STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (SLED)
CONCEALABLE WEAPONS PERMIT PROGRAM
RECIPROCITY
South Carolina Code Section 23-31-215(N)
requires that valid out-of-state permits to carry concealable weapons held by a
resident of a reciprocal state must be honored in South Carolina. SLED is
required to determine those states which have permit issuance standards equal to
or greater than the standards contained in Title 23, Chapter 31, South Carolina
Code (the CWP law). This requirement has been interpreted by the South Carolina
Attorney General to mean standards which are substantially similar or reasonably
equivalent to those of South Carolina. SLED is also required to maintain
and publish a list of those states with which South Carolina has reciprocity.
To make the required determination, SLED officials analyze the laws of other states
to interpret and compare standards for issuance, and then verify those interpretations
with officials of the other states.
Although many states recognize the permit
issued by South Carolina, our state does not recognize permits issued by other states
unless a formal reciprocity agreement has been established between the states.
Many states issue non-resident permits
and recognize non-resident permits issued by other states. South Carolina
does not issue non-resident permits and non-resident permits are not recognized
by South Carolina, whether or not South Carolina has established reciprocity with
the other state, because South Carolina law allows recognition only of permits issued
to residents of the reciprocal state (SC Code Section 23-31-215(N)).
Residents of reciprocal states who hold
permits issued by their states of residence may carry concealed firearms in South
Carolina, but must abide by the restrictions in the South Carolina CWP law.
For that reason, out of state residents of reciprocal states should familiarize
themselves with restricted carry locations and other provisions of South Carolina
law posted on this web site, including South Carolina laws governing the use of
deadly force and self-defense. South Carolina permittees who carry firearms in reciprocal
states are likewise responsibe for familiarizing themselves with the applicable
laws and regulations of the reciprocal state. Web sites of those states may be accessed
by selecting the desired state name listed below in this document.
Permits issued to a resident by a reciprocal
state are not valid in South Carolina if the permittee has moved to South Carolina
and established residence here; in this case they are no longer residents of the
reciprocal state and are not authorized by their out-of-state permit to carry a
firearm in South Carolina. A person who has established residence in South
Carolina, with intent to become a permanent resident, is immediately eligible to
apply for a South Carolina permit (SC Code Section 23-31-210(1)), but must meet
all requirements of South Carolina law, including proof of training. Proof
of training is defined in SC Code Section 23-31-210(4), which may be found
in the CWP law published in this web site. If a new South Carolina resident
intends to cite a training program as meeting the qualification for a South Carolina
permit, the training must have occurred within the past three (3) years and must
have included all required topics, including statutory and case law relating to
handguns and to the use of deadly force.
As of February 22, 2007, states with which
South Carolina has reciprocity are:
Alaska,
Arkansas,
Kansas,
Louisiana,
Michigan,
Missouri,
North Carolina,
Ohio,
Texas,
Tennessee,
and
Wyoming. Changes to this list will be made as eligibility
is determined.
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
STATE LAW ENFORCEMENT DIVISION (SLED)
USE OF FIREARMS OR OTHER WEAPONS
Use of Deadly Force
State v. Fuller, 297 S.C. 440, 377 S.E.2d
328 (1989) sets forth the elements of self-defense in South Carolina.
These are:
-
you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;
-
you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious
bodily injury or actually be in such danger;
-
if you believe you are in such danger, you must use deadly force only if a reasonable
or prudent man of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be
in such danger, or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were
such as would warrant a man of ordinary prudence, firmness and courage to strike
the fatal blow in order to save yourself from serious bodily harm or losing your
own life;
-
you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or
sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.
Duty to Retreat
As a general matter, before using deadly
force, even in self-defense, you have a duty to retreat in the following circumstances:
-
on a public street or highway, even when in own automobile. State v. McGee,
185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).
-
in a store where the public is invited. State v. Peeples, 126 S.C. 422, 120
S.E. 361 (1923).
As a general matter, before using deadly
force, even for self-defense, there are situations in which you have no duty to
retreat. These include:
-
in addition to in your home, there is no duty to retreat within your home’s
curtilage. State v. Jackson, supra, or beyond the curtilage.
State v. Quick, 138 S.C. 147, 135 S.E. 800 (1926).
-
in your place of business, even if the aggressor also has a right to be there.
State v. Kennedy, 143 S.C. 318, 141 S.E. 559 (1928).
-
if a guest in home of another unless required to leave by the householder.
State v. Osborne, 202 S.C. 463, 25 S.E.2d 492 (1942).
-
where attacked in your “club room”. [“A man is no more bound to allow himself
to be run out of his rest room than his workshop.”]
-
where both parties own the premises, neither has the duty to retreat where the other
is the aggressor. State v. Gibbs, 113 S.C. 256, 102 S.E. 333.
-
Where both live in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other is
the aggressor. State v. Grantham, 224 S.C. 41, 77 S.E.2d 291 (1953).
-
Where both are guests in the same home, neither has the duty to retreat if the other
is the aggressor. State v. Smith, 226 S.C. 418, 85 S.E.2d 409 (1955).
-
Where both are fellow workers on same job site, neither has the duty to retreat
if the other is the aggressor. State v. Gordon, 128 S.C. 422, 122 S.E. 501
(1924).
-
you need not retreat “if to do so would apparently increase [your] danger.”
State v. McGee, 185 S.C. 184, 190, 193 S.E. 303, 306 (1937).
Defense of Others
In State v. Hays, 121 S.C. 163, 168, 113
S.E. 362, 363 (1922), the Court approved a “defense of others” instruction,
as follows:
The right to take the life of an assailant
during an unprovoked assault extends to any relative, friend, or bystander if the
use of deadly force is necessary to save the victim wrongfully assaulted from imminent
danger of being murdered by the assailant, if the assault is malicious and unprovoked
and with a deadly weapon, with the apparent malicious intention to take the life
of the victim and thereby commit murder, and if such murder is imminent, then any
relative, friend, or bystander has the right to take the life of the assailant if
necessary to prevent such murder, provided there was no other reasonable means of
escape for the victim so assailed, and provided both the person assailed and the
person coming to his defense were without legal fault in bringing on the difficulty.
South Carolina has adopted the so-called
“alter-ego” rule with respect to the defense of others. In State v. Cook, 78
S.C. 253, 59 S.E. 862 (1907), the Court summarized this rule:
If you intervene on behalf of another,
you will not be allowed the benefit of the plea of self-defense, unless that plea
would have been available to the person you assisted if he himself had done the
killing.
In other words, the person intervening
is deemed to “stand in the shoes” of the person on whose behalf he is intervening.
If that individual “had the right to defend himself, then the intervening party
is also protected by that right. If, however, the party [victim] had no right
to use force…then the intervening party will also assume the liability of the person
on whose behalf he interfered.” McAninch and Fairey, p. 494.
The “defense of others” rules apply to
“any relative, friend or bystanders…” State v. Hays, supra. The
same principles of retreat and withdrawal apply as if the individual himself were
acting in self-defense rather than on behalf of someone else. If there was
no duty to retreat by the person being assisted, there is no duty imposed upon the
intervenor.
Defense of Property
“…in the protection of one’s dwelling,
only such force must be used as is necessary, or apparently necessary, to a reasonably
prudent man. Any greater expenditure cannot be justifiable and is therefore
punishable. State v. Hibler, 79 S.C. 170, 60 S.E. 438 (1907).
“[t]he weight of modern authority limits
deadly force in a defense of a dwelling to situations in which the householder reasonably
believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony or only when deadly force
would be authorized by the law of self-defense.” McAninch and Fairey.