Jump to content

South Carolina Legislation Meeting

TinSparrow
Followers 24

Recommended Posts

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted
Is there supposed to be three readings of a bill? This is supposed the second if I remember.

Three readings, the initial requests for debate were in the second reading.

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted (edited)

Likely some sort of deal was made. Keep your fingers crossed that it was for a favorable amendment, but it could not be. Wait and see.....

Edited by carleenp
GrizzlyJohn

+GrizzlyJohn

Posted
Posted

Well if this does pass do you think we can all direct the angst that has been going on with the Salvation Army to the state of South Carolina?

 

Can we call for a boycott of that state?

 

Those that are not from there vow to never go there?

 

The ones that are from there maybe its time for y'all to leave.

 

I was actually thinking about going to Charleston this summer, if this passes I will not be going. I think I can spend my money in better places. Ones that are more willing to accept my kind.

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted (edited)

I pretty confident (although not 100%) that I will be going to GW3 now. If so, it will leave SC as a hole in my states cached in map that will likely never get filled if the bill passes. Of course I would also send a copy of the map and and explanation of why it would stay white to the SC Senators.

Edited by carleenp
cexshun

cexshun

Posted
Posted
Likely some sort of deal was made. Keep your fingers crossed that it was for a favorable amendment, but it could not be. Wait and see.....

Actually, chances are that objections were withdrawn as a deal to withdraw objections from other bills. Happens all the time. I'll support yours if you support mine. The government acting in the best interest of the public, I see.

 

Contact your rep again? You better, for the sole purpose of explaining that he/she has lost the entire geocaching population in SC as voters.

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted
Likely some sort of deal was made. Keep your fingers crossed that it was for a favorable amendment, but it could not be. Wait and see.....

Actually, chances are that objections were withdrawn as a deal to withdraw objections from other bills. Happens all the time. I'll support yours if you support mine. The government acting in the best interest of the public, I see.

 

Contact your rep again? You better, for the sole purpose of explaining that he/she has lost the entire geocaching population in SC as voters.

Unfortunately, yes, that is also a possibility.....

pghlooking

+pghlooking

Posted
Posted

Did anyone else overhear the older guy talking to the one asking her questions? he showed pics and was saying geocaching were urinating on gravesites and something else about whos your momma?

Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted (edited)

I caught the tail end of Representative Ceips' remarks. She did admit that she had no proof of actual damages to cemeteries that were caused by geocachers. I believe the Speaker was the person quizzing her, saying "aren't there already trespassing laws on the books to address this?" Ceips' response was that you'd need a "no trespassing" sign for that to be effective, and "do we really want every cemetery in South Carolina to be posted with a big "no trespassing" sign?"

 

Representative Henson then spoke favorably about geocachers, noting how the game takes us to historic sites, and it would be wrong to block our access to historic sites to learn about them.

 

An amendment to the bill would remove "archaelogical sites" from the scope of the bill. This amendment was tabled by a vote of 45-18.

Edited by Keystone Approver
Keystone

Keystone

Posted
Posted

It was just the amendment that was tabled, not the bill. Subsequent to the tabling, eight or so legislators have again entered requests to debate the bill. That has the effect of returning the bill to the "contested" calendar.

 

The House is now considering the contested calendar, and has moved away from Bill 3777 for the time being.

cexshun

cexshun

Posted
Posted

If we can get out of this with only cemeteries being banned, I think it's a victory.

 

That seems to be all the Reps concern is cemetery cemetery cemetery.

cexshun

cexshun

Posted
Posted

Where did that quote come from about how getting permission from a land owner is beyond the effort we are willing to do?

 

That hurts our case very very badly.

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted

Those of you who heard comments that you believe to be untrue, I suggest that you email your House Representatives tonight. Better yet, consider emailing all house reps.

The Commissar!

+The Commissar!

Posted
Posted

Where did that quote come from about how getting permission from a land owner is beyond the effort we are willing to do?

 

That hurts our case very very badly.

 

the forums...I said they are watching. It was also somewhat taken out of context.

cexshun

cexshun

Posted
Posted

Perhaps forum regulations should now include,

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against us in a court of law. You also give permission for your comments to be used completely out of context and misquoted."

TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted

2 Amendments restricting the bill to cemetaries only were defeated, 6 members called for debate, 3777 was moved back to the contested calander.

 

None of the members who spoke in offense or defense of our game had the slightest ability to describe it - the defenders admit they don't know what the game is, but think that we should be allowed to access archeological and historical sites for "our education".

 

Without educating, quickly and thouroughly, the members we will certainly be defeated, simply through a natural human fear of and aversion to the unknown!

 

No way would I hire any one of these totally unprepared clowns as my personal attorney! Popeye could whip these folks in court! Who arises to speak for or against something they have no clue about?

CoyoteRed

CoyoteRed

Posted
Posted (edited)

Where she got that quote was here.

 

Here it is in its entirety:

If you are here wondering what this all about and haven't already done so, read What's This page to get a basic background of what we do.

 

First and foremost, we respect the property rights of all land owners. If you are here because you discovered a game piece on your land and you know nothing about it, we apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. If you want this game piece removed, contact us and we will have it removed promptly.

 

We fully understand, acknowledge, and respect that our game is played on land owned by others. We are also fully aware that you could ban us from game play on your land and because of this we wish to always have a good working relationship with you.

 

While it is always good to have permission to place our game pieces it is not always feasable. We play this game mostly on a whim and the added work of tracking down owners and seeking permission many times is beyond the effort we want to pursue. In clearly marked areas like parks with easy-to-contact management we generally try to seek permission. But then again, because our game is played very descreetly, most of the time people never know we or our game pieces are there--we blend in with the general visitor population.

 

Land owners shouldn't worry about liability issues with the game pieces. If normal visitors are allowed to be in the area, then what we do is no different. Our game has been called "hiking with a purpose" and many people have noted that since they've started they've seen many places they never knew existed. We are little different than any other hiker or visitor. However, if you discover a game piece near any dangers that are not clearly marked, then we would appreciate being contacted so we can make arrangements to either warn our enthusiasts or remove the game piece.

 

Yep, she used a portion completely out of context and, of course, didn't mention we'd remove the piece, we respect property rights, or anything else.

 

Go figure. :rolleyes:

 

So much for trying to reach out.

Edited by CoyoteRed
TheAlabamaRambler

+TheAlabamaRambler

Posted
Posted

Did anyone hear, whispering in the background, the member that was talking while the amendment was being explained?

 

I couldn't tell everything he said but he was explaining that we dig around and urinate on grave markers!

pghlooking

+pghlooking

Posted
Posted
lets stay productive here...we are being watched! You see how they take our words out of context...

Apparently its not what we do or say that matters. She (Ceips) is making this up as she goes along and will say anything to get this passed. This isn't an open debate. She had people showing and telling the others asking questions, her own lies for her own agenda. If the things she was showing these people ever made it very public, we could defeat this bill easily. She says herself there is no record of vandalism known to her. She also claims that tresspassing laws don't apply to somone who jumps a locked fence and enters without permission since theres no sign up? Come on, get real. She can't be more vague at the begining. Gues that was to lull all th others to sleep to make them think this was a nothing bill that just needed rubber stamped. I hope people remember this when she comes for re-election in your area.

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted
Where she got that quote was here.

 

Here it is in its entirety:

If you are here wondering what this all about and haven't already done so, read What's This page to get a basic background of what we do.

 

First and foremost, we respect the property rights of all land owners. If you are here because you discovered a game piece on your land and you know nothing about it, we apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. If you want this game piece removed, contact us and we will have it removed promptly.

 

We fully understand, acknowledge, and respect that our game is played on land owned by others. We are also fully aware that you could ban us from game play on your land and because of this we wish to always have a good working relationship with you.

 

While it is always good to have permission to place our game pieces it is not always feasable. We play this game mostly on a whim and the added work of tracking down owners and seeking permission many times is beyond the effort we want to pursue. In clearly marked areas like parks with easy-to-contact management we generally try to seek permission. But then again, because our game is played very descreetly, most of the time people never know we or our game pieces are there--we blend in with the general visitor population.

 

Land owners shouldn't worry about liability issues with the game pieces. If normal visitors are allowed to be in the area, then what we do is no different. Our game has been called "hiking with a purpose" and many people have noted that since they've started they've seen many places they never knew existed. We are little different than any other hiker or visitor. However, if you discover a game piece near any dangers that are not clearly marked, then we would appreciate being contacted so we can make arrangements to either warn our enthusiasts or remove the game piece.

 

Yep, she used a portion completely out of context and, of course, didn't mention we'd remove the piece, we respect property rights, or anything else.

 

Go figure. :rolleyes:

 

So much for trying to reach out.

I would suggest sending an entire copy of this tonight to all house members with the explanation of how it and other items have been taken out of context etc.

Jason & Carrie

+Jason & Carrie

Posted
Posted

FYI

 

I got this email back from my representative just a few minutes ago regarding correspondence I sent to him last Wednesday following the Columbia Geocachers meeting. (He is listed as a sponsor of our bill.)

 

>From: "MAC TOOLE" <TOOLEM@SCHOUSE.ORG>

>To: <JasonandCarriecachers@msn.com>

>Subject: Re: Bill H.3777

>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:05:22 -0400

>

>Thanks for Your input. With Your comments and several others I will not

>be voting for this Bill. The time frame to remove my name from the Bill

>has expired. The Bill has been moved to the contested calendar.

>

>Mac Toole

magellan315

magellan315

Posted
Posted
Where she got that quote was here.

 

Here it is in its entirety:

If you are here wondering what this all about and haven't already done so, read What's This page to get a basic background of what we do.

 

First and foremost, we respect the property rights of all land owners. If you are here because you discovered a game piece on your land and you know nothing about it, we apologize for any inconvenience or confusion this may have caused. If you want this game piece removed, contact us and we will have it removed promptly.

 

We fully understand, acknowledge, and respect that our game is played on land owned by others. We are also fully aware that you could ban us from game play on your land and because of this we wish to always have a good working relationship with you.

 

While it is always good to have permission to place our game pieces it is not always feasable. We play this game mostly on a whim and the added work of tracking down owners and seeking permission many times is beyond the effort we want to pursue. In clearly marked areas like parks with easy-to-contact management we generally try to seek permission. But then again, because our game is played very descreetly, most of the time people never know we or our game pieces are there--we blend in with the general visitor population.

 

Land owners shouldn't worry about liability issues with the game pieces. If normal visitors are allowed to be in the area, then what we do is no different. Our game has been called "hiking with a purpose" and many people have noted that since they've started they've seen many places they never knew existed. We are little different than any other hiker or visitor. However, if you discover a game piece near any dangers that are not clearly marked, then we would appreciate being contacted so we can make arrangements to either warn our enthusiasts or remove the game piece.

 

Yep, she used a portion completely out of context and, of course, didn't mention we'd remove the piece, we respect property rights, or anything else.

 

Go figure. :rolleyes:

 

So much for trying to reach out.

I would suggest sending an entire copy of this tonight to all house members with the explanation of how it and other items have been taken out of context etc.

I would avoid sending that, rather the hiding a cache guidelines from GC.com would be more applicable. I think the SC cachers should consider rewording that intro a little bit. That third paragraph is not well written and does not reflect GC policy.

cexshun

cexshun

Posted
Posted

With the arguements the sponsor is using to illicit a knee jerk reaction and blanket banning, I'm quite surprised at the opposition of this bill. Perhaps if one of the opposing reps is well versed and has detailed knowledge about caching, things will go in our favor.

 

Every question that the sponsor was asked, she could not provide a good answer. She has no solid foundation for this bill, and with adequate represenation, I think we stand a good chance. If one of the reps on our side can provide strong answers and facts that the sponsor is obviously dodging, spinning or lying about, then we are sitting pretty.

TinSparrow

+TinSparrow

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The urinating in cemeteries comment is derived from the March 20, 2005 log by a203nitro on a cemetery cache in South Carolina. This log appeared on the poster board display materials.

 

The log in question states that the would be finders took a rest room break. To arrive at the conclusion that this rest room break was taken in a disrepectful way in the cemetery is not a conclusion that many folks would reach, unless the facts were being spun for gain.

carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted
The urinating in cemeteries comment is derived from the March 20, 2005 log by a203nitro on a cemetery cache in South Carolina. This log appeared on the poster board display materials.

 

The log in question states that the would be finders took a rest room break. To arrive at the conclusion that this rest room break was taken in a disrepectful way in the cemetery is not a conclusion that many folks would reach, unless the facts were being spun for gain.

Has the owner of that log been notified? I would guess the person would be interestred to know how their log is being presented and might wish to write a letter denying the accusations.

Deliveryguy428

+Deliveryguy428

Posted
Posted

I read the log just now and it never does say WHERE the bathroom break was taken so there was just a general assumption it was somewhere disrespectful.

 

Also noticed the log owner is from the Midlands and is a cop.

Mopar

+Mopar

Posted
Posted
I read the log just now and it never does say WHERE the bathroom break was taken so there was just a general assumption it was somewhere disrespectful.

 

Also noticed the log owner is from the Midlands and is a cop.

Then he REALLY needs to write a letter complaining about being taken out of context.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 24
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...