Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Praise for gutted H. 3212 from NRA - ILA

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=3676

    Friday, March 14, 2008

    The South Carolina Senate amended H 3212, the Right-to-Carry recognition bill, changing it to a conditional reciprocity bill.

    As passed by the House, this legislation would have required South Carolina to recognize all valid Right-to-Carry permits held by residents of all other states that issue such permits.

    With the Senate amendment, the bill now will require South Carolina to recognize valid Right-to-Carry permits held by residents of other states, provided the permit issuing process of the other state requires the permittee to undergo a criminal background check, as well as pass a course that teaches firearm safety.

    While the legislation does not go as far as the House version, it will greatly increase the number of states whose permits South Carolina will now recognize, as well as the number of states that will recognize a South Carolina permit.

    This amendment was necessary in order to ensure the Senate passed this needed reform. Without this new language, this bill would not have passed out of the Senate.

    NRA supports the amended version of H 3212, and we appreciate the help of the Senators who worked directly with NRA to ensure we could pass the best possible language.

    We wish to especially thank State Senators Jim Ritchie (R-13) and Jake Knotts (R-23) for their help with this legislation.

    Please take a moment to thank these Senators, even if they are not yours, as well thank your Senator for supporting this needed reform.

    H 3212 passed Second Reading in the Senate on Thursday, March 13, and should pass Third Reading next Tuesday, March 18.

    The next step will be for the House to vote to concur with the Senate's amended version. If the House concurs, the bill will be sent to Governor Mark Sanford (R).


  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Friends,

    WE need to write an action alert detailing how H 3212 has once again been hijacked and turned into an unacceptable bill.

    To put things in better perspective, we need some research done yesterday. :-) I know, I should have thought of it yesterday.

    We need some examples of GA CWP holders saving lives. If you can find examples of other states where NO TRAINING is required of CWP holders, then those states would be acceptable. Right now, we can not use examples from states that require training.

    Since the action alert needs to get out this afternoon/evening, we need this research ASAP. I thought I remembered an incident where a GA CWP holder stopped an active shooter and saved a lot of lives. I can not remember if that criminal who escaped from the courthouse after taking the guard's gun was stopped/delayed by a CWP holder or not.

    The GrassRoots position should be that any reciprocity law that does not allow reciprocity with GA is not acceptable.

    Thank you.

    [slightly edited]

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Illinois, USA
    Posts
    778

    Post imported post

    I am not an absolutist. Any improvement is an improvement, and if that is the best you can get, take it, and come back next time for more. Thats how our rights were lost. its one way to take them back.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Please? Where is the improvement, in H. 3212, in your language and not cribbed from the NRA enemy to gun rights in SC?

    The text of H. 3212 was written in consultation with GRSC and not with the state NRA assiliate, GOSC.

    Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA *******

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    902

    Post imported post

    What's this nonsense. If they have to amend it to get the bill passed, then at least change the language so a holder of a valid OOS permit will be honored, the bill will only recognize home-state permits.

    If the modified senate version becomes law, then a big number of states will qualify; however, the resident restriction will still be there.

    Can you folks in SC ask the senate to strike the home-state permit requirement from the bill.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    As a SC resident I am especially interested in what this bill will mean to me. From what I can tell right now my CWP permit is honored in 22 states AK*, AR, AZ, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MI, MO, MT, NC, NM, OH, OK, SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, VT*, WY.

    What is the difference between the 5/9/07 and the 3/13/08 bills as far as a SC resident is concerned in what states will be immediately added. I know the number 30+ total has been tossed around but are there any that will be added just because either of these versions are passed? I take it that there are some states that will honor any state that honors theirs but before I get too excited either way I need some facts.

  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    It seems they are further screwing with this bill now; it seems that Virginia will probably not qualify since Virginia has no fingerprinting requirement.

    At least if I understand the debate going on right now on the Senate floor.


    Yes, they want to amend the amendment.


  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Wow.. now they didn't even vote on 3212 and carried it over.

    WTH is going on here.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    *** GrassRoots Action Alert ***

    H. 3212 NEEDS YOUR IMMEDIATE HELP!

    Your IMMEDIATE action is needed to save H. 3212 in the Senate! If you
    do not act first thing Tuesday morning, it will be too late!

    Sen. Jake Knotts amended H. 3212 on Thursday. As amended it will be
    WORSE than current law. NRA is supporting this bill for unknown
    reasons since the bill will not increase the number of states with
    which SC can have reciprocity. So, the politicians must hear the
    message "GrassRoots GunRights speaks for me!"

    GrassRoots apologizes for the last minute notice, but things are
    moving fast and research was needed to be sure our suspicions were
    correct about the H. 3212. We will have a full explanation up on our
    web site by tomorrow morning.

    Below is the text of the letter we are sending to each Senator.

    --------------------------------------
    The Honorable Glenn F. McConnell
    South Carolina Senate
    P.O. Box 142
    Columbia, SC 29202
    RE: H. 3212

    Dear Senator McConnell:

    The Knotts/Anderson amendment to H. 3212 - the concealed weapon permit
    (CWP) reciprocity bill - is so bad that South Carolina would not
    qualify for reciprocity with itself! So, how could that possibly lead
    to reciprocity with more states as claimed by its supporters?

    There are serious problems with the Knotts/Anderson amendment. An
    analysis of H. 3212 shows H. 3212 should REDUCE the number of states
    with which SC has reciprocity, NOT increase the number. Also, H. 3212
    is the first step in changing SC law to require re-qualification for
    CWP renewals. A full explanation of all that is wrong with the
    Knotts/Anderson amendment can be found on the GrassRoots GunRights web
    site at http://www.SCFirearms.org. In the interests of saving time and space,
    only the worst aspects of H. 3212 are being presented in this letter.

    Existing SC CWP law makes a legal distinction between a fingerprint
    review and a background check. Section 23-31-215(B) states:
    Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this
    section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal
    fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a
    background check of the applicant through notification to and input
    from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides or if the
    applicant is a qualified nonresident, where the applicant owns real
    property in this State. … If the fingerprint review and background
    check are favorable, SLED must issue the permit. [emphasis added]

    As shown immediately above, existing SC CWP law requires "a local,
    state, and federal fingerprint review," but explicitly requires only a
    local background check and by inference requires a state background
    check by SLED. SC CWP law fails to mention a federal background check
    as a requirement for obtaining a SC CWP.

    The Knotts/Anderson amendment would change existing SC CWP law to
    allow CWP reciprocity ONLY if "the reciprocal state requires an
    applicant to successfully pass a state and federal criminal background
    check." The Knotts/Anderson amendment sets a higher standard for CWP
    reciprocity than existing SC law does by explicitly requiring people
    from other states "to successfully pass a … federal criminal
    background check." SC CWP holders are not explicitly required to pass
    a federal criminal background check, only a federal fingerprint review.

    The only result that can come from this change is to REDUCE the number
    of states with which SC can have reciprocity. It is quite possible SC
    would LOSE reciprocity with states with which SC currently has
    reciprocity due to the new standards imposed by the Knotts/Anderson
    amendment. If other states follow SC and also do not require a federal
    background check prior to issuing a CWP, then SC could lose
    reciprocity with those states with which SC currently has reciprocity.
    Ironically, SC would not qualify for reciprocity with itself under the
    new standards imposed by the Knotts/Anderson amendment!

    It is claimed the Knotts/Anderson amendment would allow for
    reciprocity with states that require less than the eight (8) hour
    training course currently required by SC law in Section
    23-31-210(5)(a). But, the words of the Knotts/Anderson amendment do
    not support such a claim or interpretation.

    SC law does not provide for a different definition of "proof of
    training" for use by CWP holders in other states than it does for SC
    CWP holders. The Knotts/Anderson amendment does not change the law as
    to how many hours a "firearm training and safety" course must be -
    which is statutorily defined as eight (8) hours minimum for all. Thus,
    the Knotts/Anderson amendment could not possibly increase the number
    of states eligible for CWP reciprocity with SC, and any statement to
    the contrary is not supported by the facts.

    Existing SC law explicitly provides for reciprocity with "those states
    which have permit issuance standards equal to or greater than the
    standards" set by SC law. The Knotts/Anderson amendment changes the SC
    CWP reciprocity law to allow reciprocity if "the reciprocal state
    requires an applicant to successfully pass a state and federal
    criminal background check and a course in firearm training and
    safety." There is no longer a mention of SC CWP standards when dealing
    with reciprocity.

    The Knotts/Anderson amendment is not designed to increase the number
    of states with which SC can have CWP reciprocity. The ulterior motive
    behind the Knotts/Anderson amendment is to lay the foundation for
    requiring CWP re-qualification every four years.

    The unspoken reason for deleting reference to SC standards with
    regards to CWP reciprocity found in the Knotts/Anderson amendment is
    that such a change provides the opportunity to require CWP
    re-qualification every four years. It is no secret that Sen. Knotts
    has wanted to impose CWP re-qualification for years. But, doing so
    would have destroyed every existing CWP reciprocity agreement since no
    other state imposes such a requirement. The mandated re-qualification
    would be a great monetary opportunity/reward for NRA certified
    instructors, which would easily explain NRA support. But,
    re-qualification is not in the best interests of the people of SC
    generally or SC CWP holders in particular. It is not a change
    supported by GrassRoots GunRights and its members.

    The fear mongers claim they are only protecting the people of SC by
    insisting on CWP "training" prior to allowing people to carry a
    firearm pursuant to the CWP law. But, there is no evidence to support
    the claim that CWP "training" saves any lives. Yet, there is reliable
    evidence proving mandated CWP "training" actually costs lives when
    good people are deterred from obtaining a CWP due to the extra costs
    in time and money. Unfortunately, the facts do not matter to those
    with a political agenda or a financial interest.

    GrassRoots GunRights urges you to repeal the Knotts/Anderson amendment
    and pass H. 3212 exactly as it came from the Senate Judiciary
    Committee. Otherwise, kill H. 3212 because the Knotts/Anderson
    amendment makes the SC CWP law worse than it is now.

    Sincerely,

    Robert D. Butler, J.D.
    Vice President
    GrassRoots GunRights
    ------------------------------------------

    *** ACTION STEPS: ***

    1. Call EACH Senator from your county first thing in the morning
    because the bill will be voted on Tuesday.

    2. Email EACH Senator from your county and send the message
    "GrassRoots GunRights speaks for me!" (Cut and paste "GrassRoots
    GunRights speaks for me!" in both the subject line and the body of the
    text.)

    3. Be sure to say "GrassRoots GunRights speaks for me on CWP
    reciprocity."

    Thank you for doing your part as a gun rights activist!

    Bill Rentiers
    Executive Officer
    GrassRoots GunRights of SC
    ExecOfficer@SCFirearms.org
    803-233-9295





    [code]

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    the action today was to amend the Knotts/Anderson itself so that it explains that the federal/state background check is the same as the current SC standard, including fingerprinting.

    I haven't seen the exact text of that amendment to the amendment yet.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    The newly amended amendment is in Section 1 of the bill (emphasis mine):

    SECTION 1. Section 23-31-215(N) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 347 of 2006, is further amended to read:
    "(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 state and federal fingerprint review 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."


  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    Skeptic wrote:
    The newly amended amendment is in Section 1 of the bill (emphasis mine):

    SECTION 1. Section 23-31-215(N) of the 1976 Code, as last amended by Act 347 of 2006, is further amended to read:
    "(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 state and federal fingerprint review 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."
    Well hopefully this bill as amended is rejected by the other body and the bill goes to conference - if fingerprinting is required, all the residents of states that do not require fingerprinting (e.g., PA, VA, NH, etc.) are screwed. Even under either version s of the bill, SC is vulnerable to a priv. and immunity attack on the residency discrimination.

  13. #13
    Regular Member Prophet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    544

    Post imported post

    I have serious problems with fingerprinting...not because i'm a criminal but because I feel it is an invasion of privacy. I have passed on jobs before over fingerprinting (relenting finally to join the army because i felt the price was worth paying) but I view this as the same as i do gun registration. And if that means i can't go to SC and carry well to hell with the SC senate. Im happy in the good ole keystone state.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    It appears that H 3212has been nitpicked to death by both sides and from what I see has little chance of passage in any form.

    Much like H 3964 has been ammended into a bill that pleases no one and will die a slow death in committee. Although I hope I am wrong about both of these.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    I missed the first half hour of the session today so I didn't see if they went to special orders yet but they are now in the adjourned debate portion, and the next bill on the schedule is 3212 - I am hoping for an amendment to de-amend it back to its original form


    But that is probably a pipe dream

  16. #16
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    It appears that H 3212has been nitpicked to death by both sides and from what I see has little chance of passage in any form.

    Much like H 3964 has been ammended into a bill that pleases no one and will die a slow death in committee. Although I hope I am wrong about both of these.
    Yes, I just don't understand why this didn't come up last year in committee when it was reported favorably by the majority.

    Apparently the SC doesn't have a strong committee system?

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Interesting take by the NRA-ILA in a recent email alert. They
    complain about how the CWP recognition bill was killed last session.
    Then, they promote Jakie Knotts as the savior for this year's CWP
    reciprocity bill. What they fail to tell people is that it was Jakie
    who killed the bill last session!

    They also fail to tell people the whole truth about what has gone on
    with H 3212 this session.

    Even if Shealy is not on our side of the issues, it would be hard to
    see how she could be worse than Jakie has become.

    Xxx

    [code]

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    And what is the whole truth other than we are left with no change and no hope of any improvement. This rhetoric from both sides has killed any chance of even half decent reciprocity. Maybe SC Grassroots holds out some hope of getting their agenda pushed throughbut I will have to see to believe. Otherwise I still can'tcarry in FL but I can in 30+ other states.

  19. #19
    Founder's Club Member Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Goochland, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    585

    Post imported post

    Oh well, I have officially cancelled my vacation in SC and got a refund on my deposit, minus a small service fee.

    Never been to Myrtle Beach. Now I may never get to go.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •