South Carolina Ping
Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
Posted on 05/20/2008 6:45:08 PM PDT by neverdem
State Supreme Court rules the age for possession should be lowered
Youths ages 18 through 20 can possess handguns legally under a state Supreme Court ruling issued Monday.
The unanimous decision mirrors a new state law that took effect last month.
The five-member high court said the old law violated the state constitution, which grants full legal rights to everyone who is at least 18 — with the exception of alcohol purchases.
“By expressly allowing the regulation of the sale of alcoholic beverages to the 18-to-20-year-old age group and not stating any other situation in which the General Assembly may restrict the rights of this age group, the state constitution precludes the General Assembly from prohibiting this age group’s possession of handguns,” Justice James Moore wrote for the court.
The state Attorney General’s Office, in court papers, supported the old law.
“Certainly if it is appropriate for the Legislature to stop a 19-year-old from having a Heineken, it is also appropriate under the same power to prohibit that same 19-year-old from having a Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol,” according to a legal brief submitted for the appeal.
Attorney General Henry McMaster said Monday the court’s ruling “means that those in jail on that charge will be able to ask to be released.” But he added he believes those cases are “far and few between.”
McMaster said his office will “need to study the decision” before deciding whether to ask the court to reconsider its ruling.
State Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, who authored the new law allowing handgun possession by those who are least 18, said Monday that South Carolina was the only southern state to have the higher age limit.
“I see it as a self-defense issue,” he said.
He said if his daughter, when she was 19 or 20, was driving his car, which had a gun in the glove compartment, she could have been charged under the old law even though it would have been legal for him.
Although the new law lowers the age for legal possession, it doesn’t trump federal law banning those younger than 21 from buying handguns, Pitts said.
Violation of the old state law was a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $2,000 fine. The Attorney General’s office in court papers said there were “valid policy concerns” supporting handgun limitations.
“Indeed, it is common knowledge that the combination of young people, handguns and gangs creates a particularly toxic mix,” the legal brief said.
Rock Hill lawyer Leland Greeley, who represented the defendant in Monday’s ruling, said the court’s decision might be used to challenge another state law that bans youths under 21 from obtaining concealed weapons permits.
The justices in Monday’s ruling upheld a lower court ruling that threw out a York County indictment charging Berry Scott Bolin with possession of a handgun by someone younger than 21.
Bolin was 19 when he was arrested in connection with the February 2006 shooting death of Bobby Royce Hovis III, 19. Besides the weapons charge, he also was indicted on a charge of murder, though he eventually was convicted of a lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Reach Brundrett at (803) 771-8484. rbrundrett@thestate.com
Seems fair... 18 year olds can carry guns to defend this country.
Boy I don’t like that title.
Shour read “Affirms” rights rather than grants rights.
Good on ‘em!
100% correct. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..." As you said, the court only affirmed one of many rights granted by a much higher power.
“State decides to no longer violate the gun rights of 18-year-olds.”
I don't know about that. Anyone know if any neighboring states are CC at age 18?
LOL At last an accurate title.
State decides to continue to violate 2nd amendment rights of the those under 18 years old!
Hmm. Now to go about finding a job and moving to such a wonderful state.
South Carolina Ping
Add me to the list. / Remove me from the list.
I retired and moved south to Aiken (near Augusta, GA) almost five years ago.
Absolutely love it here.
Job source: augustahelpwanted.com
Maybe 18 year olds should gather together and start a petition to pass a law to prevent “old folks”, like those over 55, from voting or holding public office? I mean, if we can deny Constitutional rights to people based on age why not go all the way?
I didn’t even know it was against the law for minors to own guns.
Wasn’t it the 55 year olds who told us not to trust anyone over 30, all those years ago? What happened to change their minds?:)
Since when are adults called "youths"? Spin maybe?
Rep Pitts just got on my upward bound politician list. Future Senator or Governor perhaps. He should live in PA though. Then he could be Mayor Pitts of Pittsburgh.
“Wasn’t it the 55 year olds who told us not to trust anyone over 30, all those years ago?”
Yep. YOu got it. Surprised no one else did.
What part of the Bill of Rights states that the right to keep and drink Heineken shall not be infringed?
in both world wars the fact that a lot of kids came into the military already able to shoot with accuracy saved a lot of our lives ...this is because the military made snipers out of them REAL QUICK.....no one knows how many lives were saved due to their deadly skills; which translated immediately to large numbers of enemy deaths....keep em com’n
North Carolina only issues CCW to 21 and up, but since it recognizes reciprocating non-resident CCW regardless of the holder's state of residence, a North Carolina 18-year-old can get a non-resident Maine carry license - which is not honored in NC since Maine doesn't honor NC CCW - then use that get a New Hampshire non-res CCW, which is honored in NC.
And so far I haven't seen any provision of the South Carolina CCW law that would prohibit issuance to an 18-year-old. Some pages appear to indicate that the applicant must be 21, but that may simply be based on this law which the court just overturned as unconstitutional.
So the solution for that is for the state to ban the guns, not the gangs.
Of course, the state can't ban "gangs", because they woould have to prohibit all gatherings of more than a certain size. (Well, they might try that also, eventually.)
How about this: let the PARENTS decide what is or is not a "gang", and let nature take its course. Ever hear the song "Wedding Bells are Breaking Up That Old Gang of Mine"?
But then, you gotta reckon with the sexual revolution and the divorce culture; the former removes the incentive for marriage, and the latter makes it positively dangerous to marry. So we may be stuck with the gangs after all.
Yeah, just go ahead and take up all the guns.
23-31-215(A) ...to carry a concealable weapon to a resident or qualified nonresident who is at least twenty-one years of age...
But fixing that is undoubtedly just one lawsuit away, now that the court has ruled on simple possession.
when i was a "young soldier" during RVN, we were old enough to DIE for our country, but not old enough to drink beer OFF post. (we COULD drink ON post!!!)
the older i get, the LESS i like ANY "nanny state" restrictions on our FREEDOM.
free dixie,sw
Since the vote was given to 18s, every thing else should have followed. I know the feds pressured the states to raise drinking back to 21, but that’s just an example of not treating people like adults.
Well, you can’t have a proper nanny state without perpetual children!
I say mnen at 25 and women at 18 for adulthood.
Methinks Jefferson et al would look at you funny upon hearing the notion that an 18 year old (militia member, voter, possible landowner &/| husband) couldn't join 'em at the pub for a beer - especially because some piece of paper didn't explicitly say he could.
Yer grossly missing the whole "liberty" idea...
No. What I'm missing is somebody comparing drinking to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I believe drinking would fall under the pursuit of happiness, but so does shooting my AR15's, M1A's, etc, but thank God there's are specific words protecting that particular pursuit of happiness.
In Jefferson's day it was not unusual for 15 year old girls to be married and expecting a child. How does this fall under your 'idea' of liberty and where were you on the Texas Mormon issue?
It's pitiful how our society has infantalized and dumbed down our children over the past couple hundred years to the point where they're not considered to be responsible, capable members of society until well into their 20's.
And getting worse. 30 & 40 somethings going back home to live with their parents.
Your humor is the absolute pits :)
You are right. I wont give up my day job any time soon. But then again, as I read about 18 year olds and their gun rights, I recall my Army boot camp and the first private who called his rifle a gun. Remember this is your weapon and that is your gun, this one’s for fighting and that one’s for fun? hahahha
Exactly. Like I said, yer grossly missing the whole "liberty" idea.
The government has gone so far as to threaten fines/imprisonment/execution* over the matter of an adult - a member of the US militia, a voter, and quite possibly a landowner and husband - consuming an adult beverage. The question isn't whether that's so important an act to defend. The question is why that's so important an act to punish.
The opponents of enacting a Bill of Rights did so not because they didn't want such rights protected, but because they feared your mindset: the notion that if something is NOT listed, it's not a right and thus enjoins no protection thereof.
The Declaration of Independence enumerated core principles for establishing this government - among them, pursuit of happiness. The Constitution enumerated the powers this government may exercise - NOT among them, the power to categorize adults into differently-treated groups; nay, there is an explicit requirement of "equal protection".
Sure, the issue of 18 year olds & beer is largely petty. ...but the suppression of citizens' liberties is not only measured in the great rights (ex.: RKBA), but in the petty ones (ex.: enjoying a beer) which perversely the government enacts heavy-handed punishments against.
I'll avoid your red herring with only the observation that I cannot "be there" on every issue.
Also pitiful that some do not realize that at that time, dying in one’s 30s was common ... if you wanted a family, you had to get on with it ASAP. One’s teen years were a time of becoming an adult, not loitering at the mall.
I certainly realize that. But certainly just because you probably won’t die in your 30’s nowadays doesn’t mean that wasting your teen years loitering at the mall is better than spending that time becoming an adult, or acting like one.
Methinks back then people were more aware that life was finite: mothers often died in childbirth, families were often large to ensure some kids actually grew up, fathers died more often in hard labor or war, even one’s dinner entree was earlier that day a critter running around a barn or field. Kids knew from personal experience that they’d better get on with life ASAP before it ended abruptly and soon.
Today, death is an abstraction to kids. It’s something that really only happens to the oooooold. It’s something that happens several times each evening - no biggie, on to the next show or channel or disc. It’s something that can be cured by hitting the “restart” button. Food is just some inanimate thing you find in a store. We’ll all live forever, so let’s go hang out at the mall for a while, get some latex, and put off those painful complexities like parenthood for, well, ever (or until one’s 30s, when the finiteness of life finally starts to become apparent).
It sounds like your idea of 'liberty' is closer to anarchy.
but because they feared your mindset: the notion that if something is NOT listed, it's not a right and thus enjoins no protection thereof.
Unfortunately for the anarchist, we live in a society governed by the rule of law, so things have to be 'listed'. Here's the question for you: How would you defend your right to keep and bear arms in the face of anti-gun liberals running the entire government? Armed resistance? You saw how well that worked at Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't you?
Sure, the issue of 18 year olds & beer is largely petty
So, in your version of liberty, would there be any age limits on alcohol consumption and if so, why?
I'll avoid your red herring with only the observation that I cannot "be there" on every issue.
No, you avoided it because that issue throws a monkey wrench in your argument.
Like I said, yer grossly missing the whole "liberty" idea.
"Liberty" is doing as you like, without harming others, without government interference/punishment.
"Anarchy" is doing ANYTHING you like, including inflicting your own punishment upon those you perceive as having wronged you.
Very different.
things have to be 'listed'
What, you expect the authors of the BoR to think of and document EVERY RIGHT? LOL! There were Founding Fathers who objected to such a document, precisely because you can't list all rights, and any right not listed would thus be construed as not existing.
You saw how well that worked at Waco and Ruby Ridge didn't you?
Yes, I did. The feds didn't try anything of the kind again for another 15 years. (BTW: The RKBA does NOT guarantee that you will win an armed incident.) While the feds won, it was a Pyhrric victory; without RKBA having been exercised in those situations, we would have seen many more such government-perpetrated violent raids.
You saw how well listing RKBA worked for the residents of DC, right? 30 years with practically no RKBA despite the plain wording of the 2ndA?
I'll agree that listing it is better than not, in that we can point at it and say "there it is, them's the rules!" ... but with the caveat that it must be understood that other rights exist desipte not being enumerated, and they must be equally respected.
in your version of liberty, would there be any age limits on alcohol consumption and if so, why?
Liberty is the notion that [at minimum] you can do something harmless without fear of punishment. Any adult should have the liberty to consume an adult beverage; if s/he does so safely with no risk of harm to others, there is no reason for the government to threaten punishment.
Children are subject to the soveriegn restrictions of their parents. Being responsible for the consequences of children's actions, parents have the power to limit their children's activities - drinking included. In many upstanding families, letting kids have a bit is acceptable - and it's not up to you to impose your interpretation of the situation upon them.
The only question then is when does someone acquire the mantle of adulthood - and I do not believe that necessarily should be a matter of age.
-
If you wish to discuss your red herring, ping me with the question on an appropriate thread.
No. you're missing it. Should I, as an adult male, be able to have consensual sex with a 14 year old girl? We wouldn't be harming anybody else.........
What, you expect the authors of the BoR to think of and document EVERY RIGHT? LOL!
I suppose you challenge the 10 Commandments, TOO. LOL!
I'll agree that listing it is better than not, in that we can point at it and say "there it is, them's the rules!" ...
Thank you. I'm sure that most of the Founders are relieved.
The only question then is when does someone acquire the mantle of adulthood - and I do not believe that necessarily should be a matter of age.
Then how do you define it?
In some sort of John Lennon utopia everybody would get along and all people would have unabridged liberty. A 15 year old young man that felt and acted like an adult could belly up to the bar, ask for a beer and feel confident that he would get one without the government enforced scrutiny by the bartender asking for proof of societies established age for adulthood and it would be obvious to the bartender that this dude was an 'adult'.
I don't know if you're married or not, but if you are, I'm guessing that you don't have total liberty even in your own house. I'm betting that the wife has a few rules, documented or not, that you guys have agreed to live by in order to achieve harmony.
I'm guessing that you have the same problem with government today that I do. They have absolutely overstepped their bounds. It all started when disHonest Abe centralized the government. Been going downhill ever since.
I hate stupid rules just as much as any liberty loving individual. I won't ride my horse in a state park. Too many stupid rules. I don't shoot my guns at monitored ranges. Too many stupid rules. I won't live in a stinking subdivision. Too many stupid rules.
However, I like speed limits. Stop signs are nice. Nuclear power plants are only allowed to operate at a maximun of 2% above their thermal power rating. That's a damn good rule.
I'm betting that there are some rules that you like.............
From you:
"Liberty" is doing as you like, without harming others, without government interference/punishment.
The Constitution enumerated the powers this government may exercise - NOT among them, the power to categorize adults into differently-treated groups
Okay. Modern STANDARDS say that adulthood is reached if you survive to the age of 18. Modern LAW says that you can't drink alcohol until you're 21. Liberty's VOICE through the people decided that they were tired of 18 year olds drinking themselves into a stupor and inflicting carnage on our highways killing many innocents, including those designated as 'children' by modern standards.
Now, I'll go back to my original premise: Comparing the underage public consumption of alcohol to the Second Amendment is the same to me as comparing the 'right' to have a Whopper to the Second Amendment. There is no comparison.
Alcohol consumption is nothing more than entertainment. The 2A, on the other hand, is for self defense and, more importantly, to fight tyranny and protect liberty.
especially as you imply that if something isn't addressed in the 10 Commandments, it must be OK.
That's a lie. I didn't imply that. You challenged the need to 'list' the BoR's so I simply asked if you challenged the 10 Commandments, also. My point being that God felt the need to document His word and that man was following in the footsteps of God by documenting our God given rights.
If you don't get any of this, this conversation is over.
Oxymoronic. Liberty is in defiance of majority vote, not limited thereby.
There is no comparison.
Sure there is: the government forbids an action, and is willing to go so far as using lethal force to enforce the prohibition of harmless behavior.
As for the alleged harm: address the harmful behavior, not the harmless behavior. Stop sweeping the latter into the former.
That's a lie. I didn't imply that.
No it's not and yes you did. Much of this argument hinges on your contention that if something isn't listed as part of the Bill of Rights, then it isn't a right; you then brought up the 10 Commandments, which when coupled with your position implies that if an act is not addressed therein it must be OK.
Again, I don't have a problem with documenting rights. I have a huge problem with the view that if a right isn't documented, it isn't a right.
Liberty A Dictatorship is in defiance of majority vote, not limited thereby.
There. Fixed it.
the government forbids an action,
The problem with people like you is that you've forgotten (or perhaps never knew) that our form of government is 'by the people, of the people, for the people'. When our 'government' makes a law it is because our various representatives have heard the voice of the majority of the people and acted on it. When they don't represent their constituents, they don't get reelected.
You're wrapped around the axle about 18 year olds not being allowed to drink because you think that it's harmless. Start a movement to reverse the law. I'll sign the petition.
No it's not and yes you did.
That's a lie. From my post #42: "I suppose you challenge the 10 Commandments, TOO."
My point in that statement was to point out that God felt the need to document His Word. I've explained this to you before. If you continue to lie, this discussion is over.
which when coupled with your position
YOU don't know my position. I made a statement to the effect that comparing something as utterly frivolous as drinking beer to the Second Amendment is totally absurd. From that YOU'VE extrapolated a totally meaningless argument and made totally inappropriate and baseless accusations.
Again, I don't have a problem with documenting rights.
First you do, now you don't. Methinks that YOU don't have a clue.
I have a huge problem with the view that if a right isn't documented, it isn't a right.
The Founders too care of that very issue:
IX - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
What say you?
So liberty - and rights - are subject to majority vote?
Bye.
Do you prefer a dictatorship, Obama?
Bye, yourself.
I don’t know anything about this I was hoping someone would sum it up for me. I understand that I can’t b uy a handgun but is it leagle for me to carry one on my person or just to have it in my home or car? Someone plz sum this up for me thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.