SC-One-Gun-A-Month Repeal

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rick Daniel

Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
63
Location
Irmo, SC
Great News!

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and its state affiliate Gun Owners of South Carolina (GOSC) have succeeded in overturning a BAD gun law in South Carolina!

Yesterday, the South Carolina Senate passed the NRA/GOSC backed repeal of the current one handgun/thirty day law. The bill passed third reading and is on its way back to the House for concurrence.

Note: It passed the House last year, but the Senate made a technical change that the House must agree to before it goes to the Governor.

House leadership has assured us that they will concur and the Governor has promised to sign the bill. So, it looks like one handgun/thirty day is history.

With this change, South Carolina will become the first state to totally repeal a law of this nature. Virginia recently passed a partial repeal (one that applies only to CWP holders) but we are the first to repeal the entire restriction across the board. Hopefully action in these two states will trigger a change towards repeal of BAD laws nationwide.

Details of our bill (H3442) can be accessed here: http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/web_bh10_2003.exe

Congratulations to the citizens of South Carolina and a BIG thanks to NRA and GOSC on this hard fought battle and MAJOR victory!
 
Yes! Great news!

Any repeal of a bad gun law (and most of them are) is a teriffic thing.

I'm in CA. This news is a small glimmer of hope.

Frank Einstein
 
Where's the NRA getting rid of the one-handgun-per-month law in California? Or the ridiculous drop-test law that just keeps most handguns from being sold in CA (except to police officers... grrr... proof it isn't about "safety")? Or the ten-day waiting period? Or the "assault rifle" ban? Or the singularly screwed-up CCW situation?

While most of the rest of the country is slowly fixing bad gun laws, California keeps getting worse and worse...
 
SC's State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) had their own paperwork to fill out along with the Federal forms. And from reports, they did indeed enforce it to the minute.

I'm afraid that I couldn't follow the law when I lived in SC. I simply couldn't afford to buy a new handgun every 30 days. :D
 
Where's the NRA getting rid of the one-handgun-per-month law in California? Or the ridiculous drop-test law that just keeps most handguns from being sold in CA (except to police officers... grrr... proof it isn't about "safety")? Or the ten-day waiting period? Or the "assault rifle" ban? Or the singularly screwed-up CCW situation?
Click to expand...

It's up to California's NRA and GOA members. Waiting for the NRA to solve problems is a lot like waiting for the federal government to do so, although there is one significant difference: the NRA respects the Constitution.
 
I welcome this change because I experienced the restriction (in SC) when I wanted to buy another gun two weeks after a previous purchase. It is certainly not inconceivable to want to legitimately buy at least two guns in a month for personal use. For example, buying a target gun and then deciding to carry concealed and needing an appropriate gun. Perhaps purchasing a carry gun and backup at the same time. Perhaps needing two calibers like a .22 for practice plus a working caliber. Perhaps a backup gun along with a primary gun.

As I understand it, the premise of the law was to stop bulk purchases from out of state, but it directly affected resident individuals.

As a matter of fact, the law said 30 days but actual practice was requiring one to wait until the next day after the same day of the month. That could be 31 days passing or 28. Showing up at the gunshop on the 31st day caused me to waste a non-trivial trip. For that month, I had one more day to go, never mind what the law said.

Each purchase was registered, so there certainly was a way of validating a claim on the form that one had not purchased a gun in the "last 30 days".

I have read from a credible source that even after repeal there remains the gotcha that if one buys more than one (hand)gun within 5 working days, a dealer with knowledge of that fact is required to report it. Draconian maybe, but an honest person has nothing to hide. The question is whether that person could be targeted for harassment. There may be other consequences I hadn't considered.

I should acknowledge that firearms dealer laws and the 30 day restriction jurisdiction are legally separate but directly related in the consumer's and dealer's reality. I don't believe the interaction has been completely resolved, but I certainly welcome the improvement in the State environment and would be proud of any good example set by progress in SC.

An important precedent is set by a repeal of any element of gun control. These laws should always be subject to justification, either initially or in hindsight. Some are simply archaic.

Thus I have written to the White House suggesting that President Bush take the position on the AWB that the equivocal sunset clause of the 1994 act must be respected, and that effectiveness of the ban must be substantiated before renewal or before being made permanent. It would not be the time to debate the supposed merits of the ban all over again based only upon someone's intuitive notion of what is a good law. The law has had enough time to be statistically tested, never mind Constitutional arguments con or social arguments pro.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
SC-One Handgun/Thirty Day Repeal
Replies
10
Views
634
Partisan Ranger
P
Sulaco
  • Locked
South Carolina Governor Signs One-Gun-a-Month Repeal
Replies
3
Views
569
Yowza
Y
R
  • Locked
(SC) Governor Signs Historic Gun Bill
Replies
6
Views
573
Dain Bramage
Dain Bramage
R
  • Locked
SC-CWP Recognition Bill
Replies
20
Views
884
RealGun
RealGun
R
  • Locked
SC- Anti-gun Senator Defeated
Replies
4
Views
655
Standing Wolf
S
Back
Top