Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SC Senate Bill 88

Discussion in 'Activism' started by RetiredUSNChief, Dec 21, 2016.

  1. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    How do you feel about your state requiring the Department of Motor Vehicles to maintain an accurate and up-to-date list of all CWP holders, with the purpose of issuing mandatory license plate stickers identifying vehicle owners as having a CHP?

    Well, if you're a South Carolina resident, take notice because this is exactly what someone is trying to do, after having amended Senate Bill 88 to include it.

    This bill was sponsored by a Republican Senator, but in its origional draft ONLY addressed the issue of amending SC law to allow students, instructors, and employees of higher level public and private educational institutions to carry a concealed weapon on campuses, provided the areas were not posted as prohibited. The summary was "Firearms on college or university campus".

    Somewhere along the line in a subcommittee, amendments were made to this bill which included this license plate ID sticker requirement. It was prefiled in the state Senate again this month with the summary reading "Concealed weapons".

    Here's a link to the latest version:

    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess122_2017-2018/bills/88.htm

    If you are a South Carolina resident, I'd recommend writing your representatives in both the Senate and the House over this. I just did so today (hard copy), and I'll post the text of the letter below this.
     
    wbbh likes this.
  2. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Sent this to my Senator and Representative, hard copy:

    12/21/2016


    The Honorable Ross Turner

    512 Gressette Bldg.

    Columbia, SC 29201



    Dear Senator Turner,

    My name is XXXXX XXXX, and I reside at XXX XXXXX XXX, Simpsonville, SC, my home since retiring from the U.S. Navy in 2005.

    As personal background pertinent to the subject of this letter, I am a strong supporter of our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms and, pursuant to South Carolina law, I maintain a Concealed Weapons Permit (CWP). I am an avid opponent of any gun control measures which infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. In support of my personal stand, I read and study the history and the laws regarding this issue and how they play out both historically and currently.

    I have an issue with Senate Bill 88, sponsored by Senator Bright, and first introduced in the Senate on January 13, 2015. The current summary of this bill, as shown on the prefiled Senate copy as of December 13, 2016, is “Concealed weapons”.

    On the face of it, this bill appears to advance several causes in favor of the right to keep and bear arms, as indicated in the proposed amendments/additions to the following sections of the SC Code of Law:
    • 16-23-420: Allows any registered student, employee, or faculty member of any public or private institution of higher learning to possess a concealed firearm at such institutions, provided they have a valid CWP and the institutions have not posted a “NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED” sign.
    • 16-23-20: Creates an exception to allow anyone to carry a concealed weapon during a mandatory evacuation order declared by the governor.
    • 23-31-218: Creates an “Institutional” CWP, which would allow Institutional CWP holders to carry a concealed weapon in schools, daycares, churches, and hospitals.
    • 56-3-1230: Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles to maintain an accurate and up-to-date list of all CWP holders, and to issue a sticker which must be affixed to the vehicle owner’s license plate in order to identify the owner as a CWP holder.

    While it can be argued that the first three amendments/additions summarized above are a net gain for gun rights, the last one, which amends section 56-3-1230, is a very large detractor and one which I, in no way, support.

    First of all, the proposed amendment to section 56-3-1230 is in direct violation to a law passed in 2008 as part of Act 337 (R346, S968). In it, SC Code of Law 23-15-215(I) was amended to provide for the privacy and safety of all CWP holders by removing public access to any list of CWP holders and to mandate the destruction of any such lists except the list which SLED must maintain for all permit holders. It reads as such:

    SLED must maintain a list of all permit holders and the current status of each permit. SLED may release the list of permit holders or verify an individual's permit status only if the request is made by a law enforcement agency to aid in an official investigation, or if the list is required to be released pursuant to a subpoena or court order. SLED may charge a fee not to exceed its costs in releasing the information under this subsection. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, a person in possession of a list of permit holders obtained from SLED must destroy the list.

    Given that the photograph on the SLED issued CWP comes from the DMV licensing database, it is readily apparent that South Carolina Law Enforcement already has access to whether or not any person they run the license plate tag on holds a valid CWP. Additionally, South Carolina is a “must inform” state; any person carrying a concealed weapon must inform any law enforcement officer they are interacting with officially that they have a CWP and that they are carrying a concealed weapon. So this amendment to section 56-3-1230, in addition to violating current law, does not provide any additional benefit to law enforcement.

    Also, South Carolina is not an “Open Carry” state. Any person who has a valid CWP has no other legal option except to carry concealed. Mandating a sticker on the license plate of every CWP holder not only negates the “concealed” aspect of “Concealed Weapon Permit”, it also needlessly exposes the CWP holder to dangers and consequences inherent in advertising to everybody that he/she not only owns firearms, but may have one on his person or in the vehicle. This is the very thing Act 337 was passed to prevent.

    By default, all people who do NOT have this sticker are identified as carrying no weapons of defense, again needlessly exposing such people to dangers and consequences here, as well.


    For this reason, the proposed amendment to section 56-3-1230 to mandate identifying CWP holders by license plate stickers must not be allowed. I am counting on you, as my representative in the Senate, to have this stricken from the bill or, failing that, have the bill defeated entirely. Please send me a response to let me know how you intend to move with respect to this bill.


    Thank you for your time and consideration.


    Respectfully,


    XXXXX X. XXXX, ETC(SS), Retired
     
    230RN likes this.
  3. The Bushmaster

    The Bushmaster Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2005
    Messages:
    7,846
    Location:
    Ava, Missouri
    Man that is just asking someone to break into your vehicle looking for your gun.
     
  4. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    246
    I would, but I live just over the line and my SC State Senator is Karl B. Allen. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't do any good for me to write him. . .

    For those who don't know SC politics, Karl B. Allen gets the prestigious NRA: F.
     
  5. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    And if you drive in the well known restrictive States out there on the coasts, you will probably be pulled over every fifteen miles of travel.

    You might mention this in your followup activism letter.

    EDIT1: Make that ten miles.

    EDIT2: And in those restrictive States, be subject to a Terry (no relation) search, with "suspected possession of illegal (whatever that is) firearms" as an articulable reason, doncha know.

    EDIT3: :cuss:

    Terry, 230RN
     
    Last edited: Dec 23, 2016
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  6. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Apparently Senator Verdin has vowed to strike that from the bill when next years legislative session starts.

    One has to wonder why it was put in the bill in the first place, since he was on the subcommittee that amended it.
     
  7. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    Perhaps it's similar to the MSM's technique of printing "GUNS! AAACK! EEEK!" on page one, then a retraction or correction a week later down in the corner of the obituary page.
    :evil:

    Terry, 230RN
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2016
  8. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,857
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Chief,

    Probably a poison pill amendment intended to stop progress on the original.
     
  9. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    Good point....

    "...well, I can't think of everything now, can I? That's why I hired you in the first place."

    (Quote from a former supervisor.)

    Terry, 230RN
     
  10. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    That's what a brother of mine suggested, too.

    Unfortunately, I don't know how to find out who, exactly, on the subcommittee put that particular line in the bill. I know the origional bill was written by a Republican, which didn't have that line. The subcommittee included two Democrats, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

    If I knew who it was, I could express my voter's discontent in a more direct fashion in my letter.
     
  11. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    3,291
    How many road rage incidents will generate phony "he threatened me with a gun" reports to the police?
     
  12. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Good point.
     
  13. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,857
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    Call the Committe head's office and ask.
     
  14. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Ohhhh...now there's a thought!

    More info to look up! Might be a moot point if that clause gets removed as Verdin is claiming to do. Except it would be a good thing to know if it's my representative, because I can let him know this voter didn't appreciate it.
     
  15. 230RN
    • Contributing Member

    230RN Marines raising the left-leaning Pisa tower.

    Joined:
    May 27, 2006
    Messages:
    6,632
    Location:
    Calirado
    I hate that group mask on responsibility. I'd always like to know who, among all those sitting around the conference table, actually first voiced the idea. The Germinator, if you will.

    At my outfit, minutes used to be taken at every formal policy meeting and the culprits could be known. This, as opposed to the general weekly meetings where the status of Jane's backyard garden took up most of the time. (Which was OK, stuff like that built closer intra-departmental spirit.)

    But you might inquire if formal minutes are taken at that kind of legislative Committee meeting.

    Terry
     
  16. MarkDido

    MarkDido Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,022
    Location:
    01-255-0-L
    Yep.

    A long time ago, All rental cars in Virginia with Virginia tags started with an "R"

    Guess what cars were targeted by bad guys knowing that the driver was probably a tourist?
     
  17. P5 Guy

    P5 Guy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2004
    Messages:
    1,639
    Location:
    Tampa Bay area
    Florida once had 'Y' as the identifier for rentals along with the company logo. Both outlawed now. It was a good thing for the non-criminals to recognize out of state or country drivers. You know those that suddenly realize they need to make a left from the right lane across three lanes of traffic.
     
  18. dwjwin50

    dwjwin50 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Not from your state, but in California bills and modifications are bought and paid for. That is, until someone makes a stink. That's probably what happened here, the bill got amended when someone paid for the amendment, then a stink happened and it will be removed.

    Remember: Politicians are lawyers and therefore liars and crooks.
     
  19. JTHunter

    JTHunter Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,357
    Location:
    Southwestern Illinois
    Many years ago, the largest rental & leasing car company, Enterprise, had their logo (an "e") on the trunk/tailgate of their vehicles. You can guess what happened in many of those cases.

    They no longer put the "e" on the vehicles.
     
  20. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    47,857
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
    These stories of rental cars being identifiable are all great fodder for opposition to this stupid thing that's fated to die anyway since it will have a negative economic impact to add another variant to license plates (one of the common ways bills and amendments die is they have a negative economic impact), but what is needed is a plan of attack to ensure that the amendment is stripped or the whole bill dies.

    It is in Judiciary and Luke Rankin is the Chairman of Judiciary. Each member has a hotlink off their name. http://www.scstatehouse.gov/CommitteeInfo/senatejudiciary.php Unless you're applying for a position as an aid it is best to keep all calls, emails and letters short and to the point since we're not trying to educate them, just make them aware that we support or oppose a piece of legislation. If you're curious about where the amendment came from just contact Senator Verdin and ask.


    Dear ABC,

    Please oppose this "poison pill" amendment to Senate bill 88 as it will increase, not decrease, crime by causing criminals to target vehicles so marked and will increase cost to the state by the expense of printing and issuing such markings.

    SECTION 5. Section 56-3-1230 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

    "(C) If a vehicle owner is a concealed weapons permit holder, the department shall affix a sticker to the vehicle owner's license plate identifying the vehicle owner as a concealed weapons permit holder. The department shall establish the specifications for the sticker and the method for obtaining information regarding a vehicle owner's status as a concealed weapons holder."
    Regards,

    XYZ
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2016
    RetiredUSNChief likes this.
  21. DownInTheDark

    DownInTheDark Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    106
    Location:
    Montana
    I am no genius but doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of concealing?
     
    MarkDido likes this.
  22. RetiredUSNChief

    RetiredUSNChief Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2012
    Messages:
    7,121
    Location:
    SC (Home), VA (Work)
    Good points, thanks!
     

Share This Page