South Carolina Legislation Meeting

May 10, 2005

looks like we're up now.

1.5k · May 10, 2005

umm did I miss something looks like they skipped it???

7.2k · May 10, 2005

~stalling~

May 10, 2005

My understanding is they adjourned from "debate" until tomorrow morning.

Speaker just said something like he intends to cover EVERYTHING on the calendar tomorrow, so looks like we're up tomorrow for sure ...

Edited May 10, 2005 by RandLD

1.7k · May 10, 2005

Ok folks, in the event they get to us today lets remember a few things.

1. People from the SC goverment are reading these forums, so think about what you post.

2. So far MS. Ceips evidence has been very inflammatory, but has not held up to investigation. So be prepared for more outrageous claims on her part, don't get me started about the Jewish Cemetary.

3. They are going to finish the entire calender tomorrow.

4. If this does make it out of the house, the senate will not start working on this bill at least, until January. So we still have time.

7.2k · May 10, 2005

Wow, less than an hour's worth of work.

21.9k · May 10, 2005

The House has adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

May 10, 2005

So does this mean that we'll be first up tomorrow? Or is there a whole new list of stuff that goes first?

1.5k · May 10, 2005

Check back this afternoon for the calender to see

6.7k · May 10, 2005

He called Cieps up, she handed him a paper and walked off - then he ignored it till tomorrow. Weird!

May 10, 2005

They'll do the "Uncontested" Bills before they get to ours for sure. Don't know where we'll be on the calendar after that, nor do I know when they'll post the new calendar. When it's finished, it'll be posted here:

http://www.scstatehouse.net/hcal/houcal.htm

Edited May 10, 2005 by RandLD

20.7k · May 10, 2005

On the off chance that she is going to bring up the jewish cemetary 'issue', has anyone briefed friendly legislators on the this issue?

May 10, 2005

I'm surprised the other legislators are eating up her misquotes. If I've learned anything about debate methods, if a quote is 1 sentence long or starts and ends with "...", then it's suspect and should be researched and/or questioned.

1.7k · May 10, 2005

On the off chance that she is going to bring up the jewish cemetary 'issue', has anyone briefed friendly legislators on the this issue?

I sent out an e-mail to all the house members specifically addressing this. Not only for the outright lie, also the timing. She informed a Geocacher calling from Georgia, the day before the 60th anniversary of the end of WWII and the liberation of Auschwitz, world leaders were going to Auschwitz for a ceremony.

Edited May 10, 2005 by magellan315

May 10, 2005

Huh? What did I miss about the Jewish cemetary 'issue'?

(PM or email me to avoid stirring up the forum)

EDIT: If it's about the UV ink.... "Oh that". I just didn't realize the timing was so "coincidental".

Edited May 10, 2005 by Paulcet

1.7k · May 10, 2005

Huh? What did I miss about the Jewish cemetary 'issue'?

(PM or email me to avoid stirring up the forum)

EDIT: If it's about the UV ink.... "Oh that". I just didn't realize the timing was so "coincidental".

Yeah, its the UV ink one. I'm sure that it had been circulating amongst the house members shortly after the bill came up. The first it had been heard of in the forums was the day I reffered to.

I found it offensive that the authors of this bill would use a cememtary and a grave in a disrespectful manner to further their goals.

May 10, 2005

Hope there aren't any caches hidden in this cemetery.

Son Finds Exposed Coffins At Chicago Cemetery

Good luck on defeating this bill guys. We've done a few cemetery caches and I have personally reset one tombstone that was knocked over and cleaned a few others at a couple of other old cemeterys. There are many cemeterys that are forgotten and no one visits any more and sending geocachers there can't be all bad.

May 10, 2005

Hope there aren't any caches hidden in this cemetery.

I know you were joking, but it got my thinking, so I decided to check ...

According to this map, there aren't any caches in the cemetery. (The cemetery in question is the green area in the center, if my information is correct.) There are a couple in the parks nearby but none closer than, say 1/4 of a mile.

Good luck on defeating this bill guys. We've done a few cemetery caches and I have personally reset one tombstone that was knocked over and cleaned a few others at a couple of other old cemeteries. There are many cemeteries that are forgotten and no one visits any more and sending geocachers there can't be all bad.

Thanks for the well-wishes. As many have said before, I believe you and those like you tend to be the rule, while these incidences that have been used (or misused) for this bill are the exception.

We'll just have to see what happens.

Edited May 10, 2005 by RandLD

May 10, 2005

Hope there aren't any caches hidden in this cemetery.

Son Finds Exposed Coffins At Chicago Cemetery

Stage 1 of Free Parking is about 1000 feet away.

May 10, 2005

Wednesday's (tomorrow's) calendar is up on http://www.scstatehouse.net/hcal/houcal.htm

Looks like we're on Page 9.

May 10, 2005

Personally, I wouldn't be caught dead in a cemetery.

Seriously though,

It is much easier to paint any group of people with a broad brush than to actually realize the diversity of the group and work from that. They've used to broad brush of people having "fun" in a cemetery and "being disrespectful" and, unfortunately, that is going to be much harder to counteract now because people hate changing preconceived notions.

1.5k · May 10, 2005

--edited--

Edited May 11, 2005 by geoholic28

20.7k · May 10, 2005

I give up. I read all the posts between the last warning for us to behave and this one. I didn't find anything to be concerned about.

9.4k · May 10, 2005

If legislation is passed due to some comments in a public forum then I think we're all in trouble.

1.9k · May 10, 2005

We speak honestly and upbeat and try to be honest at all times. We use a sense of humor no different than anyone else does. Ceips lies with a smile all in the efforts of banning something that she herself doesn't even understand, and yet we need to watch what we say? Please. She is going to make everything up as she has been doing the whole time while we sit here acting like scared puppies. As far as anyone else reading these other than her, why should anyone pretend to put on a false face for them. This is how we are. We have nothing to hide. No matter where you go you will find a bad apple if you look hard enough, but i haven't found one in this thread that causes the constant reminding of big brother is watching. The more you tell people this, and the more "they" read it, the more you make it look like we do have something to hide. Relax. No one wants this attempted banning to go through, we are all on the same side, But we are still allowed to voice our thoughts until she takes that away too.

May 10, 2005

The thing I don't understand is this: are they trying to ban geocaching statewide, or just in cemetaries or what?

20.7k · May 10, 2005

A little of both.

The bill would include cemetaries, archeological sites, and historic places within SC. The bill is very broad to basically include any use of a GPS in these areas. Further, archeological sites typically are not listed anywhere, so one would not know that he is breaking the law. Also, huge chunks of the state (including entire towns) are listed as historical.

Edited May 10, 2005 by sbell111

May 10, 2005

Well then quite honestly, I don't see this bill being quite so bad. Geocaching SHOULDN'T be done at those places. And lets face it, GC.com just doesn't have the resources to check EVERY cache to make sure it's proper, hence the reason there was a cache in a graveyard in the first place.

Although I will admit the devil will be in the details and the implementation. Some things; like unmarked archeological sites and entire towns should be given some leeway. I mean if the town is historical with a park in the middle, that's kind of differant then hiding a geocache in the bedroom of a 1800 farm house.

As long as we can still hide them in private (with permission) and public lands (except for places like graveyards) then I don't think this bill will do much to interefere with geocaching.

May 10, 2005

A little of both.

The bill would include cemetaries, archeological sites, and historic places within SC. The bill is very broad to basically include any use of a GPS in these areas. Further, archeological sites typically are not listed anywhere, so one would not know that he is breaking the law. Also, huge chunks of the state (including entire towns) are listed as historical.

Wouldn't this bill have to be a bit more specific in the actual "Locations" in which it would be illegal to use a GPS? Because if something is listed as a historical site or something of that nature, what happens if that historical thing is in a state park? Don't fish and wildlife officers use GPS Devices?

Also,

To say that the use of the GPS in these area's is taking away our rights as citizens. I mean, That's almost like saying, you can't listen to a certain kind of music in this town. If we go out and buy these GPS's, that are well over 100$, shouldn't we be able to use them. They are not hurt what so ever to the environment, they are actually a safety device!!!

Some other things to think about....

Some cars are coming out with GPS navigation in the cars...Would this count?

Most Cell phones now have a GPS of some type in them....Would this count?

Some people that use PDA's have a GPS in them....Would this count?

The bill is to vague......It doesn't have the specifics it needs.

~D

May 10, 2005

If legislation is passed due to some comments in a public forum then I think we're all in trouble.

Yea I thought the same thing at one point too. That must be a new way of seeing things around here. Not that long ago comments that did not violate any of the guidelines were deleted. That is when I thought we were all in trouble.

6.4k · May 10, 2005

The bill is to vague......It doesn't have the specifics it needs.

~D

That's part of the problem.

Also, I haven't noticed this mentioned yet, but if the bill progresses it MAY be something for the SC cachers to look into. A GPS is really nothing more then a fancy radio receiver. Federal law protects (with a few very specific exceptions) our rights to monitor radio transmissions for personal use. State/local law is not allowed to over-ride this. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) is primarily a ham radio organization, but they do sometimes get involved with general radio rights; especially in a case like this where many hams also use GPS for APRS. They already have a fairly effective lobby record and their own lawyers well versed in radio laws. You might also want to consider involving the Electronic Frontier Foundation. This sounds like it's right up their ally.

May 11, 2005

Regardless, these "big shots" or whatever you may call them, Don't want people tromping around these places. But, In all actaulity, you can't keep us from them. I've been to one (1) cache in a Cemetary, and let me tell you, I did my best to stay respectful. It's the same as a state park. I walk on the trails, but there are always those who go off and make thier own trails. Do you close the state park because someone was walking off and making thier own trail.

Just because one makes a mistake all should pay, because that's the way things work.

Another thing, is trying to make a STATE ban (i'm not up-to-date on the bill) on a recreational activity that promotes getting out and not sitting on your butt! In a country torn by obesity you'd think they would be promoting anything that would get people more active. I know I'm more active because of Geocaching.

This whole thing sounds like a big headache.

~D

1.9k · May 11, 2005

Well then quite honestly, I don't see this bill being quite so bad.

you might want to start at page 1 instead of 21 to understand whats going on down there. When they say archeological sites or historic sites, from my understandings, and some you can gain from reading back further, is most of the entire town of Charleston is considered historic which would make this illegal in an entire town. Finding your local resturant while visiting from out of town would be illega if using GPS. Still agree??

edit: embarrassing spelling error

Edited May 11, 2005 by pghlooking

1.5k · May 11, 2005

--edited--

Edited May 11, 2005 by geoholic28

May 11, 2005

Well then quite honestly, I don't see this bill being quite so bad.
...snip...

As long as we can still hide them in private (with permission) and public lands (except for places like graveyards) then I don't think this bill will do much to interefere with geocaching.

As some read the current version of the bill, you would also have to get written permission to HUNT for a cache even if the cache was placed with written permission.

Assuming that's a correct interpretation, the visiting tourist geocacher would have to find the land manager on short notice when they wanted to hunt or have contacted the land manager in advance (by snailmail?). I doubt many land managers would be willing to post their cell phone numbers so you could contact them to meet with you on short notice while carrying around a stack of permission forms.

And the "another location" language can be interpreted to prohibit even the use of automobile navigation in the protected areas (like the cities of Charleston or half of some counties).

I think that might "interfere with geocaching" a little.

Jon

20.7k · May 11, 2005

Well then quite honestly, I don't see this bill being quite so bad. Geocaching SHOULDN'T be done at those places. ...

Really, why?

Without even discussing the huge problems with the bill being so broad to exclude all uses of GPS, not just geocaching, I see problems with all three parts of the bill.

1) What exactly is wrong with caches in cemetaries? I've been to many caches in cemetaries and can't think of any right now that anyone should have a problem with. These caches tend to come come in three flavors. First, a micro in a tree. Second, a virt. Third, a multi that requires you to get info within the cemetary and find a cache elsewhere (I own one of these).

2) How can you expect me to stay away from archeological sites when you won't tell me where they are?

3) A huge chunk of the town I live in is on the national register. Should I not cache here? Why?

May 11, 2005

Well then quite honestly, I don't see this bill being quite so bad.

you might want to start at page 1 instead of 21 to understand whats going on down there. When they say achelogical sites or historic sites, from my understandings, and some you can gain from reading back further, is most of the entire town of Charleston is considered historic which would make this illegal in an entire town. Finding your local resturant while visiting from out of town would be illega if using GPS. Still agree??

I wouldn't support any bill that outlaws using GPS anywhere, as is what I'm hearing on here. I would only say this isn't a bad bill if they outlaw hiding caches in specific places. Whole towns is unfair, but historic buildings is fair. I think the whole notion of a whole town being historic is asinine anyways.

Like I said, the devil will be in the detials. Too far one way and graves will be disrupted, to far the other way and perfectly innocent geocaching suffers. I'm just advocating a happy middle. People shoud not be allowed to hide caches in cemetaries, digs and historical sites, the definition of such things I think is where the differance in my opinion and others lie I believe.

May 11, 2005

Ceips lies with a smile all in the efforts of banning something that she herself doesn't even understand

Why of course. Have you ever met an honest politician who didn't believe the end justifies the means?

May 11, 2005

Being a person who has been involved in the Legislative process before I fell I can offer a couple of points to this conversation.

First of all this bill is what is called "feel good legislation".

It addresses a supposed "problem" that hurts few and which a bill would penalize an unorganized and "tiny" group of people. I can assure you Ceips anticipated NO resistance to this bill. I can assure you that she is quite suprised at the responce that she has gotten so far.

Second of all if this bill were to pass, which I doubt at this point, it will never be enforced by any law enforcement agency. There are simply too many rapes, murders, drugs for the police to waste their time on a "crime" that has no victim.

Every state passes laws that ban certain things but are never enforced. A couple of years ago Maine passed a law that made it illegal for someone to look at nude pictures on the internet. To this day there has not been one single person arrested for doing this.

Third point, I would venture to say the average "boy or girl in blue" will never be informed of the geocaching ban, nevermind arrest someone for this. And no judge will send anybody to jail for this. I think current tresspassing laws are more strict that the "geocaching law" would be.

Now don't get me wrong please all of you SC people call or visit your legistator and voice your concern about this bill, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over it either.

Just my 2 cents. Please don't "flame me".

1.9k · May 11, 2005

Whole towns is unfair, but historic buildings is fair.
...snip...

Too far one way and graves will be disrupted, to far the other way and perfectly innocent geocaching suffers. I'm just advocating a happy middle. People shoud not be allowed to hide caches in cemetaries, digs and historical sites, the definition of such things I think is where the differance in my opinion and others lie I believe.

Gc does a great job of policing itself, and the respectful cachers here are the eyes and ears of their communities. Ceips herself has even reluctantly admitted there has been no vandalism caused by any geocachers. So why do we all of a sudden need to create a law to ban a sport/activity? This is strictly political and don't forget that for a second. There is nothing illegal about using a GPS now. Vandalism in a cemetary is already a crime. So the only thing this does is make using a GPS illegal. Since you think whole towns is unfair maybe we should try to repeal the hisoric classification of Charlestown instead? And you feel banning historic buildings is fine? So i shouldn't be able to bring tourists to see a historic building by placing a virtual cache there? Isn't that they whole idea of geocaching anyhow? To bring you to a place to learn something or see something that otherwise you may not know even existed. Geocaching has done more for our history, the same history that our kids will never learn and if Ceips has her way never see, than most public schools are doing these days. What Ceips fails to tell, and you seem to over look, is that a cache being placed somewhere doesnt always mean there is something physically placed at a location. It may be nothnig more than visiting the spot, or visiting and taking some notes. Now wheres the harm in that? I always thought our forefathers would want visitors to show their respect in their own way.

2k · May 11, 2005

If legislation is passed due to some comments in a public forum then I think we're all in trouble.

Yep,

May 11, 2005

In our case, we had a cache that had the hunter visit two historical grave sites, then go on to the physical cache located in a nearby state park named for one of the historical figures.

The theme of the cache was to learn more about an early American statesman (who incidentally brought the poinsetta plant to the US while he was ambassador to Mexico) and to highlight the historic structures (roads and bridges) that he was responsible for building in SC. For some reason, in spite of his achievements, he never got much coverage in the history books, but he is buried in South Carolina not too far from Columbia and has left his mark across the entire state in a variety of ways.

Of course, we've taken the cache down since it required the hunter to visit a cemetery carrying a GPS, never mind that the state clearly wants people to visit those sites to learn about the individuals involved. (Both gravesites were easily found by the state historical marker in the graveyards and in the first case by signs leading to the gravesite.)

It's sad that Representative Ceips cannot see the educational and health benefits that come from pursuing this hobby, but I'm afraid she has become so entrenched in her position that her pride won't let her back down now.

Regarding enforcement, I suspect that the post above is right - it is probably a feel-good law that won't be enforced often, but it may be enforced selectively on behalf of someone with a law enforcement connection that has a grudge against a specific individual. It would be better if such laws weren't on the books at all than to risk selective enforcement and incurring high costs for legal assistance even if the cacher ultimately wins the case.

May 11, 2005

It seems that the fear of being prosecuted for Geocaching in a cemetary in SC may be the least of our worries. Read the below email from http://www.geocaching.com/profile/?guid=c7...43-5f8444cefeb9 riogrande1836 who contacted me about one of my TB's in his cache!

"That story about legislation in SC is almost as bad as what happened to me last September. Read my profile & bio at geocaching.com. I was arrested in Southern New Mexico by Homeland security for being a dope smuggler! All because I had my electronic toys while geocaching in the area of Columbus, NM. An area I have visited and frequented for many years! I had an Etrex Legend, a Garmin GPS-V, about $200 worth of topo maps, my laptop computer with a sattelite uplink, night vision scope, telescope, a $2000 mountain bike, and all my amatuer radio equipment confiscated because a rogue agent claims he had information from a confidential source that my "high tech" gear was used to smuggle drugs!

I have never used or had anything to do with drugs......I just love the outdoors and my toys. Anyway back in March in federal court in Las Cruces NM I was trying to get things cleared up and my wife was testifying as to what geocaching was. The judge, my attorney and the US Attorney said they had never heard of Geocaching! They took a recess to research geocaching on the internet...........I am still without my gear, the laptop also had a GPS unit & software installed in it, and I am still waiting for a resolution on this matter before the court. I have to go back to New Mexico in a few weeks to fight with the government!

It seems to me that a lot of people who do not know anything about the hobby choose to remain ignorant and in my case choose to try to criminalize a hobbythat has educational value. "

THIS DISTURBS ME...........

Edited May 11, 2005 by Tool Team

May 11, 2005

People shoud not be allowed to hide caches in cemetaries, digs and historical sites, the definition of such things I think is where the differance in my opinion and others lie I believe.

There are public cemeteries and there are private cemeteries. If a cemetery is private, such as one owned by church for instance, then the rule about getting permission before placing a cache on private property applies. If a cemetery is public then it's a matter of selectively banning some public areas to some members of the public for a certain activity which is not in any way illegal. I have my own feelings about caching in cemeteries, but regardless of that there is no call in my mind to put in place a new law that singles us out for no good reason at all.

May 11, 2005

"That story about legislation in SC is almost as bad as what happened to me last September. Read my profile & bio at geocaching.com. I was arrested in Southern New Mexico by Homeland security for being a dope smuggler! All because I had my electronic toys while geocaching in the area of Columbus, NM. An area I have visited and frequented for many years! I had an Etrex Legend, a Garmin GPS-V, about $200 worth of topo maps, my laptop computer with a sattelite uplink, night vision scope, telescope, a $2000 mountain bike, and all my amatuer radio equipment confiscated because a rogue agent claims he had information from a confidential source that my "high tech" gear was used to smuggle drugs!

I have never used or had anything to do with drugs......I just love the outdoors and my toys. Anyway back in March in federal court in Las Cruces NM I was trying to get things cleared up and my wife was testifying as to what geocaching was. The judge, my attorney and the US Attorney said they had never heard of Geocaching! They took a recess to research geocaching on the internet...........I am still without my gear, the laptop also had a GPS unit & software installed in it, and I am still waiting for a resolution on this matter before the court. I have to go back to New Mexico in a few weeks to fight with the government!

It seems to me that a lot of people who do not know anything about the hobby choose to remain ignorant and in my case choose to try to criminalize a hobbythat has educational value. "

Hey I'm sorry for this guys lost but , something like this could be used against us on this bill, hopefully you'll get everything back.

24.7k · May 11, 2005

...Another thing, is trying to make a STATE ban (i'm not up-to-date on the bill) on a recreational activity that promotes getting out and not sitting on your butt! In a country torn by obesity you'd think they would be promoting anything that would get people more active. I know I'm more active because of Geocaching.

This whole thing sounds like a big headache....

Actually the health department would be a good ally. So would the state chapter of America on the Move. I have developed a working relatinship with the Idaho on the move branch. I didn't get anywhere with the national organization. They didn't get geocaching at the time I spoke with them and so didn't see how geocaching is a way to "get on the move".

Then again you can actually go talk to the local branch if your state has one.

You are right about the headache. It's a mandate that puts land managers in a bind, compromises archaological sites and otherwise makes a mess out of real jobs over a harmless activity.

May 11, 2005

Even though this is a very flawed piece of legislation, the intent is supposedly to protect the areas in question. I can see where the legislators would have a hard time explaining to their constituents why they would vote against protecting their state historic areas.

If this bill does indeed die where it is, due to sensible legislators seeing the flaws in it, I am afraid it will not be the end of the story. The authors of this bill perceive that there is a problem, and they will author up another bill so that they can feel good in the belief that they are protecting their sacred grounds. Actually we, as geocachers, really have the same goals. We do not want to see any of these areas damaged. We cherish these same areas. We only want to see and learn from these spots and to share our experiences with others. The only difference between us and other tourists is that we like to use fancy toys to guide us in our experiences, and we post public logs of our adventures.

Unfortunately there may be some that are perceived to be unethical or disrespectful amongst us. If we were expected to pass a law against any activity that occasionally had an instance of a member acting improperly or unethically, then we would have to ban most other organizations or activities as well as all legislatives bodies left in this country!

I believe that the solution to all this, is to start acting proactively. Work with the legislators that have been on our side so far, and work out ways to protect the lands and landmarks without more unnecessary legislation. Maybe it is time to start making our hobby/sport/obsession more public. Possibly we could work out “adopt-a-cemetery” or like neighborhood watch, start “cemetery watches”. Maybe in all of the states we should start thinking of more organized associations to aid in a louder political voice. Maybe even organize each state as a charter under a national committee of some type. Possibly money raising activities to help fund clean up/repair/preservation of the areas we cache in. Of the thousands of geocachers in the world, I bet it is a small percentage that read these forums, therefore it is only a small number of us realize the danger that is upon us. As much as I believe in the independence of how each of us ‘play the game’, the time may be here to start educating our masses if we are to preserve the hobby, as we know it.

KeithTS

Eau Claire, Wisconsin

2.4k · May 11, 2005

If this bill does indeed die where it is, due to sensible legislators seeing the flaws in it, I am afraid it will not be the end of the story. The authors of this bill perceive that there is a problem, and they will author up another bill so that they can feel good in the belief that they are protecting their sacred grounds.

When this bill dies I'd expect that it will be largely as a result of the geocaching community having educated enough legislators about the activity.

If the problem is vandalism and other forms of destruction occuring in cemetaries, historic areas, and archeological sites, then those responsible should be prosecuted for the vandalism, desecration, trespassing, etc. - all of which are already illegal as specified by SC statutes. Whether someone is holding a GPSr or a bouquet of roses while standing in the cemetary shouldn't have any bearing since both are legal possesions with legitimate uses and neither does any harm to the site - the question should just be whether that individual is damaging the site.

I'd also hope that legislators who become educated about geocaching would recognize that geocaching and vandalism are inherently incompatible since the vandal wants to remain anonymous while the cacher leaves his signature in the logbook and an electronic archive of his visit (together with a traceable email address) on a readily accessible site. Furthermore, that public record can be a valuable aid if there does happen to be a case of vandalism that needs to be investigated. Recent cache visitors can be asked what they observed to pin down when the vandalism happened and anything suspicious that they may have seen.

May 11, 2005

People shoud not be allowed to hide caches in cemetaries, digs and historical sites, the definition of such things I think is where the differance in my opinion and others lie I believe.

There are public cemeteries and there are private cemeteries. If a cemetery is private, such as one owned by church for instance, then the rule about getting permission before placing a cache on private property applies. If a cemetery is public then it's a matter of selectively banning some public areas to some members of the public for a certain activity which is not in any way illegal. I have my own feelings about caching in cemeteries, but regardless of that there is no call in my mind to put in place a new law that singles us out for no good reason at all.

You have your own opinion, and I respect that.

Publc or private though, out of respect for the dead I don't think caches should be hidden on ANY cemetery. Near or on the egde, but not in. Cemeteries are for visiting loved ones long gone, not finding trinkets left there by someone else. Those graves aren't just land or monuments, those are peoples loved ones. They have sons and daughters and more that love them and want them respected. Alot of you would be angry if someone trampled all over your mother or fathers grave, or tipped over the tombstone just so they could find a cache and a little 2 dollar trinket!

And I don't believe it to be singling us out. Anyone in a graveyard that is there doing something that disrupts the graves at the worst be arrested and at best they can be told to move on. If I'm in the graveyard peeing on graves, that won't be tolerated. I am using a important and solemn place for something that dishonors it.

That said, from the bits and pieces I gather from the message board, I think the bill will end up going to far, if it passes. Not hiding caches in graveyards is one thing, getting arrested because you have a GPS in a "historical" city is asinine. It's one thing to try and protect graves, digs and historical sites, but take it to the level of idiocy.

2.4k · May 11, 2005

And I don't believe it to be singling us out. Anyone in a graveyard that is there doing something that disrupts the graves at the worst be arrested and at best they can be told to move on. If I'm in the graveyard peeing on graves, that won't be tolerated. I am using a important and solemn place for something that dishonors it.

The actions you describe above are already illegal as specified by South Carolina code 16-17-600 (full text on page 9 of this thread). That law makes vandalism, damaging, or desecration of items in a cemetary a felony with far harsher penalties than are proposed by H3777 and it does so without singling out people who happen to be using a GPS receiver.

But H3777 does in fact single out such individuals and it does so whether they're using the GPS to search for a film can hidden in a bush; to locate the grave of a soldier in the Revolutionary War to get his birthdate for use in finding a multi-cache or logging a virtual; or if they're looking for the gravesite of an ancestor to pay their respects after finding the lat/long coordinates on a geneology website. All of these actions would become illegal and punishable under the provisions of H3777.

South Carolina Legislation Meeting

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment