S. 593 would allow a concealed weapon permit (CWP) holder to possess a firearm inside a vehicle on school grounds subject to strict gun storage requirements. S. 593 would allow a SC CWP holder to drop off or pick up a child at a school or college in SC without first needing to store her concealed weapon somewhere off of school property, which would otherwise be a felony. But, the firearm would be required to remain inside the vehicle at all times, or else the CWP holder will be committing a felony.
S. 347 contains both a school carry and a restaurant carry exception for CWP holders. There appeared to be more resistance to restaurant carry than there was to school carry. So, S. 593 was created to allow the school carry provisions to move forward without being bogged down by the resistance to the restaurant carry provisions. Unfortunately, when S. 593 was drafted, they failed to simply “cut and paste” the language from the well drafted S. 347. Instead, they created a poorly drafted S. 593, which needed amendments to fix the problems created by the poor drafting of S. 593. Please read the analysis of S. 347 to better understand the drafting differences.
S. 593 was first amended to fix the major problems, and then S. 593 was amended to create problems.
The major problem with S. 593 as originally drafted was that there are two laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm on school grounds in SC, and S. 593 as originally drafted only amended one of those laws (S. 347 proposed to amend both laws since that was necessary to actually accomplish the goal of allowing a CWP holder to possess a firearm on school grounds). Amending only one of the two laws prohibiting firearms on school property would have created a legislative entrapment situation where a CWP holder could still be convicted of a felony under the law not changed even though one of the two laws had been changed. After GrassRoots GunRights pointed out the problems with how S. 593 was drafted, the Senate amended S. 593 to provide that both SC laws would be changed.
Some problems were created by a Senate amendment demanded by Sen. Brad Hutto as the price to get S. 593 enacted into law this year. S. 593 was amended to require that the weapon “remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.” As originally drafted, both S. 347 and S. 593 would have required that the concealed weapon - while on school grounds - remain in the vehicle at all times. But, the concealed weapon could have remained on the person of the CWP holder while in the vehicle as she dropped off or picked up her child.
The Senate amendment to S. 593 demanded by Sen. Brad Hutto prohibits a CWP holder from wearing her concealed weapon on her person inside her vehicle while on school grounds. This means the CWP holder will be forced to handle the concealed weapon more frequently than necessary, to do so in front of the children, and to show the children where the concealed weapon is kept inside the vehicle. None of these forced alternatives are better than allowing the CWP holder to keep the concealed weapon concealed and on her person. In addition, as originally drafted, a CWP holder could have legally opened the glove box, console, or trunk where the concealed weapon was kept in the presence of a law enforcement officer to retrieve a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance. The Hutto amendment deleted the language to allow a CWP holder to legally do so even in the presence of a law enforcement officer.
S. 593 was enacted into law on June 2, 2009, when Gov. Sanford signed the bill.
Bottom line for what S. 593 means to the people of SC:
There is no change in the law for non CWP holders. Non CWP holders will still be committing a felony if they enter upon any school grounds with a firearm in their vehicle or on their person.
For SC CWP holders, they must disarm PRIOR to entering upon any school grounds and store their weapon as described above inside the vehicle. If a CWP holder fails to disarm PRIOR to entering the school grounds, she will be committing a felony. For CWP holders from a reciprocal state, they are still prohibited from entering upon elementary and secondary school grounds under the federal “gun free” school zones law. But, a CWP holder from a reciprocal state will be treated as a SC CWP holder with regards to firearms on college property because the federal law only applies to elementary and secondary schools.
A question has been raised as to whether a CWP holder could legally possess a long gun - or a handgun which is too large to be considered a concealable weapon under the SC CWP law - inside a vehicle on school grounds if it was encased and stored in the luggage area of the vehicle. The law is not clear on this matter. The law could easily be interpreted to mean only a concealable weapon will be allowed in a vehicle on school grounds, but not a long gun. So, unless you don't mind buying a lawyer a new yacht and risking never being able to possess a firearm for the rest of your life, you might not want to take a long gun onto school grounds.
GrassRoots GunRights strongly supported S. 593 with the amendments to fix the original drafting problems. GrassRoots GunRights supported passage of S. 593 with the Hutto amendment only because the Hutto amendment was the price to pay to get S. 593 passed this year. If we had decided to fight the Hutto amendment, S. 593 would not have passed this year and may not even have passed next year.
GrassRoots GunRights will work to get the Hutto amendment removed as soon as possible. But, rather than have the issue continue to be whether limited school carry was allowed or not, the new issue will be limited to whether the Hutto amendment is good law or not. Then, if we lose the fight over the Hutto amendment in the future, we will still have limited school carry since S. 593 is now the law of SC.