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.

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.

News from South Carolina.

Gun owners permitted to carry concealed weapons in the state of South Carolina are soon likely to join residents in 45 other states who can carry their hand guns openly in public — a proposal that has frustrated gun-control advocates, doctors and top law enforcement leaders but was a resounding win for many Republican lawmakers.

With three days left on the legislative calendar, the Senate voted 28-16 mostly down party lines after a more than 12-hour debate to pass H. 3094, a House-sponsored bill that would allow only concealed weapons permit holders the right to carry their hand gun in the open.

Charleston Sen. Sandy Senn was the lone Republican to vote against the legislation.

The Republican-controlled Senate made a handful of changes to the bill. They ranged from removing the $50 cost of the permit application fee, to limiting the federal government’s intervention and to requiring clerks to report pertinent information to the State Law Enforcement Division within five, not 30, days that would prohibit someone from buying or owning a gun.

But senators also rejected dozens of amendments that included a Republican-pushed attempt to expand the measure by eliminating the law’s existing permit and background check requirement entirely, and also Democrat-led efforts to enhance background checks.

“I’d be lying to you if I said I wasn’t a little bit disappointed, but I actually, I have absolutely no regrets,” said state Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, who pushed but lost 25-21 his effort to remove the permit requirement. “I won’t give up advocating for it. I was so close.”
Obviously, Martin said, “the Senate’s not ready for it yet.”

The bill goes back to the House, likely to reject the changes, triggering a six-member joint panel to hammer out differences.

Congratulations to senators Massey and Martin.  Shane Massey was the S.C. senator who successfully got the bill pulled from the SC senate judiciary committee where they intended to stall it until dead this calendar year, aided by turncoat SC senator Luke Rankin.

Actually, the attempt to remove the permitting requirement entirely, i.e., constitutional carry, was opposed by Shane Massey.  I don’t know if the opposition was real, or if the attempt to amend the bill to remove permitting would have been a poison pill for the bill, losing S.C. senators who would have otherwise been in favor of open carry.  But at least Mr. Massey did his part to strip the bill from the hands of Mr. Rankin, who needs to be primaried and thrown from office.

Also to senator Martin, who led a valiant effort for constitutional carry this term.  As you might expect, I approve of his goals and I hope for the best during the next legislative season.

As I observed before, “The ninnies, frightened and the tepid must see for themselves when the state is let out of its cage that the sky doesn’t fall like law enforcement and “The Karens” said it would.  They’re like a frightened, psychologically stunted animal who has been caged its entire life, afraid to leave the confines of its own imprisonment.”

When the world doesn’t end and blood doesn’t run in the streets as predicted by law enforcement and “Karens against Everything,” the time will be ripe for this again soon.

I listened to much of the debate today.  Most of it was ridiculous.  The ninnies tried everything in the book, from stalling tactics to endless yapping, to poison pill amendments.  One awful senator, an obvious law enforcement sycophant, worked hard for an amendment that would have had LEOs confiscating weapons in any encounter for the sake of “officer safety.”

So he would have had men handling others’ weapons, a stupid, awful, terrible idea.  I’ve discussed this before.  Weapons might be modified, the officer may never have seen that particular weapon before, rounds might be chambered, or they might not be, safeties might be engaged, or they might not be, hammers may be cocked, they may not be, striker fired pistols may be half cocked, or they might not be, trigger jobs may have lightened the pull, or maybe not, the pistol might be single action, or it might be SA/DA, guns could drop if they’re handled (causing people to try to catch them), and all manner of NDs can occur.  Some holsters are retention, others not, and on and on the variations could go.

It is a profoundly, terribly, incredibly stupid thing to begin handling weapons just because someone likes authority, walks up and demands it.  It’s a great thing that amendment was defeated.

Now.  It’s important not to let up.  First, the little differences between the House and Senate versions must be hammered out, and that, quickly so.  Then finally, the governor’s office must be flooded with mail, email and phone calls to ensure he keeps his word and signs the bills into law.

This has been a long slog, but it’s not over just yet.

Then next session we’ll focus on constitutional carry.

Listening while I work.

This is out of control.  They have no control over what’s going on.  There are delays, discussions on impertinent issues, bringing things up that are not germane, attempts to delay, long winded yapping and yapping, more delays, attempts to amend, more attempts to amend, and on and on and on.

What a bunch of yappy red neck pols.  The senator from Charleston is the absolute worst, and no one will shut him up.  He can barely speak comprehensible English.  He’s just droning on and on and on and on, and my prediction is that the parliamentary rulings will allow this bill to die due to complete incompetence.

Do they not follow Robert’s Rules of Order?  Can no one shut all of this up?  Can no one “call the question?”

UPDATE: Unbelievable.  One senator is trying to amend the bill to force open carriers to “wear some sort of identification to let law enforcement know they are legally openly carrying.”

Wear the scarlet letter, peasant!  What a bunch of rednecks.

UPDATE #2: Now one senator is arguing that this is going to be Tombstone, and people should even refrain from answering knocks in the middle of the night while carrying a weapon because it might put law enforcement ill at ease.  Seriously.  Bad things are going to happen.  Awful things.  The sky is falling.  The boogey man is coming for us.  Run, hide.  The boogey man is coming!!!!

It’s going to be the wild west.  Blood running in the streets.  Blue lives matter.  Gore everywhere.

This is almost too hard for me.  I’m doing this so you don’t have to.

UPDATE #3: Senator offers up an amendment to allow open carry of weapons inside the chambers of the S.C. senate.  I’m certain this was offered up as a poison pill.  While I would be in favor of this amendment, I would probably vote against it because they just want to kill the bill.  The amendment fails.

They’re pulling every trick in the book.  I’m sure they’ve been schooled by “Moms against everything.”

UPDATE #4: Amendment to expand the bill to include open carry allowed in all state buildings, including county and city owned buildings (he’s the first senator I’ve heard at the podium who can actually speak English).  One senator objects that people can carry guns on the beach.  We all know that this is pointing towards businessmen worried about Myrtle Beach tourism and the objections of “The Karens.”

UPDATE #5: Good grief.  Senator is lobbying for an amendment for LEOs to temporarily confiscate firearms.  Good grief.  LEOs should never touch another man’s weapon.  This is stupid.

UPDATE #6: They’re making all the same mistakes that Texas did, where LEOs will be confiscating weapons until permits have been shown.  Handling of weapons causes NDs.  Stupid.

News from S.C.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCSC/AP) – State lawmakers are expected to hold a final vote Thursday on a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to openly carry their guns.

So it comes down to a vote today.  At this point I’m not sure what else can be done.  Calls to senate aids might still help if you’re so inclined.

News.

South Carolina senators debating a bill that would allow people with concealed weapons permits to carry their guns on Wednesday rejected an attempt to get rid of the requirement for the permits.

Senators voted 25-21 against the so-called constitutional carry amendment after several hours of debate.

It would have allow anyone who can legally own a gun to carry it anywhere the weapons are legally allowed.

The Senate was on its second day of debate on a gun bill that Republicans rapidly brought to the Senate floor. The bill would allow anyone who passes the background check and a roughly eight-hour course to get a South Carolina concealed weapons permit to carry their pistol in the open.

Senators adjourned about 7:15 p.m. Wednesday and said they expected a final vote on the bill after several hours of debate Thursday.

Well I could be disappointed in Shane Massey, and it was a valiant effort on the part of the 21 who voted in favor of the amendment.  But as for disappointed, maybe not.

Maybe Shane knows something we don’t.  Perhaps he knows that this was a poison pill, one that would doom open carry from passing because he knows whether they have the votes.

If that’s the case, then let’s move on.  As I’ve said before, let’s be incrementalists.  Open carry this year, constitutional carry next year.

The ninnies, frightened and the tepid must see for themselves when the state is let out of its cage that the sky doesn’t fall like law enforcement and “The Karens” said it would.

They’re like a frightened, psychologically stunted animal who has been caged its entire life, afraid to leave the confines of its own imprisonment.

Let’s be smart about this.  Move on.

We’re watching.

Open carry.  Let’s get it done guys.  Proceed with intentionality and purpose.

Move it.

Editorial from low state South Carolina where the southern liberals live.

There’s probably nothing we can say at this point to convince S.C. senators who don’t already realize that it’s a bad idea to let concealed-weapon carriers start carrying their guns on their hips.

After all, they’ve heard all the arguments against it, and still they voted more than 2-to-1 last week to bypass committee and put a House-passed open-carry bill at the top of their agenda for debate as early as Tuesday.

They’ve heard from people who say they would feel threatened if they encountered someone wearing a gun, even if that person does nothing (other than wearing the gun) to threaten them. And from those who argued that having those guns visible puts everybody on edge, increasing the risk that disagreements will escalate into deadly violence.

They’ve heard from police who warn that it’ll be even tougher to distinguish the bad guys from the good guns in active-shooter situations. And more commonly, they’ll be placed in a legally precarious situation when citizens call to complain about someone walking around their neighborhood with a holstered gun — because that’s not a crime, and legally speaking, they have no more justification for questioning someone walking down the street with a gun than someone walking down the street without a gun. (Retired SLED Chief Robert Stewart warned that the bill could get a lot of permit holders killed, because carrying a handgun openly would make them target No. 1 if they were present when a crime was being committed.)

Read the rest.  A veritable catalog of stupidity.  None of that has ever happened in open carry states.  Ask me how I know.

Feel threatened.  As if rights are subject to how it makes people feel when they are exercised, a standard never applied to street preachers.

Tough on cops.  As if cops won’t be able to tell perpetrators from people defending themselves, or can’t slow down enough to understand what and who they’re shooting at.

Target #1.  Oooo … such dramatic language.  “Get a lot of permit holders killed.”  Not one, not a few, but a LOT.  Get a LOT of permit holders killed.  That’s what he said.  Those are his words, not mine.  I just want to make sure you aren’t ascribing his stupid words to me.  Besides, whether a man wishes to openly carry and be target #1 is his own business, not yours.  Because freedom.  This bill doesn’t force anyone to do anything he doesn’t choose to.

But you know the general gist of their position when you read the caption under the top photo: “No one has presented a good reason to allow anyone other than police to carry guns openly.”

Because cops, and special rights, and you’re not special, you see.

To which I respond, “No one has presented a good reason to allow you to tell me what to do.”