wkhaz

My meeting with Representative Toole went, I though, very well. I spent 30 minutes discussing the situation with him. He was very appreciative of the education on Geocaching. He admitted that he knew very little about the sport. Mr. Toole was under the impression that Geocaching meant that the “treasure” was hidden in such a way that it had to be dug up. I spent a lot of time discussing micro and small caches as well as “off-limit” places to hide caches. Mr. Toole was very receptive to the idea of re-wording the proposed law in such a way as to preserve/protect cemeteries, archeological and historic sites but maintain the sport of Geocaching. He stated that IF the bill made it out of committee, he would like to see an alternate/amended version of the Bill from the Geocaching community. One that would preserve the sport in such places. Mr. Toole stated that he spoke with Ms. Ceips just before our meeting. He stated that she had met with some folks from the Geocaching community and that the meeting very went well. She sounded hopeful that this could be worked out to be mutually beneficial to all parties. Mr. Toole confirmed that persons (so he was told) had entered into cemeteries in the Low Country had had removed item/artifacts by digging. It was suspected that the person(s) were also Geocaching. Unless something else happens, I would like your thoughts on the matter. Examples would be: • caches in these areas are to be only micro caches • acceptable and/or unacceptable hiding locations • permits required with landowner for placing. Examples such as… MO State Parks and Nebraska One word of caution here – the bill is currently in House Judiciary Committee for review. Ms. Ceips just happens to be on that committee. Mr. Toole gave me Ms. Ceips business card and stated that she would like for me, or anyone else, to call her to discuss the Bill. I can post the contact information, if needed. Thanks to everyone for your interest in this matter. Hopefully, we will be able to get this worked out.

Do you have any new information on why the bill was introduced? Specifically, which caches and what allegedly happened? I am meeting with Representative Toole (my House Representative and a co-sponsor of the Bill) to discuss H.3777 this afternoon. The meeting is mainly to educate Mr. Toole about Geocaching (examples of containers and locations, geocaches in his district, etc.). With all luck, Mr. Toole will request that his name be withdrawn from the bill.

I'm up for a try...

I have spoken with Representative Toole’s office (he is a co-sponsor of H.3777). Mr. Toole’s staff stated that Mr. Toole, as well as the other co-sponsors of the bill, were backing the bill based on the information they were given by Representative Catherine Ceips (House District 124, Beaufort County). According to Ms. Ceips (second-hand information), numerous cemeteries have been vandalized by “geocachers”. According to Toole's Office, Ms. Ceips told them that geocachers were digging up the cemetery and headstones in Beaufort County and the Hilton Head area of South Carolina. I am in the process of setting up a personal meeting with Mr. Toole (my House Representative) to discuss the situation and to educate him on geocaching. I am also writing letters to all of the co-sponsors of H.3777 to inform them of my concerns. It would be great if someone that is a registered voter in SC House District 124 (Beaufort County) would contact Ms. Ceips to discuss this situation. We do not need an additional law that would outlaw geocaching in the areas outlined in H.3777. ESPECIALLY since we ALREADY have a law on the books that makes it illegal to obliterate, vandalize, desecrate a burial ground; deface, vandalize, injure, or remove a gravestone or other memorial monument or marker commemorating a deceased person; and more (SECTION 16-17-600. Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof; liability of crematory operators; penalties.). Once again, the sponsors of H.3777 are: Ceips, Loftis, Breeland, Scott, Whipper, Bowers, Hosey, Vaughn, Anthony, Battle, Chalk, Clyburn, Dantzler, Hardwick, Harvin, Herbkersman, J. Hines, Howard, Jefferson, Kirsh, Lee, Martin, McCraw, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J.H. Neal, Perry, M.A. Pitts, Rivers, Scarborough, Simrill, Toole and Umphlett. Please contact them ASAP and educate them on geocaching. Let them know you do not support the bill, AS THEIR CONSTITUANT and as a REGISTERD VOTER in their district. The contact information for these representatives is at http://www.scstatehouse.net/html-pages/housebios.html.

Just my thoughts on this but... the new law seemingly would follow SECTION 16-17-600 which, in part, concerns the "Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof..." I believe the proposed law would include ALL cemeteries in SC (public or private). In addition, in SC, archeological sites are located on both public and private property. The new law would be under: Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses, Chapter 17 - OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, Article 7 - MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES. This applies statewide, with other laws such as: SECTION 16-17-410. Conspiracy SECTION 16-17-450. Refusal to relinquish party telephone line for emergency call. SECTION 16-17-470. Eavesdropping, peeping, voyeurism. and... SECTION 16-17-490. Contributing to delinquency of a minor.

House bill H. 3777, if passed, will make it unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State. The bill was introduced by Representatives Ceips, Loftis, Breeland, Scott, Whipper, Bowers, Hosey, Vaughn, Anthony, Battle, Chalk, Clyburn, Dantzler, Hardwick, Harvin, Herbkersman, J. Hines, Howard, Jefferson, Kirsh, Lee, Martin, McCraw, Miller, Moody-Lawrence, J.H. Neal, Perry, M.A. Pitts, Rivers, Scarborough, Simrill, Toole and Umphlett. http://www.scstatehouse.net/cgi-bin/query2...77&printornot=N Please contact you representative and let him/her know that (as a registered voter) you do not support this legislation. A bill TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SECTION 16-17-605 SO AS TO DEFINE THE TERMS "GEOCACHE", "GEOCACHING", AND "LETTERBOXING", TO PROVIDE THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENGAGE IN GEOCACHING OR LETTERBOXING IN CEMETERIES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, OR ON THE HISTORIC PROPERTIES OF THE STATE, AND TO PROVIDE A PENALTY. SECTION 1. Article 7, Chapter 17, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding: "Section 16-17-605. A. For the purposes of this section: (1) 'Geocache' means the container that serves the purpose of providing a place to store small items or logbooks which are intentionally placed by their owners. (2) 'Geocaching' means the activity of hiding a geocache container from public view for the challenge of participants using a global positioning system (GPS) device and internet published coordinates to locate the geocache. (3) 'Letterboxing' means an activity similar to geocaching in which the participant takes directions and uses those directions to find a hidden object. The directions normally are in the form of a riddle, and the hidden object is a stamp that the participant uses to stamp a piece of paper to prove he has visited the site. B. It is unlawful for a person to engage in the activity of geocaching or letterboxing in a cemetery, archeological sites, or on the historic properties of the State, as defined in Section 60-12-10(4). C. A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one hundred dollars or imprisoned for not more than thirty days. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection ©, the judge, in his discretion, may order a person convicted of a violation of this section to perform up to one hundred hours of community service. E. The provisions of this section do not preclude a person from being charged with a violation of Section 16-17-600 in addition to a violation of this section." SECTION 2. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws. SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.