e.g., that New Hampshire issues permits to 16 years olds and that those 16 year olds could carry legally in SC and SC could do nothing about it, that SC CWPs were being issued to known drug dealers, etc.). So, from where I sit, the misinformation has been from one side, and that side is the NRA and Knotts, not GrassRoots.

    There simply isn't a possibility of underage people being able to carry in SC using an out-of-state permit, since our law states the following:
    SECTION 16-23-30. Sale or delivery of handgun to and possession by certain persons unlawful; stolen handguns.

    (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:
    [snip]
    (3) a person under the age of twenty one, 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; or
    [snip]

    (B) It is unlawful for a person enumerated in subsection (A) to possess or acquire handguns within this State.
    (emphasis mine)

    In other words, regardless of any other state's age restrictions, SC law prohibits ANYONE under the age of 21 from being in possession of a handgun, with the exceptions specified in SECTION 16-23-30 (A)(3), as quoted above. The above quote was taken from SLED's website, which hasn't been updated to reflect the change in law that took place this spring, which lowered the legal age to 18 and which was further reinforced by the state supreme court's recent ruling that prohibiting 18-20 year olds from possessing handguns was unconstitutional.

    So, despite what Jake Knotts got Capt. Dorton to say, imply, and intimate, it is not legal for a 16 year old to carry a handgun in this state. Another state could give permits to 5 year olds and those permits would be meaningless in South Carolina.

    Re: the charge that
    SLED pointed out the possiblilty of the underage carrying being legal and no one has directly addressed this rather trying to use some obscure reference to the definition of training and that SC could not even get reciprocity with itself under the version"
    GrassRoots had no real need to address the "possibility" that SLED pointed out, because it was a red herring and wasn't a true possibility as such issues are already covered by existing federal and state laws, as they did point out. Furthermore, the definition of training isn't an obscure issue, it is a central issue in understanding the Senate's amendments. Think of it this way: Existing law specifies a training requirement, and defines what is meant by a training course. That definition is controlling for that whole section of SC code. Therefore, any edits or additions to the section in question are bound by the definition of training course that controls the section. When the Senate amended H. 3212, they did so in a manner that narrowed the definition of training requirements for a state's permit issuance standards to be considered "equal to or greater than" SC's requirements. Since that narrowed definition excluded some methods of training that are defined in the broader definition at the beginning of the section, it is valid to say that SC couldn't get reciprocity with itself under that amended bill.

    You said in your last post
    I did some searching and found this letter from Mr. Robert Butler concerning the recognition of permits for those under the age of 21. I agree with Mr. Butler that it may very well be that SC cannot recognize a NH permit for someone who is 16 due to Federal law as Capt. Dorton of SLED told the committee. However it does appear that Mr. Butler agrees with Capt. Dorton that SC would recognize someone with a NH permit who is 18 and no longer considered a juvenile. I will not argue whether an 18 year old should or should not be permitted to have a CWP but it does appear that Mr. Butler is well aware of the "loophole" concerning permits from other states with different restrictions that SC that I have referenced. All I ask is that Mr. Butler and SCGR to be truthful and not try to hide behind loopholes and inuendos.
    As I mention above, there was no "loophole" since SC law prohibited any person, with a few very limited exceptions, who was under the age of 21 from possessing a handgun. Of course, 18 year olds can now possess a gun due to the change in law that just occurred in the last few weeks, but CWPs are still restricted to 21 year olds. If that is a problem, and I personally believe it isn't, all that would be needed would be a law stating that a person must be 21 to carry a concealed handgun. That would cover SC residents and residents of other states.

    You also say
    All I want is an honest assessment of the results of either bill and what the benefits and pitfalls of either are. So far all I have gotten is that it will result in being able to carry in 30+ states. I have asked for a list of those states and no one will respond with what those states are because they can't be sure what the results of the law will be. At least with the Senate version I have been supplied with a list of states that will be the result of its passage.
    I would love to see the list of states you were supplied with re: the Senate version, and to know who it came from and see their legal analysis that resulted in the list, for the NRA-ILA response to an inquiry re: which states would be added was "It could have been as many as all states or as few as about nine more added." Now, the NRA-ILA must have magical powers to be able to convince California, Illinois and New York to honor our permit under the Senate version ("all states"); "as many as all states or as few as about nine more added" is about as good as saying "heck, we don't have a freakin' clue; why are you asking us?"

    As for motives, I'll not go into organizational motives because I don't speak either for NRA or GrassRoots, but I will stipulate mine: I want CWP recognition, I want SLED removed from the position of being the power that decides who our permits will be honored by, and I want Jake Knotts and SLED to stop treating CWP holders condescendingly with a "now, now don't be too demanding. Be happy with what we give you" attitude. I want Jake Knotts and SLED to stop saying that gun owners must receive state-mandated training in order to be trusted to exercise our right to self-defense.

    Finally, when it comes to discerning what a bill means and what it's ramifications are for me, as well as for defending the rights of us all, I will trust the organization that has a better track record in SC, and that group is GrassRoots. It was the NRA that proposed a gun range protection law around 2000 that would have protected only shotgun ranges and not handgun ranges. It was the NRA that helped kill a bill that would have allowed CWP holders to have their guns in their car when on school grounds. It was the NRA that helped kill the last CWP recognition bill. On all of those issues and more, GrassRoots was on the right side of the issue and the NRA was on the wrong side. It is thanks to GrassRoots that handgun ranges are protected, that we can carry into rest stops and into state parks. My money is with GrassRoots, if based on nothing more than history.


    Keep calling your senators, and Go Katrina Shealy June 10!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    I really don't have a problem with the House version of the bill but rather than the underhanded, misleading way that both versions have been portrayed to the legislature and to the public. When the possible problems with the House version were pointed out instead of directly addressing the possibility the ones asking the question were called fools and made fun of saying that it couldn't possibly be true and then pointing out problems with the Senate version that had already been corrected.

    I have lost all respect for SC GrassRoots on the way they have handled this by even resorting to name calling and making fun of representatives names. SLED pointed out the possiblilty of the underage carrying being legal and no one has directly addressed this rather trying to use some obscure reference to the definition of training and that SC could not even get reciprocity with itself under the version.

    Where in this bill is the ability for anyone in SC to make a formalized agreement with FL to recognize each others permits and who has the authority to even make such an agreement. It sure appears that this is the exact same argument the SCGR is using about SLED being removed from verifying training or whatever their latest complaint is.

    All I want is an honest assessment of the results of either bill and what the benefits and pitfalls of either are. So far all I have gotten is that it will result in being able to carry in 30+ states. I have asked for a list of those states and no one will respond with what those states are because they can't be sure what the results of the law will be. At least with the Senate version I have been supplied with a list of states that will be the result of its passage.

    I cannot shake the feeling that with the House verion I am being fed another bunch of "Trust Me's, I know what's best for you" but "I really have an ulterior motive for it" and the main one is to prove that I am better than the NRA.
    Visit my Winchester Ranger Talon page for current pricing.

  5. #19
    Ex Member Array FN1910's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    1,235
    If there is no loophole for 18 year olds then why didn't Mr. Butler point that our in his letter to Sen. Hawkins relying Federal law for the restrictions on juveniles (those under 18) to make his point. Couldn't he as easily said that the law would not cover anyone under 21, especially since this was before the law was changed in SC to permit those under 21 to possess a handgun.

    By his repeated reference to the Federal law concerning juveniles I have no other option than to believe that he agrees with the interpretation that those between 18-20 holding a New Hampshire permit would be eligible to carry concealed in SC under the House version of this bill. If he did not agree he would have plainly stated it and tried to cover only that it did not allow the 16 year olds.

    If Mr. Butler is not beging forward with this fact then what else is unknown about this bill?

    As for the list of states:

    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.

    The Senate 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.

  6. #20
    Member Array SCGunGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    173
    He could indeed have said what you propose, and I believe he did on several occasions. The point of bringing up federal law, I believe, would have been to address the specific issue that Jake Knotts, via leading questions put to Capt. Dorton, raised, which was that New Hampshire was issuing permits to 16 year olds and that SC couldn't stop said teens from carrying at Myrtle Beach.

    Prior to the change in SC law, there was no interpretation that could stand even cursory scrutiny that said that 18-20 year olds from other states could carry in SC under the House version, since SC law explicitly, and in a manner than encompassed the CWP law and non-CWP law (e.g., glovebox carry, possession on one's own land/in one's own house) prohibited 18-20 year olds from possessing a handgun. It's a bit difficult to carry a handgun legally if you can't legally possess one. Thus, anyone raising that "interpretation" as an issue was doing so out of sheer ignorance or malice; either way, they shouldn't be trusted.

    As for the list of states: I count six. Big whoop, especially when compared with not ever having to worry about a reciprocity agreement again, or about SLED's idiotic interpretation or SLED's dragging of its feet. Furthermore, I see no legal analysis backing that claim, and GrassRoots provided analysis which showed that, at least in one Senate-amended version, we would have lost reciprocity with several states we currently have it with. The NRA-written amendment was so bad that even the NRA agreed with GrassRoots' analysis of it and redrafted the amendment.

    As for Mr. Butler's intentions, I can only say I have known him to be straightforward, intelligent, honest, analytical and a strong defender of rights for us all, which is far more than can be said of the Senate version's chief backers. I have his email address, and at your request will provide him a copy of this thread and ask him to get in touch with you personally (if you provide me your email address) or post in this thread. I believe your issues are perhaps more personally directed against him and/or GrassRoots than they are to the merits/detriments of the House and Senate versions of the bill, respectively.

    Jake Knotts is threatening to filibuster if the House version is brought up for a vote. The NRA told us that the Senate bill, while not as good as the House version (see, even if you discount the GrassRoots opinion of the House vs. Senate versions, the NRA agrees that the Senate version is inferior), was a bill that could pass the Senate while the House version could not. Now, it seems that Jake Knotts was the reason that "the House version won't pass the Senate".

    The path forward is clear: Pressure the Senate to pass the version of this bill that everyone except Jake Knotts and anti-gun Senators agree is superior, that is, the House version, and then boot Jake Knotts out of office on June 10.

    Go Katrina Shealy!!!!

    One more thing: One major advantage a recognition bill has over any reciprocity bill is that recognition is automatic, whereas reciprocity requires negotiated agreements. So, if Wisconsin gets a CWP law, and they agree to recognize permits from other states, our permit would be good there. Under reciprocity, SLED would have to make a determination, then go through the process of negotiating an agreement. We all know how quickly they do such things, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by FN1910 View Post
    If there is no loophole for 18 year olds then why didn't Mr. Butler point that our in his letter to Sen. Hawkins relying Federal law for the restrictions on juveniles (those under 18) to make his point. Couldn't he as easily said that the law would not cover anyone under 21, especially since this was before the law was changed in SC to permit those under 21 to possess a handgun.

    By his repeated reference to the Federal law concerning juveniles I have no other option than to believe that he agrees with the interpretation that those between 18-20 holding a New Hampshire permit would be eligible to carry concealed in SC under the House version of this bill. If he did not agree he would have plainly stated it and tried to cover only that it did not allow the 16 year olds.

    If Mr. Butler is not beging forward with this fact then what else is unknown about this bill?

    As for the list of states:
    Last edited by SCGunGuy; May 29th, 2008 at 10:25 PM. Reason: Added final paragraph
    Visit my Winchester Ranger Talon page for current pricing.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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. National Reciprocity Action Needed
    By Louis in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 160
    Last Post: March 27th, 2011, 03:25 PM
  2. VA Senate bills -- Action Needed on Some
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 10th, 2010, 03:56 PM
  3. CSPAN LIVE VID of the US Senate on National Reciprocity
    By dlclarkii in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: July 23rd, 2009, 01:31 AM
  4. SC: H 3212 (Reciprocity)
    By XD in SC in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: April 6th, 2008, 12:02 PM
  5. South Carolina Bill 3212
    By V65magnafan in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2007, 10:48 PM

Search tags for this page

current sc conceled carry bills

,

grass roots sc national reciprocity

,

is nc motorcycle license reciprocal with sc

,

reciprocity bill for cwp holders

,

sc senate holding concealed carry bill

,

senat reciprocity

,

senate reciprocity bill

,

south carolina action reciprocity

,

south carolina h3212 2011

,

south carolina senate conceal carry

Click on a term to search for related topics.