City of Columbia Enacts Temporary Ban On Weapons

[Plan2Live]

On Thursday July 9th the City Council in Columbia, SC, prompted by Police Chief Skip Holbrook, met in an emergency meeting and passed a 30 day ban on all weapons within 250 feet of State House grounds. The Chief supposedly had credible information that outsiders would be coming to the Capitol grounds in response to the lowering of the Confederate flag. His response to a potential threat is to disarm local, legally armed citizens who work near or visit businesses near the Capital. I am baffled that this response to a potential threat to public safety is considered a logical move. I am further concerned that if this temporary ban is allowed to stand it sets a dangerous precedent for a future ban that covers a much broader area and is permanent. Not to mention encouraging other cities and counties who might be more anti-gun leaning to try to establish similar bans. I am equally amazed at the lack of vocal opposition to this ban.

Let’s break down the illogic behind this move and why I say it only targets CWP holders. We don’t have open carry laws in SC so anyone showing up with a weapon will have to have that weapon concealed. If you open carry you are breaking existing State law. If you are carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit you are breaking existing State law. We know criminals will blatantly ignore any law so the only people the chief and City Council could possibly be targeting are legally armed citizens, ie; CWP holders who have proven year in and year out to be some of the most law abiding citizens around.

About two weeks ago I started a thread asking if SC politicians’ and the general public’s 180 degree reversal on other long held political positions could happen to their stance on guns. I guess I got my answer.

Here is a link to a news article confirming the ban.

http://truthinmedia.com/gun-ban-sc-state-capitol-grounds/

 

[jamesjames]

There are threat assessment protocols that have been developed for determining the level and likelihood of threat for known miscreants who "leak" their intentions ahead of time. The easiest way to mitigate a known threat is for LEOs or an anti-terror task force to contact the person or group and say, " hey, we notice you are planning to do something, let's talk about that." this has often been enough to nip it in the bud.

Suspending a 2A right, especially with the intent of allowing or preserving the 1A right to protest or free speech, without a clear threat, is a bad practice and a dangerous precedent.

 

[jamesjames]

To simply make a ban because government is worried about what confederate flag supporters or confederate flag detractors might do is an overreach. The vast majority of citizens are stakeholders who have many community ties, family and job responsibilities, and social norms that preclude them from escalating to the use of deadly force. Nobody should allow themselves to get baited or drawn into an argument over the flag or racism that escalates into use of deadly force.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

If you guys are angry about a temporary 250ft ban, I hope you never find out about TFRs or your heads might explode.

 

[Lord Teapot]

if this stands then...is it not reasonable that a ban of all weapons within 2500 miles of the US capitol building is also legal?

 

[Plan2Live]

Lord Teaport said:

if this stands then...is it not reasonable that a ban of all weapons within 2500 miles of the US capitol building is also legal?

Lord Teapot get it.

 

[barnbwt]

"About two weeks ago I started a thread asking if SC politicians’ and the general public’s 180 degree reversal on other long held political positions could happen to their stance on guns. I guess I got my answer."
The important thing is to identify the slimy pols who hopped on this bandwagon to advance a national career, namely Nikki Haley. Far, far more offensive than any public or even state 'speech' or recognition of something, is when an elected politician whip-saws their policy standing in the face of a potential promotion to a larger electorate.

"Suspending a 2A right, especially with the intent of allowing or preserving the 1A right to protest or free speech, without a clear threat, is a bad practice and a dangerous precedent."
And yet, this notion of suspending freedoms when they are most likely to be exercised in opposition to government action is on an up swing.

"if this stands then...is it not reasonable that a ban of all weapons within 2500 miles of the US capitol building is also legal?"
There's already a defacto ban on half your rights whenever/wherever the King is in town...

TCB

 

[MErl]

I'm not going to get upset about a 250' ban with a definite (near) end date for a specific reason. That is under a 1 block radius, less space than a school reserves. This event was triggered by violence and the subject has a long history of violence.

Someone wanting to hurt people during that event will not be deterred by this ban. What it does do is allow police to stop and detain everyone seen (or even suspected of) carrying a weapon in that zone. They might be able to stop someone because of that as normal laws do not allow stops simply because someone is carrying a weapon.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

if this stands then...is it not reasonable that a ban of all weapons within 2500 miles of the US capitol building is also legal?

Yes, because a temporary 250ft ban is clearly logically equatable to a 2,500 mile ban and would withstand judicial scrutiny in the same way..

Lord Teapot get it.

No, no he doesn't.

 

[Plan2Live]

Councilwoman Takeika Isaac Devine was on a local radio talk show and told the host the law wouldn't be enforced against local shop owners or someone driving down the street in front of the Capitol. So they are not only superseding State statutes which prohibit them form taking such action but they are selectively enforcing the ban. Nice!

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I get it.

I may not particularly like it or agree with it but I get it.

Having these cobblepots show up at meetings here in Arizona dressed in their best gun-show regalia and (read - "in your face!") sporting an AK/AR along with an open carry handgun to make a point that need not be made - certainly not in that manner - helps us not a bit.

I like, practice and support open carry as well as concealed but recognize the opportunity it represents to fan unwanted flames.

Todd.

 

[BSA1]

Let’s break down the illogic behind this move and why I say it only targets CWP holders.

To the contrary it is a well-thought out long range plan by the anti's against gun owners.

They have successfully linked the Confederate Battle Flag with racism. By linking gun owners to the flag they are portraying gun owners as racists.

 

[joem1945]

That cannot be legal. Wheither or not it's agood idea has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment. Someone local needs to find a judge to issue a injuction to stop this nonsence. If they get away with this on a tempoary basis, whats to stop them from making it perminent?

 

[Girodin]

I would actually be kind of worried about trying to challenge this in court. The corollary might be to look at first amendment rights. The court allows a lot of time place and manner restrictions. You could wind up with precedent for allowing a weapons version of that and who knows how broadly it might come out.

It could simply be found to be analogous to other restricted spaces. Do you think your 2nd amendment rights let you carry a gun into a prison, a court house, or similar space? Now this is obviously an expansion of that and clearly not exactly the same. However, a 250' temporary restriction in a highly emotional charged circumstance coming on the heals of high profile violence involving a gun is not the facts I'd run to the courthouse with. As they say, bad facts make for bad law.

Now whether this restriction makes any sense or is effective in any way is a different discussion.

 

[Girodin]

If they get away with this on a tempoary (sic) basis, whats to stop them from making it perminent (sic)?

Levels of scrutiny and the inherent differences between something that is temporary and ostensibly targeted at addressing a specif threat to a specif place and something that is permanent.

 

[Drail]

Yup, we need to pass thousands of new laws and suspend the entire Bill of Rights because someone "might" do something illegal. These clowns will never learn.

 

[Red Wind]

Let’s break down the illogic behind this move and why I say it only targets CWP holders. We don’t have open carry laws in SC so anyone showing up with a weapon will have to have that weapon concealed. If you open carry you are breaking existing State law. If you are carrying a concealed weapon without a valid permit you are breaking existing State law. We know criminals will blatantly ignore any law so the only people the chief and City Council could possibly be targeting are legally armed citizens, ie; CWP holders who have proven year in and year out to be some of the most law abiding citizens around.

Excellent reasoning. You are 100% correct. What South Carolina and its leaders have done since the mass murder by one lone criminal lunatic is appalling to me. The Nikki Haley we thought was a pillar in defense of the 2nd Amendment looks like a shriveled caricature today.

I hope this latest move is the final and bottom rung of this emotional, political reaction which is affecting all honest and decent gun carrying South Carolinian's.

I love South Carolina and Charleston and go there almost every year. I'm saddened and sickened by the unbelievable hypocrisy of state officials that has been going on before our very eyes, since that horrendous event occurred.

 

[gearhead]

As a resident of Columbia there are two things very troubling about this law.

First, SC state law forbids local ordinance to regulate firearms. The following exception is written into that statute but it doesn't seem to apply to legal concealed carriers:

Section 23-31-510. Prohibition Against Regulation of Certain Matters.

No governing body of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision in this State may enact or promulgate any regulation or ordinance which regulates or attempts to regulate the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things.

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.

The second concern I have is the way this was rammed through and enacted immediately. I don't read the local newspaper daily so the first I heard of this new law was when I read it on here. Normally, laws are debated prior to passage and there is time to publicize the law. How is a citizen to know that what was legal yesterday is illegal today?

 

[Drail]

"rammed through and enacted immediately.. Just like that old Patriot Act , eh? You know they have to pass it so they can see what's in it, right?

 

[oneounceload]

Doesn't SC have a pre-emption statute where state law over rules this? Sounds like lawsuit time

 

[Hoppes Love Potion]

Yes, because a temporary 250ft ban is clearly logically equatable to a 2,500 mile ban and would withstand judicial scrutiny in the same way..

Actually, it does establish a dangerous precedent, and the judiciary does look at established precedents when determining if some new or expanded precedent is legal. If banning weapons IS allowed in a certain radius, that is establishing that "officials" have the power to ban weapons in an area when they feel like it. Once that power is granted to them, the times, places, and duration of the bans will only grow.

 

[nearlynormalmike]

I grew up in SC, and in fact Columbia is (was) my hometown. I now live in GA.
This "temporary rule" is a local and in fact a national disgrace (as are most of our spineless politicians).

No one can even remotely fairly describe me as a racist, but I am proud to be a Southerner as well as an American. How many of the protestors can legitimately say they have served their country on active duty in the armed services. I by God can!

The anti-flag crowd is just another HATE GROUP, not unlike the anti-gun group.
Those of us in the pro 2nd A establishment do not hate the antis. We don't care for their stance, but do not HATE them. I respect their feelings not to like or own firearms. Why can't they respect my feelings to own them? It's always "I feel this way and you have to do as I feel".

WOW. I very seldom post, but my blood is about 211 degrees right now. I used to be proud to be a South Carolinian. I am now far less proud!!

 

[Red Wind]

The anti-flag crowd is just another HATE GROUP, not unlike the anti-gun group.

An excellent point and post. Mike. The Confederate Flag. It is and was a Battle Flag, not a racist symbol! Only a small fraction of the almost 500,000 Confederate soldiers who died for that flag ever owned a single slave.

Now, these sickening pols and certain people want to disown them? It is absolutely disgusting. I'm a veteran too and share your feelings.

Let them get in that foxhole.

This is just another posturing, political, presumptuous piece of Liberal garbage.
May it quickly die in South Carolina as rapidly as it arrived!

 

[Plan2Live]

Careful guys, lets keep the thread focused on the legality or lack thereof of the ban. My last thread was closed due to topic drift.

I've tried to find a vote tally for this ban but haven't found one yet. Disclaimer; I have been very busy today and haven't had much time to devote to the task.

I sent in a Letter to the Editor for The State Newspaper this morning but their Editor and I have a running dialogue and difference of opinion over gun issues. We have communicated at length over the past couple of years when gun issues come up. I have invited her to let me take her to a range but she and her associate Editor have never accepted my open invitation. She will only run one of my letters once she has a counter-letter to run with it. If I was involved with social media I would definitely be campaigning this topic. I'm hoping this will get the attention of the NRA but I doubt it.

 

[bk42261]

Blame anything except the PERSON then blame the "shortcomings" of the Background Check System.