News from S.C.

A day before the South Carolina House is expected to start an hourslong debate over legislation that would allow a permitted gun owner to openly carry, a panel of lawmakers were slated to clear an even more expansive measure that would strike the permit requirement entirely.

The House Judiciary Committee passed a proposal Tuesday in a 18-6 vote that would allow constitutional carry in South Carolina, the constitutional belief that any legal gun owner should be allowed to own a gun without regulations.

State lawmakers don’t expect the constitutional carry measure to reach the debate stage until April, possibly before the crossover deadline to send the legislation to the Senate, well after the House passes the state budget.

This is good, yes?  Constitutional carry.  Hold on.

But what the hearing over constitutional carry offered was a preview of how far some Republican House members will try to pull the debate Wednesday when a mostly Republican-led coalition attempts to pass a bill that would allow permitted gun owners to carry publicly where guns are allowed.

“It became clear there was a substantial amount of support for constitutional carry, not only from traditional Second Amendment right advocates, but supporters of (Democratic state Rep. Justin) Bamberg’s amendment to change it to a constitutional carry bill,” said state Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington. “(It) made sense to offer you an opportunity to showcase your support.”

The dynamics of the debate break down like this:

House Republican leaders are ready to adopt an open carry bill while keeping permit laws in place, legislation that has the best opportunity for passage and falls more in line with public polling that shows South Carolinians are more comfortable with making sure gun owners have permits, not the alternative.

But a few Republican legislators are ready to tack on an amendment that would take the measure further, allowing any legal person to carry a gun without a permit.

They’re trying the “poison pill” approach.  Notice who offered the amendment up – Bamberg, a reprehensible controller.  He later admits it, saying, ““I don’t see how we can have a constitutional carry bill that lets people carry without a permit, without training and carry anywhere except at the places that our state takes money from their paycheck to fund,” said Bamberg, D-Bamberg. “I don’t see how we can do that.”

Normally I’d say to jump on this and make everyone take a stand in public.  But in this instance I’d say let’s be incrementalists.  After open carry is passed, then you can tackle constitutional carry.

The S.C. senate is already balking.

Another problem for constitutional carry backers is that Senate Republicans are unsure whether such an expansive proposal could pass their chamber, a body that has denied similar bills before.

State Sen. Larry Grooms, R-Berkeley, told The State while he supports constitutional carry — and has sponsored a bill in favor of it — he was not confident that it could pass the upper chamber.

But, he added, “there were not enough votes to expand gun rights. I believe that there now are enough votes in the Senate to expand gun rights. I just don’t know how far, and we’re going to find out.”

The left is always the best at strategy, displaying amazing patience concerning their goals.  It’s time we took a page from that book.

Start with open carry.  Leave constitutional carry for next year.  In the mean time, work your senators.  Work them hard, both on open carry (this year), and constitutional carry (next year).

News from South Carolina.

COLUMBIA, S.C. (WPDE) — Six South Carolina senators want to make the state a Second Amendment Sanctuary, according to pre-filed legislation in Columbia.

Sens. Shane Massey, Rex Rice, Josh Kimbrell, Tom Corbin, Dwight Loftis and Tom Young filed the bill on Feb. 18.

In the bill, the senators write that they and the other members of the state general assemble find that the “Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual’s right to ‘keep and bear arms'” and that the right may not be infringed upon.

In order to protect that right in South Carolina, the lawmakers want the state attorney general to review any federal law, treaty, executive order, rule, or regulation related to the Second Amendment that might come down. Then, they want the attorney general to “issue a written opinion of its constitutionality.”

If the attorney general finds that the federal law, treaty, executive order, rule, or regulation related to the Second Amendment is unconstitutional, the state senators have a plan to stop the enforcement of it in South Carolina.

Those plans include:

• not giving any public funds, personnel or property from the state to the implementation, regulation, or enforcement of that federal law, treaty, executive order, rule, or regulation;
• not letting any official, agent or employee of the state, or any political subdivision of it, enforce or attempt to enforce that federal law, treaty, executive order, rule, or regulation.

If anyone were to take legal action against South Carolina for not following the federal law, the lawmakers write in the bill that the attorney general shall will defend the case.

Many counties in South Carolina have become their own second amendment sanctuaries, including Horry County.

Kershaw County was the first county in South Carolina to become one.

This isn’t just weak tea, it’s pathetic.  Honestly, you’d think that a state like South Carolina, where they supposedly value liberty, could do better than this given what other states have done and are doing.

There should be no need to turn to a lawyer for an assessment.  That’s what weaklings and fearful men do.  If they want S.C. to be a 2A sanctuary state, then just declare it so.

Furthermore, it’s meaningless unless they not only prohibit agents of the state from participating in confiscatory laws or other infringements, but dispatch state agents to arrest FedGov agents who try to do the same thing.

On top of that, I won’t believe a word they have to say until they decriminalize open carry in South Carolina.

Oh that’s easy.  The Supreme Court has already spoken to this, as have lower courts.  Stops for lawful behavior aren’t allowed.

I think Justin Bamberg is a liar.  I think this is just a red herring.  I think this is the real reason.

“This bill is going to be very problematic for law-enforcement,“ said Representative Justin Bamberg of Bamberg, Barnwell, and Colleton Counties.

Bamberg is a gun-owning supporter of the 2nd Amendment, whose father, brother, and mother all have careers in law enforcement. His father is the current sheriff of Bamberg County.

His peeps aren’t so special any more if other people carry openly.  Bamberg is just hawking the law enforcement line.

Ask the other 46 states that have open carry.  The sky isn’t falling.  It’s all just lies.

And as for the bill, it should be considered the “Open Carry With Infringement Act” since it still requires government approval.

News from South Carolina.

A bill that would allow people to carry guns without concealing them in South Carolina is heading to the House floor.

The House Judiciary Committee approved so-called open carry of weapons for people who already have a concealed-weapons permit by a 16-8 vote Tuesday.

South Carolina is one of only five states without open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

The committee ignored amendments by Democrats that would remove the ban on weapons at the Statehouse and would refine rules on weapons at public events like festivals.

The bill is enthusiastically backed by many Republicans and conservatives, who said it makes sense to let people carry the weapons they can already have in a visible holster. Laws against pointing a gun at someone or threating someone with a gun without a legal reason would remain on the books.

Of course laws against assault will remain on the books, just like laws against brandishing.  Why does that even need to be stated?

Now.  Since the committees have apparently taken their job seriously and refused to allow this bill to perish in committee like it always seems to do, the real struggle begins.

From here on we take names and make lists.  Every member of the House will have to cast a vote, since as I understand it, turning this bill over from committee constitutes a motion and second.  It’s a live bill.

Oh, there are still parliamentary tricks that could be played, like someone could make a substitute motion to do something like send it back to the committee to study this more, or some such nonsense.  But that also requires a vote by every member of the House.

So we take names, and no one gets to hide behind the fact that there is no live bill to vote on.  That horse has left the barn.

It’s time to ramp up the comms to House members, and after that, members of the senate.  They need to hear from people, especially if you live in South Carolina.  I frequently visit relatives in South Carolina and so I should have a say, but they won’t listen to me like they would from my readers in South Carolina.

Get busy.

Views from SC.

“When you go to open carry, I think you are creating more problems,” Greenwood Police Chief T.J. Chaudoin said. “I think it would cause too many problems with the general public.”

Chaudoin said having someone walking down the street with 16 guns on their belt could cause people to panic or be afraid.

“This isn’t the wild west where everybody walks around with a gun on their hip,” he said.

Okay, goober.  I think we understand your view.

You haven’t been anywhere open carry is legal, so you think this causes the wild, wild west.  You should travel a little.

You support the second amendment, but not really, and want people to hide their weapons.

You think open carriers are able to carry 16 guns on their hips.  So this is just a joke to you.

A joke, as long as LEOs get to openly carry, because you’re special, and you do live in the wild, wild west.  Unlike “the poors” who cannot be trusted to openly carry like the special ones like you.

You’d fit better in New York.

Take it from pediatricians: open carry gun law will endanger SC children.

Multiple pediatricians, myself included, urged lawmakers to oppose H.3094, citing the wave of gun violence we have seen in our communities, including among our children.

Yet the bill passed easily in a 3-1 vote along party lines and could be approved by the full committee next week.

As a pediatrician, I find the fight against gun violence incredibly frustrating for one simple yet shocking fact: Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children in South Carolina and in the United States.

For me, this is not just a statistic. This is a reality that I have experienced throughout my career, and it only seems to be getting worse.

Who you’re calling children are really criminal teenagers, and you know it.

I’ve seen too many children who were innocent bystanders in shootings. Once you’ve cared for a 4-year-old girl who was shot in her own front yard, it’s hard to believe that more visible guns in public places is a good idea.

Because of politicization, this significant threat to children’s lives is not given the attention it deserves.

If this were any other cause — cancer, infection, genetic disease — it would be recognized as the public health threat that it is, and our resources would be focused on a cure. Instead, we find ourselves battling the Legislature on a bill that would allow for guns to be displayed openly in places that are normally safe havens for our children, like our parks, playgrounds and beaches.

H.3094 would be detrimental to the safety of our community, and therefore the safety of our children, for several reasons.

First, research has already shown that a visible gun makes people more aggressive. These findings suggest that simple disagreements would be more likely to turn violent if a gun were involved. An unfortunate example of this occurred this month when an employee at a downtown Charleston bar was shot when a patron became upset over the bar’s earlier closing time due to state-mandated COVID-19 restrictions.

Second, open carry is opposed by law enforcement, including Charleston Police Chief Luther Reynolds, as it makes their job more difficult during active-shooter situations.

Oh, so we’re back to this?  An inanimate object can literally change the heart of mankind.  A steel object can make you more violent.

So here’s what I think, Ms. pediatrician.  “Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.”

And I think you know it.  Therefore, this is just a ruse with you.  You’re not really anti-open carry.  You’re anti-gun, and that makes you out to be a liar.  You’re using bad statistics, unrelated anecdotes, and your “status” as a pediatrician to infringe on the right of a man to carry weapon in the manner he chooses.

And I think you know that the things you say happen don’t really happen because of open carry, and the fact that 46 other states have open carry proves my point.  Blood doesn’t run in the streets because of open carry.

But again, you know all of this.  You’re outside your lane, and badly so.  I may as well say “Take it from a 180 pound man.”  That makes me as much of an expert as you are.

I’ll file this one under gun control, because until South Carolina passes open carry, I put you in the same category as the controllers in New York.

Update on South Carolina open carry.

The Open Carry Training Act would allow anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry a handgun out in the open.

Reaction to the proposed law is mixed.

“I understand good faith opposition to guns, I do, I get it, but the reality is this law is very narrowly tailored to address one specific concern and that is people who have CWPs if they are going to be criminalized for having that gun exposed,” Rep. Micah Caskey, R-Lexington, said.

Lowcountry pediatrician Dr. Anne Andrews cited 2019 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stating firearms are the leading cause of death for children in South Carolina between the ages of 1 and 19, surpassing motor vehicle accidents.

Let’s stop there.

First of all, there is no “good faith” opposition to open carry or to guns.  This is a God-given right.  Self defense is a God-given right to which objections should be appealed to the sovereign of the universe, not men and women who want to defend home and hearth.

Next up, Lowcountry pediatrician Dr. Anne Andrews must be an idiot.  ““Guns that are going to be open carried are most likely going to be loaded” has to be the most stolid statement I’ve ever heard in the context of weapons.

Is she implying that concealed firearms aren’t loaded?  Or is she implying that since guns must be assumed to be loaded, a child is going to intentionally attempt to assault an open carrier who is carrying without a weapon retention holster?  This is an equally ridiculous assertion, unless she’s referring to miscreant criminal teens, in which case they aren’t children.  The reference to this person in the article reeks of having to fill in white space by the author.  The objection has no place, makes no sense, and breaks the train of thought and flow of the report.

“One way to look at this bill is, what it does is say, if you’ve got a valid concealed weapon permit you won’t be penalized for this gun being exposed,” Caskey said. “So, if you got your coat caught behind your concealed weapon right now that would be a violation of state law. We are trying to decimalize that.”

Well that itself is a good enough reason to pass the bill, but let’s call this what it is.  It’s an open carry bill, or in other words, it’s a bill to undo what the law currently says about openly carried firearms and pull South Carolina into agreement with what 46 other states know: openly carried weapons don’t cause blood to run in the streets.  Open carry is legal in North Carolina, right across the border, and apparently no one has thought to investigate whether open carry in North Carolina causes blood to run in the streets.

“For people who are not familiar with me, I’m just another minority walking the streets,” he said. “I do have concerns if I would be able to open carry the same as my white counterparts.”

Bamberg defines himself as a pro-Second Amendment gun owner. But he is concerned about sheriffs who have spoken out against the idea.

Well, Rep. Justin Bamberg has given us a disorganized, random pile of mess to unravel.

First, if a minority doesn’t wish to open carry, he doesn’t have to.  This bill doesn’t require open carry.  Second, I think he’s lying and he isn’t really a 2A supporter, at least, not if he’s opposed to open carry.

Third, I’m perfectly comfortable seeing open carry, and I’ve walked right by black guys who were openly carrying in my own state.  But this isn’t about my comfort, nor his comfort, nor the comfort of anyone else.  Rights are not contingent upon comfort.  Many people are uncomfortable listening to street preachers.  I’ve seen people on the sidewalks change to the other side of the road to avoid them, while I’m happy to walk up and talk to them.

We don’t discuss limits on the first amendment because people are uncomfortable with street preachers, nor should we.  And I would hasten to repeat what I’ve pointed out before.  “Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.”

We don’t infringe on God-given rights because of psychological problems.  Finally, there is this misdirect from Bamberg (whom we quoted earlier).

That’s simply a lie.  This piece of legislation is before the committee.  It’s simple, it’s easy, it’s clear, and it deserves a hearing before the entire legislature.  If Bamberg wants to reign in law enforcement in the state of South Carolina, that’s a worthy goal.  I’m with him on that one, whether LEOs who shoot first and investigate later, LEOs who shoot innocent victims through the doors of their own homes, and on the list could go.

But that all has absolutely nothing to do with this bill.  It’s irrelevant, and the excuse that “we have more important things to work on” is exactly what jettisoned this bill every time it has been brought up, as if the judiciary committee is trying to protect the rest of the legislature from having to stake out a position and cast a vote on it.  You see, killing the bill protects the closet gun controllers from self-identifying and answering for their position in the next election.  They know that.  They plan for it.  Maybe the author of the article, Adam Mintzer, could investigate the real reasons for killing this bill so many times before in his next article.  Perhaps it will be better than this one.

To the South Carolina legislature: it’s okay not to be like the four states who still live in the dark ages, and it’s okay not to be like the control freaks who live in New York.  You can admit that you’re supposed to be a free state.

Pass this bill through committee.  Let the legislature take a vote.  Make everyone take a stand.  It’s time.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag (many articles)

This is just an awful argument for open carry from Tom Knighton at Bearing Arms, but the objections of law enforcement are even worse.

If given my druthers, I’d probably never open carry a firearm outside of some form of pro-gun demonstration. I don’t see any advantage to it besides politics and even then, I personally believe that only goes so far.

That said, the right to do it should be unquestioned. I may not believe in doing it myself, but I’ll fight to my last breath to defend some else’s right to make a different decision.

[ … ]

After all, while I don’t agree with open carry from a more tactical standpoint, I do believe that such actions fall within the plain wording of the Second Amendment. Further, let’s not delude ourselves, there are already people carrying at all of these events Keel cites. The difference is whether clothing is hiding it or not.

Look, I get the concern. Even if you trust the guy with the permit, you may not trust the guy who goes for his gun due to obvious reasons, but thus far, it’s been a non-factor in every other state. Is Keel saying that South Carolinians are especially unstable, that they’re even less likely to obey the law in the presence of a firearm?

What is he even talking about in this last paragraph?  He’s contrasting people with a permit to people who “go for their gun.”  What?  What does that even mean?  Does Tom even know?

Anyway, beyond the awful and confusing rhetoric, I don’t get his “concern” nor the concern he apparently thinks is obvious and to which he is referring.

What Tom might have meant earlier in the commentary is that he doesn’t practice open carry and doesn’t choose to do it himself.  Whatever.  What he said is that he doesn’t “believe in it.”  What does that mean?  What does it mean to not believe in something but then to believe in it enough to be willing to fight to your last breath to defend it?

As to his alleged tactical advantage, I can prove that Tom “believes” in open carry regardless of what he claims.  So here it is, Tom.  Strap on a backpack for a three or four day trip, and make a trek through Jocassee Gorges in South Carolina, where hundreds of bears roam freely.  Do it alone.  Tell me that you want to have your firearm concealed rather than carried openly where you can get to it quickly if needed.

That’s what I thought.  See, I proved that Tom “believes” in open carry.  Don’t tell me to purchase a Hill People Chest Rig to carry it in.  Been there, done that.  When you spend all that money getting good gear to take the weight off of your shoulders and put in on your hips, that chest rig is okay for a day, but after two or three it begins work your neck and shoulders pretty hard.

There is a difference between open carry among, say, a concert of 30,000 people, and in the hills of upper South Carolina.  Or walking along the road at dusk versus walking in for a business meeting.

But even this is going to far for my tastes.  The last comment to Tom’s commentary shows what I mean.

I believe that the decision(s) for the state should not be to “allow” concealed or open carry, but instead, should be limited to background, to use of thought affecting medications, and access to or use of alcohol. When it comes to alcohol for instance, I see no problem with a firearm on site, with management, but I’ve read about open carry by employees of some ‘themed’ establishments.  The problem I see with the latter is an inebriated customer may decide to be playful and ‘take’ the firearm from the waitperson. I also see a new situation that has happened. The amount of new firearm owners with concealed carry permits has exploded. I think it may be time to look closer at the training permit holders have. I know that is anti-NRA and anti-2A but having so many millions of people carrying concealed firearms with a modest amount of training is an accident waiting to happen. I have been shooting for 62yrs. I began carrying before a permit was required. I still take a training course every year. I’m not saying that is what should be done, I know I’m doing more than needed, it’s a requirement of the club I belong to. I just think trying should be looked at, and a minimum should be required before a permit should be issued.

You see, this commenter believes in state permission as a precondition for the exercise of God-given rights, and his pretext is public safety, the same pretext cited by the state when they speak out against open carry.  Witness chief Mark Keel of S.C. SLED.

Chief Mark Keel of the State Law Enforcement Division put these concerns in perspective in addressing a proposed expansion of gun rights. The S.C. House measure (H. 3094) “would allow trained concealed weapons permit holders to carry those guns in the open,” he said in an article by Maayan Schechter and John Monk of The State newspaper.

“I’m a Second Amendment guy. Nobody believes any stronger than I do in the right to bear arms,” Keel said. In South Carolina and other Second Amendment Central places, it is necessary to establish one’s bona fide on rights. The Sun News Editorial Board is there, make no mistake.

Keel has “great concerns” about public safety: “I wonder how it will be in the summer time when people are strolling down Ocean Boulevard on peak weekends wearing guns openly, not to mention people openly carrying during Harley Week or Memorial Week and crowded country music festivals where there’s alcohol involved.”

He expressed his bona fides, and the only thing missing is his love for apple pie, puppies and the American flag.

The problem is that none of this matters.

Not tactical issues (Tom), not public safety (Mark), not anything.  None … of … this … matters.

Anything that can be done with an openly carried firearm can be done with a concealed firearm.  It’s an amazing thing that we actually have to cover this ground again, but the fact that someone cannot visually ascertain the presence of a firearm doesn’t mean it’s not there.  Any confusion on this fact points to a second-grader level psychological problem.

Some people choose to carry a firearm openly because they hate to sweat their weapon in the summer months, or because it’s just uncomfortable.  Some people choose to conceal their weapons because they think that there is some sort of tactical advantage.  Some people choose to openly carry their weapons because of appearances, others (mostly men) don’t care because we can use our girth to hide our weapons.

Others choose to openly carry because of the rapid access to the weapon (the example of hiking in Jocassee Gorges).  Still others choose to conceal because of what others might think.  The point is that people make their own choices, and it should be up to them how they carry their weapons, not the state.

As to these and all of the other objections, caveats, and qualifiers:

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

None of them matter.

Did you get that?  None of them matter.  The state has no business dictating to a man or woman how to carry a weapon.  And Tom, you do us no favors by telling our opponents that you think there is a tactical disadvantage to open carry.  Maybe there is in some circumstances, maybe there isn’t, and it may depend upon the person, place, time and surroundings.  That, too, is none of your business.

As for the chief of SLED, he further states the following.

Keel said that open carry could cause issues for law enforcement officers responding to calls of a person brandishing a gun.

“Our (concealed weapon’s permit) law is one of the best in the country, and we have not had problems with concealed weapons holders,” Keel said. “But open carry creates a whole new dynamic.”

That’s a lie.  The South Carolina concealed weapons permit would only be one of the best in the country if it didn’t exist at all and there was permitless carry.  There should be no permission to be sought for the exercise of God-given rights.

And as to causing issues for law enforcement officers, you’re wrong about that.  So went the objection every other state (e.g., Texas, Arkansas, etc.) had to open carry.  None of these revisions to the code caused blood running in the streets.  You would think that opponents of open carry would have researched where this has been done before (46 other states) and been embarrassed to offer up such pablum for consumption by the ignorant and intellectually challenged legacy media.

As for making it easy for LEOs, I couldn’t possibly care less.  Teach them to holster their weapons until they know what’s going on.  Then we’ll all be safer from the copious law enforcement shootings that have become a scourge to the land.  Shootings of dogs, shootings of innocent people through their own front doors, and on and on.

I hate disinformation, lies, and pretend allies.  The SLED chief is no friend of the 2A.  And if Tom is, he needs to get better at his advocacy.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag

Dean Weingarten has a discussion up at Ammoland of South Carolina open carry, something we’ve pushed for years as regular readers know.

There are only five states which currently ban the open carry of handguns in most public areas, most of the time. They are: Illinois, New York, California, Florida, and South Carolina. New Jersey and Hawaii ban open carry in practice, but legally, anyone with a permit can open carry. It is just extremely difficult to obtain a permit.

South Carolina is moving toward restoring the right to openly carry handguns in public with House Bill 3094, labeled “Open Carry with Training”.

They’ve been moving for years, only to get torpedoed by the controllers who appear to control the controllers in South Carolina.

I’ve sent blast emails to every legislator in South Carolina before, but it has limited utility compared to communications a South Carolina resident would send.

To my readers in South Carolina: you’re on top of this, aren’t you?  You’re involved, aren’t you? Unless you’re involved, don’t complain when your state looks just like New York.

I can complain when I drive into South Carolina because my rights are not honored, but I don’t live there and they won’t listen to me.  They’ll listen to you, maybe, if you speak forcefully enough.

So you can’t complain.

Prior: South Carolina Open Carry Tag

News from South Carolina.

Some South Carolina Republican lawmakers are trying to get the decidedly conservative state to join 44 others that allow people to carry guns without concealing them.

South Carolina is one of only five states without so-called open carry, joining atypical partners such as California, Florida, Illinois and New York.

A House panel voted 3-1 along party lines to advance a bill Wednesday that would allow people who already have concealed-weapons permits to carry their guns without hiding them under a coat or other clothing.

The proposal has a long way to go before becoming law. But like another bill proposed each session that would ban almost all abortions, the open-carry bill got a boost when Republicans gained five seats in the General Assembly in the 2020 elections.

Before voting Wednesday, the subcommittee listened to the public speak for about two hours, both in person and virtually. Some speakers said the proposal would make them feel safer protecting their family, while doctors said they feared more gun violence and domestic killings in a state that is often among the worst in the country.

Doctors.  Experts in public policy, or so someone thinks.  Yea, that blood running in the streets thing hasn’t materialized anywhere open carry is legal, and they know it.

Some gun owners said the concealed-weapons law is just fine as it is. But Charleston’s police chief asked lawmakers to focus instead on laws ensuring that violent criminals serve more time in prison.

Chief Luther Reynolds, testifying by video, told lawmakers open carry is a bad idea given the recent increase in protests over racial injustice, which often involve angry people pitted against each other in close quarters.

“Adding the open carry of firearms raises tension,” Reynolds said. “It makes it even harder for law enforcement officers to determine who has and who has not been committing a crime.”

Both local and state law enforcement officials have been a significant force in preventing the bill from passing in previous years.

About a half-dozen of the 28 people who testified Wednesday were in favor of the bill.

Mark Roote said he carried his gun openly in Pennsylvania, which doesn’t require a permit, before moving to South Carolina. He said as a disabled veteran, a gun helps him defend himself and his family even if he can no longer physically fight.

“Having a pistol concealed on my hip requires extra motion,” Roote said.

I certainly wouldn’t deny a disabled veteran the right to choose what best suits his self defense needs, but the real issue is whether it is right and just to dictate to a man how he carries his weapons.  The answer is no, whether he’s a disabled veteran or simply doesn’t like IWB carry.

At least one speaker Wednesday said the proposal doesn’t go far enough. Tommy Dimsdale, who identified himself as belonging to a group of tens of thousands of gun owners in the state called Palmetto Gun Rights, said South Carolina needs to join about 16 other states that allow legal gun owners to carry their weapons any way they wish, without a permit.

“We’re disappointed that lawmakers think this bill adequately addresses the concern of gun owners,” Dimsdale said.

None of the lawmakers spoke about the bill before voting Wednesday. In the past, some African American legislators have suggested the measure might pose a danger to Black gun owners, who they said could be mistaken for criminals by police or other armed civilians.

“My reality is I am Black, and because of the color of my skin, I am feared by some of those same gun owners who have no idea I could be a good guy with a gun,” speaker Butch Kennedy said. “Open carry to me means open season on the hundreds of thousands of people who look like me.”

Good for Tommy.  He pressed the issue to constitutional carry.  As for the dude who is black being afraid of open carry, the answer is simple.  Then don’t open carry.  Lot’s of people don’t like it, just like lots of people don’t like concealed carry.

Much of this group sounds like a bunch of New Yorkers.  I suspect most of the naysayers came from law enforcement, gun control advocate groups, Greenville, Columbia and Charleston.

Maybe New York could annex those three cities and spare South Carolina the trouble of coddling their emotions.