Quote of the Day: South Carolina’s One-Sided Reciprocity Bill

“Remember when conservative used to mean ‘not changing things unless there’s a good reason to change them’? What’s the conservative case for letting people from all over the country carry their guns in South Carolina, regardless of whether they meet the standards we set for South Carolinians to carry guns?” – Cindi Ross Scoppe, Their guns are concealed; their strategy, not so much [via thestate.com]

comments

  1. avatar Omer Baker says:

    Some of my inlaws lived there for a while & I looked into getting a license for there. I would have to buy land in South Carolina to get a license, those rules sound great. On the positive side, I did find land for about $700 and $20 a year in taxes, so it would be about the same price as Illinois’ process, but alas I never pulled the trigger as the inlaws moved back to Illinois.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I did, as you described. It cost “a lot” of money; but I could afford it and I wanted to get a SC CWP (for reasons that were purely impractical).
      Now, let’s step back and survey the entire landscape of CWP laws in the 50 States. SC is neither VT nor NYC. Nevertheless, it IS POSSIBLE for any law-abiding adult to obtain a SC CWP. Conversely, it is NOT POSSIBLE to obtain a NYC CWP. So, where on the spectrum between VT vs. NYC do you put SC?
      Each State that somehow honors a right-to-carry – however begrudgingly – isolates the Won’t-Issue States. Even though SC burdens the right-to-carry very heavily for non-residents, it does not outright rule-it-out. For residents, it’s (perhaps) half as burdensome as for non-residents. Likewise, IL.
      I can’t defend SC’s CWP laws; nevertheless, I appreciate SC much more so than NY State. We need to promote right-to-carry as far as we can get it everywhere so as to sharpen the contrast between right-to-carry States and those that deny the existence of the 2A.

    2. avatar Jeff K says:

      Love my NC CCW, good in 40 states so far, including SC. NC does the right thing & recognizes all states.

      1. avatar Martin says:

        Same here, NC has very decent CC laws,, not perfect, but better than a lot of other states.
        I CC into SC all the time, as the outdoor range i go to is in SC.

  2. avatar rc says:

    Sounds like she’s making a great case for constitutional carry in SC (unintentionally, of course). SC already approved reciprocity with Georgia last year, which really nullifies all of the remaining objections to allowing reciprocity with any other states.

    1. Yep, since GA only requires fingerprints, background check and a $70 tax.

  3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Well, for one thing, Cindi, the standards your state has set are unconstitutional.

    1. avatar Wiregrass says:

      and that is a good reason to change them.

      1. avatar The Gray Poseur says:

        Yes. I don’t accept her initial condition, i.e. “Remember when conservative used to mean ‘not changing things unless there’s a good reason to change them”, so the rest of her diatribe is meaningless. I will continue to fight to change nonsensical liberal changes back to the way things were when the Constitution was actually adhered to.

        P.S. Cindy, the hair? Really?
        P.P.S. Cindy, try smiling, not smugging.

  4. avatar 2004done says:

    Cindi, I consider it to be using the MOST EFFECTIVE laws (which “purely coincidentally” are the LEAST RESTRICTIVE) to ensure safety. Please use government crime statistics (not mass-media “polls” or stories) to judge the efficacy.

  5. avatar CTstooge says:

    I wonder how many squirrels are living in that hair?

    1. Her look plays well in a dark country bar around 10 minutes before last call.
      And I mean that in the most sincere sweetest way possible.

      1. avatar billy-bob says:

        Actually, ya gotta go for the 2’s early, if you wait until closing time they’ll be gone.

        1. 10 minutes is early. Once the lights come on, it’s over for them.
          BTW, at my age, she’s at worst a 5. 7 in the dark, as long as she smells nice.
          Coyote ugly for sure though.

  6. avatar YAR0892 says:

    As a South Carolinian, I must apologize for all the morons from my State. I promise, we’re not all that stupid. That being said, the State is a news rag based out of Columbia, the State capitol. First, Columbia is a shit hole full if idiots, morons, those who avoid the above, and USC students/grads (GO TIGERS!!!). Second, Columbia also was one of two major areas in SC that was water blue in the last election. I assure you, this dipstick does not in any way represent the rest of the State of SC. Please look to Trey Gowdy for proof, God bless SC, the Upstate, and the Clemson Tigers!

    1. avatar Bosko says:

      Columbia sounds a lot like Austin Texas.
      Overflowing with libturdian progtards..

    2. avatar Wiregrass says:

      Yes, but you guy really need to primary Lindsey Graham out of there.

      1. avatar YAR0892 says:

        No argument there. I’ve been voting against him since 2008.

  7. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    I didn’t care for her sexist argument against reciprocity, namely, that it would allow 18 year old members of the military to carry concealed in South Carolina on their out-of-state licenses. She argues that 18 year olds cannot keep their “surging testosterone in check well enough to be responsible with a gun.” Well.

    If anyone argued in print that hysterical, estrogen-laden women shouldn’t be granted driver’s licenses on the same basis, there’d be a leftist revolt over the sexism and suppression of equal rights.

    Same would go for anyone claiming that a woman is unfit to be president because her PMS (or hot flashes, if she were going through menopause) would render her mind muddled. “Why, she’d just fire off all our missiles in a huff if North Korea said that dress made her butt look fat!”

    Yet, it’s ok to ridicule every law abiding, nation defending service member out there who happens to be male and deny him his rights. Un….believable.

    1. avatar rick3 says:

      I’d change that to:
      “Un…wait for it…believable”

    2. avatar Old Guy in Montana says:

      Um, Jon, what about the 18 – 21 yo females honorably serving and who have completed DoD weapons training and are proficient in the armed defense of the U.S.A.?

      1. avatar Dan in CO says:

        The vast majority of us in the military are males, the younger ones are predominantly males too. The trigger pullers are ALMOST exclusively male. It’s a generalization, but it’s true.

        Even if we were 50% male and 50% female, the vast majority of those willing to put violence to good use in the Armed Forces would be male.

  8. avatar binder says:

    She kind of makes a strong argument for a Federally Issued National CCL. Lets just bypass all this reciprocity stuff, the states can still have their own rules, but the FIN CCL will override all local laws. Have training that is around 2 days with live fire and you have matched or exceed the training requirements for almost all states. Keep the cost down to $200 for 5 years. Make is shall issue and have a nice day.

    1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Funny, I don’t have to have mandatory training to exercise any of my other natural rights.

      1. avatar binder says:

        First of all, the 2nd amendment call for a well regulated militia. That means trained and equipped. You sound like someone who argues about the freedom of speech, but will not bother with learning how to read. You can thank the English bowman and the Magna Carta for your Right to Keep and Bear Arms. And it took 10 years of training to become a bowman. You can take two days of your time to at least demonstrate there is a chance you will not be a detriment to the safety of others while you carry a firearm.
        Second, there are no natural rights. You have no rights other then what society as a whole agrees on (and yes, force is part of that agreement).
        Now with that rant out of the way. The only way you are going to be able to carry a pistol in a lot of places in the country is with some kind of national reciprocity system. And every time you will hear her stupid argument about not matching local training requirements. You will make it a lot harder for congress critters to vote against national reciprocity it the whole training argument is taken off the table. The best way to do that is with a Federal CCW license with fairly high training requirements. My personal opinion is the training takes place during senior year of high school.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Standing three yards from a B-27 target in a well lit, air conditioned, gun range on a comfortable, calm Saturday morning.l constitutes no test of proficiency. You’re dreaming if you think otherwise.

          Even allegedly oh so professional and highly trained police only hit their intended target about 1/3 of the time. Their hit percentages plummet into the teens when that target is firing back. So your little training mandate is unuseful.

          All that the 2A expected of people was that they own a firearm. Their proficiency was assumed without specific training mandates in advance of ownership.

        2. avatar Cliff H says:

          “…there are no natural rights. You have no rights other then what society as a whole agrees on”

          Bullshit. What happens when you leave the loving arms of society? Wander out in the wilderness? Enter a dark and lonely parking structure in the middle of the night with no cell reception? Suddenly you have no rights?

          You REALLY need to read John Locke on “The State of Nature”, “The State of War”, and “On Civil Society”. You come across as erudite, but you have no clue what you’re talking about. Magna Carta my ass! That’s like the insane “Sovereign Citizens” arguing that they are covered in their actions by the original Articles of Confederation.

          You do not give up your natural right to defend your own life and that of your family, neighbors and community just because the society tells you to stand down. Absolutely ridiculous. And suicidal. I refer you to the many TTAG articles/posts about “This is what happens to a disarmed populace.”

        3. avatar Stinkeye says:

          You do recognize the danger of accepting that any training requirement is consistent with the wording and intent of the second amendment, right? Sure, you’re okay with whatever two-day training requirement you have in mind. Heck, it might not even be a bad idea, in and of itself.

          But you do know that the anti-gun people won’t let that stand, right? They will argue that two days isn’t enough, and that your $200 fee doesn’t cover the costs of administering the program. The next time the Democrats have power, the training requirement goes up to four days and $500. After all, it’s all about safety, right? A few years later, there’s an incident where someone with a federal license has a negligent discharge that kills his kid. Well, clearly four days isn’t enough! Let’s make it a two-week course, which will only cost $2000… Think of the children! And so on, and so on.

          Training is great, but mandating it gives the government yet another tool to slowly chip away at the right to keep and bear arms. A right that some guys who were a whole hell of a lot smarter than anyone working in government today thought should not be infringed…

        4. avatar BlackoutFan says:

          Second, there are no natural rights. You have no rights other then what society as a whole agrees on (and yes, force is part of that agreement).

          Do you know what a natural right is? A right bestowed on you simply because you exist. The RIGHT to SELF DEFENSE is inalienable. It doesn’t stop when you’re a criminal. It doesn’t stop if you’re a non-human (think of a mama bear protecting her cubs). It exists in ALL species, at ALL TIMES.

          You think SOCIETY GRANTED you that right?

          The 2nd is also considered a Civil Right. Remember, ‘Sam Colt made all men equal’….. (30 years PRIOR to the Emancipation Proclamation, and the 13th Amendment!)

          That’s why it’s often said that the 2nd Amendment is a Natural, Civil, and Constitutionally Protected Right.

          Can society put restrictions on armament (gun) ownership and possession? Sure. They do it all the time. Just because society might decide something doesn’t invalidate the original natural right. This is what is termed ‘reasonable restrictions’. Requiring a tax, or land ownership just to ‘conceal carry’ is nothing more than a modern Jim Crow or Poll Tax, or any other ‘choice’ by society to dictate to the weak and poor what they can, and cannot lawfully do. That doesn’t seem ‘reasonable’ to me.

        5. avatar binder says:

          Cliff H, when you leave the “loving arms of society” you are a society of one. Makes coming to an agreement a hell of a lot easier.
          As to the Magna Carta, it is the not so much the document itself, but the way it came into being. I was by force of arms from well trained and equipped militias (English bowmen) that forced King John to submit to the Magna Carta. A lesson that the founding fathers reinforced with their own revolution.
          If you want to keep your right to bear arms, make sure people can do it effectively. Owning a gun is just ONE part of that.

          Stinkeye, how are any of what you suggest any worse than where we are now. If we could roll back all the local BS laws, I’m with you all the way. But you don’t push free speech with hard core porn, and right now for a lot of people “constitutional” carry is worse. Also the law I propose would lift local restrictions, not add to them.

          BlackoutFan, If you live with 100 people that say that wearing red is a capital punishment, I would not go around wearing red even is the restriction is total bull. So much for “natural” rights
          Society dictates what constitutes “self-defense”. And you need to be weary of that and what kind of force society is willing to use to enforce that idea.
          That being said, YOU are part of society. YOU need to protect you rights. If you think that a 200 plus year old piece of parchment is going to do it, you need some help

        6. avatar Hannibal says:

          ” Suddenly you have no rights?”

          Yes, suddenly you have no rights. Just like every other animal out there. If you believe you have ‘natural rights’ then they are toothless because the next guy to come by who is a little stronger can break your ‘rights.’ So, bully for you, you have some right that did absolutely nothing to change anything.

        7. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

          I wouldn’t mind a shall issue federal license with almost no gun free zones* and mandatory training if the feds paid for all of the training, there was no fee for the license, any required items like finger prints and photos were paid for by the feds, and the law exempted the training requirement for people who didn’t live within 30 miles of a training location.

          That’s compromise. The left wants “reasonable” restrictions. They have to pay for them.

          *Inside prisons and that’s about it.

        8. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          Second, there are no natural rights. You have no rights other then what society as a whole agrees on (and yes, force is part of that agreement).

          Well, interesting to see you come down on the side of Marx and in opposition to most of the Founding Fathers. “Natural rights” isn’t a term I just made up.

          Also, the idea that the introductory clause “A well-regulated militia…” is a grant of power to the state to regulate a right that “shall not be infringed” has been the foundation of every gun control movement in this country and has been debunked by many second amendment scholars.

    2. avatar Bugman says:

      We already possess a national carry license that has been in effect since 1791. I also have zero faith in any “training” requirements that are mandated by .gov.
      Granting that kind of power (permission slip) to the entity that the 2nd was designed to protect us from is backwards.

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        ^ Bingo!
        When the government gets to decide who can exercise a right and who can’t, then it’s not a right. The Brits figured this out in 1689. This is exactly the sort of thing the 2A was supposed to prevent.

      2. avatar binder says:

        Carry in Manhattan and see how far that argument gets you. Don’t let perfect get in the way of better. Even Arizona had to start with CCW licences.

        1. avatar 27 Words says:

          But is it actually better? At least right now a person has the choice to move across state lines if they don’t like their state’s gun laws or training requirements. You’re advocating giving that universal power to the feds…but what happens in the next election, or the one after that, when Democrats take over the house, the senate, and the White House (like in 2008)? They’ll take it away from everyone. Is that “better”?

        2. avatar binder says:

          27 Words, I think we should go with a Federal CCW that OVERRIDES local restrictions, not add new ones.

      3. avatar binder says:

        No training, what do you think well regulated militia means. I will give you a hint, well equipped and trained.

        1. avatar Bugman says:

          Well regulated to me(and I think our founders as well ) means in good working order and state of the art, in the hands of every able bodied citizen available.

        2. avatar binder says:

          Bugman, if someone can’t deploy a firearm without shooting the wrong person or operation probably, I would not say the militia was in good working order.

    3. Negative, Ghost Writer!

    4. avatar Cliff H says:

      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free sate, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

      Sorry, Binder, but as noted above the Second Amendment comments that a militia is necessary – it DOES NOT mandate a militia nor any training requirements other than “well regulated”.

      In fact, there is no mandate in the Second Amendment whatsoever except, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

      Taxes, permission slips, prohibited persons, and arbitrary training standards are all infringements. Since the prupose of the militia is not only to protect us from foreign enemies, but from our own government run amok, allowing the government to set the standards as to who may exercise their RKBA, when, where, how well trained they must be, and what sort of arms they can bear seems a bit ludicrous.

      1. avatar binder says:

        The RKBA should not be dependent on training. HOWEVER, it should be the responsibility of citizens to be trained. You sound like a bunch of people who want free speech, but can’t bother with learning to read. You want this nation to be free. Just owning a gun will not do it. Yes, modem firearms require a lot less training, but that is no excuse for being lazy.

        1. avatar BlackoutFan says:

          You say it should not be dependent on training, and then say that there is no excuse for not being trained – effectively suggesting that training should be a mandate.

          Training may very well be a good, rational, and responsible thing to do. Assuming that any training is complete, sufficient, and long lasting is irresponsible. Drivers tests and training may reduce vehicular accidents, however, it will not eliminate them. Many LEO and military may require twice annual ‘certification’ where 50 rounds or so are fired. I wouldn’t call that ‘training’. Any civilian training I take isn’t going to live up to SPECOPS training. So, what kind of ‘training’ would be acceptable to you to not be characterized as ‘lazy’.

        2. avatar Stinkeye says:

          Nobody here is arguing against being trained. The argument is against the federal government setting training standards and mandating they be met before you can legally exercise a your rights. Surely you know the difference between voluntary and mandatory, right?

          Your analogy would be better if you said “people who want freedom of speech, but don’t want the government to limit your ability to speak out based on arbitrarily-defined language skills standards.”

          I don’t need the government deciding if I can read well enough to satisfy some bureaucrats that I can be trusted to voice my own thoughts. Likewise, I’m a competent and safe gun owner. Two days of state-sponsored training on a square range won’t make me any safer handling a gun than I already am.

        3. avatar binder says:

          Where 10 people could operate in a skirmishing role without getting themselves killed in 10 minutes after and engagement would be idea. At least be able to handle a AR-15, or M1a without shooting the guy next to them would be nice minimum. Just having a gun is not the point of the right to keep and bear arms.

          LET ME SAY IT AGAIN. You can keep your damn gun regardless. But training SHOULD be provided as part of our public education system. Just because you can’t read, you don’t lose you rights, but that is not the best way to make sure you keep them. And my rights are WAY more dependent on others exercising and maintain the skills necessary to utilize then effectively them that anything that was written down 200 years ago

        4. avatar binder says:

          Cliff H, when you leave the “loving arms of society” you are a society of one. Makes coming to an agreement a hell of a lot easier.
          As to the Magna Carta, it is the not so much the document itself, but the way it came into being. I was by force of arms from well trained and equipped militias (English bowmen) that forced King John to submit to the Magna Carta. A lesson that the founding fathers reinforced with their own revolution.
          If you want to keep your right to bear arms, make sure people can do it effectively. Owning a gun is just ONE part of that.

          Stinkeye, how are any of what you suggest any worse than where we are now. If we could roll back all the local BS laws, I’m with you all the way. But you don’t push free speech with hard core porn, and right now for a lot of people “constitutional” carry is worse. Also the law I propose would lift local restrictions, not add to them.

          BlackoutFan, If you live with 100 people that say that wearing red is a capital punishment, I would not go around wearing red even is the restriction is total bull. So much for “natural” rights
          Society dictates what constitutes “self-defense”. And you need to be weary of that and what kind of force society is will to use to enforce that idea.
          That being said, YOU are part of society. YOU need to protect you rights. If you think that a 200 plus year old piece of parchment is going to do it, you need some help

        5. avatar BLoving says:

          I sold a Taurus PT140 to a young single mother last night. It wasn’t the model I would have recommended (I suggested the Pt111 in 9mm but she would have none of it). She had little – I would say almost none – in the way of training. “My ex-boyfriend taught me to shoot”.
          Sure he did, dear, and I’m sure he did a great job. This young woman didn’t have much money (as evidenced by her selection), she is alone, frightened, and likely hoping that she’ll never need the gun she bought. She’ll likely never even fire it more than once. God willing, she’ll never NEED to ever in defense of her life. But I think I could safely say that if she were REQUIRED to spend hundreds of dollars on proper firearms training – however worthwhile we here may consider it – before she could be allowed to exercise her civil right of self-defense, that gun would never have been purchased at all as she likely would have desperately needed that money for rent and food instead. Many of us are either blessed with plenty of disposable income to spend on protecting ourselves or have forgotten what life was like when we started out struggling to make ends meet. I never want to be in a position where I have to look my frightened customer in the eye and tell her that she is too poor to protect herself and her children. That is why I object to licensing, fees, taxes, bureaucratic hoops to jump through, mandatory traing or anything else that may hinder a fellow citizen from exercising their rights and I consider it the height of bigotry and arrogance to expect anyone to do so lightly.
          Our world isn’t perfect – we don’t have free learn-to-shoot clinics for poor single mothers, we don’t provide taxpayer funded 24 hour security in low-rent housing areas… so these poorer folk are on their own, just like the rest of us. We can afford the best, they can’t… hopefully, it is enough.

        6. avatar Byzantine_General says:

          Disingenuous incrementalist. We can all see you. Pathetic.

    5. avatar Dan in CO says:

      Geez, with friends like these…

      Thanks but hell no.

  9. avatar J says:

    Calling it now, single cat lady in her 50s…….as such, what could she possibly know about “surging testosterone”?

  10. avatar stateisevil says:

    SC and Fl are just barely hanging on. The Republicans have both chambers and the governor’s but it doesn’t matter because they have more in common with New York republicans. Add the Democrats to the mix and you get basically Connecticut (pre Newtown) without open carry.

  11. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    You know, if this were 30 years ago, I could maybe even entertain some of what she says as valid concerns, but in the past 30 years most states in the union have become shall issue, and the roster of states with Constitutional Carry has gone from lonely Vermont to about a quarter of all states. Never, in all that time, have the “blood in the streets” and “people need to be vetted before carrying” predictions come true. Never.

    It’s as if newspapers were still giving column-space to flat-earthers, or people arguing against emancipation or women’s suffrage.

    1. avatar Cliff H says:

      Yes, well, about women’s suffrage – see photo and comment at top of page.

      1. avatar Red in CO says:

        And why is that relevant? Because men can never be idiots or have stupid opinions? God, shit like this pisses me off. You are representing gun owners on a popular, well known, and very public blog. Don’t be an asshole; it’s counter-productive and in very poor taste

  12. avatar Carb0n says:

    She answered the question in her opening rhetorical question. There IS a good reason to change them.

    The U.S. Constitution is the “Supreme Law of the Land”. States like South Carolina place unconstitutional qualifiers on a right affirmed (not dispensed) by the Constitution. National Concealed Carry Reciprocity would help to ensure that States uphold the Constitution.

    Anyone claiming that States have a right to deny bearing of arms have not read the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    2nd Amendment powers have already been delegated by the Constitution.

    “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” (Marbury vs.Madison, 1803.)

    1. Conservative should mean to repeal every unconstitutional law.

      1. avatar Baldwin says:

        In my dreams, in my dreams.

      2. avatar Baldwin says:

        In my dreams…

  13. avatar Boba Fett says:

    This one’s too easy.

  14. avatar COMMUTATUS says:

    Just recently a licensed carrier in Montana took on a liability of attempting to thwart/detain/arrest a pair of shoplifters. The end result was that the carrier began firing at the shoplifters vehicle as it sped away. This is not the only episode of licensed carriers displaying a shocking lack of legal knowledge and a dangerous “hero syndrome” attitude. No where is the use of Deadly Force authorized to stop theft but in the most narrow circumstances, i.e. theft of nuclear materials.
    The state has a good reason to declare that in the interest of safety to the citizenry that there be qualified and quantified training in the threat of, or use of, Deadly Force. My deepest concern with national reciprocity laws is that the Feds will become involved with training requirements in the interest of ”consolidating requirements and qualifications”. This in turn will eventually lead to a national registry of gun owners and pave the way for a national confiscation under another corrupt regime which will surely come. Think carefully before endorsing a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The Governors of the states should, in good character and faith, negotiate reciprocity requirements in regards to legalities and safety to the general public. Then the state legislatures should endeavor to streamline and coordinate training requirements to interstate compliance.

    1. avatar binder says:

      That is a valid concern. but you should at least NOT tie it in with the firearms that someone owns. Also what about all the 4473s out there. You can also have the states certify using the federal training requirements and issue National CCW permits along with the “local” ones. Kind of like the “real id” that they now do on driver licences.

    2. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Commutatus,

      The state has a good reason to declare that in the interest of safety to the citizenry that there be qualified and quantified training in the threat of, or use of, Deadly Force.

      Imparting such knowledge is a great idea.

      Note that such training should be entirely divorced from the right to keep and bear arms since deadly force can involve cars, trucks, knives, fists, clubs, choke-holds, etc.

      Also note that training people about the legal requirement to justify using deadly force takes all of 10 minutes*.

      * The training consists of explaining that someone is only justified to use deadly force when there is a reasonable, credible, imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. And then the trainer would spend a couple minutes explaining two examples that justify deadly force and two examples that do not justify deadly force. That’s it.

      1. avatar binder says:

        “that such training should be entirely divorced from the right to keep” Totally agree, but I think the training should be required of all citizens, make it part of selective service.

      2. avatar COMMUTATUS says:

        Philosophically in the context of Deadly Force discussion you are right. Deadly Force can come from many sources. However, we rarely hear of the defensive use of an SUV in the news. Hammers kill more people than guns and so do falls in the bathroom and hospitals are more dangerous than ghettos. None of these are so regulated and feared by the Socialist/Communists as firearms. So, here we are discussing the use of firearms in the application of Deadly Force. Let’s stick to that,ok?
        I would hope that the licensed carriers who have misused their right will be prosecuted. I would also think that they, having completed a state required safety/carry course curriculum, would have been taught the legal use of their firearm. Apparently, this is not the case. Maybe, this should come back to the instructors. Instructors who have “signed off” on the successful completion of the carry class can stand in “vicarious liability” jeopardy. I have witnessed attendees to carry classes who should not even own a gun much less be issued a carry permit. Age, competency, physical infirmities all have been displayed on the range. Most instructors conduct classes for reimbursement reasons. Classes can cost anywhere from $50-$100 or more per person. There is a monetary incentive to move as many people as possible through a class. Let me be clear here, I do not aggrieve any person the right to self-defense. It is a God-given right. But with a right of life and death comes a huge responsibility to understand that right and what it entails and can lead to. People, generally, are lazy animals that must be herded and shepherded into safe pastures. It is what most people want. Most gun owners will not seek higher gun education than what is mandated by the state of residence. In Alabama, unless things have changed recently, all that was necessary for a resident to receive a carry permit was to appear before a court clerk and prove Alabama residency. No safety/carry class was required.
        I have a good friend that I argue Constitutional carry issues with. He says stupid people will always do stupid things regardless of a permit. I argue that because the state has deemed them “worthy” they now feel empowered and entitled to exercise powers that they don’t legally possess, whereas, without a permit system these people would be in fear and awe of laws forbidding civilian carry as was the case for many years before carry permits were easily attainable. I will always err on the side of the “general welfare” for I do not generally trust people with cars or guns.

        1. avatar binder says:

          Then teach the kids use of force law in school. We already have drivers ed.

        2. avatar BLoving says:

          A student in Drivers Ed raises her hand,
          “Excuse me, could you please instruct us on what circumstances would it be permissible to run down a pedestrian? “

        3. avatar Kroglikepie says:

          No safety or carry courses are required in AL, which is as it should be. A gun on the hip should be treated no differently than a gun at home. It’s no different than a pocket knife or a car, in that the only danger lies in evil or idiots.

      3. avatar TX_Lawyer says:

        “Note that such training should be entirely divorced from the right to keep and bear arms.”

        I agree entirely, but I also believe no one should ever need a gun to protect themselves from another person.

        Unfortunately, what is and what should be are not the same. We must start with what is and work towards what should be.

  15. avatar Alex P says:

    I travel the southeast for my job, I appreciate that my SC permit is recognized by every state I service.

  16. avatar strych9 says:

    If the conservative position is effectively “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” then wouldn’t changing the laws back to the way they were before progressives mucked about with them be the conservative position?

    1. avatar bastiches says:

      Everyday is Year Zero for the Left.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Good point. Sometimes when I read Leftist quotes I forget to set myself to “stupid”.

  17. avatar rt66paul says:

    The fed need to make laws that keep the states from denying our rights, the law making body in state is responsable for the laws in that state. Other than interstate transfer or flight to avoid justice, the Feds need to butt out.

  18. avatar Larry says:

    The term ” Well Regulated ” was in use prior to and a long time after the 2A was written . It simply meant something , was in proper working order, or functioning as expected . One can find it in dictionaries of that time period .

  19. avatar Leadslinger says:

    It would be interesting to ask this woman if 18-year-olds should be allowed to vote.

    Please make up your mind on the legal age and stick to it.

  20. avatar binder says:

    Cliff H, when you leave the “loving arms of society” you are a society of one. Makes coming to an agreement a hell of a lot easier.
    As to the Magna Carta, it is the not so much the document itself, but the way it came into being. I was by force of arms from well trained and equipped militias (English bowmen) that forced King John to submit to the Magna Carta. A lesson that the founding fathers reinforced with their own revolution.
    Stinkeye, how are any of what you suggest any worse than where we are now. If we could roll back all the local BS laws, I with you all the way. But you don’t push free speech with hard core porn, and right now for a lot of people “constitutional” carry is worse.
    BlackoutFan, If you live with 100 people that say that wearing red is a capital punishment, I would not go around wearing red even is the restriction is total bull. Society dictates what constitutes “self-defense”. And you need to be weary of that and what kind of force society is will to use to enforce that idea. That being said, YOU are part of society. YOU need to protect you rights. If you think that a 200 plus year old piece of parchment is going to do it, you relay need help

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      “YOU need to protect your rights.”

      I absolutely agree. I just don’t see how someone can protect their rights if they have to ask for government permission in order to legally exercise those rights. This is why I’m against any permitting requirements to own or carry a gun. As soon as you start accepting such limits, you’ve reduced a right to a privilege.

      I much prefer the model where personal responsibility is the guide, and a person is trusted with his rights until such time as he proves he cannot be. It might be a bit messier at times, but liberty always carries with it some risks.

  21. avatar LarryinTX says:

    The 2A says it is none of your state’s business who is or is not carrying, so why are you wasting your taxpayers’ money and time arguing about it? See, unlike liberals, conservatives do not enjoy throwing away money earned by others, particularly for no reason.

  22. avatar COMMUTATUS says:

    Ms. Scoppe has some very valid points that I support. However, I would require her to attend a SC carry class before commenting. If she has already, then my congratulations. But, typically, she has the view of socialists that because she doesn’t like it, it must be bad. States still have the right to legislate the carrying of arms. The 2A only restricts Congress. As in NY state it may take drastic noncompliance by the electorate and law enforcement to demonstrate the dissatisfaction with NY’s laws. From what I have read in her article I would not support SC’s reciprocity legislation. There MUST be a continuity of knowledge about the use of Deadly Force from state to state.

  23. Anyone remember Olgra from The Dark Crystal?

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      Bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

      Wow, that almost cost me a phone and a lot of people now think I’ve lost my mind in the last minute or so.

      Well played. I’m going to go try to catch my breath.

      1. Heheh I was wondering if anyone would get it.

  24. avatar Libertarian says:

    It s time for south carolina to radical reform her restrictive handgun “carry” law.
    Together white florida very restrictive shall issue if you watch the golden middel georgia …………

    1. avatar Stinkeye says:

      Huh?

  25. avatar sound awake says:

    because…if any woman from any of the 50 states can come to south carolina to kill her baby “because of the 14th amendment” any man should be able to come to south carolina to carry concealed

  26. avatar Ing says:

    Ah, but there IS a good reason to change this thing. And nobody would need to change it at all if the leftist regressives hadn’t mucked up our Constitutionally protected civil rights to begin with.

  27. avatar LHW says:

    Because freedom.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email