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.

Greenville News.

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.

Source.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WIS) – Within a matter of days, South Carolina could become the 29th state in the country to allow adults to carry guns with no permit or training.

On Tuesday, a group of legislative negotiators struck a compromise after weeks of discussion on the bill known as “permitless carry” or “constitutional carry.”

“The dialogue we’ve been having with the Senate, the House, and the governor’s office is that they want this to immediately become law,” Rep. Bobby Cox, R – Greenville and the bill’s lead sponsor, told reporters following the conference committee’s meeting Tuesday morning.

The Senate and House had already passed this permitless carry gun bill, but their versions of it were different.

Yeah, the gamesmanship in the S.C. senate codified the right to carry without a permit as long as you had a permit. No, I’m not kidding.

The compromise they reached Tuesday now allows the bill to move closer to the governor’s desk.

In their agreement, the bill would allow adults 18 and older to carry loaded handguns openly with no permit or training.

Guns would still be banned in the same places they are now, including schools, courthouses, and the State House, and people could still obtain a concealed weapons permit if they wanted.

It would also tack on the governor’s top request, increased penalties for people who illegally carry, like felons who possess guns despite being legally barred from doing so.

The negotiation committee adopted most of the Senate’s changes, including optional, free training offered twice a month in every county and tougher penalties for people who do not have a permit and are caught carrying where it is prohibited.

“Is it really fair to, I guess, punish those particular folks more severely than the ones who choose to get a CWP when the state doesn’t require it anymore?” Rep. Justin Bamberg, D – Bamberg, asked.

Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey, who advocated for those enhanced penalties during the Senate’s debate on the bill earlier this year, pointed out they would only apply to people already convicted of certain gun crimes.

“Y’all, we’re talking about criminals now,” Massey said. “We’re talking about shooting into a dwelling, we’re talking about sneaking a gun into a school, we’re talking about pointing a weapon at somebody.”

But they nixed a Senate provision that would allow state lawmakers to carry guns in places where the general public cannot, an exemption that judges and prosecutors currently have.

“We’re not special. We’re servant leaders, and what’s good for our constituents is good for us,” Cox said.

They also omitted a House section that could have, unintentionally, allowed local school boards to vote to override the ban on guns in schools.

Well, congratulations, maybe, for the win for civil liberties. I want to see the bill first. This has been a long, hard-fought battle to get open carry first (with a permit), and then constitutional carry next (because of law enforcement opposition – as always, of course, you know, because of the “blood running in the streets” and all of that). I have always advised incrementalism, and the gains have been nothing if not incremental.

I will try to find out the gesticulations of the committee and get the final bill and share as I can.

The State:

A Senate bill that would clear the way for carrying firearms in South Carolina without a permit advanced from a panel on Tuesday with fewer than five days remaining in the legislative calendar.

It’s the beginning step for the bill that was first discussed in mid April. The bill – whose author is Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg – is different than one the House bill has already passed.

[ … ]

Like the House version, the Senate bill allows those who are legally permitted to own, carry or purchase a firearm to do so without having to obtain a permit. “Open carry,” which allows for a person to carry a firearm exposed on their person, also would be permitted …

As of Tuesday, however, there were no plans to schedule another hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee during the last week of session, which is the panel where the bill is headed to next.

The bill, however, does not die; 2017 is the first half of a two-year session. When legislators return in January, they will be able to continue discussing the bill with the progress that has already been made.

I consider it a minor to moderate failure for this bill to sit stagnated while the legislators go home.  We lose momentum, and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they couldn’t have come to terms with the House and passed a bill to send to the governor’s desk this week.

The upshot, however, is that I was worried about whether the rapidity of this would prevent us from addressing the South Carolina state senators one by one in order to do what we can to ensure success.  Now we don’t have that problem.  We have time to single out the senators with directed and focused communications.  Sitting stagnated but in process is better than having completely died or being rejected by the senate.

I hate that the legislators are going home, but we can pick this up again and make it clear to the senators that they have to do this first thing.  They need to move apace on this.  So says we, the free citizens and men of good will everywhere.

The State:

A bill that supporters argue would strengthen Second Amendment rights could be a disaster for the image of the Grand Strand, officials in multiple jurisdictions said.

On Tuesday, Myrtle Beach Police Chief Warren Gall said a measure under consideration in the general assembly could make law enforcement’s job more difficult, because it would be legal to carry a weapon openly as long as a user doesn’t intend to use it for an unlawful purpose. But police can only prove someone intended to use a gun unlawfully after a crime has occurred, he said.

The bill, which has passed the S.C. House of Representatives and moved to the Senate, does not require a permit for open carry.

“I don’t think they’re going to pass it this year. But imagine walking down Ocean Boulevard on Easter weekend, Fourth of July weekend, Memorial Day weekend, Labor Day weekend, and everybody down there is carrying a pistol on their side because they can,” Gall said.

Myrtle Beach has recently seen a string of shootings, many in the downtown area near or on Ocean Boulevard. Officials are grappling with multiple ways to calm the atmosphere there, but Councilwoman Mary Jeffcoat said controlling the flow of firearms could be an impossible task for local police.

“I don’t know how many people in town have guns,” she said Tuesday. “I don’t know if we’ve even guessed how many people have guns, but I bet it’s a lot of them. I’m surprised we don’t have more shootings on weekends.”

[ … ]

Chief Joseph Hill of the Horry County Police Department previously worked in Virginia, which allows open carry. He said that he hadn’t seen issues with it there, but said in his personal opinion, a proliferation of guns in public could run counter to the intended brand of the Myrtle Beach area — a family friendly resort town.

“Where are you gonna strap it when you’re in your flip flops and your shorts on the beach?” Hill asked.

“I don’t think it will work here,” he said. “I don’t have any personal objections to it other than it doesn’t fit the culture of Myrtle Beach.”

Myrtle Beach Police Chief Warren Gall may know something we don’t.  We already know how weak-kneed the South Carolina legislators are, but perhaps the chief knows something about stalling tactics.  The authors of the article let that pregnant line of questioning slip away from them.

Here’s another pregnant line of questioning.  If Chief Joseph Hill of the Horry County Police Department has worked in Virginia before, which is an open carry state, and which also has beaches, then why can’t it work at another beach like Myrtle Beach, S.C.?  And for that matter, if North Carolina is a “gold star” traditional open carry state, also with magnificent beaches like Emerald Isle and the Outer Banks, what the hell is Hill talking about?

What image are they trying to protect if crime is rampant in Myrtle Beach anyway?  Hey, if you want to handle crime in that area, why don’t y’all target those thousands of homeless, drug addled beach dwellers in between Myrtle Beach and North Myrtle Beach?  Yea, you know the ones I’m talking about, don’t you?  The ones who live just off the beach in makeshift shanties and card board boxes.

Your dirty little secret – the one you try to hide from all those Canadians and Northerners who come down to S.C. for some fun and frolic in the beach.  That is, during the times when High School students aren’t going to the beach to get inebriated and have sex with each other in hotel rooms their parents know nothing about.

Hey South Carolina LEOs!  You don’t have room to tell me anything about open carry and image.  Go fix your own damn problems and leave my rights alone.  And authors Chloe Johnson and Elizabeth Townsend, do a better job of pushing the envelope with your writing.  Why don’t you ask the hard questions?

The Post And Courier:

Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen wants to stop the General Assembly from enacting a law that would allow gun owners to carry their guns concealed or openly without having to get a permit, and he’s enlisted area residents to help him get the job done.

[ … ]

Mullen says the law would make it more difficult for law enforcement employees to do their jobs since they wouldn’t be able to question people only for openly carrying their weapons.

“People are going to be calling us and wanting us to intervene, and we’re going to have to tell them because of the law, we’re not able to do that,” he said …

“At least we know when were dealing with a concealed-weapons carrier, they’ve gone through a background check and gone through training,” he said. “And it creates another opportunity for small situations, verbal altercations or minor disagreements, to lead to serious injuries or even death.”

Dramatic, yes?  Altercations, even death!  The problem is that he’s lying.  As a long time resident of a “Gold Star” traditional open carry state, I know that nothing of the sort happens.  And chief Mullen knows all of this too, but like LEOs everywhere, he wants to maintain control and the revenue stream that comes from gun permitting.  Mullen shouldn’t look at it as if he isn’t “able to intervene.”  He should look at it as an opportunity to educate the public on the rights of citizens of South Carolina.  He would rather intervene, since he is an old school collectivist.

Next up, Alabama LEOs.

Treadaway said an example of how the permit requirement is an important tool for law enforcement came last week when Birmingham police stopped a pickup with no headlights on. The officers noticed an AR-15 on the back seat, which was not illegal, Treadaway said. The driver admitted to having a pistol in the truck and did not have a permit for it.

That led to his arrest and a search of the truck, which turned up two pipe bombs and illegal drugs, Treadaway said.

“That’s a prime example that if this law passed, the concerns of law enforcement is that tool would be taken away,” Treadaway said.

It all sounds so dramatic, yes?  Except it wasn’t the lack of a permit that tipped the LEOs off to something else in the automobile, it was the willingness of the perpetrator to confess on the spot that he had a pistol in the truck.  Actually, if he had run his headlights, he never would have been stopped to begin with, so none of this has anything to do with permitting or open carry.

You can take it as an article of faith, that when asked about constitutional carry, LEOs everywhere will come up with the most dramatic excuses for why it’s a bad thing and will lead to blood in the streets and difficulty to maintain law and order.

Except that the history of open carry states shows that they’re lying every time.  So why ask them at all?  Ignore the LEOs when considering the rights of citizens.  After all, they aren’t constitutional scholars.

WCSC:

CHARLESTON, SC (WCSC) – A Lowcountry police department has formally taken a stance on a Senate bill which, if passed, would allow anyone who can legally purchase a gun to carry it in the state openly or concealed.

The Charleston Police Department tweeted an update on its Twitter account Monday night sharing the department’s opinion on Senate bill S. 449 reading in part:

“Please understand what this bill creates – the ability for anyone who can legally purchase a firearm, many who have not completed a background check to determine whether or not they are prohibited purchasers due to the location and manner of the transfer or received any type of training, to walk our streets and neighborhoods with a handgun on their hip, in a bag, or under their jacket without any review or training.”

This may be the most mangled use of the English language I’ve ever witnessed.  I’m still actually having trouble with it, but together we’ll try to parse it.

First of all, there is the issue of the choice of the word “ability.”  This is odd, and the department – whomever that is, perhaps the chief of police, perhaps his secretary, perhaps an attorney – may have meant “legality,” or “legal viability,” or “legal ability.”  Anyone who has the money has the ability to purchase virtually anything.  In other words, the lack of some sort of state approval means nothing whatsoever concerning whether a person can do something, only whether a person may do something under the law.

Second, if we can get past the word ability, the phrase “who can legally purchase a firearm” says more than they want it to say and destroys their argument (if you can call this an argument at all).  It’s problematic because they acquiesce to the notion that the user or owner of the firearm has obtained the firearm legally (via form 4473) by stipulating so in the prefatory remarks, and then demur by saying that the owner or user may not be a legal firearm owner because, and I quote, “many who (sic) have not completed a background check to determine whether or not they are prohibited purchasers due to the location and manner of the transfer or received any type of training …”

They should have said “many of whom.”  Actually, they shouldn’t have said anything at all.  This is yet another oddball statement.  A “prohibited purchaser” cannot legally purchase a firearm via form 4473 (not that I agree with federal gun laws, I’m just attempting to logically parse this screwed up statement).

Person-to-person transfers are still legal in South Carolina, requiring neither form 4473 nor CLEO approval, nothing about that changes with this bill, and what all of this has to do with constitutional versus permitted carry is not addressed in this confusing statement.  Presumably the chief was referring to the fact that the CLEO permitting process will not have been followed for carry of the firearm (purchase of a firearm doesn’t require CLEO approval, but carry of a firearm [legally] does require CLEO approval).

But that’s what this debate is all about.  No one is denying that the bill, if passed would annul the requirement for CLEO approval for permitting to carry.  That’s its virtue, not its cunning.  Additionally, someone may walk around with a gun in a pocket, bag, on their hip or under a jacket anyway without CLEO approval.  If it isn’t seen, LEOs wouldn’t have opportunity to stop them since all detainments must be a so-called “Terry Stop.”  CLEO approval isn’t stopping criminals from carrying weapons.

The title of the article says that the Charleston Police Department weighs in on open carry, but the objections so far have to do only with bypassing the CLEO process for concealed carry and weapons transfers.  So it’s possible that the author of the short article didn’t even understand the issue.  Or it’s possible that the article is mistitled since the proposed law both bypasses the CLEO permitting process and legalizes open carry at one time.

Perhaps the chief has taught his officers that if someone isn’t carrying openly, the person isn’t carrying at all.  But wait, open carry is still illegal in South Carolina, and I doubt that officers in his employ assume that criminals aren’t carrying firearms and only permitted carriers have weapons.  We are left to wonder if the chief cares to weigh in on open carry.  Then again, let’s hope not.  His statement might be even worse than this one.  At least if he does issue such a statement, he should take a grammar course first, and perhaps a suitable course in logic and rhetoric.

Prior:

Constitutional Carry Update In Alabama, Texas And South Carolina

Constitutional Carry Passes Alabama Senate, Setting Example For The South Carolina Senate

South Carolina Police And Lawmakers Are In A “Shootout” Over Carrying Guns

Laws Against Open Carry Are For The Purpose Of Shaming Gun Owners

South Carolina Senate Hearings For New Gun Laws

AL.com:

The Alabama Senate, divided sharply along party lines, has passed a bill eliminating the requirement for a permit from a county sheriff to carry a concealed handgun.

The Senate passed the bill by Sen. Gerald Allen, R-Tuscaloosa, after voting to cut off debate.

Democrats in the Senate opposed the bill and sought to amend it.

The bill passed by a vote of 25-8, with all eight Democrats in the Senate voting against it. It moves to the House of Representatives.

Allen said people should not have to buy a pistol permit to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

“It’s unthinkable that you have to pay a fee for a constitutional right. That’s really the heart of the whole issue,” Allen said.

Some law enforcement officials had argued against the bill in committee, saying it would take away an important enforcement tool.

People would still have the option of buying pistol permits, Allen noted, which he said would be important for those who want to carry in other states that recognize Alabama’s concealed carry law.

Sen. Rodger Smitherman, D-Birmingham, said the bill would not promote public safety but would turn the state into the “wild, wild West.”

The bill was one of a set of controversial bills on the Senate calendar today that Democrats generally opposed.

Sen. Quinton Ross, D-Montgomery, said Republicans were trying to polish their public image after the resignation of Gov. Robert Bentley, suspension of Chief Justice Roy Moore and ethics conviction of House Speaker Mike Hubbard.

“This is called rebuilding a brand day,” Ross said.

No, this is called a change to state law, and what Sen. Rodger Smitherman said is called a lie.  That’s when something is untrue, in case you needed help understanding what I just said.  “The Wild, Wild West” is make-believe.  Smitherman apparently watched too much television when he was a kid.

I like how they did this.  There was no protracted and useless debate over a bill about which nobody’s mind was going to change.  Take note, South Carolina state senate.  The S.C. House cut off debate and did constitutional carry, the Alabama senate cut off debate and did constitutional carry.  Apparently they didn’t want to see Alabama Sheriffs Association Executive Director Bobby Timmons get away with his lies to the public.

As for the S.C. senate, don’t be such weaklings and pussies, boys.  Get it done.  They showed you how, they showed you it can be done, and no one really believes this thing has to die in committee.  We all know better than that.

The State:

Impassioned pleas by legislators from both sides of the aisle failed to stop a majority of House members Wednesday from advancing a bill that allows for the carrying of firearms without a permit.

On a 64-46 vote, the S.C. House of Representatives passed the bill, which had been clouded in controversy over how it progressed through committee and allegations that Republicans stymied debate. It’ll head for the Senate after a perfunctory vote on Thursday.

“The legislative history of this bill is an embarrassment,” said Rep. James Smith, D-Richland, who repeatedly attempted to thwart a vote on the bill after Republicans invoked a procedural move that limited debate.

The bill calls for what proponents refer to as “constitutional carry,” or allowing those who can legally buy a firearm to carry a concealed weapon without having to obtain a permit.

It also allows for open carry, which grants weapons holders the ability to carry their firearms on their person for everyone to see. The law still would bar carrying a firearm while committing a crime.

Smith was not alone in trying to delay a vote. Several Republicans joined in, because they were against how the bill was advanced or didn’t like parts of the proposed law.

Rep. Gary Clary, R-Pickens, said he was against the bill because during his time as a judge and as a legislator, he has advocated for allowing all sides to have their say. Invoking a procedural vote to limit debate prevented that. He also said he just thinks “it’s a bad bill.”

[ … ]

Like Clary, Rep. Bill Crosby, R-Charleston, called the proposal a “bad bill.” He was against the portion that allows for open carry.

While dangling his concealed-weapons permit from his wallet, Crosby stressed he is “for guns” and the Second Amendment. He said he just didn’t think this change is needed.

“This bill doesn’t help the Second Amendment,” Crosby said. “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them.”

Crosby said he is thankful for the Senate, which will probably kill the bill by having it languish in committee. Previous permit-less carry bills have suffered that fate in past years.

First of all, invoking a procedural stipulation that limits debate is a tried and true, well recognized procedure allowed by parliamentary rules.  Anyone who has worked under “Robert’s Rules of Order” knows that, and those complaining about closing debate also know that.  They’re making up their objection to closing debate.  It’s just a red herring.  Debate has to be closed at some point, and they just did it sooner rather than later.  It’s entirely possible under parliamentary procedure to have absolutely no debate at all.  The vote is what matters.

As for Crosby’s complaint that “All it does is it makes these good ol’ boys who like to have guns strapped to their hips not conceal them,” we may reply that all the current law does is make those boys have to conceal the guns they have on their hips for no good reason at all except that you want them to.  You like to conceal, others may not.  And your way doesn’t do anything at all for the second amendment.  Your way forces a rule on people who neither want it nor need it.  Our way undoes an unnecessary rule.  You’re the bad guy here, not us.  See how that works, Crosby?

If this does indeed die in the Senate like so many times in the past, then we’ll know who to go after for the next primary and election cycle.  You guys aren’t going to get away with the things you once did.  We’re watching very closely.  Ask former state senator Larry Martin if you don’t believe me.  Go ahead.  Ignore gun owners one more time.  Let’s make sure your name is written down in the memory of patriots everywhere across South Carolina.  We don’t forget.

As for the “journalist” who wrote all of this, Cynthia Roldán, take note that the only ones around her who can make “impassioned pleas” are those who oppose constitutional carry.  It’s as if there is weeping in the halls of power in Columbia over the awful things taking place, not just among Democrats, mind you, but from “both sides of the isle,” with the emotionless gun advocates impervious to the weeping.  And she managed to locate those Republicans who voted against this bill and turn it into quite a dramatic presentation, yes?

Actually, she did us a service.  Otherwise, how would you have know what a putz Crosby was?

The State:

Proponents of gun reform and House Democrats were rattled Thursday when they learned a bill that would allow South Carolinians to carry a concealed firearm without a permit advanced without debate or public input.

The proposed law, by Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, was met with no opposition during a hearing by the Judiciary Constitutional Laws Subcommittee.

It calls for what is often referred to as “constitutional carry,” which allows those who can legally own a firearm to carry it – concealed or in the open – without a government-issued permit.

“The right to carry is a constitutional amendment in the Bill of Rights,” Pitts said. “It is a constitutionally protected right, and that’s why I don’t think the government should (issue a) permit” for the carrying of a gun.

Pitts introduced a similar bill in 2016. But this year’s bill also would allow for “open carry,” which means a person can carry a firearm without having to conceal it.

The proposal does not change where firearm owners can carry their weapons. They would still be barred from carrying into schools and other already prohibited locations. And private businesses could still bar firearms from their establishments.

Carrying of a firearm while committing a crime also would remain prohibited.

The bill also would keep the state’s concealed weapons permitting system in place for those who would prefer that or need to have a permit when traveling out of state with a firearm, Pitts said.

No one from the public signed up to speak during Thursday’s hearing, which lasted about five minutes. The bill, which was filed Tuesday, passed with the support of the three Republicans serving on the panel. Reps. James Smith, D-Richland, and Mandy Powers Norrell, D-Lancaster, were absent.

Smith said he was out of town, while Powers Norrell said she was out of the country when both were reached by phone. Smith said if either had been present, they would have attempted to delay a vote, giving more time for word to spread to the public.

“The meeting was set Wednesday for Thursday morning,” Smith said. “It’s clearly being fast-tracked, which has undermined the ability for adequate public input because nobody had the time to react.”

The panel’s advancement of the bill without testimony from constituents or without all of the committee members present frustrated Sylvie Dessau, a local volunteer with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, an organization that calls for “common-sense legislation” to address gun violence.

“Simply put, this is not how our democracy works,” Dessau said. “We urge House leadership to reject this stunt to advance legislation pushed by gun lobby extremists. South Carolinians deserve to have a say in legislation that may impact our lives for years to come.”

But Rep. Greg Delleney, R-Chester – who is also the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee that will debate the proposal next – stressed the bill’s timing was related to the Legislature’s shorter session this year.

[ … ]

Delleney said he thinks the bill will be well-received by members of the House. The House has previously passed legislation that allows for constitutional carry. But the bills have died in the Senate, with its rules that allow deliberation and easier blocking of legislation.

The State just had to consult moms against something or other.  God forbid they write a piece on proposed gun legislation without talking to folks funded by Michael Bloomberg.  You can almost sense the panic in the article.

Good on the S.C. House.  We’re watching.  Let’s push this thing through and get it done.  Quickly.  Use whatever rules you have to in order to minimize debate.  One delaying tactic is to let bills like this rot on the vine by debating them forever, and then close the legislative session without taking action because, well, there’s just not enough time left to finish the job.  You can finish this job and you know it.  It’s also especially good that this bill includes open carry.  For us, this is like Christmas.  It’s most of what we want wrapped up in one present.

Larry Martin was thrown out of the S.C. Senate for delaying this action in the past, forcing it to dry up in the judicial committee.  We watched.  We took action.  We’re watching you too, Senators.  We’re watching all of you, and we will seek retribution on a name by name basis.  Every one who delays or votes against this will be a target in the next primary or election.  Do this thing.  Get it done.

Don’t listen to LEOs who stand to lose money if you pass this bill.  Very few LEOs ever want this sort of thing because it interferes with their revenue stream for buying the newest and latest Dodge Chargers and all of that new, fancy Comms gear and automatic weapons for the SWAT teams for throwing grenades and busting in doors.  Listen to your voting constituency.  That’s us.

We’re American gun owners, and we don’t compromise or forget.