South Carolina Now Permitless Carry State

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Gary Slider

Bearcat
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
21
Location
West Virgiinia
South Carolina – The Governor has signed Bill 3594 making South Carolina the 29th state to pass Permitless Carry. It lowers the age to apply for a permit and to carry under permitless carry to 18. Though Louisiana Governor signed his bill first (28th state) the South Carolina Bill went into effect the moment the Governor signed it while Louisiana will not go into effect until July 4. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess125_2023-2024/prever/3594_20240305.htm
 

GunnyGene

Hawkeye
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
9,628
Location
Monroe County, MS
Something of interest is the State by State electoral votes. Here's the list of anyone wants to add up the 29 permitless carry States v. the other guys. This may, or may not, become a deciding factor for Nov. Permitless carry States have 254 electoral votes The other guys have 281. Assuming all of the Permitless States cast their votes for the good guys, we'll still need another 16 electoral votes minimum, if we have a chance of winning in Nov.


Here's the list of Permitless carry States, less LA and SC, so don't forget to add them in.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,818
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
Spent yesterday morning 'discussing' this new law with two good friends who are as liberal as they come and on top of that did not grow up here but in Germany and are now naturalized citizens.
My personal opinion on this is nothing will change. The people who want to carry a gun, both the good guys and the bad guys will continue to and the people who don't want to will just keep not carrying. I often wonder out of the 400,000+ folks here that have permits... how many actually carry a gun?
 

beentheredone

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
409
Location
SC
I agree with Blume. Contrary to the preachers of doom and destruction -- who said EXACTLY the same junk when concealed carry permits were approved -- the world will not end but continue to turn, just perhaps a bit more peaceably.
 

GunnyGene

Hawkeye
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
9,628
Location
Monroe County, MS
Here's the plain language translation of the new law.


Summary of South Carolina Gun Laws

South Carolina is a shall-issue, permitless carry state with concealed weapons permits issued at the state level by the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED).
There is no permit, background check or firearms registration required when buying a handgun from a private individual.
As of March 7th, 2024, open carry as well as concealed carry is legal without a permit to anyone 18 years of age or older that is not prohibited by law. A "concealable weapon" means a firearm having a length of less than 12″ in length carried openly on one's person or in a manner that is hidden from public view in normal wear of clothing except when needed for self defense, defense of others, and the protection of real or personal property. Areas that are off-limits to concealed carry are also off-limits to open carry. In addition, private properties posted with signs stating 'No Concealable Weapons Allowed' prohibit both open and concealed carry.
CWPs are issued to residents, non-residents who own property in the state and military personnel stationed in South Carolina. Concealed carry permits require an 8-hour firearms training course that has been approved by the state. The minimum age to obtain a CWP is 21 years old. In terms of reciprocity, South Carolina honors resident permits from states that recognize South Carolina permits, provided that the reciprocal state requires an applicant to successfully pass a criminal background check and a course in firearm training and safety. Some areas are off-limits, including schools and courthouses.

Self-Defense

South Carolina is a Castle Doctrine state. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in a place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground.
A person is presumed to have a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or another person when using deadly force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury to another person if the person:
  • Against whom the deadly force is used is in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, has unlawfully and forcibly entered a dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle, or if he removes or is attempting to remove another person against his will from the dwelling, residence or occupied vehicle; and
  • Who uses deadly force knows or has reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act is occurring or has occurred.
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he or she has a right to be, including but not limited to his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime.
"Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including an attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging there at night.
"Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
"Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
[S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-440]
 

beentheredone

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 27, 2022
Messages
409
Location
SC
With over 50% of states now "allowing" their citizens to exercise their constitutional rights (see what I did there) it's time we just called those states that outlaw constitutional rights unconstitutionalist states.
Anti-constitutionalist would be more appropriate.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,818
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
the worst part about this happened about two years back when 'they' passed a law that anyone with a concealed weapons permit could open carry... they changed the signage law and this caused many places to post.... before that the no concealed weapons sign was very specific and actually hard to do right... it still is but now it just says no concealable weapons... which is pretty ambiguous if you think about it.. does that mean my Swiss Army knife. and also since I really can't conceal my 12gage pump shotgun can I carry it in?

The really strange part about the new law is that SLED (SC state police) are now required to offer a free concealed weapons class every month in every county.... this is a good thing but I just wonder how it will work out....
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,818
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
yep.... as far as I know.

The interesting thing is I've yet to see anyone here in S.C. recently or even before open carrying......

So, probably the only thing that will have changed is SLED now has to offer free classes and that will cost us tax payers money. But I guess the irony is that's what I've been saying is the step to the solution to our gun violence problem in this country... universal training... but then I say it needs to be mandatory... for everyone... regardless of whether they own a gun.

The funny thing is no one on either side of the fence likes my idea.
 

HumphreyDaBear

Bearcat
Joined
Jun 9, 2024
Messages
29
Location
Hoosierville
yep.... as far as I know.

The interesting thing is I've yet to see anyone here in S.C. recently or even before open carrying......

So, probably the only thing that will have changed is SLED now has to offer free classes and that will cost us tax payers money. But I guess the irony is that's what I've been saying is the step to the solution to our gun violence problem in this country... universal training... but then I say it needs to be mandatory... for everyone... regardless of whether they own a gun.

The funny thing is no one on either side of the fence likes my idea.
I have the same opinion that mandatory training may not be such a bad idea. A few years ago I was in a gun store and a couple that looked to be in their in their 50's were at the counter looking for their "first gun purchase", their words . Swept the guns they were looking at across me a couple of times until I bitched at them about it. Went into the long gun room where nobody was in. Picked up a Ruger RPR, shouldered it and had some moron walk in front of it. I immediately lifted it and he claimed I pointed it at him. Told the attendant what happened, the moron admitted he walked in front of it and the moron still blamed me. Neither sales person said a word to the idiots involved. Haven't been back to the store to this day.

So yes, with so many people buying their first firearm, training should be a considered possibility. I've seen increased piss poor firearm handling and understanding of gun range protocols and courtesies in the past few years.

People don't care for my opinion either. And that is their right, like my opinion is my right.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2005
Messages
10,818
Location
Greenville, SC: USA
It seems folks on both sides of the gun debate get their britches in a wad when I mention my opinion on training.... I don't think just those that want to own a gun should be trained I think anyone that wants to live in this country should be trained and it should start in grade school. I presume because of our constitution one could get out of it for either medical or religious reasons and I'm okay with that but then maybe there would be a charge (Tax) for this.. .not getting the training. Kind of like the state legislator a few years back from Vermont that proposed that anyone who did not have a gun in their home had to get a permit for this. If I was a politician I would propose things like this....
 

gnappi

Blackhawk
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
584
Location
Florida
Blume I for one agree with you and I pretty much have a bit of a problem with people carrying without ANY training. Constitutional carry promoters disagree but when our nation was formed children had TWO parents and were taught by them how to shoot and handle a firearm.

In the real world "instructors" whose classes I've audited deviate substantially from NRA dogma of NOT discussing state firearm law rather than pointing them to the State statutes gun owner's are bound by.

Even sillier to comply with the "handle and discharge a firearm safely" provision of the applicable Florida CC statute, the classes I've seen are minimally effective as they fire a .22 short into a bucket of sand. That may follow the letter of the law but certainly not the intent and spirit of the law... IMO that is.

I'm definitely in favor of universal training (we do it for cars) but even more so training should be a bit more practical and I think instructor's for self defense need monitoring to assure they comply with training as outlined in state statutes.
 

GunnyGene

Hawkeye
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
9,628
Location
Monroe County, MS
Blume I for one agree with you and I pretty much have a bit of a problem with people carrying without ANY training. Constitutional carry promoters disagree but when our nation was formed children had TWO parents and were taught by them how to shoot and handle a firearm.

In the real world "instructors" whose classes I've audited deviate substantially from NRA dogma of NOT discussing state firearm law rather than pointing them to the State statutes gun owner's are bound by.

Even sillier to comply with the "handle and discharge a firearm safely" provision of the applicable Florida CC statute, the classes I've seen are minimally effective as they fire a .22 short into a bucket of sand. That may follow the letter of the law but certainly not the intent and spirit of the law... IMO that is.

I'm definitely in favor of universal training (we do it for cars) but even more so training should be a bit more practical and I think instructor's for self defense need monitoring to assure they comply with training as outlined in state statutes.

The problem with govt. mandated training is that it is often used punitively to discourage people from ownership. I would not object to having it included as an elected subject in public schools provided it focused solely and exclusively on safety, ballistics, maintenance, and shooting skills. Membership in a School competition team would be voluntary like any other sport, but would require members to provide their own firearms, ammo, and other gear either directly or thru donations/sponsors.

State and/or Federal legalities are better left to a civics class.
 

contender

Ruger Guru
Joined
Sep 18, 2002
Messages
25,945
Location
Lake Lure NC USA
I see both sides to mandatory firearm training for all citizens.

I firmly believe if you are going to own a gun, use a gun, be around a gun etc,, you should know about safety & proper safe handling rules.

Kinda like "Hunter Safety Education" classes. It's required by many states to get the training prior to being allowed to buy a hunting license. Having been a HS Instructor for many years,, (recently retired,) I used to get the "Accident reports" put out for each season. They used to include data on how many licenses were sold (by the year) as well as the number if HS trained, as well as the number of shooting injuries and deaths. In the later years they started including tree stand falls. This data went back to 1960. And you could easily track the fact that when HS was added,, injuries & deaths were reduced.

They could do the same thing with firearms.

And yes,, I can see some "anti-gun types" "teaching" a class with a hard slant against gun ownership.

But I also see the side where a person believes in the Constitution as it was written. "Shall Not Be Infringed." Requiring mandatory training could be seen as an infringement.

Putting aside that argument,, I think the better solution would be to make firearm safety training a part of school curriculum starting in junior high, and through high school. Every year. AND,, require the instructors to NOT be normal teachers,, but people like game wardens or even LEO's. But to be an instructor,, those people would have to capable of showing proficiency in their own use of firearms, with regular updates to their credentials. To this end,, a person who is already involved in firearm training could apply for the instructor position,, but must be capable of producing credentials supporting their abilities.

By teaching it in schools,, in a place where the students aren't capable of legally purchasing a firearm yet,, it can start the safety training process. And that part,, doesn't infringe upon the Constitution. And yes,, I know that the "Shall not be infringed" part doesn't have an age limit. But that's another legal battle.

It would be a PIA to get qualified instructors. but I think it would help a lot. And to use their own phrase; "If it saves just one life,, isn't it worth it?"
 
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
7,560
Location
On the beach and in the hills
First define "training". I was raised with firearms, I served in the military. Does this constitute "training"? Or should I have to take additional "training", likely from someone with many years less experience, in order to exercise a my rights?

The whole "shall not be infringed" thing means no restrictions should be enacted. No special qualifications are required to exercise my right to " keep and bear" firearms.
 

gnappi

Blackhawk
Joined
Jul 4, 2023
Messages
584
Location
Florida
The problem with govt. mandated training is that it is often used punitively to discourage people from ownership. I would not object to having it included as an elected subject in public schools provided it focused solely and exclusively on safety, ballistics, maintenance, and shooting skills. Membership in a School competition team would be voluntary like any other sport, but would require members to provide their own firearms, ammo, and other gear either directly or thru donations/sponsors.

State and/or Federal legalities are better left to a civics class.
Gunny, you're right, some states still do have draconian hoops to jump through to exercise our rights cloaked in "state's rights" claims but...

I gotta point out that driver's licenses, licensing to cut hair, real estate, building contractors and a host of other endeavors are regulated by states and I do not think the holders of such certifications considered them punitive in any way nor did these requirements prevent people from engaging in them.

Jeepnik, here in Florida CW licensure always did make accommodation for vets, peeps who had previous hunter safety training (IMO never considered punitive or ever considered enough to stop hunter licensing), and folks who were members of shooting clubs etc. so a well crafted training requirement can work. But like everything, those who feel bound to restrict things can wordsmith legislation in a fashion to restrict or on the opposite side of the coin as in Florida promote rights.
 

Latest posts

Top