South Carolina General Assembly revises gun possession bill to address expungement issues

In a pivotal meeting of the South Carolina House Judiciary Committee on April 3, 2025, lawmakers engaged in a heated discussion surrounding several proposed bills, notably those addressing unlawful possession of handguns and the implications of the recently passed Constitutional Carry law. The atmosphere was charged as committee members sought to navigate the complexities of gun rights and public safety.

At the heart of the debate was the definition of unlawful possession of a handgun. A key speaker explained that individuals previously charged under this law could now face expungement due to the nullification of the law, which allows for constitutional carry—meaning individuals can possess firearms without a concealed weapons permit. However, a significant oversight emerged: those with pending charges at the time of the law's signing would not benefit from this expungement, leaving many in legal limbo.

Lawmakers acknowledged the unintended consequences of this oversight, particularly for individuals who had not yet been convicted but were still facing charges. The committee discussed the potential for these individuals to be unfairly penalized, as their cases were caught in a backlog of the judicial system. This situation raised concerns about fairness and the rights of citizens who may have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time.

As the discussion unfolded, committee members expressed apprehension about the implications for public safety. Law enforcement representatives voiced concerns that the bill could inadvertently release individuals with violent histories back into the community, undermining the work of police officers who had previously arrested them. The tension between ensuring Second Amendment rights and maintaining public safety was palpable, with some members advocating for a more cautious approach to avoid letting potentially dangerous individuals slip through the cracks.

The committee ultimately decided to adjourn the debate, allowing for further consideration of the proposed amendments and the broader implications of the legislation. As the meeting concluded, it was clear that the path forward would require careful balancing of individual rights and community safety, a challenge that lawmakers would continue to grapple with in the weeks to come.