USMCsilver
Member
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)
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)
from Vermont. That, while some think your application should be denied.
:banghead: 
) At that point I figured that I needed to get both protection and education.
