South Carolina House Approves Permitless Carry

(AP Photo/Carlos Osorio)

Colombia, South Carolina – New legislation aiming to allow Georgia Concealed Carry Permit holders to legally carry in South Carolina was amended to allow permitless concealed carry; this is not be confused with permitless carry known as Constitutional Carry. The Bill was then passed, amendment intact, by a vote of 90-18.

House Bill 3799 started as a politically mundane piece of legislation, but that was quickly changed Thursday after House Republicans allowed an amendment to be added to establish permitless concealed carry. Representative Mike Pitts introduced the amendment – here is what he had to say:

It is a good compromise because people would still have to keep their guns hidden from view in public, but would not have to go through hours of training for a constitutional right.

Though the bill has not yet faced the state senate, the votes are on its side with a 61% Republican majority. In addition, Governor Nikki Haley is a Second Amendment proponent and Concealed Carry Permit holder.

Few things are as clearly defined as the right of individual Americans to own and use firearms. The right to bear arms was deemed so critical by our Founders that they spelled it out in absolute terms, and any governmental action that undermines that right is in turn undermining the very freedoms that built our great nation. I hold a Concealed Weapons Permit myself, and in this state makes it difficult for CWP holders to rightfully carry–we need to make the rules that govern carrying far more simple…

South Carolina is not an open carry state – which means that firearms cannot be carried in the open – which leaves it in the diminishing ‘anti-gun’ category with states like Illinois, California and New York. This bill, if passed, will place it into a category of its own in regard to permitless concealed carry.

What are your thoughts on Constitutional / Permitless Carry? Is Constitutional Carry right for America?

18 Comments on "South Carolina House Approves Permitless Carry"

  1. I THINK THAT IT IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.to many states are making laws which are in conflict wit the constitution which was made for this country and all states.

  2. Raymond Chris Williams | April 25, 2015 at 9:33 pm |

    It is a step in the right direction. We need to protect ourselves from bad people and our government with the direction they are headed. We can easily carry a gun for protection, but we can’t carry a policeman with us.

  3. STEVE BROWN | April 25, 2015 at 10:52 pm |

    PERMITLESS CARRY WILL LET WILL LETS US PROTECT OUR FAMILIES AND HOME,,,THIS IS A MUST

  4. The reason the Wal-Mart Stores Closed out West & put 2200 Associates out of Work
    is: The President Plans on Calling MARSHAL LAW some time in the NEAR FUTURE: If
    we’re under MARSHAL LAW he doesn’t have to Leave OFFICE: GOOGLE: JADE HELM:

  5. A Free man doesn’t have to ask permission to exercise his inalienable Rights. The right to defense of self, family, home and community far predates any government ever devised by mankind.

  6. I think it’s definitely going in the right way. But I must say that only Americans should carry and not illegals.

  7. I hope this will move the State of South Carolina in the right direction as far as reciprocity goes as well….. Did I spell that correctly? Well, dangit , y’all know what I mean. LOL

  8. Alan Boykin | April 26, 2015 at 5:15 am |

    Good Job! Lets get it passed…

  9. Open carry if foolish. Why let criminals know for certain that you are armed – so they can ambush you? Permit-less concealed carry is fine so long as the carrier has no felonies.

  10. Its my rire to have and carry guns I live in Georgia and its crazy that I have to pay so much just to carry something that is my rite I believe all states should do the same and do away with the permit

  11. Bill Sargent | April 26, 2015 at 10:16 am |

    About Time someone used commom sense concerning firearms. The laws have been on the side of criminals for far too long.

  12. richard eddings | April 26, 2015 at 10:24 am |

    I believe in the right to carry. But I still believe in a background check. other wise some of the wrong people will buy guns. We have enough of that know.

  13. This is how it was for many years it raises the ? What are they afraid of that they no longer want us to have them . I firmly believe that we have this right and I do live in SC.

  14. We have only three states that actually follow the constitution correctly. Criminals do not get back round checks-they buy the guns off the streets because they know about back round checks. No law written in a manner that directly interferes or indirectly interferes with the 2nd Amendment or any other part of the constitution is legal in any way at all! All permits-all states that require permits to carry or own firearms are acting illegally and cannot legally be enforced(which means the law breaks the law and a lot of people were arrested wrongfully). Vermont carry is known across the land and is the most respected as it fully complies with the US Constitution and their own state constitution(which is even more protective of the residents in VT). Alaska and Arizona have gotten on the right track as they are just like Vermont(with exception to the fact that Vermont has the best state constitution of all 50 states). New York and California are the worst as far as the US constitution goes. When someone goes and applies for a permit to own or carry in any manner(concealed or open) they have just shit on the Constitution and gave power over themselves to a corrupt government hell bent on taking every right of ours away. Facts are facts-you have a right to personal protection and a right to keep and bear arms which makes this line from the story above sicken me more “It is a good compromise because people would still have to keep their guns hidden from view in public, but would not have to go through hours of training for a constitutional right”. Where in the constitution did it say we have to hide our guns from public view? Nowhere! Where in the constitution does it say that we must first go through a back round check? Where in the constitution does it say we must first obtain a permit? You will not find it anywhere because it was never written. Only laws written by government says any of that, and as you know it is illegal to write laws that circumvent the constitution. If SC lawmakers knew what the hell they were doing…wait-I am going to leave that as is. The reason I am is that SC lawmakers know exactly what they are doing-they are writing laws that keep control in their hands-a control they can limit or change at will as they wrote the law. SC law writers isn’t anywhere as serious about this as Vermont, Alaska or Arizona’s local government is. Here is the 2nd amendment in the US Constitution(Note that you will not see any mention of needing to obtain permits) “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

  15. Chris Morley | April 26, 2015 at 1:34 pm |

    This entire country is going in the toilet fast and if people don’t wake up and start defending not only the second amendment but our constitution and what it stands for as a whole, we are all going to be in trouble.

  16. Trish Lindsey Jaggers | April 27, 2015 at 9:09 am |

    Have any of those persons who say again and again, “We need to be able to protect ourselves against ‘bad guys’ and government,” ever shot and KILLED anyone? That is a huge guilt load to carry and live with. Folks can poo-poo that all they want, but to actually have to live with oneself after taking another person’s life is the greatest risk of carrying a firearm–permit or no. “Self-defense” becomes the argument.

    Right now, folks just use words–and in the extreme, their fists. I now fear the militia more than the “bad guys.”

  17. peter sears | April 27, 2015 at 8:25 pm |

    State you now owe me for what I paid for my cwp with this it useless

  18. i have heard some concerns about this but i do have a possible remedy.
    1. treat as hunting license for training ie born after x date training.
    2. limit to revolvers(have heard concerns about # of rounds).
    just 2 idea’s for 2 of the concerns i have heard. I personally believe #1 would b great, 2 would limit dmg that could b done. but this is all imho. tyvm

Comments are closed.

Facebook