hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
WOW! :what:
WOW! :what:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
OpenCarry.org Press Release re South Carolina Open Carry Bill
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
tcox4freedom wrote:
BQS serves a diverse client mix with principal emphasis on business, corporate, real estate, governmental relations and litigation.
tcox4freedom wrote:
Thank goodness! And will not.
BQS serves a diverse client mix with principal emphasis on business, corporate, real estate, governmental relations and litigation.
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
tcox4freedom wrote:
you might want to learn a little something of the law yourself before you go threatening lawsuits for something that doesn't even come close to defamation.
you might want to look up defamation as well, just as a starter.
tcox4freedom wrote:
you might want to learn a little something of the law yourself before you go threatening lawsuits for something that doesn't even come close to defamation.
you might want to look up defamation as well, just as a starter.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
And 'inflammatory' and 'amendment', just off the top of my head.
And 'inflammatory' and 'amendment', just off the top of my head.
tcox4freedom
Regular Member
imported post
Doug Huffman wrote:
Doug Huffman wrote:
F.U.
tcox4freedom
Regular Member
imported post
DKSuddeth wrote:
Its because of DUMBASS F**KS like you guys that we will never see an OC law approved! That's OK I'll still CC!
Dumb F**KS!!!
DKSuddeth wrote:
Its because of DUMBASS F**KS like you guys that we will never see an OC law approved! That's OK I'll still CC!
Dumb F**KS!!!
tcox4freedom
Regular Member
imported post
The D***k H**ds in SC have just lost TWO supporters to OC that will now NEVER pass out fliers or try and convince their 100 member club to get behind ANY OC LAW.
WAY to GO!!!!
The D***k H**ds in SC have just lost TWO supporters to OC that will now NEVER pass out fliers or try and convince their 100 member club to get behind ANY OC LAW.
WAY to GO!!!!
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
tcox4freedom wrote:
Now wait just a minute. The two people in this thread that you have an argument with are in no way related to the open carry petition or handing out pro-OCflyers at gun shows. One is the VP of GRGRSC and the other is only a member of the organization (I think).
Those of us who are actively spreading the word about open carry would be happy to have your help and support along with the help and support of your club membership. There is power in numbers. This in no way is meant to marginalize the fine work done by GRGRSC in securing our gun rights. However, they cover all facets of gun rights in South Carolina and we are focused primarily on open carry.
If you have any questions on the matter, please feel free to shoot ma a PM. Have a great day.
Carry on.
P.S. On a more personal note. I don't think personal attacks and name calling are appropriate on this forum. I would appreciate it if you would in the future carry yourself in a more mature manner. After all, you represent not only yourself, but also gun owners and citizens of South Carolina. Thank you.
P.P.S. Part of the reason that you have to opportunity to lawfully CC in South Carolina is because of the efforts of GRGRSC. Keep that in mind before you have a fit and then threaten to take your ball and go home.
tcox4freedom wrote:
tcox4freedom wrote:
Now wait just a minute. The two people in this thread that you have an argument with are in no way related to the open carry petition or handing out pro-OCflyers at gun shows. One is the VP of GRGRSC and the other is only a member of the organization (I think).
Those of us who are actively spreading the word about open carry would be happy to have your help and support along with the help and support of your club membership. There is power in numbers. This in no way is meant to marginalize the fine work done by GRGRSC in securing our gun rights. However, they cover all facets of gun rights in South Carolina and we are focused primarily on open carry.
If you have any questions on the matter, please feel free to shoot ma a PM. Have a great day.
Carry on.
P.S. On a more personal note. I don't think personal attacks and name calling are appropriate on this forum. I would appreciate it if you would in the future carry yourself in a more mature manner. After all, you represent not only yourself, but also gun owners and citizens of South Carolina. Thank you.
P.P.S. Part of the reason that you have to opportunity to lawfully CC in South Carolina is because of the efforts of GRGRSC. Keep that in mind before you have a fit and then threaten to take your ball and go home.
DKSuddeth
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
tcox4freedom wrote:
YOU threaten defamation lawsuits because people smarter and more versed in the laws than you advise you to actually research and discover the actual laws and definition of words before you throw around threats of lawsuits, and SOMEHOW we're the Dumb F**KS?
And because we TRY to advise you of these things, now you're no longer going to support open carry in SC?
If this is your typical attitude when people try to help you out, then I'd say we are the lucky ones that you won't be helping us out.
tcox4freedom wrote:
let's see if we all have this straight.
YOU threaten defamation lawsuits because people smarter and more versed in the laws than you advise you to actually research and discover the actual laws and definition of words before you throw around threats of lawsuits, and SOMEHOW we're the Dumb F**KS?
And because we TRY to advise you of these things, now you're no longer going to support open carry in SC?
If this is your typical attitude when people try to help you out, then I'd say we are the lucky ones that you won't be helping us out.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
So much for the prohibition on F-bombs. Please PM the owner/moderator protesting the violation of Rule [font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]3)
Keep the profanity to a minimum - and then, after you find yourselves using it, go back after you have reflected and edit it out, especially those F-Bombs!Please go back and search your posts and edit out those F-bombs, thanks! Though this area of the web site is a bit of free speech area, the threads necessarily reflect upon the open carry movement as the press and general public do read our postings. [/font]
I have but then I have also sinned previously.
So much for the prohibition on F-bombs. Please PM the owner/moderator protesting the violation of Rule [font="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"]3)
Keep the profanity to a minimum - and then, after you find yourselves using it, go back after you have reflected and edit it out, especially those F-Bombs!Please go back and search your posts and edit out those F-bombs, thanks! Though this area of the web site is a bit of free speech area, the threads necessarily reflect upon the open carry movement as the press and general public do read our postings. [/font]
I have but then I have also sinned previously.
Hef
Regular Member
imported post
tcox4freedom wrote:
Way to go, genius.
tcox4freedom wrote:
Way to go, genius.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
A quote box cannot be edited by the OP, such as to remove his F-bombs.
A quote box cannot be edited by the OP, such as to remove his F-bombs.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
tcox4freedom wrote:
This is not generally the way statutes are construed - criminal statutes' meanings are drawn from the text within in the four corners of the statute and ties on meaning go to the Defendant under the Rule of Lenity.
The South Carolina Supreme Court's most recent pronouncment on the matter of legislative intent follow's Justice Scalia's persistentsuggestion that legislative intent can only be derived from the statute's text anyway. On February 23, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court released the opinion in Hardee v. McDowell and said that
'[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.' Bayle v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 122, 542 S.E.2d 736, 739 (Ct.App.2001). 'Under the plain meaning rule, it is not the court's place to change the meaning of a clear and unambiguous statute.” Id. 'Where the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a definite meaning, the rules of statutory construction are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning.' Id. at 122, 542 S.E.2d at 739-40. 'What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of legislative intent or will.' Id. at 122, 542 S.E.2d at 740. 'Therefore, the courts are bound to give effect to the expressed intent of the legislature.' Id.'
Hardee v. McDowell, --- S.E.2d ----, 2009 WL 427101 (2009).
But then again, see the recent Hayes ruling by S. Ct. (holding that Congress' apparent "clear intent" overrides Rule of Lenity for misdemeanor crime of domestic violence gun disability statute). Hayes got only 2 votes for RUle of Lenity: Roberts and Scalia. Scary.
Also Robert objects to the bill's apparent removal of certain business owners ability to carry concealed without permit. This objection can be cured by amending the bill. And even the fear of misinterpretation of the bill as eliminating unlicensed conceal carry in glove box can be assuaged by tacking on a savngs clause, somthing like "nothwisthstanding any other provision of this statute, nothing shall be construed to make it unlawful for a person without a CWP to carry a handgun in a glove box."
tcox4freedom wrote:
And this is where I disagree with Robert - the bill does not make it unlawful to conceal carry in vehicle glove box without CWP - but Robert thinks judges will simply decide it does (or maybe police will construe it as such and cause headaches for many) based upon some "legislative intent" in this bill (which I cannot seem to find in the bill's text).
This is not generally the way statutes are construed - criminal statutes' meanings are drawn from the text within in the four corners of the statute and ties on meaning go to the Defendant under the Rule of Lenity.
The South Carolina Supreme Court's most recent pronouncment on the matter of legislative intent follow's Justice Scalia's persistentsuggestion that legislative intent can only be derived from the statute's text anyway. On February 23, 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court released the opinion in Hardee v. McDowell and said that
'[t]he cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature.' Bayle v. South Carolina Dep't of Transp., 344 S.C. 115, 122, 542 S.E.2d 736, 739 (Ct.App.2001). 'Under the plain meaning rule, it is not the court's place to change the meaning of a clear and unambiguous statute.” Id. 'Where the statute's language is plain and unambiguous, and conveys a definite meaning, the rules of statutory construction are not needed and the court has no right to impose another meaning.' Id. at 122, 542 S.E.2d at 739-40. 'What a legislature says in the text of a statute is considered the best evidence of legislative intent or will.' Id. at 122, 542 S.E.2d at 740. 'Therefore, the courts are bound to give effect to the expressed intent of the legislature.' Id.'
But then again, see the recent Hayes ruling by S. Ct. (holding that Congress' apparent "clear intent" overrides Rule of Lenity for misdemeanor crime of domestic violence gun disability statute). Hayes got only 2 votes for RUle of Lenity: Roberts and Scalia. Scary.
Also Robert objects to the bill's apparent removal of certain business owners ability to carry concealed without permit. This objection can be cured by amending the bill. And even the fear of misinterpretation of the bill as eliminating unlicensed conceal carry in glove box can be assuaged by tacking on a savngs clause, somthing like "nothwisthstanding any other provision of this statute, nothing shall be construed to make it unlawful for a person without a CWP to carry a handgun in a glove box."
KBCraig
Regular Member
imported post
Isn't it interesting that so much bile and anger is being spewed by someone using the same avatar that N*trov*c used to use?
(No, I don't think they're related; entirely different style.)
Isn't it interesting that so much bile and anger is being spewed by someone using the same avatar that N*trov*c used to use?
(No, I don't think they're related; entirely different style.)
warlockmatized
Regular Member
imported post
I must have missed something....So I will simply ask...
ANY news on this?
I must have missed something....So I will simply ask...
ANY news on this?
hp-hobo
Regular Member
imported post
That'll be a big negative there Ghostrider. No (known) change since mid to late February. The legislative process move excrutiatingly slow.
That'll be a big negative there Ghostrider. No (known) change since mid to late February. The legislative process move excrutiatingly slow.