SC CWP Holders TIME TO ACT ON A NEW CC BILL

This is a discussion on SC CWP Holders TIME TO ACT ON A NEW CC BILL within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Write your senators and Representatives and tell them to kill this bill before it comes up for a vote Lawmaker Calls for Repeal of SC ...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
Like Tree7Likes

Thread: SC CWP Holders TIME TO ACT ON A NEW CC BILL

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array XD 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Where ever the government says go
    Posts
    1,743

    SC CWP Holders TIME TO ACT ON A NEW CC BILL

    Write your senators and Representatives and tell them to kill this bill before it comes up for a vote

    Lawmaker Calls for Repeal of SC Stand Your Ground Law | wltx.com
    XD .45, Glock 23, Mossberg 590A, M&P 15 Rossi 641, RIA 1911


    If You Want To Know The Mind Of A Man Listen To His Words

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Member Array Aiko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    387
    Case is really sad as a parent but the political nature of this is insane.

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array msgt/ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    7,091
    Just one more jumping on the knee jerk bandwagon.
    Stubborn likes this.
    When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk.
    "Don't forget, incoming fire has the right of way."

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,102
    Send Representative Bakari Sellers these links:

    Update: Man acquitted in shooting is 'happy to be free', but now is homeless | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com

    Acquitted man gets gun back, remains homeless | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com

    Man who shot in self-defense now “cause celebre” at statehouse

    Acquitted for shooting ‘racist thugs,’ WDM man is new face of Iowa gun rights | The Des Moines Register | DesMoinesRegister.com

    And explain to him that in Iowa, where they have no stand your ground law, an innocent black man spent 112 days in jail, lost his home, his job, and all his belongings.

    Because he could not defend himself under a stand your ground law, and even though he retreated twice, he was charged with two counts of intimidation with a dangerous weapon and one of going armed with intent.

    The initial bail asked Lewis to post $225,000 cash. Since he was working for the IRS at ~$32,000 a year, he couldn't make bail.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  6. #5
    VIP Member
    Array WHEC724's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    6,420
    Quote from Sellers: "It could be me walking up to you with a sweet tea and skittles as young Trayvon was, maybe with a hoodie on, and you feel threatened -- you can't just shoot me."

    Too bad there's not an IQ test requirement in order to run for public office.
    __________________________________
    'Clinging to my guns and religion

  7. #6
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Anyone know the bill number?

  8. #7
    Ex Member Array barstoolguru's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    under a rock in area 51
    Posts
    2,548
    I love how he puts this:
    "It could be me walking up to you with a sweet tea and skittles as young Trayvon was, maybe with a hoodie on, and you feel threatened -- you can't just shoot me. You have to do everything you can to retreat, you can't actually chase me down and kill me," said Sellers of the proposed change
    he says it like anyone can shoot any one for any reason. sorry just another idiot not knowing what he is doing.

  9. #8
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Quote Originally Posted by barstoolguru View Post
    I love how he puts this:

    he says it like anyone can shoot any one for any reason. sorry just another idiot not knowing what he is doing.
    Seems to be a common theme with anyone criticizing our self-defense laws. I saw it quite a bit after the Waffle house incident about a month ago.

  10. #9
    Distinguished Member
    Array phreddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Spartanburg, SC
    Posts
    1,966
    Bill number is H.5072

    It is interesting that Rep Sellers introduced a bill that would fix the "under the car seat" issue, but now he is coming down on this. He is not completely anti-.

    The bill was filed in the judiciary comittee yesterday. I have emailed my representative and the head of the juduicary comittee, Rep Harrison. I suggest everyone else do the same.

  11. #10
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,102
    I emailed Rep sellers. I gave him the links to the stories above... He responded...

    Thanks for your thoughtful note. Although we disagree thanks for your thoughtful consideration.
    All that said....
    It could be worse.
    __________________________________________________
    "The History of our Revolution will be one continued Lye from one end to the other."
    John Adams

  12. #11
    VIP Member Array First Sgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florence, SC
    Posts
    7,967
    I too, have emailed Representative Sellers. I am pasting the communications here, for all to read. Unbelievable, his ignorance and responses. Notice, NO signature on either of his responses. Wonder if it's a "staffer" reply??

    Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 10:55 PM
    Subject: Repeal of "Stand Your Ground" Law


    Sir: I respectfully ask you to research the SC Stand Your Ground Law and the requirements for it to be met if used in a self defense litigation. The Florida situation was not a result of a Stand Your Ground law violation. Mr. Zimmerman violated e Stand Your Ground at the time he PURSUED Travon Martin. We DO NOT need a repeal of our law. Have your staff contact me and I will explain and offer references to guide you. Go to http://www.scgunlaw.com and get the book/research OUR law.

    Peyton (Pat) Northern

    His Response

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bakari Sellers <BakariSellers@schouse.gov>
    To: THE1FIRSTSGT <THE1FIRSTSGT@aol.com>
    Sent: Sun, Mar 25, 2012 5:18 pm
    Subject: RE: Repeal of "Stand Your Ground" Law ~


    Thanks for your thoughtfulness and your note. I wholeheartedly agree that SYG was not the reason for Mr. Zimmerman's actions. However, the reason that he was not arrested and justice could not be served is due to the ambiguity provided this very small provision in a much larger law. I am a CWP holder and a gun owner. However, "reasonable belief" are terms that are too vague and too subjective when one is using deadly force. Thanks for your thoughtful note. If you would like to discuss further please do not hestate to contact my office at 803-734-3003.

    My Reply

    From: Pat N [the1firstsgt@aol.com]
    Sent: Monday, March 26, 2012 4:24 PM
    To: Bakari Sellers
    Subject: Re: Repeal of "Stand Your Ground" Law ~


    Representative Sellers: Thanks so much for your prompt reply to the subject of "Repeal of Stand Your Ground" Law, which I initially sent from the SC government website.

    I completely AGREE with you, that the term "reasonable belief" could be somewhat vague and subjective, and therefore be used by both attorneys when presenting a potential case, and jurors when deciding such a case. I also AGREE that the FLORIDA SYG law is ambiguous. However, with that being said, I respectfully submit to you that the SC SYG, "reasonable belief", and "prudent man" portion of the Self Defense laws in SC are governed by four elements and under common law in South Carolina, these four elements MUST exist:

    * You must be WITHOUT FAULT in bringing on the violent encounter between you and the other person(s)...

    * You must actually believe that you are in IMMINENT DANGER of LOSS OF LIFE or SERIOUS BODILY injury or you must ACTUALLY BE IN SUCH DANGER...

    * You must use deadly force only if a REASONABLE OR PRUDENT MAN of ordinary firmness and courage would have believed himself to be in IMMINENT DANGER or LOSS OF LIFE or SERIOUS BODILY HARM or, if you actually were in such danger, the circumstances were such to warrant a MAN OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE, FIRMNESS and COURAGE to use deadly force against the other person(s)...

    * Unless you are in a place that you are lawfully entitled to be, you had no other probable means of avoiding the danger of losing your own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act as you did in the particular instance.

    Representative Sellers, please note, in South Carolina, ALL FOUR ELEMENTS MUST EXIST ... A person utilizing self defense, can NOT stand alone on SYG or reasonable belief or prudent man standards in defending his actions. These four elements are designed to insure, as much as possible, that any and all persons utilizing deadly force, meet more than one standard in order to be justified in such use. The facts of such an encounter will either bolster or diminish one's ability to justify their actions. However, even if you believe the use of deadly force to be reasonable, there is no guarantee that a jury of your peers could likewise perceive that they were not.

    My point here is...there are truly no clear lines as to what facts make the use of deadly force reasonable. The SC laws are written in an attempt to tie up as many loose ends as possible as far as interpreting the law of deadly force and self defense, but NO AMOUNT OF LEGISLATION, EITHER THROUGH ADDING TOUGHER STANDARDS, OR "ELIMINATING" PORTIONS OF THE EXISTING LAW CAN DETERMINE THE ACTIONS AND/OR REACTIONS OF THE HUMAN ELEMENTS INVOLVED.

    That is why Sir, I believe that a huge mistake is being made in eliminating a portion of what already appears to be a much tighter law in SC than in Florida. I again urge you to reconsider your actions and withdraw your bill until at least you have had the opportunity to evaluate further, the SC Laws vs the FL laws. The Travon Martin incident was tragic. As more and more facts emerge in the situation, the legal points are beginning to fall into place. Over reacting, without gathering the facts, comparing the laws, researching the tight standards or lack thereof in the SC Law, and finally, learning the true facts of the Martin/Zimmermann encounter, serves no purpose but to confuse and frighten an already nervous public.

    Thank you for allowing me to present additional reasoning behind my initial email. I applaud you for recognizing and utilizing YOUR 2nd Amendment rights and for being a CWP holder in SC. I eagerly await yours or your staffs evaluation of the points I have presented. Until then Sir, BE SAFE!

    Regards,

    Pat Northern, (843)665-8359 Home, (843)687-0581 Cell
    USAF Retired
    Vietnam Vet
    SC CWP Holder


    His Response

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Bakari Sellers <BakariSellers@schouse.gov>
    To: Pat N <the1firstsgt@aol.com>
    Sent: Mon, Mar 26, 2012 5:27 pm
    Subject: RE: Repeal of "Stand Your Ground" Law ~


    Again your response is thoughtful. However, you have actually made my point. SC SYG is not goverend by those 4 prinicples only common law self defense is. Which I am attempting to revert back to. Those factors are irrelevant and one must only prove that a "reasonable belief" was present. I have no problem with traditional self defense but SYG allows for irresponsible gun ownership and vigilantes.


    My Response

    Representative Sellers: Again, thank you for your timely response. However, I do take umbrage with certain verbage and statements and also wish to contradict your assumptions.

    First of all, let's take your statement of SYG allowing/promoting "irresponsible gun ownership" and "vigilantes".
    DEFINITION: Vigilante (noun): Any person who takes the law into his or her own hands, as by avenging a crime. Vigilante (adjective): done violently and summarily, without recourse to lawful procedures: i.e. vigilante justice...There is NOTHING, either in the 4 principles of common law self defense, OR in the SC Protection of Persons and Property Act (which includes SYG), that promotes or allows Vigilante Justice or Vigilante actions, NOTHING. It's NOT the law abiding concealed weapon carrier that would consider becoming a vigilante. Furthermore, to state that someone who follows SYG tenets allows for irresponsible gun ownership and potential vigilante behavior is a bit over reacting on your behalf.

    Now, let's look at the relevant portion of the SC Protection of Persons and Property Act which deals with SYG....(Section 16-11-440 (edited) of the South Carolina Code of Laws) provides:
    (C) A person who IS NOT engaged in an unlawful activity and who IS ATTACKED in another place where he has a RIGHT TO BE, including, but not limited to, his place of business, has NO DUTY TO RETREAT (Stand Your Ground) and has the right to STAND HIS GROUND and MEET FORCE WITH FORCE, including DEADLY FORCE, if he REASONABLY BELIEVES (reread items two, three, and four of the 4 Elements of Self Defense) it is necessary to PREVENT DEATH or GREAT BODILY INJURY to himself or another person or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60
    .
    This section of the statute eliminates the common law duty to retreat and allows you to stand your ground and APPLY DEADLY FORCE TO A DEADLY THREAT. Using your rationale for repealing the SYG section, what part of the section do you DISAGREE with and what part of this section promotes irresponsible gun ownership and potential vigilante behavior? Perhaps I fail to see the forest for the trees!

    There are certain conditions that the concealed weapons carrier must meet:
    * You cannot be engaged in illegal activity at the time of the episode
    * You must be in a place where you have a legal right to be
    * YOU MUST REASONABLY BELIEVE THAT DEADLY FORCE IS NEEDED TO PREVENT DEATH TO YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE OR TO PREVENT A VIOLENT CRIME AS DEFINED IN Section 16-1-60 of the South Carolina Code of Laws.

    Sir, "most" CWP holders in the State of SC ARE "responsible" individuals and at no time would they consider "vigilante" actions. Those folks that would do these things are in the "extreme minority"...By repealing the SYG section, you are only succeeding in penalizing the law abiding gun carrier, who would normally choose RETREAT as a first course of action if possible, and only choose SYG as a last resort. You will only be removing a viable alternative of self defense, that a Law Abiding Concealed Weapon Carrier might choose, in order to defend himself and/or his loved ones...Contrary to some liberal beliefs, CWP holders are NOT Cowboys, but most have had training to preculde the choice of SYG as their first and only option. They realize that the best practice is to try to avoid any potentially deadly encounter by retreating.

    I submit to you, that by repealing SYG, you are only penalizing the Law Abiding CWP Holder, and those that choose to either illegally carry or ignore the laws will continue to do so whether SYG is in the statute or NOT. THEREFORE, Why try to fix something that isn't broke in the first place. It's the uneducated that have created such a brouhaha in the media resulting in a rush to action to fix the unbroken.

    Thank you for your time. All that I would ask is that you, Representative Sellers, sign this as an acknowledgement that YOU have read/replied or dictated a reply, versus a Staff Person responding with what they THINK you might say.

    I have appreciated our interaction. IF you, as a legislator, choose to continue the repeal of SYG,then I too shall use the options available to me, a private citizen, to organize and mobilize opposition to your bill and hopefully defeat your proposal. Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss anything contained in my response.

    Regards
    Pat Northern (843)665-8359 Home, (843)687-0581 Cell
    Stubborn likes this.
    Sometimes in life you have to stand your ground. It's a hard lesson to learn and even most adults don't get it, but in the end only I can be responsible for my life. If faced with any type of adversity, only I can overcome it. Waiting for someone else to take responsibility is a long fruitless wait.

  13. #12
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,188
    Good job on that Pat. You can speak for me anytime! I don't follow at all his conclusions that "SYG allows for irresponsible gun ownership and vigilantes". He appears to simply ignore the obvious and draw a conclusion from it. Let us know if he has a logical argument. I can't think of one. He is simply projecting at best.

  14. #13
    Distinguished Member Array REVMAN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    1,915
    Thanks Pat....very well stated. I sent a message also to him (and also all my reps in my area) from the SC Gov site but have not recieved a reply.
    Always put Jesus first in your life.
    NRA (Lifetime Member)
    U.S. Navy Vet.

  15. #14
    VIP Member Array First Sgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Florence, SC
    Posts
    7,967
    This morning, approximately 9:30a.m., I received a DIRECT call from Representative Sellers. Needless to say, I was somewhat taken aback, especially since I was in the process of having my septic tank pumped! Could that have been an omen of the conversation to come?

    Anyway, I had an approximate 15 minute conversation, with a very intelligent man, who is also an attorney. We discussed his side, which is basically, that prior to '06, SC had sufficient laws to support self defense, and just jumped on board with the SYG section, because others were doing it, and he felt that it did not add anything to one's ability to defend themselves, but detracted from the law enforcement's side's ability to arrest and charge an individual, simply because of the SYG existence. Case in point, this is exactly what is going on in Florida's Martin/Zimmerman fiasco. The point I was trying to get across was, that with the SYG section, a law abiding citizen, who chose to SYG, could NOT be arrested and charged unless specific evidence existed that he had violated other elements of the SC self defense law.
    As our conversation hit a stalemate, Rep. Sellers unspoken attitude was that he wasn't going to change my mind, and I certainly was making no headway in changing his, even when I threw in the "rush to judgment" accusation, and filing of this bill, prior to all the facts coming out in the Florida situation. Soooo, he basically ended the conversation by inviting me to the state house to attend the reading of the bill in front of the judiciary committee and to give any input that I felt pertinent at the time. We both ended the conversation respectfully with neither of us budging on our stand. He did re-emphasize that he was a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a gun owner, AND a SC CWP Holder.

    And that folks, was how my morning went!
    Sometimes in life you have to stand your ground. It's a hard lesson to learn and even most adults don't get it, but in the end only I can be responsible for my life. If faced with any type of adversity, only I can overcome it. Waiting for someone else to take responsibility is a long fruitless wait.

  16. #15
    Member Array stancehold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by First Sgt View Post
    This morning, approximately 9:30a.m., I received a DIRECT call from Representative Sellers. Needless to say, I was somewhat taken aback, especially since I was in the process of having my septic tank pumped! Could that have been an omen of the conversation to come?

    Anyway, I had an approximate 15 minute conversation, with a very intelligent man, who is also an attorney. We discussed his side, which is basically, that prior to '06, SC had sufficient laws to support self defense, and just jumped on board with the SYG section, because others were doing it, and he felt that it did not add anything to one's ability to defend themselves, but detracted from the law enforcement's side's ability to arrest and charge an individual, simply because of the SYG existence. Case in point, this is exactly what is going on in Florida's Martin/Zimmerman fiasco. The point I was trying to get across was, that with the SYG section, a law abiding citizen, who chose to SYG, could NOT be arrested and charged unless specific evidence existed that he had violated other elements of the SC self defense law.
    As our conversation hit a stalemate, Rep. Sellers unspoken attitude was that he wasn't going to change my mind, and I certainly was making no headway in changing his, even when I threw in the "rush to judgment" accusation, and filing of this bill, prior to all the facts coming out in the Florida situation. Soooo, he basically ended the conversation by inviting me to the state house to attend the reading of the bill in front of the judiciary committee and to give any input that I felt pertinent at the time. We both ended the conversation respectfully with neither of us budging on our stand. He did re-emphasize that he was a staunch supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a gun owner, AND a SC CWP Holder.

    And that folks, was how my morning went!
    Your opening statement had me laughing out loud. The remainder was informational. I think we are all very proud of you voicing your opinion and viewpoint and "standing your ground" with Rep. Sellers. I'm also glad that he took the time to actually call and speak with you after he received your email.

    You made an excellent point about his rush to judgment before all the facts were available.

    I think you out scored him. ; )

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

cwp could be eliminated in south carolina
,

cwp forum

,
do's and don'ts of sc cwp holders
,
homeless ( cwp holder
,

s.c. cwp forum

,
s.c.protection of persons and property act
,
sc cwp bills 2012
,

sc cwp forum

,
sc cwp new time
,
travon martian
,
travon martin concealed carry
,
waiting for sccwp
Click on a term to search for related topics.