South Carolina Now Permitless Carry State

[Insignificant bill]

What portion of this bill do you derive this determination from?

This is really important.

Is it this part:

(O)(1) A permit issued pursuant to this article is not required for a person:

(a) carrying a self-defense device generally considered to be nonlethal including the substance commonly referred to as "pepper gas"; or

(b) carrying a concealable weapon in a manner not prohibited by law.

(2) The availability of a permit to carry a concealable weapon under this section must not be construed to prohibit the permitless transport or carrying of a firearm in a vehicle or on or about one's person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, in a manner not prohibited by law.


EDIT:

Also, nowhere in the wording of the statute that was signed into law does it use "adult" or "adults". So I don't understand where that comes from.

That is from a synopsis posted by a newspaper.

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

That is from a synopsis posted by a newspaper.

Newspapers often get many details wrong.

I'm not saying I'M 100% certain about this myself, because there are certainly aspects of this change I don't fully grasp yet. But the media as a rule likes to summarize their reporting, since it's not their job to formally educate people on all aspects of what they report on, and that itself leads to errors and misconceptions. And that doesn't take into account any media bias.

The media also got aspects of the 2021 changes in SC's concealed carry laws wrong, or didn't talk about them, or mislead on some issues.

And then there are vague areas in statutes that prosecutors can work however they wish because how the laws are written can often be argued more than one way.

The part about not needing a CWP is in a portion (sub paragraph) of the statutes that talks about "residents" in the parent paragraphs. This carries some meaning/weight.

This means the fact that it doesn't say "residents" in that exact sub paragraph COULD be an important factor in saying its applicable to everybody, regardless of residency. However, context MIGHT say otherwise.

Right now, I'm NOT comfortable with saying state residency does not matter because of this.

 

[Insignificant bill]

Newspapers often get many details wrong.

I'm not saying I'M 100% certain about this myself, because there are certainly aspects of this change I don't fully grasp yet. But the media as a rule likes to summarize their reporting, since it's not their job to formally educate people on all aspects of what they report on, and that itself leads to errors and misconceptions. And that doesn't take into account any media bias.

The media also got aspects of the 2021 changes in SC's concealed carry laws wrong, or didn't talk about them, or mislead on some issues.

And then there are vague areas in statutes that prosecutors can work however they wish because how the laws are written can often be argued more than one way.

The part about not needing a CWP is in a portion (sub paragraph) of the statutes that talks about "residents" in the parent paragraphs. This carries some meaning/weight.

This means the fact that it doesn't say "residents" in that exact sub paragraph COULD be an important factor in saying its applicable to everybody, regardless of residency. However, context MIGHT say otherwise.

Right now, I'm NOT comfortable with saying state residency does not matter because of this.

Not a problem

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

Isn't there a federal provision that allows the "transport" of an unloaded and cased firearm almost any place without a permit?
Non-residents might not be allowed to carry a loaded firearm on their person in SC but I believe they can still "transport" a firearm.

You're probably thinking about the Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-bill/49

 

[Ej3]

Nothing in it is prohibiting out of state residents from carrying a legally possessed firearm.

H.3594 – Does this act allow law-abiding non-residents to open or conceal carry in SC? In my opinion yes.


Title 16, CHAPTER 23 pertains to “Offenses Involving Weapons”. This is regardless of residency.

SECTION 16-23-10 – Under definitions, when used in this article: (9) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

SECTION 16-23-20 – Under H.3594, this section now delineates the unlawful carrying of a handgun. Before H.3594 it listed exceptions to the unlawful carrying of a handgun. Additional restrictions are delineated in subsequent sections (Ex. school property).

So it is therefore lawful for a non-prohibited “person” to carry openly or concealed in a place not listed as unlawful or otherwise restricted. In my opinion, this is not limited to SC residents.


Title 23, CHAPTER 31 pertains to “Concealed Weapon Permits”. This is resident specific.

SECTION 23-31-210 - defines a SC resident and qualified nonresident.

SECTION 23-31-215 - delineates the issuance of permits, which still pertains to SC residents and qualified nonresidents. The new law makes the permit optional for non-prohibited individuals 18 or older.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

I posed the question of residency directly to SLED and was directed to their "Constitutional Carry Guidance" document, which was distributed to LEAs in South Carolina. The guidance refers only to "individuals" without reference to residency.

 

[Insignificant bill]

H.3594 – Does this act allow law-abiding non-residents to open or conceal carry in SC? In my opinion yes.


Title 16, CHAPTER 23 pertains to “Offenses Involving Weapons”. This is regardless of residency.

SECTION 16-23-10 – Under definitions, when used in this article: (9) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

SECTION 16-23-20 – Under H.3594, this section now delineates the unlawful carrying of a handgun. Before H.3594 it listed exceptions to the unlawful carrying of a handgun. Additional restrictions are delineated in subsequent sections (Ex. school property).

So it is therefore lawful for a non-prohibited “person” to carry openly or concealed in a place not listed as unlawful or otherwise restricted. In my opinion, this is not limited to SC residents.


Title 23, CHAPTER 31 pertains to “Concealed Weapon Permits”. This is resident specific.

SECTION 23-31-210 - defines a SC resident and qualified nonresident.

SECTION 23-31-215 - delineates the issuance of permits, which still pertains to SC residents and qualified nonresidents. The new law makes the permit optional for non-prohibited individuals 18 or older.

That was my take also

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

I posed the question of residency directly to SLED and was directed to their "Constitutional Carry Guidance" document, which was distributed to LEAs in South Carolina. The guidance refers only to "individuals" without reference to residency.

Unfortunately, they're not attorney's.

I'd sure like to hear an actual legal critique on this.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

Unfortunately, they're not attorney's.

I'd sure like to hear an actual legal critique on this.

Perhaps not, but I would bet my pension that SLED consulted the Attorney General's Office before telling Law Enforcement, Statewide, what the law means to them

 

[Kleanbore]

Perhaps not, but I would bet my pension that SLED consulted the Attorney General's Office before telling Law Enforcement, Statewide, what the law means to them

No question about it.

 

[bangswitch]

And nothing about prohibiting out of state residents.

The way I read the SLED guidelines, non-residents can carry openly, but would still need a permit recognized (reciprocal) from their resident state to carry concealed. The guideline says that residents can carry concealed with or without a permit, but the CWP is still in place to allow SC residents to carry concealed in a reciprocal state, so I figure the reverse holds true as well. I'll get clarification from my brothers-in-law who are both SC residents and CC permittees; I live in NC and we all travel across the state lines frequently. I plan to maintain my NC CWP regardless of how NC goes with their own constitutional carry legislation. Open carry without a permit is already legal in NC. I'm sure there will be some tweaking of the verbiage to settle these questions over the next weeks and months.

 

[Shanvanvocht]

The way I read the SLED guidelines, non-residents can carry openly, but would still need a permit recognized (reciprocal) from their resident state to carry concealed. The guideline says that residents can carry concealed with or without a permit, but the CWP is still in place to allow SC residents to carry concealed in a reciprocal state, so I figure the reverse holds true as well. I'll get clarification from my brothers-in-law who are both SC residents and CC permittees; I live in NC and we all travel across the state lines frequently. I plan to maintain my NC CWP regardless of how NC goes with their own constitutional carry legislation. Open carry without a permit is already legal in NC. I'm sure there will be some tweaking of the verbiage to settle these questions over the next weeks and months.

Once again, the SLED guidance makes no reference to Resident/Non-Resident, but merely says "Individual." The CWP is left in place for reciprocity with States that recognize the SC permit, but do not have Permitless Carry, such as NC, VA, MI, et. al.

 

[JERRY]

It'd be a nice regional victory but I doubt NC will do the same since it and Va carry the left's water.