Denied Renewal of My CWP


PDA






USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 12:54 PM
Okay folks, at a member's request, I am posting this on THR. There will be a letter of denial of my renewal, my appeal to the denial, then another denial, and my 2nd appeal. Please chime in if you have any valuable information to add:

"This letter will acknowledge your application for your Renewed Concealed Weapons Permit and inform you that your application is denied.

Investigation of your application reveals you were convicted in 1996 of Speeding. In 1997 you were convicted of Speeding (2) counts. In 1998 you were convicted of Driving Too Fast For Conditions. In 1999 you were convicted of Speeding. In 2001 you were convicted of Speeding (2) counts.

Traffic offenses are classified by South Carolina Code of Laws Section 56-5-6190 as misdemeanor crimes, punishable by fines or imprisonment. Speeding is specifically classified by South Carolina Code Section 56-5-6190 as a misdemeanor crime. This matter should have been addressed in your CWP training class.

While traffic offenses might be considered, for some purposes, minor offenses, a record containing a significant number of such violations occurring over a significant period of time is properly considered when assessing the background created by an applicant. The applicant under consideration is for a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public places and to exercise judgment as to whether and when to use it. A significant record of traffic offenses creates an inference of a propensity to exercise poor judgment and to willfully and knowledgeably violate the law and place the general public at significant risk.

Section 23-3-215 (b), South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, states that SLED must issue a permit if, a fingerprint review and background check are favorable. Because, we are not able to conclude that the background revealed by your investigation is a favorable one for the purposes of this program, we must deny your application.

Pursuant to Section 23-31-215 (d), South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, you may appeal this denial to Captain Cliff Weir. Your appeal must be in writing, contain the reasons that you believe you were incorrectly denied a permit, and must be received by Captain Weir within thirty days of your receipt of this letter."

If you enjoyed reading about "Denied Renewal of My CWP" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 12:56 PM
After getting the letter, I wrote this as my appeal:

July 21, 2004


Captain Cliff Weir
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
P.O. Box 21398
Columbia, SC 29221-1398

Capt. Weir,

This letter is a formal appeal to the denial of my concealed weapons permit renewal that I received on July 9, 2004. (RCWP 31708)

The letter of denial states that I have received too many speeding tickets over a certain period of time. However, I feel that this is not a logical reason to deny my permit renewal. My initial permit was issued in May of 2000. While having the permit over a four-year period, I was issued two tickets for speeding violations, but these citations were in 2001. Since 2001, I have not received any tickets nor do I intend to do so henceforth. Since 2001, I have realized that speeding is not worth it and I have decided to pay close attention to my speed and the posted limit; hence the fact that I have not been stopped for speeding, nor for any other reason, in three years. To compound on that, I became married late 2000 and have matured significantly since that time. Secondly, it seems that if my driving record was so bad, my driver’s license would be revoked due to the fact that a motor vehicle is much more deadly a weapon than a firearm could ever be.

It sounds like the letter is basically trying to state that I am irresponsible. However, that is not the case. I am full-time student at the University of South Carolina in the College of Criminology where I am pursuing a B.A. in Criminal Justice. In my past six semesters as a full-time student, I have received only three "B's" while the rest were "A's"; I consider this far from being irresponsible. Additionally, I had a permit for four years; during that four-year period, never did I show misuse or poor judgment while carrying a firearm. Lastly, I am a former United States Marine who knows how to handle firearm and strictly abides by the four safety rules, so I hardly think that my driving record shows a direct correlation to my ability to carry a firearm, nor to my personal character.

Thank you Captain Weir for your time and willingness to consider my appeal to the denial of my permit renewal. As a law abiding United States citizen who is pursuing a career in law enforcement, I ask that you please reverse the initial decision and grant the renewal of my permit.


Sincerely,



USMCsilver

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 12:58 PM
July 30, 2004

USMCsilver
Blah, blah, blah
Camden, SC 29020

Please Refer To: RCWP-31708

Dear Mr. USMCsilver:

I am writing in response to your appeal of the denial of your application for a Concealable Weapons Permit. Your application was denied on July 8, 2004 by our staff because of your criminal record.

Investigation of your applicatron revealed your convictions tn:
1996 of Speeding
1997 of Speeding (2) counts
1998 of Driving Too Fast for Conditions
1999 ofSpeeding
2001 ofSpeeding (2) counts

Some time ago, it came to our attention that some applicants have signrficant records of violating trafflc laws, all of which are classified in SC law as misdemeanor crimes and many of which resulted in crashes, which, of course, results in injuries or deaths of members of the public who are involved. As you know, many more people are injured and killed in traffic incidents than by tirearms. For these reasons, we cannot conclude that a background which contains a significant number of traffic offense convictions over a significant period of time is "favorable", specifically for these reasons:

(1) traffic offenses are crimes;

(2) moving traffic offenses create danger and significant risk to personal safety for other members of the general public;

(3) traffic offenses occurring in significant numbers over a significant period of time call into question the quality of judgment and use of discretion by the offender;

(4) traffic offenses occurring in significant numbers over a significant period of time exhibit a propenstty on the part of the applicant to carelessly or purposely and willfully disregard and violate state law.

All of these issues are serious in their implications when the application under consideration is for the authority to carry a concealed firearm in public places, to know and act in accord with applicable State law, and to exercise appropriate judgement and discretion as to when and how to use the firearm.

After your original perrnit was issued in 1999, SLED began considering records of traffic offenses as being significant to the classification of favorability of an applicant's background.

Section 23-31-215(B), South Carolina Code of Laws, requires that SLED issue a permit if the applicant has a favorable background check. SLED policy consistently denies applications by persons who have been convicted of crimes, including a significant traffic offense record, and who report false, inaccurate or incomplete information on application forms. Such convictions prevent a conclusion that the applicant's background is, for purposes of this program, favorable. Our policy takes into account the type, number and age of convictions, the duration of trme over which the offenses occurred, circumstances involved in the charges, whether the crimes involve moral turpitude, and whether the offenses involved use or threat of violence against another person, demonstrate willlul and knowing violations of law, and/or involved use or threat of violence against another person or significant threat to public safety.

For these reasons, we must deny your application.

Pursuant to Section 23-31-215(D) of the Carolina Code, you may appeal this denial to SLED Chief Robert Stewart. Your appeal must be in writing, contain the reasons you believe you were incorrectly denied a permit, and
must be received by Chief Stewart within thirty days of your receipt of this letter.

Sincerely.
Clifton E. Weir
Captain
CEW:dlw

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 12:59 PM
Well, the 2nd appeal is going out in the mail tomorrow. This time, with some enclosures.

I'm sending the following along with my appeal:

College transcripts
Certificate of Award -- President's List from Midlands Technical College
Certificate of Award -- Scholar's List from Midlands Technical College
Certicate from AAA Driver Improvement Program


Here is my 2nd appeal letter.


August 25, 2004

Chief Robert Stewart
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
P.O. Box 21398
Columbia, SC 29221-1398

Chief Stewart,

This letter is in regards to the denial of my concealed weapons permit (RCWP 31708). This is my second appeal to attempt to get the decision reversed.

I know that SLED has started to examine driving records to determine if one is capable of exercising the discipline needed to carry a concealed firearm into public places, and I respect that. However, I do not understand why I am no longer eligible to carry a concealed firearm due to the fact that my last traffic citation was issued in 2001.

As noted in my previous appeal, I feel like I have matured significantly in the last three and a half years and am perfectly capable of possessing a permit and abiding the laws while doing so. In my last appeal, I mentioned that I am pursuing a B.A. in Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina where I am receiving extremely good grades. I have changed. If you will review the enclosed college transcripts spanning an eight-year period you will see that during the last two years, I have strived to succeed. Additionally, please note the enclosed copies of the awards I have received from Midlands Technical College. I would not knowingly put myself in a situation, like speeding, that would jeopardize my employment eligibility as a future law enforcement officer; nor am I willing to risk the lives of others when I am behind the wheel of a motor vehicle.

The following was stated in a letter from Capt. Weir: “As you know, many more people are injured and killed in traffic incidents than by firearms.” This is a valid point, however, if the state deems me safe enough to possess a valid driver’s license, then I don’t understand why SLED will not allow me to possess a concealed weapons permit. Over the course of four years while possessing my permit, never did I display misuse, or poor judgment, with my firearm. To demonstrate that I have attempted to improve my driving habits, I ask that you also examine the enclosed copy of the certificate I received from AAA’s Driver Improvement Program in 2002.

I would like to thank you for considering the renewal of my permit. If there is anything I can do to further assist you in considering my eligibility, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,



USMCsilver ;f

(enclosures: 4)

Travis McGee
August 25, 2004, 01:02 PM
Keep up informed of the progress of the appeal.

In a way, it shows how the govt (even in SC) tend to use any method to restrict our RKBA.

keano44
August 25, 2004, 01:05 PM
Contact your representative. Hope you have one that is on your side!

Bainx
August 25, 2004, 01:06 PM
They got 'the power'....we don't

Welcome to the New World Order!

TallPine
August 25, 2004, 01:06 PM
Unbelievable ... your driving record does not preclude you from a drivers license, but it does preclude you from a CWP ....:rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm just glad a constitutional right has been turned into a priviledge so that dangerous folks like you won't have guns :p :D

HankB
August 25, 2004, 01:09 PM
So, notwithstanding your old speeding offenses, they issue a license . . . you clean up your act (with respect to speeding) and now they decide to change the standard and deny a renewal.

Are records of traffic offenses public? It might be interesting to research the driving records of these bureaucrats, or, if they're impeccable, the driving records of their officers.

Edward429451
August 25, 2004, 01:17 PM
What a load of crap. Still it should come as no suprise that they would stoop to such underhanded tactics to disarm America. One reason I never bought in to the "Do it the right way and get your permit" theory that is so often espoused here on THR. Anything you say, do or sign can be used against you once you're under contract with them. No offense but you did sign the paperwork (contract) with them to get your CWP and thereby agreeing to their terms, didn't you?



A significant record of traffic offenses creates an inference of a propensity to exercise poor judgment and to willfully and knowledgeably violate the law and place the general public at significant risk.

So would jaywalking when they put it that way. So now the million dollar question is...Are the SC LEO's going to be held to the same standard?

Oooo,this makes me mad just reading it.:fire:

DMV records are available as public information. If you could come up with some cops with traffic offenses it may bolster your appeal.

I feel for ya guy. Be careful what you sign. Would a 'Propensity to excercise poor judgement and willfully violate the law' give them grounds to come to your home for a confiscation? You wouldn't think so but on the other hand, you wouldn't think they'd hold speeding tickets against you in that manner either...Be careful!

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 01:19 PM
Yeah, it just doesn't make any sense. It seems that with a clean record for the last 3.5 years would be good enough. Not to mention, I am 26 and those violations occured when I was young, dumb, and...

Anyhow, it looks like I'll drop it in the box today. It usually takes them 1.5 weeks to reject me.

And the saga continues...

MAUSER88
August 25, 2004, 01:24 PM
What a load of crap is right. EVERYONE speeds only some get caught!! Is the CMP that inept????
Hope it all works out for you in the end. If you need a reference letter, email me.

CGofMP
August 25, 2004, 01:29 PM
I do not know if I'd mention this in the letter, but ig you are going for an administration of justice degree with an eye to becoming a cop, this denial will possibly severly impact your ability to become a member of the police force. If they are going to say no to a CCW then why would they ever issue you a gun and a badge and carte blance to ccw after you get your degree.

I would be livid over being denied a ccw over speeding... (Never mind that I am in california where we are denied ccw because we are BREATHING... but that is another story). The bottom line in my opinion is that this is just an excuse to deny. I DO agree that SEVEN convictions in 8 years is irresponsible on your part, and I wouldnt want to insure your car, but the propensity to speed does not have to translate into irresponsibility in all areas of life nor do I believe it does.

Good luck.

Charles

CGofMP
August 25, 2004, 01:33 PM
Just read this:
DMV records are available as public information. If you could come up with some cops with traffic offenses it may bolster your appeal.

I think that is an excellent suggestion and if you could subpeona that information and take em to COURT, if you prevailed it would eviscerate their ability to deny others on such a shoddy basis too.

Is this the hill you wanna die on? How far will you go for the principle or the 'privlege' granted by the second ammendment?

outfieldjack
August 25, 2004, 01:42 PM
I was the one who asked USMCsilver to post this. I was hoping someone on the board would be able to help or know someone to call. His wife and I were at lunch yesterday and she told me what was happenning. I COULD NOT BELIEVE IT!!!

I wonder if Grassroots SC will be able to help. If the SCDOT feels he is still a good enough driver to license, then why won't SLED issue him a CWP?

Blackhawk 6
August 25, 2004, 01:43 PM
Since he has already acknowledged that "many more people are injured and killed in traffic incidents than by firearms" I would highlight that the State has not seen fit to revoke you Drivers' License, and denying you CWP based on your driving creates a disparity in how the State is determining what constitutes responsible behavior.

I am not knowledgable with regard to your state law but there must be a standard. It can not (or should not be arbitrary). I would also request that they quantify what constitutes responsible behavior based on a driving record? How many speeding tickets can I have? Over what period of time? Will you still be considered too irresponsible when you are 60?

Worst case, I believe a lawyer could make a good arguement for you. Good luck and drive safely.

Hawkman
August 25, 2004, 01:51 PM
Given that Capt. Weir has bananas for brains, arguing that your license to drive should be revoked will probably achieve that end.

May I suggest you cut to the chase and GET A LAWYER RIGHT NOW!

SC_shooter
August 25, 2004, 01:56 PM
How did you answer the question about misdemeanors on your CWP application form? If you didn't let them know about the tickets, you can be denied for that. I have heard of this happening.

Or, was it the number of tickets?

Paul

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 02:17 PM
CGofMP --
I do not know if I'd mention this in the letter, but ig you are going for an administration of justice degree with an eye to becoming a cop, this denial will possibly severly impact your ability to become a member of the police force. If they are going to say no to a CCW then why would they ever issue you a gun and a badge and carte blance to ccw after you get your degree.

Well, that is a chance I am obviously willing to take considering the career path I am choosing. It will be another year before I am done with school, and will have a clean record for 4 years when I do apply to become a LEO. Even after school, I may delay a job and work on my masters, so that isn't a major concern at the moment. I mentioned it to state my furture plans to see if they might express some sympathy.


CGofMP --
Is this the hill you wanna die on? How far will you go for the principle or the 'privlege' granted by the second ammendment?

I will go as far as it takes. I think next is the Law Judge.


Hawkman --
May I suggest you cut to the chase and GET A LAWYER RIGHT NOW!

I would if I could, but I can't. As you can see, I am just a poor college student. If it comes time for me to go before the Law Judge, I'll see if Grass Roots of SC can represent me pro bono. I need to join later today. ;)


Blackhawk 6 --
I would also request that they quantify what constitutes responsible behavior based on a driving record? How many speeding tickets can I have? Over what period of time? Will you still be considered too irresponsible when you are 60?

Yeah, I know. I about asked in this letter, but I didn't want it to sound like I was expecting to get denied again. That question will come later, don't worrry.


SC_shooter --
How did you answer the question about misdemeanors on your CWP application form? If you didn't let them know about the tickets, you can be denied for that. I have heard of this happening.

This came up on another forum. To be honest, it was almost 4.5 years ago when I sent in my 1st application. I really don't recall what I stated on the application. And, as far as the renewal application, I didn't mention anything about my driving record b/c I either didn't notice it on the form, or because I didn't think I'd had any tickets recently. I figured all that bad driving BS was behind me...

Bravo11
August 25, 2004, 02:39 PM
If you have any connections to LEO, Attorneys, Judges, Congressman, etc.
You might ask them if they would write a letter in your favor to submit with the appeal.

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 02:42 PM
Mega, I have thought of that, but I know no one. SLED is 40 miles away, so I really don't have ties to anyone there. All the big-wigs are in the state capital of Columbia, and that, too, is 40 miles away.

I'll try to dig up some representation in the meantime. I assume I'll get rejected again anyway...

TarpleyG
August 25, 2004, 02:51 PM
Well, if the government cannot ban guns they will simply make it illegal for anyone to own one. One way or another, the will have their wish.

As for this appeal--you won't get your CWP back. They have the 'law' on their side and don't care about your reasons, however valid they are to you. Our wonderful government at work. Cheery, huh?

Greg

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 03:07 PM
TarpleyG ~ As for this appeal--you won't get your CWP back. They have the 'law' on their side and don't care about your reasons, however valid they are to you. Our wonderful government at work. Cheery, huh?

LOL, thanks for the promising words. I am trying to be more optimistic about the whole ordeal, but in the back of my mind, I tend to agree with you.

mete
August 25, 2004, 03:08 PM
At least talk to a lawyer, many will advise you of the possibilities in one discussion without charge....Following the states' logic you should demand everyone who has had a few traffic tickets be denied renewal of drivers licences.

JPL
August 25, 2004, 03:22 PM
Well, from what I've read, perhaps you should get in touch with the National Rifle Association and see if they can provide legal assistance.

cerberus
August 25, 2004, 03:35 PM
If your really wanting to fight this stupid SC deal. I sure would spend a little money on a good Lawyer. Just filing the appeals are not going to get your permit renewed.:( They have already made that pretty clear.

atek3
August 25, 2004, 03:38 PM
If you fight it, you will eventually win assuming you have the big guns on your side. Whether it is worth your time and money is something else, knowing government it will take a lot of both.

atek3

mnrivrat
August 25, 2004, 03:40 PM
It would also be interesting to find out the specific criteria used to deny for traffic violations . Is there a written formula or is the criteria subjective and up to the permit issuer ?

Mentioned in your denials as the specific cause for denial ,the criteria is not detailed.

How many violations _____? over what period of time ____ ? For how long does the violation remain a consideration _____ ?

Is the specific information written into the law _______?

Top_Notch
August 25, 2004, 04:01 PM
Very interesting. Come to Illinois where they don't even need a reason to NOT allow you to carry...but I digress.

Two points I'd like to make.

Since he has already acknowledged that "many more people are injured and killed in traffic incidents than by firearms" I would highlight that the State has not seen fit to revoke you Drivers' License, and denying you CWP based on your driving creates a disparity in how the State is determining what constitutes responsible behavior.

Be careful here, as driving is not a right. You may up losing your license if you push this path.

But, to me, a more interesting aspect, that I have not seen, is what would you have to do in order not to be denied based on past misdemeanor traffic violations. How much longer would you have to drive citation free in order to be allowed a permit? I don't see that question asked nor answered anywhere. I'm sure they must know what it would be since they know what it takes for denial. And since it is not arbitrary, let them tell you what it is. Minamally, you'll know how long to stay in the slow lane in order to make your appeal.

Smurfslayer
August 25, 2004, 04:03 PM
Don't pass go. Don't send your second appeal until you've talked to a firearms saavy lawyer. The fact that they are misdemeanor convictions is significant, however, there may be reason for hope in your traffic code...

How long may an insurance company hold you to higher rates for traffic infractions?

<soapbox> This, ladies and gentlemen, is why you ALWAYS go to court to contest a traffic infraction. Continue, continue, continue until they won't give you any more continuances. Hire a lawyer, and throw EVERYTHING at the court. Typically, you cannot introduce new evidence on appeal. Leave nothing to chance, and ALWAYS make the state prove you guilty. There's NOTHING in it for you to admit guilt. zip. zero. nada.
</soapbox>

If your insurance companies can't uses old traffic infractions against you, then you may make the correlation - why should law enforcement on what is at best a remotely related item.

2nd, the Capt. opened the door to 'accidents' - DID any of your tickets involve a collision in any way? If not, raise that issue. Point out specifics of these cases - empty roads, non inclement weather, etc.

Raise the constitutional issues - use the state constitution, concealed weapon permits are a privilege, not a right. <-- Please - no philosophical flames before you read Nunn v. State(GA)...

I would also follow up on the "objective standard" being used to evaluate who is not a safe risk... If there's no written standard, it's subjective. possibly arbitrary and capricious.

Definitely seek assistance from GOSC and GRSC...

SC must want to experience a gun owner boycott...

Remember SLED and SC LEOs - Professional courtesy for LEO, Professional courtesy for CCW. Learn it. Live it.

Leatherneck
August 25, 2004, 04:03 PM
mnrivrat makes a valid point. If the police are going to restrict your legal rights, then they doggone well better have objective, written standards that apply to everyone.

I only have one minor objection to your original appeal, Silver:Lastly, I am a former United States Marine One is either a Marine, or one is not, Brother.

TC
TFL Survivor

Ala Dan
August 25, 2004, 04:10 PM
Greeting's USMC Silver-

Sorry you are having too jump through all those "loop-holes" to
get your CCW reinstated. Boy, whats this old world coming to?
I would have to second the motion to get the N.R.A.'s legal aid
division involved. I will share a related story with you.

As reported in the American Rifleman magazine a few
years ago:

A small town, up-state police officer was traveling through
believe it or not, North Carolina a few years ago at a rate
of speed estimated at 85 mph. When spotted by a friendly
NC state trooper, the PO's vechile was pulled over on the
interstate. The trooper informed the PO why he was being
stopped; and said, " Boy, you ain't got nuth'in in this here
car that you don't want me to know about do you"? With
that, the PO identified himself as a New York PO. And said,
"Yes, I have a duty weapon in the trunk of my car". The
trooper said, "Raise your trunk, and lets take a look". So,
the PO complied with the troopers demands. When the
PO's duty weapon was dug out of his luggage; the NC
state trooper promptly confiscated it, and placed the PO
under arrest for carrying a handgun without a license!

Well needless to say, the poor PO was carted off to the
cross bar hotel where he was to await the judge. After
three days, the PO was carried before the judge, and
found quilty of the charge. So, the jailer goes into the
prisoners property and retrieves enough funds to pay
all fines, court cost, etc. He then pays the token for the
impounded vechile; and is set free without his firearm.

When the PO asked about his duty weapon, he was told
it was condemed by the judge; therefore he wasn't going
to get it back. Thats when the PO contacted the NRA, and
got them involved. It took a total of 3+ years, but the they
had to return the weapon to the PO's department.

So moral of the story is, YES the N.R.A. can be of help
sometimes! I certainly hope it works for you.

Best Wishes,
Ala Dan, N.R.A. Life Member

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 04:29 PM
Leatherneck ~quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lastly, I am a former United States Marine
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One is either a Marine, or one is not, Brother.


I tend to disagree. There is no such thing as an ex-Marine unless you are talking about one that got a dishonorable discharge. The word "former" Marine is correct when refering to prior service. If I stated I were a Marine, that would give the idea that I am currently enlisted.

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 04:31 PM
Smurfslayer, I've got to say that you take the cake.

Those are all valid points and great suggestions.

I am going to let this happen one more time, and then I'll see what I can do as far as legal help goes.

I mean, what do I do, just e-mail SC GrassRoots and/or the NRA and tell them about the situation or do I get someone on the phone?

I am a NRA member and will be joining Grass Roots here real soon. Just waiting on an e-mail response to a question I posed.

Thank you very much for the advice Smurf, and all the others!

CentralTexas
August 25, 2004, 04:37 PM
I'd request a list of all police officers that traffic misdemeanors and go from there....
Nevermind I just remembered they don't get tickets etc.

Good luck on it all though!

CT

Rickstir
August 25, 2004, 05:03 PM
The best idea I've read here is to get your state representative involved. Don't know how SC is, but if you have state senator get him also. If one is more pro-2nd amendment go with them. This is what they do. Don't let the fact that you are a vetran escape the conversation.

Also you might prevail upon one of your instructors, maybe your advisor in the CJ program to write a character reference for you.

Dbl0Kevin
August 25, 2004, 05:15 PM
What a load of crap is right. EVERYONE speeds only some get caught!! Is the CMP that inept????

This is very true. But that means that for someone to get caught and receive that many summonses in that amount of time they must have been doing an awful lot of speeding and moving quite fast. That's why drunk driving charges are looked at so seriously by insurance companies. They figure that for you to actually get CAUGHT driving drunk you had to do it a whole lot more than once.

That being said, however, using traffic tickets as a reason to deny a CWP is just utterly ridiculous. I wish you good luck in having this overturned and I second the call to get an attorney ASAP before you send in another appeal. They know the law a lot better than you and you might end up digging yourself in a deeper hole.

Mark13
August 25, 2004, 05:17 PM
It sounds like someone doesn't like this guy. No CCW for minor traffic offenses? Does any other state deny CCW for something like this?

TheOtherOne
August 25, 2004, 05:47 PM
Can't you get traffic records expunged after so many years? I would check your state laws to see how/if you can do it.

You might want to check the fine print on the CCW laws too because there might be something that says your expunged records are taken into account. Because, of course, when the government says expunge it doesn't actually mean expunge.

bogie
August 25, 2004, 05:54 PM
Pull out all the stops on this one - Also, keep in mind that anything that the fellow puts in writing _may_ possibly be used in a libel suit - If he's maintaining that you're a hazard to yourself and others, that'll prove to be very detrimental to pursuing your chosen career. Of course, you'll have to prove that you are not a hazard, but that doesn't sound as if it is the case.

Sue his butt. Make it a hobby, if nothing else.

JoeWang
August 25, 2004, 06:25 PM
Did you include a copy of your honorable discharge from the service?

It doesn't look like it.

Anyway, these people are elected or have bosses who are elected. Elections are upcoming. Visit their bosses and their opponents.

I'm surprised around GA how suddenly pro-gun every politician has become.

JW

strambo
August 25, 2004, 07:51 PM
So moral of the story is, YES the N.R.A. can be of help
Nah, the moral of that story is NEVER CONSENT TO A SEARCH!!! It cannot possibly help you. A cop has no PC to search your car just because they are giving you a ticket. Just say no!" Boy, you ain't got nuth'in in this here car that you don't want me to know about, do you?"
-NOPE!

Good luck USMC Silver, I hope it works out.

rayra
August 25, 2004, 08:09 PM
Find out what the LAWS are in your jurisdiction regarding issuance of CWP. The spicific guidelines and leeway the licensing authority has to abide by, then be sure they are following it. If 'speeding' does not fall within those guidelines, ram it up their ass.
Failing that, contact your jurisdictions civil authorities, councilmen, whatever, and make it very clear that you are being screwed, and that if / when you are attacked in circumstances where a CWP would have material affected your safety, you WILL sue your jurisdiction's asses off for their nonsense denials today.

Moparmike
August 25, 2004, 08:14 PM
USMC_Silver, if this doesn't pan out for you, get an AZ non-resident permit. According to South Carolina's (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/south+carolina) Packing.org page, they accept the AZ NR-permit. But according to AZ's page, it says that AZ-NR permit isnt accepted in SC. Confusing. :scrutiny:

I would check it out and make sure that SC honors that permit, and get it in writing. Have a friend check it out. Hell, have an AZ HighRoader snail-mail SC and see if they do, and then have the letter fowarded to you. Just keep the relavant excerpts. If you cant join them, beat them. :D

Good luck in anycase.

saddlebum
August 25, 2004, 08:19 PM
tenn. nonresident permits are good in sc aren't they?

BryanP
August 25, 2004, 08:30 PM
Saddlebum,

South Carolina recognizes the permits of Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas and Wyoming. Unfortunately SC only recognizes them if held by a resident of that particular state and no other. See the South Carolina page on Packing.org for more details. (http://www.packing.org/state/index.jsp/south+carolina)

Moparmike, you misread the info on Packing.org. Arizona is listed under "States that honor this state's Permit/License:", meaning that Arizona will honor a South Carolina permit, but not the other way around.

spacemanspiff
August 25, 2004, 08:43 PM
what does the section of your states law state about how an applicant for a CWP is approved? i wouldnt go off of the LEO's say-so, believe it when you read it for yourself.

example, my state (alaska) does count the number of misdemeanors, but only with a few year period prior to the application being reviewed.

it may help that this is a 'may issue' state.

in any case, i think your best efforts will be to get the law changed, so that it only looks back maybe 3 years on misdemeanors. we can help you out, emailing state representatives until they see there is enough squeaks for this wheel to get greased.

your appeals are going to fall on deaf ears if the LEO is truly following hte letter of the law, even if that law is asinine or even unconstitutional.

sumpnz
August 25, 2004, 08:55 PM
All right, I haven't read all responses as that takes too long. I DO agree that SEVEN convictions in 8 years is irresponsible on your part, and I wouldnt want to insure your car,...I did want to respond to this, and expand on it a little. Yes, if I were an insurance company I would probably deny you coverage if I knew this about you. BUT, many states have laws that your traffic tickets can only be considered for the purposes of determining your ability to get coverage and the level of the insurance premiums if they occured in the past 3 years. Anything older than that cannot legally be considered. Also, in some states the points on your drivers license expire after 3 years. You should look into whether or not SC has a law along those lines on the books and use that as a potentail avenue to get the tickets older than 3 (or however many) years withdrawn from consideration WRT you CWP renewal. That could get no more than the 2 tickets from 2001 under consideration, and possibly eliminate one or both depending on when in 2001 you recieved them.

USMCsilver
August 25, 2004, 09:07 PM
I just got done reading SC's Code of Laws http://www.scstatehouse.net/code/t23c031.htm and cannot find anything pertinent to my case except what is below:

(D) Denial of an application may be appealed. The appeal must be in writing and state the basis for the appeal. The appeal must be submitted to the Chief of SLED within thirty days from the date the denial notice is received. The chief shall issue a written decision within ten days from the date the appeal is received. An adverse decision shall specify the reasons for upholding the denial and may be reviewed by the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 23 of Title 1, upon a petition filed by an applicant within thirty days from the date of delivery of the division's decision.

gripper
August 25, 2004, 09:32 PM
This sounds like the way the Commonwealth of Ma. shafted me back in 1999.I had an old OUI record,not a disqualifier at the time of tjhe cases disposition. The passage of Ch180,a few years later gave the Cbhiefs of Police broad authority to "interpret"the statuts. When my renewal for my LTC came up;you guessed it. I lost just about everything trying to fight it ,but ht e judges right up to the Ma Court of Appeals would consider nothing but the Chief's actions in view of the CURRENT statute,never mind the fact that he was reaching back in time to before the law took effect in Oct 1998.They basically said that since it was done "administratively",that retroacxtive(ex post facto)intterpretive action was OK on the Chiefs part.We have a reform that may give me a chance when it kicks in in October,butI'll have to wait and see...God I hate these @ssholes.My case could be found under DuPont v Davis,originating in Ayer District Court in the spring of 99,and having its last stop at Middlesex Superior Court(Lowell) in 2000.Ma. Court of Appeals had it in 02,,but took no action.If I made it to the US court,I'd probably have a slightly better chance,but its a coin operated machine;the enemy does not have to pay their own way.:cuss: :banghead: :cuss: :banghead:

Nathaniel Firethorn
August 25, 2004, 10:11 PM
USMCsilver, I feel fer ya. Just got shafted in a similar way -- denied some extra umbrella insurance because of a couple of tickets for 35-in-a-25-zone.

Any excuse. :fire:

- pdmoderator

Mannlicher
August 25, 2004, 10:45 PM
I know this won't be popular, but having a close family member killed by 'a nice young boy' who just happened to be speeding, (his third instance of that in two years), I am less sympathetic.
If the information about minor offenses having a negative impact on your license was conveyed to you when you took your class for CCW, and you paid it no heed, well, then judgment might be lacking. If you continued to speed and continued to get caught, then judgement may might be lacking.
I don't see this so much as a gun control issue, as a response to a lack of judgment.

YammyMonkey
August 25, 2004, 10:53 PM
Missed about the last 1/3 of this thread, but in case nobody's suggested it, go to Packing.org, find a state that has non-resident permits that SC recognizes and get one of them.

Beat 'em at their own game. Good luck.

rust collector
August 25, 2004, 11:14 PM
I may have missed it, but I don't remember reading a) the name of the person who made the original "denied" decision, b)) whether that was subject to review and approval by the issuing authority, c. if it was based upon policy, a copy of the policy and information regarding the method and date of adoption, and d. approval by oversight entities such as the legislative rules committee. If this is the result of a letter or memo, and if it does not spell out specifically the type of criminal conviction that triggers this denial, the agency's action is likely to be found arbitrary and capricious, or a violation of due process.

All the appeal hearings in the world can't unring the bell. If this wasn't done right in the beginning, each appeal is a butt-coverage exercise to obscure the essential points. I don't think you're likely to satisfy any of these officials. I like law enforcement folks generally but their cultural setting is an "us against them" framework. If you violate any law you are "them" and excuses are like navels--everyone's got 'em.

If it's important enough for you to pursue, get a pro involved. Lawyers, like divorces, are expensive because they're worth it. Find someone that's got some administrative law experience and use them wisely. Good luck.

4D5
August 25, 2004, 11:57 PM
Here's something you might be able to add to your defense.

So now it's time for your renwal. If you are such a threat because of your driving offenses way back then, how is it that your permit wasn't pulled before it ever came up for renewal ? Did it all of the sudden become a problem when your renewal was due? And... if you are such a menace to the road how is it that they allow you to keep your drivers license when all the offenses were the result of an automobile, having nothing to do with a firearm. How is it that they are able to single out your CCW but never give you any grief about your DL.

ID_shooting
August 26, 2004, 08:05 AM
OK, My opinion in the case will certainly be unpopular, but here it goes...

I side w/ SC on this one based on what we know:

In 5 years, this young gentelman received 7 misdemenor violoations. That equates 1 every 8.5 months if they were evenly spaced. During the next three years, he has kept his nose clean.

The fact that these violations are vehicular related is immatterial, they are violations of the law.

OK, for 5 years there was a well proven track record of the willingness to disregard the rules of society and public safety. It will take longer than 3 years to counter that. As the old saying goes, "It take 3 attaboys to counter every oh sh*t."

Oh, and I would not flaunt being a former Marine on this issue. Being in the military does not equate being a responsible person and is likley to harm your case more than help, especially if you are trying to convince someone who is not in vavorable opinion of our armed forces. Case in point - several MPs in Iraq, a few Marines in Japan, and one John Kerry.

Again, this is just my opinion.

Now ducking the "flame bags" headed my way.

MP5
August 26, 2004, 08:28 AM
The fact that these violations are vehicular related is immatterial, they are violations of the law.


I don't know about immaterial: a car is one of the deadliest "weapons" out there, statistically. Repeated lack of judgement and safety when operating one is inexcusable and perhaps indicative of a general mindset of putting self-gratification (getting there fast) over the safety of others. I can see where the state is coming from on the issue, though their timing sounds hokey here.

DragonFire
August 26, 2004, 08:46 AM
While it may leave a bitter taste in your mouth, I think you need to show more remorse for your past "crimes".

I would ask them how long after your last infraction would become "responsible" again. If 3 years isn't enough, what is? They can't hold traffic tickets against you forever, can they? If the chief is just tring to eliminate permits, then nothing will really help, but if he's (at least thinks) he's just doing his job, then maybe showing him how unreasonable he's being might help.

If nothing else, maybe you can get a commitment from him (try to get it in writing) that in X number of years you could get your permit back. Yeah I know that isn't a good solution, but getting it back in 3 years is better than not getting it back at all, isn't it?

oldfella
August 26, 2004, 10:31 AM
I don't believe this has been mentioned... if you are not yet a member of GOA, become one - I think they can do better than the NRA in terms of providing assistance/advise, attorney reference, etc.

The Oldfella

ny32182
August 26, 2004, 12:35 PM
Missed about the last 1/3 of this thread, but in case nobody's suggested it, go to Packing.org, find a state that has non-resident permits that SC recognizes and get one of them.

This sounds like a really good thing to try.

As far as my permit went, I had traffic tickets on my record when I applied. My instructor told me to list EVERYTHING, yes, even traffic tickets in the "what have you been convicted of?" section of the permit application. He said you could be denied based on convictions you didn't list; even if they were traffic tickets. So, I had to call up the DMV and get my speeding ticket records from years past, and list them on the application. Mine was accepted.

I have yet to renew mine though. Does it have a "what have you been convicted of since last time?" section? Did you list your two "new" tickets from 3 years ago?

Smurfslayer
August 26, 2004, 03:06 PM
SC law specifically excludes recgonition of a non resident of the state of issuance for permits. for example, although SC recipricates with UT, UT non res permits are not recognized.

USMC- I see 3 immediate arguments that you can make
1: Your permit should've been revoked, not denied renewal if you were such an "irresponsible" person. Your recent clean record indicates a pattern of lawful behavior. Do you have any non resident permits? If so, point out that other states have held you responsible for issuance...

2: You can make a strong case of "capricious and arbitrary" not to mention discriminatory denial of your state issued privilege which is essentially disenfranchising you. As an Honorably discharged Marine, you should be afforded the professional courtesy of having learned discipline, responsibility, as well as a thanks for serving your country.

3: I agree with (I think it was Rickstir) the previous poster. Compose a well and strongly worded letter to any local rep, mayor, state delegate, senator, the state AG, Governor, US rep, US Senators.
Put on the pissed off Marine hat, but be civil, respectful and politely express your outrage at these petty commisars.

Think number 3 is going too far?

I won a fight with the Alexandria VA DMV and got them to recognize my 'still good for one year' MD emissions inspection when I moved to VA. It was the DMV guy's fault, not mine. The DMV manager told me to take a hike. The COMMONWEALTH DMV superintendent saw it otherwise, and apologized to me on behalf of the dimwit branch manager, whom he agreed to scold. I did it by doing number 3 above. My Delegate was the one who had a staff member contact DMV. The Gov.'s office (Warner) followed up indicating that the DMV guy wanted to talk to me to "make this right"...

As a general comment - I think that by and large, we all are poorly trained drivers. Sometimes we behave less than responsibly, or are careless, and often times we take driving for granted. That said, most speeding tickets are for revenue generation, not compliance with the law or safety.

If it were *REALLY* about safety, then why don't the states step up and eliminate all traffic fines, replacing them with MANDATORY community service or jail time? :what: Take the financial incentive out of the equation.

Traffic law is the most abused by the police. It's used to create 'busy work' so that officers look like they're doing a lot, and more than a few traffic cops ought to not be in that line of work. Some drivers genuinely deserve punishment for an infraction, but most don't. Let's not even bring up the severely underposted speed limits. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Good luck USMC. keep us posted.

Brad Johnson
August 26, 2004, 03:31 PM
USMCsilver,

Come on over to Texas - a Shall Issue state where minor traffic violations don't count, no matter how many you have. The only misdeameanor that will get you tossed is a Class A (violent) misdemeanor.

Brad

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 03:48 PM
Smurf, again, you have been vary valuable to this thread and I thank you for that.

You are indeed correct on #1. My permit should have been revoked, yet it was not. I feel that if I raise this issue, they will speak about how they are understaffed and cannot check for these things on a daily basis, yet, a practical counter to that would be stating that if it were that much of a determining factor, then it would be reviewed frequently.

#2 is a good point as well, but I feel that they would see it as moot.

As far as #3 goes, it is probably the best idea. However, I'm not too sure how to address the topic if I contact the big-wigs. I assume I will wait for another denial before I travel down that barren path.

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 03:50 PM
Dragonfire, I agree that I should question how long I need a clean record before I can be considered for the permit, however, as previously mentioned, I did not want to raise that question in my 2nd appeal letter because it may sound like I am already facing defeat.

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 03:53 PM
ID_shooting, you, sir, are indeed entitled to your opinion. Yeah, I messed up, but didn't you do some stupid stuff when you were younger, too?

Better yet, do you not speed? Do you never go a mere 1 mph over the speed limit? If you do, guess what, you are a law violator! The difference is, you just didn't get caught.

And as far as the Marine comment goes, I am proud to have the honor of serving my country, and some can relate to that. Yes, there are a few bad apples in every bunch, but this ain't one of them.

Fred Fuller
August 26, 2004, 04:21 PM
USMCsilver,

Sounds like something other than objectivity was involved in the decision to deny your renewal. Best of luck to you in your tussle with the bureaucracy, hope you come out ahead. Do keep posting to this thread, please.

lpl/nc

P95Carry
August 26, 2004, 04:45 PM
Just to say - I am appalled by this apparent beaurocratic obfuscation ...... it does indeed appear very much to be a case of ''we'll deny any we can (get away with)''.

It would indeed be more than interesting to find out just how many ''in the department'' have old speeding tickets.

What a crock ..............:rolleyes: :(


I sincerely hope the outcome can eventually be fruitful.

Jayman
August 26, 2004, 05:00 PM
I'll only echo what some others have said:

YOU NEED TO GET OTHERS INVOLVED.

1. LAWYER
2. NRA
3. GOA

any other local gun rights groups. Were you in VA, I'd say VCDL.

RealGun
August 26, 2004, 05:17 PM
This thing might be somewhat negotiable. Try to find out under what circumstances they would restore/reissue a permit to you. For example, if they agreed to renew based on three clean years, you would have to commit to being dead meat if you get two tickets in any successive year. I have had one speeding ticket in 44 years of driving, none in more than 20, I forget, so I wouldn't think much of an argument that a ticket was going to be inevitable. You simply have to take the law seriously. Forget about what everyone else is doing.

I live in SC but I am not sure if they have traffic school here. In CA, going to traffic school for 4 successive, 8 hour Saturdays is a way to avoid a ticket going on your record. My ticket was not for speeding but for an improper turn at a familiar intersection that had just been changed. I can attest that traffic school greatly increases your maturity as a driver.

You mentioned Grass Roots and NRA. You already have the option of going to Gun Owners of South Carolina, which is our state NRA group. Dennis Guillot is the SC State admin on packing.org and is directly involved in GOSC. You should contact him. I could be wrong, but I would have to say that Grass Roots is not very well oriented to either new or younger people. I don't really know about GOSC in that regard, but I do know that Dennis is a good guy.

CCR
August 26, 2004, 06:22 PM
USMCSilver,
I don't see how they can do that. How is this going to affect your FFL that you have for your refinishing business?

Mad Man
August 26, 2004, 06:51 PM
http://instapundit.com/archives/014891.php

April 04, 2004

YOUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK (FOR THEMSELVES) (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-pba0404,0,7299837.story?coll=ny-topstories-headlines):


The law requires everyone to follow the speed limit and other traffic regulations, but in Suffolk County, exceptions should be made for cops and their families, police union officials say.

Police Benevolent Association president Jeff Frayler said Thursday it has been union policy to discourage Suffolk police officers from issuing tickets to fellow officers, regardless of where they work.

"Police officers have discretion whenever they stop anyone, but they should particularly extend that courtesy in the case of other police officers and their families," Frayler said in a brief telephone interview Thursday. "It is a professional courtesy."

Frayler's comments echo views expressed in the spring union newsletter, in which treasurer Bill Mauck exhorts "you don't summons another cop" and says that when officers decline to cite each other, "the emotion you feel should be that of joy."

Maurice Mitchell, a project coordinator with the Long Island Progressive Coalition, a nonprofit advocacy group, said the PBA's position undermines taxpayer confidence in law enforcement.


It's bad enough that they do this, but it's even worse that they brag about it. But wait, it gets worse:


Angie Carpenter, a Republican lawmaker from West Islip and chairwoman of the legislature's public safety committee, said she didn't have a problem with the PBA's policy because she believes it will be applied judiciously.

"It's the same way they would offer a professional courtesy to a doctor pulled over on the way to the hospital to deliver a baby," she said. "Besides, I can't imagine that if some police officer was to commit an egregious offense that they wouldn't be cited, regardless of who they are."


So much for political oversight. So a doctor en route to an emergency is the same as a cop who's just driving too fast? Sheesh. Are these people for real?


UPDATE: Rand Simberg (http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/003606.html#003606) observes:

While this is outrageous in itself, it would seemingly put the lie to the notion that the purpose of such laws in for public safety, since it's no "safer" for a police officer's wife to speed than it is for anyone else. It's a tacit admission that it's all about revenue generation. . . . Remember this the next time you hear a lecture from a cop about how dangerous it is to exceed the speed limit.

Indeed.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More here (http://sinequanon.spleenville.com/archives/006392.php), including this bit:

Police departments often commend officers who have a knack for seizing drugs and arresting drunken drivers.

But in Bel-Ridge, such officers risk a stern warning.

Supervisors have warned some of them that busting bad guys or making time-consuming arrests distracts them from their true mission - generating money for the village.

Sheesh.

posted at 04:27 PM by Glenn Reynolds

LoneStranger
August 26, 2004, 07:15 PM
So the questions are;

How far back will they go in checking your driving record?

How long a time will driving record apply against you?

What written policy are they following?

What state statues are they using to justify their policy?

Politely ask them to supply access for your copying of all relevant statues and policy.

Till you have answers to these questions you are pretty much blowing smoke up everyone's, that includes you, tailfeathers.

Till I have answers to questions I can't offer any advice, good or bad.

Web
August 26, 2004, 07:15 PM
Does anyone know if any other states that do issue permits consider speeding violations in their approval process?

F4GIB
August 26, 2004, 07:33 PM
The "key words" you need to put in your next letter are "stale" and "irrelevant" to the applicant's PRESENT fitness.

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 07:42 PM
Well, I have contacted my congressmen, senators, representatives, the GOA, and the NRA-ILA...we'll see what happens.

0luke1
August 26, 2004, 07:44 PM
You cannot polish a turd with lawyers.

If your USMC record is a good one, I would re-write your letter to be more humble and I would include more about your record other than traffic violations. Did you earn any ribbons, do sea service or serve overseas? How are you paying for college - working your way through? Can you get some recommendations from professors or past COs? Where I see you're light is in balancing your bad deeds with your good ones.

Once you have a better letter written, I would do some googling and find a legislator or judge who is also a leatherneck. Send your letter to him and ask him for a brief conversation - you need some help on the inside track.

There are pleny of veterans (like me) who cut as much slack as possible for fellow vets, but you have to give your potential benefactors as much ammo as you can.

Wayne D
August 26, 2004, 07:55 PM
Does anyone know if any other states that do issue permits consider speeding violations in their approval process?

I didn't know that traffic tickets were considered misdemeanors. Is this true in all States? Virginia just asks if you've had any DUI's in the last three years.

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 07:58 PM
0luke1, I am actually a disabled vetern who is attending school under Chapter 31, or better known as vocational rehabilitation.

As far as another letter and writing people goes, I submitted this piece tonight. Granted, it isn't put together all that well because I just pounded it out, but I did send it to my congressmen, senators, representatives, the GOA, and the NRA-ILA.

Here is it:

I am writing *insert recipient here* because I have almost reached the dead end of a long road of appeals with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division.

In May of 2000, at age 22, I was issued my CWP. This past May, I tried to renew my permit and was denied. SLED stated that I was denied due to receiving too many traffic tickets over a significant period of time. However, my last traffic ticket was in 2001; in 2002, I completed the AAA Driver Improvement Program. I don't see how they can draw parallels between my driving record and carrying a firearm. I am a former U.S. Marine with an honorable discharge, and I can assure the state that I am capable of safely carrying a firearm. I practice with a handgun on practically a weekly basis and probably have more firearms training than most law enforcement officers. Additionally, I am a student at the University of South Carolina where I am pursuing a B.A. in Criminal Justice. I don't want this denial to have a future impact on a decision of me becoming a future law enforcement officer.

Along with my last appeal that I sent to SLED, I included two certificates of merit that I received from Midlands Technical College; one for being on the Scholar's List, and one for being on the President's List. I also submitted my transcripts which display an extreme transformation from my previous years of higher education. And lastly, they received a copy of my AAA certificate.

Anyhow, I have spread the word about my troubles on numerous internet forums and I have gained much support from fellow South Carolinians and from others all over the United States. They said that I should contact people like you, so that is what I am doing.

If there is anything you can do to assist me in this matter, I would greatly appreciate it.

My last appeal was sent to SLED Chief Robert Stewart. My case number is RCWP-31708.

Thank you for your consideration to assist me. If you need anymore information, please do not hesitate to contact me. My contact information is as follows:

Sterling
whatever rd.
Camden, SC 29020
phone number

Waitone
August 26, 2004, 08:37 PM
I'm still trying to figure out if we are witnessing a change in policy mid-stream or if that's the way it has always been.

In addition to the suggestions of the NRA, GOA, GRSC, and a good lawyer, I suggest getting smart on SC's Freedom of Information laws.

Seems to me you could file an FOI request seeking all documentation pertaining to:

--Misdemeanors taken into consideration when granting or renewing CCH permits.

--The number of permits or renewals denied by year spanning the time of your original permit itemizing the type of number of misdemeanors cited as reason for denial of either a permit or renewal of a permit.

--Any and all documentation from the judicial branch of goverment pertaining to rules governing the issuance or renewal of CCH permits.

lastly, PM Jim March and devine his street smarts.

Another lastly, if SC is willing to whip out on you past misdemeanors as excuse for denial of CCH, you might get busy now and determine if you will get aced out of a career in LE for the same reasons. I'd really be interested in ths last point.

BTW, now that a national anti-gun agenda is a demonstrated loses; anti-gun advocates are moving to the state level and sponsoring harassing legislation and regulation.

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 08:48 PM
I'm still trying to figure out if we are witnessing a change in policy mid-stream or if that's the way it has always been.

After your original perrnit was issued in 1999, SLED began considering records of traffic offenses as being significant to the classification of favorability of an applicant's background.

I may try the FOI stuff. My Criminal Courts teacher is a defense attorney for the county where SLED is located. Maybe I could talk to her and she could lead me in the right direction.

Who is Jim Marsh? Is that his user name here on THR?

sumpnz
August 26, 2004, 08:50 PM
Who is Jim Marsh? Is that his user name here on THR? It's "Jim March" and that is his user name (w/o the quotes of course). He's a long standing member and has been very active in trying to get CCW to California.

Waitone
August 26, 2004, 08:52 PM
Jim March is a THR regular who is a pro-gun lobbiest (?sp) in California. He is the one who is stirring it up on Cali's may issue CCH laws.

Run a THR search on Jim March posts and enjoy. I also suggest PM'ing him asking him to read the thread.

trfox
August 26, 2004, 08:55 PM
OK, we need to stop this type of governmental abuse of the citizens before it gets w-a-y out of hand. I once read where most governments would LOVE to turn their citizens into "criminals" simply because criminals have few rights and therefore those citizens would be easy for the government to control.

Here is one idea that doesn't involve the expense of legal action (attorneys, etc.) and please everyone come up with other ideas.

Get as many friends and relatives as you possible can to sign a group letter. In that letter state that ALL law enforcement officers MUST and SHOULD BE held to the highest possible standard. Mention how you believe that the law enforcement agencies (expecially the one involved with denying the gentlemen his CCW renewal) has and is hiring CRIMINALS! This practice should stop and the "criminal" LEO's already hired MUST be fired.

Reason? The gentleman denied his CCW was told that speeding tickets are a "criminal offense" and indicates that the ticketed person has undesirable traits. Well, guess what? Most of the LEO's now working and the ones in the future to be hired have at one time or another gotten some kind of traffic ticket. If it is fair to classify a good and honest citizen as a "criminal" because of a few speeding tickets, and deny him/her a CCW because of that fact, then it is also fair to deny a person from becoming or continuing as an LEO if they fit into the same catagory.

Send this letter certified with a return receipt requested to the approriate person/agencies, along with as many signutures as you can get and send a letter to all the local news media about what you are doing. I can't predict what will happen but I can guarantee you that the people who unfairly denied this man his CCW will get SOME MAJOR HEART BURN OUT OF THIS.

sumpnz
August 26, 2004, 09:06 PM
Uhhh trfox, that's one heck of a way to guarantee he'll never, ever get an LE job, which considering that he's going for a degree in Criminal Justice, would seem to be "A Bad Thing." Not to mention that as soon as such a letter were sent he would instantly be labled as a nut-job to be ignored. I understand where you're coming from with that idea, and in many ways I think there are valid issues it raises, but it would not be at all a smart move in a situation like this (IMHO, YMMV).

By the way, Welcome to THR!

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 09:18 PM
sumpnz, you raise some very valid points.

trfox has some good ideas, but, well, not very practicle in this situation.

Ultimately, I hope to work for SLED, well, not ultimately, but they are just under my Federal goals. So, I don't want to go in with a poker that is too hot. I'm probably pissing upstream doing what I am doing, but right now, that is a chance I am willing to take. At least they will know I am persistant. USMCsilver always gets his man! LOL... :evil:

USMCsilver
August 26, 2004, 09:26 PM
Here's a thread that was started by George_Co over at www.packing.org:

http://www.packing.org/talk/thread.jsp/29689/

Jim March
August 27, 2004, 01:09 AM
OK, caught up with this thread.

Hmmm.

The situation is different from California's, where subjective "good cause" leads to all sorts of mischief...racism, corruption, etc. SC abandoned that garbage some time back for the most part although as USMCSilver has learned, not entirely.

<scratches head>

The key to cracking the California thing, long term, is equal protection and due process law. It...MIGHT be possible to apply that thinking there but it'd be a real struggle to find people who are buddies with the decision makers and who have sucky traffic records :).

I don't recommend that.

One thing that occurs to me: you're publishing a web-page indicating that you're doing high-end refinish jobs on firearms. The fact that this is public knowledge (read: on the 'net) in theory subjects you to the same "crime threat" a gun dealer or gunsmith has. And like those guys, there's a major public safety issue in not having bad guys rip off your stock at hand. The decision to disarm you has therefore caused a public safety problem not at all in line with your former military record, your current school record and recent traffic history.

You might want to note that issue as an addendum to your appeal letter.

trapperjohn
August 27, 2004, 02:08 AM
to play devils advocate:

as gun owners we keep saying that "law abiding citizens" should have the right to carry. That is a mantra with us it seems. We dont say "responsible" citizens" or "educated" citizens, or "intelligent" citizens. WE say "law abiding". Why do we say law abiding? Simple, becuase we are trying to convey to the public that people who are willing to submit to the law should be allowed to carry. There are smart criminals, there are educated criminals, and there are even responsible criminals.
I am sorry, but your excessive speeding tickets have shown you are not willing to be "law abiding" , if you are not willing to abide by those laws, why should we trust you to abide with other laws?
I do think that we, as gun owners in general, and packers specifically, have a duty to demonstrate law abiding behaviour above and beyond that of the general public.

Akurat
August 27, 2004, 02:34 AM
Wow. Scratch SC off of my list of 'potential places to live after graduating' list. Un *#$(#$ believable. I feel for you, sorry man... Come to AZ where the weather is nice and the girls are too :) Oh youre married...well come anyways :D

No seriously thoguh, I'd get a permit from a state that has reciprocity with SC. I see on packing.org that Tennessee offers these and has reciprocity with SC. Thats the route I'd go.

Zach S
August 27, 2004, 05:56 AM
I heard about someone in a simular situation a while back. I was thinking about moving to the upstate untill I heard about it (my driving record is, um, worse than USMC silver's)

Anyway, AFAIK, SC doesnt recognize any non-res permits.

USMCsilver, I wish you the best of luck.

telewinz
August 27, 2004, 06:01 AM
.Because, we are not able to conclude that the background revealed by your investigation is a favorable one for the purposes of this program, we must deny your application.
I have to agree with the state's conclusion. Your repeated behavior with a "deadly weapon" having 4 wheels seems to indicate a lack of good common sense/maturity on your part. If you won't responsibly operate a motor vehicle, "logic" may indicate that you are unable to responsibly CCW. Your "record" will also impede your ability to get a civilian government job and any kind of security clearance.

1911Tuner
August 27, 2004, 07:22 AM
Howdy Sterling! Long time no see/hear from/talk to. How ya been?

The speeding violations in and of themselves probably don't constitute enough of a tendency to criminal behavior to warrant denial of a CCW permit. The underlying thought with a long list of speeding and other traffic violations suggests that the individual may be prone to a bit of
"Road Rage"...or at least, careless or reckless behavior.

The traffic record is in black and white at the DMV records division, and doesn't provide any extenuating or mitigating circumstances as to the reasons for speeding. Reasons such as time schedules or emergencies, etc. It only states the offense and the deposition. While few drivers go through a lifetime without at least one or two speeding tickets, a trend of such violations suggests that the individual may not be in full control of his or her urges...which they doubtless feel is a bad risk for being armed in public.

This isn't conjecture on my part. I've known several people who have been turned down for a CCW permit based on their driving record, and when they pressed hard for reconsideration...these were the answers that they got after the issuing agent had dealt with them 4 or 5 times, and they had resorted to an attorney. The firm, final answer was: " No! Keep your record clean and come back in 5 years."

Best I can do buddy...Luck to ya!

Tuner

Double Naught Spy
August 27, 2004, 08:27 AM
We may perceive the driving record issue for CWP denial as stupid, but it is the law. Folks can do all the appeals they want, but the probably won't go anywhere unless the law itself can be changed. Just because you don't like the law or consider it relevant does not mean that the law should not be applied to you.

Somehow I doubt the number of tickets given are a result of any sort of extinuating circumstances or USMCsilver would have described them.

USMCsilver, move to Texas. Unless you have DWIs, vehicular homicide, etc. on your record, traffic isn't a consideration. Not only that, a Texas CHL often goes a long way with the folks in law enforcement who basically see CHL holders and registered good guys. As a result, tickets are often not issued.

0luke1
August 27, 2004, 08:29 AM
I was thinking the same thing - the government usually wants some period of time to elapse while good behavior is exhibited. Five years would probably do it.

It's a funny thing with tickets - every so often (once every few years), I'll get pulled over and the first question is "how's your record?"

Since I'm clean (no points), I get off with a warning. About five years ago, the PO gave me a non-moving violation and explained that he needed to document that he was doing his job, but didn't think I deserved points (right turn on an intersection where the "no right turn" sign was difficult to see). I suspect that once you have a couple of tickets, you're doomed - you'll get a ticket every time.

USMC Silver, your last letter is a good one except I would not start off by saying "I'm almost at the end of a long road of appeals." Instead I would say "I would appreciate your advice because I intend to make a career out of law enforcement and don't want a denied/revoked CCW permit on my record and, although I understand why I was denied, I have researched this issue and cannot find and absolute guideline about this." I would also say "my renewal was denied because traffic tickets are now being tracked and frankly, I had several speeding tickets, the last one being in 2001. I took a AAA course, have since changed my driving habits and have no further violations. In addition, I think the following points are better indications of my character:

1. Honorably discharged USMC veteran.

2. Attending college at USC to earn a criminal justice degree

3. Attended Midlands Technical College where I received two academic awards

4. No other violations of the law

5. other bullet points here

This is just my advice - and it's free so you know what it's worth - but I would not make a big stink over this. It could trail you when you become a LEO. Don't consider this dropping your appeal as dropping your pack. No chief is going to want a pain-in-the-ass working for them. You don't want to be on the dirtbag list.

I think you have a lot going for you - vet, SC native going to the state school, future LEO - since you have committed yourself and done your duty for the system, you should seek good advice from the system. Good folks will not want to see you go wrong.

Good luck.

RealGun
August 27, 2004, 09:37 AM
I wouldn't support giving SC reasons to regulate gun ownership, but if one has a CWP and wants to keep it, some recognition must be given to the conditions, one of which is having no background demonstrating disregard for the law and no subsequent record prior to renewal demonstrating a disregard for the law.

The problem with speeding tickets is that they are often seen as being a result of being naughty or being entrapped. The tickets that are entirely valid are a result of breaking the law, not being naughty or unlucky. Too many drivers appear to believe that speed limits are for someone else.

The law is pretty specific, thanks in large part to the work of SC gun rights advocates. SLED is a regulator, both guided and restricted by those laws. As a regulator, applying the law case by case, SLED decisions are subject to appeal, and SLED is liable for abuse of discretion.

The way I read some expressions of outrage cause me to believe that such a person does not take speed limit laws seriously, in spite of any knowledge that those laws are sometimes abused by law enforcement.

The rejection is based in principle, so don't get lost in the trees trying to argue why the principle is wrong.

I think your best bet is to describe when and how your transformation occurred and why you have three immediate years with a clear record. Make it your business to keep it that way and promise to do so, accepting liability if you don't. You will have to quarrel with the principles later.

Treat it as if you are standing before a judge. You have done some of that, but you are and should be on the defensive. I think there is adequate reason to question your status. I might have simply judged it differently or engaged you in an interview first, considering it marginal, not obliged to reject your application on statistics alone.

The problem with being entirely personal and fair is that it takes more time and staff. If you find that the decision is routinely considered final and you are tilting with windmills in an appeal process, then you have every right to pursue it as far as you want to. The squeaky wheel does get the oil. He who has the most and biggest guns wins.

trfox
August 27, 2004, 10:05 AM
I have gotten one traffic (speeding) ticket as far back as 1998. The only one before that was in 1986. The one before that was 1965. I do not purposely speed nor do I approve of speeders and other dangerous drivers who might endanger my family. But gun rights, free speech rights, freedom of movement and association rights, etc. should not be tied to victimless "criminal" activity that has absolutely no connection to the citizens rights (CCW in this case) that is being restricted.

I for one would not, in this man's place, offer up all sorts of pleading (begging, actually) "good" reason why my CCW should not be "subjectively" denied. I would find some way, taking into account all the good warnings already posted on this topic, to shine a spotlight onto this situation. This might involve sending the letter I already mentioned and having a bunch of signutures on it but not my own. Or demand a SPECIFIC set of guidelines, not a subject set, detailing exactly how bad a person't driving record has to be before they are denied a CCW permit. Etc, Etc.....

My basic point is that anytime a govt. agency acts upon a citizen in a negative manner and some (or all) of the logic and reasoning behind that negative action can cleary be made to appears subjective, hypocritical (as in this case) and basically unfair, then that nasty situation can often be exposed to the public and the outrage will force the govt. agency to clean up it's act. And sometimes the person doing this must take some risks such as not getting a LEO job in that state, or making the "higher ups" mad, etc. JMHO

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 10:28 AM
Lots more good stuff... Oh, and Tuner, it is pretty darn nice to hear from ya bud!

Well, hmm, let's see -- what to react to first?

I must say the Jim Marsh did raise a valid point. I had never thought about that. It is not really an "if" anymore, but "when" I get denied again, I will use that as a reason before the Advocate Law Judge.

I guess when that time comes, I'll go through this, and the other treads on other fourms out there, and cut and paste to achieve a big list of stuff that can be used in court. I still don't think that finding other officers with a not so perfect driver's record is a great idea.

Again, to those who said they side with the state, that's fine. You break the law, too, every time you get into a car; the difference is, you just don't get caught. Everyone is guilty of speeding -- whether it is by 1mph or 25mph (none of my tickets were for 25mph that I recall).

Anyhow, I am waiting to hear back from my state's people, the NRA-ILA and GOA, but it'll probably be a few days. Usually my state guys sent me a pre-written letter in the mail thanking me for voicing my concern on a subject, but hopefully this time something will be different.

We'll see...

rick_reno
August 27, 2004, 11:10 AM
USMCsilver - You need to slow down or get a good radar detector. I personally don't see the connection between your driving record and your carrying a handgun - but the state you're living in does.

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 11:18 AM
LOL. Rick, I have slowed down, hence my not receiving a ticket in over 3 years. And as far as radar detectors go, I think they are a gimmick. It's easier just not to speed.

Waitone
August 27, 2004, 11:25 AM
As a possibly irrelevant example of how arbitrary SLED's attitude can be described I offer the following:

If you were to move across the border into NC and establish residency in Charlotte you would be faced with cameras at certain high accident intersections. Amazingly successful at stop red light runners.

Now shift the same technology to certain high speeding corridors. CLT has installed speeding camera which photo license plate.

--As a caught speeder you are sent a ticket for $50 by a private company which is contracted by the city to operate the equipment and administer the tickets.
--No record of your ticket is ever made with legal authorities. No points are ever assigned to your record. Your insurance company is not informed of your indescretion. Pay the fine and everything disappears.

--Don't pay your fine and the private company will say nasty things about you on your credit report. that's it.

So in one state speeding is a misdemeanor which evidently can be used against you when you apply for a CCH permit. Just across the border speeding is not a crime at all, merely a source of revenue.

Amazing, just amazing.

RealGun
August 27, 2004, 11:26 AM
Again, to those who said they side with the state, that's fine. You break the law, too, every time you get into a car; the difference is, you just don't get caught. Everyone is guilty of speeding -- whether it is by 1mph or 25mph (none of my tickets were for 25mph that I recall).

Being dead wrong about that is exactly what this whole thing concerns. Don't ever use that argument in an official appeal. While everyone may be technically guilty at some point, they would have to do it routinely and in a cavalier manner to get caught very often.

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 12:47 PM
Being dead wrong about that is exactly what this whole thing concerns. Don't ever use that argument in an official appeal. While everyone may be technically guilty at some point, they would have to do it routinely and in a cavalier manner to get caught very often.

RealGun, I would never use that as a defense, I was just making the statement to those who sided w/ the state that they, too, are guilty everytime they sit down in the driver's seat. Yeah, there may be some of those habitual drivers who drive under the speed limit, but, IMHO, they are more hazardous than the ones driving a couple of mph over...

And Waitone, you are right, it is truely amazing that one doesn't get "in trouble" for speeding in NC. A freakin' shame that wasn't the case 00 miles south of Charlotte.

trfox
August 27, 2004, 04:16 PM
OK, I’m one of the new fish here on this forum. And I well know I should remain polite and quiet until everyone gets to know me. But with the stated purpose of this forum, and from what little I have already read, I feel that I am among friends already, and I am your friend, if you will let me. But the issue at hand is too important for me to just remain polite and quiet.

I admit I am just an average person who is no smarter than the next guy. Otherwise, you would be justified in asking me why, if I think I am so smart, why aren’t I rich, famous, powerful, etc. But I do have a nose and I can tell when something smells “rotten”. The practice of withholding one citizen right, just because of a subjective opinion that the subject citizen was careless with another right, smells badly. Once that practice is established it can easily lead to dishonest and evil restrictions on more and more citizens.

For example, what if your livelihood is based upon your real estate salesperson license? And say for some reason you have a bad neighbor with whom you have gotten into several loud and aggressive arguments over a period of months. And say the police had to respond and issued BOTH you and your neighbor a ticket for disorderly conduct on several occasions. Now say it is time for you to renew your real estate license so you can continue to support your family but the state real estate commission rejects your application for renewal on the basis that the commission feels they must protect the public and they feel based upon your several tickets for disorderly conduct that they can no longer trust you to deal with the public.

If you use your imagination you can come with numerous other scenarios where, if this practice of denying a citizen a license in one area of their life, just because of a fairly minor activity in another area of their life, can lead to an extremely unfair and powerful government control over the good citizens of this country. And I will admit that perhaps this real estate license example is a little extreme and of course it is far removed from the CCW license rejection discussion that is part of this topic. But if you get my basic idea, you can easily come up with examples that might make more sense to you.

Now if it is just a case of that particular part of the CCW licensing law needs to be altered, then now is the time to start the necessary push to finally get it altered. And since time, space and your attention span is limited I will risk angering some by saying I am disappointed in all the advice about not rocking the boat, be patient, plead (beg actually) your case, don’t risk offending the higher-ups, don’t risk your future job opportunities, etc., etc.

We proud Americans would still be under King George’s thumb if our nation’s founders had thought like that!

JMHO

0luke1
August 27, 2004, 04:52 PM
Whoa. Shall we review the problem at hand?

1. Common sense will tell you that the guy had too many speeding tickets in too short a period of time.

2. He wants to be a LEO.

3. Creating an s-storm over this will most likely eliminate item 2 from his future, plus the odds are less than likely that he'll be successful because of item 1.

Let's be frank, if you are pulled over for speeding and you apologize, and your license is clean, you usually get a warning. If you argue or make an ass of yourself to a person with a gun and a badge, you're probably a little self destructive.

Further, I'll guarantee you that you can trace a line between a certain number of moving violations and other bad things in a person's life. The insurance companies know this and so does the state of SC. USMCsilver has apparently gotten past that part of his life, but I think the state is going to want to see a little more attention to detail before he gets his CCW back.

It may be a subjective opinion, but it is their responsibility to make it. There are repercussions for your behavior. In the past - and in the future. USMCsilver apparently wants more from his life than living in a log shack in the woods. That means he has to live in reality.

IMHO, the revolutionary war was not fought to set up anarchy.

trfox
August 27, 2004, 05:06 PM
For me, and just for me, there is no need to delve into the details of this situation beyond the fact that a governmental agency is all too happy to deny one citizen right just because they subjectly do not approve of activity in an unrelated part of that citizen's life.

If that type of framework (pattern, etc) is allowed to stand many, many government agencies can, if they chose, cause all kinds of mischief in the lives of some citizens.

JMHO

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 05:09 PM
trfox, I think that you just summed the whole thing up.

Also, this is bigger than just me -- this is big for the rest of CWP holders across the US. If SC can do this, than anyone can. You may be next; I pray not, but it is possible.

Oh, and, FWIW, my name is Sterling. If y'all wanna refer to me, well, please, by all means, feel free to call me Sterling.

Waitone
August 27, 2004, 05:20 PM
Yep. People do dumb things. People do change. People have to live with the consequences of one's actions. Yes to all that stuff associated with personal responsibility.

However,

The state of SC has a law written which permits adminstrative agencies to insert requirements no prescribed by letter of the law. Furthermore, said agency, SLED, was evidently cool to the idea of CCH laws. The legislature in its "wisdom" ceded CCH administration over to the very agency that was cool to the idea. Evidently without fanfair the agency erected hurdles which were not in effect at the start of the program.

My interest in the flap is driven by the relationship between legislative intent and bureaucratic footdragging. What I see going on in SC (based only on my contacts in SC and the contents of this thread) is similar to the foot dragging of one Norm Minetta and the intent of congress. Congress clearly wanted passenger pilots arms and Manetta did everything possible to impede congressional intent.

Gun control at the national level is at least dormant if not dead. So the theater of operations moves to the state level where harassing legislation and regulation is implemented.

I want to know if what is going on in SC is driven by a pocket of anti-2nd amendment bigots. The fact that the new regulations appeared after a change in governor leads me to believe a so-called conservative governor in a so-called conservative state has a pocket of anti-self-protection bigots somewhere in the inner circle of the governor or at a high level in the judicial branch.

The new regulations pick up on traffic misdemeanors. What other misdemeanors are used to deny CCH? Can't seem to find it on the web. So does that mean SC SLED is making this up as it goes? I'd expect this kind of behavior out of MA, NY, NJ, IL, and CA; not out of Redneck, SC.

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 05:44 PM
Well, I am sure that SLED got my letter today; well, unless the fella was off on a Friday; probably.

I honestly wonder if my letters to my reps, the NRA-ILA, and the GOA will make a difference. Would they contact SLED and ask to talk to the Chief and refer to my case? Or would they let this issue fall on deaf ears?

I know that Friday is not a good day for folks in many businesses, let alone state offices. I use to hold a state job, and Fridays were our day of rest. LOL.

Oh, yes, I forgot to mention -- there were a few posts about my bad driving record and holding a stat job -- well, hate to tell y'all, but I worked as an engineering tech for the South Carolina Department of Transportation (of all places) for 3 years, spanning from 2000-2003, hence all of the tickets. So, to say that I would not get a state job due to traffic violations is not true. Haha! One up on those who doubt me. :D

RealGun
August 27, 2004, 06:54 PM
Before getting worked up into an idealistic lather, I should point out that concern about traffic violations for a CWP holder (Concealed Weapon Permit) is nothing new. I was well aware of the caution when I received my CWP a few years ago. I am especially cautious since. The idea was clearly represented as an indication that one is responsible and will abide by the laws. Speeding tickets are not the only thing I would have to be concerned about, nor simply traffic violations. I would have to be reasonably classified as law abiding. Applying for renewal is not that different from the original background check when a license was first issued.

The CWP is kind of a deal. Yes, it's an infringement on the RKBA by a reasonable argument, but gun owners had to negotiate to be able to carry legally. Much of it is based on NRA's deal in the 1920s. Concerns of all sides had to be addressed. In effect, a CWP certifies one as a good citizen. From the police point of view, complying with traffic laws is part of being a good citizen. A traffic ticket is not a high crime, but a series of them is a problem. Exactly what time period is being looked at and fairness of judgment is at issue in this case.

If you want to carry concealed, you have to play the game. In the meantime, SC gun rights advocates have been working steadily to close liability loopholes, make concealed carry possible in more places, etc. etc. There is nothing regressive about SC except that SLED is very strict about reciprocity when another state's standards are not as high and when instant verification capabilities are not provided. They may lose regulatory oversight, because they are not cooperating fully with other States.

Rest assured that if SLED were inappropriately harrassing CWP holders about traffic violations, State gun rights advocacy groups would be all over it. In this case, I think it should be brought to their attention for review and advice. It's borderline in my opinion. I might rule in favor of renewal, but I do not consider it blatant abuse under current law.

What I would personally like to see is for misdemeanors to have no connection to carrying a gun. Of course then I would be very vigilant about what is considered a felony. Crimes of violence would be what I would have in mind. Everyone else maintains a right to personal protection. Frankly, if a felon cannot be trusted with a gun, he should still be in prison. The poor excuse for a citizen still needs to defend himself. Our problem is that it is treated as a privilege, not a right. Only the Supreme Court and the Constitution will ever fix that.

SC is not that tough compared to some other States. We have 'shall issue' licensing. You can car carry here without a license. You can open carry on your property without a license. We have no one legally carrying concealed here that does not have significant training and testing in safety, shooting accurately, and the laws that apply to use of guns.

Attacking the whole idea of licensing is a much bigger issue than SC. To avoid having the carrying of a weapon declared totally illegal, some negotiation must occur and conditions set. There is also some criteria for who would qualify both to get a license and to keep it. I am not justifying anything. These are simply the facts of life.

If I was going to really try to break free of the traces, I would attack the whole idea of licensing on a national scale, not simply how SC chooses to do it. The way I would do that is try to find some way for the 2nd Amendment to be applied to all States via the 14th Amendment with selective licensing as the basis of the case for infringement of 2nd Amendment rights. This case would actually have potential, but it would have to be argued on constitutional grounds from the get go, recognizing that State courts would reject it out of hand, if they will even hear the case. You do not have the legal option of getting all constitutional and high minded once in higher court. As I understand it, that and financing is why we rarely see a gun case go very far. You would almost have to start with a constitutional lawyer consulting.

Perhaps I am making too much of it, but if starting to talk about bucking local authorities, you have to plan on going big time.

RealGun
August 27, 2004, 07:08 PM
I worked as an engineering tech for the South Carolina Department of Transportation (of all places) for 3 years, spanning from 2000-2003, hence all of the tickets.

Duh. I don't get the connection (hence). Would you have been a target? I thought you were clear for the last three years.

USMCsilver
August 27, 2004, 07:33 PM
Duh. I don't get the connection (hence). Would you have been a target? I thought you were clear for the last three years.

Some mentioned that I would not be eligible for any state job b/c of my driving record; I was just showing that was not the case b/c of the job I previously held. That's it.

mattx109
August 27, 2004, 07:59 PM
To avoid having the carrying of a weapon declared totally illegal, some negotiation must occur and conditions set. There is also some criteria for who would qualify both to get a license and to keep it. I am not justifying anything. These are simply the facts of life.

Visit Vermont sometime.

I carry my weapon daily. I never negotiated a thing. :D

No permits on which to set conditions.

And I've never seen a rootin'-tootin' shootout on Church Street, either.

Jack19
August 27, 2004, 07:59 PM
0luke1's point is well made and very interesting.

Are you as responsible with a car as you are with a gun?

If you can't be trusted with a car...can you be trusted with a gun?

Maybe you've recognized the connection and matured....hey we all do at some point...hopefully not too late....but, the State holds the cards.

And hey, I owned an 87 Buick Grand National for 11 years AND kept my permit. :-)

ID_shooting
August 28, 2004, 08:30 AM
"ID_shooting, you, sir," + "I am proud to have the honor of serving my country, and some can relate to that."

By the last statement, I assume you to mean that I cannot understand your position because I cannot relate. Um, instead of sir, Corporal would be more appropriate, at least according to my DD214

"Yeah, I messed up, but didn't you do some stupid stuff when you were younger, too? Better yet, do you not speed? Do you never go a mere 1 mph over the speed limit?"

Yes, I did do some monsterously stupid things when I was younger, some of wich I stilll carry the burden of; however, as they say, "time heals all wounds." As my record indicates, iether I follow the law as close as possible, or I am just much more lucky than you are. in 15 years, 0 tickets, 0 points.

"Yes, there are a few bad apples in every bunch, but this ain't one of them."

You are probably correct on this point. There are far more shiney apples than bad ones comming out of the military, but the general public may not know this, especially in SC. You have the problem of Ft. Jackson being so close. The greatest population there are new/young soldiers and they have a habbit of getting into alot of trouble, throwing your prior military service in thier face may not win you any points.

Again, I have nothing against you, I just happen to agree w/ SC on thier decision. I don't mean to say it should be permanent, but at least more than three years are needed to show a changed behavior.

FNFiveSeven
August 28, 2004, 09:05 AM
man, there sure seems to be a lot of self-righteous people around here. Anyone here who thinks that USMCsilver deserves to have his permit denied clearly thinks that Vermont/Alaska style freedom is a bad idea. Without some "common sense" gun control measures like we have in SC, we wouldn't be able to deny people their rights because of their driving record:rolleyes:. Of all the things to
deny a permit for, a traffic ticket has got to be the worst.

You know, not to go to far off topic here, but this just reminds me that being a gun owner is not necessarily about being a mindless law abiding citizen. This country and its bill of rights were created by a group of exceptional men who decided to break the law and revolt against overly intrusive government. If all the gunowners in this country are so hopelessly devoted to the law that they are proud to admit to never go 60 in a 55, then I say the vision of our fouding fathers is dead already.

USMCsilver, I'm sorry to hear about your situation, it certainly sucks. But don't let the man intimidate you into changing your lifestyle by holding your rights in front of you like a carrot. If you can drive fast without putting anyone else at serious risk, then keep on driving fast. Remember, good men must not obey the law too well.

RealGun
August 28, 2004, 09:44 AM
We should probably wish USMCSilver well and leave him alone and separately debate whether speed limit laws should be taken seriously.

That would be a roundtable discussion in my opinion.

We could also debate whether misdemeanors or any legal offense not directly related to guns should have any bearing on eligibility for a concealed weapon permit. That would fit comfortably in Legal and Political.

We could also debate whether licensing was appropriate in light of the RKBA, a pretty tired subject actually but one that needs to be refreshed from time to time, lest we forget and buy into the whole anti-gun mentality.

None of that will do USMCSilver a bit of good. When an individual has a confrontation with the law, there is a pretty narrow path to walk and not a lot of practical options. Once in awhile an issue is pursued far enough to make a difference in the law for everyone else.

Trying to be pragmatic does not mean most are a bunch of spineless weenies who don't have some sense of their true rights in the matter. You pick your battles. Mostly you try to get and remain armed and then work to fix the system where needed. Part of that process is obeying the law...all of them. Challenging abuse of regulatory discretion is also part of it. That's not law. That's bureaucracy and local bigotry or corruption.

trfox
August 28, 2004, 11:34 AM
Again, I say the single item here to get worked up over is one simple and clear fact: A SC government agency/agents has chosen (using clear law or stretching the law matters not) that one licensed citizen's right can be quickly and easily denied SIMPLY BECAUSE OF SO-CALL "CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR" CONDUCT INVOLVING ANOTHER LICENSED RIGHT by that citizen. And the "criminal" driving behavior, to most reasonable people" is not really related to gun rights.

Cannot everyone see where this unfair procedure, once it takes root and becomes the "norm" or generally accepted by the public, law enforcement, the courts, the media, etc., can lead to more problems for honest gun owners? How long before SC passes a law saying that if you get "too many" (how many is "too" many?) speeding tickets you lose ALL your gun rights?

And what about being "punished" more than once for the same "crime"? Have all of you forgot about how in America that is not supposed to happen? The man in question has already been punished by paying a fine and points being assessed on his drivers license. Now the state of SC wants to give him a second "punishment" for the same "crime" by denying him his CCW.

If anyone here is still not outraged by what is being done to this man, then here is an easy and SIMPLE way to get yourself outraged. Using the logic of the law enforcement agency that controls the CCW permit in SC, the SC state driver's license bureau could revoke this man's DRIVER'S LICENSE if he somehow did some minor thing which cost him to lose his CCW or something that even caused him to lose his right to own guns. Something like violating Ex-President Bill Clinton's domestic violence law. In case no one here knows or understands how unfair and unreasonable that law was, just ask and I will gladly tell you. I am NOT defending wife beaters, but one unfair element of domestic violence law was that it retroactively went back into time before the law was even created and PUNISHED PEOPLE WHO HAD ALREADY BEEN PUNISHED LONG, LONG BEFORE THE LAW EVEN WAS CREATED. Show me just ONE other law ever passed in modern America that reaches back and punishes people that have already been punished before that particular law was created. Show me just ONE!

All of you sitting out there comfortable with your CCW's AND your driver's license should at least worry about this procedure becoming a two-way street and if you lose your gun rights you lose your drivers license.

Could this happen? Probably not because it would outrage millions of people and no government ageny wants to outrage more than a few people at a time. But before we worry about what DID happen we should worry about what MIGHT happen and stop it BEFORE it happens.

JMHO

USMCsilver
August 28, 2004, 12:20 PM
I contacted the president of the GOSC and got a promt reply that holds some valuable information:

In regard to your situation with the denial of your Concealed Weapons Permit renewal for excessive traffic violations, just today (8/27/04) I was in the office of the Director for Regulatory Services at the State Law Enforcement Division and as a part of that meeting I mentioned that I was in disagreement with their interpretation of Section 23-31-215 in which they are using subsection B in which the word "favorable" is used to state that they have a determination to make and this (as they call it) threshhold for driving violations was determined prior to his taking control of regulatory.

My suggestion would be to continue with the appeals. I believe your next appeal may be to the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 23 of Title I, upon a petition filed by an applicant within 30 days of date of delivery of the division's (SLED) decision.

Also, I would contact my state Senator and House member to express your displeasure with this issue as this appears to be the final step in eliminating this discrepancy. One of Gun Owners of South Carolina's(GOSC) initiatives for the next legislative session is to attempt to get this corrected.

As part of your appeal, Subsection A states that SLED must issue the permit to carry a concealable weapon to a resident who is at least 21 years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon upon submission of the following:

(1) a signed completed application,
(2) a current photo,
(3) proof of residence,
(4) proof of 20/40 vision,
(5) proof of training,
(6) payment of application fee, and
(7) a complete set of fingerprints.

At no point in the application process is the wording that allows SLED discretion in issuing permits if the fingerprint review and background check is favorable. The word "favorable" should refer back to Subsection A.

I would appreciate it if you would keep me informed of any further developments for future reference.

Also, for your information, the denial does not prevent you from having the handgun in the closed glove compartment, console or trunk of your vehicle while traveling in this state.

I hope this is of some help.

carpettbaggerr
August 28, 2004, 12:52 PM
I'd expect this kind of behavior out of MA, NY, NJ, IL, and CA; not out of Redneck, SC. Strange, my NY permit doesn't need to be renewed. Good for life. Hmmmmm. Oh, well.

I'd get a lawyer in this case, as well as contacting your state legisators. The SLED seems to be violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the law. The legislature intended the law to be shall-issue, and the SLED is attempting to retain the old may-issue standards. Standards for misdemeanor traffic violations should be codified. That's if the legislature even intended for them to be considered (which I doubt).

RealGun
August 28, 2004, 01:02 PM
There is little to say that hasn't been said already. There will be those who will continue, never conceding that a series of speeding tickets is a valid indication that one may not take the law in general seriously and that there is always a need to do so.

The issue here is the judgment that was applied to that driving record and whether or not it was fair and appropriate. I think we, although certainly biased, generally believe not but hope that SLED's point will not be lost on USMCSilver, who has done his part for the last three years.

I don't believe I would support an incremental change to remove consideration of traffic violations and I'll bet SLED wouldn't either. I too would like speed limits to be taken seriously, as long as those speed limits aren't ridiculously slow, even to an older phart like me (60). I remember being young and stupid, full of testosterone and always in a hurry, but there is a good reason why my insurance rates are lower. At least the concept of speed limits makes sense.

What I would support is removal of all conditions except a crime of violence or court order, removing consideration of all misdemeanors and some felonies as well. The next increment would be to drop licensing entirely, leaving only the personal RKBA itself in jeopardy for those who have committed and been convicted of crimes of violence. I can't settle the question of whether or not they should still be in prison or entitled to self defense. That's too tough a call and beyond the scope of what we are talking about. One who endorses law and order and appropriate, self controlled behavior would have a hard time being sympathetic in any case.

Waitone
August 28, 2004, 01:21 PM
The issue here is the judgment that was applied to that driving record and whether or not it was fair and appropriate. Gotta disagree. The issue of legislative intent vs. executive branch implementation. It strikes right at the heart of a federal form of govenment. It is now and will be in the future the battle ground over which RKBA will be fought. Federales legislation is getting to the state of benign, federales executive branch is not that happy, anti-2nd amendment bigots are moving to the states to erect barriers at the state and local level.

So for the near future we no longer have to fear death by a thousand cuts at the federal level. The tactic we fight will be death by a thousand cuts from 50 states.

I'm still trying to categorize what is happening in SC. BTW, I call SC home and lived in the state as an adult for 15 years.

RealGun
August 28, 2004, 02:51 PM
I think we fight back with incremental cuts of our own. At each stage, if we want to keep carrying, we obey the law. This issue boils down to somewhat arbitrary regulation, but SLED's concerns are not unfounded.

By current law, SLED clearly has regulatory authority, bound by no explicit guidelines. The law makes explicit references to SLED making a judgment based upon any background check findings.

That would indicate to me that abuse of discretion is in question here. When abuses occur, and judged as such, it is likely that the law will become increasingly clear, allowing for less discretion.

I see no place where the law makes provision for traffic violations or any other criteria. SLED has sole discretion. The avenue of appeal beyond SLED is as follows:

"An adverse decision (ed: by Chief of SLED) shall specify the reasons for upholding the denial and may be reviewed by the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 23 of Title 1, upon a petition filed by an applicant within thirty days from the date of delivery of the division's decision."

Probably 25 years ago, I protested an illegal passing citation before a justice of the peace and with the citing officer, and I can tell you that the officer has the upper hand as a matter of custom. Photographs and good arguments were wasted. Good luck.

Applicable sections of SC Code are as follows:


excerpted from SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits. [SC ST SEC 23-31-215], ARTICLE 4. CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS, CHAPTER 31. FIREARMS, TITLE 23. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Code of Laws of South Carolina (Unannotated), Current through December 2003


(B) Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a background check of the applicant through notification to and input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides. The sheriff must, within ten working days after notification by SLED, submit a recommendation on an application. Before making a determination whether or not to issue a permit under this article, SLED must consider the recommendation provided pursuant to this subsection. The failure of the sheriff to submit a recommendation within the ten-day period constitutes a favorable recommendation for the issuance of the permit to the applicant. If the fingerprint review and background check are favorable, SLED must issue the permit.

(C) SLED shall issue a written statement to an unqualified applicant specifying its reasons for denying the application within ninety days from the date the application was received; otherwise, SLED shall issue a concealable weapon permit. If an applicant is unable to comply with the provisions of Section 23-31-210(4), SLED shall offer the applicant a handgun training course that satisfies the requirements of Section 23-31-210(4)(a). The course shall cost fifty dollars. SLED shall use the proceeds to defray the training course's operating costs. If a permit is granted by operation of law because an applicant was not notified of a denial within the ninety-day notification period, the permit may be revoked upon written notification from SLED that sufficient grounds exist for revocation or initial denial.

(D) Denial of an application may be appealed. The appeal must be in writing and state the basis for the appeal. The appeal must be submitted to the Chief of SLED within thirty days from the date the denial notice is received. The chief shall issue a written decision within ten days from the date the appeal is received. An adverse decision shall specify the reasons for upholding the denial and may be reviewed by the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 23 of Title 1, upon a petition filed by an applicant within thirty days from the date of delivery of the division's decision.

trfox
August 28, 2004, 04:33 PM
Excellent info posted by RealGun on 8-28-04 at 11:51 AM:


excerpted from SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits. [SC ST SEC 23-31-215], ARTICLE 4. CONCEALED WEAPON PERMITS, CHAPTER 31. FIREARMS, TITLE 23. LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Code of Laws of South Carolina (Unannotated), Current through December 2003


(B) Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a background check of the applicant through notification to and input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides. The sheriff must, within ten working days after notification by SLED, submit a recommendation on an application. Before making a determination whether or not to issue a permit under this article, SLED must consider the recommendation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question that needs to be asked and answered regarding this whole situation is whether or not "...input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides." was the source of the negative driving (tickets) info that caused the applicant to be denied a renewal or issuance of his CCW. I do not read anywhere where SLED can bypass that sheriff in order to collect negative info (such as interviewing neighbors, etc) that would then give SLED justification to deny the applicant his/her CCW license.

ctdonath
August 28, 2004, 04:43 PM
Strange, my NY permit doesn't need to be renewed. Good for life.

Unfortunately, that very nearly changed to "must be renewed at great cost every 5 years" recently. Strange, permits only apply insofar as those granting them decide to continue to do so.

USMCsilver
August 28, 2004, 04:55 PM
Maybe I should start a "please donate $1 to my Pay Pal account for my legal defense fund" threads on the 10-15 sites I visit. Now there's an idea... :p

ScottsGT
August 28, 2004, 05:04 PM
:neener: :neener: What have you gotten into now??!!!?? :neener: :neener:

OK, all kidding aside, call Henry McMaster. Attorney General. Hell, FWIW, Write Charlie Condon. This crap is unbelievable. Let me ask around with a few of my attorney friends.
But then again, your the guy that drank "A" beer, then worked on the finish of your 1911. Your a loose cannon! :D
Give me a call at work sometime, we'll do lunch. Remember, I work at USC.

USMCsilver
August 28, 2004, 05:10 PM
Give me a call at work sometime, we'll do lunch. Remember, I work at USC.

Scott, that'd be nice. Dunno if you're aware of this, but I quit SCDOT 2 years ago. I'm at campus on Tues. & Thurs. I'm unemployed, so it's gotta be a cheap bite to eat. LOL.

I just wrote Condon & McMaster...

I'll be in touch.

Sportcat
August 28, 2004, 05:16 PM
Scott makes big cash at USC! He'll treat you to lunch.:D

ScottsGT
August 28, 2004, 10:07 PM
Big Cash! :what: ROTFLMAO!!!!


But yea, I'll buy!

RealGun
August 29, 2004, 08:44 AM
The question that needs to be asked and answered regarding this whole situation is whether or not "...input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides." was the source of the negative driving (tickets) info that caused the applicant to be denied a renewal or issuance of his CCW. I do not read anywhere where SLED can bypass that sheriff in order to collect negative info (such as interviewing neighbors, etc) that would then give SLED justification to deny the applicant his/her CCW license. - trfox

If you are suggesting that the sheriff's recommendation should control the outcome, I think that's a mistaken interpretation. The wording is that SLED conducts the background check with input from the sheriff.

Those from other States should note that in SC the Sheriff's Department has a role with much wider scope than in some other States. They do a lot more than serve warrants. Dealing with crime, local patrol, and enforcing traffic laws is a big part of their assignment. Localities, often rural, may get their law enforcement from tax supported arrangements with the county sheriff's department. State troopers are more likely to be seen on interstates. Larger, concentrated tax bases (cities) may have their own police departments, with the county sheriff's department and state troopers (SLED) in the background.

trfox
August 29, 2004, 10:27 AM
RealGun: you could be right, but it still would be interesting to know it the county sheriff is/was the only source of the negative information which caused a denial of the CCW license. I still think that the wording of the rules/law that govern the actions of SLED do not allow them to go just anywhere they chose searching for negative info regarding an applicant and it might be that this is just what they did. This might be a very minor point, but still a point.

JMHO

RealGun
August 29, 2004, 10:48 AM
As I read it, other than the time frame for responding to an application and the procedural specifications, the change to "shall issue" is the only guideline for or removal of discretion from SLED's role as a regulator. They are liable to see a few more, if their judgment and rulings are sufficiently questionable or objectionable, i.e. bogus, thanks mostly to gun rights advocacy organization initiatives or complaints directly to sympathetic legislators.

0luke1
August 29, 2004, 04:05 PM
In this case, I don't think you can say that the refusal to renew was bogus. There's too many tickets in too short a time. If USMCsilver lived in NJ, his insurance would probably be more than $5K a year with that record.

If I were a legislator (or even running a lobby), I wouldn't spend my political capital on this example. IMHO, it would be self destructive to 2nd amendment rights.

Anyone who wants to storm the bastile over this example is too far out there to be palitable to the average citizen. I would rank an organized effort around this example up there with defending the distributors/manufacturers who knowingly sell to shops that cater to straw purchasing for organized crime.

Not for nothing, but there IS something wrong with some purchases, some people shouldn't have a permit to carry and I think we can all use our heads to figure that out.

OK, now I'll duck for cover...

USMCsilver
August 29, 2004, 04:55 PM
...some people shouldn't have a permit to carry and I think we can all use our heads to figure that out.

While some shouldn't be allowed to carry, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have the right to. There are some people who shouldn't drive, yet they are allowed. Hell, there are some people who shouldn't be allowed to cook but I'll be darned if they don't try everytime the enter the kitchen; my wife is a prime example. :D

Again, the issue here is bigger than just me. If the state can start to use their term "favorable" as a subjective means of whether or not they should issue a permit, than anything on a person's record could be used for the consideration of issuing permits in the future.

0luke1
August 29, 2004, 05:00 PM
I agree, it should be quantified.

trfox
August 29, 2004, 05:17 PM
OK, in my humble opinion:

It is right to criticize and punish someone who commits wild and dangerous behavior that might harm the innocent public.

It is right to deny some people the right to buy, possess, carry or use guns.

It is right to resist and fight government EVERYTIME it acts like it is the "employer" and you are merely the "employee".

It is right to resist and fight government MOST OF THE TIME whenever it takes on powers it does not cleary possess. Even if you agree with what the particular situation whereas the government is takeing on powers it does not cleary possess. Reason being that if you let the government give itself power for a "good" cause or action that widely opens the door for the government to give itself power for a "bad" action.

BUT:

It is wrong to "punish" people more than once for the same "crime".

It is wrong for any governmental agency to have the ability to look into a person's life and behavior and "subjectively" decide to deny that person a right. (such as CCW right).

It is wrong for a governmental agency to decide that because of your behavior in one area of your life you cannot be trusted in another and UNRELATED part of your life.

In regards to the last sentence above, can no one here see where this type of governmental thinking by SLED can lead if it is not checked but continues and spreads to other government agencies and other states? Say you are careless and have a gun accident and some innocent party is killed. Would those posters here who are not alarmed about the SLED CCW denial for traffic tickets not be able to see how the State Motor Vehicle Licensing Dept. could use the VERY SAME logic about denying the CCW and now deny a driver's license to the guilty party?

Sure this is an extreme example. Time is short and the attention span of people is short (including me) so I need an extreme example to get your attention to the point where you start seeing your own examples. And most likely what I just described would never happen. But based on simple logic, WHY couldn't it happen? All it is is just the reverse of what HAS happened. I.E. citizen careless with a car, loses CCW license. Citizen careless with a gun, loses drivers license.

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 02:36 PM
I just got off the phone w/ my Senator, Mr. Giese; he called me at home and I spent nearly 10 minutes on the phone with him. It was not a good conversation.

I wish I could have recorded it because I was so shocked as to what he had to say.

"My Lord, 7 tickets, I wouldn't want you on the road either."

"Why do you need to carry a gun? I'm at least 10 times as valuable as you are, and I don't need to carry a gun."

"99% of the cars on the road don't have guns in them, what makes you think you need one?"

"What makes you a target? Give me one reason why you feel that you should be allowed to carry a gun."

The list goes on. He didn't want to hear any of my justifications. I told him that it wasn't fair to be punished twice for the same crime -- that being the fine for the tickets and the increased insurance rates and now I can't be afforded the right to carry a firearm, and again, "Whad do you want a gun for?"

There was also -- "I've been driving for about 65 years and I've never had a ticket."

I asked him about this jeopardizing my future employment as a LEO and he said, "I wouldn't hire you. I'd get someone with a clean record."

I said that I had a right to bear arms and he said that I didn't have to exercise that right because I didn't need a firearm.

He asked several times why I "needed a gun" and I posed the question to him, "Do you watch the news?" He came back with, "Oh, don't give me that!" He went on to say, "What makes you so special that you need a gun? If you can't give me one reason, then there's not much I can say." Well, I tried to give him reasons, and he would hear nothing of him.

Well, you can bet who's name I won't punch during the next election...

Sportcat
August 30, 2004, 02:47 PM
That's is nuts!!!

I wonder if WIS or WLTX would take this on as an "On Your Side" story?

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 02:48 PM
I wonder if WIS or WLTX would take this on as an "On Your Side" story?

The media, on my side, for wanting to carry a gun? I don't think that'd go over too well.

If I went that far, everyone in broadcast range would know I am armed. Not only that, but I'd probably be portrayed by a wacko by those who don't understand what is happening...

Oh, will the madness never cease?

Sportcat
August 30, 2004, 02:52 PM
True... I'm not sure what h*ll I was thinking.:D

JerryM
August 30, 2004, 03:24 PM
I just began reading this thread, so please forgive me if this has been addressed. I did not read every post so I may have missed it.

Is there no time frame when the past tickets are not considered germane? Even driving insurance sometimes changes the premiums after 5 years with no tickets or other driving violations.
It would seem to me that after some period of time such as 5 years that the tickets would be ignored for the CHL.

I do not disagree with one being denied a CHL if he has several tickets within a short period, but after some time with a clean record it should not prohibit the issuance of the CHL.

Jerry

ScottsGT
August 30, 2004, 03:47 PM
SC uses two tables for traffic violations.
a 3 year for insurance and a 10 year record for background checks.
As far as Barney goes, he's as dumb as the other Barney we adults hate. The purple one. If I'm not mistaken, he fought agains CWP laws using the same old tired worn out lines. You should have reminded him this is a Shall issue state and not a May issue state. But of course if the old goat was ever awake during session, he would remember this.
But I'm also sure you were trying to keep a cool head about yourself. I doubt if your going to hear back from McMaster this week due to the Convention this week in NY city. I think he's there along with Charlie Condon.

RealGun
August 30, 2004, 03:53 PM
Part of salesmanship is qualifying your prospect. I guess I would make it clear that your question was about the State's constitutional RKBA and legitimate State licensing for carrying a concealed weapon. There is no point in laying out your story if there is a severe bias against you from the start.

Let your prospect do the math. Don't say "7 tickets". State the number of tickets in meaningful time contexts, starting with "zero tickets in the last three years".

Note that both Barrett and DeMint as US House Representatives are charter members of the House Second Amendment Caucus. DeMint is running for the Senate and Barrett is up for reelection, so the timing is not good for their involvement. They may ultimately be assets though. No harm in letting them know the story now.

The clock is ticking on your 30 day window for appeal, so get that scheduled first.

ScottsGT
August 30, 2004, 04:07 PM
this came from Grass Roots web site on reason a permit can be revoked:
J) A permit is valid statewide unless revoked because the person has:

(1) become a person prohibited under state law from possessing a weapon;

(2) moved his permanent residence to another state;

(3) voluntarily surrendered the permit; or

(4) been charged with an offense that, upon conviction, would prohibit the person from possessing a firearm. However, if the person subsequently is found not guilty of the offense, then his permit must be reinstated at no charge.

His excuse still holds no water. Coworker suggested you come up to the Law School and speak with the Student Bar Association. They handle cases like this, just make sure you talk to a student in the Republican Law Students Organization :D I'm sure someone up there ( I'm in the basement of the law school) would be willing to take them on.

corncob
August 30, 2004, 04:09 PM
I'm at least 10 times as valuable as you are

And there you have it, folks--the whole reason owning guns means being involved in politics. Maybe even the reason for politics.


I feel for your situation, USMC, and I wish I had some advice, but in SC, SLED is the Man. Sometimes it seems like they even have veto power. It made my skin crawl when I had to go down there and get fingerprinted to get my CWP, into the lair of the smug "hero class." It makes you wonder if we pay thier salary or our protection money.

ScottsGT
August 30, 2004, 04:22 PM
Funny, I remember back when I applied for my CWP it was held up due to computer falures. I mentioned something here about SLED being anti gun, and I was flamed for making such a comment! I guess I was right after all.:D

trfox
August 30, 2004, 04:27 PM
Just as Corncob stated quoted above, I believe that most wealthy people and many politicians (especially left-wing liberals) think they are more valuable than ten of the "common folk" upon who's back's they ride.

With that conversation and the emphasis on "why do you need to carry a gun", I doubt that I could have carried that conversation any better than USMCsilver feels he carried it. I might have thrown the question back by asking "since when did a citizen have to have a "need" in order to exercise a right?". Or why does anyone "need" a huge, gas guzzling car, or a huge energy wasteful house, or why does anyone need to make over $100,000. per year, etc. It the citizens rights and other things we can get in this world are reduced to only what we "need" we will find us common people living in a one room shack with one light bulb and strictily under government's thumb because they have decided that is all we "need".

BTW folks, this whole uproar is not just about a CCW right or traffic tickets. It is about the PRINCIPAL OF this situation. Your next door neighbor might decide, sometime when you are out of town for a week or so, to move his fence over 6 inches into your yard. For the average yard 6 inches probably won't be missed and if you wanted to "hide" and take the easy way out you could come up with ALL KINDS of reasons to decide to ignore it. But next time he might be emboldened to move the fence 6 feet.

But in principal the neighbor had no right to encroach upon your property RIGHTS.

JMHO

Sportcat
August 30, 2004, 04:28 PM
Heck, I had the damndest time a SLED trying figure out which building to go into to get finger-printed. They sure didn't make that easy!:cuss:

Plus, when I submitted my paperwork, they raised a hassle when I asked them if they would notarize everything so I would haven't to go hunt a notary down.:cuss: :cuss:

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 04:47 PM
I doubt that I could have carried that conversation any better than USMCsilver feels he carried it. .

Carrying on that conversation was difficult. I'll be honest, I didn't know what to say next. Had I known I would receive a personal phone call, I would have been more prepared. I didn't think that state senators just called people up.

And the way he was belittling me, and insulting my practices, it made it even more difficult. I found myself taking pauses and deep breaths so I didn't fly off the rocker. Most of it was, "Yes'ir, yes'ir" coming from me.

I am starting to regret that I have even tried to make a stink about the whole thing, but then again, I wish that I could get to the bottom of it. As mentioned above, and as mentioned by me several times, this issue is bigger than me being denied my permit and the issue continues to grow. If we, in SC, are subject to the laws of people like this, then who says that it can't be happening where you people reside, too?

ARGH! I am just plain pissed off and cannot organize a precise response...

Waitone
August 30, 2004, 06:51 PM
I'm at least 10 times as valuable as you are WOW!

trfox
August 30, 2004, 06:55 PM
USMCsilver: It is doubtful anyone here could have handled that phone call any better. Many reasons for that, most of which you probably already know.

The senator "ambushed" you to a degree. He had time to compose his thoughts and argument and he called you when it was convenient for him. You were caught totally unexpected. Heck, he may have even had many similar conversations/arguments in the past and has had practice doing well at it. He also was speaking from a "power" position in that he is a mighty senator with power, prestige and probably a certain amount of wealth. He is used to rubbing shoulders with people like himself, plus he could relax and think on his feet, because of what I have already mentioned, PLUS he could relax because he was only talking to "one of the little people".

But you probably can relate to my earllier comment/post in which I state that many government officials seem to think THEY are the employer and YOU are the employee. When you ask for your rights (take your vacation, take sick day off, ask for a raise or bonue, etc) an employer MIGHT be justified in asking you why you need that right at that time, but a government offical working for you has not justification to demand that you explain why you need a right that, except for the liberal interpertation of SLED, you are being denied.

If it was me, and I have done this many times with varying success, I would send a certified letter to the senator. In that letter I would clearly list all my reasons why I was in the right and why he and SLED were in the wrong. And I would request a written response from him. I think he is kinda dumb because if he was a smart politician he would have appeared to be sympathtic to you, made some vague promise to look into it and then just forgot about it. Better that for his political career than to reveal his true self and anger one or more voters.

If the procedure of SLED takes root and spreads to other government agencies and states, I will have a quiet laugh at some of the people who have absoutely no support for your situation. If this practice becomes the norm, some of those people who have licenses that are also in a fairly small pool of citizens, to where their rights can be trampled without much risk on the part of the government agency doing the trampling, people such as private pilots, heavy equipment operators, gun dealers, etc. will find that because they messed up in another, unrelated area of their life, they will lose their license in that area of their life.

JMHO

ScottsGT
August 30, 2004, 07:06 PM
USMCsilver for Senate! Run against the old coot and let the voters know what they put in office!! Think about it. A young vet that's into politics in an area like Camden.

Pharley
August 30, 2004, 07:32 PM
If you cant follow a simple speed limit law, you sure do not need trusted with a firearm. It is obvious you have little regard for the law.

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 07:49 PM
trfox, it has been brought to my attention from a GT member that Senator Giuse is not up for re-election b/c he lost the primaries. I was so distraught when I heard that because I was so eager to contact his democratic opposition and share with him the conversation that I had. However, it doesn't much matter right now.

I am in the process of composing another letter to my US Senators Graham and Hollings. An additional letter to my State Senator, Senator Sheheen wil be sent as well. Heck, while I am at it, I think I will contact the Governor as well.

I'll post the letter for critique once it is written.

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 07:51 PM
If you cant follow a simple speed limit law, you sure do not need trusted with a firearm. It is obvious you have little regard for the law.

Thanks a bunch for sharing, but this is no longer about me and my CWP, this is about the South Carolina state law and how it subjects citizens to such terms as "favorable" as to whether or not they possess certain rights.

Your opinion is granted, but as of now, it falls on deaf ears.

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 07:58 PM
Here is a letter that I composed for Senator Graham and Hollings. My Governor will also be mailed the same letter.

This is open for critique, and by all means, please feel free to address any part as you feel needed.

Also, should I send this via postal mail w/ return receipt, or should I just e-mail it?

intro,

I am writing you because I am having some problems dealing with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and their use of the subjective laws dealing with the issuing of concealed weapons permits (CWP).

I was a valid CWP holder from 05/00-05/04. The reason SLED is denying my renewal is due to excessive speeding tickets in the past. While I admit to having broken the law seven times while driving, my last infraction was in 2001. I am not saying that I am not guilty, but the traffic citations should not legally prohibit me from obtaining a CWP. If my driving history were that big of a determining factor as to whether or not I possessed a CWP, then SLED should have, by law, revoked my right to carry while I still had a permit.

To note the current law: SLED is required to issue a permit as long as one meets the requirements of 23-31-215(J)(1) through (4):

A permit is valid statewide unless revoked because the person has:

(1) become a person prohibited under state law from possessing a weapon;

(2) moved his permanent residence to another state;

(3) voluntarily surrendered the permit; or

(4) been charged with an offense that, upon conviction, would prohibit the person from possessing a firearm. However, if the person subsequently is found not guilty of the offense, then his permit must be reinstated at no charge.

At no time did I have my permit revoked for any of these reasons nor do any of these reasons pertain to me while trying to have a permit renewed.

Additionally, 23-31-215(B) states the following:

Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a background check of the applicant through notification to and input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides. The sheriff must, within ten working days after notification by SLED, submit a recommendation on an application. Before making a determination whether or not to issue a permit under this article, SLED must consider the recommendation provided pursuant to this subsection. The failure of the sheriff to submit a recommendation within the ten-day period constitutes a favorable recommendation for the issuance of the permit to the applicant. If the fingerprint review and background check are favorable, SLED must issue the permit.

Now, I pose this question since this is what SLED is using as a reason to deny my permit – What exactly does the term “favorable” mean? If SLED can use this term as loosely as they please in this context, then where else can the law use the term “favorable”? The word “favorable” is about as subjective as a word can get. If I am being denied because of excessive traffic violations, then it needs to be stated in the law that excessive traffic violations would disqualify an applicant for possessing a valid CWP. If the law listed that as a reason, then I would have no problem with what the law says. Instead, the law is subjective and it is open to interpretation, and this interpretation could be applied towards absolutely anything.

As a side note, I would like to notify you that state Senator Giese contacted me today via telephone. I had previously e-mailed him about my circumstance, and I was all but embarrassed to be a South Carolinian after the way he belittled me. I don’t know what was worse, him telling me that I don’t need to own a gun because I have no reason to, or the fact that he stated, and I quote, “I am, at least, ten times more important than you are, and I don’t need to carry a gun.” That, coming from an elected state official, was virtually unbearable.

Anyhow, I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope and pray that you will address this issue. SLED either needs to have the law reformed or issue a permit based on what the South Carolina law states. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Spot77
August 30, 2004, 08:16 PM
Certified mail, NO email.

Waitone
August 30, 2004, 08:21 PM
Hep me here.

You've had seven ticket.

CWP 5/00 to 5/04

Last ticket was 2001

How many tickets did you receive while carrying a CWP?

How many tickets did you receive before being issued a CWP?

What I'm looking for is the number of tickets which were on your record when you were issued a CWP the first time.

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 08:35 PM
What I'm looking for is the number of tickets which were on your record when you were issued a CWP the first time.

This is quoted from my 1st letter of rejection:

Investigation of your application reveals you were convicted in 1996 of Speeding. In 1997 you were convicted of Speeding (2) counts. In 1998 you were convicted of Driving Too Fast For Conditions. In 1999 you were convicted of Speeding. In 2001 you were convicted of Speeding (2) counts.

trfox
August 30, 2004, 08:37 PM
USMCsilver: GREAT letter! Send US Mail certified with return receipt. If you want to throw in a speedbump on them, you might add that you want to know how you can determine if SLED is AND HAS BEEN enforcing this denial upon other CCW permits holders IN A FAIR, EQUAL AND CONSISTANT MANNER. Insist you want help finding a way to determine this and you also feel your elected representatives should want to know also so that they can better represent their other constituency.

Sportcat
August 30, 2004, 08:42 PM
E-mail AND certified mail. The e-mail will get there faster, then the certified mail will refresh/remind them of your e-mail.

Good luck!

USMCsilver
August 30, 2004, 08:55 PM
I revised it a bit.

After the 2nd paragraph, I added this. I figure that it lays out my case better:

Just so you are fully aware of the circumstances, my driving record includes the following:

· Speeding, 1996
· Speeding, 1997; 2 counts
· Driving too fast for conditions, 1998
· Speeding, 1999
· Speeding, 2001; 2 counts

Again, I admit my guilt, but if I was granted my initial permit in 2000, then why does SLED perceive me as a hazard now when they didn’t do so in 2000 when my initial permit was issued? What number of violations is too many? South Carolina law does not even address traffic violations as a factor in determining whether one is allowed to possess a CWP.

Waitone
August 30, 2004, 09:01 PM
Lemme see if I can still add.

CWP 5/00 to 5/04

5 boo-boos before initial CWP was issued.
2 boo-boos assuming both awarded after CWP issued.

So at the worst SLED issued you a CWP with 5 boo-boos on your record but denied you a renewal when you had two (maybe 1 or maybe 0) during the time of your CWP.

Is that right?

Just off hand it looks like an administrative change was made.

Again, looks to me like administrative foot dragging vs intent of the legislator.

sumpnz
August 30, 2004, 10:17 PM
USMCsilver - Please see below for my recommendations on improvements to your letter. Please let me know what you think of the changes I made. Some stuff that I deleted was removed because I felt it was unnecessary and/or repetitive. Most of the other changes I made were for clarity.



I would like to bring to your attention some problems I have encountered while dealing with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) due to their use of the subjective language in the laws dealing with the administration of concealed weapons permits (CWP).

I was a valid CWP holder from 05/00-05/04. I recently received a letter from SLED informing me that my application for renewal of my CWP was denied. The reason given by SLED for denial of my renewal was a record of seven speeding tickets from 1996-2001. While I admit to having broken the traffic laws while driving I have reformed my driving habits and have not received any further citations for the last three years. I am not attempting to excuse my past traffic record but it is my belief that the traffic citations should not legally prohibit SLED from approving renewal of my CWP.

According to SLED my driving record includes the following citations:

• Speeding, 1996
• Speeding, 1997; 2 counts
• Driving too fast for conditions, 1998
• Speeding, 1999
• Speeding, 2001; 2 counts

The applicable law regarding the issuance of CWP is as follows: SLED is required to issue a permit as long as one meets the requirements of 23-31-215(J)(1) through (4):

A permit is valid statewide unless revoked because the person has:

(1) become a person prohibited under state law from possessing a weapon;

(2) moved his permanent residence to another state;

(3) voluntarily surrendered the permit; or

(4) been charged with an offense that, upon conviction, would prohibit the person from possessing a firearm. However, if the person subsequently is found not guilty of the offense, then his permit must be reinstated at no charge.

During the time my original permit was active SLED did not revoke my permit as I had not violated any of the above conditions.

Additionally, 23-31-215(B) states the following with regard SLED's responsibility in the issuance of a CWP:

Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a background check of the applicant through notification to and input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides. The sheriff must, within ten working days after notification by SLED, submit a recommendation on an application. Before making a determination whether or not to issue a permit under this article, SLED must consider the recommendation provided pursuant to this subsection. The failure of the sheriff to submit a recommendation within the ten-day period constitutes a favorable recommendation for the issuance of the permit to the applicant. If the fingerprint review and background check are favorable, SLED must issue the permit.

What exactly does the term “favorable” mean? Nowhere in the applicable legislation is "favorable" objectively defined. The word “favorable” is very subjective, and therefore open to administrative abuse. For excessive numbers of traffic violations to be considered unfavorable there should be objective qualifiers stated in the law that greater than a specific number of traffic violations would disqualify an applicant from being issued a CWP. If the law listed that as a reason and gave such objective qualifiers I would have no problem with the denial of my renewal application. Instead the law is subjective and open to interpretation, and this interpretation could be applied towards any minor infraction, or even used arbitrarily to deny a CWP.

I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope that you will address this issue. SLED either needs to have the law reformed or issue a permit based on what the South Carolina law states. If you wish to contact me for additional information or clarification of any details with respect to this issue please feel to call or email me at any time.

Sincerely,
USMCsilver

Timber
August 30, 2004, 10:46 PM
USMCsilver - one more edit. Since you decided to include your list of traffic offenses (it looks bad, and he doesn't know you're a Marine), you need to follow it up with another paragraph detailing your service to your country, your chosen career path and the excellent scholastic standards you've maintained. And the fact that (years ago) you realized how stupid speeding is and the class you took. Send the documents to back it up, again. This should regain the respect you'll lose if he only sees your driving record. Establish yourself as a solid citizen working hard to serve the state/community. We were all young and dumb once, the one's who outgrow it become something. So tell the rest of the story. Paul Harvey sure ain't.

Good luck, sir -
John

JerryM
August 30, 2004, 11:51 PM
I believe Sen Graham and Hollins are US Senators.
I will be surprised if they get involved in "states rights."

It will be interesting to see, however.

Jerry

106rr
August 31, 2004, 03:59 AM
USMCSilver;
Thank you for your national service. In answer to your question concerning their different perception of your driving record. There may be several problems; you shoud have outgrown this speeding problem by now, it appears anti social to have numerous driving violations, you have shown by your two new speeding tickets that you have a continuing problem in following rules. They may really have a study showing that speeders are a bad risk! Many places here in liability conscious CA would not hire you with that driving record, some would fire you for it.
Your best bet is to follow the instructions given by timber and sumpnz.
Good Luck and Drive Safely

ID_shooting
August 31, 2004, 08:33 AM
Silver and Sumpnz,

My personal opinions aside, Sumpnz's revision is a good one, one minor correction though...

Conceled Weapon Permit should begin in upper case. Especially if that is the formal name usec by SC.

"The applicable law regarding the issuance of CWP is as follows: SLED is required to issue a permit as long as one meets the requirements of 23-31-215(J)(1) through (4):"

Should be...

"The applicable law regarding the issuance of CWP is as follows:

SLED is required to issue a permit as long as one meets the requirements of 23-31-215(J)(1) through (4):"

If the italicsed is a quote from the law book, or...

"It is my understanding that SLED is required to issue a permit as long as one meets the requirements of 23-31-215(J)(1) through (4):"

if it is not.

The only other suggestion I have is offer to be part of the solution rather than merely presenting the problem. As you can guess, these folks are extreemly busy and asking them to be the bearer of your burden probably will not get you far. It is good that the suggestion for correction is in the letter; however, I would follow it up with somthing similar to "Please feel free to contact me for any questions, comments or suggestions and especially to request my service in helping to resolve this matter for myself and my fellow citizens."

ScottsGT
August 31, 2004, 08:55 AM
Forget Hollings. Might as well ask Shumer of Fienstine for help.

RealGun
August 31, 2004, 10:34 AM
USMCSilver letter (http://home.earthlink.net/~at_liberty/USMCSilver1.pdf)

This is a link to my effort at suggesting how the letter should read. It may be verbose, but I think you do have to try to guide the recipient's thinking a bit, trying to be on the same wavelength.

In order to get formatting and show where the editing occurs and relevant comments, I converted the file to PDF and posted it on free webspace.

BeLikeTrey
August 31, 2004, 10:57 AM
Try sending a letter to Andre Baur as well. He was a supporter of the most recent reforms for CWP and would probably give you a hand. Follow the good advice here detailing your service to your country. Further, all the other good points about you as well as the traffic details. Finally, the wonderfully written and well thought out arguements you gave oin the letter of the law. Andre is a great guy and I think he could fast track this..

Coronach
August 31, 2004, 11:12 AM
I don't have time to read through all of this, but here are two logical questions that could be raised in your appeals:

1. Your 'horrible' driving record can be used to deny you issuance of a CWP, but the state will continue to honor your driver's license? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

2. Would your 'horrible' driving record also preclude you from, say, obtaining a commission as a LEO? I mean, if you cannot be trusted to carry a gun concealed, I'm sure that every cop they hire has an unspotted driving record...

Be aware, these are logical arguments, not legal ones. And yeah, obtain an attorney.

Mike

USMCsilver
August 31, 2004, 04:51 PM
RealGun, thank you for your help. I added/replaced/edited a decent bit in regards to your efforts. Sounds better now.

Now, here is the ultimate question -- should I go ahead and mail this new letter to my senators, governor, and others or should I wait???

I sent my last appeal on Wed., the 25th. The Chief should have gotten it no later than the 27th. Chances are, he has formed an opinion and has either drafted a letter today, or will do so this week. If I get these letters out tomorrow, well, I'd be lucky if anyone important got to them before next week. At that time, there is the slight chance that my CWP could be renewed and all the letter writing, fit throwing would be for nothing.

So, send it, or wait for rejection?

outfieldjack
August 31, 2004, 05:23 PM
I would wait, maybe you will be able add some quotes from your next "rejection" letter (if you get it) to the letter you are writing now....

sumpnz
August 31, 2004, 05:30 PM
Could we see the latest iteration of the letter?

USMCsilver
August 31, 2004, 05:33 PM
Street
Camden, SC 29202
Phone

September 1, 2004

Senator Lindsey O. Graham (and the others who'll get this)
101 E. Washington St., Ste. 220
Greenville, SC 29601

Senator Graham,

I am writing you because I am having some problems dealing with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED) and their use of the subjective laws dealing with the issuing of concealed weapons permits (CWP).

I was a valid CWP holder from 05/00-05/04. The reason SLED is denying my renewal is due to excessive speeding tickets in the past. While I admit to having broken the law seven times while driving, my last infraction was in 2001. I am not saying that I was not guilty, but the traffic citations should not legally prohibit me from obtaining a CWP. If my driving history were that big of a determining factor as to whether or not I possessed a CWP, then SLED should have, by law, revoked my right to carry while I still had a permit.

Just so you are fully aware of the circumstances, my driving record includes the following:

· Speeding, 1996
· Speeding, 1997; 2 counts
· Driving too fast for conditions, 1998
· Speeding, 1999
· Speeding, 2001; 2 counts

Again, I admit my guilt, but if I was granted my initial permit in 2000, then why does SLED perceive me as a hazard now when they didn’t do so in 2000 when my initial permit was issued? What number of violations is too many? South Carolina law does not even address traffic violations as a factor in determining whether one is allowed to possess a CWP.

I would also like to state, in my defense, that I have matured significantly and my driving habits have been greatly altered. To illustrate this transformation, I would like for you to review the enclosures I have submitted with this letter. First is a transcript from the University of South Carolina; I am currently enrolled there pursuing a B.A. in Criminal Justice, where afterwards, I hope to pursue a career as a law enforcement officer. In my early years, as my grades reflect, it was clear that I was irresponsible. From the highlighted text, one should be able to recognize a change in my attitude about the things that are important to me. Secondly, there are copies of three different certificates that have been awarded to me by Midlands Technical College – Scholar’s List, Summer Semester, 2003, President’s List, Spring Semester, 2004, and President’s List, Fall Semester, 2004. Lastly, there is a copy of a certificate from AAA’s Driver Improvement Program that I received in March of 2002. I have tried to change my careless ways, and I hope that these enclosures can reassure the fact that I am not as reckless as I use to be.

Back to the topic at hand, other than a "background check," as they would define it, SLED has no legal guidelines for making a recommendation for approval or denial, although rulings can technically be appealed within their brotherhood. SLED makes its own rules, subject only to the type of challenge that I would like to present here:

To note the current law: SLED is required to issue a permit as long as one meets the requirements of 23-31-215(J)(1) through (4):

A permit is valid statewide unless revoked because the person has:

(1) become a person prohibited under state law from possessing a weapon;

(2) moved his permanent residence to another state;

(3) voluntarily surrendered the permit; or

(4) been charged with an offense that, upon conviction, would prohibit the person from possessing a firearm. However, if the person subsequently is found not guilty of the offense, then his permit must be reinstated at no charge.

At no time did I have my permit revoked for any of these reasons nor do any of these reasons pertain to me while trying to have a permit renewed.

Additionally, 23-31-215(B) states the following:

Upon submission of the items required by subsection (A) of this section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal fingerprint review of the applicant. SLED must also conduct a background check of the applicant through notification to and input from the sheriff of the county where the applicant resides. The sheriff must, within ten working days after notification by SLED, submit a recommendation on an application. Before making a determination whether or not to issue a permit under this article, SLED must consider the recommendation provided pursuant to this subsection. The failure of the sheriff to submit a recommendation within the ten-day period constitutes a favorable recommendation for the issuance of the permit to the applicant. If the fingerprint review and background check are favorable, SLED must issue the permit.

Now, I pose this question since this is what SLED is using as a reason to deny my permit – What exactly does the term “favorable” mean? South Carolina is a “shall issue” state. If SLED can use this term as loosely as they please in this context, then where else can the law use the term “favorable”? The word “favorable” is about as subjective as a word can get. If I am being denied because of excessive traffic violations, then it needs to be stated in the law that excessive traffic violations would disqualify an applicant for possessing a valid CWP. If the law listed that as a reason, then I would have no problem with what the law says. Instead, the law is subjective and it is open to interpretation, and this interpretation could be applied towards absolutely anything.

If the law specified what criteria were to be considered in a background check, regulatory discretion could not easily be abused. There should be a truly logical, as well as constitutional, connection between background check criteria and SLED's recommendation. If the law were more explicit, then I would not contest a ruling that fairly applied to my case. Instead, the law allows sole discretion for SLED as a regulator.

SLED's discretion has been necessarily altered before by changing the code language to "shall issue", removing excuses for not issuing licenses. The timeliness of response to applications is also specified in the law, controlling stalling or stonewalling

As current law allows, I can only contest that discretion has been abused and seek to have the decision by SLED overturned.

As a side note, I would like to notify you that state Senator Giese contacted me on August 29, 2004 via telephone. I had previously e-mailed him about my circumstance, and I was all but embarrassed to be a South Carolinian after the way he belittled me. I don’t know what was worse, him telling me that I don’t need to own a gun because I have no reason to, or the fact that he stated, and I quote, “I am, at least, ten times more important than you are, and I don’t need to carry a gun.” That, coming from an elected state official, was deplorable and outrageous.

Anyhow, I thank you for taking the time to read this and I hope and pray that you will address this issue. My hope is that SLED's exercise of discretion in denying my renewal application will be called into question and overturned. If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.


Sincerely,



USMCsilver

(enclosures: 5)

RealGun
August 31, 2004, 05:54 PM
Interesting that perhaps the most telling post in this whole thread is the :neener: from Vermont. That, while some think your application should be denied.

P95Carry
August 31, 2004, 05:54 PM
the fact that I am not as reckless as I use to be. Sterling - I think things are covered pretty well .. being a tad pedantic ... this could I think read better if as .....

''the fact that I am no longer'' as reckless as I use to be'' - just sounds more positive IMO.


You know ... since you described that phone call from Senator Giese ... it has been on my mind .. as much as anything because of the incredible, inexcusable .. dammed arrogance ....... it is amazing ... and sure does nothing for his credibility from where I am standing.

Best of luck.:)

USMCsilver
August 31, 2004, 06:47 PM
P95, you are correct and that does sound better. I have changed in my letter.

Again, I would like others to chime in --

Should I wait to see if I am denied again before I send these letters out, or should I go ahead and send them.

I look at it this way, I have a snowball's chance of having my permit wind up in my mailbox within the next 5-7 days; however, if it does show up for some odd reason, then these letters won't need addressing.

However, they do somewhat need to be addressed because of the subjective term "favorable."

Anyhow, send it, or wait?

RealGun
August 31, 2004, 08:49 PM
If your license is going to expire while the Chief is "thinking it over", send it now! That's assuming your appeal (to the Chief) went out right away. You need to be sure that the Chief is already against you or that the bureaucracy is going to leave you with no license continuity before the appeal process is completed. When your license expires, you have already been abused. There again that assumes your application was also timely at the beginning of the process.

USMCsilver
August 31, 2004, 09:35 PM
It has already expired. It was done with on May 3, 2004. I had 60 days to submit my renewal stuff. I sent, got denied, appealed w/in the 30 day window, got denied, and appealed w/in the next 30 day window.

If I get rejected, I will have another 30 days to take care of the Administrative Law Judge stuff.

freon
September 1, 2004, 03:53 AM
I noticed a small typo in the last letter posted, at the end of the 5th paragraph......

I have tried to change my careless ways, and I hope that these enclosures can reassure the fact that I am not as reckless as I use to be.

Should be.......

I have tried to change my careless ways, and I hope that these enclosures can reassure the fact that I am not as reckless as I used to be.

RealGun
September 1, 2004, 07:56 AM
I am confused here and wonder if you have added too many steps, perhaps appealing directly back to the source of the rejection.

SC Code:

(D) Denial of an application may be appealed. The appeal must be in writing and state the basis for the appeal. The appeal must be submitted to the Chief of SLED within thirty days from the date the denial notice is received. The chief shall issue a written decision within ten days from the date the appeal is received. An adverse decision shall specify the reasons for upholding the denial and may be reviewed by the Administrative Law Judge Division pursuant to Article 5, Chapter 23 of Title 1, upon a petition filed by an applicant within thirty days from the date of delivery of the division's decision.

************
Apply
-90 day window
Rejection
-30 day window
Appeal to Chief
-10 day window
rejection
-30 day window
Appeal to Administrative Law Judge Division

If you have been denied twice, you should already be talking to the Administrative Law Judge Division. You could get tripped up, because the time allotment has expired. You already know that SLED will not budge, so get on with it.

ScottsGT
September 1, 2004, 07:59 AM
Have you heard from SC Grass Roots?

ID_shooting
September 1, 2004, 08:15 AM
USMC,

Woah, back the bus up a second, I have one question...

"Also, this is bigger than just me -- this is big for the rest of CWP holders across the US. If SC can do this, than anyone can. You may be next; I pray not, but it is possible."

"Again, the issue here is bigger than just me. If the state can start to use their term "favorable" as a subjective means of whether or not they should issue a permit, than anything on a person's record could be used for the consideration of issuing permits in the future."

"As mentioned above, and as mentioned by me several times, this issue is bigger than me being denied my permit and the issue continues to grow. If we, in SC, are subject to the laws of people like this, then who says that it can't be happening where you people reside, too?"

"I look at it this way, I have a snowball's chance of having my permit wind up in my mailbox within the next 5-7 days; however, if it does show up for some odd reason, then these letters won't need addressing."

Are you in this for YOU or are you in this crusade to get the law changed for the PEOPLE as well?

Seriously confused now...

RealGun
September 1, 2004, 08:47 AM
Have you heard from SC Grass Roots?

I am betting the first topic of conversation will be a $35 dollar membership, and rightfully so. USMCSilver is short on funds (unemployed student), so we might have to offer to chip in.

If you have off line messages enabled, I could send you the email address for the primary GRSC legal resource. You can also try their webpage at

Grass Roots of South Carolina (http://www.scfirearms.org/)

I have mixed feelings about being an active member of this group beyond sending money, so I don't represent this as a complete endorsement of all aspects of GRSC. I do think you will likely get $35 worth of help or advice. They know their stuff as well as the players involved.

ScottsGT
September 1, 2004, 08:51 AM
Annual membership is only $15. I'm a member. They have done a LOT for SC CWP laws. Maybe this situation is one they should start working on for the good of SC, not just USMCsilver!

USMCsilver
September 1, 2004, 09:46 AM
ID_shooting, I am in it for me as well as the rest of the people. If I get my CWP back, then that's great. I am still going to pursue getting the law changed somehow so that SLED cannot use the term "favorable" as loosely as they have been allowed in the past. Maybe I can get some kind of "rider" statement placed in the law defining what "favorable" is. I don't know.

And as far as money for SCGR goes, I could afford the membership, and have tried to apply.

When I clicked to print my application so I could mail in a check, there was a window that popped up stating that my membership would be valid until 9/9/04. Well, this was last week when I tried to print the form. So, it sounded as if I would have to joing again in two weeks.

I sent them an e-mail asking if that was an error, but never heard anything back.

However, I did get a good e-mail today. The Public Liaison of the GOA responded to the e-mail I sent them. He gave me the name and phone number of their Chief Attorney and told me to contact him. He will be the first one I call when I get denied again.

RealGun, about the "too many steps" thing --

If you'll go back to page one, you'll see the letters I have received. It laid out the first step of the appeals process -- contacting Capt. Weir. I did, and he rejected me and he said to contact Chief Stewart, and that is who received my last appeal. I assume, upon rejection, he will point me towards the ALJ.

Too many steps, maybe, but I was just following instructions.

RealGun
September 1, 2004, 09:55 AM
Annual membership is only $15. I'm a member. They have done a LOT for SC CWP laws. Maybe this situation is one they should start working on for the good of SC, not just USMCsilver!

You're right. I think I was recalling an amount I sent to GOA.

RealGun
September 1, 2004, 09:59 AM
RealGun, about the "too many steps" thing --

If you'll go back to page one, you'll see the letters I have received. It laid out the first step of the appeals process -- contacting Capt. Weir. I did, and he rejected me and he said to contact Chief Stewart, and that is who received my last appeal. I assume, upon rejection, he will point me towards the ALJ.

Too many steps, maybe, but I was just following instructions.

According to my reading of the code, they don't have the discretion to impose more steps in the process.

USMCsilver
September 1, 2004, 10:04 AM
According to my reading of the code, they don't have the discretion to impose more steps in the process.

Yeah, it was probably just the "favorable" thing to do. :rolleyes:

RealGun
September 1, 2004, 10:11 AM
They are not going to reverse, because it would be a change in department policy and an admission of faulty judgment, applicable to a number of cases and contrary to their sense of police mission. You need a slam dunk.

Smoke
September 1, 2004, 11:35 AM
Summarize. "I have never had more than 2 tickets in a given year....been ticket free for 3 years."

Brief is best.

Glad I don't reside in SC. I had 3 tickets in 90 days after receiveing my DL back in 1981.

Once had 2 tickets within 1 hour. That was about 3 years ago. First one I deserved...second one was crap....but I digress.

Good Luck, keep up the fight.

Smoke

skidmark
September 1, 2004, 03:23 PM
OK, first things first. I'm a newbie currently in Virginia but definately not southern by birth or heritage (not that I don't like the south - except for heat & humidity). I get paid to read, understand, interpret & apply law & policy for an unnamed state agency that operates prisons.

First the disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, attorney or other person licensed to interpret law or provide advice on issues relating to law. I do not now, nor have I ever, played a lawyer on TV, radio, stage, or in my dreams.

I read the SC laws of permit issuance & renewal and found many holes in the denial reasons. First off, there does not seem to be any referral to the locality Sherrif for a recommendation. Second, the law says "shall issue" if you qualify to own/possess a handgun.

There are enough reasons to take this through the legal process of the Law Judge appeal, as well as filing a 42 USC Section 1983 federal lawsuit (as well as a concurrent SC state suit) for violation of at least your 14th Amendment rights, if you do not want to press the individual vs. collective issue on 2nd Amendment. Heck, you might even have some other due process violations that I'm just not focusing on at the moment.

I can only echo that this will not go away, and you had better think about changing your major to plumbing or something else that pays $35/hr+, because this will keep you from becoming a certified LEO, as well as making it very difficult to get any type of security clearance.

Being a starving college student is good, 'cause you can file all your legal stuff "pro se" - Latin for without a lawyer. Courts are required to give you great leeway & defference when you have no mouthpiece. Alternatively, you can ask in your pleadings for the court to appoint counsel because of the complexity of the law and the great import of any decision rendered.

Good luck.

skidmark

TRLaye
September 1, 2004, 08:46 PM
USMCSilver

I would suggest that instead of "March of 2002. I have tried to change my careless ways, and I hope" that "March of 2002. I have worked to change my careless ways, and I hope" would be a more positive statement of your efforts.

"Tried" sounds like you have failed whereas "worked" is a responsible application of your energies.

45King
September 2, 2004, 08:40 AM
Hoo boy....where to start?

I picked up an application for a permit on the first day they became available after the shall issue law went into effect. It took me about 3 or 4 days to get everything else together, and then I mailed it in.
On the 90th day after the application was mailed, I received a letter from SLED stating that my app was on "hold" until the disposition of a case against me could be determined. According to their records, I was arrested for uttering a fraudulent check on November 26 of 1984, and they wanted to know what happend. Well, that date just happened to be my 7th anniversary, and I have NO recollection of being arrested for anything. Furthermore, in 1995, I had to get a copy of my criminal record from SLED as part of becoming an insurance agent, and the record I was given showed nothing at all.
I tried to backtrack on the charge mentioned, but was not able to find out anything about it. Because of some other more important issues in my life at that time, I decided that it wasn't worth the $$ or hassle to disprove SLED, so I let the matter slide. I figured there would be no CWP for me.

This past Tuesday, I was going through some old files and found a letter from SLED. Curious, I opened it and what should fall out but a CWP that had been issued to me on 4/4/96, good until 4/4/01!!!

How did that mysterious charge clear itself up? What will happen if I now try to get a new one? From '97 to '02, I delieverd parts for a local car dealership, and during that time, I received a number of speeding tickets.

All of this is made even more curious by the fact that although the law mandates training classes, the permit I was issued originally was issued to me without my showing any formal training other than submitting copies of my Life NRA and USPSA membership, and a copy of my NROI certificate. Apparently, at that time, these were good enough to satisfy somebody.

Most curious of all, how the heck did that letter get into my file cabinet without me knowing about it until 8 years after the fact? :fire: :banghead:

I intend to re-apply, and we shall see what we shall see. GRSC shall hear about this, too. If I could have my way, SLED's only role in this would be to check one's criminal record for FELONY convictions, and if none were found, then they would have to rubber stamp it "approved."

ScottsGT
September 2, 2004, 11:04 AM
I don't know what I'd be more upset about. The denial, or having a permit and not knowing it!

Nathaniel Firethorn
September 3, 2004, 09:50 AM
USMCSilver, having been in a similar situation, I'd also suggest that you get "armed" and educated about speed traps.

Personally, I'm a good driver, and I'm not out to run the Daytona 500 in Frenchtown, PRNJ. But after having a clean record for ten years or more, somehow my wife and I managed to get tagged three times in six months for doing the average prevailing velocity (plus once for the heinous misdeed of pumping my own gasoline in PRNJ. :barf: ) At that point I figured that I needed to get both protection and education.

Get yourself a good, high-end radar detector. I have the Bel RX-65, and at this point would feel blind and helpless without it. I've also seen good things about the Escort 8500 and Valentine V1. You'll need X, K, and Ka band coverage. A "technological" display showing the frequency of the radar is helpful to distinguish false alarms from the real thing.

Laser detection might help you too, but if they use it in SC it's probably already too late to avoid getting tagged when the alarm goes off. Balancing that is the fact that it's not terribly popular with police: it's expensive, it can't be used from a moving vehicle, and there are some legal issues around laser calibration that stem from a NJ court decision.

Read up as well. This page (http://www.radar-detectors.com/products/book-store/default.asp) has the book that the police get their training from.

http://www.radar-detectors.com/products/book-store/books/images/radar-understanding-2.gif

Here's a book by a former NY state trooper, (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0380807580/104-8336977-2143909?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance) that tells you a lot about how speed traps are set up and what the capabilities of current radar detectors are. (For instance, the officer must visually estimate your speed before popping the radar, so it will help you to keep an eye on the radar horizon.) It's useful.

Failing to prepare is preparing to fail.

HTH,
- pdmoderator

RealGun
September 3, 2004, 11:05 AM
You should acknowledge that radar detectors are illegal in some States, clearly viewed as a tool to allow speeding. Their use could further jeopardize a driver's license. I think the real issue with speeding, making it controversial, is arbitrary enforcement and speed limits, zones, and extent of those zones that don't make sense. In other words, speed limits are only good in principle. Unfortunately, we can't pick and choose when to obey the laws or deny the power of law enforcement. I suppose we could attack that power but don't know that we do.

In my small town in SC we don't have local police. My brother, a former mayor, tells me the proposals to have police in the past were voted down because it was arged that local residents would get harassed with tickets, and no other real law enforcement benefits would result. The truth is that speed limits in this town are both ignored and not enforced. It seems to me that some compromise is really required.

Because we drive like we have an entitlement to judge how fast is okay, speed limits are necessary in my opinion. I bring this up because we seem to argue based upon what we think of speed limits rather than the concept of being law abiding.

Nathaniel Firethorn
September 3, 2004, 11:21 AM
Yup. Illegal in cars in Virginia and DC.

http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/radarmap.gif

Illegal in commercial vehicles just about everywhere.

In those places, I suppose fuzzbusters are viewed about the same way that firearms are here... :rolleyes:

See http://www.afn.org/~afn09444/scanlaws/index.html for more info.

Part of becoming educated.

- pdmoderator

USMCsilver
September 3, 2004, 11:40 AM
Thanks for the advice on the radar, but I have simply decided to slow down considerably in the past few years.

Also, as a side note for those who have had obvious problems with me and my speeding, I give you this:

My friend at the DMV pulled my record for me at my wife's request. All my offenses have been for less than 10mph over the limit. Yeah, it is speeding, but I wasn't going mach one. That's 6 tickets for >10pmh and 1 for driving too fast for conditions. IMHO, that is subjective as well...

41 magnum fan
September 3, 2004, 09:03 PM
I am sorry for you.I hope that this works out for you.SLED must have had a change in managment.I have a fellow coworker that is in a similar situation.He had a CWP but was denied a new one when he tried to renew it.The reason stated for denial was that he commited a crime of "immoral ineptitude".His crime was writing a single bad check to Wal-Mart ten years ago.He made good on the check and never got arrested or even went to court over the matter.If you do not get your permit contact your county Sheriff and ask about becoming a reserve deputy.This would probably allow you to still be able to carry.Also you would earn a paycheck and get some Law Enforcement experience.In Saluda County all reserve deputy training is done here and does not require a trip to the academy.Another idea that would still allow you to carry some is to keep a valid hunting and fishing liscense.You can legally carry a handgun while hunting or fishing or travel to and from with a valid liscense.Just make sure that you have your hunting or fishing gear in your vehicle with you.

Majic
September 3, 2004, 09:41 PM
All my offenses have been for less than 10mph over the limit. Yeah, it is speeding, but I wasn't going mach one.
That's just like saying she's a little bit pregnant.
The officers do, at their discretion, write the summons for a lower speed to save you from the punishment of the actual speed you were clocked at. In other words they sometimes give you a little break.

trfox
September 3, 2004, 10:03 PM
USMCsilver: in regards to the numerous people here who so willingly condemn you and your speeding tickets, there will come a time when you and I can get together and laugh at them. Those times will be when they accidently write a bad check (happens to a lot of honest people) or get a DUI after attending a wedding and having only 2 beers or maybe a loud group of drunks hassles the family at a concert or Wal-mart parking lot and the present poster "with too much enthusiiasm "defends" the family, etc., etc. and then they get their CCW renewal denied. Trust me everyone, it WILL happen. Then USMCsilver you and I can grab a cup of coffee and laugh at those idiots.

BTW, I have only had 3 traffic tickets since 1966 and I presently have a permit to carry gun.So I am only sticking up for USMCsilver, not because of any personal feelling I have towards speeders, BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO if the common citizen is going to have even a chance to keep government agencies in check.

David W. Gay
September 3, 2004, 10:58 PM
Greetings USMCsilver,

I have read the entire thread, and, If you don't mind, have a couple of suggestions regarding your situation.

First, in your letter to your Senator, (if it has not been sent) do not state: "The reason SLED is denying my renewal is due to excessive speeding tickets in the past. While I admit to having broken the law seven times while driving, my last infraction was in 2001. ".

A better statement would be, "Due to a recent change in policy, SLED has denied my CCW renewal due to several citations for speeding that I received many years ago. While I did not contest those citations, it has been well over 3 years since the last one was issued."

Do not state the number of citations, just the length of time since the last occurred. And NEVER "admit to having broken the law" in any form of written or oral communication.

Second, as for the advice on getting a radar detector - DO IT! Just as in carrying as gun raises your awareness of your surroundings and of your behavior, so does having a radar detector raise your awareness of your driving conditions and habits. It will pay for itself with the first time your speed is starting to creep up to +11 over the speed limit as you coast down some long hill on the highway.

In any case, good luck with your renewal.

Carry on!

45King
September 4, 2004, 11:09 AM
One of the times I was stopped for speeding was in Salley, SC, by a sheriff's deputy. I had a bit of a chat with him, and he informed me that most LEO's will stop speeders only if they're exceeding the speed limit by more than 10 mph on the open highway, or more than 4 mph in urban settings. There are, however, exceptions to every rule. Get a good detector, and it will indeed increase your situational awareness vis a vis speed limits.

Wolfy
September 4, 2004, 01:12 PM
pdmoderator you got a ticket for pumping yout own gas? I didn't think they really enforced that in NJ. What was the fine?

Being a fellow comrade of this state I am curious.

Nathaniel Firethorn
September 4, 2004, 01:51 PM
Wolfy, I got away without the ticket, but got a stern talking-to about why "there's a reason you can't pump your own gas in New Jersey." * It was around Milford somewhere. I was in search of an Exxon station (I have their credit card) and spotted a station that appeared closed but the pumps were running. In a burst of reckless nihilism, I inserted card, inserted gas, and was preparing to depart, when out of nowhere appears (I am NOT making this up!)

Officer Bent.

Once again, proving that you don't have to be employed by the governor to get Bent in PRNJ.

- pdmoderator.

* Officer Bent was having trouble inventing one. Personally, I think it's so that the wankoids who want to give themselves a little thrill while they're filling your tank will have full employment. Yes, I've seen EXACTLY that happen in PRNJ, too.

Wolfy
September 4, 2004, 03:11 PM
I used to work for Wawa and it had gas pumps one of our customers was a fire marshall and he would come into the store yelling at us that customers were pumping there own gas. If he saw it happen again he would fine us our attitude was he needs to get a life. I would prefer to pump my own gas rather than have these guys force that last buck into the tank and half of it runs down the side of my truck.

P95Carry
September 4, 2004, 08:20 PM
can't pump your own gas in New Jersey I really am - seriously - havin one heck of a hard time believing this is actually the case. It's ........ amazing. I don't think anyone has pumped gas for me in .. well .... not for last four years and ... that includes travelling last year thru MD, WV, KY, TN, AR, TX, CO, KS, MO, IL, IN, OH ....... shucks.

<dumbfounded>:rolleyes:

sumpnz
September 4, 2004, 09:51 PM
Oregon also doesn't let you pump your own gas. Basically it's a make work scheem to reduce welfare numbers. In reality it has little to do with safety.

RealGun
September 5, 2004, 05:03 AM
pumping gas - deleted by poster - off topic

Blackcloud6
September 5, 2004, 08:59 AM
USMCSilver:

Have you yet talked to a lawyer? I've been watching this thread for awhile and it doesn'r seem like you have. You are fighting a legal battle against a system that holds the cards. Get a professional to help or you will certainly lose. Lawyers know the system, they now how to write the correct words and they may know a few tricks that you don't.

Alos, the leagl system looks down on those who fight on their own. That's the way it is, why put yourself at a further disadvantage.

BlkHawk73
September 5, 2004, 09:35 AM
Yeah, it is speeding, but I wasn't going mach one. That's 6 tickets for >10pmh and 1 for driving too fast for conditions.

So does this translate into it is ok to break the law so long as it's only by a little bit? :scrutiny: I'm not in agreement with your denial of a permit, but it does seem that you've yet to take full responsibility for these past mistakes of yours.


Does this mean that it's ok to be a little drunk and still drive a vehicle as opposed to being really drunk and doing the same?
Once the police pull you over it's their discretion to issue a ticket. If they see that in the past you have similar incidents and tickets weren't apparently stopping you from this behavior, they'll issue them even for a small amount over the posted limit. If one is dumb enuff to not get the hint after 2 or 3, they deserve any more they get regardless of how much over the posted speed they were. The number of tix in such a short time shows some that there's some irresesponsibility there.
Takes years to build a good solid reputation but one a few small instances to destroy it. Seems like that is what was done here.

trfox
September 5, 2004, 01:29 PM
USMCsilver: Again, when some of the posters with a few tickets start getting denied a hunting license (for just one example) when this denial by SLED of your CCW license practice spreads to other states and other ways within your own state, I will have a good laugh. S-o-o-o many people cannot see the danger to the citizens contained in this brazen denial by SLED.

ctdonath
September 5, 2004, 03:06 PM
So does this translate into it is ok to break the law so long as it's only by a little bit?

Don't know what drivers are like where you live. Around here, if you consistently do the speed limit you become a road hazard. Only about 5% actually follow the posted speed limit.

There's something wrong with a law when most people violate it.

Mad Man
September 5, 2004, 05:44 PM
ctdonath

There's something wrong with a law when most people violate it.

September 5th, 2004 07:06 PM

Or:

"Rules are like currency. The more you make, the less they are worth."




BlkHawk73

Does this mean that it's ok to be a little drunk and still drive a vehicle as opposed to being really drunk and doing the same?

September 5th, 2004 01:35 PM


Yes (or more accurately, should be).


Traffic rules have less to do with safety than they do about revenue enhancement. (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?&postid=1205848#post1205848)

Derek Zeanah
September 5, 2004, 06:11 PM
To be honest, a lot of speed laws seem arbitrary. In Atlanta, most people would go 85 in the 55 zone downtown. If you decided to go 55, you were a hazard -- you could get ticketed for it, and you'd deserve it -- remember, speed doesn't kill, but speed differentials do.

The problem becomes one where the cop can pull you over because you're disobeying a speed limit or because you're following it. Then it can quickly become an issue of your race, the bumper stickers on your car, the color/model/modifications to your car, etc. Laws are often enforced arbitrarily and/or unfairly.

And for those posters who keep arguing that it's wrong to disobey any law, would they feel the same way if they were living in an age where mixed-marriages were illegal? Would they have enforced fugitive slave laws -- after all, they're law, right? Laws should be followed where they're rational, and when they promote justice. When they no longer do so, they should no longer be followed, and juries should refuse to convict.

Those of you who show a blind obedience to the law scare me more than the driving of the original poster ever would. Y'all are the type that......

Probably best to leave it here.

Chris Rhines
September 5, 2004, 06:18 PM
So does this translate into it is ok to break the law so long as it's only by a little bit? If it's a law that restricts the initation of force (such as the laws against murder, rape, and theft), then no.

There are other laws that only restrict non-aggressive behaivor (speeding is an example, there are many others.) These laws are okay to violate all the time.

- Chris

Majic
September 5, 2004, 06:36 PM
In Atlanta, most people would go 85 in the 55 zone downtown. If you decided to go 55, you were a hazard -- you could get ticketed for it, and you'd deserve it
Now that would be interesting. Showing up in court with a ticket for obeying a posted law. :rolleyes:

NukemJim
September 5, 2004, 07:21 PM
Now that would be interesting. Showing up in court with a ticket for obeying a posted law

Here in Illinois you can be ticketed if you are doing the speed limit say 55, there are cars behing you and you are in the left lane.

Basiclyl the legislature said it would be illegal not to disoby the law in that instrance :banghead:

NukemJim

USMCsilver
September 14, 2004, 05:26 AM
This was forwarded to me. Source is Gun Owners of South Carolina (the state NRA affiliate).

"Below is an announcement from GOSC. It is for your information.
If this is a step forward, it is a very small one. It may actually be a step backwards because it tends to legitimize SLED's use of arbitrary criteria. IMO, SLED's discretion needs to be taken out of the process. Until it is, SC will not be a true "shall issue" state.



SLED to Adopt New Standard

We have received numerous complaints about SLED denying CWPs to individuals with adverse driving records. According to complaints SLED has been rejecting applicants with more than six driving offenses in a 10-year period.

SLED broadly interprets the wording in the CWP law that requires them to issue permits upon completion of a "favorable" background check. They assert that an adverse driving record constitutes a less than favorable background and have denied permits using this reasoning.

Since first hearing of the problem several weeks ago GOSC has had regular contact with both SLED and the governor's office. On Friday afternoon the governor's office informed us that SLED has agreed to scale back its standard to a 5-year driving record.

Under the new guidelines more than six traffic offenses in 5-years will result in a CWP application being denied.

In a follow-up conversation today (9/13/04) the governor's office advises that SLED will be reviewing recent denials to find those that qualify for a CWP underthe new administrative standard. SLED will issue those permits in the very near future.

GOSC will continue to work with officials to improve procedures for issuing CWPs to qualified citizens.

ScottsGT
September 14, 2004, 08:00 AM
My good man, I think YOU are the catalyst for this action! I think you should skip the law enforcement career and go straight for politics!
But like the old saying goes, Politicians and police, those that WANT to serve shold not be allowed to serve!
Hey, not my saying, so don't flame me, guys!
Maybe a follow up to the good insulting senator? With one of these::neener:

Majic
September 14, 2004, 08:44 AM
Here in Illinois you can be ticketed if you are doing the speed limit say 55, there are cars behing you and you are in the left lane.
There were old laws on the books (and may very well still be there) and also the rule of the road stated that the left lane on highways were for passing of slower traffic. If traffic passed on on the right then you weren't following the rule of the road. A lot of todays drivers seem not to know of this old rule.

readyfire
September 14, 2004, 09:27 AM
Good work USMC i read about your problems and was amazed,i am moving to SC in a month and was dissapointed at the way they handled your denial.I think you handled it great and you definately made a big enough stink to push em a bit to work on their policys.A big thanks is in order for sticking to your guns and fighting the fight.Good job,ill be a lot happier knowing that there working on this.

RealGun
September 14, 2004, 09:45 AM
· Speeding, 1996
· Speeding, 1997; 2 counts
· Driving too fast for conditions, 1998
· Speeding, 1999
· Speeding, 2001; 2 counts


If I understand correctly, you would qualify for renewal under the new guidelines. The threshhold is more than 6 tickets in 5 years. You have 3.

Now, what's to stop them from including any offense against the State, such as a tax lien or late filing of income tax?

This is far from set right, but obviously your immediate problem is corrected. If the gun organizations follow through, SLED will hear more about this from the legislature. In addition to Gov. Sanford, in a couple of months, Jim DeMint as a US Senator elect, along with Senator Graham, could get involved as well.

If there must be gun ownership restrictions, then it cannot be extended to misdemeanors, or the whole process will be out of control. SLED, if they remain as a regulator, wil have to have their discretion more clearly defined by the law. SC has RKBA in their Constitution, and that needs to mean something. The right of self defense should also be firmly underlined and supported by the law.

USMCsilver
September 14, 2004, 02:50 PM
Scott and readyfire, thank you for your kind words and thank you, everyone else (well, mostly anyway) for your support through this whole ordeal.

However, having said that, nothing has changed yet for me. It has been 13 business days, and 20 days total, since I sent in my 2nd appeal. (They have 10 to respond.) I have not received anything in the mail yet, so I don't know if that's good or bad.

I guess I'll just wait and keep my fingers crossed.

RealGun
September 14, 2004, 02:56 PM
I think you should call or write. Every day disarmed is a bad day.

If you enjoyed reading about "Denied Renewal of My CWP" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!