South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

SLED vs. Kasper F. Fulghum

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

Kasper F. Fulghum

For the Petitioner:
Pro se

For the Respondent:
Natalie Armstrong, Esquire




This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) for a final order and decision following a contested case hearing pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(A) (as amended 2008).[1] The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”) sent a Notice of Intent to revoke the Respondent’s concealed weapon permit based on his being arrested for and charged with two criminal offenses. The Respondent, Kasper F. Fulghum (“Fulghum”), requested a contested case hearing. After notice to the parties, the court held a hearing on May 28, 2008. All parties appeared at the hearing. Evidence was introduced and testimony presented. After carefully weighing all the evidence, this court finds that Fulghum’s permit should be revoked during the pendency of the criminal proceeding regarding the criminal charges.


Having observed the witnesses and exhibits presented at the hearing and closely passed upon their credibility, and taking into consideration the burden of persuasion by the parties, the court makes the following Findings of Fact by a preponderance of the evidence.

On December 6, 2006, Fulghum was arrested for and charged with “crack cocaine – possession < 1g 1st offense.” On April 17, 2007, Fulghum was arrested for and charged with “possession of less than one gram of cocaine base – 1st offense.” On January 24, 2008, SLED notified Fulghum of its intent to revoke his concealed weapon permit based on the charges against Fulghum stemming from these arrests.

Captain Clifton Weir, who testified for SLED,[2] is in charge of the regulatory section of SLED, which is responsible for concealed weapon permits. SLED policy requires revocation of a permit if a permit holder is charged with any offense, which, upon conviction, would prohibit the carrying of a weapon. See S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(J)(4) (Supp. 2007). Captain Weir testified that the crimes with which Fulghum was charged each carries a maximum sentence of more than one year. Therefore, based on SLED policy, it revoked Fulghum’s permit based on his arrests because, if Fulghum is convicted, he would be prohibited under federal law from possessing a firearm.

At the hearing, Fulghum testified concerning his arrests. Fulghum admitted that both of these arrests occurred; however, he explained the circumstances that gave rise to each of them. Fulghum is semi-retired business owner who in the past two years has started assisting young people on work release from prison with vocational rehabilitation. Fulghum explained that the arrests stemmed from contraband that was left in his car and his home by some of the young people he attempts to help. He has obtained affidavits from those individuals stating that the contraband was theirs and not Fulghum’s. Fulghum acknowledged that he should have handled these situations differently and that, as a result of these incidents, he is now extremely cautious with the young people he is helping.

Finally, Fulghum explained that he requires this permit when situations arise at the business he owns. For example, he recently had to respond after hours to a burglary at his business. Fulghum explained that his business is in a high crime area located on the city and county line. Due to confusion over which department has jurisdiction over that area, sometimes both the sherriff’s department and the city police department respond to calls and other times no one responds. As a result, Fulghum stated that he needs to be able to quickly respond to curtail thefts, and he needs to have his weapon with him.

Revonda Hammond testified on Fulghum’s behalf. She has been working for Fulghum as a secretary for two months and has not seen any evidence of any poor practices. Hammond is one of the individuals that Fulghum has assisted while they are on work release or vocation rehabilitation. Hammond stated that Fulghum has helped her considerably and that Fulghum should be permitted to keep his concealed weapon permit.


Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the court concludes the following as a matter of law.

1. Jurisdiction and Review

Jurisdiction over this case is vested with the South Carolina Administrative Law Court pursuant to § 1-23-600(A) (as amended 2008). The weight and credibility assigned to evidence presented at the hearing of a matter is within the province of the trier of fact. See S.C. Cable Television Ass’n v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 308 S.C. 216, 222, 417 S.E.2d 586, 589 (1992). Furthermore, a trial judge who observes a witness is in the best position to judge the witness’s demeanor and veracity and to evaluate the credibility of his testimony. See, e.g., Woodall v. Woodall, 322 S.C. 7, 10, 471 S.E.2d 154, 157 (1996); Wallace v. Milliken & Co., 300 S.C. 553, 556, 389 S.E.2d 448, 450 (Ct. App. 1990).

In presiding over this contested case, the court serves as the finder of fact and makes a de novo determination regarding the permit matter at issue. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600(A) (as amended 2008); Brown v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 512, 560 S.E.2d 410, 413 (2002); Marlboro Park Hosp. v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Control, 358 S.C. 573, 577-79, 595 S.E.2d 851, 853-54 (Ct. App. 2004).

2. Concealed Weapon Permits

SLED has the authority to revoke a concealed weapon permit when the registered individual has “been charged with an offense that, upon conviction, would prohibit the person from possessing a firearm.” S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(J)(4). “However, if the person subsequently is found not guilty of the offense, then his permit must be reinstated at no charge.” Id.

3. Conclusions

The court finds that Fulghum’s concealed weapon permit should be revoked pending the outcome of the criminal case stemming from the incidents on December 6, 2006 and April 17, 2007. While Fulghum provided extensive testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the charges, whether or not Fulghum has a meritorious defense to these charges is not the question before this court.[3] Fulghum does not dispute that he has been arrested and charged with offenses that, upon conviction, would prohibit him from possessing a firearm. Therefore, the court finds revocation of Fulghum’s permit to be warranted under § 23-31-215(J)(4).


Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law stated above, it is

ORDERED that SLED’s decision to revoke Fulghum’s concealed weapon permit during the pendency of his criminal case pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(J)(4) is upheld. It is further

ORDERED that in the event that Fulghum is not convicted, his permit shall be immediately reinstated.




Administrative Law Judge

June 30, 2008

Columbia, South Carolina

[1] The Administrative Procedures Act was amended and renumbered via R.413, H.3575, 117th Sess. (S.C. 2008) (eff. June 16, 2008). No Act number had been assigned as of the date of this Order. Accordingly, all citations to the APA in this Order are to the recently amended and renumbered sections enacted by R.413.

[2] During closing statements, the court specifically did not permit SLED to re-call Captain Weir to the stand to testify, as both parties had rested their cases and evidence had been closed. Nonetheless, SLED submitted an affidavit dated June 3, 2008 from Captain Weir subsequent to the hearing and the close of evidence. Because the affidavit was submitted contrary to the court’s ruling, the court has not considered it.

[3] Rather, Fulghum’s defense to these charges is a question for the court with jurisdiction over his criminal case. Nothing in this Final Order and Decision should be construed as precluding Fulghum from presenting evidence in his defense at his criminal trial.


Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court