City of Columbia Enacts Temporary Ban On Weapons

[Red Wind]

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.

Alright. I've been angry, I'll cool off. This "ban" is emotional and political, will solve nothing and makes absolutely no sense and is probably contrary to South Carolina law.

I certainly hope so.

 

[kwguy]

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.

Agreed. This is a dangerous precedent. Didn't we just go through something like this when it came to banning (via confiscation) of weapons during emergencies (like Katrina)? This seems very similar, in that local officials can take away ones rights on a whim because of some fear of wrongdoing.

 

[Plan2Live]

Agreed. This is a dangerous precedent. Didn't we just go through something like this when it came to banning (via confiscation) of weapons during emergencies (like Katrina)? This seems very similar, in that local officials can take away ones rights on a whim because of some fear of wrongdoing.

Exactly, which is part of my point in posting this thread. Whenever something like this happens the gun community needs to push back. All I am hearing around here (Columbia) from the gun community is crickets chirping, well that and the Cicadas this time of year. I know we have several High Road members who are from Columbia and the surrounding areas and I haven't heard from them yet. I was thinking we could start a pushback effort but so far nothing.

One of our State Senators, Lee Bright, has previously been very active and very vocal with regards to gun rights. I haven't heard a peep from him in any of the sources I listen to or read.

I was thinking this might be a topic Michael Bane would be interested in including in one of his blogs. I thought he was a member here. I searched the Members List but couldn't find him.

Considering the area I live in, contacting my State Representatives would be a waste of time. Contacting the Governor is out, I'm expecting her to renounce all previous conservative positions any day now and return her Beretta pistol to Beretta or worse yet turn it over to law enforcement to have it destroyed. The articles I read say the SC Attorney General was consulted and said the City had the authority to do this so contacting him is out.

So I guess I have taken my opposition to this ban as far as I can take it. but hopefully this post gets a little attention from members and alerts them to what can happen in their area if the right politicians are in power.

 

[Robert]

Have you called Mr. Bright? Have you reached out to any state or local gun rights groups? Have you reached out to the members here in your area?

 

[Lord Teapot]

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..



No, no he doesn't.

30 days is an arbitrary period of time, and 250 feet is an arbitrary distance, both based on the arbitrary decision of the local authorities. if upheld, it means a similar decision enacted at any level of elected authority, in that authority's jurisdiction (the US for example in the case of the US congress) is legal until ruled otherwise by a superior court. i get it

i advise you to research a concept called 'precedence', which is very prevalent as a factor in legal decision making within the united states.

you can start here:
https://www.google.com/search?q=pre....1.0....0...1c.1.64.serp..0.1.104.mE9UrXpZBeY

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.

i see someone already explained precedence, should have read further before responding. .

 

[Sav .250]

Temporary is just that........... Around the State House grounds only.

Stirring the pot does not always get good results. J s/n.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

Agreed. This is a dangerous precedent. Didn't we just go through something like this when it came to banning (via confiscation) of weapons during emergencies (like Katrina)?

Really? Now you guys are equating a temporary geographically limited restriction on carry to door to door confiscations?

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that. If I was in any level of elected authority, I would have just hung up on you and penciled you in under the "Art Bell Listener" column.

30 days is an arbitrary period of time, and 250 feet is an arbitrary distance, both based on the arbitrary decision of the local authorities. if upheld, it means a similar decision enacted at any level of elected authority, in that authority's jurisdiction (the US for example in the case of the US congress) is legal until ruled otherwise by a superior court. i get it

I don't know if I should laugh or cry that you think that's how things work.

First off, go ahead. Try to take to court that 30 days and 250 feet are arbitrary. 30 Days is long enough for cooler heads to prevail on this issue and 250 feet is a reasonable safe buffer zone... and just happens to almost perfectly coincide with "take it across the street" distance in this issue. The foundations of your argument just got laughed out of court.

i advise you to research a concept called 'precedence', which is very prevalent as a factor in legal decision making within the united states.

Precedence doesn't mean that because a temporary, geographically limited, restriction is allowed, then so too must be door to door confiscations and nation wide bans.

Now, if we want people to educate themselves about how the legal system works, and urge them to learn what certain terms mean, why don't you start with "Strict Scrutiny"

If the government can show compelling reason to violate your rights in order to fulfill a legitimate state interest, it may do so under narrowly tailored circumstances. Such as, a short duration, in a localized area, in direct response to expected violence. The same attempt to curtail rights won't work under vaguely or widely defined guidelines, such as .... the whole nation, forever and because reasons.

Continuing on, since South Carolina law already states:

Universal Citation: SC Code § 10-11-320 (2013)

(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; or

And given the nationally recognized turbulent and charged situation in South Carolina right now,

And given the following text:

WHEREAS
, there were planned demonstrations in the next few weeks by groups which are identified as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, including the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the New Black Panther Party; and,
WHEREAS, social media and other sources have indicated that many of the protestors would be carrying weapons with them; and,

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,

... Your changes of convincing a court that the temporary and geographically limited expansion of an already existing restriction isn't the state acting to fulfill a compelling state interest by taking measures that infringe the rights of as few people as possible in the least possible way.

Furthermore, according to the text of the document linked below and the associated map:

http://www.columbiasc.net/depts/cit...5_066_temporary_cwp_ban_around_statehouse.pdf

This ban only effects people on public property (not anyone in a private business) and only within the yellow line, your chances of getting anyone to care about this in any significant form are only slightly slimmer than that of getting a well focused shot of big foot.

So please, tell me again that I need to go learn some legal terminology.

In other words, let it go. You lost this one before you even knew it was happening. Come back to us if they try to make it permanent (which may still be a lost cause since it's based on an existing prohibition) or expand the radius to encompass a geographical area which can't be easily demonstrated to focus on a single high value location.

 

[kwguy]

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that. If I was in any level of elected authority, I would have just hung up on you and penciled you in under the "Art Bell Listener" column.

My point was that people seems to be ok with officials just randomly and emotionally pitting limits on people. Obviously this isnt the same as confiscation of weapons like in Katrina, thats why I put it in parentheses, so that someone wouldnt just come out and say that it wasnt the same thing (guess that didnt work).

My point was that just putting up a baseless, emotionally driven restriction that infringes on rights should be questioned.

and yeah yeah, i know about TFR's, but not just anyone can slap those up either.

i quess many people are ok with local officials doing whatever they feel like.

Ok.

 

[wojownik]

My point was that people seems to be ok with officials just randomly and emotionally pitting limits on people. ...

My point was that just putting up a baseless, emotionally driven restriction that infringes on rights should be questioned.

Read ClickClickD'oh's post again.

Carrying weapons on Capitol grounds was already illegal. Carrying concealed weapons was already prohibited (unless one was authorized to park on the capitol grounds or in the parking garage below the capitol grounds).

The ordnance extends those existing restrictions by 250 feet citing a very specific and "extraordinary" situation: in light of fairly specific and credible intel that certain hate groups may have been advocating, if not organizing, an armed presence during an emotionally heated and polarized event, public safety officials took a decision to balance public safety and the right to peaceably assemble.

This best seen as a corner or hard case. But as the old adage goes, hard cases make bad law. An extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. This situation was clearly delineated in the ordinance as being an extreme case, covering a specific situation, with a limited ordinance with a defined expiration (though one wonders why they could not have had the ordinance expire in a lesser period, say two weeks).

I don't like that the authorities had to make such a decision. I don't like that certain hate groups advocated abusing the 2nd Amendment to possibly menace or threaten other people There is some solace in that this ordinance was so clearly cast as an extreme or extraordinary case.

 

[Averageman]

I'm less concerned about the temporary law than the idea that a flag caused this young man to shoot anyone.
At what point does a symbol take on a responsibility for criminal action?

 

[Old Fuff]

At what point does a symbol take on a responsibility for criminal action?

The "point" is when someone (or group, political movement/party) can exploit it to advance their agenda. Any opportunity is permissible, and they're is no objection to misrepresentation.

 

[nearlynormalmike]

I hope I am not drifting off topic.
If my memory serves me correctly the governor of North Carolina issued an executive order banning all guns when a hurricane came through the state. I presume he had good intentions, but I also believe there was such a public outcry that an NC law was passed such that no governor can ever issue such an order again.

I also presume the South Carolina order was well intended. We most assuredly do not need another shooting incident in SC (or anywhere else). It not only reflects poorly on the state, but will also stir up the antis again.

I am a "live and let live" sort of a guy. It is the mentally disturbed with a "live and let die" mindset, that is all too prevalent it seems, where things really get nasty.

"Long live the Republic" (quote from Sootch00, another South Carolinian. If you haven't seem him online you might want to).

 

[wojownik]

... If my memory serves me correctly the governor of North Carolina issued an executive order banning all guns when a hurricane came through the state. I presume he had good intentions, but I also believe there was such a public outcry that an NC law was passed such that no governor can ever issue such an order again.

The NC ban is semi related, but raises important points.

- in NC, this executive order (empowerd by legislation) was a declaration of a State of Emergency for Hurricane Earl that made carrying a firearm outside one's home or place of business a Class I misdemeanor.
- my understanding is that this, among other things, contributed to the NC Governor's waning popularity, and her decision not to run for re-election a couple of years later.
- the NC situation is a great example of a hard case making really bad law.

The Columbia SC ordinance was passed by the City Council, relating to a very specific and unique situation, in a very specific area, with an identifiable public safety threat, and very narrow in scope and duration. These good intentions may not be enough, though, in light of the court decision that tossed the NC laws that permitted those firearms restrictions.

The NC executive order related to a specific but not altogether unusual situation (a hurricane), covered an extremely broad area (statewide), did not relate to a specific identifiable public safety threat, and was extremely broad in scope (sweeping prohibition on carry and possession outside the home).

So, the NC executive order was a disproportionate and overly broad response - and here's the punch line - the provision barring the carry and possession of a firearm during a declared state of emergency was declared unconstitutional by a US Federal Court in 2012. Ref Bateman v. Perdue.

The Columbia ordinance is arguably a proportionate response to a very specific and unique circumstance. HOWEVER, the 2012 Bateman vs. Perdue decision against the NC prohibitions may be problematic for Columbia. Bateman v. Perdue found that "The Second Amendment guarantees individuals a fundamental right to carry functional handguns in non-sensitive public places for purposes of self-defense, as well as the right to purchase firearms and ammunition." The capitol grounds were already off limits to firearms, but that 250 foot extension extends into into what are one could normally see as non-sensitive public places - streets and private businesses.

 

[Red Wind]

The "point" is when someone (or group, political movement/party) can exploit it to advance their agenda. Any opportunity is permissible, and they're is no objection to misrepresentation.

That is the gospel truth. Thank you, Old Fuff, for putting all this nonsense and equivocating in a nutshell. Tombstone rules!

 

[Thermactor]

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.

hahaha!
HAAHAHA!
Nikki Haley (real name: Nimrata Randhawa) is like Bane from Batman.
angry voters: "We're in charge here!"
Nimrata Rhandawa: "Do you feel in charge?"
voters: "we've given you a small fortune."
Nimrata Rhandawa: "And this give you power.. over me?"
"Your money and your infrastructure have been important... till now.. I'm South Carolina's reckoning"
voter: "You're evil!"
Nimrata Rhandawa: "I'm necessary evil."
(blood curdling scrams as the voters necks are snapped)

 

[wojownik]

Please check your facts before spewing. Gov Haley was born in Bamberg, South Carolina. Her parents emigrated to the U.S. before she was born. And her middle name is Nikki. As in Nimrata Nikki Haley (nee Randhawa).

As far as her beliefs, as they relate to the focus of this forum, Haley did not blink or waver on RKBA, when called by the President, when blindsided in a recent NBC interview, or any other public statements that I'm aware of.

I'm not saying Gov. Haley isn't a conniving political opportunist. She's a politician - its part of the job description. Welcome to real politics.

However, nothing in her statements before or after the recent trouble indicates that her positions on RKBA have changed, or will change.

She's playing things smart and fairly deftly. She's the youngest governor in the US right now (at 43), of Indian/Sikh descent, and - of course - female. The type of pro 2A candidate that could really tear some polling models up.

My bets are Haley as a potential VP candidate in 2016, and on a Presidential campaign trajectory in 2020/2024. Along with another Indian American governor with strong 2A views - Bobby Jindal, whose formal name is Piyush Jindal.

How's that for a future campaign bumper sticker - Piyush "Bobby" Jindal / Nimrata Nikki Randhawa-Haley . A really long bumper sticker.

Of course, perhaps I am a conniving political opportunist myself.

 

[Lost Sheep]

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

What TFR? Temporary Flight Restriction from the Federal Aviation Administration? Or what?

Lost Sheep

 

[Al Thompson]

As far as her beliefs, as they relate to the focus of this forum, Haley did not blink or waver on RKBA, when called by the President, when blindsided in a recent NBC interview, or any other public statements that I'm aware of.

Agree completely. The temporary ban came from the city of Columbia, which is pretty dysfunctional (mild statement). Nikki had zero to do with that decision.

 

[Plan2Live]

Quote:
As far as her beliefs, as they relate to the focus of this forum, Haley did not blink or waver on RKBA, when called by the President, when blindsided in a recent NBC interview, or any other public statements that I'm aware of.

Agree completely. The temporary ban came from the city of Columbia, which is pretty dysfunctional (mild statement). Nikki had zero to do with that decision.

True, but she hasn't spoken out against it either.

 

[Al Thompson]

True, but she hasn't spoken out against it either.

Context may be lacking. IMHO, the RKBA groups are sort of taking a "Eh, what?" attitude towards this.........

 

[Lord Teapot]

Really? Now you guys are equating a temporary geographically limited restriction on carry to door to door confiscations?

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to do better than that. If I was in any level of elected authority, I would have just hung up on you and penciled you in under the "Art Bell Listener" column.



I don't know if I should laugh or cry that you think that's how things work.

First off, go ahead. Try to take to court that 30 days and 250 feet are arbitrary. 30 Days is long enough for cooler heads to prevail on this issue and 250 feet is a reasonable safe buffer zone... and just happens to almost perfectly coincide with "take it across the street" distance in this issue. The foundations of your argument just got laughed out of court.



Precedence doesn't mean that because a temporary, geographically limited, restriction is allowed, then so too must be door to door confiscations and nation wide bans.

Now, if we want people to educate themselves about how the legal system works, and urge them to learn what certain terms mean, why don't you start with "Strict Scrutiny"

If the government can show compelling reason to violate your rights in order to fulfill a legitimate state interest, it may do so under narrowly tailored circumstances. Such as, a short duration, in a localized area, in direct response to expected violence. The same attempt to curtail rights won't work under vaguely or widely defined guidelines, such as .... the whole nation, forever and because reasons.

Continuing on, since South Carolina law already states:

Universal Citation: SC Code § 10-11-320 (2013)

(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; or

And given the nationally recognized turbulent and charged situation in South Carolina right now,

And given the following text:

WHEREAS
, there were planned demonstrations in the next few weeks by groups which are identified as “hate groups” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, including the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and the New Black Panther Party; and,
WHEREAS, social media and other sources have indicated that many of the protestors would be carrying weapons with them; and,

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,

... Your changes of convincing a court that the temporary and geographically limited expansion of an already existing restriction isn't the state acting to fulfill a compelling state interest by taking measures that infringe the rights of as few people as possible in the least possible way.

Furthermore, according to the text of the document linked below and the associated map:

http://www.columbiasc.net/depts/cit...5_066_temporary_cwp_ban_around_statehouse.pdf

This ban only effects people on public property (not anyone in a private business) and only within the yellow line, your chances of getting anyone to care about this in any significant form are only slightly slimmer than that of getting a well focused shot of big foot.

So please, tell me again that I need to go learn some legal terminology.

In other words, let it go. You lost this one before you even knew it was happening. Come back to us if they try to make it permanent (which may still be a lost cause since it's based on an existing prohibition) or expand the radius to encompass a geographical area which can't be easily demonstrated to focus on a single high value location.

if this stands, then guns can be banned at any distance, from any building, for any reason. this sets the precedent of allowing local governments to gut the 2nd amendment. this is a big deal.

 

[whiskycut]

Guess what, these people were voted into office,and can be voted out. But that will never happen. I grew up in s.c. same good- ol-boy mentality in the 70's&80's that is alive and well now. I now live in the free state of Al. ands.c. will not honor my conceal carry permit. How bout firing all of your elected kings, (they protect you from you),

 

[wojownik]

if this stands, then guns can be banned at any distance, from any building, for any reason. this sets the precedent of allowing local governments to gut the 2nd amendment. this is a big deal.

This city ordinance is troublesome, but it is not the "big deal." As I noted previously, read the court's decision in Bateman v. Perdue, in neighboring North Carolina. The court clearly, explicitly unambiguously found it to be unconstitutional for a state gov't to ban guns at any distance, for any reason (in NC's case, the distance was statewide, for the reason of a state of emergency).

The Bateman decision argues that local (state) government can NOT "gut the 2nd amendment" - to the contrary, the court found that such actions to be flat out unconstitutional.

Now, Columbia's City Council and current attorneys think this ordinance is proper and proportional. I'm not so sure it is anymore.

Reading some more recent comments from the Columbia top cop, however, I am stepping back from some of my previous comments about proportionality.

• Columbia's police chief noted that this ordinance was NOT in response to a specific threat, but to the general potential for something to happen.
• A City Councilwoman (I think it was Tameika Isaac Devine) noted that she hoped there would be no "issues", but if there were, or if they perceived a continuing potential, then the council might consider extending the "green zone" for another 30 days.

At least one SC RKBA group is starting to look at taking this to court. While the city council thinks they are on firm ground, some past attorneys general are pretty much saying, uh, not so fast...

I'm actually more interested to hear what Alan Wilson (the SC State Atty General) has to say about this, more than Nikki Haley. It may be interesting if an SC RKBA group can find a sympathetic state legislator, who can ask the AGs office to issue an opinion on the Columbia ordinance.

 

[Al Thompson]

It may be interesting if an SC RKBA group can find a sympathetic state legislator, who can ask the AGs office to issue an opinion on the Columbia ordinance.

The most effective group in SC (GrassrootsSC) was gutted by a lawsuit several years back that still isn't over. The NRA in SC is still more interested in fund raisers than getting active over specific issues like this one.

Last time someone asked the AG (Charlie Condon at the time) for an opinion, it did not turn out like we thought it would.

 

[ClickClickD'oh]

if this stands, then guns can be banned at any distance, from any building, for any reason. this sets the precedent of allowing local governments to gut the 2nd amendment.

Okay, again, that is not how our government or legal system works. A government temporarily extending a pre-exiting restriction in a narrowly defined geographic area in response to expected hostilities is not the same as "Any time, Any place, because reasons", nor does it even remotely set precedent for unlimited geographic bans in response to nothing. Furthermore, limited scope geographic bans on the carry of weapons are already precedent. This instance does nothing to create that. In fact, in this very case, a pre-existing limited scope geographic ban existed on the premise of the capital grounds, so your argument already falls apart just by a simple review of the facts at hand. If your argument is true that limited scope geographic bans set precedence for unlimited scope national bans, why aren't we under unlimited scope national bans already? Simple, because it's not precedence for them.