Open Letter To South Carolina Law Enforcement Concerning Open Carry
BY Herschel Smith
3 years, 7 months ago
First of all, there are good, healthy views among South Carolina LEOs concerning the recent changes to S.C. law concerning open carry.
“I think this can definitely be a very positive thing. I think as the sheriff, you know I believe that guns could certainly be a deterrent for a bad guy when considering committing a crime upon a victim,” Anderson County Sheriff Chad McBride said. “It’s going to be something new that we have to get used to and the public will have to get used to of course. Walking into a location or at a location where it is allowed to carry and seeing that and it not being a law enforcement officer.”
“I love it because it’s the second amendment. Our second amendment right guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms,” Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright said. “If you are going to be responsible enough to carry something of that magnitude it is your responsibility to train with it right.”
But then there is massive confusion and lack of mental preparation.
Greenville City Police Chief Howie Thompson has some fear about South Carolina’s open-carry law that was signed into law Monday.
Gov. Henry McMaster signed the “Open Carry with Training Act” bill, which will allow people with concealed weapons permits to openly carry firearms.
One of Thompson’s fears is for those carrying guns.
“Everyone will see it, and if someone who is committing a criminal act goes in and sees someone carrying a gun, well now the person who is carrying becomes a threat,” he said.
Thank you for your concern sir, but it’s misplaced. Open carriers can handle the pressure. But this next part is more likely to get someone hurt.
Another concern Thompson has deals with law enforcement officers. Thompson said if someone saw another person who is carrying legally and calls law enforcement to investigate, law enforcement will not know if the person has a permit to carry. Thompson thinks service calls for visible guns will increase.
“They’re going to ask for the permit, and maybe the person feels harassed, but in reality the police are just following up on a service call and making sure the person has a permit,” he said.
So this is a massive problem. Allow me a moment to explain.
That’s what LEOs in Texas thought as well – we’ll just walk up and demand to see permits when a call comes in.
That’s not the way this worked out in Texas, and it’s not the way it will work out in South Carolina. You see, in order to conduct a stop, LEOs need to ensure that it’s a valid “Terry Stop.” In other words, you have to suspect that a crime has been or is being committed, or else the stop isn’t legal.
It’s not good enough to say that the individual is openly carrying a weapon. To be sure, if someone is openly carrying and commits a crime leading to detention or arrest, and you ascertain that the individual has no permit, then you can charge him with a crime under the new law. But then, you could have charged him with a crime under the concealed handgun law as well. Nothing has changed.
You need to pretend that you can’t see the weapon, because that’s the way the carefully worded law is written. This is what’s going to happen the first few times such a stop is conducted by LEOs for open carriers.
LEO: “Sir, I need to see your permit.”
Person A: “Sure, but you’re being videoed and this video will end up in court, and I need to ask you two questions. First of all, am I being detained, and if so, do you suspect me of a crime? In other words, is this a so-called “Terry Stop?” Second question. Does S.C. have a “stop and identify statute?”
The LEO is in a very hard place. If the LEO says that person A is suspected of a crime, the proper response is, “What crime?” To which he can give no valid response. If the LEO says that person A is not suspected of a crime, question #2 becomes salient, and I assure you, S.C. has no stop and identify statute.
In other words, it is not legal for a LEO to conduct this stop for openly carrying. Finally, you should read the bill again. The open carry bill approved into law by the governor does not expand S.C. to include any sort of stop and identify stipulation, either under this statute or any other. You can read it again for yourself.
Here is a much better idea. Train your 911 operators to respond to callers with this information: “Ma’am, open carry is now legal in S.C. Are you calling to report any other criminal activities? Is this person brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone? If not, we need to hang up.”
If you don’t follow this counsel, the two questions I posed above will be heard in court very soon.
Listen to me when I say this. Ask your prosecuting attorney about what I’ve said. They’ll back me up because I’m right.
On May 20, 2021 at 10:43 pm, George 1 said:
Of course there will be problems and all of them will be because police don’t know, don’t care about or are too stupid to interpret, the Law. This should not be difficult. What part of “Open carry is legal” is not understandable?
Yet, I am sure we will witness comprehension problems among the boys in blue.
On May 20, 2021 at 11:34 pm, TheAlaskan said:
In Alaska, cops just assume everyone is carrying. They’re polite and never stop you unless you’ve doing something grossly negligent…a result of an armed populous IMO.
In many places, there are no cops. We don’t have elected peace officers (sheriffs.) That’s not a good thing but it equates to law enforcement spread pretty thin (troopers) or non-existent in large swaths of Alaska. Because of that fact, most people carry in some form or other.
On May 21, 2021 at 3:25 am, Henry said:
Legislators don’t care that the law doesn’t work or can’t be enforced.
They “Did Something,” and now the problem belongs to somebody else.
“Once zey goes up, who cares where zey come down?” /
“That’s not my department,” says Wernher von Braun.
On May 21, 2021 at 5:30 am, Wes said:
“Here is a much better idea. Train your 911 operators to respond to callers with this information: “Ma’am, open carry is now legal in S.C. Are you calling to report any other criminal activities? Is this person brandishing the weapon or threatening anyone? If not, we need to hang up.”
^ This. Dispatch is likely to have a requirement to advise an officer that the call occurred, explain what action was taken, and request permisson to clear it off. This is the same procedure that is typically done with “butt dial” or accidental 911 hangups. The dispatcher does not have authority to unilaterally clear stuff like that, but it’s typically a radio call to an officer that takes 10 seconds to resolve so they can get back to recovering that kid’s stolen bicycle. ;)
On May 21, 2021 at 6:48 am, Divemedic said:
I don’t understand why we don’t treat guns like we do cars. Isn’t that what they always say? If someone sees someone driving a car, no one calls police. If the police see someone driving a car, they don’t stop them and demand proof of a license to operate the car, unless that person has been observed committing a crime.
So why do we assume that a person carrying a gun needs to be checked for a permit?
On May 21, 2021 at 8:10 am, Fred said:
SC has been a “must notify” state under it’s concealed carry law. Has this been reconciled with the new law? If you’re carrying concealed you must tell a cop on contact but if you’re open carrying you can tell him shove off? This will need to be addressed if it hasn’t already.
On May 21, 2021 at 8:23 am, WDS said:
Look, if you don’t think unarmed citizens won’t be calling to report some guy/gal sporting a scary 1911 you forget idiots call 911 about being shorted a chicken nugget in their order from McD’s. As a SC resident, I’ll continue to carry concealed thank you.
On May 21, 2021 at 9:05 am, Herschel Smith said:
@WDS,
And you’re free to do just that. That’s the wonderful thing about liberty.
On May 21, 2021 at 9:06 am, DWEEZIL THE WEASEL said:
In every defensive handgun class I ever attended, the flaws of open carry were always discussed. Don’t think for one minute that the crooks out there, especially the Gangsta Rappers and Vato Locos have gamed a situation involving some fat old white dude with his head up his ass, bending over to put groceries in the trunk of his car.
Situational awareness training and concealed carry are the way to go. I did over thirty years as a Peace Officer in SoCal. When off duty as well as on, my head was(and still is) on a swivel. When weather permitted, the handgun was in a belt holster, snapped down under my coat. Or, in my right front pants pocket of my khaki work pants(not Levi’s) covered with a loose shirt. And, I PRACTICED(!!!) presenting it using dummy ammo. Do not look like food, and you will not get eaten(h/t to Clint Smith). Bleib ubrig.
On May 21, 2021 at 9:10 am, Herschel Smith said:
@WEASEL,
Right or wrong, that all has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the subject of the post.
On May 21, 2021 at 9:50 am, Greg Robinson said:
Quick fix-
Train the cops about the new law. Train the cops with their guns. They need to realize two things. Good guys don’t start gunfights. And, 99.997% of civilian gun toters are better trained than the vast majority of police. Most LE receive about 8 minutes of actual trigger time training per year, because the communist democrat controlled management team are afraid of any highly trained, professional LE in their domain.
On May 21, 2021 at 10:00 am, Clint Walker said:
I wholeheartedly support open carry/ Constitutional carry. In my youth, I routinely fired 100,000 rounds a year. In foreign countries, I always carried my M-4, into restaurants, hotels, businesses, and never had a problem. As an old fart, I am down below 5000 rounds a year, but I am more worried about my fellow LE gun toters than any civilian. My whole administration ordered clocks removed from walls in all offices because they are the first thing unintentionall shot. Usually by management, cleaning their guns in their offices. In my 35 years of active LE, in every office I was stationed, at least twice a year we had to investigate LE shooting holes in the bottom of their trash cans. So once LE starts being trained to the level of civilian hobby shooters, then they can speak. It’s every LEO’s responsibility to be the best they can be, or at least trained enough to protect their partner, even if it requires outside training on the LEO’s dime!
On May 21, 2021 at 10:16 am, Ned said:
You should hear the calls regarding flatlander idiots who call in about open carry here in central AZ. I have a friend here who was a dispatcher. They basically tell the caller that open carry is entirely legal and ask them if there’s anything else to report. They also tell them they’re reporting on an emergency line if they dialed 911. Neither local PD or Sheriff tolerates that crap. I suspect that will happen elsewhere. Dispatchers don’t like emergency lines being tied up with BS calls.
On May 21, 2021 at 2:32 pm, Paul Bonneau said:
Herschel, you are assuming the courts are still functional. Ask Mike Strickland about that:
https://pjmedia.com/columns/victoria-taft/2020/09/02/exclusive-case-of-portland-man-who-defended-himself-against-antifa-mob-heads-to-supreme-court-n876896
On May 22, 2021 at 12:49 pm, Fuel Filter said:
Funny, in that there’s no prob whatsoever in AZ. And we’ve had OC for decades.
Looks like Karens have made inroads to include more of these “men” who are always at war against scary-looking guns.
I always keep a pistol in my car. If pulled over I just tell the LEO up front that I’ve a pistol and where it is. They *always* ask if I’ve any weapons in the car. It’s SOP.
I also reveal I’ve a pen-knife in my pocket. They usually smile at that reveal.
On May 23, 2021 at 12:36 am, Georgiaboy61 said:
The whole debate over what kind of carry to employ needs to be placed in the context of anarcho-tyranny, and the deterioration of the rule of law in this nation in recent years.
The late Sam Francis coined the neologism “anarcho-tyranny” to describe a society in which the criminals and the troublemakers are not held to account under the rule of law and are permitted to run wild (“anarchy”) and do pretty much as they please with few detrimental consequences or perhaps an official slap on the wrist, and the upstanding and law-abiding are subject to de facto tyranny in which their every action is scrutinized for the smallest infraction, which is immediately punished to the full extent the legal code allows – and sometimes beyond (“tyranny”).
We have already seen ordinary people – such as the cases of Mark and Patricia McCloskey in Missouri and Kyle Rittenhouse in Wisconsin – penalized for attempting to exercise their rights to protect themselves, their loved ones, their property and their communities.
The McCloskeys home was being threatened by a mob of rioters – whom the media termed “racial injustice protestors” and “demonstrators” – who far-outnumbered Mr. and Mrs.McCloskey, who appeared outside their home armed on their own property, and were subsequently targeted by the local DA, a female leftist with ties to George Soros.
Were the rioters and would-be arsonists punished or censured in any way? Not at all, and the local LE officials and district attorney’s office seemed much more concerned that the McCloskeys had “brandished” their weapons and thereby committed some sort of offense.
That’s virtually a textbook case of anarcho-tyranny.
Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man from Racine, WI, who was physically attacked by Antifa-BLM-RevCom thugs who out-numbered him four or five to one, at a minimum, and who used his legally-purchased carbine to defend himself, now finds himself on trial for his young life, as the system has apparently decided that he’s the “bad guy” in all of this, and not the people who attempted to beat him to death in the streets of his hometown.
Like the McCloskeys, Rittenhouse may be cleared in the end, but not until the powers-that-be have virtually bankrupted his family and dragged his good name through the mud. Or, if he is unlucky, he may go to prison while some of those who attacked him continue to walk the streets alive.
Another textbook case of anarcho-tyranny.
In both instances, the state has sought to make an example of citizens doing nothing more than exercising their God-given right to defend themselves from endemic street violence and the thugs, arsonists and revolutionaries rampaging through their neighborhoods and towns.
If the authorities, i.e., the local sheriff or police chief, or the district attorney for that matter, wish to discourage open-carry, then perhaps they ought to start doing their jobs.
This isn’t rocket-science. People see what is happening around them, and are taking common-sense precautions to protect themselves. If “the law”won’t protect them, then they’ll take care of that job themselves. Ordinary people may not know the specifics of Sam Francis or his ideas, but they know something is badly-amiss and that they aren’t getting a fair shake from the system, and they aren’t happy about it.
The veneer of civilization is very thin indeed, and if the established apparatus for maintaining the rule of law in society breaks down, or is allowed to break-down – as increasingly appears to be the case – then things will sooner-or-later devolve back to more-primitive and perhaps barbaric means of settling things. It won’t be pretty and no sane person should wish for it to happen, but here we are.
Each individual must decide about the specifics of CCW and/or open-carry based upon the specifics of his circumstances, local laws and so forth. But the foregoing factors will play a part as well. If things deteriorate quickly-enough and/or badly-enough, we may look back fondly on the days when people didn’t need to carry weapons in public everywhere they go.
On May 24, 2021 at 1:15 pm, Mack said:
“They’ll back me up because I’m right.”
Because you ARE right.
It’s about time someone on our side went into the necessary details of the original Terry Opinion.
And remember, the office needs RAS even to initiate an ‘Investigative Detention” and only then proceed if you are “armed and PRESENTLY dangerous” – a point often overlooked.
And this helps too:
https://www.courthousenews.com/fourth-circuit-revives-lawsuit-filed-by-driver-arrested-for-not-giving-id/
On May 24, 2021 at 1:19 pm, Mack said:
I also think it’s important to reflect of the words of warning from Justice Douglas in his dissent:
There have been powerful hydraulic pressures throughout our history that bear heavily on the Court to water down constitutional guarantees and give the police the upper hand. That hydraulic pressure has probably never been greater than it is today.
Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can “seize” and “search” him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country.
On May 25, 2021 at 3:43 pm, TRX said:
Twenty states recognize Constitutional Carry now. And every time a a state decides to obey the Constitution, the naysays jump in to assure everyone that it will be the Wild West, and Blood Will Run in the Streets(tm).
In practice, most people probably were never aware of the change, other than a handful of gun cranks and radical leftists each riding their hobbyhorses. The police are a bit more vigilant for a few months, and then it’s a complete non-issue.