Jump to content

South Carolina Legislation Meeting


Recommended Posts

If the law passed would I be able to get a baiter hidden in a graveyard listed on the Geocaching website?

 

Just kidding, I know it would have to go in the baiting website ;-)

 

the bill has just been updated to reflect the following...

 

4/26/2005 House Member(s) request name added as sponsor: Mahaffey

Link to comment

I doubt with all these breaks for lunch, and barfroom breaks, and the basketball game thay must attend at 5pm, I'll highly doubt they'll get to this bill today . :anibad: Oh yeh , I want a baseball jersey " for the South carolina house league too"

Link to comment
Well, that's cool. It's not going to go through the house uncontested!

 

H.3777 was the last bill to be brought up, but they didn't have the time to debate it.

 

They severely mangled pronouncing "geocaching."

Sounds like a start, do you have any details about the "not going through uncontested" part?

Link to comment

The bill was up for reading (4:30 pm) but there were so many representatives that wanted to debate the bill, Ms Ceips was not able to speak on the bill and is was put off for another date. Time ran out and the House adjourned for the day.

Link to comment
I Think the best idea i mine: For, the state of south carolina change the name of Geo-caching to something else, Like say Skunk-Hunting, if you get stopped by the Anti-fun police with your GPS system in your hand, just tell them you are tracking skunks, being a ex-cop i would except that??, or maybe Panther-tagging, your following radio/satelite signals with your etrex.

Im not so sure that'd fly.. :ph34r: It'd be like a drug dealer telling the police that he's just peddling chicklets. :anibad:

Link to comment
Well, that's cool.  It's not going to go through the house uncontested!

 

H.3777 was the last bill to be brought up, but they didn't have the time to debate it.

 

They severely mangled pronouncing "geocaching."

Sounds like a start, do you have any details about the "not going through uncontested" part?

Like what wkhaz was saying, so many people wanted to debate the bill there wasn't enough time for it.

 

Some bills were simply read and voted on in a rubberstamp-like manner. Some had to have a formal vote with each person's vote displayed on a big screen.

 

At least it hasn't been rubberstamped! w00t!

Link to comment

I suggest that people re-write or call their representatives. Because there will be debate, they may have renewed interest or what you have to say may become more persuasive. Particularly try to talk to those who wish to debate the matter and urge that they consider the problems with the bill and not support it.

Link to comment

Question ..... I have gotten a reply from my state senator who graciously took the time to reply to my e-mail re: house bill 3777. He said he has some problems with the bill as it is currently written, but mentions the "vandalism" of a cemetery in the low country. Has anyone determined that a geocacher vandalized anything? Or was it merely the presence of people in a cemetery and photos/posts deemed inappropriate? What actually started this mess (other than the overreaction of Mrs Ceips)?

Link to comment

As far as I know, there has been absolutely no vandalism of any cemetery or historical site by geocachers.

 

There have been some grave robbing by other groups and selling artifacts on eBay--supposedly.

 

Cieps confused the two to garner support for this bill. Geocachers are the target because we are the only people she could pin it on. What is interesting is the "photo of some guy laying on a grave holding a skull" has never come to light. Nor has the photographic proof geocachers were digging and burying caches. When I spoke with her, she was already aware of our organized resistance was backing away from that position because she knew we would be calling her on it and she couldn't substantiate her allegations. However, the lies have been planted.

Link to comment

I'm curious.

 

When you click on the link in CoyoteRed's auto-signature, it takes you to a copy of the bill in question (16-17-605). Section E of the bill says...

 

"(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."

 

What is 16-17-600?

 

:anibad:

Link to comment
As far as I know, there has been absolutely no vandalism of any cemetery or historical site by geocachers.

And the whole concept of geocaching, where you sign a logbook and have an archived record of your activities on the public website, seems inherently incompatible with people who would want to vandalize or commit other criminal acts.

 

I doubt if Ms. Ceips can be convinced, but I'd hope other SC legislators would be receptive to the idea that not only would geocaching be highly unlikely to be associated with vandalism, but that it would help serve as a deterent by increasing visits to these sites by law-abiding citizens. Vandalism tends to occur in places where the perpetrators have little concern that they will be observed. Furthermore, the logged records at geocaching.com could be useful in any investigation of vandalism. Checking with the cachers who visited a given cemetary or other site could help pin down the time when the vandalism occurred and provide additional clues to authorities such as any suspicious activities that may have been observed.

Link to comment

Well i just saw the rest of the House on live video today, and Rep. Cieps didnt get a word in before about 2 dozen reps yelled for debate, this might get good tommorrow, but on the schedule it looks H3777 will be last again, they might just throw this out because its last after the CDV bill, (Criminal Domestic Violence law), My local rep never got back to me after writing him. I wonder if he know whats damage this bill would do to tourism in Jasper county, knowing a historic marker is across from his office, and it would ilegal to use a GPS system to find his office. Well I keep on praying. :ph34r::anibad:

Link to comment
I'm curious. 

 

What is 16-17-600?

SECTION 16﷓17﷓600. Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof; liability of crematory operators; penalties.

 

(A) It is unlawful for a person wilfully and knowingly, and without proper legal authority to:

(1) destroy or damage the remains of a deceased human being;

(2) remove a portion of the remains of a deceased human being from a burial ground where human skeletal remains are buried, a grave, crypt, vault, mausoleum, or other repository; or

(3) desecrate human remains.

A person violating the provisions of subsection (A) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not less than one year nor more than ten years, or both.

A crematory operator is neither civilly nor criminally liable for cremating a body which (1) has been incorrectly identified by the funeral director, coroner, medical examiner, or person authorized by law to bring the deceased to the crematory; or (2) the funeral director has obtained invalid authorization to cremate. This immunity does not apply to a crematory operator who knew or should have known that the body was incorrectly identified.

( B ) It is unlawful for a person wilfully and knowingly, and without proper legal authority to:

(1) obliterate, vandalize, or desecrate a burial ground where human skeletal remains are buried, a grave, graveyard, tomb, mausoleum, or other repository of human remains;

(2) deface, vandalize, injure, or remove a gravestone or other memorial monument or marker commemorating a deceased person or group of persons, whether located within or outside of a recognized cemetery, memorial park, or battlefield; or

(3) obliterate, vandalize, or desecrate a park or other area clearly designated to preserve and perpetuate the memory of a deceased person or group of persons.

A person violating the provisions of subsection ( B ) is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than ten years or fined not more than five thousand dollars, or both.

©(1) It is unlawful for a person wilfully and knowingly to steal anything of value located upon or around a repository for human remains or within a human graveyard, cemetery, or memorial park, or for a person wilfully, knowingly, and without proper legal authority to destroy, tear down, or injure any fencing, plants, trees, shrubs, or flowers located upon or around a repository for human remains, or within a human graveyard, cemetery, or memorial park.

(2) A person violating the provisions of item (1) is guilty of:

(a) a felony and, upon conviction, if the theft of, destruction to, injury to, or loss of property is valued at two hundred dollars or more, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, and must be required to perform not more than five hundred hours of community service;

( B ) a misdemeanor triable in magistrates court if the theft of, destruction to, injury to, or loss of property is valued at less than two hundred dollars. Upon conviction, a person must be fined, imprisoned, or both, pursuant to the jurisdiction of magistrates as provided in Section 22﷓3﷓550, and must be required to perform not more than two hundred fifty hours of community service.

Edited by peter
Link to comment
I'm curious. 

 

What is 16-17-600?

SECTION 16?17?600. Destruction or desecration of human remains or repositories thereof; liability of crematory operators; penalties.

 

<snip>

So, again...there are already laws on the book that will cover vandalism in cemetaries. Why do they need to ban geocaching? :ph34r:

Link to comment

The shear fact that H.3777 is associated with 16-17-600 tells us where they get their thinking. It is also insulting for the authors and sponsors of this bill to associate us with such activities.

 

Apparently, no activities they've been able to pin on a geocacher was prosecutable under 16-17-600, so they want to criminalize geocaching so they can prosecute someone even if it isn't the right person. So instead, they hold up a few pictures and mangled logs, and say, "just look how irreverent these people act! That should be against the law!"

 

I am kicking myself for not including this as a talking point in our Call for Action mailing list letters. That was very short sighted of me.

 

I am very pleased to say my representative, Rep. Hinson, is on the list to debate the bill. While I did unfortunately interupt her dinner last night, I wanted to touch base one last time before this bill went back to the floor. She assured me that she is not supporting this bill.

 

It feels good to know you've got someone on your side.

 

Don't be fooled by the debate list, though. Some of those people are going to argue for the bill.

Link to comment
From the House meeting yesterday...

4/26/2005  House  Requests for debate-Rep(s). Lucas, Weeks, Ott, Thompson, Rutherford, Hosey, Scarborough, Pinson, Ceips, Scott, Merrill, Hinson, and Limehouse

 

H.3777 is on todays calendar at page 43.

We know where Ceips stands. Anybody know where the others stand?

Scarborough is for the bill, he's a sponsor.

 

Rep. Hinson is against the bill. (Warm fuzzies go out to these genteel Southern Lady.)

 

Here's to keeping your fingers crossed the rest are against.

Link to comment
Two questions.

 

What is the link to the live video feed?

 

If someone is monitoring it, could they post a note when the bill comes up for debate?

Go to www.sc.gov

-click goverment from the chocies across the top

-click SC Legislature Online from the list of links under the pic of the Gov.

-After clicking on the SC legislature online link you will see the links for the video feed

Link to comment
Two questions.

 

What is the link to the live video feed?

 

If someone is monitoring it, could they post a note when the bill comes up for debate?

Go to www.sc.gov

-click goverment from the chocies across the top

-click SC Legislature Online from the list of links under the pic of the Gov.

-After clicking on the SC legislature online link you will see the links for the video feed

Got it, here is the LINK.

Link to comment

Hi folks,

 

Very late to this topic. A friend let me know what was going on last night. I've contacted both my representative, Nikki Haley and Bill Herbkersman, an acquaintance and one of the bill sponsors.

 

Bill replied quickly. His reply was positive and indicated that he wished for there to be debate on the subject. He also indicated that he would forward my message to all of the other members.

 

Hope my rep. is as responsive......

Link to comment

Terracachers.org now needs to consider compiling a public list of historical and archaeological sites for the use of SC geocachers in complying with this law. It’s time to contact the State Archaeologist and the State Historic Preservation Officer. I will draft the request for this information, which will state exactly why it’s needed and how it will be used.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...