User Panel
[#1]
Well the legislative session just started. Seems the houses version of the constitutional carry bill was recalled from the committee and is pending full floor vote at the end of last session.
This is the same thing that happened with the open carry bill when it passed. Got the follow email from NRA. Today, January 9th, the South Carolina Legislature begins its 2024 legislative session in Columbia! Last year, the South Carolina House passed Constitutional Carry (H. 3594) and sent it over to the Senate to be taken up this year. The bill is currently awaiting a vote on the Senate floor, so PLEASE contact your South Carolina Senator and urge them to vote “Yes” on H3594, NRA supported Constitutional Carry legislation. |
|
[#2]
The Mad Mommies and the Black Church Mafia still say "no."
Gotta keep people on the plantation. Attached File |
|
[#3]
Some movement;
The bill will be debated on the Senate floor tomorrow. Call your senator again. |
|
[#4]
https://x.com/scgunrights/status/1750300780697985439?s=46&t=xzAocZ9cgsqDPxyfs8MWrg
Started debate on the bill today. Typical “Wild West” arguments against it. |
|
[#5]
Quoted: https://x.com/scgunrights/status/1750300780697985439?s=46&t=xzAocZ9cgsqDPxyfs8MWrg Started debate on the bill today. Typical “Wild West” arguments against it. View Quote It's always the same group of retards with the same tired and stupid arguments- somehow it hasn't happened in any of the other states that allow it but it'll happen here. Go play in traffic, morons. |
|
[#6]
Any updates ? I haven't heard anything since the day before yesterday.
|
|
[#7]
Quoted: Any updates ? I haven't heard anything since the day before yesterday. View Quote Attached File Twitter link |
|
[#8]
|
|
[#9]
Passed 2nd reading today. One BS amendment added increasing the penalty for carrying in a posted area. Rinos strike again.
|
|
[#10]
Penalties are BS; so few places are actually posted that I don't even pay attention walking into places and have legitimately not noticed a sign before. Maybe that's why those feeble-minded douchebags at whole foods have one on either door.
|
|
[#11]
Quoted: Penalties are BS; so few places are actually posted that I don't even pay attention walking into places and have legitimately not noticed a sign before. Maybe that's why those feeble-minded douchebags at whole foods have one on either door. View Quote the Lidl here has a sign about 80 inches high on the glass next to the doors that actually gets blocked when the door opens.. Took me a year of shopping there before I noticed it. |
|
[#12]
The Waffle House in Easley has a yellow square sign on a window that says " No Firearms on Premises." Doesn't have the universal circle slash anywhere. From now on, my late breakfasts will be at the IHOP.
I guess they plan on entrapping the immigrants that don't read English too well. |
|
[#13]
Quoted: The Waffle House in Easley has a yellow square sign on a window that says " No Firearms on Premises." Doesn't have the universal circle slash anywhere. From now on, my late breakfasts will be at the IHOP. I guess they plan on entrapping the immigrants that don't read English too well. View Quote Doesn't meet the official sign requirements (last I heard) so you can still ignore it can't you? |
|
[#14]
Passed the senate 28-15 today. Goes back to the house to deal with the amendments the senate added.
|
|
[#15]
|
|
[#16]
Quoted: I dont know what amendments were added or how many. I see posts saying amendment 36 is going to kill it? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Passed the senate 28-15 today. Goes back to the house to deal with the amendments the senate added. I dont know what amendments were added or how many. I see posts saying amendment 36 is going to kill it? Full text in spoiler below, but -makes SLED have a CWP class available at least twice a month, per county. -Makes it so someone without a CWP can get an additional charge if they have a gun during the commission of certain crimes, where someone with with the CWP wouldn’t have the extra charge. Allows an 18 year old to obtain a CWP permit. Massey kept saying he was “pro gun but believes training and background checks should be required”. This amendment was his way of incentivizing people to get a CWP. Click To View Spoiler Amendment No. 36 Senators MASSEY and CAMPSEN proposed the following amendment (SR-3594.JG0169S), which was adopted: Amend the bill, as and if amended, by adding appropriately numbered sections to read: SECTION X. Section 23-31-215 of the S.C. Code is amended by adding: (V) (1) The State Law Enforcement Division shall provide a state-wide concealed weapon permit training course that satisfies the proof of training requirement for the issuance of a concealed weapon permit. SLED may not charge participants a fee of any kind for the concealed weapon permit training course provided for in this subsection. SLED may contract with private certified concealed weapon permit training class instructors or local law enforcement to provide the course or SLED itself may provide the course. (2) The training course must be offered in every county in South Carolina at least twice per month. If demand exceeds the capacity of the training course in any county, SLED shall provide additional classes until there exists a sufficient number of classes offered at least twice a month to meet the demand for training in each respective county. If SLED is unable to contract with a certified concealed weapon permit training class instructor or local law enforcement in any county, SLED must conduct the training class for that county. (3) This program does not prohibit any certified concealed weapon permit training class instructors from providing their own training classes and charging participants a fee. SECTION X. Chapter 23, Title 16 of the S.C. Code is amended by adding: Section 16-23-495. (A) A person convicted of committing or attempting to commit a crime involving a concealable weapon as defined by 23-31-210(5) in violation of an offense listed in Chapter 23, Title 16, or a violation of Section 10-11-320, must be imprisoned not to exceed three years. A term of imprisonment imposed for violating this section must be served consecutively to any term of imprisonment imposed for the underlying offense, and may not exceed the actual sentence imposed for the underlying offense. (B) This section does not apply to a person with a valid permit to carry a concealable weapon issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, provided that the permit was valid at the time the crime was committed. (C) The additional punishment may not be imposed unless the indictment alleged as a separate count that the person was in possession of a concealable weapon without a valid concealed weapon permit during the commission of the crime and conviction was had upon this count in the indictment. The penalties prescribed in this section may not be imposed unless the person convicted was at the same time indicted and convicted of the underlying crime. (D) The State Law Enforcement Division shall develop a document and distribute it to retailers that are federally licensed to engage in the business of dealing in or selling firearms in South Carolina. Such retailers shall provide the document to gun purchasers in South Carolina to inform them that South Carolina law provides a process for gun owners to obtain a concealed weapon permit and allows law-abiding gun owners to carry their weapons without a permit. The document must inform gun purchasers that if a gun owner commits a crime involving a concealable weapon, and the owner does not have a valid concealed weapon permit, then there may be an additional criminal penalty for the underlying offense. (E) The State Law Enforcement Division must conduct a regular, statewide marketing campaign to inform South Carolinians that South Carolina law provides a process for gun owners to obtain a concealed weapon permit and allows law-abiding gun owners to carry their weapons without a permit. The campaign must inform gun purchasers that if a gun owner commits a crime involving a concealable weapon, and the owner does not have a valid concealed weapon permit, then there may be an additional criminal penalty for the underlying offense. SECTION X. Section 23-31-215(A) of the S.C. Code is amended to read: (A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except subject to subsection (B), SLED must issue a permit, which is no larger than three and one-half inches by three inches in size, to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty-one eighteen years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon upon submission of: (1) a completed application signed by the person; (2) a photocopy of a driver's license or photographic identification card; (3) proof of residence or if the person is a qualified nonresident, proof of ownership of real property in this State; (4) proof of actual or corrected vision rated at within six months of the date of application or, in the case of a person licensed to operate a motor vehicle in this State, presentation of a valid driver's license; (5) proof of training; and (6) a complete set of fingerprints unless, because of a medical condition verified in writing by a licensed medical doctor, a complete set of fingerprints is impossible to submit. In lieu of the submission of fingerprints, the applicant must submit the written statement from a licensed medical doctor specifying the reason or reasons why the applicant's fingerprints may not be taken. If all other qualifications are met, the Chief of SLED may waive the fingerprint requirements of this item. The statement of medical limitation must be attached to the copy of the application retained by SLED. A law enforcement agency may charge a fee not to exceed five dollars for fingerprinting an applicant. Renumber sections to conform. Amend title to conform. Senator MASSEY explained the amendment. Senator HUTTO spoke on the amendment. Remarks to be Printed On motion of Senator SABB, with unanimous consent, the remarks of Senator HUTTO, when reduced to writing and made available to the Desk, would be printed in the Journal. Senator HUTTO moved to lay the amendment on the table. The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows: Ayes 13; Nays 28 AYES Allen Devine Hutto Malloy Matthews McElveen McLeod Sabb Senn Setzler Stephens Tedder Williams Total--13 NAYS Adams Alexander Bennett Campsen Cash Climer Corbin Cromer Davis Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Gustafson Hembree Johnson, Michael Kimbrell Loftis Martin Massey Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Shealy Turner Verdin Young Total--28 Having failed to receive the necessary vote, the motion to table failed. RECESS At 11:34 P.M., on motion of Senator HUTTO, the Senate receded from business not to exceed 5 minutes. At 11:44 P.M., the Senate resumed. The question then was the adoption of the amendment. The "ayes" and "nays" were demanded and taken, resulting as follows: Ayes 28; Nays 13 AYES Adams Alexander Bennett Campsen Cash Climer Corbin Cromer Davis Gambrell Garrett Goldfinch Grooms Gustafson Hembree Johnson, Michael Kimbrell Loftis Martin Massey Peeler Rankin Reichenbach Rice Shealy Turner Verdin Young Total--28 NAYS Allen Devine Hutto Malloy Matthews McElveen McLeod Sabb Senn Setzler Stephens Tedder Williams Total--13 The amendment was adopted. |
|
[#17]
SC: SHOCKING: REPUBLICAN ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE CONSTITUTIONAL CARRY FROM BILL
Sen. Chip Campsen’s Amendment Removes Constitutional Carry The South Carolina Senate displayed a fireworks show as several anti-gun amendments were debated and passed late into the night. And the jaws’ of gun owners should be on the floor after what happened. In one of the most shocking moves ever seen in a state capitol, “Republican” Senator Chip Campsen introduced an amendment to remove the Constitutional Carry language from the bill, leaving only increased penalties for gun crimes. Yes, you read that right, a self-described “avid hunter,” Chip Campsen, sought to remove your freedom to carry a firearm free of government oppression from the bill. To pile on, other powerful Senate “Republicans,” such as Sen. Stephen Goldfinch, supported this amendment as well. Constituents of these “Republicans” may want to call and politely ask why they do not support your right to carry a firearm freely. Sen. Chip Campsen – (803) 212-6340 Sen. Stephen Goldfinch — (803) 212-6172 To be very clear, Sen. Campsen’s amendment failed, albeit narrowly, by a 24-19 vote. Constitutional Carry is alive, for now. However, this amendment vote does show you which Senators support your constitutional rights, and which — despite what is said on the campaign trail — do not. While I wish I had more good news to report, two more anti-gun amendments were added, such as a duty to report a lost or stolen firearm and increased penalties for Constitutional Carriers. The latter would effectively create two classes of gun owners with different “privileges” granted to them by the state. Because of the addition of these amendments, the bill will eventually have to go back to the House of Representatives. It is possible, however, that these amendments could be removed in that chamber. You can contact both your Senator and Representative here. Tell them the same message, pass clean Constitutional Carry! In Liberty, Jordan Stein Certified Firearms Instructor Southeast Region Director Gun Owners of America CLICK HERE TO TAKE ACTION |
|
[#18]
The unfriendly to guns republicans have really been working to get those increased penalties for violating no carry sign provisions.
At least there is a carve out that it doesn't apply to people with a CWP(still a violation like before), but damn up to three years in prison for people that don't have a CWP. This is kind of a nice change though from that clusterfuck of vehicle rules we had before.(the clusterfuck rules still apply to schools, but you don't need a CWP to park at a school with the firearm in your glove/trunk/compartment anymore) "Notwithstanding any provision in this section, a person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from carrying a firearm may lawfully store a firearm anywhere in a vehicle whether occupied or unoccupied." Also no more duty to inform law enforcement when asked for ID. Also it looks like they tied some graduated penalties into this for repeat offenses, probably what McMaster was after in his state of the state address. 18 year olds can now get CWPs Can get CWP flair on drivers license now? They always have to shoehorn some bullshit in there, but overall it's a net positive. |
|
[#19]
Quoted: The unfriendly to guns republicans have really been working to get those increased penalties for violating no carry sign provisions. At least there is a carve out that it doesn't apply to people with a CWP(still a violation like before), but damn up to three years in prison for people that don't have a CWP. This is kind of a nice change though from that clusterfuck of vehicle rules we had before.(the clusterfuck rules still apply to schools, but you don't need a CWP to park at a school with the firearm in your glove/trunk/compartment anymore) "Notwithstanding any provision in this section, a person who is not otherwise prohibited by law from carrying a firearm may lawfully store a firearm anywhere in a vehicle whether occupied or unoccupied." Also no more duty to inform law enforcement when asked for ID. Also it looks like they tied some graduated penalties into this for repeat offenses, probably what McMaster was after in his state of the state address. 18 year olds can now get CWPs Can get CWP flair on drivers license now? They always have to shoehorn some bullshit in there, but overall it's a net positive. View Quote Agree. Overall an improvement. We should take any win we can get, even if some things are not ideal. We lose rights via incrementalism, so we need to use the same method to move in the right direction. There are parts I don’t like but hopefully the house will accept and McMaster signs and then we can start the process to remove the parts we don’t like. |
|
[#20]
Yesterday I received a telephone call/automated message from some organization called "Citizen's Action" or something similar asking me to call my SC House rep as the "Senate is trying to kill constitutional carry by inserting poison pill amendments". I don't ever recall using said phone number in any contact with state/federal reps (I use my cell number). Tone of message was the typical NRA shrillness.
In addition when I try to use GOA's contact page I get an error message saying I cannot use the system for another 7 days as I've already sent them a message. Anyone else? |
|
[#21]
I've had the same "7 days" error with the GOA campaign page. Not only for the current carry bill, but for other federal-level email campaigns they've done.
The page that GOA pushed yesterday for the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (UFA) reauthorization was broken or too busy. It would not load my representatives. |
|
[#22]
Quoted: I've had the same "7 days" error with the GOA campaign page. Not only for the current carry bill, but for other federal-level email campaigns they've done. The page that GOA pushed yesterday for the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988 (UFA) reauthorization was broken or too busy. It would not load my representatives. View Quote Ditto. |
|
[#23]
Overall, this bill, even with the amendments, is a big win.
For example, you know those magnet mounts to hold a pistol under your dash for instant access? They would be legal with this bill vs the current requirement for the gun to be in a compartment. My biggest disappointment has been the propaganda and spin coming out of PGR and NAGR. They're using exaggerations and spin to get people (who haven't read the bill themselves) worked into a lather. Why? To draw attention to their organization? Fund raising? Recruiting members? Stiffer penalties for non-CWP holders who break laws? Law-abiding citizens know that doesn't apply to them. I want this bill passed. |
|
[#24]
Quoted: Overall, this bill, even with the amendments, is a big win. For example, you know those magnet mounts to hold a pistol under your dash for instant access? They would be legal with this bill vs the current requirement for the gun to be in a compartment. My biggest disappointment has been the propaganda and spin coming out of PGR and NAGR. They're using exaggerations and spin to get people (who haven't read the bill themselves) worked into a lather. Why? To draw attention to their organization? Fund raising? Recruiting members? Stiffer penalties for non-CWP holders who break laws? Law-abiding citizens know that doesn't apply to them. I want this bill passed. View Quote I agree this should pass. The reality is there are a handful of guys in the R column in the senate who are a pain in the ass at getting a clean pro gun bill through. NAGR and them aren't accounting for how many times they have torpedoed permitless carry. While I would love that amendment to be stripped out by the house, it will likely kill the bill. But, no concealed weapons signs should not carry the force of law. So breaking the law in this case is breaking a law that shouldn't exist. It is no ones business what is in my pants. This goes the wrong way on that and it should be on our agenda to rectify it in the future. The anti carry propaganda will make the proliferation of no carry signs worse, we need to take the teeth out of them. Since it seems like the only way to get something done with guns is with incrementalism, after this passes, next session they should introduce a bill that makes signs not hold the force of law when carrying concealed, and they only are enforceable against open carry. Then go from there. |
|
[#25]
The House rejected the ammended Senate bill. They are sending their original bill back. Maybe it’ll make it out of conference.
|
|
[#26]
Quoted: The House rejected the ammended Senate bill. They are sending their original bill back. Maybe it’ll make it out of conference. View Quote We’ll see what happens I guess. This will sound defeatist but I’d rather them concur with the amendment and then work to remove the BS amendments ETA: Attached File |
|
[#27]
Quoted: We'll see what happens I guess. This will sound defeatist but I'd rather them concur with the amendment and then work to remove the BS amendments ETA: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429115/IMG_7084_jpeg-3122672.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: The House rejected the ammended Senate bill. They are sending their original bill back. Maybe it'll make it out of conference. We'll see what happens I guess. This will sound defeatist but I'd rather them concur with the amendment and then work to remove the BS amendments ETA: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429115/IMG_7084_jpeg-3122672.JPG Yeah, I'm pretty split about it. Practically, it seems like it will just end in another year without permitless carry. Ideologically, the house is right, but the senate has always been the problem. Oh well, here's hopin'! |
|
[#29]
House sent the bill back to the senate today without the amendments.
Call your senators and tell them to pass a clean bill. |
|
[#30]
https://www.scstatehouse.gov/email.php?T=M&C=SMEMBERS
Link to email all senators |
|
[#31]
|
|
[#33]
So is this officially dead now? If so we should have just passed what we could and fixed it later.
|
|
[#34]
Quoted: So is this officially dead now? If so we should have just passed what we could and fixed it later. View Quote Maybe, maybe not- we have seen a huge influx of lefties from other states as SC has attracted more industry (and I'd bet dollars to donuts with the help of lefty organizations) and we're increasingly seeing them get involved in politics, trying to change things to the way they were in the failing/failed states they fled. I know we've made a lot of good strides, but between the homegrown retards (democrats and RINO/Fudds) and the invaders, I'm not sure if accepting some of these compromises and then hoping to change them later is a good plan. JMHO. |
|
[#35]
Sucks to hear you guys won't be getting constitutional carry.
The SC Senate has some serious cunts that need to be kicked out in the next Republican primaries. |
|
[#36]
Quoted: Maybe, maybe not- we have seen a huge influx of lefties from other states as SC has attracted more industry (and I'd bet dollars to donuts with the help of lefty organizations) and we're increasingly seeing them get involved in politics, trying to change things to the way they were in the failing/failed states they fled. I know we've made a lot of good strides, but between the homegrown retards (democrats and RINO/Fudds) and the invaders, I'm not sure if accepting some of these compromises and then hoping to change them later is a good plan. JMHO. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: So is this officially dead now? If so we should have just passed what we could and fixed it later. Maybe, maybe not- we have seen a huge influx of lefties from other states as SC has attracted more industry (and I'd bet dollars to donuts with the help of lefty organizations) and we're increasingly seeing them get involved in politics, trying to change things to the way they were in the failing/failed states they fled. I know we've made a lot of good strides, but between the homegrown retards (democrats and RINO/Fudds) and the invaders, I'm not sure if accepting some of these compromises and then hoping to change them later is a good plan. JMHO. Are opponents are taking compromises and thats how theyre winning. Taking anything they can get. Like hicap mag bans. Wanting 10, but taking 15, then working to 10, then ny has what 7 rounds. The only comprises were what different penalties for cwp and noncwp holders? |
|
[#37]
Quoted: Are opponents are taking compromises and thats how theyre winning. Taking anything they can get. Like hicap mag bans. Wanting 10, but taking 15, then working to 10, then ny has what 7 rounds. The only comprises were what different penalties for cwp and noncwp holders? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So is this officially dead now? If so we should have just passed what we could and fixed it later. Maybe, maybe not- we have seen a huge influx of lefties from other states as SC has attracted more industry (and I'd bet dollars to donuts with the help of lefty organizations) and we're increasingly seeing them get involved in politics, trying to change things to the way they were in the failing/failed states they fled. I know we've made a lot of good strides, but between the homegrown retards (democrats and RINO/Fudds) and the invaders, I'm not sure if accepting some of these compromises and then hoping to change them later is a good plan. JMHO. Are opponents are taking compromises and thats how theyre winning. Taking anything they can get. Like hicap mag bans. Wanting 10, but taking 15, then working to 10, then ny has what 7 rounds. The only comprises were what different penalties for cwp and noncwp holders? I'm not disagreeing with you, especially on this particular bill, I think we're basically saying the same thing- we keep compromising with this archaic idea that we'll fix what we don't like in the future. Occasionally that works, but as you noted, they keep incrementalizing (is that a word?) us to get what they want. Worse, they use that compromise to say it's set some sort of "precedent". I'm not a lawyer and I'm definitely not in politics so I don't know what the answers are. |
|
[#38]
Newz says that the house has again rejected the Senate version of the bill to which was added a poison pill amendment giving nearly limitless carry privileges to legislators because as we all know they're special.
|
|
[#39]
Quoted: Newz says that the house has again rejected the Senate version of the bill to which was added a poison pill amendment giving nearly limitless carry privileges to legislators because as we all know they're special. View Quote All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. |
|
[#40]
Quoted: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Newz says that the house has again rejected the Senate version of the bill to which was added a poison pill amendment giving nearly limitless carry privileges to legislators because as we all know they're special. All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. Funny (and not in the haha way), the same quote ran through my head when I read that. |
|
[#41]
Committee voted on it today. Less punishment for CWP holders who carry into posted areas remained in the bill.
It passed the committee and goes to the house and senate for a yes / no vote. No additional amendments can be added. If a majority say yes in the senate and house, it goes to the governor. |
|
[#42]
|
|
[#43]
Quoted: House passed it already. Now waiting on the senate (again). https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429115/IMG_7324_jpeg-3150234.JPG View Quote Is there any reason to believe Massey has changed his mind? He seems to be the lynchpin of the opposition. Our younger version of Mitch McConnell. |
|
[#44]
Quoted: Is there any reason to believe Massey has changed his mind? He seems to be the lynchpin of the opposition. Our younger version of Mitch McConnell. View Quote No way to know what the rino will do. In theory, his BS amendment is still in the bill and he was on the conference committee so he could if joined the dems against it there, but who knows. A couple of SC 2a groups on Twitter seem to think the senate will pass it. |
|
[#45]
|
|
[#47]
Did the house actually improve the bill in any way? I haven't taken the time to compare it to the last draft.
|
|
[#48]
Quoted: Did the house actually improve the bill in any way? I haven't taken the time to compare it to the last draft. View Quote They did remove some of the BS, but the big one stayed in keeping two different penalties for CWP holder vs a non-CWP holder. Looks like the senate is voting today. Attached File |
|
[#49]
Quoted: They did remove some of the BS, but the big one stayed in keeping two different penalties for CWP holder vs a non-CWP holder. Looks like the senate is voting today. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429115/IMG_7325_jpeg-3150862.JPG View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Did the house actually improve the bill in any way? I haven't taken the time to compare it to the last draft. They did remove some of the BS, but the big one stayed in keeping two different penalties for CWP holder vs a non-CWP holder. Looks like the senate is voting today. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429115/IMG_7325_jpeg-3150862.JPG Have you got a link that summarizes this or do you know what these are off the top of your head? I'm confused as to which version they're pushing right now and the local media is basically no help, just the usual obfuscation and doomsaying (western gunfights in the streets and the same police officers and democrats we always see who oppose any loosening of restrictions) without any actual info. If I'm reading it right, the penalties only apply to non-CWP holders who repeatedly violate the No-CWP locations rule. I'm sure that PoS Keel is furious that they are talking about having to offer free classes. He needs to move to NY, California or somewhere that better suites his type. |
|
[#50]
Quoted: Have you got a link that summarizes this or do you know what these are off the top of your head? I'm confused as to which version they're pushing right now and the local media is basically no help, just the usual obfuscation and doomsaying (western gunfights in the streets and the same police officers and democrats we always see who oppose any loosening of restrictions) without any actual info. If I'm reading it right, the penalties only apply to non-CWP holders who repeatedly violate the No-CWP locations rule. I'm sure that PoS Keel is furious that they are talking about having to offer free classes. He needs to move to NY, California or somewhere that better suites his type. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Did the house actually improve the bill in any way? I haven't taken the time to compare it to the last draft. They did remove some of the BS, but the big one stayed in keeping two different penalties for CWP holder vs a non-CWP holder. Looks like the senate is voting today. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/429115/IMG_7325_jpeg-3150862.JPG Have you got a link that summarizes this or do you know what these are off the top of your head? I'm confused as to which version they're pushing right now and the local media is basically no help, just the usual obfuscation and doomsaying (western gunfights in the streets and the same police officers and democrats we always see who oppose any loosening of restrictions) without any actual info. If I'm reading it right, the penalties only apply to non-CWP holders who repeatedly violate the No-CWP locations rule. I'm sure that PoS Keel is furious that they are talking about having to offer free classes. He needs to move to NY, California or somewhere that better suites his type. This taking away valuable SLED time covering up for corrupt sheriffs and legislators. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.