Denied Renewal of My CWP

[ScottsGT]

What have you gotten into now??!!!??

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!
Give me a call at work sometime, we'll do lunch. Remember, I work at USC.

 

[USMCsilver]

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]

Scott makes big cash at USC! He'll treat you to lunch.

 

[ScottsGT]

Big Cash! ROTFLMAO!!!!


But yea, I'll buy!

 

[RealGun]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

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]

I agree, it should be quantified.

 

[trfox]

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]

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]

That's is nuts!!!

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

 

[USMCsilver]

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]

True... I'm not sure what h*ll I was thinking.

 

[JerryM]

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]

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]

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]

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 I'm sure someone up there ( I'm in the basement of the law school) would be willing to take them on.

 

[corncob]

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]

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.

 

[trfox]

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]

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!

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.

 

[USMCsilver]

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]

I'm at least 10 times as valuable as you are

WOW!