Why Do People Say South Carolina is Gun Friendly?

[jim in Anchorage]

Evergreen,

I have being reading your posts and wondering why you are attacking South Carolina's gun laws.

Your statement "you will be required to have written permission from entering any persons home if you are carrying a gun with you" is absurd.

As a homeowner where I live I have the right to decide who I let in and what they are bringing with them. Are you saying that in Washington State I can bring whatever I want to into your home? So if I want to being in.illegal drugs you can't say no?

I sense that you are angry about your current situation. However lashing out at places and people living there that have nothing to do with your misfortune doesn't make sense.

I have always been puzzled how big a fuss some on here make about getting a homeowners permission to carry a gun INTO THEIR HOME. It's their home. Some people are afraid of guns and in their house I have to respect that.
Some people are afraid of snakes. Should I make a point by walking into there living room with a rattler around my neck?

 

[Sam1911]

BSA1, I'd say that while he has failed to do the research you did, he's come to largely the same conclusion: Nobody knows what the standard of "express" must be, so how can you be sure and be safe?

You can say it is "unenforceable" but how many supposedly "unenforceable" laws have put people through legal hell over the years? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent trying to fight and appeal convictions of laws that shouldn't have been enforceable?

Nothing there to rely on.

 

[Sam1911]

Some people are afraid of snakes. Should I make a point by walking into there living room with a rattler around my neck?

Around your neck? No, but the fact that you've got one in your pocket shouldn't necessarily be a matter for discussion.

 

[aeriedad]

BSA1, I'd say that while he has failed to do the research you did, he's come to largely the same conclusion: Nobody knows what the standard of "express" must be, so how can you be sure and be safe?

While I agree this is a dumb law, it's almost as silly to hold it up as an example of SC's reputation for RKBA-friendliness being undeserved. All laws are subject to over-enforcement. With this law in effect, I could disarm before leaving home, and my neighbor could still accuse me of carrying concealed on his property and have charges filed.

You can say it is "unenforceable" but how many supposedly "unenforceable" laws have put people through legal hell over the years? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent trying to fight and appeal convictions of laws that shouldn't have been enforceable?

Nothing there to rely on.

According to Evergreen (Post #68) and Theohazard (Post #65), OR & WA universal background check laws are unenforceable, so they are no big deal. But here in SC, we're in a lot of trouble because nobody knows the meaning of "express."

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Around your neck? No, but the fact that you've got one in your pocket shouldn't necessarily be a matter for discussion.

Do you realize how easy it is to simply say "I have a gun. do you mind if I bring it in?"
Alaska has two gun laws. Homeowner permission to bring a gun inside there house, and LEO notification on a traffic stop that you have a gun in the car.
I find it hysterical that people who live in states that require permits, registration, etc find these harmless laws objectionable.

 

[Sam1911]

Do you realize how easy it is to simply say "I have a gun. do you mind if I bring it in?"

Do you realize what an odd and off-putting conversation that would be to a very great many people? Why am I discussing my CONCEALED firearm with anyone at all?

I find it hysterical that people who live in states that require permits, registration, etc find these harmless laws objectionable.

What it actually is, is another example of the common theme: This is the law in my state and I've gotten used to it, so it's "harmless" and how things should be.

For some others of us, things like required officer notification have proved to be ANYTHING but "harmless." But you don't have that experience so you can't imagine why it would be a bad thing.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

Do you realize what an odd and off-putting conversation that would be to a very great many people? Why am I discussing my CONCEALED firearm with anyone at all?


What it actually is, is another example of the common theme: This is the law in my state and I've gotten used to it, so it's "harmless" and how things should be.

For some others of us, things like required officer notification have proved to be ANYTHING but "harmless." But you don't have that experience so you can't imagine why it would be a bad thing.

I don't know why you would say I have no experience in LEO notification. Its been the law in in Alaska for many years and I am not "used" to it.
It just never meant anything to me. "Officer I have a gun in the car."
"Oh really. Well I'm giving you a ticket for a broken taillight."
End of conversation.

 

[Sam1911]

No no. I meant to say that IS the experience you have. Exactly like you said.

And that's great for you, in your experiences until now. So that colors the contribution you bring to the conversation. "This is 'harmless' because I have never had any problems with it."

But your perception that such a thing is 'harmless' is voided by a single example of someone else experiencing a negative outcome due to it*. And there are MANY MANY examples of negative outcomes from such laws.

You may say, "Its been ok for me, so far, and seems to be not used in a hurtful way in my area, that I know of." But that's about it.






(* -- And would likely change quickly if you found yourself yelled at, threatened, proned out, and/or had your gun taken and pointed at you, dropped, or even confiscated as have happened to members of this very board and/or many CCW folks from around the country.)

 

[boatdoc173]

There's always Vermont...

not for long if Bernie, billary, loonberg or obamnation have their way

 

[Theohazard]

According to Evergreen (Post #68) and Theohazard (Post #65), OR & WA universal background check laws are unenforceable, so they are no big deal. But here in SC, we're in a lot of trouble because nobody knows the meaning of "express."

The new law in WA is no big deal in practice (I can't speak for the OR law) but I'm still strongly opposed to it and how it makes virtually every gun owner into a criminal. I feel the same way about the SC law; it probably wouldn't be an issue if I moved to SC, but I'm still strongly against it.

 

[aeriedad]

The new law in WA is no big deal in practice (I can't speak for the OR law) but I'm still strongly opposed to it and how it makes virtually every gun owner into a criminal. I feel the same way about the SC law; it probably wouldn't be an issue if I moved to SC, but I'm still strongly against it.

Agreed, and that's kinda my point. I don't like some of the sillier restrictions in SC, but I think this is an odd one on which to base this thread's title. The trends here (and in nearby states) are generally favorable to RKBA. I'm curious whether OR & WA residents feel the same about trends there.

btw, love your tagline.

 

[TheRealJQP]

Lots of problems with it, though. Again, "it usually is no problem" isn't a good thing to rely on. Sometimes it IS a problem, sometimes it's a BIG problem. And who is it a problem for? The guy who's trying to follow the law and goes ahead and notifies Officer "Friendly." Not so much for the murderous gang member who's not going to be following that particular law today... Who do we WISH would admit to being armed? The bad guys. Who are the only people who are actually going to admit to being armed? The folks who never would pose a danger to us anyway... And so it goes.

You could say the same about any law, I guess.

Really? I certainly would not want to have that conversation with every single person who's home I might enter!

I certainly would want to know if someone is armed before he enters my home.

See above, though. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

There are no guarantees in life, or even the legal system. But yes, precedent is often legally binding. You are assuming the "he said she said" can be used to prosecute, but you have no evidence. You're speculating.

This is why we have lawyers. Perhaps you should consult one.

 

[Red Wind]

What it actually is, is another example of the common theme: This is the law in my state and I've gotten used to it, so it's "harmless" and how things should be.

For some others of us, things like required officer notification have proved to be ANYTHING but "harmless." But you don't have that experience so you can't imagine why it would be a bad thing.

You are right on the money. Since only 9 states out of 50 require LEO notification and only 4 out 50 require homeowner notification , the vast majority of states have got it right and the vast portion of American citizens are not subject to this two asinine,silly laws.

We've run polls on both these laws on THR and the results are about 90% against. So Jim and JQP are in the vast minority. They've lived with these laws possibly all their lives so they are use to them as being "normal." They are anything but.

 

[maxxhavoc]

On the topic of notification, I have had nothing but positive experiences with it as well. Most cops relax visibly when I notify them of my CWP. They know I am probably not a psycho crackhead at that point. I just keep my hands on the wheel and don't do anything not requested by the officer.

I have gotten 2 warnings since I got my CWP about 7 years ago, no tickets. Prior to that, 4 tickets, no warnings.

I have no problem with duty to notify. I was expecting the opposite.

 

[Red Wind]

^ Is any criminal going to notify your SC cop? Or any homeowner that he's packing for that matter.

Law abiding citizens have no need to inform a LEO that they are carrying. I'm never going to change my opinion on that.
Both these laws are severe infringements on the 2A. We've got about 22,000 gun control laws on the books now.

One is too many. Gun control does absolutely nothing to curtail criminal activity and only hamstrings honest, decent Americans.

 

[Sam1911]

Lots of problems with it, though. Again, "it usually is no problem" isn't a good thing to rely on. Sometimes it IS a problem, sometimes it's a BIG problem. And who is it a problem for? The guy who's trying to follow the law and goes ahead and notifies Officer "Friendly." Not so much for the murderous gang member who's not going to be following that particular law today... Who do we WISH would admit to being armed? The bad guys. Who are the only people who are actually going to admit to being armed? The folks who never would pose a danger to us anyway... And so it goes.

You could say the same about any law, I guess.

Well, that's a non-response. So...sure! Right on!

Really? I certainly would not want to have that conversation with every single person who's home I might enter!

I certainly would want to know if someone is armed before he enters my home.

You may. You may wish to know how s/he voted, whether he/she is carrying a communicable disease, whether s/he's a practicing Satanist, or any number of other things. Good luck with that. The fact that you live your life and go about meeting people all the time without all this interrogating says those aren't necessary to your (or anyone's, or society's) continued well-being.

But any person who enters your home and CHOOSES to tell you she or he is armed -- whether there is a law about it or not -- is not someone who you need to care about being armed.

The only people who would do you harm with their firearms would be those people who WON'T tell you they're armed, even if the law says they "must".

Remind me again why this is this one of those laws that the bad guys are going to follow, while planning to rob, rape, and murder you?

See above, though. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

There are no guarantees in life, or even the legal system. But yes, precedent is often legally binding. You are assuming the "he said she said" can be used to prosecute, but you have no evidence. You're speculating.

This is why we have lawyers. Perhaps you should consult one.

I'm not sure who you're directing this at. I haven't speculated about any result at all. Merely pointed out that your own "comfort" with these laws is based on your own good experiences, never having had any of them come down on YOU rightly or wrongly. Not every good guy in the country can say that.

Of course, if you're of a mind to say, "if you run afoul of law enforcement, and/or the law, you're obviously a bad guy..." then you might feel this is not your concern.

 

[Sam1911]

On the topic of notification, I have had nothing but positive experiences with it as well. Most cops relax visibly when I notify them of my CWP. They know I am probably not a psycho crackhead at that point. I just keep my hands on the wheel and don't do anything not requested by the officer.

I have gotten 2 warnings since I got my CWP about 7 years ago, no tickets. Prior to that, 4 tickets, no warnings.

I have no problem with duty to notify. I was expecting the opposite.

And that's just great, for you, for now, based on things that happened in the past and maybe could happen again if the dice roll well for you.

'Sides, you got a couple freebies out of it, so why wouldn't that make you feel all cuddly to Officer "Friendly?" (Hey, I have too, once or twice.)

If you were to run into the other side of the coin one of these days, and come here to tell your horror story about mistreatment at the hands of the wrong officer on the wrong day, you'd be quick to join the many folks who see why this is not just pointless but actively BAD.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Yes, maybe South Carolina is friendly with guns you can own, but considering that I would want to carry a gun for both protection and to exercise my freedoms, I would feel under constant threat and incriminated being in South Carolina.

I think this hits at a big point. I'm repeating myself a bit but, the real measure for "how good is a state's 2A laws?" is:

Can I go about my daily activities in the same manner, regardless if I am carrying or not?

What you are finding is similar to what I have found: many so called "great gun states" are anything but. You can get NFA items out the wazoo, but you can't carry a loaded handgun into a restaurant that serves alcohol. You have open carry, but you cannot carry in a state park.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I only go into the homes of friends.

What about the plumber example Evergreen mentioned?

 

[Jeff22]

your rights

"YOUR rights end at the edge of someone's personal property; the Constitution is about you and the Federal government"

People tend to forget this. The Constitution limits the power of the government.

For example, we have "freedom of speech" but that is NOT freedom from consequences. If you publically express racist or hateful opinions, it is possible that your employer may fire you or that other people may chose to boycott your business.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

I find some of the posts on this thread unbelievable. Some of you have no problem living in a state that requires UBC on private sales, but have a fit over some meaningless homeowners notification law?
What are you all traveling salesmen knocking on doors all day long?
How often would this law affect you?
I find it far more important that I can carry without a permit. As of this moment there is not a single government agency that knows I own or ever have owned a gun. That's far bigger to me

 

[aeriedad]

I think this hits at a big point. I'm repeating myself a bit but, the real measure for "how good is a state's 2A laws?" is:

Can I go about my daily activities in the same manner, regardless if I am carrying or not?

I do...unless my activities include entering federal property, such as a military base or VA hospital, etc. Although properly posted signs prohibiting weapons do have force of law, few places attempt to so post, and some of those get it wrong anyway (so their signs do not have force of law).

What you are finding is similar to what I have found: many so called "great gun states" are anything but. You can get NFA items out the wazoo, but you can't carry a loaded handgun into a restaurant that serves alcohol. You have open carry, but you cannot carry in a state park.

We have restaurant carry. We do not have open carry, but can carry in state parks. Some county parks are posted per detailed sign requirements in statute and do have force of law.

Look, there are plenty things to pick on in any state's gun laws. IMO, the requirement to notify a homeowner you are carrying is unnecessary and misguided, but also an odd inspiration for this thread's title...especially if the OP resides in a state that just passed universal background checks. While I would love to see some of the laws here fixed, I do not have the sense that the state legislature is hostile to gun owners. Since I do not live in the northwest, I can only form opinions from news reports about gun owners' sense of the trends there...because my three invitations to discuss it in this thread have so far elicited no responses.

 

[Sam1911]

I find some of the posts on this thread unbelievable. Some of you have no problem living in a state that requires UBC on private sales, but have a fit over some meaningless homeowners notification law?

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I don't recall any of us saying we had "no problem" with UBC laws.

I certainly oppose them vehemently.

But why would you categorize as "meaningless" a law that makes a criminal out of someone who doesn't remember, or doesn't care to, discuss a personal, private, CONCEALED firearm with anyone who's property they're about to enter? That's not meaningless. That's a criminal record for failure to comply. You may say it just doesn't affect YOU very often so you simply don't care, but why would you argue that it shouldn't bother anyone else?

What are you all traveling salesmen knocking on doors all day long?
How often would this law affect you?

Does it really matter? (Obviously since YOU don't find it a hassle, I guess your standard of whether it is meaningless is, 'does it bother me, personally?') But yes, I and MANY other people enter the property of other citizens very frequently. I'm not a door to door salesman, but this could affect me sometimes multiple times a week.

Now, tell me again how "meaningless" it is?

I find it far more important that I can carry without a permit. As of this moment there is not a single government agency that knows I own or ever have owned a gun.

Ooooooh...is that so? Well, good luck with that.

I would like to see "Constitutional Carry" continue to spread. I'm all for it. I'm opposed to even the EXTREMELY simple and light requirements of LCTF permitting here in my state.

 

[jim in Anchorage]

.

-Our stupid new law regulating private sales. Technically this law makes anyone who even touches someone else's gun into a criminal with only a few exceptions. In reality, nobody is enforcing it and it's become an ongoing joke in this state. This law is really the only valid complaint to have about WA gun laws, but I can tell you it's only objectionable in principle and not in reality.

^^
Doesn't look to me like Theo has a problom with UBC. Because it's unenforceable? How long till the "loophole" is corrected?

 

[X-Rap]

These Ford vs Chevy threads always seem to take a turn to people defending their own states repressive laws as being less so than the other guy.
The idea that any gun law is OK is so self defeating that it is indefensible IMO.
I'm offended with the notion that I have to get the states permission to enter a private transaction as much as I am to have to pronounce what I have on my person while in public.
I strongly support property rights but the notion that one should ask permission to enter private property with a gun rather than have the owner post his requirement backasswards to me.
If the same were held to others based on religion, sexual orientation, criminal record (ie. assult or sex crimes), drug use etc, the ACLU would have a field day tearing into the law. In these states do you have to declare carrying a knife before entering a dwelling?