9.a. An Ordinance to add a new Ordinance Section 54-8 Hate Intimidation Crime establishing the offense of hate intimidation and establishing a penalty for violations in the Beaufort County Code of Ordinances. (FISCAL IMPACT: N/A) - Monica Main Deputy County Attorney

[9.a. An Ordinance to add a new Ordinance Section 54-8 Hate Intimidation Crime establishing the offense of hate intimidation and establishing a penalty for violations in the Beaufort County Code of Ordinances. (FISCAL IMPACT: N/A) - Monica Main Deputy County Attorney]

NINE A AN ORDINANCE TO ADD A NEW ORDINANCE. SECTION 54.

EIGHT. HATE INTIMIDATION, CRIME, ESTABLISHING THE OFFENSE OF HATE, INTIMIDATION, AND ESTABLISHING A PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS IN THE BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT. HEY. GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON.

MONICA MAIN HERE TO PRESENT ON THIS FOR YOU GUYS.

ON MARCH 9TH, 2026, DURING A COUNCIL MEETING, COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE ON HATE CRIME INTIMIDATION.

AND WE PRODUCED THAT FOR YOU. IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

IT IS MODELED PRIMARILY AFTER THE ORANGEBURG AND THE RICHLAND ORDINANCES.

THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE, HOWEVER, IS THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PUT BEFORE YOU FOR BEAUFORT COUNTY MAKES IT A CRIME THAT MAY BE CHARGED AS OPPOSED TO. SHALL BE CHARGED.

THIS WILL ALLOW FOR PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE THE APPROPRIATE DETERMINATION ON WHEN TO CHARGE AND HOW TO CHARGE.

THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY DISTINCTION HERE, AS OPPOSED TO THE ORDINANCES THAT PASSED IN RICHLAND AND ORANGEBURG.

ALSO IN YOUR PACKET IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION.

OBVIOUSLY, I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE READ THAT. IT DID EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS.

BUT AS YOU KNOW, RICHLAND AND ORANGEBURG AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE GONE FORWARD WITH AN ORDINANCE.

AND SO STAFF HAS NO RECOMMENDATION ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD.

ANY QUESTIONS? YES. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE EXCHANGE OF THE WORDS MAY AND SHALL HOW WILL IT WEAKEN THE ORDINANCE? I DON'T THINK IT WILL WEAKEN THE ORDINANCE. I THINK IT JUST ALLOWS FOR DISCRETION, NOT ONLY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE THE OPTION TO CHOOSE IT.

PROSECUTORS CAN ALSO MAKE THE OPTION OF GOING FORWARD.

THIS ORDINANCE CRIMINALIZES OR ENHANCES STATE OFFENSES.

BUT IT'S IN LOWER COURT. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW PROSECUTORS TO NOT HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE SPLIT OF PROSECUTING A CASE THAN GOING BACK INTO LOWER COURT IF THEY SO CHOSE. IT JUST GIVES THEM THAT KIND OF DISCRETION.

IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR IF THERE IS A STATEWIDE ENACTMENT OF A STATUTE ENHANCING HATE INTIMIDATION, THEN THIS WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE CHARGED.

THEY COULD APPROPRIATELY CHARGE THE STATE LEVEL STATUTE WHEN, IF AND WHEN IT IS ENACTED.

SO THIS IS A MAGISTRATE LEVEL OFFENSE. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S USED AS AN ENHANCEMENT FOR A STATE LEVEL VIOLATION RATHER THAN AS A SEPARATE CHARGEABLE OFFENSE.

WELL, IT SAYS THAT A PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS IS CHARGED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT WITH COMMITTING THAT CRIME AND VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION. SO I GUESS I'M REFERRING TO IT AS AN ENHANCEMENT.

BUT BUT IT DOES CARRY ITS OWN VIOLATION IN ITS OWN FINE ASSOCIATED WITH IT IN THE MAGISTRATE'S LEVEL.

YES. IS IT IS IT A SEPARATE CHARGEABLE OFFENSE FROM ANY OTHER OCCURRENCE THAT MAY HAPPEN IN CIRCUIT COURT? THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A VIOLATION OF CIRCUIT COURT FOR A VIOLATION TO BE PROSECUTED IN MAGISTRATES COURT.

IS THAT CORRECT? IF IT'S A SEPARATE CHARGEABLE OFFENSE? I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME.

SO THE STANDALONE VIOLATION, DOES IT NEED SOMETHING ELSE ATTACHED TO IT TO TAKE EFFECT? NO. BASED ON THE READING OF THIS, I WOULD I WOULD SAY NO.

NO IT DOESN'T. IT IS A STANDALONE CHARGEABLE OFFENSE THAT THAT THAT IS THAT.

NO, NO I APOLOGIZE. MY MY MY BOSS IS TELLING ME.

NOT EXACTLY. NOT EXACTLY. THEY'LL GET TO THE BOTTOM OF IT.

YES HE WILL. YOU'RE DOING GREAT. STAY HERE. IT IS A STANDALONE OFFENSE, BUT YOU HAVE TO COMMIT AN UNDERLYING OFFENSE FIRST BEFORE THIS KICKS IN.

SO IF YOU DON'T COMMIT THAT UNDERLYING OFFENSE AND UNDER STATE LEVEL WOULD BE A VIOLENT, SERIOUS FELONY TYPE OFFENSE.

BUT FOR THE ORDINANCES TO APPLY IN MEASURES COURT, IT COULD ALSO APPLY TO AN ORDINANCE VIOLATION.

[00:45:04]

SO IF YOU HAD ASSAULT AS A VIOLATION IN A COUNTY OR A MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, IT COULD ENHANCE THAT.

SO IT'D BE A CHARGE OF ASSAULT AND A CHARGE OF HATE INTIMIDATION IF IT MET THE CRITERIA.

AS FAR AS THAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE ASSAULT.

IN OUR CASE, AS I'VE POINTED OUT BEFORE, THE ONLY ONE THAT WE KIND OF HAVE THAT WOULD RISE TO THAT LEVEL THAT IT COULD BE APPLIED, WOULD BE LIKE IF THEY VANDALIZED A GRAVEYARD WITH THE PURPOSE BECAUSE IT WAS TARGETING.

AND WHAT THEN? IT COULD BE CHARGED. THE ORDINANCE.

VIOLATION OF MAGISTRATE COURT FOR THE. THAT ACTION VANDALISM PLUS THE HATE INTIMIDATION.

IF IT MET THE CRITERIA. BOTH OF THOSE COULD BE CHARGEABLE.

MAGISTRATE AT THE MAGISTRATE AT STATE COURT. IF YOU WERE CHARGED WITH A VIOLENT ASSAULT.

WERE YOU ATTACKED? LET'S SAY A A JEWISH FELLOW COMING OUT OF CHURCH.

ALRIGHT. THEY CHARGED HIM WITH YOU WOULDN'T BE DOING THAT, WOULD HE BE COMING OUT OF A SYNAGOGUE? MORE THAN LIKELY. RELIGIOUS FACILITY. SO IF HE CAME OUT OF HIS RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND COMMITTED THAT OFFENSE, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO CHARGE HIM ON THE STATE OFFENSE OF THE SERIOUS ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, AGGRAVATED. AND THEN ALSO, IF IT OCCURRED IN RURAL BEAUFORT COUNTY, THEN HE COULD BE CHARGED WITH THIS ORDINANCE.

HATE, INTIMIDATION. IF THAT WAS THE REASON THAT HE COMMITTED THAT SERIOUS ASSAULT.

OKAY. AND MR. BRYAN, YOU WILL PROBABLY STAY UP THERE JUST TO BACK UP, BUT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. SO I READ THIS THING LIKE THREE, FOUR TIMES.

SO BY ME JUST SAYING SOMETHING. CAN I BE CHARGED IF I SAY SOMETHING AGAINST SOMEONE ELSE? IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN BE CHARGED UNDER A HATE CRIME FOR? IF I OR AS YOU JUST SAID, IT HAS TO BE TIED TO SOMETHING ELSE.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE READING OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PUT BEFORE COUNCIL.

IS THAT BY SIMPLY SAYING SOMETHING. BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE INTERPRETATION.

YES. I, I GUESS IF YOU COMMIT AN UNDERLYING CRIME, LIKE TERRORISTIC THREATS I COULD SEE THIS POSSIBLY ATTACHING TO THAT. SO, SO I MEAN, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO THINK THE BEST WAY TO SAY THIS.

SO IF I, I MEAN, I'M ALL FOR HATE HATE CRIME STUFF NOT TO HAVE IT HAPPEN, BUT MY, MY QUESTION WOULD BE LIKE, IF IT WAS, IF IT WAS A THREAT TO WHERE YOU THREATENED SOMEONE AND IT WAS TIED TO THE PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE.

HATE, INTIMIDATION AS FAR AS LIKE RELIGION OR GENETICS OR NATIONALITY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND IT WAS A SERIOUS THREAT. THEN WE COULD PERHAPS ADD THIS AS AN ENHANCEMENT, AS A STANDALONE OFFENSE ALONG WITH THE THREAT.

SO YOU'D HAVE TO PROVE THE THREAT. THEN YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE ENHANCEMENT. THE HATE INTIMIDATION. OKAY, SO I MEAN, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CRAZY EXAMPLE AS I'M SITTING HERE THINKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE AGAIN, I'M A FIRST AMENDMENT PERSON IS WE'LL SAY THAT SOMEONE CLAIMS THAT THEY'RE A PEDOPHILE EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE NEVER ACTED ON IT.

THEY CLAIM THEY'RE A PEDOPHILE AND SOMEONE COMES ALONG AND TALKS HATEFUL ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY'VE CLAIMED THEY'RE A PEDOPHILE BECAUSE OF THEIR SEXUAL ORIENTATION. THEY COULD BE SOMEONE WHO TALKS AGAINST THE PEDOPHILE, COULD BE CHARGED WITH, WITH, WITH HATE CRIME. AND AGAIN, I'M TURNING THE THING ON ITS HEAD JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS WHAT THIS LAW SAYS.

SO SOMEONE COULD BRING THAT FORWARD AND BE ACCUSED OF A HATE CRIME.

ARE YOU EQUATING THE PEDOPHILE WITH SEXUAL ORIENTATION? I'M JUST TRYING. YES, YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT. YES.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY WHAT SEXUAL ORIENTATION IS. WELL, IT DEPENDS ON YOUR DEFINITION OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION, BECAUSE.

YES, THAT COULD BE. SO YOU'D HAVE TO CREATE. IT HAS TO BE FOR FEAR OF HARM, INJURY OR DAMAGE TO THE VICTIM'S PERSON OR PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE VICTIM'S ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, WHICH IS USUALLY MALE OR FEMALE, IS WHAT IT IS NOT BECAUSE YOU.

BUT YOU COULD BE ARGUED. AND AGAIN, I USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE.

THAT'S AN EXTREME EXAMPLE. I JUST KNOW THOUGH.

I JUST KNOW I THINK IT WAS IN FINLAND, THIS FINLAND SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY FOUND SOMEONE OF HATE CRIMES BECAUSE THEY WROTE TEN YEARS AGO AN ARTICLE THAT SAID THE RELIGION DID NOT LIKE HOMOSEXUALITY. OKAY, WELL, IF THERE WAS A STATE CRIME THAT THEY COULD BE CHARGED WITH BECAUSE OF THOSE COMMENTS TOWARDS THAT PEDOPHILE, AND THEY CHARGED THAT OFFENSE AND IT WAS FOR THIS PURPOSE.

IF THEY WERE WILLING TO STRETCH IT TO THAT EXTREME EXTREME RIGHT.

AGAIN, THAT WAS JUST AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S VERY EXTREME. BUT YES, THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE.

A BETTER WOULD BE IF IT WAS TARGETED TOWARDS, LET'S SAY, A CROSS-DRESSER OR SOMEONE, A MALE THAT PREFERRED TO BE A WOMAN.

AND THEN HE WAS TARGETED BECAUSE OF THAT. THEN IF THEY COULD PROVE THAT YOU COULD BRING THIS AS A ENHANCER,

[00:50:07]

SEPARATE OFFENSE. I JUST GETTING CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

I COULD, I COULD, I JUST THAT'S ALSO THE, COULD I USE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OTHER THAN WHAT WAS JUST USED? STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS. THAT'S A STATE LAW. CAN THIS BE USED ON A STAND YOUR GROUND.

AND THAT'S THE STAND YOUR GROUND. SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS A CASE IN ORANGE COUNTY WHERE I THINK THE PERSON, THE PERPETRATOR SHOULD BE IN JAIL, BUT HE'S GETTING AWAY WITH IT BECAUSE HE'S USING STAND YOUR GROUND AND HE JUST KILLED SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW? YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW WITH THE.

YEAH. CAN THAT BE USED YOU. LAW ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE TO BRING A CHARGE AGAINST THE PERSON STANDING ON THE GROUND IF HE WAS FACING A CHARGE. AND HE CAN USE STAND YOUR GROUND AS A DEFENSE THAT DOESN'T IMPLICATE THIS, WHETHER OR NOT HE'S CHARGED WITH AN UNDERLYING OFFENSE.

AND THEN IT WAS FOR THAT PURPOSE THAT THE PROSECUTOR OR LAW ENFORCEMENT THOUGHT THAT HE WAS DOING IT BECAUSE OF RACE OR GENDER OR ONE OF THE OTHER CRITERIA.

THEN YOU COULD BRING THAT. BUT IF IT'S JUST A TYPICAL STAND YOUR GROUND AND HE'S DEFENDING HIS HOME OR HIS FAMILY.

WHAT'S THE CHANCE THAT THAT'S FOR THE PURPOSE OF RACE, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, COLOR, RELIGION, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER, GENDER IDENTITY, OR PHYSICAL OR MENTAL DISABILITY? WELL, IT'S GOING TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND I'M JUST GOING TO BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THAT COMES OUT.

RIGHT. BUT THE PERSON WAS ACTUALLY THE PERPETRATOR.

HE RAN THE PERSON DOWN AND THE PERSON BY PASSED HIM ON THE HIGHWAY MAY HAVE THROWN A FINGER OR SOMETHING, RAN HIM DOWN. MILES DOWN THE ROAD. AND HE LITERALLY THE MAN WAS WALKING AWAY.

HE SHOT HIM IN THE BACK AND HE USED STAND YOUR GROUND AS A DEFENSE.

DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THAT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL IN MOST CASES. WELL, HE GOT OFF OKAY, BUT THIS IS SORT OF SOMEONE THAT'S VIOLATING IT.

YEAH. I'M JUST WONDERING, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE ASKING VERY DIFFICULT QUESTIONS FOR HER FIRST. OKAY, OKAY, OKAY. WAY TOO CHALLENGING. I SUPPORT THE THE LAW.

I JUST WANTED TO. I'M LIKE MR. MCLELLAN EARLIER.

SHELL VERSUS ME, YOU KNOW? AND I, YOU KNOW, DON'T DON'T TRY TO EXPLAIN THAT BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT IT IS.

SOME, SOME PEOPLE USE SHELL FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE AND MAYBE FOR OTHER PEOPLE AND STUFF.

SO YEAH, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW. YES, SIR. AND, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANTED TO BE FAIR AND, AND USE FAIRLY FOR EVERYBODY. YES, SIR. YES, MA'AM.

YES. I DO UNDERSTAND THE POINT. I DO THINK IT GIVES LEEWAY FOR THE EXTREME SITUATIONS THAT COULD BE POSED.

IT ALLOWS THE PROSECUTOR AND LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE THAT DISCRETIONARY CHOICE.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO ME. YEAH, YEAH.

OKAY. A FINAL COMMENT. I THINK EVERYBODY'S PROCEEDING VERY CAREFULLY HERE WITH FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS, BUT YOU JUST CAN'T SAY ANYTHING HERE. YOU HAVE TO YOU CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THINGS YOU SAY, WHICH IS WHY THIS DEFAMATION, SLANDER AND LIBEL.

SO YOU JUST CAN'T SAY THINGS AND THEN NOT EXPECT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE THINGS YOU SAY IF THEY DO VIOLATE THE LAW.

SO I THINK EVERYBODY IS VERY AWARE OF THAT WITH THIS AND THAT.

EVERYONE'S PROCEEDING VERY CAREFULLY. SO I SUPPORT THIS.

I THINK THAT I THINK THIS IS NECESSARY FOR US TO TAKE A STAND, TO MAKE A POINT, AND IN PARTICULAR, TO LET EVERYBODY ELSE KNOW THAT WE HAVE TAKEN THIS ACTION AND THAT WE WOULD, IN CONCERT WITH OUR RESOLUTION, URGE THE STATE TO DO THE SAME THING. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS MYSELF. ALL RIGHT. NO.

GOTCHA. YEAH. SO MY TWO QUESTIONS, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SECTION B IN HERE WHERE IT SAYS WHETHER OR NOT THE PERCEPTION IS CORRECT THAT CAN YOU HELP EXPLAIN THAT TO ME? LIKE, HOW IS THAT? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD PREVENT A PROSECUTOR OR LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM HAVING TO PROVE THAT THE ASSUMPTION IS CORRECT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF SOMEONE IS TARGETED FOR THEIR RELIGION, THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO THEN GET ON THE STAND, PROVE THAT IS IN FACT THEIR RELIGION AS AN ELEMENT OF IT.

IT IS SIMPLY GOING TO BE BASED ON THE PERCEPTION THAT THE PERPETRATOR HAD OF THE VICTIM AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.

OKAY. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION IS JUST DATA RELATED OUT OF THE COUNTIES AND MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE PASSED SOMETHING SIMILAR, HOW MANY TIMES HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PROSECUTED? I, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT.

I DON'T KNOW OF IT BEING PROSECUTED BASED OFF THE BEAUFORT CITY OR, OR BLUFFTON ONE, I'M NOT SURE.

[00:55:03]

RICHLAND HAD ONE THAT WAS SUCCESSFUL. RICHLAND HAD IT.

THAT WAS THE FIRST I HEARD OF THAT. ALL RIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH. SO, MR. HOBART, SORRY.

I'M SORRY, MONICA, BUT YOU WERE AT THE MEETING WE HAD WITH THE SHERIFF, THE SOLICITOR, THE WHOLE WORLD THAT WAS THERE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPRESS THEIR OPINION ON THIS? OKAY. WELL, SHE WASN'T THERE. THAT'S WHY I WAS GOING TO THROW IT TO YOU. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THEIR OPINION ON THIS IS THEY WOULD APPRECIATE THE DISCRETION ADDED INTO THE STATUTE TO ALLOW THEM TO MAKE THE BEST CHOICE MOVING FORWARD.

IT WOULD PREVENT SEPARATING OFFENSES THAT WOULD HOLD UP JUDICIAL ECONOMY IN THE COURT SYSTEM AND ALLOW OFFICERS TO MAKE APPROPRIATE DECISIONS BASED ON THE FACTS THAT ARE PUT BEFORE THEM WITHOUT BEING FORCED INTO MAKING THAT CHOICE.

I THINK THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT INTERPRETATION.

I MEAN, WE WENT DOWN THAT ROAD A BIT OVERWHELMINGLY.

EVERYONE'S OPINION WAS THAT IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO BE AT THE STATE LEVEL.

THE STATE SHOULD BE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, CORRECT.

BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL, THEN GIVE THEM THE DISCRETION SO IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THEIR PROSECUTION OF MORE SERIOUS OFFENSE. AND SOME OF THE TERMS THAT WERE USED DURING THAT DISCUSSION WERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO I TAKE CASE IN, I GET THE DEATH PENALTY.

SO I'M GOING TO GET THE DEATH PENALTY PLUS 30 DAYS FROM THE MAGISTRATES COURT. THAT WAS THE SOLICITOR.

YEAH. YEAH. SO THOSE KIND OF EXAMPLES IT'S THEY PERCEIVE THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO MORE SERIOUS OFFENSES.

AND THEN THIS KIND OF TRIVIALIZES IT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO ENHANCE IT WITH A 30 DAY MAX PENALTY AT A LOWER COURT LEVEL ADVICE DEALING WITH A FELONY UP IN CIRCUIT COURT THAT THEY SHOULD BE DEALING WITH. AND AGAIN, IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE AT THE STATE LEVEL.

BUT IF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO INCLUDE BEAUFORT COUNTY COUNCIL WISH TO PASS AN ORDINANCE OR A RESOLUTION, THEN GIVE THEM THE DISCRETION TO DECIDE WHETHER TO PURSUE IT OR NOT.

IS THE BEST WAY TO GO THAT I WAS AT THAT MEETING TOO, OF COURSE.

AND THAT LEADS TO MY SECOND QUESTION. IF WE IF WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE, DO YOU FEEL LIKE IT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY WHAT THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH? AND THEN IF WE DON'T PASS THE RESOLUTION, WE JUST PASS THE ORDINANCE.

OR DO WE NEED TO PASS BOTH? JUST OPINION. WELL, I THINK BY ADDING THE DISCRETIONARY LANGUAGE, IT DOES GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PROSECUTORS THE OPTION TO MOVE THEIR CASE FORWARD AS THEY SEE FIT.

IN TERMS OF GOING FORWARD WITH BOTH, THAT IS CERTAINLY UP, UP TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN COUNCIL AND IT WOULD SEND THAT TO THE RESOLUTION WOULD GO TO THE STATE TO CORRECT. IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

YOU'LL SEE THAT THE NEXT ITEM ON YOUR AGENDA IS THE RESOLUTION.

AND THE RESOLUTION IS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT COUNCIL ADOPT.

WE DIDN'T PUT FORTH A RECOMMENDATION ON THIS, AS MONICA TOLD YOU DURING THE INITIAL DISCUSSION, BUT WE DO RECOMMEND THAT YOU PASS THE RESOLUTION TO ENCOURAGE THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS A STATEWIDE, STATEWIDE CRIME FOR HATE CRIME, INTIMIDATION.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. THANKS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THEN LET'S WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS.

SO WE'RE ON NINE A. YEAH, YEAH, NINE A. LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH THE LANGUAGE CHANGED FROM SHALL TO MAY.

RIGHT. IT'S DISCRETIONARY. YEAH. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. IT WAS TELLING ME. SARAH.

COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. MCALLEN.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAWSON. MARK LAWSON. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. DAWSON. YES. CHAIR. HOWARD. YES.

VICE CHAIR. TABERNAC. YES. COUNCIL COUNCILMEMBER GLOVER.

YES. COMMITTEE VICE CHAIR READS. YES. COMMITTEE CHAIR.

BARTHOLOMEW. YES. THE MOTION PASSES. THANK YOU.

SORRY FOR THE ROLL CALL. DIDN'T KNOW. OKAY, SO I'D LIKE TO SEE IT PASS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESOLUTION TO THE STATE.

WELL, THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEXT ONE, WHICH IS NINE B RESOLUTION OF BEAUFORT COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA,

[9.b. A Resolution of Beaufort County, South Carolina, encouraging the South Carolina General Assembly to adopt a Comprehensive Hate Crime Bill. (FISCAL IMPACT: N/A) - Monica Main]

ENCOURAGING THE SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO ADOPT A COMPREHENSIVE HATE CRIME BILL.

I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT.

[01:00:10]

AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMITTEE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE? QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO WHOM THE RESOLUTION GOING UP IS GOING.

IT WOULD IT WOULD GO TO THE LEGISLATOR TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO ENACT.

LEGISLATOR OR LEGISLATURE. LEGISLATURE. LEGISLATURE.

AM I SAYING IT WRONG? WELL, I'M JUST WONDERING, ARE YOU SENDING IT TO A PERSON OR TO THE GROUP? IT WOULD. IT WOULD GO TO THE GROUP? YEAH, IT WOULD GO TO THE DELEGATION.

OKAY. YES. OKAY. IN THE IN THE SENATE. YES. I BELIEVE THAT'S WHERE THE LAST BILL GOT STUCK.

I THINK IT GOT STUCK IN THE JUDICIARY OF THE SENATE.

SO, YES, THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING. YES, SIR. OKAY.

YES. THE GENERAL THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. WHAT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE FOR BOTH HOUSES? YEAH. OKAY. WHAT WOULD BE MORE EFFECTIVE? THE DELEGATION OR TO THE CHAMBER? I THINK OUR DELEGATION IS PRETTY SOLID ON THIS, BUT THERE'S ONE PERSON ALREADY IN THE HOUSE ALREADY PASSED IT.

THAT'S THE SENATE THAT'S BLOCKING IT. I SUPPOSE IT MAKES SENSE TO SEND IT TO THEM, MAYBE THANK THEM, BUT THEN SEND IT TO THE SENATE WITH SOME MAYBE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE.

THEY'LL GET ON IT, YOU KNOW. BUT IF YOU IF THERE'S A PROCEDURE IN PLACE THAT'S FORMAL AND THAT'S THE ONE WE SHOULD FOLLOW.

SEND IT TO THE LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION AND THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.

SEEING NONE BY SHOW OF HANDS. ALL RIGHT. THAT IS UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. MONICA. MONICA. THANK YOU. AND MOVING ON TO NINE C, THIS IS ORDINANCE 2020 606 AND ORDINANCE ADDING

[9.c. 2026/06: An Ordinance adding a new Section 54-8 to the Beaufort County Code of Ordinances so as to prohibit and make unlawful the discharge of firearms in certain unincorporated areas of the county, to provide the penalty pertaining to such violations, and to provide certain exceptions and limitations thereto. The vote at Community Services and Public Safety Committee on February 3, 2026 - 6:2 The vote at First Reading on February 23, 2026 - 7:4 Public Hearing was held on March 9, 2026 The vote to postpone Second Reading until the March 23, 2026 County Council Meeting - 10:0 The vote to send back to Community Service and Public Safety Committee for revisions at the County Council Meeting on March 23, 2026 - 11:0 (FISCAL IMPACT: N/A) - County Attorney Brian Hulbert]

A NEW SECTION 54 EIGHT TO THE BEAUFORT COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES SO AS TO PROHIBIT AND MAKE UNLAWFUL THE DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS AND CERTAIN UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY TO PROVIDE THE PENALTY PERTAINING TO SUCH VIOLATIONS AND TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS THERE TOO.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND? SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT.

AND IS THERE A PRESENTATION ON THIS ONE? DANIEL'S CHOMPING AT THE BIT BACK THERE.

COUNCIL RECALL THAT BEGINNING LAST OCTOBER, WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS DEALING WITH A REQUEST TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE FOR THE WRONGFUL DISCHARGE OF WEAPONS IN THE COUNTY. WE TOOK IT TO COMMITTEE IN NOVEMBER, THEN IT WENT TO COUNCIL.

COUNCIL HAD REFERRED IT BACK HERE TO COMMITTEE WITH DIRECTION TO WELL, FIRST WE MET WITH THE SHERIFF AND THE SOLICITOR AND THE POLICE CHIEFS AND DNR SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF A FEW WEEKS AGO AND DISCUSSED IT AND THEN CAME BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE DIRECTION WAS OR TO COUNCIL AND THE DIRECTION WAS FROM THAT SECOND READING THAT WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE THAT DAY TO SEND IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. AND TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE CRIMINAL PENALTY THAT WAS PENDING SECOND READING AT THAT TIME, AND TO ALSO CONSIDER A CIVIL PENALTY ORDINANCE.

SO IN YOUR BACKUP, I'VE DRAFTED A SECOND ORDINANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

SO YOU'LL HAVE THE ORIGINAL CRIMINAL PENALTY, ONE THAT REMAINS THE SAME.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED ON THAT. THE SECOND ONE, COULD YOU MAKE IT LARGER SARAH? YEP. IS A CIVIL PENALTY. AND IT'S KIND OF MODELED AFTER THE YORK COUNTY ORDINANCE.

ALTHOUGH THE YORK COUNTY ORDINANCE WAS A CRIMINAL ORDINANCE VICE A CIVIL ONE.

WHAT'S CHANGED IS I'VE ADDED IN SOME OTHER LANGUAGE AND I'VE CHANGED THE PENALTY TO A CIVIL PENALTY IN THIS CASE.

AND YOU'LL SEE THE UNLAWFUL PORTION IS THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY TO DISCHARGE A FIREARM.

OOPS. THAT'S THE WRONG ONE. CAN YOU SEE? OKAY.

IT'S UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON IN THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF THE COUNTY TO INTENTIONALLY, NEGLIGENTLY, OR CARELESSLY DISCHARGE ANY FIREARM IN A MANNER AS TO BE LIKELY TO CAUSE BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO PERSONS OR DOMESTIC ANIMALS, OR DAMAGE TO OR DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. AND THEN NEXT YOU'LL SEE THE PENALTY.

ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL PAY A CIVIL PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN $200 FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION, $300 FOR THE SECOND VIOLATION WITHIN A ONE YEAR PERIOD AFTER THE FIRST VIOLATION, AND $500 FOR A THIRD VIOLATION WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THAT FIRST VIOLATION. SO IT COULD BE AN ESCALATING PENALTY IF THEY REPEAT IT WITHIN ONE YEAR OR WITHIN TWO YEARS.

OKAY. NOW I'VE EXCLUDED CERTAIN THINGS. THE LAWFUL USE OF FIREARMS AND DEFENSE OF LIFE OR PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE CASTLE DOCTRINE, AS YOU'RE AWARE. LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHILE ENGAGED IN THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES OR PERSON ACTING FOR THE SOUTH

[01:05:09]

CAROLINA DNR TO CONTROL NUISANCE, WILDLIFE OR EXISTING FIREARM RANGES OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS.

SHOOTING RANGE PROTECTION ACT OR A RIFLE, PISTOL, SKEET OR TRAP RANGE OPERATED BY A RECOGNIZED GUN CLUB.

MEETING STANDARDS RECOMMENDED BY THE NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION OR ANY EQUIVALENT NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FIREARM SAFETY AUTHORITY FOR THE TYPE AND CALIBER OF FIREARMS, FIREARMS BEING FIRED OR A LANDOWNER. DISCHARGE A FIREARM ON THE LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY.

PROTECT THE LANDOWNER'S FAMILY, EMPLOYEES, THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR LANDOWNERS PROPERTY FROM ANIMALS THAT THE LANDLORD BELIEVES TO POSE A DIRECT THREAT TO THE LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY.

PEOPLE ON THE PROPERTY OR THE GENERAL PUBLIC PROVIDED THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM, THE LANDOWNER'S PROPERTY MUST BE A PARCEL OF LAND COMPRISED OF AT LEAST 25 CONTIGUOUS ACRES. AND THAT'S SOMETHING YOU THINK ABOUT. DO YOU WANT IT TO BE 25 ACRES OR SOMETHING SMALLER OR LARGER.

IF YOU WANT THAT. AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT DOESN'T ALLOW ANYBODY TO CONFISCATE THEIR WEAPONS UNLESS IT'S INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST.

AND IT DOESN'T REGULATE THE TRANSFER, OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION OR CARRYING OR TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS, AMMUNITION, COMPONENTS OF FIREARMS OR ANY COMBINATION OF THESE THINGS.

SO YOU HAVE A CHOICE TO CONSIDER THE CIVIL PENALTY ORDINANCE, WHICH TAKES AWAY THAT DISTANCE, 500FT THAT PEOPLE WERE ARGUING ABOUT THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND THEN THE BERM, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, YOU JUST HAVE TO MEET THE TERMS OF THIS ORDINANCE, OR YOU CAN STICK WITH THE CRIMINAL PENALTY. AND YOU CAN'T DISCHARGE A WEAPON WITHIN 500FT OF A SCHOOL HOUSE, PLAYGROUND, ETC.. SO IT'S OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OF COUNCIL QUESTION.

I'LL START DOWN HERE. I NUMBER FOUR AND NUMBER FIVE, WHO WHO IS GOING TO DETERMINE THAT THESE EXISTING RANGES MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE SET UP.

THIS IS ALL NEW, SO WE'LL HAVE TO DETERMINE WHAT THE APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENT AT THE COUNTY WOULD BE TO DETERMINE THAT.

I MEAN, WOULD IT BE. I'M JUST SPEAKING OUT LOUD.

CODE ENFORCEMENT. WOULD THEY HAVE TO GO OUT AND LEARN THE STANDARDS FOR FOR THESE RANGES? I DON'T KNOW. I JUST BRING THAT UP. I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR'S DISCRETION, BUT THAT'S A POSSIBLE OPTION BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO ENFORCE THE CIVIL PENALTY ASPECT OF IT. YES. CAN YOU GO TO THE VERY TOP OF THIS WHERE THE UNLAWFUL PART.

THE UNLAWFUL PART. I LIKE THIS. I DON'T LIKE THE 500FT BECAUSE THAT IS PROBLEMATIC FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO COME OUT AND SAY, OH, I'M SORRY, THIS IS 499FT.

OKAY. THIS IS ALL ABOUT BEING STUPID. THE FIREARM IS BEING DISCHARGED IN AN UNLAWFUL MANNER.

AND THAT'S THE POINT OF THIS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE INSTITUTING SOME SORT OF ACTION HERE, BECAUSE THE PERSON IS DOING SOMETHING INTENTIONALLY NEGLIGENT WITH NEGLIGENCE, CARELESSNESS.

WHATEVER WAY WE WANT TO TERMINATE TERMINOLOGY TO BE USED, THAT'S THE POINT.

NOT A DISTANCE. OKAY. NOW KEEP IN MIND, YOU COULD ALSO USE THAT EXACT SAME LANGUAGE IN THIS ORDINANCE AND MAKE IT A CRIMINAL PENALTY INSTEAD OF A CIVIL PENALTY IF COUNCIL CHOSE TO. GOOD. EITHER WAY. I JUST DON'T FEEL THAT 500FT SHOULD BE THE END ALL AND BE ALL. OKAY, SO YOU PREFER THIS VERSION AS OPPOSED TO THE INITIAL VERSION HAD THAT CAME TO COUNCIL BASED UPON THE ONE THAT CHARLESTON ADOPTED? BUT I, YOU KNOW, IF WE TAKE THAT SECTION A AND APPLY IT IN A CRIMINAL NATURE, BECAUSE ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES THIS ARTICLE, YOU KNOW, FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH CHARGE.

OKAY. YEAH, THERE THERE'S SOME CREDENCE TO THIS.

THE OTHER THING I DON'T LIKE IN THE UNLAWFUL, THIS IS A CIVIL PENALTY FOR ACTUALLY KILLING SOMEONE.

WELL, NO, THEY WOULD BE CHARGED UNDER A CRIMINAL STATUTE IF THAT OCCURRED. RIGHT. IF THE ELEMENTS OF THE STATUTE WERE MET.

NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT WE MET WITH THE SHERIFF AND SOLICITOR AND DISCUSSED THIS AS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION AS WELL.

AND THE SHERIFF'S PREFERENCE I THINK WAS VERY CLEAR.

AND DAN'S HERE, HIS GENERAL COUNSEL IS HERE. HE COULD SPEAK FOR THE SHERIFF, BUT AS I RECALL, THEIR PREFERENCE WAS FOR CIVIL PENALTY TO WHERE THEY WEREN'T DOING THE ENFORCEMENT. AND THEY OFFERED THAT IF IT OCCURRED TO WHERE IT WAS OCCURRING AT NIGHT OR ON THE WEEKEND OR HOLIDAY, THE DEPUTIES WOULD RESPOND, MAKE AN INCIDENT REPORT AND THEN TURN IT OVER TO CODE ENFORCEMENT.

AND IF THERE'S AN INSTANCE WHERE IT OCCURRED TO WHERE CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS GOING TO RESPOND.

IF THEY DIDN'T FEEL SAFE, THEY COULD ALWAYS ASK FOR THE ASSISTANCE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT TO ACCOMPANY THEM TO THE SCENE. LET ME TRY.

I'M IN THERE. LET ME. IT'S THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE RESPONSIBILITY TO RESPOND TO THE SHOTS FIRED CALL.

[01:10:06]

SO WE'LL GO OUT. WE'LL DOCUMENT THE INCIDENT.

IF WE DETERMINE THAT THERE ARE NO CRIMINAL PENALTIES, CRIMINAL LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATED, WE'LL TURN THAT OVER TO CODE ENFORCEMENT FOR THEM TO CONDUCT THEIR CIVIL INVESTIGATION.

THE REASON WHY WE WERE GOING TO THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, AS OPPOSED TO THE CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT, IS WHEN WE DEAL WITH CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS A HIGHER STANDARD THAN A CIVIL NEGLIGENCE, WHICH IS A LOWER STANDARD.

RIGHT. SO CIVIL NEGLIGENCE DEALS WITH A REASONABLE DUTY OF CARE.

CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE IS A HIGHER STANDARD. SO AGAIN, IT'S A HIGHER BURDEN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN THIS CASE.

NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE STANDARD IN A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT AS OPPOSED TO A PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT IN THE CIVIL CRIMINAL CONTEXT, BUT CERTAINLY SHERIFF'S OFFICE WILL RESPOND TO ANY SHOTS FIRED CALL.

DOCUMENT THE REPORT, TURN IT OVER TO CODE ENFORCEMENT, AND CODE ENFORCEMENT FEELS LIKE THEY NEED OUR ASSISTANCE.

AND GOING OUT TO A HOUSE, KNOCKING ON A DOOR OR ANYTHING IN THAT NATURE.

OF COURSE, WE'RE ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST THEM IN THAT, IN THAT RESPONSE AS WELL. BUT THIS, THIS TAKES IT OUT OF THAT CRIMINAL REALM AND THOSE BURDENS THAT ARE PLACED WHEN WE MAKE SOMETHING CRIMINAL, PUTS IN THAT CIVIL CONTEXT AND MAKES IT MUCH MORE ENFORCEABLE IN OUR OPINION.

MR. GORMLEY. OH, COULD I JUST FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION? YES, SIR, IF YOU DON'T MIND, MR. CHAIRMAN. SO I HAVE A I HAVE A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE SHOOTING IT'S OWNED BY THE COUNTY. IT SHOULD NOT BE OUT THERE, BUT THEY'RE SHOOTING ACROSS THE MARSH.

SO IF A NEIGHBOR CALLS IN AND COMPLAIN, THEN YOU WOULD RESPOND TO THAT AT NIGHT BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENING AT NIGHT.

WE RESPOND TO ALL SHOTS FIRED. ALL ALL CALLS FOR SHOTS FIRED 24 OVER SEVEN.

AND THEN YOU WOULD THEN TURN IT OVER TO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT.

OR IS THERE IN VIOLATION OF SHOOTING ON PUBLIC LAND? IT DETERMINES IT'S DEPENDENT UPON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION.

IF THERE'S A CRIMINAL LAW VIOLATION, WE'LL DO OUR INVESTIGATION. IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DEVELOP PROBABLE CAUSE RIGHT THEN AND THERE, WE'LL MAKE AN ARREST OR WE'LL ISSUE A CITATION. IF IT NEEDS FURTHER INVESTIGATION, WE'LL CONDUCT A FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

IF WE MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THERE IS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WOULD BE A CRIMINAL VIOLATION IN THIS CASE HERE, BECAUSE ALL THEY'RE DOING IS SHOOTING ACROSS THE MARSH.

I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE IS ONE, BUT THIS STATUTE, THIS ORDINANCE, NOT STATUTE, I'M SORRY.

THIS ORDINANCE MAY ADDRESS THOSE SITUATIONS IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THEY ARE DISCHARGING THEIR WEAPONS IN A NEGLIGENT, NEGLIGENT MANNER, THEN CERTAINLY IT COULD APPLY IN THAT SITUATION.

BUT IF IT IS, I'M JUST NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH YOUR SITUATION.

IT'S FACT DETERMINATIVE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WOULD BE A CRIMINAL. I CAN TELL YOU THE POLICE. BERMUDA BLUFF ON LAND'S END.

OKAY. IT'S OWNED BY THE COUNTY. IT'S A PARK. WE'LL TURN IT INTO A PARK.

BUT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GOING THERE SHOOTING AND AS INDISCRIMINATELY.

YEAH. LAW ENFORCEMENT DOESN'T KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE, RIGHT? WELL, IF SOMEBODY CALLS THE SHOTS HERE, THAT'S ALL.

YEAH. AND WE'LL GO OUT THERE. LOOK, EVERY TIME THAT WE GET A SHOTS FIRED OUT AT NEW RIVERSIDE, WHICH IS ONE OF THE SOURCES OF CONTENTION, WE RESPOND. WE'VE HAD THREE IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS. YEAH.

OKAY. AND THEN WE HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THEY REQUEST TO MEET.

WE HAVEN'T HAD ANYBODY REQUEST TO MEET WITH US.

SO WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO'S WILLING TO COME IN AND SIT DOWN AND TALK TO US AND EXPLAIN THE SITUATION OF WHAT THEY HEARD, OR THEY OBSERVED THAT ACTUAL INDIVIDUAL WHO WHO EXPERIENCED THAT, NOT JUST THE 911 CALL. NO REQUEST FOR ME.

OUR OFFICERS GO OUT THERE. THERE ARE NO SHOTS BEING FIRED AT THAT POINT IN TIME. WE DRIVE BY, WE SITUATE, WE WE'VE GOT DEPUTIES WHO SIT OUT THERE AT THIS TIME WAITING FOR SHOTS TO BE FIRED AT NIGHT.

YOU KNOW, IN ADDITION TO THE PROACTIVE, THE DEPUTY SITTING THERE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO RIGHT.

WELL, YOU NEVER KNOW. YOU NEVER KNOW. BUT YES, SIR. WE WILL RESPOND TO ALL SHOTS FIRED CALLS.

I GOT YOU 24 SEVEN. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I'M SORRY.

OFFICER I GOT YOU. I GOT TOM, JOE, MARK. ANYBODY DOWN HERE, THEN? LARRY AND GERALD. ALL RIGHT. HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT IF IT'S A CIVIL TURNING IT OVER TO OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO DO THE FOLLOW UP.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE ON THAT? I, I THINK CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE FINE.

LET ME ADDRESS THAT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. THANKS. SO CODE ENFORCEMENT WORKS FOR ME, NOT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT.

SO I THINK I'M THE BEST PERSON TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. CODE ENFORCEMENT.

AND THIS BEING CIVIL IS NOT A MAGIC BEAN. WE HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME BARRIERS TO DOING OUR NOT BARRIERS, BUT HURDLES THAT WE HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH TO INVESTIGATE THAT THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT DOES, MAKING IT CIVIL. YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, TAKE IT TO THE MAGISTRATE, YOU CAN ISSUE A NOTICE OF VIOLATION, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME FINES ASSOCIATED. I WILL SAY THAT CIVIL IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT IT, PROMPTS VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

IF IT'S NOT CRIMINAL, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE ARE PROMPTING VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE.

THAT'S IT. SO IF IT GETS HANDED OVER TO US, WE'RE GOING TO DO AN INVESTIGATION BY READING THE REPORT AND THEN CALLING THE OFFICERS A WITNESS,

[01:15:03]

SENDING A NOTICE OF VIOLATION IF THERE'S ENOUGH STRENGTH IN THE REPORT TO DO THAT.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT COUNCILMAN GLOVER'S SCENARIO.

WE GET A REPORT DURING THE DAY. SOMEBODY CALLS OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND SAYS, I HEAR SOMEBODY'S SHOOTING.

WE CAN GO DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD. WE CAN HEAR THE SHOTS BEING FIRED.

WE HAVE NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ENTER ANYBODY'S PRIVATE PROPERTY BECAUSE WE CAN HEAR SHOTS BEING FIRED, PERIOD. AND I'M GOING TO EXCUSE MY CANDOR HERE FOR JUST A SECOND, BUT IF THERE IS ANY INDICATION OR THOUGHT THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS WITH NO RADIOS, NO FIREARMS, NO TRAINING, NO BULLETPROOF VEST, OR SOMEONE SOMEHOW GOING TO RUN INTO GUNFIRE TO ENFORCE SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THAT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. SO WE HAVE TO JUMP THROUGH THE SAME HOOPS OF, YOU KNOW, GETTING PROBABLE CAUSE, RIGHT OF ENTRY. ALL OF THOSE THINGS APPLY TO US.

CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS.

THEY WRITE ADMINISTRATIVE TICKETS. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS, JUST KNOW THAT MAKING IT CIVIL AND PUTTING IT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE ANY PROBLEM THAT DOESN'T ALREADY EXIST WITH IT BEING UNDER THE CRIMINAL. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THAT, CHUCK. YES, PLEASE. I THINK I MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL RESPOND TO ANY SHOTS FIRED CALLS 24 SEVEN.

SO THIS IDEA THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST ONE RECEIVING A CALL FOR SHOTS FIRED IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.

LAW ENFORCEMENT WILL RECEIVE THE CALLS VIA DISPATCH, RESPOND OUT THERE, DOCUMENT THE CALLS, TURN IT OVER TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME.

THANK YOU. LAST QUESTION FROM ME IS WITH WHAT WE PUT TOGETHER AND YOU HEARD TODAY, ARE WE TAKING CARE OF THE SAFETY OF OUR PUBLIC AND THE SCHOOLS AT THE SAME TIME, NOT TAKING AWAY GUN RIGHTS? ARE WE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU? I THINK SO. I MEAN, THERE'S NO PERFECT SOLUTION TO THIS, RIGHT? WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS CREATE AN ENFORCEABLE ORDINANCE IF THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL WANTS.

IF YOU MAKE IT CRIMINAL, WE DEAL WITH A PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT LEVEL.

REGARDLESS OF WHO'S ENFORCING IT, CODE ENFORCEMENT OR SHERIFF'S OFFICE IN A CRIMINAL CONTEXT HAS PROVED BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH IS A MUCH HIGHER THRESHOLD LEVEL OF PROOF THAN A PREPONDERANCE STANDARD.

THE OTHER BENEFIT OF MAKING IT A CIVIL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM IS THE NEGLIGENCE STANDARD IN A CIVIL CONTEXT VERSUS A CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE STANDARD IN A CRIMINAL CONTEXT. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT BURDENS, AND I CAN GET INTO THE LEGALESE AND BORE YOU ALL TO DEATH IF YOU WANT ME TO.

TOO. BUT THE CIVIL CONTEXT IS GOING TO BE A MUCH MORE ENFORCEABLE ORDINANCE FOR COUNCIL THAN THE CRIMINAL SAFETY AND OVERREACH IS WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON. AND I WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU.

SO I THINK YOU DID THAT, AND I APPRECIATE IT.

ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR. JOE, THERE IS NO PERFECT LAW.

NO. OKAY. THIS IS A START. YES, SIR. IF WE DO IT AS A CIVIL PENALTY.

RIGHT NOW, AT LEAST WE HAVE SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS THAT WE CAN WORK WITH YOU TO DETERMINE.

WAS THIS JUST A STUPID ACT, OR WAS IT A CRIMINAL ACT? RIGHT. HAD WE HAD THIS ON THE BOOKS, THE SHADOW MOSS SITUATION THAT I KNOW, THE CHIEF OF POLICE REPORT ROYAL CAME IN, I THINK WOULD FIT SQUARELY IN THE CONFINES AND GUIDELINES OF THIS ORDINANCE OF DISCHARGING A WEAPON INTO HAY BALES THAT INEVITABLY WENT INTO A HOUSE WHICH, IN THE CRIMINAL CONTEXT, WE COULDN'T MAKE A CHARGE.

BUT CERTAINLY WOULD FIT IN THE CONFINES OF THIS ORDINANCE TO SAY, HEY, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST IRRESPONSIBLE AND A VERY NICE POLITE WAY OF PUTTING IT.

I JUST HAVE A COUPLE THINGS. AND OBVIOUSLY I'M WITH JOE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO WRITE THESE LAWS BECAUSE OF STUPIDITY.

I MEAN, PEOPLE SHOULD BE SMARTER THAN THIS. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS LAW. BUT BUT OBVIOUSLY HERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT. AND I KNOW THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SHOTGUN AND A RIFLE. EVEN LAST WEEKEND, Y'ALL CAUGHT THE KIDS BEHIND TARGET.

THEY WERE SHOOTING WITH AK 47 SECONDS LONG RIFLES TOWARDS THE APARTMENT COMPLEX.

AND I THINK THEY DID GET CHARGED WITH UNLAWFUL FIRE.

I MEAN, THEY DID GET EVEN WITHOUT OUR ORDINANCE.

THEY DID GET CHARGED WITH WITH SOME SOME CRIMES THERE.

AND THAT'S MY MY BIGGEST THING IS IN UNINCORPORATED BEAUFORT COUNTY, WHICH I REPRESENT.

SO MUCH OF IT IS PEOPLE ARE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING CALLED FOR THE USE OF A SHOTGUN AND SHOOTING A SHOTGUN EVEN WITHIN THAT 500FT OF OTHER BUILDINGS, WHICH AGAIN, IS, IS, IS, IS NOT AS BIG A DEAL IF YOU'RE BEING SAFE AS OPPOSED TO THE LONG RIFLE, BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS FLAT HERE. SO. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IS THAT IF SOMEONE'S SHOOTING AND WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S A RIFLE OR SHOTGUN THAT THE DEPUTIES SHERIFF'S DEPUTIES OFFICE IS GOING TO, IS GOING TO RESPOND AND GO OUT THERE AND AT LEAST SEE, SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING. AND THAT WAS THE OTHER THING THAT I, AS I'M LISTENING TO PEOPLE AND CALLING AND FINDING OUT FROM PEOPLE, WHAT PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT WAS THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BECOME MORE OF A NOISE ORDINANCE WHERE SOMEONE HEARS SHOTS BEING FIRED AND THEY CALL THE POLICE TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE

[01:20:05]

JUST BECAUSE THEY HEAR GUNFIRE, WHICH THEN MAKES YOUR JOB MORE DIFFICULT AND YOUR JOB HARDER BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO GET ALL THESE CALLS.

NOW, ANYTIME SOMEONE HEARS A, A, A FIREARM GOING OFF.

SO I, AND AS JOE JUST SAID, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER WAY TO WRITE THIS ANY BETTER.

WE'RE KIND OF STUCK, YOU KNOW, SO, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING YOU FOR YOUR ADVICE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE WANT TO DO SOMETHING. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE RIGHTS AWAY FROM LAWFULLY, ABIDING CITIZENS.

I THINK IF COUNCIL WANTS TO DO SOMETHING, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE THE BEST RESOLUTION. I MEAN, WE GET WE GET SHOTS FIRED CALL EVERY SINGLE DAY.

MAJORITY OF THE TIME THAT WE GET OUT THERE, SHOTS ARE NOT NO LONGER BEING FIRED.

THE FEW TIMES THAT WE DO GET OUT THERE AND SHOTS ARE STILL BEING FIRED. EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWS US UNDER THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, TO GO ON TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL PROPERTY, TO GO EXAMINE THAT GIVEN THE FACT THE SHOTS ARE BEING FIRED.

BUT IT'S IT'S I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S ANY CONCERNS FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE PERSPECTIVE OF A CREATING A MORE BURDEN ON THE CALLS BECAUSE PEOPLE CALL IN IF SHOTS ARE BEING FIRED OUT OF THE ORDINARY. WE'RE GOING TO GET A CALL AND WE'RE GOING TO RESPOND REGARDLESS.

THANK YOU. THANKS, LARRY. HI, DAN. THANKS FOR HELPING US WITH THIS.

I WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP ON JOE'S QUESTION ABOUT 500FT.

AND I WANT TO JUST SEE WHERE HERE. AND I ALSO WANT TO FIND OUT WHAT THE 25 ACRES HAS TO DO WITH ANY.

AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THAT TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT IS THAT LANGUAGE IN BOTH FORMS IN IN THE CRIMINAL AND CIVIL.

I'LL LET BRIAN ANSWER THAT. BUT WITH THE 500FT.

SO OBVIOUSLY WITH THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, THAT REMOVES THAT 500FT BARRIER, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO, TO BE SO MUCH MORE STREAMLINED. YEAH. OKAY. SO IT'S BETTER NOT TO HAVE THAT THERE.

ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. YES, SIR.

AND NOW 25 ACRES. WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING? THAT'S JUST WHAT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY SEVERAL OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT LEVELS AROUND THE STATE.

WHEN THEY PUT IN THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, THEY'VE USED THE 25 ACRES.

SO IF YOU'VE GOT A LARGE PLOT OF LAND, A LOT OF PEOPLE LIKE TO GO OUT AND HUNT ON THAT LAND.

THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE LIKE I SAID, WE CAN MAKE THAT LARGER, WE CAN MAKE IT SMALLER OR WE COULD TAKE IT OUT.

BUT I MEAN, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? THE PEOPLE WHO ARE FIRING THE WEAPONS HAVE TO BE ON 25 ACRES TO MEET THAT EXCLUSION.

JUST THAT EXCLUSION RIGHT THERE. IS IT EXCLUDING IF YOU'RE ON 25 ACRES AND YOU'RE FIRING YOUR WEAPON ON THERE TO PROTECT YOUR FAMILY, EMPLOYEES, PUBLIC LAND OR PROPERTY FROM ANIMALS? LIKE LET'S SAY YOU'VE GOT A FARM, YOU HAVE LARGE FARM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, AND A BOBCAT OR A FOX IS COMING IN TO GET YOUR ANIMALS RIGHT.

YOU COULD SHOOT AT THAT ANIMAL, RIGHT? AND YOU WOULDN'T BE IN VIOLATION OF THIS ORDINANCE.

BUT YOU HAVE 25 ACRES OF LAND. YES, BUT IF YOU HAVE 20 ACRES OF LAND, THEN THAT WOULD NOT APPLY UNLESS WE CHANGE THE DISTANCE OF THIS.

THAT'S WHY I SAY, WHEN I WAS READING THAT, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT 25 ACRES.

DO YOU LIKE THAT OR NOT? DO YOU WANT BIGGER OR DO YOU NOT WANT IT AT ALL? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S NECESSARY TO BE THERE.

20 ACRES. GUILTY. 25 ACRES. NOT GUILTY. IS THAT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE SAYING HERE? YES, IT COULD BE 24 ACRES AND THEN IT WOULDN'T APPLY.

YOU HAVE TO BE 25 ACRES OR MORE FOR THAT EXCLUSION TO APPLY.

HOW BAD OF A THING IS THAT? IF IT'S ZERO ACRES, WE CAN JUST TAKE FIVE OUT, LIKE I SAY.

YEAH, I THINK SO TOO. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE IS TO TAKE THAT OUT BECAUSE THEN, AS YOU SAID, WE HAVE TO, WE THEN HAVE TO DISCUSS WHAT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF LAND AND ELIMINATE THE 500FT AS WELL.

YES. THE 500FT IS NOT IN THIS ORDINANCE. RIGHT.

WHEN YOU SAY THIS ORDINANCE, YOU MEAN THE ORDINANCE.

YES. OKAY, GOOD. OKAY, I GOT IT. YEAH. THE 500 IS ONLY IN THE CRIMINAL ONE.

THE CIVIL ONE HAS THIS. WE'LL CALL IT THE FARM EXCLUSION TO WHERE YOU'RE DEFENDING YOUR ANIMALS ON A FARM OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AT THE SAME TIME, YOU YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE HUNTER'S THAT'S THAT'S THEY'RE, THEY, THEY, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE LESS THAN PROBABLY 25 ACRES OR SO.

MR. GLOVER, IF YOU CAN HOLD IT. I WAS CALLING ON DAWSON.

HE'S BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY. I'LL CIRCLE BACK AROUND TO YOU.

FOLLOWING UP ON LARRY'S 25. SORRY, I GOT. I GOT THE LINE OF FOLKS.

EVERYBODY'S COMMENTING ON THIS. I JUST WANT TO CHIME IN AND SAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS THE UNLAWFUL FIRING OF FIREARMS. AND I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE PROXIMITY OF 500FT, 300FT, 25 ACRES, ALL OF THAT.

I'VE HAD, I WOULDN'T SAY MANY, BUT I'VE HAD AT LEAST 6 OR 7 CALLS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF

[01:25:02]

PEOPLE ACTUALLY DOING TARGET PRACTICE IN, IN THE, IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND IN THE BURTON AREA OUT IN MY AREA WHERE I LIVE, GARDENS CORNER AND SHELDON GRACEHILL AND SO IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PROMINENT.

THE ISSUE IS YOU CALL THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT AND THEY GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE.

AND I MADE A CALL PERSONALLY BY HIMSELF BECAUSE THERE'S THERE'S ONE CLOSE TO ME.

AND THEY GO OUT AND INVESTIGATE AND THEY SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING THEY'RE DOING UNLAWFUL BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE STATE REQUIRED BERM. OKAY. THIS INCIDENT SHADOW MOSS FROM THE INFORMATION THAT I HEARD WAS THAT THE, THE BERM WAS A STACK OF HAY IN A, IN A PUMPKIN OR SOMETHING.

YEAH. PUMPKIN. WAS THAT IT? OKAY. SO, SO ACCORDING TO THE STATE REQUIREMENT THAT DOESN'T THAT THAT DOESN'T COMPLY.

OKAY. SO, SO WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE AS WELL.

NOW, THIS, THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US THAT BRIAN HAS PUT FORWARD, I IT'S IT'S GOOD.

CAN WE CAN DO SOME TWEAKING? I HAVE A I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE PENALTY THAT THAT YOUR SUGGESTION BRIAN.

I THINK WE NEED WE NEED TO TAKE THIS THIS ISSUE OF GUN FIRING AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE NEED TO TAKE IT SERIOUSLY. AND FOR THE PENALTY INVOLVED HERE TO FIND SOMEONE $200 FOR THE FIRST VIOLATION, I THINK IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE THAT THE. THE WEAPON TOO SMALL OR TOO BIG. IT'S TOO SMALL. I'M GETTING TO THAT. THE WEAPON AND THE AMMUNITION COSTS MORE THAN $200.

AND IF THEY CAN AFFORD THE WEAPON AND THE AMMUNITION, THEN THE FINE SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT STIFFER, I WOULD SAY. SO WE SHOULD START AT $500 AND THEN INCREASE IT TO THE $1,000 INITIALLY.

WHY NOT? BECAUSE OUR MAXIMUM MEASURE SCORE IS $500.

THAT'S THE LARGEST FINE YOU CAN DO FOR ANY OFFENSE.

OKAY, WELL LET'S START. LET'S START WITH THE MAXIMUM.

WELL, WE CAN MAKE IT UP TO $500. THEN IT'S IN THE MANAGER'S DISCRETION EACH AND EVERY TIME.

I JUST STARTED WITH AN ENHANCEMENT. WAS 200 BUCKS.

THE FIRST 300 AND THEN 500. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT ONLY THAT IT'S A FINE OF UP TO FIVE, NOT MORE THAN $500.

WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. OKAY. AND THEN. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS THOUGHT $500.

GOTCHA. WELL, THAT'S THE MAX THAT WE COULD DO.

THAT'S OUR JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT. AND JUST BACK TO YOUR POINT, MR. MCLELLAN. KEEP IN MIND THAT THAT CAN YOU PUT THAT FIFTH EXCLUSION BACK UP THERE? THAT'S BASED ON STATE LAW. SO THAT'S A STATEWIDE STANDARD AS WELL.

THAT'S THE 23 EXEMPTION. 2331 510 TWO IS STATE LAW.

SO IT WOULD APPLY REGARDLESS BECAUSE IT'S A STATE LAW.

SO WE'RE JUST MIRRORING THE STATE LAW THERE. YEAH.

STATE LAW REQUIRES A DIRT BERM. RIGHT. THAT'S A DIFFERENT SECTION.

THIS ISN'T THE DIRT. THIS ISN'T THE BERM SECTION.

THIS IS OPEN LAND. YEAH. THIS IS JUST LIKE IF YOU'RE ON A FARM OR PLANTATION AND YOU'RE HUNTING OR DEFENDING YOUR ANIMALS OR WHATEVER.

YEAH. OKAY. GIVEN THE FACT THAT FROM THE GET GO, THIS WAS DOWN IN NEW RIVERSIDE, WHERE LITTLE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE STANDING THERE AT THE KIOSK WAITING FOR A BUS. SO I'M WITH MR. DAWSON.

I'D MAKE IT UP TO 500 EVERY TIME. I DON'T CARE IF YOU DO IT THREE TIMES.

NOW YOU'RE IN THE HOLE FOR 1500. I'M NOT SURE 200 IS THAT MUCH OF A DETERRENT.

MAYBE FOR SOME PEOPLE IT IS. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO GO CIVIL PENALTY, I'D START WITH THE 500.

WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT THAT IN. ACTUALLY, ALICE, BEFORE YORK, DID YOU WANT TO FINISH YOUR COMMENTS? NO, NO, I WAS PIGGYBACKING ON THE 20. 25TH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. GOTCHA. MISS HOWARD, IT'S A 25 ACRES PART OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS.

OR DID YOU COME UP WITH A 25 ACRES? I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT.

I PULLED THAT FROM ANOTHER ORDINANCE, BUT IT WAS, I THINK 25 ACRES IS I THINK IT SHOULD BE SMALLER THAN 25 ACRES BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A SMALL YOU KNOW, TEN ACRE PLOT OF LAND THAT YOU'VE GOT CHICKENS AND OTHER THINGS ON, WE CAN MAKE IT 5 OR 10 ACRES, WHATEVER COUNCIL WANTS. I JUST, I THINK 25 IS TOO BIG.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE SMALL. YEAH. JOE, SINCE I WAS THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION FOR THE ORDINANCE, I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND MY MOTION IF YOU WILL PUT THE ORDINANCE BACK UP.

I WOULD LIKE TO. HEY, JOE, CAN I CAN I HAVE YOU HOLD ON TO THAT? I ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND I MAY GO TO YOUR AMENDMENT HERE.

[01:30:06]

GIVE ME ONE SECOND. SO GOING BACK TO THE PENALTY, I AGREE WITH YOU.

THE $500 SHOULD BE OUT THE GATE. BUT I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE A GUN SAFETY COURSE ELEMENT IN HERE.

I MEAN, THAT THAT'S THE ULTIMATE OBJECTIVE HERE IS TO GET PEOPLE THAT ARE BEING STUPID TO KNOW WHAT IT IS TO BE A SAFE GUN OWNER.

OKAY. GOT GOTCHA. AND THEN I ALSO HAD A I'LL HAVE TO DO SOME RESEARCH TO SEE IF A MAGISTRATE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ORDER SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

I DON'T SEE WHY THEY WOULDN'T. I MEAN, PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION.

IF YOU WANTED TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE, LIKE A I LIVE AT 25 DRIVING COURSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT WE DO FOR SPEEDING TICKETS. IF THE INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO COME IN AND FIND IF COUNCIL HAS A OR MR., HOBART COULD FIND A GUN SAFETY COURSE IS ADEQUATE IN LIEU OF PROSECUTION.

MAYBE ALL FOR YOU KNOW A GUN. THAT IS PART OF THE PENALTY, THOUGH.

YEAH. I'M NOT I'M NOT SAYING NECESSARILY. I'M NOT SAYING IN LIEU OF.

I'M SAYING AS PART OF THE PUNISHMENT. NO, NO, NO THAT'S OKAY.

NO, I'M JUST SAYING AS PART OF IT. I HAVE A GUN SAFETY COURSE REQUIREMENT.

AND THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS MORE ADMIN SIDE OF THINGS.

I KNOW WE HAD SOME RESERVED SECTIONS IN OUR CODE.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE HATE INTIMIDATION AND THIS ORDINANCE OF BOTH 50 4-8.

WAS THAT JUST PART OF THE RESERVATION THAT WE HAD IN OUR CODE ONLINE? IT SAYS 54 EIGHT. I BELIEVE THAT WAS NINE A AND NINE C.

THEY'RE BOTH 50 4-8. OKAY. THEN WE WOULD MAKE THIS 59 OR 50 4-9.

NICE CATCH. I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION. AND I AGREE THAT'S IF YOU PASS THE HATE ORDINANCE.

LET'S GO 54 EIGHT ON THIS AND WE'LL DO 54 AND NINE FOR THE HATE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. AND THEN I AGREE WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE NUMBER FIVE.

THAT'S JUST MY, MY TAKE ON IT. IT'S ALREADY A STATE LAW.

WE DON'T NEED TO INCORPORATE IT INTO OURS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO PUT ANY LANGUAGE IN THERE REGARDING, YOU KNOW, ACREAGE. BUT, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU CAN HAVE TEN ACRES AND STILL BE ON THE LINE AND END UP SHOOTING, YOU KNOW, ACROSS THE LINE AND HITTING SOMEBODY OTHER, YOU KNOW, THEIR PROPERTY. BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO LIMIT OURSELVES WHEN IT COMES TO ENFORCEMENT OF THAT. BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD. TOM, DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING REAL QUICK BEFORE JOE? I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT. STATE LAW. MR. GORMLEY, DO YOU THINK WHAT WE'RE DOING AS A COUNCIL IS GOING TO HELP YOU WITH THE STATE LAW THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE TO WORK WITH? ARE WE GOING TO HELP YOU OR.

I THINK IT'S TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. OKAY. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IF SOMEBODY IS DISCHARGING A FIREARM INTO A SHOOTING INTO A HOUSE, WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE STATE LAW. THANK YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WOULD BE PILING ON AN ORDINANCE VIOLATION ON TOP OF A STATE LAW VIOLATION, THOUGH. PERFECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, JOE, COULD YOU PUT THE ORDINANCE BACK UP? SARAH. OKAY. I'M GOING TO ASK TO AMEND THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, HAVING ITEM NUMBER FIVE REMOVED IN ITS ENTIRETY.

GO BACK UP TO THE PENALTIES. AND STATE ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE SHALL PAY A CIVIL PENALTY PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN $500 FOR EACH VIOLATION. UP TO. UP TO. THAT'S IT, SAID. WELL, THEN, WHY WOULD WE WANT TO DO UP TO.

I MEAN, SHOULDN'T IT BE 500. THAT'S. YOU GIVE THE DISCRETION TO THE MAGISTRATE TO IMPOSE WHAT THEY THINK IS THE APPROPRIATE PENALTY.

IT COULD BE FROM 0 TO 500. YOU KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE, AND IT'S UP TO THEIR JUDGMENT.

RATHER THAN A MANDATORILY IMPOSED $500 PENALTY WITH NO LEEWAY OR ANYTHING.

YEAH. AND I HAD ONE OTHER THING THAT I DON'T KNOW, BASED UPON WHAT WAS JUST SAID, IF IN FACT, WE COULD REQUIRE, AS A RESULT OF A PERSON BEING PENALIZED, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY REQUIRING THEM TO ATTEND A FIREARM SAFETY COURSE.

CAN I CAN I CHIME IN? HE NEEDS A SECOND ON THAT FIRST.

IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE, JOE, ON THE AMENDMENT? WELL, WE JUST HAVE TO REMOVE WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE FIRST VIOLATION AND JUST MAKE IT EACH.

I KNOW THE PENALTY TO MAKE FOR BE TO REMOVE PARAGRAPH FIVE AND ADD IN LANGUAGE ABOUT FIREARM SAFETY COURSE.

SO THAT IS PART OF YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT. WE JUST NEED A SECOND TO MAKE THOSE THREE AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE. I'LL SECOND HIS AMENDMENT AND MR. DAWSON. YEAH, I'M HAVING A PROBLEM UNDERSTANDING WHY IT HAS TO BE UP TO $500, GIVEN THE MAGISTRATE THE LEEWAY.

[01:35:06]

IF IF IF WE ARE DRIVING, WE GET CAUGHT NOT WEARING A SEAT BELT.

IT'S AUTOMATICALLY $25. IT'S NOT UP TO $25. SO WHEN YOU GO TO MAGISTRATE COURT, YOU PAY THE $25.

KEEP IN MIND, IF YOU GET FINED $500, YOU'RE GOING TO REALLY WIND UP PAYING 1082.

50 IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY BECAUSE ALL THE STATE IMPOSED COSTS THAT GO ON TOP OF THAT. IT REALLY BECOMES, DO YOU WANT TO DO UP TO OR DO YOU WANT TO MAKE EACH VIOLATION $500 PLUS FEES, FINES AND PENALTIES FOR ASSESSMENTS? YEAH, I KEEP. TALKING ABOUT OUR CITIZENS, BUT WHEN YOU DO SOMETHING IGNORANT LIKE THIS, DO YOU AGREE WITH GERALD? IT SHOULD BE 500. YEAH. PROBABLY SHOULD, YOU KNOW.

WELL, YOU HAVE TO BUILD A CONSENSUS BECAUSE THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER.

THAT GUN IS BEING DISCHARGED IN AN INAPPROPRIATE SETTING, IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY THAT IT SAYS YOU COULD CAUSE HARM TO SOMEONE OR SOMETHING. OKAY. KEEP IN MIND, PAY THE PRICE.

COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED THAT WE IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY.

OKAY. WE HAVE CRIMINAL PENALTIES IN THE COUNTY THAT WOULDN'T GET THE SAME PENALTY.

YOU'D BE GIVEN MORE FOR A CIVIL OFFENSE THAN YOU WOULD FOR MOST OF OUR CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

VERY FEW HAVE THE 500. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY CRIMINAL PENALTY THAT HAS A MANDATORY $500 PENALTY.

USUALLY IT'S UP TO THAT AMOUNT. IT'S WITHIN THE DISCRETION BECAUSE THAT'S THE JURISDICTIONAL DISCRETION THAT THE STATE HAS GIVEN TO MAGISTRATES.

IF I CAN CHIME IN ON THIS ONE, I WOULD I'D PREFER TO HAVE I GET WHERE EVERYBODY'S COMING FROM WITH MAKING IT MAXING IT OUT.

BUT YOU KNOW, I WAS A FORMER PUBLIC DEFENDER.

I SAW SOME OF THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY.

AND GIVEN THAT JUDGE THE DISCRETION TO HEAR THE FACTS OF THE CASE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL'S PERSONAL BACKGROUND, I THINK GIVEN THAT DISCRETION, LEAVING THAT IN THERE UP TO $500, IT WILL, I THINK, BENEFIT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AT THE END OF THE DAY.

SO I AGREE WITH THAT. AND NOW SO WE GOT A MOTION SECOND.

IS THERE ANYBODY. YEAH. OH NO NO I, I, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID UP TO, I THINK GIVEN THAT DISCRETION.

YEAH. I LIKE THAT LEAD WAY BETTER THAN A MAXIMUM OF 500.

AND, BUT, BUT THE OTHER PART OF IT IS I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FIVE.

THE ONLY PROBLEM I HAVE IS THE 25 ACRES THAT'S BEING REMOVED.

OH THAT'S. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO, I LIKE TO BE IN THERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND HIS MOTION.

NO, NO, NO. GO AHEAD. BUT IF YOU'RE UP TO. YEAH.

LISTEN, THIS IS THE FIRST READING. YEAH. NO, NO, NO, IT'S GOING TO BE.

THIS IS WHAT I WILL TAKE TO COUNCIL AT THE FIRST READING.

FOR A FIRST READING, YOU COULD WE COULD. WE'LL ARGUE IT AGAIN.

IT GIVES GIVE THE LANDOWNER PROTECTION THAT HE CAN USE HIS GUN ON HIS PROPERTY TO DEFEND HIS FAMILY.

NOW, THE 25 ACRES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

HE'S. ALTHOUGH YOU SAID THE STATE LAW. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LEAVING THAT IN BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER NOW HAS A CHANCE TO.

UNDER PARAGRAPH ONE, YOU STILL HAVE THE LAWFUL USE OF FIREARMS IN DEFENSE OF LIFE OR PROPERTY.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE STILL NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENTS.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT HAS COMMENTS ON THE AMENDED LANGUAGE? I DON'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THAT, BUT I'D SURE LIKE TO HEAR WHAT THEY ARE AGAIN. OKAY. SO JOE, IF YOU WANT TO REPEAT THAT, THE FIRST ONE IS TO REMOVE ARTICLE FIVE, PARAGRAPH FIVE IN ITS ENTIRETY, P FIVE, PARAGRAPH C5 RIGHT. THE SECOND PART OF IT IS THE PENALTIES TO SAY ANY PERSON WHO VIOLATES ANY PROVISIONS SHALL PAY A CIVIL PENALTY PENALTY OF NOT MORE THAN $500 FOR EACH VIOLATION, AND THAT THERE SHOULD BE A REQUIREMENT FOR SOMEONE WHO IS CONVICTED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF FIREARMS SAFETY COURSE. QUESTION FOR DAN. YES, SIR.

JUST TO CLARIFY, HE SAYS NOT MORE THAN 500 HAS THAT DEAL WITH FINES, FEES AND ASSESSMENTS.

HAS IT? IT WOULD BE ANYWAY. YES, SIR. OKAY. AND THEN IF I MAY JUST CHIME IN WITH THE FIREARM SAFETY COURSE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD BE ENFORCEABLE AFTER THE FACT THAT THEY'VE BEEN CONVICTED AND THEY'VE BEEN FINE.

SO I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, EITHER OR SITUATION WHERE IF THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T COMPLETE THE FIREARM SAFETY COURSE, MAYBE FOLLOW A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BRING THEM BACK INTO COURT. STILL HANG THAT $500 FINE OVER THEIR HEAD.

[01:40:03]

IT'S JUST A MERE SUGGESTION. BUT GOING OFF THAT I'VE, I'VE HAD CRIMINAL CASES WHERE ACTUALLY OUT OF MOUNT PLEASANT DUI CASE GOT THE DUI DISMISSED, GOT IT DOWN TO RECKLESS DRIVING. AND THEN MY CLIENT ACTUALLY ENDED UP GETTING A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T COMPLETE THE MAD IMPACT PANEL.

RIGHT. SO WHAT COULD KEEP, I MEAN, WHAT'S TO STOP US, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT, FROM FILING A RULE OR OUR LEGAL STAFF FROM FILING A RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE PENALTY? I MEAN, DO WE WANT TO ADD A RULE TO FIND THE MAX? NO, IT'S A CONTEMPT OF COURT. IT'S A IT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THAT.

RIGHT. BUT AGAIN, WHAT'S THE PENALTY? I MEAN, UP TO $500, I IMAGINE IF THERE'S.

YEAH. I MEAN IT'S A CONTEMPT OF COURT ACTION. IT'S COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THIS. WHAT ABOUT IF THERE'S WILLFUL VIOLATION.

WHAT ABOUT RIGHT TO WEAR. IF THE VIOLATOR ATTENDS A SAFETY COURSE PRIOR TO ADJUDICATION, THE JUDGE WILL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

YOU MEAN REDUCE THE FINE? IT COULD BE. IT'S A FACTOR TO CONSIDER, DEPENDING ON HOW EGREGIOUS THE FINE IS OR THE FACTS ARE.

MAGISTRATE DISCRETION THERE BECAUSE YOUR LANGUAGE IS NOT MORE SO.

IT COULD BE LESS. IT'S GOOD. YEAH, I'M. I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

ALRIGHT, SO I NEED YOU TO AMEND. ACTUALLY, I'LL WRITE THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE.

YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT AS PART OF YOUR AMENDMENT. YEAH. I'LL COME UP WITH SOMETHING IF YOU'LL LIKE IT. THE FIRST READING. WE MAY TWEAK IT THEN.

FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. JOE, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? AND WHO MADE THE SECOND ON THAT? ME.

OKAY. YOU MADE THE SECOND. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? GIVING HIM SOME LEEWAY ON IT.

I DON'T LOVE IT. BUT IF THAT'S HOW THE MAGISTRATE COURT WORKS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T.

I DON'T RUN MAGISTRATES, BUT I BELIEVE THEY SHOULD PAY THE PENALTY ANYWAY.

BUT WE HAVE A FORMER MAGISTRATE RIGHT HERE ON THE BENCH.

WHAT WE HAVE. IT DOESN'T MATTER. THEY'RE ALL DIFFERENT THESE DAYS.

WE DON'T KNOW HOW THEY RULE. ALL RIGHT. IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT, ON THE AMENDMENTS, CAN WE GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON THAT? DO WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT OR CAN THIS BE TAKEN WITH NO OBJECTION? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO OBJECTION, THE ORDINANCE IS AMENDED WITH JOE'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND NOW WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE AS AMENDED.

AND IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MOVING THAT FORWARD ORDINANCE? YES. CIVIL THE CIVIL ORDINANCE THAT WAS AMENDED, THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S MOVING FORWARD. AND THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THAT BEING MOVED FORWARD RIGHT NOW. I WILL TAKE BOTH ORDINANCES TO COUNCIL TO THE FIRST READING, AND THEN YOU'LL VOTE TO APPROVE WHICHEVER ONE YOU PREFER, AND THEN THE ONE THAT YOU DON'T PREFER WILL DIE AT THE FIRST READING, AND THE OTHER ONE WILL EITHER GO FORWARD OR BE AMENDED AND GO FORWARD OR DIE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR WORKING ON THIS. YEAH, THANK YOU TOO.

THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYONE. NOW MOVING INTO 9DA RESOLUTION APPROVING THE BEAUFORT COUNTY FLEET SERVICES POLICY.

[9.d. A Resolution approving the Beaufort County Fleet Sevices policy - Public Access Vehicle Charging Station (FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact for approval of policy) - John Robinson ACA / Todd Davis Fleet Services director 3 min.]

PUBLIC ACCESS VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. THERE IS NO FISCAL IMPACT IF APPROVED.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND? SO MOVED. SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SECOND, DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT OR IS IT NEEDED? NEEDED. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? UNLESS WE JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE FOR. COME ON, JOHN, JUST PUT IT OUT THERE REAL QUICK FOR THE PUBLIC. WHOEVER'S WATCHING.

I PREFER YOU JUST TO MAKE A DECISION. BUT I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE UP TO VERY QUICKLY. YEAH. SO THE THE RESOLUTION BEFORE YOU, BY THE WAY TODD DAVIS IS HERE. OUR, OUR FLEET SERVICES DIRECTOR.

SO HELP ME ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

HE IS THE EXPERT ON THE SYSTEM. WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU IS A RESOLUTION REQUESTING YOUR CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT A PUBLIC ACCESS VEHICLE, ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION. SO YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THIS CHARGING STATION OUT IN OUR ADMINISTRATIVE PARKING LOT.

THIS IS A PIECE OF COUNTY CAPITAL EQUIPMENT THAT WE'D LIKE YOUR PERMISSION TO ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS TO.

SO THIS IS A IT'S NOT A NORMAL THING THAT WE ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS TO A PIECE OF CAPITAL EQUIPMENT.

THAT'S WHY WE BRING THIS FORWARD. IF YOU READ THE POLICY THERE, IT'S REALLY AN INDEMNITY CLAUSE THAT INDEMNIFIES THE COUNTY FROM PUBLIC ACCESS USE TO THIS. THIS IS AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION.

IT IS SOLAR POWERED, SO THERE IS NO COST BURDEN AT ALL TO TO THE COUNTY FOR THIS SYSTEM.

THAT EV ARC WAS PURCHASED IN 2023 WITH SOME ARPA FUNDS AT THE TIME.

THAT WAS AN ALLOWABLE USE FOR THAT. IT HAS BEEN AT BEAUFORT COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS BEING USED TO CHARGE OUR OWN EV VEHICLES. WE HAVE ELECTRIC CHARGERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY FOR OUR, FOR THOSE PURPOSES.