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

CAPTION:
William W. Sukup vs. SCLED

AGENCY:
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division

PARTIES:
Petitioners:
William W. Sukup

Respondents:
South Carolina Law Enforcement Division
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
08-ALJ-20-0452-CC

APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner: William W. Sukup, pro se

For Respondent: Todd Hagins, Esquire
 

ORDERS:

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC” or “Court”) pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(D) (Supp. 2007), S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. , and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (Supp. 2008). Petitioner, William W. Sukup (“Petitioner”), applied for a concealed weapons permit pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-31-205 et seq., and Respondent South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (“SLED”) denied the application pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). After timely notice to the parties, a hearing in this matter was held on December 18, 2008, at the ALC in Columbia, South Carolina. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties respectfully requested that the Court continue this matter for sixty (60) days to allow Petitioner to submit additional documentation to SLED concerning his concealed weapons permit.[1]

On February 23, 2009, the Court reconvened this matter. During the hearing, SLED informed the Court that Petitioner had submitted the requested information to it, and as a result, SLED would issue Petitioner his concealed weapons permit. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, based upon SLED informing the Court that it will issue Petitioner his concealed weapons permit, this matter is DISMISSED with prejudice.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

February 24, 2009 Marvin F. Kittrell

Columbia, South Carolina Chief Judge



[1] SLED denied Petitioner’s application based upon a prior felony conviction in the state of Florida. However, during the hearing, Petitioner argued that the conviction was erroneously labeled a “felony” instead of a “misdemeanor.” Because SLED asserted that it would have issued the permit to Petitioner if his conviction was a misdemeanor, Petitioner requested additional time to obtain documentation from Florida indicating that the prior conviction was in fact a misdemeanor.


~/pdf/080452.pdf
PDF

Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court