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 December 6, 2006, states with which South Carolina has reciprocity are: Alaska, Arkansas, 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:

  1. you must be without fault in bringing on the difficulty;

  2. you must actually believe you are in imminent danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury or actually be in such danger;

  3. 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;

  4. 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:

  1. 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).

  2. 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:

  1.  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).

  2. 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).

  3. 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).

  4. 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.”]

  5. 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.

  6. 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).

  7. 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).

  8. 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).

  9. 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.