Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 29

Thread: School/Restaurant Carry....

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    You can read the original bill on the statehouse website at:
    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/347.htm



    It is about time....

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

    Post imported post

    http://www.scfirearms.org/Legislative/S347.html

    GrassRoots Position: GrassRoots strongly supports this bill.
    Current Status: Filed.
    Primary Sponsor: Martin
    Full Text: http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_.../bills/347.htm Check back soon for a full analysis to be posted.


    Executive Officer

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    GrassRoots Position: GrassRoots strongly supports this bill.
    I am suprised they are supporting this bill as normally they do not support a limited action bill such as this.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    8

    Post imported post

    But what exactly will this bill do? I can't get past their terminology in the bill.

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Lynchburg, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,201

    Post imported post

    Perhaps they understand that sometimes an incremental approach is necessary to make forward progress. Although I don't like to be forced into incrementalism, especially when my rights as are being infringed, but I realize that it is somehow necessary to move this way.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    dougs link breaks it down a bit, have you read it yet?

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    This is a good bill for sure. Caters specifically to the CWP crowd in SC and is welcomed.

    Unfortunately we havent seen any alternative language from GRGR as to H3003. Thats an open carry deal so we'll not likely see said alternative language.

    Im sure the reasoning is that its a dead issue that will go nowhere.

    Still, we have some good stuff with the bill in question here.:celebrate

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    AllAmerican wrote:
    Unfortunately we havent seen any alternative language from GRGR as to H3003. Thats an open carry deal so we'll not likely see said alternative language.

    Im sure the reasoning is that its a dead issue that will go nowhere.
    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/reply.p...04&quote=1

    Bottom line: As currently drafted, H. 3003 is truly a compromise bill in that gun owners give up something (i.e., vehicle carry for CWP holders; concealed carry for business owners, employees, and managers; and any kind of carry for business owners and managers of businesses that serve alcoholic beverages for on premises consumption) in order to get something (i.e., open carry). Why must gun owners give away existing privileges in order to gain other privileges? GrassRoots is a no compromise, no surrender pro gun rights organization. GrassRoots will not accept the idea that we must give away some existing privileges in order to gain some other privileges.

    GrassRoots will not tolerate using our rights as political bargaining chips. Thus, until H. 3003 is amended to protect the currently existing privileges enjoyed by gun owners, GrassRoots can not support H. 3003. But, if the legislature amends H. 3003 (as identified above) to protect the existing privileges enjoyed by gun owners while extending even more privileges to gun owners, then GrassRoots will support H. 3003. Going the extra mile and turning South Carolina into an Alaska carry state by deleting Section 16-23-460 would be the ideal thing for the legislature to do.
    The alternative language is 'no' for the reasons cited.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    sclibertytree wrote:
    But what exactly will this bill do? I can't get past their terminology in the bill.
    Simply says that if you have a CWP you can have it on you while on school property or you can leave it in a locked or attended vehicle. I you go to a school to pick up your child you can carry your gun with you on school ground and if you have to go inside you can leave it in your car if it is locked or someone is in the car.

    The other part of the bill:
    This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon when carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to and in compliance with Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 unless the person is present in the portion of the business primarily devoted to the dispensing of alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises."
    Basically says that if you eat at Apple Annies you can carry as long as you are not sitting at the bar. All in all a very good bill from what I acn tell. Not what many want but it is a start.

    The interesting thing about this bill is that it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House If it makes it through the Senate and I expect it to unless it gets derailed by some overzealous group it should go through the House without a problem. I discussed this with my Rep a while back and he told me this was foing to come up and felt that it would pass. If we want to settle for this we probably can get it but anything else is going to be a fight. A no compromise attitude is not going to work here.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Another bill that you may want to keep an eye on which allows anyone to carry their gun under the seat of their car as well as in the glove box or console. I have some mixed feelings about this as I don't think it is safe to stick anything under your seat without it being secured. I once had to hit the brakes hard and a bottle roll out from under the seat and got between the brake pedal and the floorboard. I was able to maneuver it around and get stopped in time to avoing a head on collision. Since then I have never allowed anything under my seat. If they change the wording to securely stowed or similar I am all for it but not untill then.



    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_...bills/3298.htm

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I lot of vehicles have bench seats or back seats that could be stored under.

    Just because it is under the seat does not mean it is not secure from slide.

    Some elements you just have to leave up to the individual.

    I have put mine under the seat, but usualy long enough for me to run in and out of a location, not while driving.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    It's like in the states where it has to be open, preferably on the dash. I have always wondered how in the heck is a gun lying on a dashboard safe. You are riding down the Interstate at 75 mph and have to make a quick maneuver and the gun goes sliding all over the place and out the rolled down window. Mount a holster to you dashboard for it and then in some states they will try to say it is concealed. Just doesn't seem fair does it.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I agree with ya there!

    heck scares me to consider laying one on the dash.

    Seems like you are picking a fight...

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    No Doug.. the alternative language is not "NO" but nice try.


    Thus, until H. 3003 is amended to protect the currently existing privileges enjoyed by gun owners, GrassRoots can not support H. 3003.
    The answer is that GRGR needs to get its "leader" of his ass and write the language as it should be. But he wont because GRGR is geared toward the CWP crowd even if they will not admit it.

    The reason they support this bill is because it is specific to CWP.

    There will not be alternative language on H3003 because the "leadership" doesnt want open carry.

    If they do they can prove it by writing the alternative language that we can get to our legislators.

    What I quoted is what I would like to see addressed. The leadership needs to provide the ammended language. Thats all Im asking for.


  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    9,193

    Post imported post

    Answered in a different forum.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    Doug Huffman wrote:
    Answered in a different forum.
    Indeed it was answered. Seems your answer here of "NO" was wrong.

    I am guessing it just takes a few of us to let the leadership know what is actually important and to hold said leadership accountable.

    I think we may be heading in the right direction and Im hopeful. I am also hopeful that we can get both the leadership and the drones on the same page. There is none of us that are more important than another in our fight for our rights.

    Everyone has a place in the continuing fight and one place is not more esteemed than another.

    Let us carry on...

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I have noticed most questions putto them seam to come back with a snide touch, as though ... how dare you challenge or think.

    Other forums qwelcome input, freedom of opinion...etc.

    Then they get all in a huff over the good they have done, but look for that info on their web site...

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Greer, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    I have noticed most questions putto them seam to come back with a snide touch, as though ... how dare you challenge or think.

    Other forums qwelcome input, freedom of opinion...etc.

    Then they get all in a huff over the good they have done, but look for that info on their web site...

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Chesterfield, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    98

    Post imported post

    340mopar wrote:
    I have noticed most questions putto them seam to come back with a snide touch, as though ... how dare you challenge or think.

    Other forums qwelcome input, freedom of opinion...etc.

    Then they get all in a huff over the good they have done, but look for that info on their web site...
    Well you have noticed what many of us have noticed. Im certain that the leadership is very in tune with what is going on legislatively as a whole but I also believe they are a bit out of touch.

    There are several things about the organization which raise questions and are of concern to not only myself but several of the members.

    Yes, GRGR believes they have the market cornered on the 2A front. The attitude shows it. Its even been brought to light in this very subsection of the OCDO forum.

    Im willing to work with GRGR but I believe they need to draw on a crowd that is younger than what they have now. The organization is very secretive to even its members. (they blame their foes for this) its hard to gather info on the group and Ive never been answered as to the demographics. I personally belive the majority to be men who are older than 55.

    I do think they have our 2A rights as their focus. I am a member and will remain so for the near future.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Upstate, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    240

    Post imported post

    This is a long overdue bill! (S 347)

    I sent a thank you note to all of the sponsors, and to my district senator sharing my support.



  21. #21
    Regular Member FLMason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Franklin, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    55

    Post imported post

    Will be coming to SC did the restaurant carry bill pass ? thanks

  22. #22
    Regular Member hp-hobo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    399

    Post imported post

    FLMason wrote:
    Will be coming to SC did the restaurant carry bill pass ? thanks
    Nope, not yet.
    "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun."

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lexington, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    GrassRoots Position: GrassRoots strongly supports this bill.
    I am suprised they are supporting this bill as normally they do not support a limited action bill such as this.
    While GrassRoots would like to see all of our rights restored in one fell swoop, we recognize that such is probably never going to happen. So, yes, GrassRoots has, does, and will continue to support incremental victories if that is the best we can get.

    GrassRoots is supporting this bill. In fact, GrassRoots drafted this bill.

    GrassRoots supports all pro gun bills - period.

    GrassRoots does not support bills that give away some rights in order to get other rights.

    Rob

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lexington, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    The interesting thing about this bill is that it was introduced in the Senate rather than the House.

    ...

    A no compromise attitude is not going to work here.
    GrassRoots has wanted to get pro gun bills introduced in the Senate for years. The problem is that there have not been any senators willing to introduce and fight for pro gun bills.

    With the election of Sen. Shane Martin in 2008, we finally have a pro gun senator who will introduce pro gun legislation. Interestingly, during the Republican primaries in 2008, the NRA supported the incumbent who had never introduced or co-sponsored a pro gun bill while GrassRoots supported the pro gun challenger Shane Martin.

    If the "A no compromise attitude is not going to work here" comment is directed at GrassRoots, it is misplaced. The only reason this bill was introduced is because GrassRoots helped get Sen. Martin elected. And, GrassRoots drafted this bill for Sen. Martin to introduce.

    Rob


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Lexington, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    20

    Post imported post

    AllAmerican wrote:
    The answer is that GRGR needs to get its "leader" of his ass and write the language as it should be. But he wont because GRGR is geared toward the CWP crowd even if they will not admit it.

    The reason they support this bill is because it is specific to CWP.

    There will not be alternative language on H3003 because the "leadership" doesnt want open carry.
    I wish you were smart enough to understand what I wrote, but I guess that is asking too much.

    When I point out that H. 3003 only incorporates half of the language from a section of law being moved, and that the entire section of law needs to be moved to give us the same protections we have now, a half way intelligent person would see that the "alternative language" you keep demanding to see is simply to incorporate the entire section of law being moved instead of only half of the section of law being moved.

    So, you have already been provided what you have asked for, you just are not capable of seeing it because of your dislike of me.

    Your statement about GrassRoots leadership not wanting open carry is wrong at best and a lie at worst. It gets tiresome listening to people like you making false claims that GrassRoots leadership does not support open carry when we have specifically stated we do support it, while listening to others claiming GrassRoots leadership is too extreme because we support Vermont carry and an elimination of virtually all "gun free" zones and all mandatory training as a prerequisite for carrying a firearm.

    Rob


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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