SC School Firearms Ban Changed for CWP

[Old Fashioned]

This is a little dated but I haven't seen it posted. The prohibition of firearms on school property was changed on 2 June 09 for holders of sc CWP. If you have a CWP, you are allowed on school grounds as long as the weapon is locked in the glove compartment, console, or trunk and the vehicle is attended or locked. This does not allow you to carry on school grounds but if you have a CWP and have to drop off or pick up a child at school you can simply secure your weapon in the glove box or console just before entering school grounds and every thing is legal. This is the text of the legislation:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/sess118_2009-2010/bills/593.htm

[DoubleTap45]

for the last remnants of common sense. Tom Paine would turn in his grave.

-Ray

[Old Fashioned]

I was a little confused by this. I am not sure if the change requires a CWP holder to secure the weapon in the glovebox/console prior to entering school property or only if you have to exit the vehicle for some reason while on school property. If any one can clear this up I would be grateful.

[Aguila Blanca]

I was a little confused by this. I am not sure if the change requires a CWP holder to secure the weapon in the glovebox/console prior to entering school property or only if you have to exit the vehicle for some reason while on school property. If any one can clear this up I would be grateful.
The law says:

The provisions of this subsection ... do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon ... when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle AND is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.
Looks pretty clear that the weapon must already be secured (not carried) before the vehicle enters the school property.

[Patriotic]

Doesn't it say the law does not apply if you are licensed to CCW?

[Old Fashioned]

I was following this closely as it was debated. When it was passed, I read two different articles about this and that is where the confusion comes in. All weapons on school property were forbidden except for LE and any other persons authorized by school officials, prior to this change. The reason for the change was to solve the problem of a CWP holder that had to drop off or pick up their child and was carrying at the time. The amendment allows a holder of CWP to have a firearm in the vehicle while dropping off or picking up a child. It does not allow the holder of a CWP to get out of the vehicle with the firearm. One article I read seemed to say that if the holder of the CWP had to get out of the vehicle for some reason, they were required to secure the weapon in the vehicle as described previously and lock the vehicle. The other article seemed to imply that the weapon had to be secured in the vehicle while on school property period. I will try to get clarification, perhaps from the Attorney Generals office. Will report back.

[DoubleTap45]

WHAT is the solution to the creation of a killing field on campuses where a nut job KNOWS he'll face no resistance. Think VA Tech.

-Ray :dead_hors

[Old Fashioned]

I just called South Carolina Law Enforcement Division and got a clarification. If you have a CWP and are carrying, you must secure the weapon in the vehicle prior to driving onto school property. Without a CWP any weapon is forbiden on school property, to include firearms locked in a vehicle. This change in the law is not the most ideal solution to the problem but it is an improvement over what was.

[Skytower]

So... The only time your kids are really safe is when they are under your supervision, near the vehicle. Then, you have half a chance at defending them. Inbetween dropping them off and picking them up, they're targets.
I wonder if the schools who have legalized CCW on campus have had an increase in enrollment. Glad I don't have kids, I'd be pulling my hair out with all of the malarkey going on in schools today. I'd be a wreck. I don't know how a parent can cope.
Just my $.02

[Old Fashioned]

This gets more interesting. Just recently, the Georgetown County School District passed a complete ban of weapons on any school district property. This applies to holders of a CWP and over rides an amendment passed by the South Carolina Legislature. Another county is considering the same thing. I just sent a letter to the SC Attorney General asking if firearms laws were reserved to the state legislature or if any town, county, or school board could pass their own law if they dissagreed with state law or if they did not agree with the 2nd amendment. I specifically requested to know what action the Attorney General intended to take in this matter. The Attorney General claims to support lawful gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. I am curious as to what kind of reply I get.

[Skytower]

How does it override the amendment?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

One article I read seemed to say that if the holder of the CWP had to get out of the vehicle for some reason, they were required to secure the weapon in the vehicle as described previously and lock the vehicle. The other article seemed to imply that the weapon had to be secured in the vehicle while on school property period.

(B) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.

Sounds like you have to be in the vehicle or it has to be locked, PLUS the weapon has to be secured whether you're in the vehicle or not, and keeping it in the glove box or console is considered "secured".

Next question: Why are the rights of only those who are willing to submit to de facto gun registration by their supposed servants recognized??

[Old Fashioned]

The Amendment that the SC Legislature passed makes an exception for CWP holders as described in the post above by Dial 1911 for Help. Prior to the amendment no one could take a fire arm onto shcool property. The amendment allows a CWP holder who is carrying to secure the weapon as describe in the above post just prior to entering school grounds for the purpose of picking up or dropping off children. The Georgetown County School Board passed a complete ban on weapons on school grounds with no exceptions for CWP holders, effectively over riding the SC Legislature. There are reports that some other school districs are considering similiar bans. Thus the question, who has the right to pass firearms laws. Many states have pre emption laws preventing towns and counties from passing their own laws.

[DoubleTap45]

USUALLY State law trumps local law. A state law that expressly allows something is not easy to beat with local ordinances. They're just waiting to see who has the grit to take them on. :(


-Ray

[Dial 1911 for Help]

But to get a CWP you have to submit to their process for granting one. That means a CWP is viewed, rightly or wrongly, as a privilege rather than a right, a privilege that will grant you more (I want to use the word "rights" here but that would be confusing) powers than the great unwashed masses. So all this law has done is to enlarge the list of freedoms the state is willing to recognize for those to whom they grant the privilege. It does nothing for the rest of us.

Another issue with CWP programs is that they're a back door to a form of gun-owner registration (sometimes gun registration as well).

Now I'll give the legislators who did this the benefit of the doubt and assume that the reason they passed this half-measure is that it was truly an advance over the previous state of affairs but that it was as much of an advance as they could pull off in the political climate in which they found themselves.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Let me elaborate a little on a trend that concerns me. I'm somewhat ambivalent toward the wave which has swept the nation over the last 20 years so that in almost every state, citizens can now carry concealed. In one sense this is an obvious gain because rights that were infringed for a long time are now recognized. In another sense, it's foreboding because you have to put your name on a list to take advantage of it, because they never bothered to take the effort to make the process anonymous. They infringed our rights, then, only when forced, they started recognizing them again, but only if you'll submit to registration. Not a good trend.

Now that point in itself is arguable. But the trend that I truly find insidious are cases like these where laws are loosened to recognize more gun-related rights, but only for those with carry licenses. This law. Some state legislature overrides the state university's campus-wide ban on guns, but only for those with carry licenses. Carry is OK in bars, but only for those with carry licenses. Etc, etc.

Now I realize how it got that way in the case of the carry laws themselves. The legislators who were on our side fighting for our rights might never have got those laws passed were it not for the provisions that turn them into de facto registration schemes. But these other laws concern me even more because I almost suspect that the government may have ended up with more potential power to infringe than they would have, had the same laws been passed in the absence of universal CCW laws.

[Old Fashioned]

I agree with what you are saying in principle, but then reality hits you square in the face. Example, when I was growing up in southwestern New York state, it was not unusual at all to see semeone walking down the street carrying a rifle or shotgun, even in the center of town. Handguns less so, NY was more restrictive about handguns even back then. Seeing a rifle in a rack in a pickup was normal. Today, if you walk down a street carrying a rifle or shotgun, there are probably 20 or more people all calling the police. Why? Probably because of liberal media bias and there is probably a smaller percentage of the population today that has been exposed to or has any knowledge of firearms. The military is much smaller today and there is no draft. More people live in big cities and are not around hunters and firearms. Finally, people are less independent than in the past, they look to government to solve all of their problems. I personally like the idea of open carry. Everything is up front but I doubt that open carry will ever be accepted nationwide. For those states that allow open carry, great, but I probably would not do it because some idiot might try to grab the gun or someone would call police and report a person with a gun and police would have to respond because they would not know the circumstances. Fortunately, here in SC, a CWP is not weapon specific. There is nothing on the permit about what kind of gun you have or are permitted to carry. In fact, when you take the training course, you do not even have to own a handgun, you can rent one at the range. Unfortunately, today it seems that everything is a trade off. The amendment to the law in SC regarding the ban on weapons on school grounds was a trade off. The only way legislaters could get the amendment passed was by requiring that the weapon be secured in the vehicle before entering school grounds. But the effort will continue to try to improve on that amendment so as to eventually allow concealed carry on school grounds (by permit holders). All we can do as gun owners is continue to try to educate people in a reasonable manner and be very careful about who we vote for. When we talk to someone that is for more gun control, we need to project ourselves as reasonable people with the preponderance of fact on our side. If we allow ourselves to be seen as unreasonable "gun nuts" or project ourselves in that manner it will work against us. We need to show that the anti gun, pro gun control advocates are unreasoning.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

My point is that in our eagerness to bring expanded recognition of our rights to fruition, we must be careful not to give the anti-rights crowd an entre (regulatory precedent, plus a list of names) that could leave us with less rights than we had in the first place.

Your points are all well taken. I agree for example, that the media plays a large role in the wussification and feminization of the culture.

We have to figure out the causes of cultural drift and see what can be done about eradicating those causes. Since I already mentioned media, lets take that as an example.

The domination of the media by liberals is accepted almost as a natural state of affairs, something that forms the backdrop of the environment in which we must work. Why? Where is it written that liberals are entitled to a monopoly as the arbiters of public culture? We need to figure out how it got this way and take advantage of the same processes in the cause of liberty.

Conservatives whine about George Soros and how he supposedly uses his billions to manipulate the US political system. Surely there are people as wealthy as he who don’t have their head up their butt, liberty wise. Play by the same rules liberals play by. The people who can get things accomplished in real life are most often conservative, because conservatism is fact-based like achievement, so I'm sure that if someone set out to be the conservative George Soros, he'd do better than the real thing.

Fox helps, but they’re not exactly exclusively conservative, and besides, they’re like a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. (If a journalist tells the truth in the forest, does anyone listen?) I got a big laugh out of Barack Obama’s trip to talk to Fox execs to assure he’d get fair treatment in their news coverage of his candidacy. Why? What right does he have to expect 24/7 campaign commercials from the state sponsored media and no worse than fair coverage from the one that’s at least less fawning if not slightly antagonistic? If Fox treated McCain the way the other networks treated Obama, he’d STILL have had a 10:1 advantage. At the time I said that if I were Rupert Murdoch or Roger Ailes or whomever he was meeting with, I’d have smiled, shaken his hand and assured him that my coverage would be every bit as unbiased as ABC, CBS, or NBC, and leave him to wonder what that’s supposed to mean. I mean, the guy can’t very well complain if you say that, can he, or he’d be admitting what a hypocrite he was to be there in the first place.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

"I personally like the idea of open carry. Everything is up front but I doubt that open carry will ever be accepted nationwide."

I wasn't advising open carry vs. concealed, I was lamenting that the government thinks they are somehow entitled to control and information on people who carry concealed that they are not wrt open carriers.

As far as open vs. concealed carry per se is concerned I think both have their purposes. Hammer and saw. Open carry by people in significant numbers is good because it might counter the hoplophobia and misconceptions about guns and gun owners that are held by a lot of people. As far as personal security is concerned, I think concealed is better, but I don't think the government has any business (or logical justification) licensing it beyond what is required to open carry.

[Old Fashioned]

Well, I got a reply from the state AG office and it was about what I expected. They basically said they were not going to do any thing. Of course they didn"t come right out and say that, they referred me to state legislators, suggested trying to get legislation passed, etc. However, I found what I was looking for. SC Code Section 23-31-510 states "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 the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things." The action of the Georgetown County School Board is in violation of state law.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Can you bring suit against the AG's office to force them to enforce the law against other branches of government?

[Old Fashioned]

Not sure. I wonder if I am the only one looking at this. I went to Gun Owners of South Carolina web site and there was nothing. What I find interesting is that if a citizen breaks the law, law enforcement goes after that person very quickly but if a political subdivision does something that violates the law it is allowed to stand until someone files a law suite. The reply from the AG office went into things such as: the AG does not have authority over law enforcement or judges decisions, the AG exists to provide legal representation for the state, public officials, etc. To be fair, this response was from constituent services so the AG may not have even seen my original e-mail. I would think that a proper action from the AG's office would be to inform that school board that their action was in violation of state law. But, that is only my opinion. I may contact the NRA and state legislators. Something needs to be done because the news paper that printed the story indicated that other county school boards were considering similiar action.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Yeah, I love it. The guys who should get no benefit of the doubt do, while we who should, don't. Somebody should hook up a generator to some of the founding fathers. We'd probably be energy independent inside the week.

And I wasn't thinking of you personally financing litigation against the AG or district, but maybe some statewide gun rights group.

[Old Fashioned]

South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster issued an opinion on Dec 15 stating that the Georgetown County School District ban against ANY firearms on school property regardless of a CWP is at odds with state law. REALLY? It is a clear violation of the state preemption law. The law prohibits counties, municipalities, and political subdivisions from passing any ordnances or regulations attempting to regulate ownership, carrying, or transporting of firearms, ammumition, components of firearms or any combination thereof. The opinion was requested by Rep. Viers of Horry County who is himself a CWP holder. I wonder why the AG's office gave me the run around when I brought this to their attention months ago? Oh, I wasn't a politician. The school board says it will revisit the policy when it meets on 5 Jan. One final thought. It doesn't appear to be at odds with state law, it IS at odds with the state law.

[Dial 1911 for Help]

Your AG appears to be a weaselly word-parsing asshat (who at least gave the right opinion in this case).

[Old Fashioned]

Sorry for bringing this back but the issue just keeps bubbling along. Now the Georgetown County School District Superintendent has recommended that the school board revise it's policy so as to conform to state law and concentrate on more important things such as the budget shortfall. Isn't that interesting? Last fall, to listen to the school board, you would have thought that outlawing any firearms on school grounds was the most important thing on earth.

[DoubleTap45]

If this were California, Massachusetts or Connecticut I could understand, but in SOUTH CAROLINA? The home of Francis Marion? This does NOT compute. I know NC has a liberal gulag called Chapel Hill and that Cary, NC is also called Containment Area for Relocated Yankees but sheesh!! :eek:


-Ray

[Aguila Blanca]

I just caught up with this thread. Re-reading the original post got me to thinking -- my oldr Jeep doesn't have a console at all, but there is a glove box, with a lock. Mind you, the vehicle is 22 years old and the glove box has never been locked, but I might be able to find a key that would fit. I doubt it would hold a 1911, though.

The newer vehicle doesn't have a lock on either the center console or the glove box. So (if I lived in SC, which I don't) what good is a law that allows me to lock a handgun in the console if I want/need to drive onto school property?

Why the blazes don't they just make it illegal to carry a weapon onto school grounds for unlawful purposes, and be done with it? Why continue to punish and persecute the law-abiding when those who WANT to create mayhem will ignore the law anyway?

[Old Fashioned]

My wife has a 2000 Explorer. One day I had to drop my grandson off at school and I was carrying. It was then that I discovered that neither the console or glove compartment have a lock. I just put it in the glove compartment, closed it and hoped for the best. Why no lock?

[Dial 1911 for Help]

I know, it's strange. My 92 F-150 had a locking glove box, while my 96 (same body style generation and same trim level) doesn't lock. [shrug]

Maybe Ford decided to take them out for some reason. Probably just to save money.