You are on page 1of 26
‘STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) d Fills JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COUNTY OF Richland > ) CASENO.: 2018.CP-40.4276" > __} MOTION AND ORDER INFORMATION Paine) FORM AND COVERSHEET “ ) > TnReCity of Columbia ) Bete ) Pinas Avorn [ Daten Arey Mark Schnee, Bar No, 74866 Weike Hemlepp, 3, BarNo. =o ‘Aires ‘adress 1720 Main Street, Suite 202 1 Justice Square Golumbia, Sc 29203 Columbia, Se 79202 1 Prone 805-771-0075Fex 803-799-5068 | Phone @05-545-3099Fex_- Email scmneelafrm@gmal. conser Erma wmhemiepp@columblasc.netiher = | EIMOTION HEARING REQUESTED (attach writien motion and complete SECTIONS I and It) ~ [FORM MOTION, NO HEARING REQUESTED (complete SECTIONS I and II) => [PROPOSED ORDER/CONSENT ORDER (complete SECTIONS I and I 2 ‘SECTION I: Hearing Information ‘Nature of Motion: Motion for Fees and Costs [Estimated Time Needed: 2 hours Court Reporter Needed: _DaVES{TINO ‘SECTION Tl: Motion/Order Type ExWriten motion stashed Cirorm Motion Order Thereby move for calif or action by the court ne atached proposed onde. 32/20/2017 Date submited Tawar ¢ [Defendant ‘SECTION Ill: Motion Fee BIPAID- AMOUNT: $. COEXEMPr: [Role Show Case a Chill r Spousal Support (hook reason) E] Domestic Abuse or Abe and Neglect Cilndigent Status _[] State Agency v. Indigent Party Sexually Violent Predator Act [] Post-Conviction Relief Fron foe Sty in Bankrupt [) Motion for Publication —_[_] Motion for Execution (Rule 69, SCRCP) C1 Proposed order submitted at request of the court; or, rede to writin fom motion mae in pen cour perjudg'sinstctos Name of Court Reporter Dotter: TUDGE'S SECTION C) Motion Fee to be paid upon filing of the attached | JUDGE CODE ___ oiler. | Hote: Date CEERRS VERIFICATION Collet ys ___ ate Filed [MOTION FEE CoLLecreD: § [iconTestep - AMOUNT DUES SCCA 233 (11/2003) ‘STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF RICHLAND FIFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT Case No, 201-CP-40-Y276 Defendant. | Rute to Show Cause for Violating a Court In Re City of Columbia, Order Motion to Enforce Permanent Injunction Request for Writ of Mandamis! Motion for Sanetions |) YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Counsel moves before this Court and requests a hearing to hold the City of Columbia in Contempt of Court, to enforce the Périanent: Injunction granted on May 17, 2016 (attached as Exhibit 1), to issue a Writ of Mandamus mn of both the Cour’s prior Onder and in immediately declaring the new City Ordinance a viola violation of Federal and State law and immediately eliminating said Ordinance and, finally, issue sanetions against the City of Columbia the Court deems ft and proper on the following grounds: 1. On Thursday, December 19,2017, the City of Columbia passed an ordnance (Oninance Number 2017-109, tached as Exhibit 2, “Ordinance” hereafter) making ita eximinal offense fo, among other things, attach a “bump stock” toa firearm within the City limits 2. The Ordinance is premised on factual assertions that are at best wilful ignorence to realty and, at worst, calculated fraud in an apparent atempt for politcal grandtaning sand media attention 3. Forexample, the language used in the Ordinance states: WHEREAS, “bump stocks” and “tigger cranks" and similar devices are not firearms or firearm components, but rather separately purchased optional devices with the purpose and design of dramatically increasing the fing rate of an otherwise legal weapon to a fring speed and capability of unlawful weapons; and, (emphasis added) 4. In reality, the ATP determined in 2010 a “bump stock” to be a firearm part. (Exhibit 3) ‘The City atempts hereto use the term “component” rather than “part” as if to say there is 4 legal distinction to claim an object can be one but not the other, Clearly, a firearm “part” is a component of a firearm. The linguistic gymnastics attempted by the City is ‘mind boggling and insulting to anyone with an LQ above 6. 5. The passage of the Ordinance is a direct violation ofthis Courts prior order, which hel thatthe City of Columbia be Permanently Enjoined from passing any ordinance involving “the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components ‘of firearms, or any combination of these things” not expressly permitted by law. (see Exhibit 1) 6. S.C. Code §23.31-510, titled “Regulation of ownership, ttansfe, or possession of firearm cr ammunition; discharge on landowner's own property” expressly states that: [No governing body of any county, municipality, or other politial subdivision in the State may enact or promulgate any regulation or ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate (1) the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of these things; (emphasis added). 7. The language of S.C. Code §23-31-510 is clear and unambiguous. 8, Equally troubling is the City’s understanding they can’t ban the device entirely, but ‘instead attempts to ban the simple attachment (even if not used) of such devices within the City limits. The language used in the Ordinance makes it clear that transporting an attached “bump stock” through the City would be a violation of the Ordinance. Such language is preempted by, and violates, Federal Law. (see Firearm Owner's Protection ‘Act (specifically 18 U.S.C. §926(A)).