Denied Renewal of My CWP

Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
AMEN!!

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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."
 
USMCSilver letter

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.
 
USMC

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..
 
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
 
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?
 
Wait!

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....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top