SC State Alumnus invokes Gen. Sherman's burning of Columbia in his response to SC Legislature

Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, famous litigator

“I want to serve notice to the General Assembly in Columbia,” SCSU Orangeburg alumni chapter Willie B. Owens said. “You thought it was hell when Sherman hit Columbia, but just wait. Within a few days, we're going to file a lawsuit of $500 million on behalf of South Carolina State University.”

Not to take anything away from lawsuits, but I'm pretty sure no one ever said "Litigation is hell".

"Meantime, what the rest of us need to do is understand that if we don’t want legislators to trade judicial candidates like baseball cards, we have to stop treating judicial candidates like baseball cards."

"That is, we have to stop letting the Legislature elect judges.", says Cindi Ross Scoppe in response to the current state and federal investigation into potential illegal vote-trading.

Monday Mid-Morning Headlines Thread 9-29-14

It's been a long weekend 'round these parts. We had a birthday party for the (now) three-year-old son, watched the Gamecocks lose a heart-breaker, and generally enjoyed the wonderful cool weather that indicates summer is in full retreat.

Anyway, pour some coffee and get to it. It's Monday.

Here are some of the interesting stories I'm seeing this morning:

1. A Louisiana restaurant is giving 10% discount to concealed weapon carriers. I love it. Anti-gun folks are probably going nuts somewhere.

2. The Khorosan Group is actually al-Qaeda. So that's why no one had heard of them up until we were told they were the most dangerous group ever.

3.  Indicted House Speaker Bobby Harrell's bond has been set at $18,000 and he has to get permission from the Court if he wants to leave the State of South Carolina. However, "Harrell has been granted permission to attend USC's game this weekend in Lexington, Kentucky against the Wildcats." Priorities, right? He may be under indictment, but he'll be darned if he ain't going to the Carolina/Kentucky game.

4. Fans will be able to give input on the name of the minor league team that is coming to Columbia soon. I'm partial to the Columbia Corruption, myself, but there are lots of options here.

SC Supreme Court Issues Opinion In Harrell vs. Attorney General

REVERSED! You can read the opinion here. I'll have comments later.

The Stone (Brewing) Bill

I'M ALL FOR THIS: SC Legislature has a bill pending to reduce the state regulations that would prevent brewpubs from operating.

Less government regulation = more freedom (and beer).

Cold Breakdown of the SC CWP Bill

If you read my blog regularly, you know that I'm both a lawyer and a gun owner with a CWP here in South Carolina. The new CWP bill that is about to become law hasn't really received an in-depth analysis other than focus on "you can carry in restaurants" line.

I'm not just blaming newspaper journalists here. Even the NRA's legal blog team has a cursory few sentences about this law that don't really tell you much. When you dig into this bill, there are actually some serious things that people need to know.

So, I (your humble blogger) have done the hard work of looking at the actual legislative language of the bill to let you know exactly what this bill does and doesn't do. So, here goes. (The alphabetical list is my own. It doesn't refer to any specific subsections. It was just a way to organize the points.)

A.     Carry Allowed into Restaurants and Bars: This is what most people know, as it's the big headline getter. As it stands right now, a person with a valid CWP (like me) cannot carry concealed into a bar or restaurant that sells alcohol for on-premises consumption. That means I can't carry into Apple-bee's or Rosso tonight because they serve alcohol. So, this law now amends that provision to say that a person who has a valid CWP license may carry concealed into a a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption. However, that person may not consume alcohol at all. If you drink while carrying, you lose your CWP, and can go to jail for up to two years.

B.     Restaurants and Bars May Prohibit Carry: Now, there are a good number of people who don't like the new tweak to the law as described above. Accordingly, there's a second tweak. Any restaurant and bar may simply post a sign that prohibits carrying concealed, and no one will be allowed to carry concealed. If you ignore the sign and carry concealed anyway, same penalty as above. I like to think of this as the "If you like your gun free zone, you can keep your gun free zone" provision.

Additionally, even if the bar or restaurant doesn't post the sign, they can still request that any particular person carrying concealed leave on a case-by-case basis. If that person refuses to leave, same penalty as above. So if you're a bar or restaurant, you can either chose to have an entirely gun free zone, or a selectively gun free zone.

C.     Tweaks to CWP Applications/Requirements: Before, you had to have a valid SC driver's license. Now, any photo ID issued by a state will work, as long as you qualify as a resident. The residency definition is also modified to allow certain classes of applicants (former and/or current military, police, law enforcement) to be exempt from most the training certifications.

D.     Elimination of the 8 Hour Training Requirement: Before, pretty much everyone had to go through a class that was a minimum of 8 hours as a requirement for your CWP. The 8 hour class length requirement has been eliminated. You still have to do the same things (including actually firing a handgun in the presence of the instructor) but there's no time minimum for each class.

E.     Online Applications: You can now submit your application to SLED online.

F.     Express Written Consent In Contradiction of Posted Sign: Kind of an interesting amendment. You can now, post a sign in front of your business and completely prohibit concealed carry. This bill now has a provision that would allow the owner to issue someone a written exemption from the sign generally prohibiting carrying.

G.     Renewals/Vehicle Storage: Currently, your CWP is valid for four years, then you have to renew. The bill changes that to five years. The renewal fee is still $50.00. Also, it allows CWP holders to store a pistol under their seat in their vehicle or in any storage compartment. (Although I wouldn't recommend that.)

That's basically it. So on to the opinion part of this.

Is this a good bill or not? The substantive part about carrying in places that serve alcohol is not as big of a deal as either side would probably want you to believe. If you run a bar or restaurant and you want to keep CWP folks out, then all you have to do is put up a sign. The good thing about this law is that it doesn't force anyone to do anything. It offers a set of rules for everyone to follow according to whatever choices they want to make, and I like that.

Just because I like to carry CWP doesn't mean everyone does. I'm sure there are people out there who own restaurants that don't want guns in their establishments. That's fine. This law respects their wishes.

As for the other provisions, I'm not really wild about eliminating the 8 hour minimum class time. I took the class, and it was really informative, even though I already had a solid background in guns and shooting. There were some people in my class who has zero knowledge going in, and they needed every minute of that eight hours to get comfortable. At the end, they felt very much empowered by their knowledge of how a gun actually works, the different parts of a gun, and all sorts of other basics. I just don't feel like 8 hours is too much to ask for if you're going to want to carry CWP, if you're going to take it seriously.

Also, if you read the NRA's summary of the law, they say this bill "improves training standards". I kind of think that's misleading at best.

I'm fine with the online application, since you have to send all the same information anyway. It's just an acknowledgement that e-mail is a simple way to communicate.

The express written consent is an interesting tweak. It means that someone can selectively allow CWP into their place by giving written consent to whomever they choose. I guess if a bar or restaurant wanted to ban CWP, but then wanted to allow a regular guy they know really well to carry, they can exempt him. Kind of interesting, and since it's all left up to the individual owners, I'm fine with that. I doubt this will happen much in practice, though.

So is it a good law? I think it's a good law in that it has taken an existing law and given more flexibility for each individual citizen and business to decide how they want to conduct themselves. Will it actually change that much of what goes on in practical terms? Probably not. All the folks who say this bill will turn SC into the "wild west" with shootouts in saloons are blowing smoke. Guns are a hot-button issue, so each political "team" will try to amp their base up by either saying this law is horrible or that it's panacea. To me, it's very vanilla stuff that could have easily been included in the first CWP Bill.

If you're an anti-gun person, I hope this analysis has calmed you. If you're pro-gun, I hope this has shown you that you don't have the freedom to carry anywhere anytime, and that there are stiff penalties for breaking the law in this regard.

So there you have it, campers. I feel that I've done my public service for the week and made up for not posting yesterday. If you have any questions or comments about the CWP bill, I'd be interested to hear them. Also, if you think I got any interpretation of the law wrong, let me know.

New Blog Addition to Sidebar (Drink. Blog. Repeat.)

I've added a new blog to the side-links on the right hand side of the page. I stumbled across Drink. Blog. Repeat. in connection with the Pint Bill pending in the SC Legislature. If you don't know what the Pint Bill is, you should read the very good explanation of it from Drink Blog Repeat.

If you like local South Carolina beer, you're going to love this blog. It has reviews, opinion, and upcoming events in the local beer world. If you're a beer guy (or gal) this is your go-to place for South Carolina beer happenings.

Plus, he has a cool logo, which kind of makes it look like a pirate's blog.

Drink. Blog. Repeat.

 

Cheers!

SC Gas Tax Increase?

The SC Legislature is considering raising the gas tax by tying it to inflation. The tax money would (allegedly) be used to maintain roads and bridges here in South Carolina.

It may surprise some of y'all, but I would actually be ok with raising the gas tax if the funds were only used on actual infrastructure projects. Maintaining the roads and bridges is one of the core functions of our government, and I don't mind paying for that.

What I do object to is tying the tax to inflation.That's a cop-out way for the tax to go up in the future passively. You want the tax to go up in the future - fine. Take a vote. That's what the legislature is there for. Each time you want to raise or lower a tax, the legislature should have to take an affirmative vote. Tying the gas tax to inflation is going to result in the tax going up (or maybe down) without our legislature actually doing anything, and that's neither smart nor responsible. No tax should automatically move around.

In short, ensure the money isn't going to be diverted to other stuff, and make the tax a hard number.

SC Considers Repeal of CWP Law

Happy Tuesday.

So of course right after I take my CWP class, the SC legislature is considering the repeal of the CWP law and allowing concealed carry without a permit and/or open carry.

If you know me, you know that I'm about as pro-gun as it gets. However, I'm not sure that I am in favor of repealing the CWP law and going to to Constitutional Carry. The main element of the current CWP law is the training requirement.

The way that I see it, the training requirement is kind of a gatekeeper for people. If you feel strongly about carrying, you'll take the class and get your permit. However, if you just wake up one day and causally want to carry and don't really know much about guns, the CWP training requirement stops you.

In essence, it separates the people who really want to carry from the people who want to do it on a whim. Now, that may or may not be a legal basis to do so, but I like the idea that you have to commit at least eight hours of your life before you walk around with lethal force on your hip.

My CWP Class Experience

On Saturday, I sat through my CWP (concealed weapons permit) instruction. The instruction is required to be a minimum of eight hours, which includes both classroom time and range time.

There were eight total people in the class, which made it an average-sized class, according to Paul Peters, the instructor. If you pay attention to South Carolina gun law news, Paul Peters recently was in the news, for his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the issue of modifying the concealed carry laws to allow for concealed carry into establishments that serve alcohol for on-premises consumption. Here's a photo of Paul from the classroom portion:

Paul Peters is grading our tests at this point.

Paul has a great background for teaching the CWP class. He’s a former police officer, former Lexington County Councilman, and he helped write the existing CWP law. In addition to being a certified instructor for the CWP class, he’s also a certified instructor for teaching other instructors.

The day was broken into three segments: a classroom portion, a range portion (actual shooting), and then further classroom time. Finally, we took a written exam. After the exam, Paul gave us the added service of fingerprinting us. He didn’t have to do that, but since he is a former police officer, he knows how to do it, and has all the equipment. That saved everyone a trip to the police station.

After taking the class I have a couple of thoughts. [NONE OF THIS IS LEGAL ADVICE] First, it is absolutely necessary to take the CWP course given the amount of laws regulating where you can carry, the practicalities you need to consider, the problems you will encounter, and specifically, when you can use deadly force, and how you go about it.

Going into the class, one of the main questions I wanted to discuss was how to handle a traffic stop while legally carrying. For the most part, I observe the speed limit, but I have been known from time to time to daydream while driving, and when that happens I end up going a little faster than the posted speed limit. I wanted to know what I should do in the situation I end up confronted by John Q. Law in a routine traffic stop.

Paul went into that scenario in detail, and he had the advantage of discussing the situation from both the points of view. For the police officer, a traffic stop is a dangerous part of the job. You’re approaching a person that you don’t know anything about, it could be dark, it could in an isolated place. They could be a normal person who happened to be speeding, or they could be a drug dealer who has a bunch of drugs in the trunk. As the officer, you don’t know who you’re dealing with.

As the person stopped, you don’t know what kind of police officer has just stopped you. It could be an old veteran who is wise and knows how to handle things, or it could be a scared young rookie making his first solo traffic stop, and he’s a little jittery.

As the person who has been stopped, it is your goal to put the officer at ease. You don’t want to do anything that will make him nervous, or afraid, because that’s how you end up getting shot. If it’s daytime, you will want to pull over somewhere safe, and if it’s nighttime, you will want to pull over somewhere as well-lit as possible. That way everyone can see. If you’re still in a dark place, put your dome light on. That way the police officer can see you more clearly. Remember, he doesn’t know what you’re doing in the car.

You should roll down the windows, put the car in park, turn it off, and then sit there calmly with your hands on the wheel. Don’t start reaching for your license; don’t start looking in the glove box for your registration and proof of insurance. Just sit there. The officer hasn’t asked for those yet. He will, but this isn’t the time to anticipate his questions. Just sit there quietly.

When the officer gets to your car, you’ll get the ol’ “Do you know why I pulled you over?’ question. How you answer that is up to you. The part that concealed carry folks want to remember is that when the officer asks for your driver’s license, you have to give him your CWP license, and inform him that you are legally carrying at that time. Don’t start reaching for your gun, don’t do anything else. As soon as you tell the officer this, you’re going to be entering territory where the officer realizes there is another firearm (other than his) present.

Personally, I’m going to handle the situation as follows:

Police Officer:           May I see your license and registration?

Me: [Hands SCDL, registration, and CWP license to officer] Officer, I am a CWP holder, and I am currently carrying a concealed weapon on my person. How would you like to proceed?

This has put the officer on notice that I have a gun. I’m not reaching for it, I’m keeping my hands on the wheel, and I’m not doing anything that could threaten him. If he’s a veteran cop, he may just do nothing and proceed with the traffic stop. If he wants to remove the gun from me for the duration of the traffic stop, I would tell him that I would prefer not to handle my gun in his presence, and I would prefer that I step out of the car, and he can remove it from me himself. That way, there is no way that I am doing anything that could threaten him.

Going through that scenario in the class was only a fraction of what we learned. I’m sure everyone is familiar with these signs:

Did you know that for that sign to be legally enforceable, it has to be an exact size? (8" x 12") If it’s smaller, it’s of no legal effect. If it’s larger it’s of no legal effect. That blows my mind. It has to be posted between 40" and 60" high, and it has to be a certain proximity from the door. (Side note, the signs at Regal Cinemas are at the ticket box office, not the door. So guess what? They're not legally enforceable.) Also, if the sign has to be posted at every entrance to the building, or the building isn’t covered. Here’s another one: if the words “NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED” aren’t in ALL CAPS, it’s not a legal sign. If you start looking at most places, the signs aren’t in compliance. Interesting huh?

Paul also let us know that this course was not the time for us to learn to shoot our guns, and this course was not the sum total of the training we should receive. He told us that we should continue to train and shoot at least once a month to stay proficient. He also recommended several other defensive handgun courses.

Over the whole course, Paul was the consummate professional, and he is extremely knowledgeable. He answered all of our questions in a discussion type format. With only eight students, it was very much like an upper level college course at my college. He asked us questions about hypothetical situations and we discussed them at length. We went through how handguns work in detail. We exhaustively went through handgun safety. During the entire class, safety was paramount. In fact, Paul started the class by saying “I don’t care if all you flunk this class, but we’re going to be safe today.”

Overall, the course was absolutely necessary. I cannot imagine the State of South Carolina just saying Go ahead and carry – good luck with figuring everything out.

For instance, let’s say you have a handgun in your car (you’re not a CWP holder, just a regular joe). In South Carolina, it’s perfectly legal to do that. However, in South Carolina you have to have it in the glove box, the center console, or the luggage compartment. If you get stopped by the police, it has to be in one of those three places. But then let’s assume you’re driving to Charlotte to go to the mall. As soon as you cross into North Carolina, the law changes. If you get stopped by the police in North Carolina the handgun has to be in plain view. That means you need to take the handgun out of the glove box and put it on the seat next to you before the officer approaches the car. Personally, I think that is a horrible law, but that’s the North Carolina law.

The sheer intricacies of the law are one thing; the sheer logistics are another; and the decision on when to use lethal force is another idea that needs time to be considered and developed. Paul made it clear that when you are carrying lethal force with you, you need to have planned ahead for situations, so you’re not trying to make important decisions under pressure. Safety, planning, training, and thoughtfulness were the hallmarks of his class.

If you’re looking to take a CWP class, I could not recommend him any more highly. If you’re against carrying concealed, I would recommend you take his class to educate yourself on the mindset of the people on the other side of the debate. There’s no requirement that you carry concealed after taking the class. Heck, you don’t have to even apply to SLED for the permit. It’s simply a great education on the laws in South Carolina.

I enjoyed the range time. We had a nice little bit of a break in between the rain for the shooting portion. Here's all eight of our targets before the shooting.

One target for each student.

Here's my target after the shooting, which has been scored 100 out of 100.

My target after Paul graded it. As you can see, a perfect score, but certainly room for improvement.

Here's Paul scoring anther student's target. As you can see, he went through each target with a little piece of chalk and made sure of each student's score personally.

Paul verifying a shooter's score.

After completing the written test, I received my certificate. I did not receive a perfect score. Paul took off .5 of a point because he didn't like the exact way I worded one of my answers to the written portion. So I ended up with 99.5% on the written test. However, a double 100% would sure look nice on the certificate.

Gov. Haley Is Wrong on Health Insurance Rate Hike

Ok, so here's the deal: Governor Haley got the State Budget and Control Board (which I believe is under the executive branch of our government) to raise the amount of what state workers pay for their health insurance. The only problem is the legislature had already decided not to do that. Per The State:

Haley’s move to raise state workers’ health insurance costs did more than just anger some workers and lawmakers. It also it upended a legislative deal that helped produce the state’s $6.7 billion budget. Lawmakers’ decision not to raise the amount that state workers pay for their health insurance was part of an elaborate compromise between Republicans and Democrats to pass the budget.

Democrats wanted to give a 4 percent pay raise to state workers, who had not received across-the-board raises since 2007. Republican budget writers countered with a 3 percent raise.

Democrats agreed, but only if Republicans would agree the state would pay the increase in state employees’ health insurance costs. That compromise was a big part of securing his vote for the budget, said state Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland, who joined Courson and state Sen. Joel Lourie in calling for the budget board to reverse itself.

I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of requiring state workers to pay a little more for their health insurance, but it seems like the legislature considered that idea and rejected it. A deal is a deal. Case closed. If you don't like that, elect some different folks next time around. Frankly, this sounds a little too much like the action that we are seeing from the Federal Executive, where the Executive Branch of the government is trying to make an "end run" around around existing law and unilaterally impose their will.

I think Governor Haley is just wrong on this one, just like I believe President Obama is wrong on some unilateral (e.g. altering illegal immigration enforcement).

It's too bad most people are blinded by their partisan tendencies to apply principles in an even-handed manner. Be consistent, folks.

Access Does Not Mean Free

Apparently, Governor Haley vetoed some spending. Among the spending she vetoed was spending for the SC Arts Commission.

Of course, the folks who like to spend our tax money were quick to criticize:

“It is disappointing that she would put a target on the Arts Commission and the Sea Grants Consortium,” he said. “It’s been proven over and over that having access to the arts helps attract industry to South Carolina... [House Minority Leader Harry Ott]

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/07/07/2344499/haley-issues-budget-vetoes.html#storylink=omni_popular#storylink=cpy

Having access to the arts? What the hell is he talking about?

I'm so tired of people using the word "access" incorrectly. Access is the freedom or ability to make use of something. It doesn't mean that you get to force someone to pay for it. I have the "access" to purchase a handgun, but the State of South Carolina isn't denying me access just because they won't buy me a sweet Colt Gold Cup.

Stop saying "access" when you mean subsidy. The Planned Parenthood crowd always talks about "access" to birth-control. Everyone has access to birth-control, you idiots. Most of us just buy it, and don't expect it for free.

Everyone has access to the arts. Art is all around you. I'm sure that the SC Arts Commission really thinks what they are doing is a good thing. I'm sure they have good intentions. But stop saying that people don't have "access" to things, when what you really mean is I want this thing for free.

Just say what you mean. And quit acting so damn entitled to my tax money. It's not a god-given right to have a stupid arts commission, and it's certainly not a core function of our state government.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/07/07/2344499/haley-issues-budget-vetoes.html#storylink=omni_popular#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/07/09/2347583/arts-groups-plan-rally-against.html#storylink=cpy

Six More Family Court Judges On the Way

Normally, I view additional government spending with a healthy dose of skepticism. However, even as someone who extols the virtues of fiscal restraint, I can absolutely say that we need more judges here in South Carolina.

Finally, the State Legislature has realized that South Carolina needs more judges to help manage the rising caseload here in the Palmetto State. Today, the SC Senate passed a bill approving the creation of six new family court judges and three new circuit court judges; nine in total.

This has been long overdue. South Carolina has the fewest number of judges per population and more than twice the national average of case filings per judge. Each year, Justice Toal tells the legislature these facts in her State of the Judiciary Report.

As a practicing lawyer here in South Carolina, I can tell you that wait times for hearings are longer than they need to be. I do a fair amount of family court work, and I do it throughout the state. Some counties run a tight ship, and others are an absolute nightmare.

In a certain county, in family court, just to get a hearing scheduled, not heard, can take up to six months. That's insane. I know the wheels of justice are slow, but six months to get a hearing scheduled means the wheels of justice have fallen off. If you want to get the dockets moving, you have to have more people available to get the cases disposed of. Alternative dispute resolution (mediation) has taken some pressure off the court, but you cannot force people to agree. Sometimes, especially in family court, you have to have an adjudication.

These new judges need to be assigned to the counties in South Carolina that have seen the population grow the most since the last judges were added. As a conservative, I am normally loathe to grow the size of government, but this is actually a legitimate need. I applaud the move to add new judges. The judiciary we have is comprised of some great people, but they're downing in the current workload.

Now, the next step is to get the South Carolina state courts to go to an e-filing system modeled after the Federal System. Automatic discovery and scheduling orders to push parties along is what keeps the Federal Court system moving. Time to get modern, South Carolina.

SC Senate Is Considering Raising Employees Wages

Fairness. Hey! We're going to raise your taxes to pay ourselves more.

State workers have not had a pay increase since 2007. Meanwhile, average hourly wages for private-sector workers in South Carolina have increased 9.7 percent since 2007, according to the state Department of Commerce.

“That’s not fair,” said state Sen. Darrell Jackson, D-Richland.

Fairness? I don't recall the public sector workers being laid of in droves during the recession. I also don't think that most of the private-sector folks have a sweet pension. Personally, I think we could fire 25% of the state workers who aren't performing well and give their pay to the 75% who do a good job.

That sounds like "fariness" to me.

Read more here: http://www.thestate.com/2012/04/26/2250994/sc-senate-considers-4-raise-for.html#storylink=cpy

Good News, SC Has Money to Burn!

Actually, we don't.

But you can't tell that to State Rep. Harry Ott. Apparently, House Minority Leader Harry Ott has lost touch with reality. He's decided that it would be a good idea to use the State Reserve Fund to pay out a bonus to State workers. No...really.

House Minority Leader Harry Ott says he will try to push through a 1 percent bonus for state workers and teachers in the state budget.Ott said the money would come from the state’s reserve funds

It's amazing. It's the reserve fund. It's for the proverbial "rainy day", not for the legislature to "make it rain" Platinum Plus style, in the form of bonuses. The reserve fund is not for paying bonuses to anyone, let alone everyone. This is madness. We're in the midst of a horrible economy, and Representative Ott has decided to give every single state worker (oh and because that's not enough) and every teacher, a 1% bonus in their salary.

First, not every single state worker (and teacher) does not merit a bonus. I'm sure there a a few folks out there who deserve to be fired, some who don't deserve a bonus, and some who deserve a little more. However, just giving out a bonus without considering each person rewards poor work, discourages hard work, and is just plain wasteful.

Second, did I mention it's the reserve fund? It's to be held in reserve, not paid out to people because we want to encourage them. Even if every single state worker (and teacher) deserved a 1% bonus, you don't use the reserve fund. What you do is make a budgeting decision to not spend the normal budget on something that is an equal amount. You know, analyzing cost/benefit, making priorities, and making decisions - the things that a legislator is supposed to do.

The problem is that our current legislators don't want to tell us "no". There is always more money for everyone, and nothing needs to be cut.

All I want in a legislator is for them to act like the money they spend is their own damn money.

  

Not All That Glitters is Gold

Yesterday, I received a tip that the South Carolina Legislature is taking a bill to committee that would make all gold and silver legal tender for all debts in South Carolina. I was totally unaware that such a bill existed.

After doing a bit of digging, I found the most recent version of the bill.

The crux of the bill is that "Any person may employ gold or silver coin, or both, as legal tender in this State under its laws for payment of any debt to which that person is a party."

I get that people are worried about the prospect of inflation. I get it. But, is this a realistic solution? It seems like this is going to create more problems than it solves. My reading of subsection (E) is that you don't have to accept gold or silver if you don't want to. So what is the point of this bill? It seems like you can basically have a debtor and creditor agree that the medium of exchange will be gold or silver. Ok, so who benefits from this?

I can see why a creditor, who really believes the value of paper money will fall would agree to be paid only in gold or silver. If the value of the dollar plummets, it helps out debtors, right? Let's say you make a Promissory Note today for $100,000, to be repaid over a period of 30 years. If the value of the dollar drops by 50%, then you can essentially repay the loan for half of it's actual value. That's a windfall for the debtor, and the creditor has to eat the loss.

So who's driving this legislation? I can't imagine it's the banking lobby. It just doesn't make sense to me in any logical manner. If two parties wanted to contract for payment of a debt in gold or silver, (or #2 pencils for that matter) what's to stop them? Do we need a law specifically authorizing this?

Maybe someone out there can drop some knowledge on me, because I'm not seeing why this is so important. On a practical matter, I can't imagine going to a restaurant and paying for my food in gold or silver coins. I mean, the kids who work at some of these places have a hard enough time making change for my $10 bill. Now we're going to require them to start weighing, measuring, and determining the value of my proffered gold coin?

Maybe I'm just too simple to understand the logic behind this bill, but it seems like another classic case of our legislature doing something we don't really need them to do.

A photo of Bill 4128's main lobbyist