SC

Campus Shooting In South Carolina

A 19-year-old student was shot and killed at an apartment complex near Coastal Carolina University (CCU) in Conway, S.C. on Tuesday evening – and the suspect has yet to be apprehended. Anthony Darnell Liddell, a sophomore from Bennettsville, S.C., was gunned down around 7:30 p.m. outside the University Place apartment…

A 19-year-old student was shot and killed at an apartment complex near Coastal Carolina University (CCU) in Conway, S.C. on Tuesday evening – and the suspect has yet to be apprehended.

Anthony Darnell Liddell, a sophomore from Bennettsville, S.C., was gunned down around 7:30 p.m. outside the University Place apartment complex, which is home to approximately 2,000 students. Witnesses say they heard four to five shots and saw Liddell slump over the rear window of a car. The gunmen then fled in a vehicle.

The school was placed on “lockdown” in the wake of the attack, although according to The (Myrtle Beach, S.C.) Sun News numerous students ignored the warnings they received on their cell phones.

“I’m not that afraid,” one of the students told the paper. “Should I be?”

At the request of the Conway Police Department, the S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) is running the investigation into Liddell’s death.

The shooting is sure to spark a state-level debate over gun-related issues not unlike the national debate which erupted in the wake of last December’s school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.

In fact supporters of “campus carry” – or the right of students to carry concealed weapons on college campuses – moved quickly to assert their position.

“The debate over student gun rights must be echoed down the halls,” wrote Katie Thompson, one of the University of South Carolina’s leading College Republicans.

***

(Banner via)

Related posts

SC

South Carolina Lottery Slammed By Auditors

Will Folks
SC

Susan Smith Saga: Prison ‘Sexploits’ Imperil Infamous Killer’s Parole Bid

Will Folks
SC

‘Gun Grant’ Scandal Brewing In North Charleston

Will Folks

40 comments

Sarge February 27, 2013 at 9:59 am

Warren Bolton at The State called and said this only has to do with underage drinking by white frat boys and nothing else. Move along now.

Reply
Sarge February 27, 2013 at 9:59 am

Warren Bolton at The State called and said this only has to do with underage drinking by white frat boys and nothing else. Move along now.

Reply
Smirks February 27, 2013 at 10:01 am

Psst! Willie! You have to be 21 or older to get a CWP in South Carolina, so campus carry wouldn’t help here!

http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx?MenuID=CWP#6

SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except subject to subsection (B) of this section, SLED must issue a permit, which is no larger than three and one half inches by three inches in size, to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty one years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon…

Reply
Smirks February 27, 2013 at 10:01 am

Psst! Willie! You have to be 21 or older to get a CWP in South Carolina, so campus carry wouldn’t help here!

http://www.sled.sc.gov/SCStateGunLaws1.aspx?MenuID=CWP#6

SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, except subject to subsection (B) of this section, SLED must issue a permit, which is no larger than three and one half inches by three inches in size, to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty one years of age and who is not prohibited by state law from possessing the weapon…

Reply
south mauldin February 27, 2013 at 10:05 am

Is this a shooting on campus, or a shooting at an apartment complex near campus? I think if it is the latter, this is a misleading headline to push the agenda of everybody on campus having a gun. And Smirks just shot that idea down.

Reply
CNSYD February 27, 2013 at 10:33 am

BINGO! You caught Sic Willie trying to slide something by AGAIN!

Reply
inletman February 27, 2013 at 10:56 am

Campus housing across 544 from the campus.

Reply
sid February 27, 2013 at 10:59 am

Smirks actually addressed this specific case, which involved a 19-year-old, not the entire subject of campus carry. I see anti-gun folks push unrelated issues whenever a crime involving a firearm occurs, especially the high profile type. I’d say pushing campus carry in response to this issue is at least related. You do realize that it is not prohibited for someone over the age of 21 to go to college, right?

Reply
south mauldin February 27, 2013 at 11:31 am

Sid, I really don’t care about guns or concealed carry. Hell, give everybody a gun for all I care. I think the gun lobby/NRA is reprehensible, however. Background checks are reasonable and are not going to be used as a way for the government to come and get your gun. The NRA just uses scare tactics to raise money from gun nuts.
I just hate for someone to push and agenda from either side and use sketchy facts.

Reply
sid February 27, 2013 at 11:59 am

We are not discussing NRA or background checks. We are talking about campus carry.

Last I checked, though, NRA has not been promoting the repeal of background checks.

Reply
Eggrolll Chins February 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm

They sure as hell aren’t for them!

From Texas State University:”…By the early 1980s, the NRA took a strong stand against criminal background checks, charging that they were an invasion of privacy and diverted police from …”

sid February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

From the NRA’s website:

“The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which became operational in 1998, verifies that a person seeking to buy a firearm from a gun dealer is not prohibited from doing so by federal or state law. The National Rifle Association supported its establishment.”

“NRA supported instant check bills introduced by then-Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) in 1988, Rep. Harley O. Staggers (D-W.Va.) in 1989, and the amendment to the 1993 Brady Act which mandated NICS’ establishment.”

I can’t speak to the opinion piece you cited, which appears to be from some time in 1991, but it does seem to have some rather glaring flaws. For example, it states:

“The Brady Bill requires a seven-day waiting period to buy a pistol. When the U.S. House of Representatives was considering the bill in 1988, the NRA opposed a waiting period.”

I believe NRA still opposes waiting periods, so that seems pretty consistent.

But the opinion piece goes on to say:

“In an effort to kill the bill, the NRA abandoned its earlier opposition to ‘gun control’ laws and supported instant background checks at the point of sale–requiring an expensive and non-existent federal computerized system of criminal records to be created and be accessible by gun dealers.”

I doubt the author had much input from NRA on its intentions, so we can dismiss his conjecture on why NRA supported instant check as opposed to the waiting period.

But the author goes on to say:

“Of course, the NRA’s real objective was to pass a measure that would be impossible to implement. It would take at least ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and install such a system.”

Now, I don’t know how much the instant check system cost, but it would seem that’s money well spent to ensure people prohibited from possessing firearms are not able to buy them from gun dealers. That seems much better than simply a waiting period that does not require a background check.

As for the prediction on how long it would take to implement, the author seemed way off. The Brady Act was passed in 1993, and the instant check system went online in 1998.

Ultimately, though, the author of the piece clearly has an anti-NRA bias, based on his ridiculous closing:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the NRA was for the cops and not for the robbers?”

Of course, you are free to support such bias, as well as a waiting period over a background check, but it appears you are a bit off on your statement about where NRA stands on background checks. Today, at least. Again, I can’t speak to its position from roughly three decades back. Perhaps, much like Obama on other issues, the organization’s position has “evolved.”

CCU February 27, 2013 at 11:03 am

It is campus housing. I graduated from Coastal and lived in these apartments. These were private apartments until about 2 years ago when Coastal bought them due to the growth of the school. It is not on the main campus but is considered campus property.

Reply
Smirks February 27, 2013 at 11:46 am

south mauldin, I still support campus carry, I just wanted to point out that the current concealed carry law wouldn’t have allowed the victim in this case to legally defend himself regardless of campus carry.

A person is legally allowed to own a handgun at age 18, but can’t apply for a CWP until they are 21. I wouldn’t be opposed to lowering the age to obtain a CWP to 18, not at all actually, but I probably wouldn’t support anything lower than that for obvious reasons.

Reply
south mauldin February 27, 2013 at 10:05 am

Is this a shooting on campus, or a shooting at an apartment complex near campus? I think if it is the latter, this is a misleading headline to push the agenda of everybody on campus having a gun. And Smirks just shot that idea down.

Reply
CNSYD February 27, 2013 at 10:33 am

BINGO! You caught Sic Willie trying to slide something by AGAIN!

Reply
inletman February 27, 2013 at 10:56 am

Campus housing across 544 from the campus.

Reply
sid February 27, 2013 at 10:59 am

Smirks actually addressed this specific case, which involved a 19-year-old, not the entire subject of campus carry. I see anti-gun folks push unrelated issues whenever a crime involving a firearm occurs, especially the high profile type. I’d say pushing campus carry in response to this issue is at least related. You do realize that it is not prohibited for someone over the age of 21 to go to college, right?

Reply
south mauldin February 27, 2013 at 11:31 am

Sid, I really don’t care about guns or concealed carry. Hell, give everybody a gun for all I care. I think the gun lobby/NRA is reprehensible, however. Background checks are reasonable and are not going to be used as a way for the government to come and get your gun. The NRA just uses scare tactics to raise money from gun nuts.
I just hate for someone to push and agenda from either side and use sketchy facts.

Reply
sid February 27, 2013 at 11:59 am

We are not discussing NRA or background checks. We are talking about campus carry.

Last I checked, though, NRA has not been promoting the repeal of background checks.

Reply
Eggrolll Chins February 27, 2013 at 2:41 pm

They sure as hell aren’t for them!

From Texas State University:”…By the early 1980s, the NRA took a strong stand against criminal background checks, charging that they were an invasion of privacy and diverted police from …”

sid February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

From the NRA’s website:

“The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which became operational in 1998, verifies that a person seeking to buy a firearm from a gun dealer is not prohibited from doing so by federal or state law. The National Rifle Association supported its establishment.”

“NRA supported instant check bills introduced by then-Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) in 1988, Rep. Harley O. Staggers (D-W.Va.) in 1989, and the amendment to the 1993 Brady Act which mandated NICS’ establishment.”

I can’t speak to the opinion piece you cited, which appears to be from some time in 1991, but it does seem to have some rather glaring flaws. For example, it states:

“The Brady Bill requires a seven-day waiting period to buy a pistol. When the U.S. House of Representatives was considering the bill in 1988, the NRA opposed a waiting period.”

I believe NRA still opposes waiting periods, so that seems pretty consistent.

But the opinion piece goes on to say:

“In an effort to kill the bill, the NRA abandoned its earlier opposition to ‘gun control’ laws and supported instant background checks at the point of sale–requiring an expensive and non-existent federal computerized system of criminal records to be created and be accessible by gun dealers.”

I doubt the author had much input from NRA on its intentions, so we can dismiss his conjecture on why NRA supported instant check as opposed to the waiting period.

But the author goes on to say:

“Of course, the NRA’s real objective was to pass a measure that would be impossible to implement. It would take at least ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and install such a system.”

Now, I don’t know how much the instant check system cost, but it would seem that’s money well spent to ensure people prohibited from possessing firearms are not able to buy them from gun dealers. That seems much better than simply a waiting period that does not require a background check.

As for the prediction on how long it would take to implement, the author seemed way off. The Brady Act was passed in 1993, and the instant check system went online in 1998.

Ultimately, though, the author of the piece clearly has an anti-NRA bias, based on his ridiculous closing:

“Wouldn’t it be nice if the NRA was for the cops and not for the robbers?”

Of course, you are free to support such bias, as well as a waiting period over a background check, but it appears you are a bit off on your statement about where NRA stands on background checks. Today, at least. Again, I can’t speak to its position from roughly three decades back. Perhaps, much like Obama on other issues, the organization’s position has “evolved.”

CCU February 27, 2013 at 11:03 am

It is campus housing. I graduated from Coastal and lived in these apartments. These were private apartments until about 2 years ago when Coastal bought them due to the growth of the school. It is not on the main campus but is considered campus property.

Reply
Smirks February 27, 2013 at 11:46 am

south mauldin, I still support campus carry, I just wanted to point out that the current concealed carry law wouldn’t have allowed the victim in this case to legally defend himself regardless of campus carry.

A person is legally allowed to own a handgun at age 18, but can’t apply for a CWP until they are 21. I wouldn’t be opposed to lowering the age to obtain a CWP to 18, not at all actually, but I probably wouldn’t support anything lower than that for obvious reasons.

Reply
Red February 27, 2013 at 10:12 am

Wasn’t Katie Thompson removed from her position at the school for…falsifying documents?

Reply
Red February 27, 2013 at 10:12 am

Wasn’t Katie Thompson removed from her position at the school for…falsifying documents?

Reply
Backwoods Redneck February 27, 2013 at 10:22 am

I was under the impression that Lauren Luxenburg was the CR chair for the Univ. of SC.

Reply
Will Folks aka Sic February 27, 2013 at 10:32 am

That’s accurate. Thompson is one of the group’s organizers but Luxenburg is the chair. We’ve edited the story to reflect that. Luxenburg also a very vocal supporter of “campus carry.”

Reply
Lumbergh February 27, 2013 at 11:41 am

Organizer? Ha! That’s a good one Will. There’s a strong relationship between her tenure, and that organization going into the shitter.

Reply
Red February 27, 2013 at 12:45 pm

I thought they had a great group of people over there at USC. How could they let that happen?

Reply
dumbassery February 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm

Katie was nothing but a stand in that was barely elected… How she keeps getting “positions” no one knows. Not credible.

Backwoods Redneck February 27, 2013 at 10:22 am

I was under the impression that Lauren Luxenburg was the CR chair for the Univ. of SC.

Reply
Will Folks aka Sic February 27, 2013 at 10:32 am

That’s accurate. Thompson is one of the group’s organizers but Luxenburg is the chair. We’ve edited the story to reflect that. Luxenburg also a very vocal supporter of “campus carry.”

Reply
Lumbergh February 27, 2013 at 11:41 am

Organizer? Ha! That’s a good one Will. There’s a strong relationship between her tenure, and that organization going into the shitter.

Reply
Red February 27, 2013 at 12:45 pm

I thought they had a great group of people over there at USC. How could they let that happen?

Reply
dumbassery February 27, 2013 at 1:27 pm

Katie was nothing but a stand in that was barely elected… How she keeps getting “positions” no one knows. Not credible.

dumbassery February 27, 2013 at 10:23 am

Didn’t Katie Thomspon lie and make-up a committee when frats got in trouble last yr? http://www.dailygamecock.com/index.php/multimedia-11/item/1782-breaking-katie-thompson-resigns-as-student-body-vice-president

Reply
Sly Guy February 27, 2013 at 10:39 am

From what I’ve heard, she’s a habitual liar. That must suck.

Reply
dumbassery February 27, 2013 at 10:23 am

Didn’t Katie Thomspon lie and make-up a committee when frats got in trouble last yr? http://www.dailygamecock.com/index.php/multimedia-11/item/1782-breaking-katie-thompson-resigns-as-student-body-vice-president

Reply
Sly Guy February 27, 2013 at 10:39 am

From what I’ve heard, she’s a habitual liar. That must suck.

Reply

Leave a Comment