The South Carolina 2023 legislative session has informally adjourned without a sine-die resolution and has no plans to return this calendar year. Despite the adjournment, both NRA-backed Constitutional Carry bills, S. 109 and H. 3594, are still alive and will be pending on the Senate floor when the legislature returns in January 2024.
As a reminder, H. 3594 received bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, as well as the backing of Governor McMaster. In the Senate, S. 109 was amended to adopt the NRA’s preferred language, resulting in two legislative opportunities to move forward in January. There is a strong chance that constitutional carry will be among the first bills considered when the legislative session resumes in January 2024.
Constitutional Carry legislation recognizes the fundamental right of law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment freedoms without unnecessary restrictions. Its passage would have South Carolina join 27 other states, which ensure that responsible individuals can protect themselves, their loved ones, and their property with peace of mind.
We urge you to stay vigilant and engaged while the session is adjourned. It is crucial to maintain momentum and continue advocating for Constitutional Carry. Reach out to your elected officials, voice your unwavering support for these bills, and let them know that you stand with Governor McMaster and the NRA in prioritizing the protection of our constitutional rights.
We will provide you with further updates and action alerts throughout the year. Your NRA-ILA will continue to keep you informed of opportunities to engage your elected officials and continue to put pressure on the Senate. Constitutional carry remains the legislative priority in the Palmetto State.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
AmmoLand has censored two non-abusive comments, so far? Why?
“In the Senate, S. 109 was amended to adopt the NRA’s preferred language, resulting in two legislative opportunities to move forward in January.”
I wonder what “the NRA’s preferred language” is. I need to contact PGR and see what this is about. Methinks you are right about them throwing a wrench in the works!
Contacted PGR via e-mail and got a canned response. Sent another and hoping for something more on-point about whatever Negotiating Rights Away might be up to.
Very curious to hear more about the “preferred language” that caused so many problems. If anyone familiar with the SC bill can share, that would be very helpful.
Hi J Gibbons! I wasn’t intentionally ignoring you. It has been a busy day. I hope the info posted elsewhere on this page is helpful to you, too.
Take care!
Hi Ope! I reached out to Palmetto Gun Rights about this but got a canned response unrelated to the NRA shenanigans. I will continue attempting to find something out and let you know when/if I do.
I sent a prior msg and for some reason it went to the AmmoLand censorship bin.
Hi Ope! I did receive an on-target response from Palmetto Gun Rights! I include the majority of it here, edited for privacy. In all fairness to them, my initial query was made on a weekend. They may have been busy and were hoping to help answer my question with the canned response. The guys and gals who do battle in the Legislature for us deserve time off, also. Here is the edited response: “Yes, we followed that closely and amendment said language. As it was initially written, it would have barred anyone with a misdemeanor that carried a penalty over… Read more »
Hi Ope! I had discussed this with a member of PGR’s staff earlier in the year. As I recall, and subject to correction, some of LE was whining and had gotten members of the Legislature to say they would not vote for passage without language about felonies. PGR, as myself, were not happy about that as there is growing push-back to the concept that a felony denies your gun rights forever. I think there was hope that this language might be cleaned out later in the process but it now looks unlikely. PGR seems to have accomplished the most of… Read more »
Ope, I sent you a response but once again have been cast into AL censorship hell. Hopefully they will free my comment, soon.
It’s not constitutional carry and, if it were, the NRA wouldn’t be supporting it.
True that Stag, but it is the best approximation to the name that we currently hope to have. My hope is, if we ever get this done, that we can start working on those pointless and dangerous “prohibited places” or “Gun Free Zones” as they are also known.