SC Laws that are Unconstitutional

Status
Not open for further replies.

carsontech

Member
I'm starting a thread to post SC laws that are unconstitutional or infringe on a human's natural rights. I will try to start with laws unrelated to firearms, as I'm sure most here have the mindset that any restriction on firearms is an infringement on a natural right which is protected by the US constitution. Statutes will be posted regardless if case law has been established in the courts, or opinions have been created by the courts, including SCOTUS.

Since this thread isn't directly related to SC statutes regarding firearms, I posted this in the General Discussion section of the forum. I will keep updating this original post with more statutes as I conduct my research. This thread should probably include almost every statute there is in SC's Code of Law that have to do with victimless crimes but I will post what I consider the statutes that are "more obvious" on their infringement of the natural rights. I may post one a day, or several a day. Join in on the "fun" if you want and post away, this is a forum, after all. :) :

SECTION 56-5-3885. Unlawful to display obscene bumper sticker. [SC ST SEC 56-5-3885]

(A) No person may operate a motor vehicle in this State which has affixed or attached to any part of the motor vehicle which is visible to members of the public not occupying the vehicle any sticker, decal, emblem, or other device containing obscene or indecent words, photographs, or depictions.

(B) Obscene words, photographs, or depictions must be defined and interpreted as provided in Section 16-15-305(B), (C), (D), and (E).

(C) A sticker, decal, emblem, or device is indecent when:

(1) taken as a whole, it describes, in a patently offensive way, as determined by contemporary community standards, sexual acts, excretory functions, or parts of the human body; and

(2) taken as a whole, it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

(D) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be punished by a fine not exceeding two hundred dollars.
SECTION 56-5-6520. Mandatory use of seat belt. [SC ST SEC 56-5-6520]

The driver and every occupant of a motor vehicle, when it is being operated on the public streets and highways of this State, must wear a fastened safety belt which complies with all provisions of federal law for its use. The driver is charged with the responsibility of requiring each occupant seventeen years of age or younger to wear a safety belt or be secured in a child restraint system as provided in Article 47 of this chapter. However, a driver is not responsible for an occupant seventeen years of age or younger who has a driver's license, special restricted license, or beginner's permit and who is not wearing a seat belt; such occupant is in violation of this article and must be fined in accordance with Section 56-5-6540.
SECTION 56-1-190. License shall be carried and exhibited on demand. [SC ST SEC 56-1-190]

A licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display it upon demand of an officer or agent of either the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Public Safety or a law enforcement officer of the State. No points pursuant to Section 56-1-720 may be assessed. No points for insurance merit rating system and recoupment purposes may be assessed.
SECTION 20-1-210. License required for marriage. [SC ST SEC 20-1-210]

It shall be unlawful for any persons to contract matrimony within this State without first procuring a license as is herein provided and it shall likewise be unlawful for anyone whomsoever to perform the marriage ceremony for any such persons unless such persons shall first have delivered to the party performing such marriage ceremony a license as is herein provided duly authorizing such persons to contract matrimony. Any officer or person performing the marriage ceremony without the production of such license shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars nor less than twenty-five dollars or by imprisonment for not more than thirty days nor less than ten days.
 

Schultz

New Member
carsontech said:
SECTION 56-5-6520. Mandatory use of seat belt. [SC ST SEC 56-5-6520]

The driver and every occupant of a motor vehicle, when it is being operated on the public streets and highways of this State, must wear a fastened safety belt which complies with all provisions of federal law for its use. The driver is charged with the responsibility of requiring each occupant seventeen years of age or younger to wear a safety belt or be secured in a child restraint system as provided in Article 47 of this chapter. However, a driver is not responsible for an occupant seventeen years of age or younger who has a driver's license, special restricted license, or beginner's permit and who is not wearing a seat belt; such occupant is in violation of this article and must be fined in accordance with Section 56-5-6540.
SECTION 56-1-190. License shall be carried and exhibited on demand. [SC ST SEC 56-1-190]

A licensee shall have his license in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and shall display it upon demand of an officer or agent of either the Department of Motor Vehicles or the Department of Public Safety or a law enforcement officer of the State. No points pursuant to Section 56-1-720 may be assessed. No points for insurance merit rating system and recoupment purposes may be assessed.
A basic seatbelt law and one of the first rules of being a driver I don't see these as "Unconstitutional. Also if your going to post these you need to put dates with them, There are many laws still on the books that have been there for many years and aren't even enforced. I will say if this thread gets silly it will be moved to off topic.
 

carsontech

Member
Schultz said:
A basic seatbelt law and one of the first rules of being a driver I don't see these as "Unconstitutional. Also if your going to post these you need to put dates with them, There are many laws still on the books that have been there for many years and aren't even enforced. I will say if this thread gets silly it will be moved to off topic.
What other "victimless laws" do you support? If the government told you to jump off a bridge... Just bustin' your chops. ;)

Anyways, the statutes listed on the scstatehouse.gov website do not list when the statute was created. A search for when the statute was created or last modified in a bill, by legislature, might be able to be found by searching for legislature that has been passed. That would be interesting to see, I will see what I can find out.

Also, as I understand it, the statutes listed in the SC Code of Law might not be enforced, but can be, unless there is an exception stating the reasons or situations where it can't be enforced.
 

Schultz

New Member
carsontech said:
What other "victimless laws" do you support? If the government told you to jump off a bridge... Just bustin' your chops. ;)
That's not at all funny. The life of this thread is getting short.
 

C_Carson

New Member
Schultz said:
carsontech said:
What other "victimless laws" do you support? If the government told you to jump off a bridge... Just bustin' your chops. ;)
That's not at all funny. The life of this thread is getting short.
On what basis? Because he said something you didn't like? It wasn't an attack, a personal insult, or even a suggestion. What he's saying is that yes, it's a good idea to wear a seat belt, but he doesn't consider it the government's place to meddle in every little aspect of our lives. Surely that's something we can all agree with?
 

Schultz

New Member
C_Carson said:
On what basis? Because he said something you didn't like? It wasn't an attack, a personal insult, or even a suggestion. What he's saying is that yes, it's a good idea to wear a seat belt, but he doesn't consider it the government's place to meddle in every little aspect of our lives. Surely that's something we can all agree with?
I take that as a personal shot and joking or not don't appreciate it at all.

I do agree there is too much government however to start a thread like this without more research will most likely end up a law bash thread. Just look at the last one posted, A marriage license unconstitutional come on thats not just here it's like that almost all over the world.
 
While you may not like being told that you should or should not wear a seatbelt, I'd hardly say the law is, in and of itself, unconstitutional

And just to stir the pot a little, along these same lines...Wouldn't speeding and other "victimless" traffic violations be "unconstitutional" in your eyes?
 

bigfutz

Active Member
I would hardly consider speeding victimless, but I can see your point on seat belts and (in NC) motorcycle helmets as you are not endangering anyone but yourself. Maybe they are trying to prevent your kids from becoming orphans. Why don't we talk about property tax. Or better yet, gun laws, being as this is the Shooter's Forum.
 

Low Branch

New Member
Government's job, as it relates to law, is to protect you from the actions of another rather than protect you from actions made by you. Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid, idiotic, and downright ridiculous. However, forcing one to wear a seatbelt is just as bad. Law or no law I will wear my seatbelt and you will wear one while riding in my car. I will wear one in your car as well, whether or not you do the same. If you tell me I cannot wear my seatbelt while riding in your car I will quickly remove myself from your passenger seat and walk/hitch/or figure out another way to get where I am going. Speeding is NOT victim-less as it can cause great harm to others. The law which requires you to present ID is good since it only covers you while you are driving a vehicle on state roads. You do not need a driver's license or to register your vehicle (or even maintain insurance) if you will only ever use your vehicle on private roads. The moment you pull onto local/state/federal roads you must maintain the law and also have a valid DL. The only time I would see a law of presenting an ID as invalid is if I was required to show one while walking down the street or to gain access to a government building. I will only show ID if pulled over and it really pisses off cops when you refuse.

I am certainly unsure if a seatbelt law is unconstitutional, but I do not like them at all as it removes my freedom of choice.

On another note:
I wish I had the physical book because it has to ordinance number on the back, but I am not in possession of one so I cannot show that number. County personnel policies are adopted as an ordinance and cannot go against the state or federal constitution. The following is from the South Carolina Constitution and the $%^&@ County Personnel Policy. I have asked this question of the county attorney (I am an employee in the fire department) why I am not allowed to hold elected office and receive nothing but the sound of crickets chirping.

ARTICLE VI.

OFFICERS

SECTION 3. Dual office holding.

No person may hold two offices of honor or profit at the same time. This limitation does not apply to officers in the militia, notaries public, members of lawfully and regularly organized fire departments, constables, or delegates to a constitutional convention. (1972 (57) 3181; 1973 (58) 83; 1989 Act No. 9.)
___________________________________________________________________________
SECTION 5

DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS

5.09 ELECTIONS AND POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

C. Any employee who desires to seek elective office shall not be obliged to remove himself/herself from employment before any campaigning or announcement of the candidacy is made. Notwithstanding any other provision in this section, all employees must comply with State and Federal law concerning election activities. Any employee elected to public office shall be required to resign upon election from their pre-election position.
 
Some good thoughts. If I drive 40 mph on a public road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, who is the victim and what damage have I done to them?
 

Low Branch

New Member
John Canuck said:
Some good thoughts. If I drive 40 mph on a public road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, who is the victim and what damage have I done to them?
Obviously there are levels, but a road with a 35 mph limit is probably more busy with foot traffic or is a road with plenty of driveways or limited-visibility entrances to the road. A road with heavy foot traffic needs a lower speed limit to reduce (not remove) the likelihood of injury by reducing the stopping distance and increase the ability of a driver to maneuver away from a person who steps onto the road. Are the chances of a person driving 40 in a 35 causing injury drastically increased? No they are not, but a person traveling 50 in a 35 the chances are increased. A line is drawn and someone must stand by that line. Can the line change? Yes it can and does. Just because people may walk in an area does not automatically mean speed limits must be lowered, but in an area where lots of people walk the speed limit is in place to protect the maximum number of people.

Average stopping distance for average vehicles:
30mph=109 ft
35mph=136 ft
40mph=164 ft
45mph=196 ft

The difference between 35 and 40 is 28 ft. That seems such a small distance, but tell that to the parents of the child you just hit.
 

C_Carson

New Member
I am all for speed limits, and seat belts; but not government mandated rules. Government has its place; let's keep it in its cage rather than letting it run wild.

Just because a law is so, does not make it good or valid. Lawmakers will passed the stupidest shit just to waste our money and make themselves look busy. Years ago I read somewhere that in a certain state, it is illegal to fish while riding a moose. I am not joking.

I don't want the government to protect me from myself; I wear a seatbelt because it's smart, not because the law tells me to. The government has no business in marriage; that is between the couple, their deity or whatever anointed official they choose.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

I am not willing to concede any more freedom just because it *might* make the world a little safer. The world is not safe; believing laws make it so is delusional.
 

C_Carson

New Member
And yes, this is a gun forum, and some might not feel that this subject is relevant, but have you ever heard this saying?:

"Not every man is a criminal."
"No, but give us time to pass enough laws, and no man can help but violate at least one."

Guns, like it or not, are a part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the legacy, our heritage, that our forefathers fought and DIED for. Ignoring tyranny or the threat of tyranny is much like this quote:

"When the Nazis came for the communists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no communist.
When they locked up the Social Democrats, I said nothing; I was, of course, no Social Democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I said nothing; I was, of course, no trade unionist.
When they came for me, there was no one left who could protest."

-Martin Niemoeller

Now, to be CLEAR, I'm not advocating overthrowing the government, anarchy or anything like that. I'm simply FOR putting and keeping the government in the role, size and purpose it was intended to have; and if WE do not keep it in check, who will?
 

Low Branch

New Member
A government creating a speed limit is not to protect you from yourself, rather others from you. Seatbelt usage is, and should remain, a personal choice. Speeding may or may not hurt someone else, just as driving while intoxicated, but the possibility is greatly increased. People will say that texting and driving is a victim-less crime (thus no law should be passed), but I will argue (from personal observation) that I have seen more people killed by a driver texting than by driving drunk. At least a drunk has some reaction time versus a person texting with none. If you want to speed, drive drunk, or text that is okay (and job security for me) but do not cry about personal liberty when you kill or hurt someone else (who's personal liberty you just took away). You are right that government passes stupid laws, but a speed limit is not trading essential liberty for temporary security (it is protecting my liberty from another's stupidity).
 
Low Branch said:
John Canuck said:
Some good thoughts. If I drive 40 mph on a public road with a posted speed limit of 35 mph, who is the victim and what damage have I done to them?
Obviously there are levels, but a road with a 35 mph limit is probably more busy with foot traffic or is a road with plenty of driveways or limited-visibility entrances to the road. A road with heavy foot traffic needs a lower speed limit to reduce (not remove) the likelihood of injury by reducing the stopping distance and increase the ability of a driver to maneuver away from a person who steps onto the road. Are the chances of a person driving 40 in a 35 causing injury drastically increased? No they are not, but a person traveling 50 in a 35 the chances are increased. A line is drawn and someone must stand by that line. Can the line change? Yes it can and does. Just because people may walk in an area does not automatically mean speed limits must be lowered, but in an area where lots of people walk the speed limit is in place to protect the maximum number of people.

Average stopping distance for average vehicles:
30mph=109 ft
35mph=136 ft
40mph=164 ft
45mph=196 ft

The difference between 35 and 40 is 28 ft. That seems such a small distance, but tell that to the parents of the child you just hit.

Yes I know all that. The argument is that the act of speeding in and of itself creates a victim. If I don't hit anyone while speeding, who has been victimized? I could just as easily hit the same child travelling at exactly 35 mph.
 

C_Carson

New Member
Low Branch said:
A government creating a speed limit is not to protect you from yourself, rather others from you. Seatbelt usage is, and should remain, a personal choice. Speeding may or may not hurt someone else, just as driving while intoxicated, but the possibility is greatly increased. People will say that texting and driving is a victim-less crime (thus no law should be passed), but I will argue (from personal observation) that I have seen more people killed by a driver texting than by driving drunk. At least a drunk has some reaction time versus a person texting with none. If you want to speed, drive drunk, or text that is okay (and job security for me) but do not cry about personal liberty when you kill or hurt someone else (who's personal liberty you just took away). You are right that government passes stupid laws, but a speed limit is not trading essential liberty for temporary security (it is protecting my liberty from another's stupidity).
It comes down to personal responsibility and common sense. Laws do not prevent accidents from happening. When they do happen, they are tragic for everyone involved, but laws do not PREVENT accidents. When we pump our first in the air and demand the government "do" something, that IS trading liberty for security. It is, in effect, demanding that they make the world a safe and fair place.

You cannot control what another person will do, (text while driving, speeding, marrying a goat, inhaling paint, swimming with sharks, jumping out of planes) but you can be aware of others, and be responsible in YOUR behavior. Wear your seat belt, look out for pedestrians, etc etc etc. We cannot and should not attempt to control those around us because they "might" endanger us. You take a risk every day you get out of bed. You might slip in the shower, or burn your mouth with breakfast, or you might check your mail and an airplane with fall on your head.
My point, is that situational awareness and cautious behavior, not laws, will protect us.

If you want to speed, drive drunk, or text that is okay (and job security for me)
Btw, I find this sick and grossly inappropriate.
 

Tigerstripe

Active Member
i would say that if you are speeding and get caught then you are the victim. pay the fine.

i did not look anywhere to confirm this but i heard that there are 22,000 gun laws on the books. am i supposed to know them all?
 

Low Branch

New Member
A woman pulls out onto a roadway after dark where the posted speed limit is 40 mph and is hit in the driver door by a car traveling over 90 mph and she is seriously injured. She looked both ways and saw a vehicle coming towards her but it was of a sufficient distance away where she was not worried about being hit. What she did not take into account was the speed which is sometimes difficult to tell during the night time hours. The speeding car was a SCHP vehicle grossly exceeding due regard for others. She did not completely make it into the travel lane and the trooper received the ticket and ultimately lost his job. Speed limits are not infringing on your rights. You are correct in that they do not remove the possibility of a collision, but they do reduce if people obey. I am probably the least supportive person when it comes to government there is, but there are common sense laws that do work, and a speed limit is one of them. Gun laws should be simple, do not fire in place that will endanger others except in defense of life. Murder is illegal whether committed with a gun or not.

And if you think my statement was inappropriate, please show me where you have a right to not be offended...
 

Schultz

New Member
Ok I knew this was going to go downhill I've seen threads on this same subject and they didn't end well either. I'm locking this one up and leaving it up to the admins to reopen it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top