Post and Courier.

The S.C. House of Representatives approved legislation that allows adults to legally tote a handgun with no training required while creating a felon-in-possession crime designed to enable officers to charge more people who shouldn’t own a gun.

The bill approved 90-30 on Feb. 22 mostly along party lines would allow anyone 18 and older who can legally buy a gun to carry it around, whether openly or concealed, without needing a permit.

It does not change where guns are banned. Places where they remain illegal for almost everyone include schools, day cares, courtrooms, jails, hospitals, businesses that post “no weapons” signs, and city and county offices.

The bill adds clerks of court and public defenders to the list of exempted people — primarily, judges and prosecutors currently — who can carry where others can’t, but with one caveat. Public defenders still couldn’t take their handgun into a jail or prison.

Amendments approved during the debate encourage gun owners to get training without mandating it, and require them to report a stolen gun to local law enforcement within 30 days without setting a punishment.

Republicans argued the effort is about restoring a “constitutional right” in the Second Amendment that shouldn’t need government permission, while Democrats countered it’s a dangerous bill that will lead to more murders and accidental deaths.

[ … ]

Republican Rep. Alan Morgan of Greer, a co-sponsor, responded by citing statistics from the 25 states that have already passed so-called “constitutional carry” laws, arguing they haven’t led to a rise in gun-related killings there.

It’s the lack of predicted “Wild, Wild West” scenarios here over the last two years that changed some minds, said Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greer, the main sponsor.

In 2021, Republicans pushed through a law allowing South Carolinians to openly carry their handguns, as long as they have a concealed weapon permit.

As I told you before, I listened to the entirety of the debate (a full day of it) when the S.C. senate passed open carry (the largest pill for the fearful and timid to swallow, mainly because of law enforcement).

“The majority of the state probably doesn’t even know we’re an open-carry state yet,” said Cox, an Army Ranger currently in the Reserve. “That goes against the Wild, Wild West argument we hear.

“People were very worried about guns being seen everywhere, especially in the tourist areas,” said the executive for Sig Sauer gun manufacturer. “I work in the area, and I’ve only seen one person carry.”

[ … ]

Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds said he can picture King Street, which attracts throngs of people to its shops, restaurants and bars, awash with guns.

“We are prevented and precluded — because they’re entitled to carry a gun — from even asking them if they’re illegally carrying it,” he said.

And you should be prevented from asking them.  It’s none of your business.

Law enforcement screamed long and loud about the wild, wild west when open carry passed two years ago.  Hopefully they’re adequately shamed now and they’re staying silent this time around, so that they don’t look even more ridiculous than they already do.

Baby steps.  I was delighted to see open carry pass two years ago.  I’ll be delighted to see permitless carry pass as well, but I predicted exactly this sequence of events if you will recall.  I told you that permitless carry was next in line and will pass at some point in S.C. (I gave it a year, it has taken two), but they had to see for themselves what every other state has seen.

The state doesn’t become a war zone and burn to ashes.  The manner of carry doesn’t change a man’s character.  I dream of a day when a man is seen for the nature of his character rather than the method of his carry.

Opinion on South Carolina Stand Your Ground, Source:

As a martial artist, I am passionate about the right of people to defend themselves. And in my years of teaching the martial arts, I have had a number of students tell me about how they have had to use force to protect themselves and loved ones from harm. But they always tried to avoid using force, because martial artists know how precious life is — even the life of an aggressor.

Martial artists believe that one should always walk away from conflict, if possible. This is why we only use force reluctantly and only as a last resort.

Also, if force must be used, we know we should use only the amount of force necessary to end the threat and allow us to get to safety.

These principles are dear to me, which is why I oppose stand-your-ground laws.

These laws allow those who use deadly force to be exempt from criminal prosecution, even if they could have easily and safely retreated from what they perceived to be a threat.

Before Florida passed the first stand-your-ground law in 2005, the United States legal tradition already protected the right to self-defense, but only after a person had done all that he or she could to avoid conflict, including backing away from the aggressor and attempting to retreat to safety.

Using deadly force to defend oneself in a public space was only allowed after one first tried to retreat or if retreat was simply not possible.

Stand-your-ground laws differ from what is known as the castle doctrine, which applies to people dealing with an intruder in their home. I do not believe anyone has an obligation to retreat from a home intruder.

The author uses a lot of the word but after claiming to believe in armed self-defense. His argument is, in one way, correct. Avoidance is always the best choice; avoiding crowds is solid advice. But he goes on to wrongly claim a difference between Castle Doctrine and self-defense anywhere. If you have the right to defend yourself in your home, you carry that right anywhere. It’s your right and does not belong to a location. Locations don’t have rights people do. We acknowledge here that the home has a degree of expected sanctuary in the Bible, but men also have to defend their life right anywhere they may be, thus the right.

The object of self-defense is to get the assailant(s) to disengage. If not being where you shouldn’t solves a threat problem, don’t go. If leaving solves that, then leave. Nothing in the Stand Your Ground Doctrine allows the offensive use of weapons or tactics, which is the argument against Stand Your Ground that always shows the ignorance of the man making the case. His opinion, as stated in this piece, is no different.

And he makes the proportional use of force argument. There’s no way to know what would have happened if X or Y, or Z. Proportional use of force is an impossible standard that will get people killed. But the evidence of either murder or self-defense can be determined. Proof is required, not a would have-should have. Arguments against Stand Your Ground also wrongly assume that turning your back is wise. It’s not; never turn your back on a threat.

Again, getting the assailant to disengage is the proper self-defense training standard to teach.

Tenth Amendment Center.

Two bills filed in the South Carolina House would legalize permitless carry in the state. The enactment of a so-called “constitutional carry” bill would also foster an environment more hostile to federal gun control.

Rep. Bobby Cox (R) and 61 Republican cosponsors prefiled House Bill 3594 (H3594) on Dec. 15. Rep. Thomas Beach (R) filed House Bill 3612 (H3612) on Jan. 11.

The bills differ in language, but essentially allow anyone who is legally allowed to own a gun to carry it without a state-issued license, while providing restrictions on carrying a firearm, concealed or not, in certain public places. South Carolina would continue issuing concealed carry permits for those who want them in order to take advantage of CCDW reciprocity in other states.

Currently, South Carolina gun owners must first attend training through a certified South Carolina CWP instructor before they can get a permit.

The bill seeks to repeal numerous sections of state law relating to the carrying of firearms. At the same time, it imposes restrictions on where a person can carry a firearm, concealed or not. That includes police stations, courthouses, polling locations, daycares, and preschools.

As I previously mentioned in a previous post, I watched the entirety of the debate in the S.C. Senate as South Carolina passed open carry.  At that time, constitutional carry was narrowly defeated.

I knew at that time constitutional carry wasn’t dead in S.C. and that the bills would be recapitulated this year.

Incrementalism.  It’s a good thing for us.  The progs know how to do it, we should have learned long ago.

The House will pass is fairly easily, I predict.  It will be tougher slogging in the S.C. senate.

News from South Carolina.

An ordinance restricting the open carry of firearms passed its first reading with the Anderson City Council on Monday night.

The ordinance would prohibit residents from openly carrying firearms during events that take place on public property. These events include protests, according to the officials.

The background for the ordinance states, “While the City recognizes and appreciates the First and Second Amendment rights of its citizens and visitors, the presence of firearms at protests can serve to escalate tensions.”

The council will discuss the amendment again before it becomes a part of the law.

There’s always an excuse, isn’t there?

“While the City recognizes and appreciates the First and Second Amendment rights of its citizens …”  No, of course it doesn’t.  Otherwise, they wouldn’t be debating the prohibition of open carry at events.  They always have to declare their support for your rights while they refuse to recognized them, don’t they?

As for the reason – “the presence of firearms at protests can serve to escalate tensions?”  They don’t believe that, otherwise they would be trying to ban concealed carry, because there is no difference between concealed and open carry except for the fact that the firearm can be seen with open carry.  The reality of the firearm is still there.

The good thing about the declaration of tyranny among the cities (Spartanburg, Greenville, Charleston, Columbia, and now Anderson have made it clear they intend to ban open carry) is that the tyrants self identify.

That’s good.  It gives patriots information on who to cast out of office next.

Index Journal.

How will local law enforcement go about enforcing a law that allows CWP holders to openly carry handguns?

McCormick Police Chief Bo Willis said he has received numerous phone calls from people asking about the open carry law. While he hasn’t had any problems with people openly carrying before the law’s enactment date, he said last week he’s still waiting on guidance from SLED on how to enforce the law.

The Index Journal hasn’t gotten answers from SLED because SLED doesn’t yet understand.  I’ve tried to explain it.

That’s what LEOs in Texas thought as well – we’ll just walk up and demand to see permits when a call comes in.

That’s not the way this worked out in Texas, and it’s not the way it will work out in South Carolina.  You see, in order to conduct a stop, LEOs need to ensure that it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”  In other words, you have to suspect that a crime has been or is being committed, or else the stop isn’t legal.

It’s not good enough to say that the individual is openly carrying a weapon.  To be sure, if someone is openly carrying and commits a crime leading to detention or arrest, and you ascertain that the individual has no permit, then you can charge him with a crime under the new law.  But then, you could have charged him with a crime under the concealed handgun law as well.  Nothing has changed.

You need to pretend that you can’t see the weapon, because that’s the way the carefully worded law is written.  This is what’s going to happen the first few times such a stop is conducted by LEOs for open carriers.

LEO: “Sir, I need to see your permit.”

Person A: “Sure, but you’re being videoed and this video will end up in court, and I need to ask you two questions.  First of all, am I being detained, and if so, do you suspect me of a crime?  In other words, is this a so-called “Terry Stop?”  Second question.  Does S.C. have a “stop and identify statute?”

The LEO is in a very hard place.  If the LEO says that person A is suspected of a crime, the proper response is, “What crime?”  To which he can give no valid response.  If the LEO says that person A is not suspected of a crime, question #2 becomes salient, and I assure you, S.C. has no stop and identify statute.

In other words, it is not legal for a LEO to conduct this stop for openly carrying.  Finally, you should read the bill again.  The open carry bill approved into law by the governor does not expand S.C. to include any sort of stop and identify stipulation, either under this statute or any other.  You can read it again for yourself.

Here is a much better idea.  Train your 911 operators to respond to callers with this information: “Ma’am, open carry is now legal in S.C.  Are you calling to report any other criminal activities?  Is this person brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone?  If not, we need to hang up.”

If you don’t follow this counsel, the two questions I posed above will be heard in court very soon.

SLED doesn’t know how they’re going to enforce the new law because South Carolina has no stop and identify statute, and neither should it.

You cannot (and should not be able to) stop someone who is doing nothing illegal.  The law as signed stipulates that a permit is required to be able to legally openly carry in S.C.  But there is no provision in existing statutory framework or in the recently signed open carry bill that makes provision for stopping people who are openly carrying to demand identification and permit.

But despite my best efforts, I cannot seem to interest anyone in the coming problems.  It’s not a problem to me, especially since I believe the S.C. legislature should have passed constitutional carry.  No permit should be required.

But it will soon be a problem with law enforcement if they think they are going to stop every open carrier they see to demand identification.

And by the way, try to reach any South Carolina law enforcement via email, whether Sheriff’s Association, city law enforcement, county law enforcement, or SLED.  It cannot be done.  They do not make their email addresses known to the public.

First of all, there are good, healthy views among South Carolina LEOs concerning the recent changes to S.C. law concerning open carry.

“I think this can definitely be a very positive thing. I think as the sheriff, you know I believe that guns could certainly be a deterrent for a bad guy when considering committing a crime upon a victim,” Anderson County Sheriff Chad McBride said. “It’s going to be something new that we have to get used to and the public will have to get used to of course. Walking into a location or at a location where it is allowed to carry and seeing that and it not being a law enforcement officer.”

“I love it because it’s the second amendment. Our second amendment right guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms,” Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said. “If you are going to be responsible enough to carry something of that magnitude it is your responsibility to train with it right.”

But then there is massive confusion and lack of mental preparation.

Greenville City Police Chief Howie Thompson has some fear about South Carolina’s open-carry law that was signed into law Monday.

Gov. Henry McMaster signed the “Open Carry with Training Act” bill, which will allow people with concealed weapons permits to openly carry firearms.

One of Thompson’s fears is for those carrying guns.

“Everyone will see it, and if someone who is committing a criminal act goes in and sees someone carrying a gun, well now the person who is carrying becomes a threat,” he said.

Thank you for your concern sir, but it’s misplaced.  Open carriers can handle the pressure.  But this next part is more likely to get someone hurt.

Another concern Thompson has deals with law enforcement officers. Thompson said if someone saw another person who is carrying legally and calls law enforcement to investigate, law enforcement  will not know if  the person has a permit to carry. Thompson thinks service calls for visible guns will increase.

“They’re going to ask for the permit, and maybe the person feels harassed, but in reality the police are just following up on a service call and making sure the person has a permit,” he said.

So this is a massive problem.  Allow me a moment to explain.

That’s what LEOs in Texas thought as well – we’ll just walk up and demand to see permits when a call comes in.

That’s not the way this worked out in Texas, and it’s not the way it will work out in South Carolina.  You see, in order to conduct a stop, LEOs need to ensure that it’s a valid “Terry Stop.”  In other words, you have to suspect that a crime has been or is being committed, or else the stop isn’t legal.

It’s not good enough to say that the individual is openly carrying a weapon.  To be sure, if someone is openly carrying and commits a crime leading to detention or arrest, and you ascertain that the individual has no permit, then you can charge him with a crime under the new law.  But then, you could have charged him with a crime under the concealed handgun law as well.  Nothing has changed.

You need to pretend that you can’t see the weapon, because that’s the way the carefully worded law is written.  This is what’s going to happen the first few times such a stop is conducted by LEOs for open carriers.

LEO: “Sir, I need to see your permit.”

Person A: “Sure, but you’re being videoed and this video will end up in court, and I need to ask you two questions.  First of all, am I being detained, and if so, do you suspect me of a crime?  In other words, is this a so-called “Terry Stop?”  Second question.  Does S.C. have a “stop and identify statute?”

The LEO is in a very hard place.  If the LEO says that person A is suspected of a crime, the proper response is, “What crime?”  To which he can give no valid response.  If the LEO says that person A is not suspected of a crime, question #2 becomes salient, and I assure you, S.C. has no stop and identify statute.

In other words, it is not legal for a LEO to conduct this stop for openly carrying.  Finally, you should read the bill again.  The open carry bill approved into law by the governor does not expand S.C. to include any sort of stop and identify stipulation, either under this statute or any other.  You can read it again for yourself.

Here is a much better idea.  Train your 911 operators to respond to callers with this information: “Ma’am, open carry is now legal in S.C.  Are you calling to report any other criminal activities?  Is this person brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone?  If not, we need to hang up.”

If you don’t follow this counsel, the two questions I posed above will be heard in court very soon.

Listen to me when I say this.  Ask your prosecuting attorney about what I’ve said.  They’ll back me up because I’m right.

McMaster has already signed the bill into law, but this report prior to signing the bill is interesting.

Major Nunn said the grace period will be a time for law enforcement agencies to come up with ‘policies and procedures on how to deal with folks carrying hand guns openly.’

Here’s how you “deal” with those “folks.”  You ignore them, just as if they were concealing a handgun.  Pretend you can’t see it, because it will be legal.

I hope that helps.

News from South Carolina.

Gov. Henry McMaster said Monday he signed into law a bill allowing people with concealed weapons permits from the state to carry their guns in the open.

McMaster posted on Twitter that he was keeping his promise to sign any bill that protects or expands gun rights.

The proposal allows so-called open carry of guns for people who undergo training and background checks so they can keep guns hidden under a jacket or other clothing or in their vehicle anywhere there isn’t a sign prohibiting it.

The law takes effect in 90 days. Thus, in mid-August, South Carolina will no longer be with California, Florida, Illinois and New York to prohibit any type of open carry.

The law eliminates a $50 permit fee to get a concealed weapons permit and lowers the number of bullets that someone must fire at a target in an accuracy test to get a permit from 50 to 25 shots. Requirements remain that a permit holder be 21 or over, take eight hours of training and pass a background check that includes fingerprinting.

My S.C. Open Carry tag has dozens of columns, articles and commentaries, which I’ve sent around hundreds of times to fellow gun rights activists in South Carolina, S.C. members of the House and Senate, and readers.  Additionally, I’ve met people face to face to discuss this, sent other letters to politicians, both local and state, and sent letters to CLEOs to rebut their efforts to deny open carry to South Carolinians, pointing out in excruciating detail on every point how they were wrong and disloyal to the constitution.

This is a big win, a hard fought victory.  I’m celebrating tonight over this.

But the fight isn’t over.  They denied constitutional carry this time around.  We’ll go in baby steps as incrementalists.  I have no objections to incrementalism.

Open carry this year, constitutional carry next year.

News from South Carolina.

The House approved the Open Carry bill 83-34 on Wednesday and then signed off on the changes made by the Senate.

It now heads to Gov. McMaster’s desk where he will sign it “soon,” says a spokesman.

Why not today, governor?  What are you waiting for?

News from South Carolina.

COLUMBIA, SC (WCIV) — South Carolina’s legislature has passed a bill changing state gun laws to allow open carry of guns for people who completed training and pass a background check.

The state’s House of Representatives passed the “Open Carry With Training” bill by an 83-34 vote on Wednesday, following the state Senate’s approval of the bill a week earlier.

With the General Assembly’s approval, the bill now heads to Gov. Henry McMaster’s desk for his signature. The governor has said he will sign it.

BREAKING: The SC House just passed the Open Carry Law, with Senate Amendment. Here is how the house voted. 83-34 in favor. pic.twitter.com/j7u2EsUy8E

— Eli Brand (@EliBrandTV) May 12, 2021

So remember that the S.C. Senate passed open carry with amendments to the House bill.  This was a House vote on acceptance of the Senate amendments.  It succeeded with lots of margin.

The next step is the signature of the governor, who has said he will sign it.  His political future would be in shambles if he didn’t.