Koliadko 207 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 DJ, in most states, iirc, you're not allowed to drink while carrying, either open or concealed. Not that such a law stops anyone, but it might make you think first, or not. The downside to open carry in an "Alcohol" establishment, is the false bravado alcohol can induce. And making your gun the target of a drunk. In NC, if you are under the influence and are carrying, you lose your permit. Period. If I were in a bar but not drinking, I would still want to have the right to protect myself. If you are in your home and it's invaded while you've been drinking, you are allowed to use deadly force. You may be "allowed" to use deadly force to "defend" your home even if you were drinking, but you may rest assured that a major element in any prosecution or civil suit against you will be your capacity to reach a rational decision as to whether you and/or yours were in any danger. That might not turn out the way you'd like either; rich honky dog three sheets to the wind on his upper class martinis 9s a brother who was stealing his plasma because his family was starving. There's lots of juries I wouldn't want to face in that circumstance. In any circumstance, you have to prove you felt your life was in danger, there was a threat of 'serious bodily harm' (didn't get a satisfactory answer of the definition but seems like there isn't really one), or the threat was sexual in nature i.e.rape. Just about any woman has that justification built in. But if some little 'brother' breaks in the house of a 'rich honky dog' that happens to weigh 250 lbs. not sure they are going to have much of a defense. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Arik 565 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 Pa is a "shall issue" state. Only requirements is that you pay the $50 or so dollars and pass the background check. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Koliadko 207 Posted February 21, 2011 Report Share Posted February 21, 2011 The class I took dealt mostly with the law. The handbook and forms seem to imply NC sees those as the most important thing. We spent about 6 hours watching movies and having discussions. He wanted to be sure when we left that we knew the laws in this state. Then we went out to the range. Had to load and shoot 5 rounds from 3 yards. They were timed. We had to do that again. Then backed up to 5 yards. Repeat. Then 7 yards. He was a great instructor. I have looked over the handbook since and I have some questions. I will not even consider getting the permit until I am fairly certain I know the law inside and out. Right now, if you ask me a question, given time could more than likely answer. But you don't have that luxury when you are in these situations. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Update: I no longer support this bill, as it stands now. There's been an amendment added (the Veirs amendment) that would take away the right for a non-SC-resident to even possess a handgun in South Carolina, without a SC CWP or a CWP from a state that SC honors. Meaning, you couldn't even come into this state, with a handgun in your trunk, with either of those 2 requirements, let alone CC it or shoot it. I don't understand the idea by behind this. As I understand it, of the other 3 states who have a permit-less system, it didn't effect non-residents in a negative manner. I'm not sure why this amendment was even added to the bill, but the NRA supports it, so fuck the NRA. It seems they're pretty quick nowadays to give up one thing for another. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stansplace 414 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Update: I no longer support this bill, as it stands now. There's been an amendment added (the Veirs amendment) that would take away the right for a non-SC-resident to even possess a handgun in South Carolina, without a SC CWP or a CWP from a state that SC honors. Meaning, you couldn't even come into this state, with a handgun in your trunk, with either of those 2 requirements, let alone CC it or shoot it. I don't understand the idea by behind this. As I understand it, of the other 3 states who have a permit-less system, it didn't effect non-residents in a negative manner. I'm not sure why this amendment was even added to the bill, but the NRA supports it, so fuck the NRA. It seems they're pretty quick nowadays to give up one thing for another. I agree, fuck the NRA. They are quickly becoming a bunch of sell out fucks. They will never, as long as I live, get another dime from me. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Right with you Shooter, just got done writing my state rep and senator. +1 for Stansplace on the NRA, they are more concerned about cash in flow from members now than actually protecting our rights. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Crapping on the NRA is popular and counter-productive. They have done more to protect 2nd Amendment rights then every other Pro-2nd group combined. If they are on the wrong side of this issue it is time to let them know, not sit around poisoning their well. This whole Anti-NRA spin is a brain-child of the Liberal Anti's and was seeded in the some of Uber-militant grass-roots groups with almost no political clout, meaning no ability get anything done. I am a NRA Lifer and will be calling Monday for their position for support of the Veirs amendment! I see this a lot more productive then starting internal fights among our own! BTW, this amendment, as it has been opted here, would contradict the Federal Volkmer-McClure Act of 1986 , and would be illegal, possibly rendering the whole law illegal. Thanks for the updates Shooter! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Crapping on the NRA is popular and counter-productive. They have done more to protect 2nd Amendment rights then every other Pro-2nd group combined. If they are on the wrong side of this issue it is time to let them know, not sit around poisoning their well. This whole Anti-NRA spin is a brain-child of the Liberal Anti's and was seeded in the some of Uber-militant grass-roots groups with almost no political clout, meaning no ability get anything done. I am a NRA Lifer and will be calling Monday for their position for support of the Veirs amendment! I see this a lot more productive then starting internal fights among our own! BTW, this amendment, as it has been opted here, would contradict the Federal Volkmer-McClure Act of 1986 , and would be illegal, possibly rendering the whole law illegal. Thanks for the updates Shooter! I'm not trying to sit here and uselessly bag on the NRA (I was a member at one time). I already started an email that I'm going to send, and there's a few NRA reps on Arfcom who've been asked about the NRA's support of this amendment, and we're all waiting to hear what they have to say. It just pisses me off that they'd back something like this Veirs amendment, when I can see no valid reason to even include it in an otherwise good bill. But honestly, Azrial, you have to agree that the NRA has seemingly lost some balls in recent times, no? It just always seems that they're ready and willing to give something up, for something else, even if it's not needed. But thanks for the tip on the Volkmer-McClure Act of 1986. I haven't heard about that and I'll have to look into it now. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Rottieman33 90 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 I agree with you Archangel. They should have to take Hunter Safety or a Shooting course. Some of the people in my hunter safety course shouldn't have a gun. New Hampshire is trying to get rid of there CCW permit to. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted February 27, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 OK, so I looked up that act. Granted, I only read a cliff-notes version, but the only thing I found relevant to the amendment in question was "Allows interstate transport of firearms, provided no local laws are broken in the process". But given that the amendment would make it illegal for a non-SC-resident to possess a handgun in SC, without the proper requirements, then they'd be breaking "local laws". Am I missing something? Just like New York. Unless you're an NY resident with a pistol-permit, you can't go into NYS with a handgun, period. They also don't honor anyone's CWP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stansplace 414 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Crapping on the NRA is popular and counter-productive. They have done more to protect 2nd Amendment rights then every other Pro-2nd group combined. If they are on the wrong side of this issue it is time to let them know, not sit around poisoning their well. This whole Anti-NRA spin is a brain-child of the Liberal Anti's and was seeded in the some of Uber-militant grass-roots groups with almost no political clout, meaning no ability get anything done. I am a NRA Lifer and will be calling Monday for their position for support of the Veirs amendment! I see this a lot more productive then starting internal fights among our own! BTW, this amendment, as it has been opted here, would contradict the Federal Volkmer-McClure Act of 1986 , and would be illegal, possibly rendering the whole law illegal. Thanks for the updates Shooter! Azrial in the past few years they have fallen on the wrong side of the issues more than not. They also seem to have been neutered when it comes to standing up to something controversial or something that isn't a sure win. I too was a long standing member until recent years, and while I agree with you that it is counterproductive to start infighting, I stand by my statements earlier. I will contribute elsewhere unless their stance changes. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted February 27, 2011 Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 Used to be a member, wrote letters made a few calls. All that I ever received back were emails, regular mail and phone calls asking for more of my dollars. I understand that they have put in quite the effort and are a valuable ally in protecting my rights. But I'll stick with the grass roots for now. Me personally I think it would take loss of membership to get them to realize they are off the path. The point of the post though is not letting this amendment go any further. As I stated earlier, I wrote my state rep and senator and have actually received positive feedback for killing the bill. No mention of needing my dollars either. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Azrial 1,091 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 If you are not happy with the Viers Amendment, my suggestion is to call or write Representative Thad T. Viers ® and let him know! He can withdraw or amend his own amendment. He is the Rep from Horry County, (Myrtle Beach) so it is pretty obvious who the influence is behind this. Most likely the Motel Industry. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 If you are not happy with the Viers Amendment, my suggestion is to call or write Representative Thad T. Viers ® and let him know! He can withdraw or amend his own amendment. He is the Rep from Horry County, (Myrtle Beach) so it is pretty obvious who the influence is behind this. Most likely the Motel Industry. Yep, I plan to. I'm in Myrtle Beach, actually. Time for flaming poo on his doorstep? I keeeed, I keeeed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
tktm 13 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted February 28, 2011 Author Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted February 28, 2011 Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 From my state rep: Thanks for writing, neighbor. I agree with you. Rep. Tom Young and I discussed this issue today. Tom is on the Judiciary Committee and plans to sent the bill back to the sub-committee when the committee meets Tuesday. I have a CWP and favor reducing the restrictions on where we can carry. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted March 1, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 Well now there's confusion on the definition of the word "carry", as used in this amendment. Mr Veirs seems to be using the word "carry" as defined as "concealed carry". In this case, non-SC residents wouldn't be having any rights that they already have, taken away. As they already need a reciprocal CWP in order to conceal-carry in SC. But it's been pointed out that other text in SC law uses the word "carry" synonymously with "hold/possess". In that case, this amendment would be taking away right that non-SC residents already have in this state; the right to enter SC with a handgun for non-conceal-carry purposes, without a reciprocal CWP. So much riding on the definition of one word. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted March 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 (edited) Here's a video of a hearing with Mr. Veirs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fhocCZe5IE It's long, so here's some cliff-notes: - Mr. Veirs acknowledges that some of the wording in his amendment is ambiguous, and plans to re-submit a new version of his amendment, which will make things "crystal clear", as he put it. - He says nothing in SC law, regarding the rights of out of state gun owners, will be negatively effected or even changed, with his amendment. In other words, whatever a non-SC resident can do now, they'll still be able to do under this new amendment. It's only meant to increase gun owners' rights in SC, while not effecting the rights of non-SC residents. - They're taking 1 week to re-word the amendment and are going to resubmit it. Looks like things might be headed back in a positive direction. I look forward to seeing the revised version of his amendment. EDIT:.........and he stated they're not getting rid of CWP's. Those who want them for reciprocity reasons can still get them. Edited March 3, 2011 by -Shooter- 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 That's what we want to hear 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
22_Shooter 1,560 Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 That's what we want to hear Yes, indeed! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.