| Author | Post |
|---|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 04:00 pm |
|
Robert Butler wrote: Unfortunately, H. 3003 is not as clean a bill as one would want it to be. There are some very negative aspects to this bill, which are detailed in the GrassRoots analysis of H. 3003.
Please read the GrassRoots analysis before committing to full support of H. 3003. Unless this bill gets amended to fix the identified problems, it is not deserving of our support.
Rob
*** GrassRoots Legislative Watch ***
H. 3003
This is a Legislative Watch announcement from GrassRoots GunRights of SC.
This email is sent for information purposes only. No immediate action
is required. If immediate action becomes needed on a gun-related bill,
GrassRoots will send out a GrassRoots Action Alert email with
information and instructions on what to do.
15 January 2009
The following gun-related bill has been sponsored in the South
Carolina General Assembly!
Bill H. 3003 sponsored by Representative Cooper (R-Anderson).
A full GrassRoots analysis of the bill can be found at:
http://scfirearms.org/Legislative/H3003.html
Bill Rentiers
Executive Officer
GrassRoots GunRights of SC
I understand your concerns, and agree with most of the analysis in the link above, but disagree with the conclusion that under H. 3003, "gun owners give up something (i.e., vehicle carry for CWP holders[)]."
The cannon of statutory construction to try to give meaning to every word of a statute applies to the text of the statute, not the bill or bills that got it there - I see no problem with removing the currently superfluous CWP exception for vehicle carry - in fact, leaving exceptions in a statue where none need to be there often causes other problems - in this case, looking at the code as a whole post H. 3003, keeping the CWP exemption for vehicles could actually call into question the right of open carriers to open carry in vehicles without any permit.
These are just my constructive thoughts - I agree with your other concerns and conclusions and agree that leaning forward in the saddle on this bill is important.
|
Robert Butler
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 06:45 pm |
|
Mike wrote: I understand your concerns, and agree with most of the analysis in the link above, but disagree with the conclusion that under H. 3003, "gun owners give up something (i.e., vehicle carry for CWP holders[)]."
The cannon of statutory construction to try to give meaning to every word of a statute applies to the text of the statute, not the bill or bills that got it there
Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree over what the law says and how it is interpreted.
The courts will see that Section 16-23-20 was moved into Section 23-31-215(O) and give the moved language - and the implications from the non moved language - the same meanings that the law now gives to that language.
BTW, which law school did you graduate from? I graduated near the top of my class from the USC School of Law.
Rob
|
Ian
Lone Star Veteran
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 06:51 pm |
|
They have an unlicensed OC bill introduced with a petition less than 2,000 signatures and we have one almost 53,000 signatures and nothing's even introduced yet?! WTF!
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 07:27 pm |
|
Robert Butler wrote: The courts will see that Section 16-23-20 was moved into Section 23-31-215(O) and give the moved language - and the implications from the non moved language - the same meanings that the law now gives to that language.
Hmm. Maybe somthing specific about SC statutory construction - can you give me cite to authority where SC state courts look beyong the statute's text to former bill machinations?
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 07:27 pm |
|
Ianmtx wrote: They have an unlicensed OC bill introduced with a petition less than 2,000 signatures and we have one almost 53,000 signatures and nothing's even introduced yet?! WTF!
Well, get this - a bil for open carry has been drafted by an Arkansas Rep already too, though not yet introduced.
|
Prophet
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
Robert Butler wrote:
BTW, which law school did you graduate from? I graduated near the top of my class from the USC School of Law.
Rob
USC? Ranked 18th by US News and Reports for Law Schools and 14th by Law School 100...not bad.
If memory recalls Mike credentials come from Georgetown's law school. You know, Ranked 14th by US News and Reports and 7th by Law School 100.
But maybe you didn't actually mean to sound as pompous and childish in touting your laurels (of which none can be substantiated) and was just curious of Mikes law school background. Seeing that Mike is educated by one of the premier Law schools in the nation (top 15 and top 10 by two reputable sources) I am going to presume to think he knows what he is talking about and I'll view any attempt by you to passive aggressively dismiss his opinion by stating you did well at a second tier school will just go to invalidate your opinion as one would often do when listening to an ass.
But as I said, maybe you didn't mean it the way it sounded.
|
Robert Butler
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 09:23 pm |
|
Prophet wrote:
"USC? Ranked 18th by US News and Reports for Law Schools and 14th by Law School 100...not bad."
Nope, not THAT USC. The University of South Carolina.
"But maybe you didn't actually mean to sound as pompous and childish in touting your laurels (of which none can be substantiated) and was just curious of Mikes law school background."
Nope, I meant it exactly as it sounded. There are a lot of people who offer their opinions on the law who have no real knowledge of the law. So, in order to allow the reader to determine whose opinion should get more credence, I offered some facts that should be important to the reader. If doing so makes me sound "pompous and childish" in your opinion, so be it.
As too your assertion that "laurels" can not be substantiated, that is simply not true. You may not feel it is worth the effort, but it can be done.
I also have the benefit of years of experience dealing with the legislature and the laws here in SC. You can weight that as you please, too.
Rob
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Fri Jan 16th, 2009 09:42 pm |
|
I thought it just lawyer talk.
When I meet a fellow test engineer then I am quite likely to ask from what class of our specialized training he graduated. My peer community is much smaller than lawyers'.
That said, I honor no acquaintance more highly than Robert Butler.
As to offense...
Good Lord ..., my beauty, though but mean,
Needs not the painted flourish of your praise:
Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,
Not utter'd by base sale of chapmen's tongues:
I am less proud to hear you tell my worth
Than you much willing to be counted wise
In spending your wit in the praise of mine.
But now to task the tasker:
IOW, offense, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder and is not utter'd by innocent tongues. And Rob's beauty is vicious mean.
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 12:51 am |
|
Robert Butler wrote: I also have the benefit of years of experience dealing with the legislature and the laws here in SC.
Great Robert, but we still need that cite to SC case law showing SC courts look to bills modifying criminal statutes to construe what the current text of the statute means - that's a new one for me and everybody else.
|
Robert Butler
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 01:18 pm |
|
Mike wrote: Great Robert, but we still need that cite to SC case law showing SC courts look to bills modifying criminal statutes to construe what the current text of the statute means - that's a new one for me and everybody else.
Well it should be since that is not what I wrote.
I wrote about a rule of statutory construction. It was taught to me in law school and can be found in Black's Law Dictionary and in various online sites. Since I do not have access to Westlaw any more, nor do I enjoy doing legal research at the law library, I simply refuse to take the time to research something that you should have already known while I have more important things to get done.
What I wrote is that the courts will use "the current text of the statute" and the interpretations attached to "the current text of the statute" "to construe" what the new statute means when the language of the new statute is copied word for word from an existing statute that is being moved from one section of the law into another section of the law both of which make exceptions to prohibiting the possession of handguns except under certain conditions.
As I said before, we will will have to agree to disagree. But, please at least disagree with what I actually write, not a misinterpretation of it.
Rob
|
Mike
Super Moderator
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 02:25 pm |
|
Robert Butler wrote: What I wrote is that the courts will use "the current text of the statute" and the interpretations attached to "the current text of the statute" "to construe" what the new statute means when the language of the new statute is copied word for word from an existing statute that is being moved from one section of the law into another section of the law both of which make exceptions to prohibiting the possession of handguns except under certain conditions.
This new reformulation is kind of hard to follow - your web posted analysis of the original insertion of the vehicle exemption was that it was not needed and you opposed; now after it is there, you oppose removing it because the courts will think removal means somthing that continues silently to belie the plain meaning of the text.
I do have access to WestLaw and can try to find authority to support your position but I doubt I am going to find it as criminal statutes are usually construed only by the text in force at the time the person comits the offense.
But clearly you can see my point - that under ordinary statutory construction, adding a CWP exemption for vehicles into the bill implies that absent a CWP you can't open carry in vehicles - defeating the major pupose of the bill.
Last edited on Sat Jan 17th, 2009 02:25 pm by Mike
|
Robert Butler
Regular Member
|
Posted: Sat Jan 17th, 2009 04:05 pm |
|
Mike wrote:
"This new reformulation is kind of hard to follow"
This is not a reformulation. Please reread what I originally wrote and you will see that both formulations are the same.
"your web posted analysis of the original insertion of the vehicle exemption was that it was not needed and you opposed;"
That is correct, it was not needed. BUT, law enforcement continued to act as if it was, and here in SC anything like a police state is welcomed. So, the legislature enacted a law that essentially agreed that law enforcement's interpretation was correct since a new law was "needed" to protect the privilege of CWP holders to carry in a vehicle. So, whatever I thought and whatever the SC AG opinion stated was no longer material. The legislature spoke loud and clear and enacted another law which had the effect of agreeing with law enforcement that CWP carry in vehicles was NOT legal before the passage of the new language.
"now after it is there, you oppose removing it because the courts will think removal means somthing that continues silently to belie the plain meaning of the text."
That is correct. Many SC Supreme Court opinions state that the courts are to interpret the law in accordance with the legislature's intent. If the language is removed, it will take expensive litigation to get the matter resolved. And, most likely, the courts would resolve the issue against CWP carry in vehicles since the legislative history of the law regarding this issue shows the legislature felt the law without the specific CWP carry provision did not allow CWP carry in vehicles - or else they would not have enacted the law.
"I do have access to WestLaw and can try to find authority to support your position but I doubt I am going to find it as criminal statutes are usually construed only by the text in force at the time the person comits the offense."
I understand. But, the appellate courts here constantly refer to interpreting the laws as the legislature intended the laws to be - if at all possible. And, it is very easy to see how the courts would rule against CWP carry in vehicles if the existing language is removed when the other existing language is moved to the new section of law.
If this was totally new language without a legislative history, things would be different. We would be where we were at before the legislature added the specific CWP carry in vehicles language in 2007. And, we would most likely win in a court of law. BUT, we are not in that situation any more. We are where we are, and that is post legislative enactment of a specific CWP carry in vehicles law even though we felt the existing law allowed CWP carry in vehicles. And, we are dealing with moving language from one section of law to another, not the enactment of virgin language with no history. Thus, the courts will take that into consideration when interpreting the law as amended by H. 3003.
"But clearly you can see my point - that under ordinary statutory construction, adding a CWP exemption for vehicles into the bill implies that absent a CWP you can't open carry in vehicles - defeating the major pupose of the bill."
No, I do not agree. If it is not prohibited by statute, then it should be legal. The vehicle carry provision moved into the CWP law simply allows a person to possess a handgun concealed in the glove compartment, console, or trunk to do so without need of a CWP even though the weapon is concealed and easily accessible - which would be all it took to get a person charged with possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.
As I pointed out in my analysis of H. 3003, open carry would be allowed under H. 3003 since there would be no law prohibiting such, while CWP carry would no longer be allowed. That is why I stated we needed to watch H. 3003 for changes that would prohibit open carry in vehicles because if open carry in vehicles gets prohibited, then we need to provide a way for CWP holders to legally transfer their sidearms from their person to a storage place in their vehicle when they are forced to disarm to enter a prohibited carry location.
You can rest assured that law enforcement will aggressively fight open carry in vehicles. Law enforcement has fought against allowing a handgun to be possessed under a vehicle's seat as an officer safety issue. How a handgun under the seat is more of an officer safety issue than a handgun in the console is beyond me. But, law enforcement usually fights any pro gun legislation in SC.
Rob
PS - Mike, thank you for trying to keep this discussion focused on the issues and not on the personal attacks that only serve to distract from the real goal of getting good legislation passed.
|
AllAmerican
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 01:43 am |
|
Doug Huffman wrote: I thought it just lawyer talk.
When I meet a fellow test engineer then I am quite likely to ask from what class of our specialized training he graduated. My peer community is much smaller than lawyers'.
That said, I honor no acquaintance more highly than Robert Butler.
Oh believe me, we know LOL
So the conversation about this bill has been going on over here and not at the GRGR forum. I missed some as I was busy the last few days faxing the press release to some papers and stuff.
When will we move the "can we get a piece of property and divide it between a hundred people so they can get a CWP" thread over here?
You know the one where folks are asking to find out if time shares qualify for a CWP LOL
I agree that Robert should not have to teach law here. What should be happening is getting the correct verbage on H3003 together before its too late to do anything.
The momentum could be huge for this bill AND it can be the bill WE want with the whole CWP in a car, bar owner carrying a gun etc...
Last edited on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 01:52 am by AllAmerican
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 12:15 pm |
|
There is not a "the conversation".
What would be gained by moving a disciplined dialogue to a less disciplined forum? Would the sockpuppet 'Anony Mouse' contribute more here than his puppeteer does there?
If you've an on point contribution to make then make it here or there and see if it flies.
Your complaint about missing postings is being addressed by responsible parties. I have suggested that it is due to to a technical problem amongst the various mail servers.
|
AllAmerican
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 01:52 pm |
|
I did try to make a point there but it didnt go through. I asked why the dividing up of land in order to get a non res permit was important. The only response I got was not an answer but rather a question and that from you.
The thread over there is also asking whether time shares owners are legal to get a CWP.
More CWP and not enough H3003 IMO.
But Ive stated my thoughts on why this is and I stand by it.
I dont want to be taken as not supporting GRGR but man to come on here with the attitude of "Im a lawyer so I know what Im talking about and you do not" is BS and not really how Id like to be represented.
The laws are not that difficult to understand. If they were everyone would be locked up.
If you can read you can understand the laws.
By what Robert stated above, only lawyers can become lawmakers.
And, thats why lawyers are hated and have ruined and continue to ruin what we have.
Which, BTW is why I plan to run for office in SC.
|
Doug Huffman
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 03:38 pm |
|
AllAmerican wrote: Which, BTW is why I plan to run for office in SC.
Hiding behind a nom de 'net? I am Town Board Supervisor and half way through my first term.
The question of shared ownership is relevant to the requirements for a resident/non-resident permit. There is much more law than firearms and/or criminal law.
And here's a blast of e-mail to tend to, some from scfirearms/grassroots_leadership. Good day
Last edited on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 03:41 pm by Doug Huffman
|
AllAmerican
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 04:28 pm |
|
Im not hiding Doug. My name is easily found out.
In fact I use my real name on several forums.
Great, I appreciate your being in office. Actually I plan to run for much the same office.
Of course I dont know if that will make me as good as the engineers and lawyers. You know cause HVAC contractors surely cant be as smart as lawyers and engineers. LOL
Last edited on Mon Jan 19th, 2009 04:28 pm by AllAmerican
|
mdgary
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 06:10 pm |
|
| The thread is about H. 3003 bill not about you guys, It's great both of you have educations but if you want to get into a Pissing match please do so privately, there is enough of this shezit on this forum , stick to the topic..I read this thread to find out how the bill is doing and find the topic has changed to I got this, I can do this, WHO CARES just stick to the topic............
|
AllAmerican
Regular Member
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 06:57 pm |
|
Yeah you're right...
Ill keep your wishes in my mind.
|
Tex4OC
Regular Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 5th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 110 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 19th, 2009 10:20 pm |
|
Good Luck, From an anxiously awaiting Texan. We are trying our own, may God be with us all, for the battle goes decidedly in the other direction starting tomorrow. 1-20-2009 the beginning of an ERROR.
|
Current time is 05:45 am | Page:   1 2 3 4   |
|
