SC bill to end gun permit requirements passes House, setting up fight again with Senate

Gun owners in South Carolina would get the expanded freedom to bear arms if the state House of Representatives gets its way.

By a vote of 90-30, the House passed H.3594, an expansive gun rights bill that allows law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm openly or concealed without a concealed weapons permit.

“H.3594 restores a Second Amendment constitutional freedom, gives more options to individuals and families to protect themselves and cracks down on those in illegal possession of a firearm,” said state Rep. Bobby Cox, R-Greenville, who sponsored the bill.

Wednesday’s passage is the latest in a years-long attempt by House Republicans to pass a so-called “constitutional carry” measure, which is the belief the U.S. Constitution gives gun owners the right to carry without regulation. A similar version of the bill died in the state Senate in 2021 after clearing the House.

“This is a two purpose bill that we passed yesterday,” said House Speaker Murrell Smith, R-Sumter, during a news conference Thursday. “First, it protected our constitutional rights to bear arms, and more importantly, it also protected public safety.”

If the current proposal makes it through the Senate, South Carolina would become the 26th state allowing carry without permits.

It’s unclear, however, whether the Senate will take up the measure this year.

When asked if the Senate has the votes to pass such an expansive gun measure, Senate Majority Leader Shane Massey responded, “I don’t know.”

Sen. Shane Martin, R-Spartanburg, who pushed for the Senate to remove permitting requirements two years ago, believes he can get it done this year.

“I lost 21-25 last time I tried (to pass permitless carry),” Martin said. “I believe that two votes are different and we should be 23-23 without pressure. We should have enough to get it done,” adding that he’s filed a Senate version of “constitutional carry” but is willing to use the House’s version as a vehicle after reviewing any differences.

Fundamental right

Advocates argue that the right to keep and bear arms is an express fundamental right in both the U.S. and South Carolina Constitutions and, therefore, shouldn’t necessitate consent from the government.

“S.C. residents who can legally own a handgun should not need a permission slip from the government for a constitutional right,” said Cox, who, besides his legislative role, works as vice president of Sig Sauer, a gun manufacturing company. “I urge the Senate to take this up quickly.”

Other Republicans who support H.3594 say it strikes a balance between those who can carry legally and those who cannot.

“A person who generally can’t carry now, won’t be able to carry if this bill becomes law,” said state Rep. Jason Elliott, R-Greenville.

But Democrats disagree, arguing that the bill would allow younger adults to possess and carry a handgun.

“This body was told it’s (this bill) not going to change who can possess a gun,” said state Rep. Seth Rose, D-Richland. “That’s not true, because right now if you want to possess a gun and you want to get a concealed weapons permit, you have to be 21 years old. But in this legislation at the age of 18, no training needed, go get your gun.”

Nevertheless, Republicans contend that the bill would make South Carolina safer as it creates a new standard for who’s eligible to carry, while enhancing criminal penalties for those who are not.

“If we give law enforcement more tools to prosecute criminals who intentionally carry guns unlawfully, and we extend the constitutional right to law abiding citizens, I believe that will make our state safer,” said state Rep. Travis Moore, R-Spartanburg.

Under federal law, it’s illegal for any convicted felon to possess a firearm in South Carolina. But Smith said Thursday that offenders of non-violent felonies can only be prosecuted by federal officials, who are stretched thin.

“One thing that we’ve heard loudly and clearly from law enforcement is felons are continuing to carry guns because there are no consequences (on the state level),” Smith said. “What we’re trying to do is bring ourselves in line with what the federal government says (about felons in possession of firearms).”

Although law enforcement has historically opposed gun laws that remove permitting requirements, there doesn’t appear to be any opposition this time around, according to proponents of the bill.

“I think that if law enforcement was opposed to the bill, you would hear from it,” Elliott said. “I would expect that everybody in this room we’ll be hearing from them, but I have not heard opposition (from law enforcement) to the bill.”

Though opposed to the measure, State Rep. Todd Rutherford, D-Richland, said he helped to improve the bill by helping to ensure people of color aren’t harassed by the police just because they’re carrying a firearm openly.

“I offered an amendment to stop law enforcement from using open carry as grounds for reasonable suspicion or probable cause. This protects everyone, especially people of color, from unjustified searches and seizures,” Rutherford said.

More restrictions equals more freedom?

Under the bill, it would be unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in jail to possess a gun or ammunition in the state, changing the current law that only stops those convicted of a violent felony from possessing a firearm or ammunition.

Democrats say provisions that add criminal penalties blatantly contradict the spirit of “constitutional carry” by creating more barriers to gun ownership.

“If you want to pass constitutional carry, why not have a standalone constitutional carry (bill)?” Rose said, opposing the proposal. “Why are we also restricting gun rights in the same bill?”

Other Democrats took issue with what they called a double-standard in the proposal relating to who can carry a firearm in certain restricted places like a courthouse or detention facility. Solicitors, for example, would be allowed to carry guns in jails while public defenders would not.

“Whatever the attorney general can do, whatever a solicitor can do, the public defender would be able to do the same thing,” said state Rep. Justin Bamberg, D-Bamberg. He was defending a failed amendment that would allow public defenders to carry in correctional facilities.

However, a later amendment by state Rep. Travis Moore, R-Spartanburg, was adopted, adding public defenders to the list of people who can carry where others cannot, but still restricting them from carrying into jails or prisons.

Currently, South Carolina gun owners must undergo training through a certified concealed weapons course before applying for a permit. H.3594 would strike that requirement.

“Training is something that I would recommend for responsible and lawful gun ownership,” Elliott said. “But the Constitution of the U.S. does not require that or any special permission to exercise your Second Amendment rights.”

Republicans were careful to clarify via an amendment that while training isn’t mandated under the bill, it is encouraged.

Firearms are still prohibited on the State House grounds and in businesses and buildings where signage states firearms are not allowed whether concealed or carried openly. Guns also are prohibited on school grounds when students are in school or involved in extracurricular activities on the grounds. However, the law allows concealed or open carry on school grounds when a church leases areas within the school for a church service or official church activity and students are not present.

Wednesday’s vote marks the third contentious bill the House has passed this session, following measures blocking critical race theory and abortion.

“I just want to emphasize when we released our (conservative) agenda in December, we made promises that we were going to pass them, and today you’re seeing us keeping those promises by continuing to pass our agenda methodically every week,” Smith said.