Important: Need research help from states that have reciprocity w/ SC
This is a discussion on Important: Need research help from states that have reciprocity w/ SC within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Need help from people in Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Michigan and Wyoming:
Background: H. 3964 would allow permit holders to ...
June 2nd, 2007 05:37 PM
Important: Need research help from states that have reciprocity w/ SC
Need help from people in Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina, Arkansas, Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Michigan and Wyoming:
Background: H. 3964 would allow permit holders to carry onto school property in our vehicles. An amendment was added in committee to send to SLED (the state law enforcement division) records of anyone voluntarily or involuntarily committed for mental health treatment. SLED would then use those records in determining whether a CWP applicant gets a CWP and whether a CWP holder has his permit revoked.
A huge problem is that SLED determines reciprocity based on whether a potential reciprocal state has standards for CWP issuance that are equal to or greater than our own.
A huge concern is that if the amendment is kept, we could lose reciprocity with many, if not all, of our current reciprocal states.
So, I need to know if your states require that records of ALL people who are voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental health facility for treatment be sent to the agency responsible for issuance of your permits. SLED is telling legislators that all states we have reciprocity with already do this, but won't put that statement in writing.
I have looked at Missouri's statutes relating to mental health treatment, and chapters 630 and 632 seem pretty iron-clad in who can get records. There is provision for LE officers and agencies, but it seems to be on a basis of a request about a specific individual, not a wholesale dump of records of every person committed for treatment.
Thanks in advance.
June 2nd, 2007 08:35 PM
Well your concern may become moot if SLED is removed from the authority of reciprocity decisions. Of which that bill is much further along than H3964. In fact that bill is passed in the House and has had one reading in the sentate and then went to and out of committee and awaiting second reading. I have not checked on it in a week but it could quickly be done and through. H3212. And if it does... SLED no longer makes that decision. It's automatic. You recognise ours and we will yours.
But... whats going on with 3964 is that certain legislators are trying to kill it by attaching unacceptable amendments. I don't think its going to pass and certainly its gutted anyway. They took the CCW out of it on campus's. So its not the bill it started out to be. So they are now trying to kill whats left of it. They are hoping to get it contested by attaching unacceptable ammendments so that it will end up on the contested calender and never come to a vote this year. The legislative session ends in a week or so. So they will never get it done in time if its contested.
But 3212 is very close to passing, long before 2964 probably will. And it will, in fact, open up ALL states with CCW permits to reciprocity. 3212 could be passed in two days if its read and voted on before the end of session.
Last edited by cphilip; June 2nd, 2007 at 08:45 PM.
June 2nd, 2007 09:38 PM
The bill you refer to, H. 3212, is already on the contested calendar and won't be on the agenda again until next year. And, Sen. Jake Knotts has promised to add an amendment that would keep SLED in the heart of things but would supposedly grant reciprocity for a few more states. Make no mistake, SLED wants the bill amended or killed, and their lapdog Knotts will do everything he can to ensure that their wishes are carried out, whether that is getting Capt. Dorton from SLED to lie and claim that NH issues permits to 16 year olds who then travel to Myrtle Beach, or to claim that SLED has arrested many drug dealers with CWPs, as he did in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on H. 3212.
Without the mental health amendment, H. 3964 is a good bill, as it at least allows permit holders to go on campus. As it is now, you must be unarmed the entirety of your trip if you will go on campus at all. It's not perfect, as you still can't carry outside of your car, but it's more than we have now. With the amendment, though, it could be poison.
Originally Posted by cphilip
June 3rd, 2007 12:30 AM
... its still in progress...
..it was sent to committee after first reading and then it was reported out favorably by the committee back to the full Senate... thats the last word on it. Still is the last word as of last week. It is waiting its second reading. Will they get to it? I dunno. But they can. All it has to be done read to proceed.
Thats the published SC Grassroots update on it. They were at the Committee meeting and thats where it stands as of now. It is not dead for this year... yet (one must always say that because who the heck knows).
Feb. 14, 2007: Unanimously given a favorable recommendation by the House Judiciary General Laws subcommittee.
Feb. 20, 2007: Unanimously given a favorable recommendation by the House Judiciary Committee to the full SC House.
Feb. 22, 2007: Brought before the House for 2nd reading. Procedural delay (24hr point of order) requested by Rep. Jeff Duncan [R-Laurens & Newberry Cos.]
Feb. 27, 2007: Scheduled for 2nd reading before the House.
Feb. 28, 2007: Recommitted to Judiciary Committee.
Mar. 1, 2007: Vote reconsidered to send the bill to Judiciary Committee. Received 2nd reading. Roll call vote 100=yeas 2=nays. Unanimous consent for 3rd reading on the next legislative day.
Mar. 2, 2007: House Read third time and sent to Senate
Mar. 6, 2007: Senate Introduced and read first time. Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary
Mar. 7, 2007: Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Hawkins (ch), Sheheen, Lourie, Vaughn.
May 2, 2007: Senate Subcommittee unanimously voted to give a favorable recommendation and send the bill back to full Senate Judiciary Committee.
Will they get too it? I dunno. Times running out. Hopefully. There is about two weeks left in the calender. But it is on the floor. It needs two more readings. Those could be done back to back in two days.
Besides... contested does not always mean Sin Die... it can be voted on or not. Often bills of little consequence have little chance of being voted on. High profile Bills with good support do get voted on in that year. Its a matter of votes. This one does appear to have enough to get done this year. But its now down to time and priority. There is still hope. If not... it will carry over. Indeed.
Last edited by cphilip; June 3rd, 2007 at 12:46 AM.
June 3rd, 2007 12:53 AM
Sorry, you don't have the latest info:
"Senator HAWKINS from the Committee on Judiciary submitted a majority favorable and Senator ANDERSON a minority unfavorable report on: H.3212"
It is on the contested calendar; from the Grassroots general list, message # 39316:
We are considering our options at this time. Since there will be no action on this bill until next year because it is on the contested calendar, we have time to make sure we do things right. Rob"
(I was at the committee meeting also, as a member of GR.)
Originally Posted by cphilip
June 3rd, 2007 09:32 AM
I understand what your saying and what he is thinking. But... again... contested does not automaticaly mean it won't get voted on. It is often assumed they will not get to the contested bills. And often it happens. But it also happens that they do get to some of the contested calender. The bigger the bill the more possibility it will be one of the few to get acted on in the final hour. However I share your pessimism but I alway hold out some hope. I don't automaticaly assume they will not vote on any contested bills. They do.
Options? If it does not get voted on it is automaticaly carried over the second year from its introduction. It would Die after the end of the second legislative year if it was not acted upon that year. Then have to be reintroduced and go through the whole process again.
What is wrong with that whole statement is an assumption they will not vote on any contested bills this session while the session has not ended.
Thats not always the case. There is an assumption there (perhaps a correct one at some point) that is a bit premature. Thats all I am saying. Until the final gavel falls there is always hope. All that can be being done is just keep trying to get the Senators to call it to the floor for a vote. It could get still get done. But thats all just a few weeks away from being too late. The only other option is to convince the Senators who oppose it to withdraw thier opposition (normaly its three minimum) but those are unlikely without compromise. But its also not unheard of. But with this kind of bill its unlikely.
But the statement that it is NOT going to get action this year is a bit premature. I will admit its getting shorter and shorter of a time and looking more and more unlikely but its still possible. Each day that goes by with no action lessens my hope. And your likely to turn out to be right.
Last edited by cphilip; June 3rd, 2007 at 09:38 AM.
By foots402 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: March 30th, 2010, 11:30 AM
By skippythenurse in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: October 15th, 2007, 11:48 PM
By Billie40 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: June 26th, 2007, 10:56 PM
By falcon1 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: December 23rd, 2006, 09:18 AM
By CHPBill in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
Last Post: January 9th, 2005, 10:23 PM