A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY AMENDING SECTION 16-23-50, RELATING TO PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF CERTAIN OFFENSES INVOLVING WEAPONS, SO AS TO INCLUDE ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE PURVIEW OF THE STATUTE, INCREASE THE PENALTIES FOR A VIOLATION, AND CREATE A TWO-TIERED PENALTY SCHEME; BY AMENDING SECTION 16-23-210, RELATING TO DEFINITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THE ARTICLE, SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERM "ASSAULT WEAPON"; BY AMENDING SECTIONS 16-23-220, 16-23-230, AND 16-23-240, ALL RELATING TO THE UNLAWFUL TRANSPORTATION, STORING, KEEPING, OR POSSESSING AND SALE, RENTAL, OR GIVING AWAY OF MACHINE GUNS, MILITARY FIREARMS, SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS OR RIFLES, RESPECTIVELY, SO AS TO INCLUDE ASSAULT WEAPONS IN THE LIST OF WEAPONS BANNED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTES; AND BY ADDING ARTICLE 9 TO CHAPTER 31, TITLE 23 SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO SELL OR GIVE A FIREARM TO A PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE TERRORIST WATCH LIST AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS PROVISION.
H3041 would expand South Carolina’s firearms restrictions by adding a statutory definition of “assault weapon” and then folding that category into several existing weapons offenses. The bill makes it unlawful to transport, store, possess, sell, rent, give away, or otherwise dispose of an assault weapon, subject to the same general exceptions already referenced in the firearms article. It also amends the penalty section to increase punishment for violations and create a two-tiered scheme, with harsher penalties for repeat offenses, and it requires confiscation of any handgun or assault weapon involved in a violation.
The bill also creates a new offense making it unlawful to sell or give a firearm to a person whose name appears on the federal consolidated terrorist watch list maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center. A knowing violation of that provision would be a felony punishable by a substantial fine and a mandatory minimum prison term. The act would take effect upon gubernatorial approval and would apply prospectively, while preserving pending cases and liabilities under existing law.
If enacted, H3041 would significantly amend Title 16 and Title 23 of the South Carolina Code by broadening the state’s prohibited-weapons framework to include assault weapons alongside machine guns, military firearms, and sawed-off shotguns and rifles. It would also increase criminal penalties for violations of the affected weapons provisions, authorize confiscation and law-enforcement disposition of assault weapons, and add a new felony offense tied to firearm transfers to persons on the terrorist watch list. The bill would affect gun owners, dealers, carriers, and law enforcement agencies, and would create new statutory definitions and enforcement obligations for prosecutors and police.
Based on the bill’s caption and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the available context suggests the measure is a strongly gun-restrictive proposal rather than a consensus bill. The text itself reflects a public-safety-oriented approach, with expanded prohibitions and tougher penalties. Because no committee transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no documented recorded support or opposition in the supplied record, but the subject matter indicates it would likely draw strong reactions from both gun-control supporters and gun-rights opponents.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s definition of “assault weapon,” the scope of the ban, and the increased criminal penalties. The definition is broad and includes semiautomatic centerfire rifles and certain semiautomatic shotguns, while also excluding many common firearm types, which could still prompt disputes over whether the definition is overinclusive or underinclusive. Another likely flashpoint is the new prohibition on firearm sales or gifts to people on the terrorist watch list, since that raises questions about due process, accuracy of watch-list placement, and enforceability. Gun-rights advocates would likely object to the expanded bans and confiscation provisions, while supporters would likely emphasize public safety and preventing access by dangerous individuals.