Wild West ain't ahead, partnerOther states say law on guns in bars not a big dealBy Corey Hutchins, contributing writer FEB. 7, 2014 -- Opponents of an expected new law that would allow guns in places that serve alcohol warn it might lead to big trouble, but its supporters say that's not what's happening in states that have similar measures.
Right now, six other states allow guns in bars, according to research by the National Conference of State Legislatures. Those are North Carolina, Ohio, Georgia, Arizona, Virginia and Tennessee. The New York Times reported in 2010 that there were 22 states that allowed guns in establishments that serve alcohol. A 2013 study by the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said 33 states allowed hidden guns in bars.
 The difference in numbers apparently is because states have different definitions of bars, according to Dorchester Republican Sen. Sean Bennett, who sponsored the bill. He introduced the measure, he says, after hearing from constituents who said they wanted the law.
Bennett’s bill, which still has to be ratified by the Senate before it heads to Gov. Nikki Haley, would allow businesses that don't want guns inside to post signs saying they aren't allowed. It also would eliminate an eight-hour mandatory requirement during concealed weapons permit (CWP) training, and would allow retired military and law enforcement officers to get a permit with proof of weapons training.
State of the states
Like South Carolina's likely new law would stipulate, bar and restaurant owners in North Carolina currently must put up a sign if they don't want their customers bringing in guns. So far, that hasn't been a big deal, according to Karen Mann, who runs the N.C. Restaurant and Lodging Association. “We really haven't heard much from our members on this issue,” she said.
Ohio, which passed a similar law in 2011, hasn't become the Wild West that critics of the proposal expected, according to The Columbus Dispatch. A year after the law went into effect, the paper found that almost no incidents had been reported involving CWP holders at bars and restaurants. Violence in Ohio didn't spiked in its immediate aftermath.
That didn't surprise Jim Irvine, president of the Buckeye Firearms Association in Ohio. He supported the law.
“Before the law passed, there was all this screaming and crying that there was going to be blood in the streets, that there were going to be shootouts in the bars, that fistfights were going to turn into gun fights every Friday night. I mean, the world was going to come to an end up here,” he told the Charleston City Paper. “And here we are a year and a half later and I can tell you nothing has changed.”
Tennessee, the first state to allow guns in bars in 2009, also didn't turn into a state of late-night firefights. When WATE-TV in Knoxville checked up on the law's impact a year after it passed, the TV station found hospitality workers basically giving it a big shrug. The Volunteer State did get a black eye, though, when the lawmaker who sponsored the bill was arrested for DUI with a loaded gun in his car.
Virginia passed a similar law in 2010. A year later when The Richmond Times-Dispatch analyzed the impact, the paper found major gun crimes at bars and restaurants had actually gone down 5.2 percent from the year prior. “And overall, the crimes that occurred during the law's first year were relatively minor, and few of the incidents appeared to involve gun owners with concealed-carry permits, the analysis found,” according to the paper.
Signs of the times
Here in South Carolina, bar and restaurant owners who know about the law are having to decide whether they'll put up a sign banning guns. And they're feeling pressure from groups who are making it known they won't patronize businesses that don't prohibit firearms. In Charleston, progressive activists are handing out business cards to bars and restaurants that say as much. And in the Upstate, Erin Dando, who runs the state chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense, says her 1,000-member group is also alerting establishments that they'll lose their business if they allow guns.
The South Carolina Hospitality Association hasn't taken a position on the bill because its members are split, said director John Durst. He said allowing business to be able to decide for themselves was important to the association.
For his part, bill sponsor Bennett said he didn’t hold it against any establishments to ban guns.
“I fully expect, bars especially, to put those signs up,” he said. “That's their right if they feel that's safer. I get it. And that's one thing I wanted to make sure was in the bill. That we protected those rights.”
Jim Irvine of the Ohio gun group predicted that when the new law was in effect in the Palmetto State, there would be less auto break-ins in restaurant parking lots. Without the law, CWP holders have to leave their guns in their cars.
“If you're a criminal, you need to steal a gun,” he says. “What a nice convenient way to know where the guns are.”
Addressing reporters after a Rotary Club luncheon on Wednesday at The Citadel, Haley said if she owned a bar or restaurant, she would allow guns inside. She said she plans to sign the law as soon as it gets to her desk.
Corey Hutchins is a reporter with the Charleston City Paper and contributor to Statehouse Report.
RECENT NEWS STORIES
|
Old garage, Williamsburg County, S.C.
This old garage in the Blakely community of Williamsburg County now sits abandoned, although the business that was here now operates in nearby Kingstree. More. Photo by Linda W. Brown.
|
House out, Senate inThe House, which had a snow week last week, won’t meet next week because it’s on a scheduled furlough. But there will be some budget hearings and a few other meetings, as outlined below. - Education Oversight. The panel will meet 1 p.m. Monday in 433 Blatt. On tap: Election of a new chair, science standards, budget recommendations and expansion of the CDEPP program. Agenda.
- Joint Bond Review. The committee will meet 10 a.m. Tuesday in 105 Gressette. No agenda available.
- House Ways and Means. The proviso subcommittee will meet 11:15 a.m. Tuesday in 521 Blatt. The healthcare subcommittee will meet 11 a.m. Wednesday in 108 Blatt. No other meetings were listed at publication time, but other subcommittees may meet. Check House meetings here.
- Senate Judiciary. The full committee will meet 3 p.m. Tuesday in 105 Gressette. On the agenda: Establishment of a public integrity unit, carrying concealed weapons, charitable contributions, child support guidelines, more. A subcommittee will meet 9 a.m. Wednesday in 207 Gressette to discuss S. 916 on trespasser responsibility.
- Senate Finance. A subcommittee will meet 10 a.m. Wednesday in 307 Gressette to discuss budgets for the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Insurance and others.
- Senate LCI. A full committee meeting is set for 9 a.m. Thursday in 308 Gressette. No agenda available.
- Senate Transportation. The full committee will meet 11 a.m. Feb. 19 in 209 Gressette to hear from DMV Director Kevin Shwedo.
|
How to tell it’s an election yearAll you have to do to understand it’s an election year is to look at some of the bills being introduced to appeal to various constituencies so they feel like something is happening (although it probably won’t).
Recently introduced, as highlighted in recent Tally Sheets in this newsletter, are bills related to hot-button issues like abortion, immigration, vouchers, minutes of silence, motorcycle helmets. Look for more to come.
|
Don’t yell “You lie” at the StatehouseSeveral House members this week introduced a bill that would keep members from yelling at statewide elected officials as they addressed a joint session of the House and Senate.
Think of it as the Joe Wilson “You Lie” rule.
"They would have crucified me upside down."
-- S.C. Rep. Wendell Gilliard, D-Charleston.
|
Wilson, as you might recall, is the South Carolina GOP congressman who yelled the infamous two-word phrase at President Barack Obama during a joint address to Congress in September 2009.
“Can you imagine if Wendell Gilliard, during the State of the State address by Governor Haley, had done something similar to what Wilson did to the president?” asked Gilliard, a Charleston Democratic state representative and chief cosponsor of the bill by Pineville Democrat Joe Jefferson. “They would have crucified me upside down.”
Gilliard said the measure should keep such a spectacle from happening in the Palmetto State.
“That was a moment in history that will never be forgotten -- in a negative way,” Gilliard said. “But yet, this guy was rewarded [with campaign contributions] for what he did.”
Stirling the pot
Freshly-elected state Sen. Marlon Kimpson (D-Charleston) is still the new guy, but the trial lawyer isn’t sitting idly by. He refused Thursday to back down on questioning acting Corrections Department Director Bryan Stirling about mentally-ill prisoners who have died and been abused.
 Kimpson tells Statehouse Report that its Jan. 27 commentary about horrible prison conditions inspired him to speak out during what was supposed to be a pro forma hearing on whether to recommend Stirling to serve permanently in the role. (What better place than a confirmation hearing, some might wonder, than to bring up important issues to nominees to determine how they might lead. Isn’t that the Senate’s oversight authority in a nutshell?)
Sen. Mike Fair, the Greenville Republican who chairs the committee, asked members to refrain from asking Stirling about a recent court ruling by Circuit Judge Michael Baxley that calls for a plan within six months to start eliminating poor conditions confronting hundreds of mentally-ill inmates. Fair said it wouldn’t be “wise” to discuss the matter in the Senate meeting.
But Kimpson plowed forward, as related in The State newspaper. “With all due to respect to the chair’s opening comments, I can’t sit here in good conscience and not ask you about the disturbing 40-odd page order by Judge Baxley,” Kimpson told Stirling.
Stirling, a former member of the governor’s staff and the S.C. attorney general’s office, volunteered during the meeting that he has asked for the case to be mediated, a development that departs from the state’s earlier position that the case be reconsidered. At the end of the meeting, senators recommended him to be confirmed.
|
High court should not get back to business as usualBy Andy Brack, editor and publisher FEB. 7, 2014 -- That television commercial that talks about how a body in motion stays in motion and a body at rest stays at rest brings the South Carolina Supreme Court to mind.
 On one hand, the state’s highest court is obviously busy. During the 2012-13 fiscal year, it received 1,548 cases -- everything from criminal appeals to lawyer resignations. It dealt with or disposed of 1,550 cases.
But it started the year with 1,205 cases from previous years and ended the year with just two fewer, according to court records shared last month with the House Ways and Means Committee.
With Wednesday’s re-election of Chief Justice Jean Toal by a 95-74 vote over Justice Costa Pleicones, there’s a good chance the high court will continue business as usual for the next year and a half until Toal steps down when she is 72.
In light of the court’s backlog, including some pretty important work on tap, let’s hope the state Supreme Court does not proceed with business as usual. Justice delayed, as the legal adage goes, is justice denied.
Case in point: The school funding case filed in 1993 -- yes, 20 years ago -- by poor South Carolina districts that want a fair shake in how they get state money to educate students. After Abbeville School District v. State of South Carolina wound its way for years through lower courts, the Supreme Court got the case in June 2008 -- a year before Gov. Mark Sanford redefined what it meant to hike the Appalachian Trail.
Soon after a stinging April 2012 Statehouse Report column questioning the delay, the court ordered arguments to be made again. That happened in September 2012. Since then? The lead plaintiff’s lawyer in the case died suddenly. But from the court: nothing. No decision. Case pending.
|
"Being a justice obviously isn’t easy. But to be effective -- and to fulfill job requirements -- justices need to make decisions, not kick the can down the road for years and years because of a zeal for unanimity or politics or something else."
|
What does the court say? It’s having a hard time making a decision. (We, umm, figured that out.)
“We have some cases that come to our court that dramatically bring into play the interrelationship between the branches of government and what the proper roles by way of separation of the powers are amongst the various branches of government,” Toal told the Judicial Merit Screening Commission in November 2013.
“Some cases take an awfully long time to try to speak with anything like one voice. And the more important and the higher the stakes are about the basic structure of government and what a court’s proper role should be and what the General Assembly’s proper role should be, by way of not only making the law but making policy, the more difficult it becomes to arrive at a decision that speaks with fairness and clarity to those kinds of issues.
“So we are struggling and I don’t mind admitting that.”
In his testimony, Pleicones said decisions were a deliberative process. But he added, “I have addressed my concern about the timely processing of cases. That continues to be a concern with me. And it will be a point of emphasis with me as Chief Justice.”
What’s baffling about why the Supreme Court is taking so long is magnified when you consider that the U.S. Supreme Court takes on many, very tough cases each fall. Nine justices hear arguments. By the following June, the court delivers decisions.
It’s disappointing that after six years, the S.C. Supreme Court still can’t come up with a decision in one very important case. Certainly, this is not the norm. But it’s also not abnormal. In a 2012 decision on another case, the court ruled it was unconstitutional for state solicitors to control court dockets. Yet it took more than a year -- and some very public complaints by the state’s solicitors -- to get any movement on what to do about the decision. (Answer: The court appointed a committee last month to make recommendations. A similar committee recommended rules for criminal procedure a couple of years back. That report collects dust on a shelf.)
Being a justice obviously isn’t easy. But to be effective -- and to fulfill job requirements -- justices need to make decisions, not kick the can down the road for years and years because of a zeal for unanimity or politics or something else.
Andy Brack is editor and publisher of Statehouse Report. You can reach Brack at: brack@statehousereport.com.
|
AARP  The public spiritedness of our underwriters allows us to bring Statehouse Report to you at no cost. In today's issue, we shine the spotlight on AARP, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with a membership that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
|
We can do more to prevent teen pregnancyBy Forrest Alton
CEO, S.C. Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy
Special to Statehouse Report
FEB. 7, 2014 -- Over the years I’ve become more comfortable in social settings with the awkward pause that follows when I answer the question, “So what do you do?” I’ve come to terms with the fact that introducing myself as the CEO of the South Carolina Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy (SC Campaign) is not what people expect me to say.
 After the silence, it’s become quite common for one of two responses to follow. The first is some iteration of, “Well isn’t that nice; what you are doing is great.” I’ve come to refer to this response as the Southern hospitality response. It infers, among other things, an understanding that teen pregnancy prevention is a critical issue. It also suggests that somebody should do something about it and carries a certain sense of relief that “somebody” – in this case, the SC Campaign – has already been identified.
The second response is a bit more thoughtful and indicative of someone paying attention. “I see you’ve made some real progress on this issue.” We refer to this response as the single story response. To be sure, the response is correct in that significant progress has been made on this issue. Over the past 20 years the teen birth rate in South Carolina has decreased by a staggering 47 percent. Yet, this response is dangerous in that it tends to confuse progress with victory, and it doesn’t acknowledge the tremendous amount of work that remains.
In 2014, the SC Campaign is celebrating its 20th anniversary. An organization that existed in concept a mere 20 years ago has taken an issue that many thought to be intractable, in a state where many thought we couldn’t succeed, and turned it into one of the greatest public health success stories of this generation. While the progress that has been made is worthy of celebration, much work remains. In South Carolina, more than 5,500 young women under the age of 20 became mothers last year; our state has the 11th highest teen birth rate in the nation. More than three in 10 young women in South Carolina will get pregnant before their 20th birthday. Progress? Certainly. Victory? Not quite.
"Two-thirds of poor families were started by a young, unmarried mother. Sixty-three percent of teen mothers receive some type of public benefits within the first year of childbirth. Roughly half of all mothers ages 15 to 19 live below the poverty line."
|
As we set our eyes on the future, it’s important to recognize that the responsibility is on all of us to continue making progress. We must get past the mental barrier that teen pregnancy is someone else’s problem. We must get past a belief that preventing teen pregnancy is all about sex, sex education, and other issues that make the general public cringe. We must understand why continued progress is important. There is perhaps nothing more important we can do to improve the overall health and economic well being of our communities than ensuring that children are not having children.
Is educational achievement important to you? Fewer than four in 10 teen girls will get a high school diploma. Only about 2 percent will attain a college degree by age 30.
Concerned about high rates of poverty? Two-thirds of poor families were started by a young, unmarried mother. Sixty-three percent of teen mothers receive some type of public benefits within the first year of childbirth. Roughly half of all mothers ages 15 to 19 live below the poverty line.
Care about the health of our communities? Infants of teen mothers are at an increased risk of being born prematurely. Thirteen percent of babies born to 15- to 17-year olds are low or very low birth weight. Teen mothers are more likely to have a child placed in foster care than mothers who had their first child at age 20 or 21.
Still think the issue doesn’t impact you? The combination of these and other data result in a price tag of $197 million annually to South Carolina tax payers.
If we want to have continued success, we need to expand the story substantially. The connections between teen pregnancy and poverty, family stability, educational achievement, health, and social mobility are well documented. Yet, to date, we have done a poor job including teen pregnancy prevention and strategies to delay parenthood in a larger dialogue about individual, familial and community well being. Maybe it’s because teen pregnancy is someone else’s problem; maybe it’s because to do so we’d actually have to talk about sex.
The end result is that most of our state’s time and energy has been spent on discussing and debating strategies to address the consequences of young, single, undereducated parents who are having babies (pre-K comes to mind and a whole host of other topics). I’m not suggesting such conversations are unimportant, but imagine the impact we could have if we moved the focus upstream and spent more energy ensuring that pregnancy was being delayed until a time when parents were physically, emotionally and financially ready?
We can do better. We need your help. So, when we have the pleasure of meeting, pass on the reactions I mentioned earlier and ask, “How can I help?”
Forrest Alton is CEO of the S.C. Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. Learn more.
|
Overlooked by most mediaTo the editor:
Just getting caught up on email and read your wonderful editorial about the treatment of the mentally-ill in S.C. prisons.
I had begun to think I was the only one who thought this was an outrage and overlooked news story. It got little to no play on TV here and few comments on the newspaper summary.
-- Roxanne Walker Cordonier, Taylors, S.C.
What's your beef? We love hearing from our readers and encourage you to share your opinions. But you've got to provide us with contact information so we can verify your letters. Letters to the editor are published weekly. We reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.We generally publish all comments about South Carolina politics or policy issues, unless they are libelous or unnecessarily inflammatory. One submission is allowed per month. Submission of a comment grants permission to us to reprint. Comments are limited to 250 words or less. Please include your name and contact information. Send your letters to:
|
From Graham to Haley to Sanford State response. South Carolina’s emergency officials are getting pats on the backs for they handled the recent cold snap. Compare how we did to Georgia, which looked silly in media. More.
Graham. With 10 times as much money as a pile of GOP challengers, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham might be able to stave off primary challenges and win outright, some say. More. And more.
Furman. Hats off to Furman University for hiring Elizabeth Davis as its first female president. More.
Haley. Gov. Nikki Haley is right to be irritated at how her brother sat in traffic in Georgia for a long time, although she has backed off on criticism of the Peach State. However, her enthusiasm for guns in bars continues to wear thin. More.
Charleston University. We’re not sure if a merged College of Charleston and Medical University of South Carolina is a good thing or a bad thing. One this would be for sure: It would destroy a century’s worth of branding.
Supreme Court. The high court can now focus on its work and backlog with the reelection of Chief Justice Jean Toal by a 21-vote margin. But it will be interesting to see how collegial it really is with the loss by Justice Costa Pleicones.
St. Onge. When DOT director Robert St. Onge resigned last week following a DUI arrest, it was bad news for more than just him. It was another state agency leader in Gov. Haley’s cabinet that faced problems.
Sanford. By butting in on a variety of state issues, former Gov. and current Congressman Mark Sanford is making a bunch of local officials, shall we say, “dissatisfied.” More.
|