ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) pursuant to S.C. Code
Ann. § 23-31-215(D) (Supp. 2002) and S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-310 et seq. (1986 & Supp. 2002).
The Petitioner appeals the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division’s (SLED) denial of his
application for a concealed weapon permit. After timely notice to the parties, a hearing was held at
the offices of the Division in Columbia, South Carolina on July 15, 2003.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having carefully considered all testimony, exhibits, and arguments presented at the hearing
in this case and taking into account the credibility and accuracy of the evidence, I find the following
facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1.Notice of the date, time, place and subject-matter of the hearing was properly given
to all the parties.
2.On October 4, 2002, the Petitioner applied for a concealed weapon permit. A
question on the permit application asked, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” The Petitioner
checked “No” to that question on his application. A subsequent investigation of the Petitioner’s
application revealed that the Petitioner had a prior conviction for open container in 1989.
The
Petitioner also did not report the following traffic convictions:
a.Reckless driving in 2002;
b.Speeding 10 mph or less in 1998;
c.Driving too fast for conditions - 10 mph or less in 1996; and
d.Driving too fast for conditions - 10 mph or less (two counts) in 1993.
SLED must determine if an applicant has a favorable background and it considers all criminal
convictions, including traffic convictions, in making that determination. In fact, SLED’s attorney set
forth at the hearing that it is SLED’s policy to consider six convictions within the past ten years to
be excessive in number. SLED reasons that numerous violations of the traffic laws reflect poor
judgment, a propensity to place the public at risk, and a wilfulness to violate the law. In this instance,
SLED found that the applicant’s background was not sufficiently favorable to approve his permit
application based upon the false statement on his application concerning his conviction for open
container and the above traffic convictions.
I find that the Petitioner falsely stated on his application that he had not been convicted of a
crime. Though he contends that he did not consider an “open container” violation to be a crime, he
was arrested and placed in jail for that violation.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Based upon the above Findings of Fact, I conclude the following as a matter of law:
1.S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(D) (Supp. 2002) and S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-600 (1986
& Supp. 2002) grant jurisdiction to the Division to hear this contested case.
2.The standard of proof in administrative proceedings is a preponderance of the
evidence, absent an allegation of fraud, or a statute or court rule requiring a higher standard.
Anonymous v. State Board of Medical Examiners, 329 S.C. 371, 496 S.E.2d 17 (1998).
Furthermore, in civil cases, generally, the burden of proof rests upon the party who asserts the
affirmative of an issue. 29 Am. Jur. 2d Evidence § 127 (1994); Alex Sanders, et al., South Carolina
Trial Handbook § 9:3 Party With Burden, Civil Cases (2000). Therefore, the Petitioner has the
burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that SLED abused its discretion in denying him
a concealed weapon permit.
3.SLED is required to conduct a background check of an applicant for a concealed
weapon permit upon submission of required information and proof of training. S.C. Code Ann.
§ 23-31-215(B) (Supp. 2002). If an applicant’s fingerprint and background checks are favorable,
SLED must issue a concealed weapon permit to the applicant. Id. However, if SLED determines
that an applicant’s background is unfavorable, SLED may deny the concealed weapon permit.
4.S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-215(F)(4) (Supp. 2002) requires that the applicant certify that
“all information contained in his application is true and correct to the best of his knowledge.”
5.I find that the Petitioner’s application should be denied because of his traffic violations
over the last ten years. The authorization of a person to carry a concealed weapon on his person is
the extension of a very serious privilege. Moreover, the numerous violations of the traffic laws can
reflect poor judgment, a propensity to place the public at risk, and a wilfulness to violate the law.
Therefore, based on the combination of the Petitioner’s false statement and his traffic convictions
within the past ten years, the Petitioner’s application for a concealed weapon permit should be denied
at this time. Nevertheless, when the Petitioner’s 1993 traffic violations become older than ten years,
the Petitioner may re-apply for a permit.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s application for a concealed weapon permit
is DENIED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
July 23, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
