Update: Sanford Signs Rep. Martin’s Gun Bill
Thanks to Spartanburg's Shane Martin, there will be more loaded guns on school grounds here in South Carolina than ever before.
Yesterday, S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford signed Martin’s gun bill into law. (In a wee sidebar attached to the news that Sanford isn’t willing to amend the state’s payday loan laws.) Basically, this means that anyone with a concealed weapons permit can have a car filled with loaded shotguns, rifles, handguns … whatever floats their boat … and park it right on the grounds of an elementary school. For, you know, “protection.”
But don’t worry. It’s not as crazy as it sounds. I mean, you can’t just have the guns sitting on the seats or anything. They have to be in a “closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.” If you can’t see them, they obviously can’t hurt anyone, right?
As I’ve pointed out before, I’m not anti-gun. But this whole bill … excuse me, law … strikes me as more than a little reactionary. Are there whole legions of elementary school teachers demanding that they be able to bring their Desert Eagle with them so they can feel more secure as they prep for the days arithmetic lessons? High school teachers who are so afraid of their students that they need a gat in their trunk to feel safe?
In his article, Chris pointed out that this really seems like pandering to small, extremely loud group of gun-obsessed right-wing voters who don’t like the idea of being able to go to a PTA meeting without knowing their argument-ender was nearby. I think it’s worth looking at that.
I mean, is this the kind of state we actually want to live in? Where, if a parent-teacher conference goes really badly, there are potentially two loaded firearms out in the parking lot, ready to bring this dispute to the next level? Or even where we have to think about this sort of thing. Are we really the kind of culture that actively wants to introduce — and frankly, condone — a wealth of loaded firearms into places of higher learning?
Evidently the state’s lawmakers think we are. Shane Martin does. Gov. Sanford does, even if he’s completely unwilling to protect people with their backs against the financial wall from predatory payday loans, he’s more than willing to fight for your right to keep a .357 in a glove box when you go to your kid’s soccer match.
Not to mention that this is actually bothering the S.C. Department of Education. Here’s what spokesman Jim Foster told online womens’ magazine Skirt! Columbia earlier this year.
“We understand the convenience issue, but we have concerns about the bill. For years the rule has been no guns on school property, period. It’s hard to see how relaxing that rule will make kids safer.”
Sure, if you simply must take a hand-cannon with you everywhere “for protection,” I guess it is probably convenient to not have to take it home before you pick your kid up from school. Heaven forbid any NRA member be slightly inconvenienced. Never mind that inconvenience is a fact of life for the rest of us, that you probably don’t actually need a concealed handgun on you all the time, that the state has pressing budgetary issues to even keep functioning and this law wasted valuable time, that there’s no clear need for this bill at all, that guns are generally kept off school grounds for a reason (hence the laws about it), or that there’s absolutely no demand for it outside of the special interest groups. Never mind all that.
So, thanks for this Shane Martin and Mark Sanford. Thanks for actively encouraging more guns on school grounds with no additional oversight or enforcement. Thanks for not listening to the educators and parents who opposed this bill. Thanks for making South Carolina a slightly less safe place for all parents, kids, teachers and school staff than it was on Tuesday. Thanks for doing everything you do, all so some people with a powerful special-interest lobby won’t have be slightly inconvenienced.
Now we know, without a doubt, where your loyalties lie.
“Seriously, I’m not anti-gun”
Steve, please. Stop it.
Apologies for turning the original topic.
Maybe you should write a new piece about how you are not anti-gun and separate it from this one.
Grasping at straws doesn’t become you.
Jane,
Nice points. I agree. My argument is not for or against this law. I think it’s ridculous and unwarranted and puts people at more risk, but what I find most bothersome is that we lack lawmakers with the brains to focus on the REAL issues of this state. Unemployment? Healthcare? Education? WHATEVER. We need to waste time worrying about concealed weapons. It’s very sad actually that this kind of junk was pretty much all that happened this year…in what will go down in one of the lamest legislative periods in SC. Just when we thought things couldn’t get worse in SC, Spartanburg sent the 3 stooges to Columbia.
This is nothing more than Jon Stewart material.
I think it’s hilarious that everyone on here is qualifying their arguments against this bill/against gun rights by saying “I’m not anti gun, but…”
It’s just like the national Democrat Party. They pretty much dropped the gun control issue after seeing what happened to Gore in certain states in 2000. They instead try to hide their true feelings about guns. Even people like Dean and Pelosi are on record saying that since gun control is not popular in swing states, they’ve had to drop that issue. So much for being proud to be a liberal!
“I mean, is this the kind of state we actually want to live in?” YES!
camelmike: “Maybe you should write a new piece about how you are not anti-gun and separate it from this one.
Grasping at straws doesn’t become you.”
Maybe you should start a thread at the forum about Steve’s wonderful “jokes”? Or better yet–since you’re so fixated on him–start a thread “All About Steve Shanafelt”! Because this article is not about Steve, it’s about the gun law that has recently passed, and people are sharing their views and opinions of it.
All you’ve done so far is litter the article with your opinion of Steve, as usual. If anyone’s grasping for straws, it would be the person who relentlessly attacks a another’s character and not their argument.
Matt: “If someone was thinking about opening fire on school grounds and wanted to walk away with his own life, he might be less persuaded to do this if he reasonably believed that other people on school grounds (parents, teachers, administrators) had guns themselves. This bill makes it more likely that law-abiding and trained citizens will have guns on campus for protection.”
Don’t people open fire where “law-abiding and trained citizens” with guns venture anyway?
Was the law really meant to deter “bad guys” looking to commit a crime on school grounds? Would it really be that successful?
Was the law meant for people to protect themselves and others, or just themselves? (I do seriously doubt the vigilante theory.)
As far as protection–Since there hasn’t really been a huge, off-the-wall increase of violence/various crimes/murders committed on school campuses in South Carolina, then there was really no screaming need for extra protection. So, Why?
Or, was it all simply for convenience, as stated before by Shane Martin himself?
Cathcart: “Seriously though, these “what if†scenarios only go so far. Where is the line? How prepared do you need to be? Some of us just havent crossed that line and you, for some reason, are belittling us for that. I wont live in fear thinking someone is just waiting to do me harm. There is no quality of life that way.”
This is pretty much exactly what I’ve been thinking.
I am curious if the second silly part of this legislation about allowing a gun in a place to eat where alcohol was served but you couldn’t sit at the bar was included?
The scenario Mr. Martin proposed about having to pick up his sick kid is also dumb and a poor argument for the bill. What he could do is take his gun out of his pocket, stick it in a drawer at his desk at work where he likely is,then go to the school. He’d survive an hour or so without it.
I still am of the mind that this was a waste of our taxpayer dollars putting forth this law. We paid our legislature to write, discuss and vote for a bill that has no real benefit whatsoever to the citizens of SC. It should have died in committee.
[...] Now the governor has taken action on two bills that show where his priorities really lie: He vetoed a bill reigning in predatory payday lending, and signed a bill allowing loaded guns on school grounds. [...]
“Or better yet–since you’re so fixated on him–start a thread “All About Steve Shanafeltâ€!”
This would be the most boring thread in the history of the internet.
“I think it’s hilarious that everyone on here is qualifying their arguments against this bill/against gun rights by saying “I’m not anti gun, but…—
But I’m honestly not against guns. I used to shoot rifles with my grandfather not infrequently. There are times and places where guns are perfectly appropriate things to have. And I can absolutely see an argument for making some kind of exception for people who have an actual need for a concealed firearm being able to bring it onto school grounds — an additional endorsement or something.
My problem is with a law that says ANYONE who bothered to get a concealed weapons permit — which isn’t particularly difficult to get in this state — can then bring as many guns as they like onto ANY school grounds for ANY reason, or for no reason at all. In no way does this make schools safer. In no way does this add an additional level of personal accountability for one’s actions. In no way does it serve anyone other than a small, vocal group of people who are more concerned about having a cold, lethal piece of steel at their sides than the collective safety of this state’s kids.
I think that’s a shallow reason to pass a law. And I think Martin needs to be called out for it, because to me it looks like simple pandering to the agenda a special interest.
Sylvie: The bill that included allowing guns inside bars died in committee. This bill is a “reintroduced” version that excluded that part. Apparently, the part about alcohol and guns didn’t fly with a lot of people. Now if they just felt the same way about kids and guns we’d be ok.
What it will take, unfortunately, is for some crazy guy with a concealed gun at a high school football game to get pissed off and start shooting people before they realize how dumb this law is.
“I still am of the mind that this was a waste of our taxpayer dollars putting forth this law. We paid our legislature to write, discuss and vote for a bill that has no real benefit whatsoever to the citizens of SC.”
You should look over the rest of what they did this session. Most of it is this kind of fluff law not designed to address any real problems. Sad really.
Sigh. It sure would be nice if we could have a do-over for the last election.
That’s the wonderful thing about democracy, though. Our do-over for the last election is the next election. So let’s get some people elected who represent a broader selection of interests than just the hard-line, right-wing gun lobby and Howard Rich’s anti-public education agenda.
Steve: “This would be the most boring thread in the history of the internet.”
You probably have stalkers already.
“right-wing gun lobby and Howard Rich’s anti-public education agenda”
Guns on public school grounds? Anti-public education agendas? If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d suggest that these are connected by some grand scheme to remove all evil public schools.
Haha, that’s so silly of me to even mention. They are both eerily close to each other though.
Chris: “What it will take, unfortunately, is for some crazy guy with a concealed gun at a high school football game to get pissed off and start shooting people before they realize how dumb this law is.”
The truth in this really worries me.
“So let’s get some people elected who represent a broader selection of interests than just the hard-line, right-wing gun lobby and Howard Rich’s anti-public education agenda.”
Those who agree with you sghould get involved in the local Democratic Party and work to field strong candidates. A two-party system is a good thing, and the local Dems need have needed some serious help for a while.
I just wanted to offer some support for Shane Martin…a lot of us who voted for him are professional people living and working in the city limits. He is a respectable businessman and conservative. Ritchie did get more votes in several of the downtown precincts but by no means was it a blowout in those precincts. I think it’s unreasonable to expect a freshman legislator to go down there and fix education or employment all by himself–this is why you often see freshman take a smaller issue and lead the way on that in their first year. I think Shane pretty much got a bill passed that the majority of people in his district really don’t have a problem with.
And Shane Martin was not one of the candidates bought and paid for by Howard Rich money.
Right, Martin wasn’t paid for by Rich money–he was paid for with NASCAR dollars.
But, no, of course he couldn’t FIX education or unemployment but, does that mean he shouldn’t lead the discussion in a direction to address the issues affecting the MOST citizens of our state instead of something that affects him when he picks his daughter up from school? Is that really how we want our legislatures using their position?
I know he’s backtracking now to make up for some of his early mistakes. I’ve heard some of the Spartanburg power players had a chat with him and then POOF!…he managed to work that delegation mess out pretty quick. Funny how that works.
He seems like a nice enough guy…I don’t have anything against him, but, yes his ‘freshman’ status shows. We all knew Spartanburg would pay for the inexperienced people we sent to Columbia and we are. And the truth is…there’s not much we can do about that now.
2nd paragraph, I meant…’legislators using their positions?’ God, I hate typos.
Not just anyone will be able to have a gun in their car with this law. Only people who have been through the background check, fingerprinted and checked out by the state and received a permit. You act like CWP holders are all criminals. Newsflash, they are not.
“You act like CWP holders are all criminals.”
I’m not saying they’re criminals. I’m saying it’s a bad idea to encourage more guns on school property for no reason other than to cater to a small special interest group.
[...] really lie: He vetoed a bill reigning in predatory payday lending, and signed a bill allowing loaded guns on school grounds. read on [...]
I think Clay makes an excellent point that is often getting overlooked by many of the other commenters.
Rob: Which is what, exactly? It’s not really an issue of people having concealed weapons, it’s an issue of encouraging more guns into a situation needlessly and carelessly just so a small group of people won’t be slightly inconvenienced.
The point Clay was getting at, I think, is that this law being in place probably does not have a correlation to any significant increase in people going out to get CWP’s or in people with CWP’s going out to buy more guns. People are not going to suddenly go out and stockpile weapons in their trunks and start driving onto school campuses.
And cops aren’t going to suddenly to go out and start searching and arresting competently licensed concealed weapons owners who happen to have a gun in the glove compartment who come to schools to pick up their kid either. It’s useless.
I must agree with Clay on this one. People are all entitled to their opinions on this, but the fact of the matter is is that this is in no way encouraging more firearms on school campuses. The law is basically stating publically what has been going on for years. I think that the only thing unnecessary about this law is that it has been over publicised and scrutinized to the point of exhaustion. Now if you have CWP you won’t have to continue to destroy the environment with carbon emissions by taking your gun home and you can pick up your sick child in peace and possibly save the happy meals and milkshakes from the terrorists. Proud gun owner.
Rob: “The point Clay was getting at, I think, is that this law being in place probably does not have a correlation to any significant increase in people going out to get CWP’s or in people with CWP’s going out to buy more guns.”
If this were the case, “…probably does not…” is not enough reason for me to support it.
Tammy, it is not useless. CWP holders are very aware of where it is legal to have their gun and where they cannot and as good citizens, they want to follow the law. This just helps them not be in violation of the law. How is it useless to help law-abiding citizens to continue to be law-abiding?
“How is it useless to help law-abiding citizens to continue to be law-abiding?”
What was stopping them from obeying the law the way it was? Why is there a pressing need for them to bring their weapons onto school grounds?
Not that it matters much, but I happen to have known a couple of CWP holders here in SC. Let’s just say I think that permit may be a little to easy to get.
Lets ask the obvious questions as to the usefulness of this law
How many CWP are there in the state?
How many have kids in school?
How many have found themselves with weapon in possession and find themselves needing to enter school grounds?
I am suspecting with each question the number of people in that scenario gets smaller and smaller. Which is why I suspect the actual usefulness to the citizens of our state. Of all CWP holders I would say only a fraction would find themselves in scenario #3. In this scenario there are natural alternates to the situation as to the “need” to bring a weapon onto school grounds.
Now I do like Steve’s alternate idea of getting an addendum to a CWP permit which would broaden the places one could take such a weapon, and limit to people who carry a weapon for their job.
There are hundreds of scenarios that could be played out for and against this issue. Like it or not, there are people who choose to have a way to defend themselves at all times legally possible. I’m not going to fault them for that. I say good for them.
Let’s revisit this topic in a year and see how many CWP holders went crazy on school grounds over their kid’s grades or bad calls by a sports referee. It would be my prediction that it’s not gonna happen.
One thing is for sure. Not all laws are useful to all people. Agree or disagree? I think Sylvie is right about the number of people who will actually take advantage of the new law. It will be a small number in relation to the number of visits to a school by parents per year statewide.
If you only listened to some posters here, you would think there would have already been shootings all over the state in the last couple days.
Why are you folks so scared of LAW abiding citizens having a gun in their car? How many shootouts do you see between CWP holders who have suddenly gone crazy because of the evil handgun near them? The criminals are already carrying weapons onto school grounds.
When I was in school we had shotguns in the back so we could go hunting before or after school. No body seemed to care then.