SC

SLED Violating State Law

The S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has been in hot water lately thanks to lengthy delays associated with its concealed weapons permit backlog. The agency – part of S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley’s cabinet – has also created a firestorm by refusing to let users carry their guns during the…

The S.C. State Law Enforcement Division (SLED) has been in hot water lately thanks to lengthy delays associated with its concealed weapons permit backlog. The agency – part of S.C. Gov. Nikki Haley’s cabinet – has also created a firestorm by refusing to let users carry their guns during the three month “processing” period for permit renewals.

Needless to say, we’ve ripped the agency for its laziness and incompetence – and for passing the consequences of its failure onto law-abiding gun owners.

Well guess what … it turns out SLED could be doing a lot more than just annoying these gun owners, it could be denying their permits in violation of state law.

From the applicable statute …

SECTION 23-31-215. Issuance of permits.

“(C) SLED shall issue a written statement to an unqualified applicant specifying its reasons for denying the application within ninety days from the date the application was received; otherwise, SLED shall issue a concealable weapon permit.”

Hear that?

The operative word there is “shall” in case you missed it …

Sources at the agency claim this statutory language applies only to new permit applications, not renewals. They also claim to have “ninety business days” to process the applications – which adds another several weeks to the delay period.

That strikes us as as very liberal interpretation of their legal obligation. It also strikes us as the kind of thing an ostensibly gun-loving governor like Haley wouldn’t appreciate.

Anyway, this website has consistently urged civil disobedience regarding any gun law which imposes in any way on our unqualified Second Amendment rights. SLED’s incompetence is further evidence of the wisdom of such an editorial position.

Related posts

SC

Accused Voyeur At It Again?

Will Folks
SC

Report: South Carolina School District Mismanaged Funds

Erin Parrott
SC

Daufuskie Ferry: A Storm Of Controversy

Callie Lyons

72 comments

CNSYD July 29, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Sic Willie needs to remind himself of the words to the song of Jim Croce irt what NOT to do.

Reply
junior justice July 31, 2013 at 2:14 pm

“I remember….. I remember….. “

Reply
CNSYD July 29, 2013 at 7:41 pm

Sic Willie needs to remind himself of the words to the song of Jim Croce irt what NOT to do.

Reply
junior justice July 31, 2013 at 2:14 pm

“I remember….. I remember….. “

Reply
Finius Nullis July 29, 2013 at 7:42 pm

FORGET 90 “BUSINESS” DAYS!! ANY NOTICE THAT SAYS 90 DAYS MEANS CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS THE WORD “BUSINESS ” IS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED. CHECK WITH THE LOTTERY COMMISSION FOR ITS DEFINITION OF WHAT 180 DAYS MEANS TO SUBMIT A WINNING TICKET.

Reply
Finius Nullis July 29, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Let add that upon rereading that section, the term “unqualified candidate” is not explained. At first blush I would take that to mean someone who has not taken the required courses, etc to obtain the permit. Although it could be interpreted as a convicted felon, a mental incompetent, or another person not qualified to get a permit. If that is the case, SLED could actually use this provision to let certain “friends of the family” obtain permits through the back door. Interesting, huh? Any lawyers out there who can add to this?

Reply
Smirks July 30, 2013 at 8:48 am

I think we should throw some of these bastards into jail and right before their release, tell them that their sentences are in “business days” instead of days.

Reply
Finius Nullis July 29, 2013 at 7:42 pm

FORGET 90 “BUSINESS” DAYS!! ANY NOTICE THAT SAYS 90 DAYS MEANS CONSECUTIVE DAYS UNLESS THE WORD “BUSINESS ” IS SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED. CHECK WITH THE LOTTERY COMMISSION FOR ITS DEFINITION OF WHAT 180 DAYS MEANS TO SUBMIT A WINNING TICKET.

Reply
Finius Nullis July 29, 2013 at 8:01 pm

Let add that upon rereading that section, the term “unqualified candidate” is not explained. At first blush I would take that to mean someone who has not taken the required courses, etc to obtain the permit. Although it could be interpreted as a convicted felon, a mental incompetent, or another person not qualified to get a permit. If that is the case, SLED could actually use this provision to let certain “friends of the family” obtain permits through the back door. Interesting, huh? Any lawyers out there who can add to this?

Reply
Smirks July 30, 2013 at 8:48 am

I think we should throw some of these bastards into jail and right before their release, tell them that their sentences are in “business days” instead of days.

Reply
Torch July 29, 2013 at 7:58 pm

You give agencies mandates and no funding. Get a grip. With so many rednecks applying it’s hard to keep up. You want limited government, you got it.

Reply
? July 29, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Well, “limited gov’t”(whatever the latest definition of that is…but I digress) would actually be having no mandates…therefore no funding required.

So the problem never starts in that context…

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:24 am

I concur “limited” is less, not speedier.

Reply
Torch July 29, 2013 at 7:58 pm

You give agencies mandates and no funding. Get a grip. With so many rednecks applying it’s hard to keep up. You want limited government, you got it.

Reply
? July 29, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Well, “limited gov’t”(whatever the latest definition of that is…but I digress) would actually be having no mandates…therefore no funding required.

So the problem never starts in that context…

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:24 am

I concur “limited” is less, not speedier.

Reply
Guest July 29, 2013 at 8:07 pm

Second Amendment rights are not “unqualified.” They have been qualified for quite some time by local, state, and federal statues – and those statues have been upheld by the courts. That’s how our government works.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:02 am

None of your comments precludes, in my opinion, the fact that the 2nd amendment to The Constitution of These United States provides the immutable right to bear arms against an unjust (and unfortunately current) and tyrannical government, and that past and current rulings and laws that prohibit, confine or deface this right is in fact un-Constitutional.

Reply
Guest July 29, 2013 at 8:07 pm

Second Amendment rights are not “unqualified.” They have been qualified for quite some time by local, state, and federal statues – and those statues have been upheld by the courts. That’s how our government works.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:02 am

None of your comments precludes, in my opinion, the fact that the 2nd amendment to The Constitution of These United States provides the immutable right to bear arms against an unjust (and unfortunately current) and tyrannical government, and that past and current rulings and laws that prohibit, confine or deface this right is in fact un-Constitutional.

Reply
Coal Miner July 29, 2013 at 8:35 pm

The people working to get the permits out are overwhelmed by the number of applications being submitted. They are working double shifts and have added staff but are handicapped by lack of space and computer breakdown. The Legislature is the entity to lay the blame upon. If the citizen has to have a permit to comply with the law the lawmakers need to address the problem and get their heads out of the sand and solve the problem rather than laying the blame on the people trying their best to make the system work.

Reply
Tetley July 29, 2013 at 9:00 pm

I’d tend to agree about blaming the legislature and not the staff, except when “trying their best to make the system work” involves lying to customers about when applications are received (see my other post). That dog won’t hunt.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:30 am

I would add to Tetley’s comments that the legislature is clearly at fault for following what I can only assume is MADD (hatters) and FOL(egislators for excess) demands to institute an un-Constitutional law which circumvents the 2nd amendment rights of all citizens of These United States of America to open carry.

Reply
Coal Miner July 29, 2013 at 8:35 pm

The people working to get the permits out are overwhelmed by the number of applications being submitted. They are working double shifts and have added staff but are handicapped by lack of space and computer breakdown. The Legislature is the entity to lay the blame upon. If the citizen has to have a permit to comply with the law the lawmakers need to address the problem and get their heads out of the sand and solve the problem rather than laying the blame on the people trying their best to make the system work.

Reply
Tetley July 29, 2013 at 9:00 pm

I’d tend to agree about blaming the legislature and not the staff, except when “trying their best to make the system work” involves lying to customers about when applications are received (see my other post). That dog won’t hunt.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:30 am

I would add to Tetley’s comments that the legislature is clearly at fault for following what I can only assume is MADD (hatters) and FOL(egislators for excess) demands to institute an un-Constitutional law which circumvents the 2nd amendment rights of all citizens of These United States of America to open carry.

Reply
Tetley July 29, 2013 at 8:50 pm

Last year, Ms. Tetley and I mailed our apps certified w/return receipt (on the advice of our CWP instructor) so we knew exactly when they arrived. When we called on Day 91, the lady said they were received on a date almost three weeks later, and it would be three more weeks before they were mailed. One pointed email to our state senator, and we had our permits in hand three days later.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 29, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Good job, Citizen!!!!!

Reply
Tetley July 29, 2013 at 8:50 pm

Last year, Ms. Tetley and I mailed our apps certified w/return receipt (on the advice of our CWP instructor) so we knew exactly when they arrived. When we called on Day 91, the lady said they were received on a date almost three weeks later, and it would be three more weeks before they were mailed. One pointed email to our state senator, and we had our permits in hand three days later.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 29, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Good job, Citizen!!!!!

Reply
Stinkbait July 29, 2013 at 9:12 pm

A Concealed Weapon Permit isn’t required for a citizen to “carry”. The only purpose a CWP serves is in the event of an incident, it documents completion of 8 hours of training. That can be useful in a subsequent lawsuit, but again it isn’t required. Gun owners’ mental health & criminal records are supposed to be determined at the time of a weapon purchase from a licensed dealer, but in SC, anybody can buy anything at a gun show & legally walk down the street with it. The most important purpose of a CWP, of course: it provides gunslinger wannabes like Zimmerman an O-fficial document that proves they’re, by gawd, SOMEBODY.

Reply
? July 29, 2013 at 10:03 pm

If what you say is true, why was the SC legislature considering an “open carry” bill just a few months ago? I’m not even sure what happened to that bill.

Maybe someone here can tell us.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:51 am Reply
Cleveland Steamer July 30, 2013 at 12:01 am

A good point is that even if you carry concealeled and are reasonably sane, there is a 99.99999999% chance you will ever need a permit. If and when you do there are a mountain of other legal remidies out of a sticky situation. People say they have a CWP with the pride one gets when saying my dick is bigger than yours.

Reply
Stinkbait July 29, 2013 at 9:12 pm

A Concealed Weapon Permit isn’t required for a citizen to “carry”. The only purpose a CWP serves is in the event of an incident, it documents completion of 8 hours of training. That can be useful in a subsequent lawsuit, but again it isn’t required. Gun owners’ mental health & criminal records are supposed to be determined at the time of a weapon purchase from a licensed dealer, but in SC, anybody can buy anything at a gun show & legally walk down the street with it. The most important purpose of a CWP, of course: it provides gunslinger wannabes like Zimmerman an O-fficial document that proves they’re, by gawd, SOMEBODY.

Reply
? July 29, 2013 at 10:03 pm

If what you say is true, why was the SC legislature considering an “open carry” bill just a few months ago? I’m not even sure what happened to that bill.

Maybe someone here can tell us.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:51 am Reply
Cleveland Steamer July 30, 2013 at 12:01 am

A good point is that even if you carry concealeled and are reasonably sane, there is a 99.99999999% chance you will ever need a permit. If and when you do there are a mountain of other legal remidies out of a sticky situation. People say they have a CWP with the pride one gets when saying my dick is bigger than yours.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 29, 2013 at 9:18 pm

Others have posted and a good friend verified for me that it is now part of SC law, that if you have filed for renewal BEFORE your permit expires and you have not yet received your permit, you CAN still carry on the old permit. It would however, be highly advisable to keep a copy of documentation that you have filed for a renewal with you at all times while carrying, until the new permit comes in.

I believe this addendum to the law was added as part of budgetary stuff by the Legislature, this year. I am disappointed that some of the local gun rights groups which I happen to be on the mailing list for, dropped the ball in not notifying us of this very important change in SC law.

Reply
Friar Tuck July 30, 2013 at 6:29 am

From http://www.usacarry.com SC forum:

I was reviewing budget provisos from the recent state budget which went into effect July 1. Lawmakers created a proviso mandating that CWPs remain valid if you have applied for a renewal and SLED is still processing it. The relevant proviso is below.

62.22. (SLED: CWP Renewal and Replacement) A concealed weapons permit may not be suspended by a state official, agent, or employee supported by state funds if the permit holder has initiated a renewal or replacement application and the processing and issuance of a renewal or replacement permit is delayed for administrative reasons. A concealed weapons permit remains valid during the pendency of the renewal or replacement process so long as the application for replacement renewal is submitted prior to the expiration of the permit.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/south-carolina-discussion-firearm-news/38351-good-news-status-delayed-cwp-renewals.html

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 30, 2013 at 7:10 am

Thank You for posting that, Friar Tuck!

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 29, 2013 at 9:18 pm

Others have posted and a good friend verified for me that it is now part of SC law, that if you have filed for renewal BEFORE your permit expires and you have not yet received your permit, you CAN still carry on the old permit. It would however, be highly advisable to keep a copy of documentation that you have filed for a renewal with you at all times while carrying, until the new permit comes in.

I believe this addendum to the law was added as part of budgetary stuff by the Legislature, this year. I am disappointed that some of the local gun rights groups which I happen to be on the mailing list for, dropped the ball in not notifying us of this very important change in SC law.

Reply
Friar Tuck July 30, 2013 at 6:29 am

From http://www.usacarry.com SC forum:

I was reviewing budget provisos from the recent state budget which went into effect July 1. Lawmakers created a proviso mandating that CWPs remain valid if you have applied for a renewal and SLED is still processing it. The relevant proviso is below.

62.22. (SLED: CWP Renewal and Replacement) A concealed weapons permit may not be suspended by a state official, agent, or employee supported by state funds if the permit holder has initiated a renewal or replacement application and the processing and issuance of a renewal or replacement permit is delayed for administrative reasons. A concealed weapons permit remains valid during the pendency of the renewal or replacement process so long as the application for replacement renewal is submitted prior to the expiration of the permit.
http://www.usacarry.com/forums/south-carolina-discussion-firearm-news/38351-good-news-status-delayed-cwp-renewals.html

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 30, 2013 at 7:10 am

Thank You for posting that, Friar Tuck!

Reply
Blue Lights July 29, 2013 at 9:21 pm

Keel the almighty carries his weapon daily; but, refuses the right of anyone else to do so.
Stewart started the mindset of only law enforcement having weapons and Keel has carried forward the mindset.
I know of two cases, one inparticular involving a subordinate, which should have disqualified Keel from ever being Chief of SLED.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm

I couldn’t help but laugh my butt off when I read an article on The Herald’s (Rock Hill, SC paper) site some months back, about a meeting regarding the proposed Constitutional Carry law. In the article, it told how Stewart attended the meeting in behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP, an anti-2nd Amendment Police Organization). In the article, Stewart was quoted as saying something along the lines of, “people are talking about their Constitutional gun rights, but what about others’ Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without fear of being gunned down?” This is not an exact quote, but the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being in the Constitution is in the ball park. It made me shudder to think that the former head of SLED didn’t know the phrase he quoted was not in The Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.

Anyway, you now understand why I don’t contribute to LE groups that call me soliciting for money, except maybe PBA. I believe they are still Pro-2A.

Reply
? July 29, 2013 at 9:57 pm

Excellent commentary. Not to mention the false equivocation between the 2nd amendment and its supposed interference of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mentioned by the FOP.

Interesting how you can look at the 2nd from the perspective of allowing such as well….although that kind of thoughtful, balanced dialogue is probably way beyond the capability of the FOP.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 6:47 am

Professional Bowlers are Pro 2nd Amendment ?!? :-k Hmm

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 30, 2013 at 7:08 am

LOL! Good one Frank!!!! I should have been more clear on that. Police Benevolent Association.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:12 am

BBBBwwwwahhahahaahahahhahah

Smirks July 30, 2013 at 8:55 am

Protecting my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without fear of being helplessly gunned down is why I have a CWP in the first damn place.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 8:57 am

Smirks, you’re still bitching about the wrong thing. The law should not be changed or adhered to in a more expeditious manner. It should be repealed in its entirety.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 30, 2013 at 9:40 am

Hi Frank! I agree that according to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, a permit (permission) should NOT be needed from the government to be able to lawfully carry a firearm. The permitting process and requirement is in direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment, as in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

With that said, the permit process is light years better than what we had before that, where only the police and certain privileged persons were allowed to carry. For that reasons, I have seriously mixed feelings about the process, but it is better than what we had with the “may issue” law that preceded it.

Right now, I would be happy if they would just remove the stupid restricted zones where permit holders cannot carry, giving them carry privs equal to active-duty police officers.

I cannot, find fault with your reasoning, though.

Blue Lights July 29, 2013 at 9:21 pm

Keel the almighty carries his weapon daily; but, refuses the right of anyone else to do so.
Stewart started the mindset of only law enforcement having weapons and Keel has carried forward the mindset.
I know of two cases, one inparticular involving a subordinate, which should have disqualified Keel from ever being Chief of SLED.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 29, 2013 at 9:41 pm

I couldn’t help but laugh my butt off when I read an article on The Herald’s (Rock Hill, SC paper) site some months back, about a meeting regarding the proposed Constitutional Carry law. In the article, it told how Stewart attended the meeting in behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP, an anti-2nd Amendment Police Organization). In the article, Stewart was quoted as saying something along the lines of, “people are talking about their Constitutional gun rights, but what about others’ Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without fear of being gunned down?” This is not an exact quote, but the part about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness being in the Constitution is in the ball park. It made me shudder to think that the former head of SLED didn’t know the phrase he quoted was not in The Constitution, but the Declaration of Independence.

Anyway, you now understand why I don’t contribute to LE groups that call me soliciting for money, except maybe PBA. I believe they are still Pro-2A.

Reply
? July 29, 2013 at 9:57 pm

Excellent commentary. Not to mention the false equivocation between the 2nd amendment and its supposed interference of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness mentioned by the FOP.

Interesting how you can look at the 2nd from the perspective of allowing such as well….although that kind of thoughtful, balanced dialogue is probably way beyond the capability of the FOP.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 6:47 am

Professional Bowlers are Pro 2nd Amendment ?!? :-k Hmm

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 30, 2013 at 7:08 am

LOL! Good one Frank!!!! I should have been more clear on that. Police Benevolent Association.

Edit: Here is their statement on gun control.

https://www.sspba.org/gen/articles/The_Southern_States_PBA_official_stand_on_gun_control_in_America_323.jsp

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 7:12 am

BBBBwwwwahhahahaahahahhahah

Smirks July 30, 2013 at 8:55 am

Protecting my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without fear of being helplessly gunned down is why I have a CWP in the first damn place.

Reply
Frank Pytel July 30, 2013 at 8:57 am

Smirks, you’re still bitching about the wrong thing. The law should not be changed or adhered to in a more expeditious manner. It should be repealed in its entirety.

Reply
CorruptionInColumbia July 30, 2013 at 9:40 am

Hi Frank! I agree that according to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution, a permit (permission) should NOT be needed from the government to be able to lawfully carry a firearm. The permitting process and requirement is in direct contradiction to the 2nd Amendment, as in “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”.

With that said, the permit process is light years better than what we had before that, where only the police and certain privileged persons were allowed to carry. For that reasons, I have seriously mixed feelings about the process, but it is better than what we had with the “may issue” law that preceded it.

Right now, I would be happy if they would just remove the stupid restricted zones where permit holders cannot carry, giving them carry privs equal to active-duty police officers.

I cannot, find fault with your reasoning, though.

Polyphemos July 30, 2013 at 1:39 am

Ah.. the efficiency of big government. Remember your Tacitus.

Reply
Slartibartfast July 30, 2013 at 1:39 am

Ah.. the efficiency of big government. Remember your Tacitus. “Corruptissima re publica, quam leges”. To which I can only add, “Maius imperium est, quo magis imperium corrumpit.”

Reply
Smirks July 30, 2013 at 8:43 am

What the fuck? 90 BUSINESS days? The law does not say that. Are these folks delusional? Do they think they can just read anything they want into a law?

Read further into (C):

If a permit is granted by operation of law because an applicant was not
notified of a denial within the ninety-day notification period, the
permit may be revoked upon written notification from SLED that
sufficient grounds exist for revocation or initial denial.

The law clearly states a ninety-day notification period. It also clearly states that SLED has no choice but to issue a permit after this period, and gives them the power to revoke said permit if they discover that the applicant is not qualified afterwards.

(Q) Upon submission of the items required by subsection (P) of this
section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal
fingerprint review of the applicant. If the background check is
favorable, SLED must renew the permit.

IANAL, so someone would have to verify for me if SLED has a case on the other point. (P) lists what is required for a renewal application, and (Q) lists what checks SLED must run. Since the law refers to someone submitting an application for renewal as “applicant,” would they not then be subject to (C) of this section of law? My only guess is that they are claiming that since the requirements for (C) are not reiterated after (P) and (Q), it doesn’t apply, but this is all within the very same section of SC law. Does this really give them a legal loophole or not?

What a load of shit. SLED is giving us the finger. I’m sure as long as Haley doesn’t have to wait 90 days she doesn’t give a shit either.

Reply
Finius Nullis July 30, 2013 at 9:29 am

Smirks, here is a link to the SC law on firearms. Anyone interested can browse through it (simple process). Some interesting things are included in it – some are sensible,some are curious. Judge for yourselves.

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/south-carolina/sc-code/south_carolina_code_title_23_chapter_31

Reply
Smirks July 30, 2013 at 8:43 am

What the fuck? 90 BUSINESS days? The law does not say that. Are these folks delusional? Do they think they can just read anything they want into a law?

Read further into (C):

If a permit is granted by operation of law because an applicant was not
notified of a denial within the ninety-day notification period, the
permit may be revoked upon written notification from SLED that
sufficient grounds exist for revocation or initial denial.

The law clearly states a ninety-day notification period. It also clearly states that SLED has no choice but to issue a permit after this period, and gives them the power to revoke said permit if they discover that the applicant is not qualified afterwards.

(Q) Upon submission of the items required by subsection (P) of this
section, SLED must conduct or facilitate a local, state, and federal
fingerprint review of the applicant. If the background check is
favorable, SLED must renew the permit.

IANAL, so someone would have to verify for me if SLED has a case on the other point. (P) lists what is required for a renewal application, and (Q) lists what checks SLED must run. Since the law refers to someone submitting an application for renewal as “applicant,” would they not then be subject to (C) of this section of law? My only guess is that they are claiming that since the requirements for (C) are not reiterated after (P) and (Q), it doesn’t apply, but this is all within the very same section of SC law. Does this really give them a legal loophole or not?

What a load of shit. SLED is giving us the finger. I’m sure as long as Haley doesn’t have to wait 90 days she doesn’t give a shit either.

Reply
Finius Nullis July 30, 2013 at 9:29 am

Smirks, here is a link to the SC law on firearms. Anyone interested can browse through it (simple process). Some interesting things are included in it – some are sensible,some are curious. Judge for yourselves.

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/south-carolina/sc-code/south_carolina_code_title_23_chapter_31

Reply
Same ol' Same ol' July 30, 2013 at 9:10 am

I don’t think I’d want to do the civil disobedience thing with firearms. Even in good ol’ SC the cops are gun grabbers, with maybe a very few exceptions. It also seems legislators are not truly concerned about a citizen’s right to carry, but, they sure want the right to carry for themselves.

Reply
Same ol' Same ol' July 30, 2013 at 9:10 am

I don’t think I’d want to do the civil disobedience thing with firearms. Even in good ol’ SC the cops are gun grabbers, with maybe a very few exceptions. It also seems legislators are not truly concerned about a citizen’s right to carry, but, they sure want the right to carry for themselves.

Reply
IVEBEENHACKED July 30, 2013 at 9:35 pm

Welcome to the TEABAGGERS Government you asked for.

Reply
IVEBEENHACKED July 30, 2013 at 9:35 pm

Welcome to the TEABAGGERS Government you asked for.

Reply

Leave a Comment