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.