South Carolina school dislikes America

[Gig em Aggies]

Here's one

Does South Carolina law forbid flying a flag from a vehicle even a full sized one ?

And even if it is why is the school enforcing something that is the job of the police to enforce ?

1: They should.
2: Schools are allowed to have their own standards of what is acceptable on their grounds.

[Dyakovo]

Here's one

1: They should.
2: Schools are allowed to have their own standards of what is acceptable on their grounds.

Nice try, but that does not say "because the kid was on school property they had the right to remove the flag from his vehicle".
You can try again if you like, but you won't find me saying that.

[The Two Jerseys]

I did.

The point is, the school can't override state and federal motor vehicle laws.

Ummm.... Yeah, they really can (assuming that by "override" you actually mean "have stricter rules"). They can't allow things which would be illegal under state and federal law (this, BTW, would be what "override" actually means in context), but they can certainly disallow things which are legal.

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/TrafficI.htm

I.
Parking Lot Jurisdiction

1. Parking Lot Jurisdiction

S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-15 gives law enforcement officers authority to enforce all traffic laws on parking lots open to use by the public, even though such lots are privately owned. Before such authority may be exercised, the parking lot must be posted "with appropriate signs to inform the public that the area is subject to police jurisdiction with regard to unlawful operation of motor vehicles."

Both State traffic laws and municipal ordinances (when the area is in the city or town) may be enforced under S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-15, which reads:

Any real property which is used as a parking lot and is open to use by the public for motor vehicle traffic shall be within the police jurisdiction with regard to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles in such parking lot.

Such parking lots shall be posted with appropriate signs to inform the public that the area is subject to police jurisdiction with regard to unlawful operation of motor vehicles. The extension of police jurisdiction to such areas shall not be effective until the signs are posted.

In any such area, the law enforcement agency concerned shall have the authority to enforce all laws or ordinances relating to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles which such agency has with regard to public streets and highways immediately adjoining or connecting to the parking area.

In addition, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-760 provides penalties for parking on private property, provided notice prohibiting such parking is posted "in a conspicuous place on the borders of such property". Punishment for this offense is by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days. This offense may be charged on a uniform traffic ticket.

It's a parking lot, the public has access to it, state motor vehicle laws apply. The school is SOL.

[Dyakovo]

Ummm.... Yeah, they really can (assuming that by "override" you actually mean "have stricter rules"). They can't allow things which would be illegal under state and federal law (this, BTW, would be what "override" actually means in context), but they can certainly disallow things which are legal.

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/TrafficI.htm

I.
Parking Lot Jurisdiction

1. Parking Lot Jurisdiction

S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-15 gives law enforcement officers authority to enforce all traffic laws on parking lots open to use by the public, even though such lots are privately owned. Before such authority may be exercised, the parking lot must be posted "with appropriate signs to inform the public that the area is subject to police jurisdiction with regard to unlawful operation of motor vehicles."

Both State traffic laws and municipal ordinances (when the area is in the city or town) may be enforced under S.C. Code Ann. § 23-1-15, which reads:

Any real property which is used as a parking lot and is open to use by the public for motor vehicle traffic shall be within the police jurisdiction with regard to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles in such parking lot.

Such parking lots shall be posted with appropriate signs to inform the public that the area is subject to police jurisdiction with regard to unlawful operation of motor vehicles. The extension of police jurisdiction to such areas shall not be effective until the signs are posted.

In any such area, the law enforcement agency concerned shall have the authority to enforce all laws or ordinances relating to the unlawful operation of motor vehicles which such agency has with regard to public streets and highways immediately adjoining or connecting to the parking area.

In addition, S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-760 provides penalties for parking on private property, provided notice prohibiting such parking is posted "in a conspicuous place on the borders of such property". Punishment for this offense is by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars nor more than one hundred dollars or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding thirty days. This offense may be charged on a uniform traffic ticket.

It's a parking lot, the public has access to it, state motor vehicle laws apply. The school is SOL.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Looking at the flag (thanks to Dya's post) now I see what the problem is. And, as I suspected, it is the flag size.

Do you really expect me to believe that the flag in his truck can be flown on a highway without it creating a blind spot for other drivers and that this kid should keep flying it?

[Dyakovo]

Looking at the flag (thanks to Dya's post) now I see what the problem is. And, as I suspected, it is the flag size.

Do you really expect me to believe that the flag in his truck can be flown on a highway without it creating a blind spot for other drivers and that this kid should keep flying it?

According to at least one of the articles, the (probably local) police said it was perfectly legal...

[Gig em Aggies]

Looking at the flag (thanks to Dya's post) now I see what the problem is. And, as I suspected, it is the flag size.

Do you really expect me to believe that the flag in his truck can be flown on a highway without it creating a blind spot for other drivers and that this kid should keep flying it?

The safety hazard excuses only happened after the school received a backlash from its original purpose.

[Dyakovo]

Looking at the flag (thanks to Dya's post) now I see what the problem is. And, as I suspected, it is the flag size.

Do you really expect me to believe that the flag in his truck can be flown on a highway without it creating a blind spot for other drivers and that this kid should keep flying it?

The safety hazard excuses only happened after the school received a backlash from its original purpose.

According to the kid's spin, which is absent from his original complaint.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Looking at the flag (thanks to Dya's post) now I see what the problem is. And, as I suspected, it is the flag size.

Do you really expect me to believe that the flag in his truck can be flown on a highway without it creating a blind spot for other drivers and that this kid should keep flying it?

According to at least one of the articles, the (probably local) police said it was perfectly legal...

I see. Probably South Carolina doesn't see it as a distraction hazard. Then again, most states probably don't either.

[The Two Jerseys]

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/TrafficI.htm

It's a parking lot, the public has access to it, state motor vehicle laws apply. The school is SOL.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

It's a publicly-accessible parking lot for vehicles driven on public roads. An 80-year old truck with no seatbelts, no rear bumper, one taillight, and one mirror can legally park there and the owner can't do jack shit about it because it's a street-legal vehicle.

It's not like a closed racetrack with no public right of access where the owners can set their own rules about what equipment a vehicle can have.

[Dyakovo]

That doesn't contradict what I said.

It's a publicly-accessible parking lot for vehicles driven on public roads. An 80-year old truck with no seatbelts, no rear bumper, one taillight, and one mirror can legally park there and the owner can't do jack shit about it because it's a street-legal vehicle.

It's not like a closed racetrack with no public right of access where the owners can set their own rules about what equipment a vehicle can have.

Where the fuck do you live where that would be legal? Somalia?
Also, the excerpt you provided does not support your claim.

[Gig em Aggies]

It's a publicly-accessible parking lot for vehicles driven on public roads. An 80-year old truck with no seatbelts, no rear bumper, one taillight, and one mirror can legally park there and the owner can't do jack shit about it because it's a street-legal vehicle.

It's not like a closed racetrack with no public right of access where the owners can set their own rules about what equipment a vehicle can have.

Where the fuck do you live where that would be legal? Somalia?
Also, the excerpt you provided does not support your claim.

Are you not freaking getting it police enforce motor vehicle violations not schools get it through your thick head.

[Dyakovo]

Where the fuck do you live where that would be legal? Somalia?
Also, the excerpt you provided does not support your claim.

Are you not freaking getting it police enforce motor vehicle violations not schools get it through your thick head.

Nowhere have I said that schools enforce motor vehicle violations.

[Greed and Death]

Does South Carolina law forbid flying a flag from a vehicle even a full sized one ?

And even if it is why is the school enforcing something that is the job of the police to enforce ?

1: They should.
2: Schools are allowed to have their own standards of what is acceptable on their grounds.

Schools can have their own standards but they must comply with Constitutional law, and well flying a flag is one those first amendment activities. Now the right to speech is not absolute and the restriction is not content based so the standard would be the easier "are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information."

The problem school has is that parking lot speed limits are low and the vehicle's time is in the parking lot is again low. What interest the school has is public safety at 5 miles per hour for 5 minutes is most certainly not significant. Also since the school removed his flag while it was parked the school's restriction was not narrowly tailored since a parked vehicle does not present a safety hazard while flying a flag.


Could the state of South Carolina restrict flying of flags on the roadways ? Most certainly as people drive at higher speeds for longer periods of time the state's interest is much more significant also since the enforcement mechanism would be tickets while driving the vehicle and not tickets while the vehicle is parked the state would carry out its interest in a narrowly tailored manner.

[The Two Jerseys]

It's a publicly-accessible parking lot for vehicles driven on public roads. An 80-year old truck with no seatbelts, no rear bumper, one taillight, and one mirror can legally park there and the owner can't do jack shit about it because it's a street-legal vehicle.

It's not like a closed racetrack with no public right of access where the owners can set their own rules about what equipment a vehicle can have.

Where the fuck do you live where that would be legal? Somalia?

Seatbelts were not required until 1967. Rear bumpers on pickups are still not required in some states. One taillight was standard on trucks into the 50s. Passenger side mirrors were optional equipment well into the 60s.

Also, the excerpt you provided does not support your claim.

How hard is it to understand: members of the public have a right to access that parking lot; if a vehicle can legally be driven to that parking lot in the condition that it's in, it can legally park there in that condition.

You can't have a parking lot open to the public that requires vehicles to have a full rollcage and 5-point harnesses installed in order to park there.

[The Two Jerseys]

Are you not freaking getting it police enforce motor vehicle violations not schools get it through your thick head.

Nowhere have I said that schools enforce motor vehicle violations.

They are judging whether accessories mounted on a motor vehicle are safety hazards. That's enforcement of motor vehicle regulations, which they have no right to do.

[Dyakovo]

Nowhere have I said that schools enforce motor vehicle violations.

They are judging whether accessories mounted on a motor vehicle are safety hazards.

No shit, Sherlock.

That's enforcement of motor vehicle regulations, which they have no right to do.

No, it isn't. Its setting standards of what they deem to be acceptable on their property, which they have the right to do.
For it to be enforcement, they'd have to be writing tickets (or something similar) for the "infractions".

[Gig em Aggies]

They are judging whether accessories mounted on a motor vehicle are safety hazards.

No shit, Sherlock.

That's enforcement of motor vehicle regulations, which they have no right to do.

No, it isn't. Its setting standards of what they deem to be acceptable on their property, which they have the right to do.
For it to be enforcement, they'd have to be writing tickets (or something similar) for the "infractions".

By unbolting it from the kids truck and laying it down in his truck bed is enforcement of motor vehicle regulations which they can't not do. Many people have told you on here your wrong but for some reason you still think that the school has the right to touch your vehicle in a public parking lot. Your just gonna have to deal with the fact that your wrong and have been proven wrong many times already.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No shit, Sherlock.

No, it isn't. Its setting standards of what they deem to be acceptable on their property, which they have the right to do.
For it to be enforcement, they'd have to be writing tickets (or something similar) for the "infractions".

By unbolting it from the kids truck and laying it down in his truck bed is enforcement of motor vehicle regulations which they can't not do. Many people have told you on here your wrong but for some reason you still think that the school has the right to touch your vehicle in a public parking lot. Your just gonna have to deal with the fact that your wrong and have been proven wrong many times already.

The problem is that the school's parking lot is publicly accessible, but it isn't public property. It is actually private property of whoever owns the parking lot, in this case the school.

The school is publicly owned, indeed, and it is the same as any other government agency. But, for instance, the same way you wouldn't tell a government employee in UNCIS that their building and parking lot is public property and that therefore you can park in the fire lane (because they would laugh at you) so it is with the school.

[Luziyca]

Seems biased, and a foolish decision.

[Dyakovo]

No shit, Sherlock.

No, it isn't. Its setting standards of what they deem to be acceptable on their property, which they have the right to do.
For it to be enforcement, they'd have to be writing tickets (or something similar) for the "infractions".

By unbolting it from the kids truck and laying it down in his truck bed is enforcement of motor vehicle regulations which they can't not do. Many people have told you on here your wrong but for some reason you still think that the school has the right to touch your vehicle in a public parking lot. Your just gonna have to deal with the fact that your wrong and have been proven wrong many times already.

Assuming that they actually did that, sure. But then again, other than commenting on my having doubts about the veracity of the kid's story, I've said nothing about the actions of the school officials. I've been exclusively speaking about the rule itself.
I've mostly ignored the people telling me I'm wrong about the school having the right to touch the vehicle because I've never said that they did. At no point have I been proven wrong, because y'all keep attacking a strawman rather than what I'm actually saying.

[The Two Jerseys]

They are judging whether accessories mounted on a motor vehicle are safety hazards.

No shit, Sherlock.

That's enforcement of motor vehicle regulations, which they have no right to do.

No, it isn't. Its setting standards of what they deem to be acceptable on their property, which they have the right to do.
For it to be enforcement, they'd have to be writing tickets (or something similar) for the "infractions".

So you're saying that if Joe the Plumber had to go to the school to fix a toilet, they have the right to take a flag off his truck if he's flying one because it offends their "standards"?
Sorry, Charlie, ain't gonna fly.

[Dyakovo]

No shit, Sherlock.

No, it isn't. Its setting standards of what they deem to be acceptable on their property, which they have the right to do.
For it to be enforcement, they'd have to be writing tickets (or something similar) for the "infractions".

So you're saying that if Joe the Plumber had to go to the school to fix a toilet, they have the right to take a flag off his truck if he's flying one because it offends their "standards"?
Sorry, Charlie, ain't gonna fly.

No, I'm saying that they can tell him to take it down or remove it from his vehicle. Seriously, what is the obsession with putting shit in my mouth tonight? Do my lips really look that pretty?

[The Two Jerseys]

By unbolting it from the kids truck and laying it down in his truck bed is enforcement of motor vehicle regulations which they can't not do. Many people have told you on here your wrong but for some reason you still think that the school has the right to touch your vehicle in a public parking lot. Your just gonna have to deal with the fact that your wrong and have been proven wrong many times already.

The problem is that the school's parking lot is publicly accessible, but it isn't public property. It is actually private property of whoever owns the parking lot, in this case the school.

The school is publicly owned, indeed, and it is the same as any other government agency. But, for instance, the same way you wouldn't tell a government employee in UNCIS that their building and parking lot is public property and that therefore you can park in the fire lane (because they would laugh at you) so it is with the school.

If the lot is open to the public, it is treated as a public road with regard to traffic laws.

Parking in fire lanes and handicapped spaces are governed by separate laws, the police are allowed to issue citations on private property.

[The Two Jerseys]

So you're saying that if Joe the Plumber had to go to the school to fix a toilet, they have the right to take a flag off his truck if he's flying one because it offends their "standards"?
Sorry, Charlie, ain't gonna fly.

No, I'm saying that they can tell him to take it down or remove it from his vehicle. Seriously, what is the obsession with putting shit in my mouth tonight? Do my lips really look that pretty?

And I'm saying that the lot is open to the public, therefore state traffic laws apply.The school can't do anything about the flags if they don't violate traffic laws.