PERMITLESS CARRY

I wonder if the State/County will still issue CC permits for those that want them.

Same for NC if we get permitless carry
 
Gardner said:
I wonder if the State/County will still issue CC permits for those that want them.

Same for NC if we get permitless carry
Click to expand...
I’m kinda torn…
I kinda like the idea of
the cwp to a point-

only in that I know the CLEO will look up an individual, so if I decide to cell-sell-sail a firearm I can see it and have some warm and fuzzy that u are not a prohibited person.

Dont flame me to hard
 
Gardner said:
I wonder if the State/County will still issue CC permits for those that want them.

Same for NC if we get permitless carry
Click to expand...
I would imagine they will because of reciprocity. NC is actually one of the better permits for it as well. Only 10 states deny it, and they’re the usual suspects : CA, OR, IL and parts of yankee-ville. Surprisingly, even NH and VT recognize it.
 
JBoyette said:
Why?

It's useless at that point
Click to expand...
I travel a lot…
Until every state east of the Mississippi River and south and west of N40 W-080 has it, I’ll keep mine. Eventually, NC will get it. VA is kinda purple right now (R governor and Lt governor AND AG, but very blue legislature. Thank God they don’t have Veto-proof majority though…) , so…. 🤷🏼‍♂️
 
Last edited:
MacEntyre said:
@BatteryOaksBilly must be snarlin' over Sen. Luke Rankin - R Horry - who was the sole Senate Republican to vote against the bill in February.
Click to expand...
Don't let Chip Campsen off the hook. That turd skipped the February vote, rightfully got his district blasted with flyers from gun rights groups calling him out, and then wrote this garbage in the newspaper a few days ago.
 
To repeat what I've said in another thread,

The ideal carry scheme for NC would be:
-Full constitutional carry, as the US Constitution is already supposed to protect
- An "EZ tier" permit that's free of charge, doesn't ever expire, and is instantly issued after a NICS check (for reciprocity with states like Virginia that accept ALL permits)
- An "enhanced" permit that's also free of charge, but includes the 5-year expiration, fingerprinting, and live fire (all of which are unfortunately required for maximum reciprocity and NICS bypass).

Until we live in a world where the federal government and other states recognize our rights, this is the best way for NC to protect them.
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
To repeat what I've said in another thread,

The ideal carry scheme for NC would be:
-Full constitutional carry, as the US Constitution is already supposed to protect
- An "EZ tier" permit that's free of charge, doesn't ever expire, and is instantly issued after a NICS check (for reciprocity with states that accept ALL permits)
- An "enhanced" permit that's also free of charge, but includes the 5-year expiration, fingerprinting, and live fire (all of which are unfortunately required for maximum reciprocity and NICS bypass).

Until we live in a world where the federal government and other states recognize our rights, this is the best way for NC to protect them.
Click to expand...
You lost any chance of any of this from the Government/state when you said FREE
 
Amps 13 said:
You lost any chance of any of this from the Government/state when you said FREE
Click to expand...
If Indiana can issue them for free, then so can North Carolina. If they can give degenerates our hard-earned money to sit on their porches and sell drugs, they can sure as heck use tax revenue to cover the cost of protecting citizens' rights, which is the only legitimate purpose of government anyways.
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
If Indiana can issue them for free, then so can North Carolina. If they can give degenerates our hard-earned money to sit on their porches and sell drugs, they can sure as heck use tax revenue to cover the cost of protecting citizens' rights, which is the only legitimate purpose of government anyways.
Click to expand...
Not arguing just saying it’s not an easy thing to get through.
 
jeepyjguy1987 said:
Saw this nugget

Click to expand...

He promised us this in 2016, along with taking suppressors off the NFA. Instead, he directed the ATF to redefine a bump stock as a machine gun.

I will vote for him in November, but his only contribution to the 2A community has been the appointment of three Supreme Court Justices. And it looks like later this year, those justices will strike down his bump stock ban.
 
Last edited:
Trump's biggest strength is his foreign policy. Possibly the best foreign policy president we have ever had.

Even the three justices he appointed suck for the most part. For every decent decision they release, they're putting out 2-3 awful ones. With a Republican Senate and president, we ought to have been getting more Thomases, not more Robertses.

With that said, he and McConnell crammed through lots of great federal judges who are now in the various circuits all around the country, and that is really important.
 
Last edited:
MostWanted said:
He promised us this in 2016, along with taking suppressors off the NFA. Instead, he directed the ATF to redefine a bump stock as a machine gun.

I will vote for him in November, but his only contribution to the 2A community has been the appointment of three Supreme Court Justices. And it looks like later this year, those justices will strike down his bump stock ban.
Click to expand...
So in a roundabout way he still delivered...
 
MostWanted said:
He promised us this in 2016, along with taking suppressors off the NFA. Instead, he directed the ATF to redefine a bump stock as a machine gun.

I will vote for him in November, but his only contribution to the 2A community has been the appointment of three Supreme Court Justices. And it looks like later this year, those justices will strike down his bump stock ban.
Click to expand...
I hope you're right but I'm doubtful. Trump appointments over turning trump bans seems less likely
 
yellolab said:
Yup. I hail from Vermont originally, so no permits are normal for me. Most people understand this does not equate to more gun crime.
Click to expand...

My opinion.....those who are committing "gun crimes" aren't likely to get a permit to carry.

So permitting has no affect on them or the crimes they commit, or the number.

Permits/laws only impact law abiding citizens obviously.
 
noway2 said:
I would imagine they will because of reciprocity. NC is actually one of the better permits for it as well. Only 10 states deny it, and they’re the usual suspects : CA, OR, IL and parts of yankee-ville. Surprisingly, even NH and VT recognize it.
Click to expand...
NH is constitutional carry..it previously had concealed carry with an easy to get permit, but it changed to no permit needed for concealed carry a few years ago.

It was still possible to get a concealed carry permit to make it easy when traveling to reciprocity states.
My wife and I had them — but we had to get beyond Mass and NY for them to be useful.
 
S4f said:
Does permitless carry apply to residents of that state only? If so you'll still need a permit of you travel out of state and carry
Click to expand...

I'm leaning towards residents, but I may be wrong.

The issue here is context.

For example, SC 23-31-210 (definitions) defines what a "resident" is for the purpose of Title 23. 23-31-215 (Issuance of permits) uses the word "residents" in it. Everything about this involves "residents" of SC, not residents of any other state.

Reciprocity is another matter. SC does not recognize every other state with respect to reciprocity. SLED is tasked with keeping this up to date. So if one has a permit from California, it's still not good here in SC.

Currently, we're in a kind of "flux" where all the usual sites which show the actual statutes have yet to be updated. We have to read the new statute and then go to the parent statute to see how and where it fits in.


It seems the applicable verbiage is this part in bold, in 23-31-215:

(O)(1) A permit issued pursuant to this article is not required for a person:

(a) carrying a self-defense device generally considered to be nonlethal including the substance commonly referred to as "pepper gas"; or

(b) carrying a concealable weapon in a manner not prohibited by law.

(2) The availability of a permit to carry a concealable weapon under this section must not be construed to prohibit the permitless transport or carrying of a firearm in a vehicle or on or about one's person, whether openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, in a manner not prohibited by law.


NOTE:

The part about not needing a CWP is in a portion (sub paragraph) of the statutes that talks about "residents" in the parent paragraphs. This carries some meaning/weight.

This means the fact that it doesn't say "residents" in that exact sub paragraph COULD be an important factor in saying its applicable to everybody, regardless of residency. However, context MIGHT say otherwise.

Right now, I'm NOT comfortable with saying state residency does not matter because of this.


I'm awaiting better clarification before I'm willing to say out of state residency doesn't matter.
 
Stogies said:
So in a roundabout way he still delivered...
Click to expand...
Delivered what? We (GOA, 2AF, etc) spend millions of dollars in legal fees to maybe get back to where we were? Once he got the ATF rolling on its redefinition of a bump stock, they redefined what a receiver is, what a SBR is, what a suppressor is, what a forced reset trigger is (did I miss any?). And Trump is the guy that got it all rolling.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom