Aiken County Council to Honor Survivors After Awareness Week Ends?
by Don Moniak
February 7, 2023.
Aiken County Council is scheduled to approve a ”Resolution to Declare February 1-7, 2023 as Gun Violence Survivors Awareness Week in Aiken County, South Carolina” at its tonite’s public meeting. The resolution is part of Council’s regular “consent agenda,” a long list of items not requiring a public hearing that is approved as a single agenda item. In the absence of an amendment to the consent agenda, the resolution will be approved.
The vote on the resolution declaring Aiken County’s “commitment to reduce gun violence in our communities” is planned for the waning moments of the “awareness week.”
No Gun Owners of America Disinformation This Time
Tonight’s vote will take place nearly a year after a more memorable discussion of firearms during a County Council meeting, provoked in large part from a disinformation campaign by the Washington, D.C. based advocacy group Gun Owners of America (GOA). On February 9, 2022, GOA issued an alert to its membership: “SC: STOP THE PRIVATE PROPERTY SHOOTING BAN IN AIKEN COUNTY!”
The issue originated with a County resident suffering a gunshot wound on her arm from a reportedly errant round of target shooting by a neighbor. During the public comment period at the end of Council’s January 18, 2022, meeting, the victim voiced their concern that law enforcement had no legal means to cite the shooter.
In the ensuing discussion, Council Chair Gary Bunker indicated that other county residents were voicing concern about similar situations, while Councilmember Phil Napier cited a recent event in a high density residential area (Trolley Line Station) and stated, “I am pro Second Amendment, but I am also pro-safety.” Council agreed to have legal counsel investigate the matter, but did not commit to any action.
On February 9th, GOA issued its false alarm describing a nonexistent proposal by County Council, along with a ludicrous insinuation that even a prohibition on hunting was on the table:
“Aiken County Council members are planning to propose a county-wide ordinance that could effectively end the right to shoot on one’s own property. Such a proposal could include minimum acreage requirements, berms subject to inspection, and perhaps a prohibition on hunting.”
The group urged its members to “make plans to attend the County Council Meeting to oppose any restrictions on shooting on private property,” turning a public safety discussion into a Second Amendment Rights rallying cry.
The news release did contain the factual statement that “State law already prohibits discharging firearms at structures.” South Carolina law states:
“It is unlawful for a person to discharge or cause to be discharged unlawfully firearms at or into a dwelling house, other building, structure, or enclosure regularly occupied by persons. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” ( SC 16-23-440 (A))
It is also unlawful to shoot at “any vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, or other conveyance, device, or equipment while it is occupied.” If these laws are enforced literally, however, it is not clearly unlawful to shoot onto adjacent private property where people are outside enjoying their private property rights. Aiken County Sheriff Department deputies with experience witnessing lawyers find loopholes in the law are unlikely to take action when the law has an obvious loophole.
The Judicial and Safety Committee Briefing
Following GOA’s alert, Aiken County Council was inundated with calls and comments from constituents. Vice Chair Andrew Siders posted a notice on social media denying all of the allegations in the alert. The level of disinformation was later described as an “internet frenzy.”
During the period between meetings, Aiken County Attorney Brad Farrar investigated the public safety issue, as requested, and prepared a 55-slide power point educational presentation for Council’s Judicial and Public Safety Committee public work session held at 5:30 P.M., ninety minutes prior to the regular council meeting. The presentation reviewed both state firearms laws and the county nuisance ordinance in an open manner—and Council chose not to retreat to a closed-door Executive Session to accept legal advice, as allowable by state open meetings laws.
Farrar presented the case that firearms regulation remains solely the purview of the state legislature, explaining in a subsequent February 16, 2022, memo that “the area firearms regulation in South Carolina is “completely preempted by state law,” and that even ordinances or resolutions that are “verbatim reaffirmances of State and federal law, are preempted” by existing state law. (1)
He also argued that, while case-specific, the existing nuisance law covered most complaints pertaining to target-shooting. There was no recommendation for Council to advise the legislature of any need to close the loophole. Following his presentation, Councilman Sandy Haskell called the GOA alert a “prime example of fake news” and stated “the county has no intention of passing any laws or regulations because the state won’t allow it and we don’t want to.”
County Chair Gary Bunker summarized the message by saying, “This is a civil issue. If a target shooter negligently shoots at you on your property, go find yourself a lawyer. Case closed.”
At 7 p.m. the Council chambers filled up to a nearly standing-room only status.
Following the invocation and Pledge of Allegiance, Chairman Gary Bunker went off-agenda to announce to “all the people who are here because of a social media post,” that there was nothing there to hear:
“There was no such thing as a shooting ban on private property ever proposed, no such thing was ever contemplated, no such thing was on the agenda tonight, and no such thing will be voted on by Council tonite. For some people who spent time on social media, such item was not on the agenda. We did take legal advice regarding a very narrow issue involving a target shooting accident during the safety committee meeting, and decided to take no further action.”
At that point, more than fifty people left the room and the meeting followed its published agenda. Nobody has been shot by an errant target shooter since the meeting.
Footnote:
(1) Farrar did not discuss the fact that most large municipalities, including the cities of Aiken and North Augusta, have ordinances on the books regulating the discharging of firearms that pre-date existing state law. Section 22-4 of Aiken City Code still reads, for example, in part:
“(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm, air rifle, or other weapon within the corporate limits of the city. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to apply to persons discharging firearms in protection of their life or property; to peace officers in the actual discharge of their duties as such; to members of the United States Armed Forces, National Guard, or Reserve when in the performance of their duties.
(b) Landowners discharging a firearm on that landowner’s property to protect the landowner’s family, employees, the general public, or the landowner’s property from animals that the landowner reasonably believes pose a direct threat or danger to the landowner’s property, people on the landowner’s property, or the general public commit no violation of this section nor commit any unlawful act under the Aiken City Code by doing so.”
23-31-400,
B) It is unlawful for a person who is under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance to use a firearm in this State.
(C) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (B) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than two years.
(D) This article does not apply to persons lawfully defending themselves or their property.
