Weapons Ban in Effect!

[Bigcarlover]

This was an act of the City of Columbia Council. If you live in that city, VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!


Link Removed

Spread the word and vote them out.

 

[bofh]

From SC Code of Laws - Title 23 - Chapter 31 - Firearms:

ARTICLE 7

Local Regulations​

SECTION 23-31-510. Regulation of ownership, transfer, or possession of firearm or ammunition; discharge on landowner's own property.

No governing body of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision in the State may enact or promulgate any regulation or ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate:

(1) the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things; or

(2) a landowner discharging a firearm on the landowner's property to protect the landowner's family, employees, the general public, or the landowner's property from animals that the landowner reasonably believes pose a direct threat or danger to the landowner's property, people on the landowner's property, or the general public. For purposes of this item, the landowner's property must be a parcel of land comprised of at least twenty-five contiguous acres. Any ordinance regulating the discharge of firearms that does not specifically provide for an exclusion pursuant to this item is unenforceable as it pertains to an incident described in this item; otherwise, the ordinance is enforceable.

HISTORY: 1986 Act No. 532, Section 2; 2008 Act No. 220, Section 1, eff May 21, 2008.

SECTION 23-31-520. Power to regulate public use of firearms; confiscation of firearms or ammunition.

This article does not affect the authority of any county, municipality, or political subdivision to regulate the careless or negligent discharge or public brandishment of firearms, nor does it prevent the regulation of public brandishment of firearms during the times of or a demonstrated potential for insurrection, invasions, riots, or natural disasters. This article denies any county, municipality, or political subdivision the power to confiscate a firearm or ammunition unless incident to an arrest.

HISTORY: 1986 Act No. 532, Section 3; 2006 Act No. 347, Section 3, eff June 9, 2006.

Reading this correctly, the city can not legally prohibit concealed carry. The emergency ordinance enacted by the city, which is in effect for 30 days and prohibits dangerous weapons within 250 feet of the South Carolina State House grounds, does not apply to permit holders legally carrying concealed firearms. Any arrests of such permit holders would be illegal and certainly cause for legal action against the city.

 

[bofh]

Here is the ordinance: http://www.columbiasc.net/depts/city-council/docs/2015/07_09_2015/ordinance_2015_066_temporary_cwp_ban_around_statehouse_updated.pdf:

...

1. It is unlawful for any person or group of persons while on public property to carry or brandish a firearm or dangerous weapon within two hundred fifty (250’) feet to the borders of the Capitol Complex as depicted on the attached map, unless that person is a licensed law enforcement officer or the provisions of South Carolina Code of Laws Section 10-11-320(B) (1976, as amended) are applicable.

2. That any person found in violation of this Ordinance will be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punished by a fine of not more than Five Hundred and No/100 ($500.00) Dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty (30) days, or both.

This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of thirty (30) days from the date of its passage by a majority vote of City Council and will expire automatically unless it is extended by a majority vote of City Council.

...

It includes a map. The target area includes public roads. Reading the details, one can easily find that this is an outright illegal ordinance:

...

WHEREAS, the passage of Senate Bill S.897 on July 9, 2015, and the scheduled removal of the South Carolina Infantry Battle Flag at 10:00 a.m. on July 10, 2015, has added expediency to the need to take precautionary measures to protect life and property surrounding the Capitol Grounds; and,

WHEREAS, Code of Laws Section 10-11-320 (1976, as amended) states:

(A) It is unlawful for any person or group of persons to:
(1) carry or have readily accessible to the person upon the capitol grounds or within the capitol building any firearm or dangerous weapon; and,

WHEREAS, holders of Concealed Weapon Permits (CWP) are exempted from this prohibition only if they are also “authorized to park on the capitol grounds or in the parking garage below the capitol grounds” [Code of Laws of South Carolina Section 10-11-320(B)], thereby making it illegal to have a concealed weapon on the Capitol Grounds even with a concealed weapon permit unless under these specific circumstances; and,

WHEREAS, the South Carolina legislature has not defined the terms “have readily accessible” for the purposes of enforcing Section 10-11-320 (1976); and,

WHEREAS, the City of Columbia, by and through its Police Department and its Public Works Department, has determined concealed weapons are “readily accessible to the person” if the weapon is on the person of someone within the area inward from vehicular traveled surfaces of Gervais, Sumter, Pendleton and Assembly Streets in the City of Columbia (Capitol Complex) or within 250 feet of the borders of the Capitol Complex; and,

...

This city ordinance is rewriting state law (10-11-320) and violating state law (23-31-510). The term readily accessible in 10-11-320 refers to the proximity of a person to a firearm, and not of an armed person to the state house grounds. The 250 feet rule around capitol grounds blatantly violates 23-31-510.

 

[DavidWhite]

Sounds to me like the guberment is a tad nervous that it's "serfs" might want to come visit them at work...

 

[XD40scinNC]

There have been death threats directed at legislatures of this stupid flag bull ****. There are some knuckle dragging racists down there that are pissed, but without enough IQ points to blow their nose.

 

[melloyello]

I can't believe they are using the murders in Charleston as a catalyst to remove the Confederate flag in front of the Confederate Memorial.
I already not planning to re-elect my state legislatures for even considering the exploitation of the murders as a reason to remove the flag.

Now this arms ban.

 

[nogods]

I can't believe that there are still people in the second half of the second decade of the 21st century who don't know that the confederate flag represents supporters of slavery, racists, white supremacists, and traitors to the United States.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

South Carolina

Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.

As a resident of Georgia, Thompson supported the Confederacy and its cause during the American Civil War. In 1863, as the editor of the Savannah Morning News he proposed a design that would ultimately become the Confederacy's second national flag, which would be come to known as the "Stainless Banner.

In a series of editorials, Thompson argued:


As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; … Such a flag…would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG.… As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism.


After the American Civil War ended and slavery was abolished in the U.S., Thompson, as a fervent supporter of the Democrats, opposed the Republican Party's efforts in southern U.S. states, as well as opposing the granting of civil rights to African Americans and freed slaves.

So I ask, what type of person would be upset about taking down the "White Man's Flag" designed to represent "Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race"?

 

[Bigcarlover]

This thread was not intended to debate a flag. This is about the illegal and unconstitutional use of power by the city council, to implement a type of martial law against law abiding citizens. Regardless of the reason for their actions, nothing justifies what they did. And their constituents should be aware (not only to avoid possible unlawful imprisonment and fines, but to consider their actions come next election).

Please keep in on topic.

 

[XD40scinNC]

Is there a SC group similar to Grass Roots of NC that has the clout and ability to impress on the Columbia city council their actions are illegal (if in fact thier action does run afoul of state laws) and be able to backup legal action if necessary. GRNC has convinced a number of cities and counties in NC to follow state law striking ordinances and/or removing or changing sign wording, when they run afoul of state statutes.

If their actions are actually permitted under state law, then only the citizens of Columbia that bother to vote can vote them out.

 

[nogods]

The SC SLED website has this provision - is it no longer the law?

SECTION 16-23-420. Carrying or displaying firearms in public buildings or areas adjacent thereto.
(A) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or into any publicly-owned building a firearm of any kind, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to enter the premises or property described in subsection (A) and to display, brandish, or threaten others with a firearm.

.......

(E) For purposes of this section, the terms “premises” and “property” do not include state or locally owned or maintained roads, streets, or rights-of-way of them, running through or adjacent to premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, which are open full time to public vehicular traffic.

(F) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry concealed weapons pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31 of Title 23 (CWP) when upon any premises, property, or building that is part of an interstate highway rest area facility.

 

[bofh]

The SC SLED website has this provision - is it no longer the law?

SECTION 16-23-420. Carrying or displaying firearms in public buildings or areas adjacent thereto.
(A) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or into any publicly-owned building a firearm of any kind, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property.

(B) It is unlawful for a person to enter the premises or property described in subsection (A) and to display, brandish, or threaten others with a firearm.

.......

(E) For purposes of this section, the terms “premises” and “property” do not include state or locally owned or maintained roads, streets, or rights-of-way of them, running through or adjacent to premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, which are open full time to public vehicular traffic.

(F) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry concealed weapons pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31 of Title 23 (CWP) when upon any premises, property, or building that is part of an interstate highway rest area facility.

The current law would be SC Code of Laws 16-23-420, which is different from your post.

 

[epwrangler]

how about the families of those white men who died fighting to orotect their family and homes. many will gladly fight to protect them today.

 

[Bigcarlover]

Once again please keep on topic. If you want to discuss the flag, civil war etc. , please start your own thread in the off-topic section where it would belong. This is about an illegal gun ban by the city council.

This thread was not intended to debate a flag. This is about the illegal and unconstitutional use of power by the city council, to implement a type of martial law against law abiding citizens. Regardless of the reason for their actions, nothing justifies what they did. And their constituents should be aware (not only to avoid possible unlawful imprisonment and fines, but to consider their actions come next election).

Please keep in on topic.

 

[bofh]

From Link Removed:

The president of a prominent South Carolina gun rights group said Friday that an emergency Columbia city ordinance enacted last week to allow police to quickly arrest armed and dangerous people is not lawful.

But a council member said members had checked state law and determined that they were allowed to pass the temporary ordinance.

Council passed the measure Thursday night after hearing warnings from law enforcement that demonstrations relating to the Confederate flag at the State House might attract violent gun-toting people and groups that might do harm.

“It’s illegal,” said Gerald Stoudemire, president of the Gun Owners of South Carolina, who teaches concealed weapons classes, runs a gun shop and has testified on gun laws before various S.C. House and Senate committees.

Stoudemire, 68, said the new city ordinance flies in the face of a state law that says local governments cannot pass ordinances that put more restrictions on firearms than state law.

The city’s emergency ordinance, passed Thursday night, made illegal the carrying of firearms by citizens within 250 feet of the State House. The ordinance will expire around Aug. 9. It basically gives police the right within that zone to check out people they think might be carrying concealed weapons and arrest them if they are.

Council members passed the ordinance after hearing from city police Chief Skip Holbrook that police intelligence units were picking up information that various “hate groups” whose members are known to carry weapons might converge on Columbia for Friday’s lowering of the Confederate flag ceremony.

Police are also concerned that armed and potentially violent people will show up at a planned July 18 Ku Klux Klan rally at the State House, according to the ordinance passed by city council.

While state law prohibits the carrying of firearms by citizens on State House grounds, state law currently allows people to carry guns – including concealed guns if they have a permit – just off State House grounds, Stoudemire said. Thus, council’s action to restrict the rights of people to carry guns around the State House property goes further than state law and is illegal, Stoudemire said.

Council member Tameika Isaac Devine said that city council had weighed Stoudemire’s concern as well as the section of state law to which he is referring.

Devine said city officials determined that under state law, city council does have the right to pass emergency measures when health and safety are at stake.

“We can do this on a temporary basis, but we couldn’t do a permanent basis,” she said.

The ordinance will expire after 30 days, unless council extends it, she said.

“It depends on how things go in the next 30 days, what law enforcement is picking up on the Internet,” she said. “I’m hopeful that we will just let it expire.”

“Irregardless – for one day, it’s illegal,” Stoudemire said.

Stoudemire said he intends to ask a lawmaker to get an attorney general’s opinion on whether the ordinance is legal. Previous attorney general opinions support his position, he said.

Stoudemire also warned that the city might get sued and have to pay damages if it wrongfully arrests someone who has the right to carry a concealed weapon.

“It’s going to look bad if they arrest somebody and they sue the city,” Stoudemire said. “I figure the first fellow who gets arrested, he’s going to be asking for some big figures.”

Under the ordinance, anyone arrested and convicted of carrying a weapon in the prohibited zone would be guilty of a misdemeanor and could be fined up to $500 and put in jail for 30 days.

After Friday’s Confederate flag lowering at State House grounds, Holbrook told The State newspaper that no one had been arrested. State Law Enforcement Division Chief Mark Keel also said officers had made no arrests.

 

[melloyello]

With a 30-day temporary injunction against State Preemption, is there any way to test the state's powers without being arrested?
Or can it backfire by our State allowing temporary injunctions powers to cities and counties.

I wonder if this will give course for other temporary gun ban.
A hurricane comes really close to the Low Country, don't know it it will land but Charleston Mayor & his City Council creates a temporary 7-day gun ban.

 

[bofh]

With a 30-day temporary injunction against State Preemption, is there any way to test the state's powers without being arrested?
Or can it backfire by our State allowing temporary injunctions powers to cities and counties.

I wonder if this will give course for other temporary gun ban.
A hurricane comes really close to the Low Country, don't know it it will land but Charleston Mayor & his City Council creates a temporary 7-day gun ban.

The existing SC law is crystal clear on that, as it also spells out the limitations of emergency powers. The City of Columbia Mayor & City Council have interpreted the state law wrong to fit it to their agenda. I think getting an AG opinion is the right approach at the moment. There is no need for anyone to get arrested on purpose to challenge this City Ordinance.

 

[Waffles]

Hey, the City of Columbia (Detroit South) Mayor is an Obama wanna be. The laws mean nothing to him. I wonder if the Mayor realizes that the City Police have no jurisdiction on State House Grounds. They only have authority on the roadway and sidewalks.

 

[melloyello]

A lawsuit was filed against the 30 day emergency gun prohibition around Columbia state house property...

Link Removed

Man files suit against city's temporary weapons ban around State - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina

 

[Waffles]

Unfortunately, since the suit was filed, no court date has been set. What will happen is that when it faces a judge, it will probable be dismissed as moot since the 30 days have expired and no one was "injured." his will be BS as the court SHOULD rule that such laws are illegal and restrain the City of trying this BS again. In Richland County, anything can happen.

 

[Bigcarlover]

He should sue each council member individually as well. Make it personal.