Jump to content

South Carolina Legislation Meeting

TinSparrow
Followers 24

Recommended Posts

ju66l3r

ju66l3r

Posted
Posted
She's playing a lot of cards. Does this kind of thing work?

Unfortunately, it does often work. The majority of these people are uninformed on the issues that they are asked to vote on (as we've seen). They rely on the loudest voice or longest speaker to give them their source of information...

 

This is why lobbyists get paid. They are a persistant voice that gives select information to the reps on the issues of interest to whoever hired them.

Link to comment
Divine

+Divine

Posted
Posted
Poor ETV servers just can't keep up.

To quote the 1960's. The whole world is watching.

Exactly! :rolleyes:

 

So, what does 'to table something' mean? And has anyone ever brought out in that room the question that how come the current laws that prevent trespassing and vandalism wouldn't work in the case of geocaching?, and If so, what has been answered?

Link to comment
carleenp

+carleenp

Posted
Posted
i don't understand completely so please correct me here. from what i understand with all the amendmants, this is ntohing more than being considered for a second reading, which will again require a thrid before it can even be passed in the house?

Yes, a bill will have three readings before it is sent to the house. Once the current form is clear, there is still time to contact representatives about any problems with the amended form.

Link to comment
magellan315

magellan315

Posted
Posted
There will be a third reading before the House passage.

 

So, anyone actually catch what was so bad about the cache in the Jewish cemetery?

 

EDIT: can't count.

She had a letter from the synagoge stating that they supported the bill and did not approve of Geocaching on their property.

Link to comment
RandLD

RandLD

Posted
Posted
Amendment 6 says that there can be no "geocaching" in cemeterys, archeological sites and historical sites, unless you have written consent from the owner.

So it basically UNDID the amendment they just passed a few minutes ago (the one about limiting it to cemeteries only, but expanding it to ALL recreational activities?)

 

So is it back to how it originally read, basically?

Link to comment
ju66l3r

ju66l3r

Posted
Posted

Here's the problem. If you wanted to kill this bill and you were a voting member of the House, then the easiest time to do it is sooner rather than later. You could have failed it in its amended version and it would have died.

 

75 of them thought it was good to go. It doesn't sound like we did enough polling or any of the other things necessary to get the House aware of how irresponsibly broad this bill is. In fact, the amendments made it worse by broadening it even further...and likely many of the reps were happy to pass it with Ceips amendment which restored it to just geocaching and not 'recreation' when they shouldn't have been happy to pass it at all.

 

I don't think there's any way we will change enough minds of the 75 to sway the vote. The better energy would be spent making sure this dies in the Senate.

 

The duplicity with trespassing/desecration laws, the vagueness of "GPS for specific location", and the detailed debunking of the lies from Ceips (namely how many churches actually even have geocaches in SC...is it even close to 50??)...all of that needs to get into the Senators ears to provide them with reasons not to vote for this bill there.

Link to comment
gunkie

+gunkie

Posted
Posted (edited)

No the amendment about games in cemetarys only is still in there but amendment 6, which keeps geocachers out of cemeteries, archaeological and historic sites is also in there. She got exactly what she wanted.

Edited by gunkie
Link to comment
magellan315

magellan315

Posted
Posted
the deal in the Jewish cemetary was an event of the SCGA where a marker was sprayed with a paint that glows in the dark and a night-caching "group" as I understand it, went afer it.

 

The harmful part was in spray-painting the grave marker.

There was no grave marker painted with UV paint. The cache was the size of a compact, painted with UV paint, and hidden in a tree along a drive way.

Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
...I don't think there's any way we will change enough minds of the 75 to sway the vote. The better energy would be spent making sure this dies in the Senate....

You have until January to work on the Senate. Do not give op the fight in the House until it is truly lost. Keep working on the Reps that voted for the bill. Further inform the Reps that voted against it.

 

It can still be beaten.

Link to comment
Midnightcat

+Midnightcat

Posted
Posted

You know, I hate to be a big poop, but the SC house is absolutely one of the most disorganized institutions I've ever seen. How can anyone vote accurately or informedly (is that a word?) with everyone up running around chit-chatting, making faces at each other, snide remarks (Scarborough is incredibly unprofessional), etc?

It's amazing to me that this bill passed for another reading with Cieps' amendment 6. Let's get letters out to our house reps and senators pointing out what a waste of time this bill is!!! There are already desecration and trespassing laws on the books to address problems -- all this bill does is pick on geocachers specifically.

 

*HOWEVER*

 

That said, I had no idea about the night cache in a graveyard involving paint on a monument. Whether the paint was luminescent or regular, visible during the day or not, that's hugely inappropriate. Things like that are probably what got so much support behind this bill. But things like that are also covered by desecration laws. I'm just not clear on how to get the point across that 99.9% of geocachers aren't out there making bad choices and doing things that are going to get us regulated to within an inch of our lives (and I'm originally from Canada, so believe me, I know all about over-regulation).

 

I'm also incredibly disappointed that my rep (Ted Pitts) voted for the bill. Dangit. Now I remember why I voted against him.

Link to comment
vree

+vree

Posted
Posted (edited)
The assistant told me about a site being placed in a Jewish cemetery as a night cache.  The owner placed florescent paint on a cemetery marker.

 

You folks now see what kind of lies we are up against?

 

There was no paint on a marker. The paint was on a small container about the size of a makeup compact which was stuck in the vines of a tree which was near the driveway. You didn't even have to walk past any markers to find it.

 

Here is the cache in question. A reviewer has already confirmed there is only one archived log where the cache was placed detailing the location of the final. The only modified log is by Geo13, a retired missionary.

 

There are so many outright lies flying around that it would embarrass Pinocchio.

 

BTW, if it's disrespectful to be in a cemetery at night, then they need to outlaw ghost tours. 'Nuff said.

Please read CR's post above for more info about the Jewish cemetery and "painted markers"

Edited by vree13
Link to comment
sbell111

+sbell111

Posted
Posted
...That said, I had no idea about the night cache in a graveyard involving paint on a monument. ...

This threads flying along, but you might note that there was NO paint on a marker. The paint was on a microcache hidden in a tree near the entrance.

Link to comment
Midnightcat

+Midnightcat

Posted
Posted

Excellent, so nothing inappropriate was done. So 99.99% of us are fine. So now the question becomes how do you get the word out that a lot of the basis for this bill is untrue? Let's not forget carefully edited cache logs, pictures purported to be taken in graveyards at night (that weren't) etc.

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