Permittless Carry Now The Law In South Carolina
BY Herschel Smith
1 month, 2 weeks ago
As I had said earlier, I was skeptical about the chances for success, especially given the gamesmanship in the senate. The previous attempt “codified the right to carry without a permit as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.”
But it looks like it has happened, adding to the list of constitutional carry states. But there are caveats I want to call out.
Permitless firearm carry is now legal in South Carolina. Gov. Henry McMaster on Thursday afternoon signed the bill, which was prefiled in the state House of Representatives in December 2022. The legislation was heavily debated by members of the state’s House and Senate.
After a joint committee with members of both chambers met Tuesday, that committee’s report was approved by the House later the same day and by the Senate on Wednesday.
Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greenville, told the Greenville News Wednesday afternoon that McMaster signed the bill into law at a private 2 p.m. ceremony. South Carolina becomes the 29th state with permitless carry after Louisiana enacted a similar measure last week.
The new law enables individuals 18 and older who are legally allowed to own firearms to carry them, openly or concealed, without requiring training or registration for a permit.
Previously, the 2021 Open Carry law allowed a concealed weapons permit (CWP) holder to open carry handguns. With House Bill 3594 – dubbed “constitutional carry” by some – signed into law, it negates the legal need for CWPs in South Carolina.
“(People) can open or concealed carry if they can legally own guns,” Cox told the News. “If you’re prohibited from owning guns, you’re breaking the law.”
Cox, the Vice President for Government Affairs at Sig Sauer, a firearms company, was the lead sponsor of the bill, which originated in the House, and was one of six legislators on the joint legislative conference committee that convened Tuesday.
There are restrictions of where an individual may carry a gun, such as hospitals, doctor’s offices, churches, many government buildings, schools, polling places, detention facilities, post offices, or personal residences without permission.
However, some places, such as churches and doctor’s offices, may choose to allow individuals to carry weapons onto the premises.
Businesses have the right to label themselves as a gun-free zone.
I am an incrementalist (something I’ve learned from the controllers) and believe in taking chunks where we can get them. This is a big chunk, but there is still more to go.
We had a difficult fight with open carry, but a permit was still required. At the time I said that police would have a difficult time enforcing that because if open carry was legal, then it wouldn’t be a so-called “Terry Stop” if police stopped you and demanded to see your permit. Additionally, the S.C. legislature didn’t do anything in the open carry law to make S.C. a stop and identify state (which would have been unconstitutional anyway). If they had wanted to enable police to stop folks, they would have had to make that change to S.C. law. They didn’t do that when they passed the open carry bill.
But there was still that nagging issue of the fact that a permit was required to exercise a God-given right. Now that permit has vanished, but churches are exempt from carry unless specifically posting that firearms are allowed.
So this is the same trap into which New York fell in essentially making everywhere a gun-free zone without specific posting by the establishment, and that feature of the NY law has been struck down (and furthermore doesn’t comport with the Bruen decision). I say trap, but of course anything the controllers can do in NY to infringe upon rights isn’t so much a trap as it is a reward for reflexive behavior.
Churches shouldn’t have to specifically post that firearms are allowed. Rather, like every other establishment, they should have to post if firearms are not allowed. Gun rights advocates are also property rights advocates, and if an establishment doesn’t want firearms, then they have that right (just as I have a right not to patronize that establishment).
This chunk of liberty should be the focus of effort going forward. Remove the exemption for churches in the current law. This is another increment of freedom for future work by our community.
On March 8, 2024 at 12:34 pm, JD Fogle said:
Nice writeup Sir (as always!)
Does a state have legal authority over post offices?
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2024-01-13/ban-on-guns-in-post-offices-is-unconstitutional-us-judge-rules
I thought I first saw that court decision in this very site but maybe not.
I hope you have a great weekend and remain blessed Herschel
JD
On March 9, 2024 at 5:13 am, Roger J said:
IMNAL, but my understanding is that the Florida Post Office carry decision applies in that judge’s district only. Outside of that jurisdiction, the carry ban is still in force. If you were arrested in connection with the Post Office carry ban, the Florida decision could be cited in your support. However, it is not unusual for judges in different districts to disagree. That’s one reason for the US Supreme Court. Post Offices (with the exception of Contract Post Offices like the one here at the University) are Federal property, so the State has only limited authority. Incidentally, US Postal Inspectors are armed, like some IRS agents. And they can carry anywhere.
On March 10, 2024 at 5:54 am, Nosmo said:
South Carolina has numerous Gun Free Zones, and since the state legislature is: 1) Mostly Democrats who couldn’t get elected as Democrats so they switched to Republican, and; 2) Hates the citizens of South Carolina – and basic freedom – with a burning passion, those GFZs will remain. For now.
A measure has been introduced into the Georgia legislature establishing legal and financial liability for owners of gun free zones in Georgia; if passed intact, should you declare your facility a GFZ you must assume liability for the safety and security of visitors because you have denied them the opportunity – the right, really – to protect and defend themselves.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially because in the measure is used the word “entity;” private property is private property, and within the confines of Constitutional and statutory law the owner(s) and manager(s) can operate that private property as they see fit. Should they insist that all patrons wear one red sock and one green sock when in the building they are legally entitled to do so. The word “entity,” however encompasses government, and that is where, in South Carolina, the greatest offense occurs; if Fred & Larry’s Hardware wants to prohibit guns, that is their right under private property law and I can shop at Bob & Bill’s Hardware; there are, however, no competitive alternatives to the DMV, the Tax Collector’s Office, the local police or fire department’s facilities, the public library, etc. And, while visiting the public library is optional, paying taxes at the Tax Collector’s Office or renewing a driver’s license or changing vehicle registration at the DMV, and the entire multitude of local and state government services, has no alternative.
Florida, for one, does not have the “government buildings” restriction on carry and were there problems with it there, and in other states which have no such restrictions (in Virginia, for example, courthouses do not restrict carry*) one can be certain the media would never stop headlining it.
* Article 1, Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia is very clear on the right to bear arms, and Section 18.2-308 of Virginia Code specifies “not hidden from common observation” in reference to firearm carry; open carry in Virginia – everywhere – is established in the state Constitution, concealed carry is a “privilege granted by statute,” so while concealed carry does suffer restrictions, open carry does not.