From the South Carolina Attorney General, to a Texas lawyer (Scott Toothaker) who solicited the opinion, 1967 WL 12299 (Mar. 30, 1967):
Dear Mr. Toothaker:I'm not sure the advice was correct under then-existing South Carolina law (see, e.g., the seemingly contrary opinions of Apr. 15, 1964 and Dec. 3, 1969, and the then-in-effect version of S.C. Code § 16-147), but it certainly was pleasant.I am pleased that you are planning to visit our State, and I am enclosing under separate cover some information that should be of interest to you. I would personally suggest that you see Charleston and the Coastal Area. The gardens located at Charleston will probably reach their peak within the next two weeks, but they may still be enjoyable at a later date.
I have previously ruled that a tear gas gun of the fountain pen type is a firearm within the meaning of our law. Under our amended firearms act, these weapons may be carried in a closed glove compartment of a vehicle or in a closed trunk. They may not be carried concealed about the person. I doubt seriously if any difficulty is likely to ensue from possession of the pen type tear gas gun, but the strict application of the law places it, in my opinion, in the category of a pistol. The matter came before me on application of a department store to sell these devices, and I expressed the opinion that dealers were subject to the licensing provisions of our law if they sold such instruments.
If I can be of any assistance to make your visit to this State enjoyable, please call upon me.
Cordially,
Daniel R. McLeod
Attorney General
It is awfully nice, though. I suspect there are important circumstances here, such as Toothaker (nice name!) being a VIP or a friend of a VIP.
If the practice still goes on, are the opinions collected together and published somewhere?
While the personal response from the AG may be somewhat unusual I've seen recent examples of such advisory letters from AG offices. Concealed carry is a popular topic for them and packing.org had quite a few such letters before its demise detailing things like reciprocity with particular states.
So other than the personal nature of the reply I don't find anything particularly unusual here.
Is a "tear gas gun of the fountain pen type" a fountain pen sized aerosol can, which is relatively innocuous, or is it a powder actuated tear gas projector, which is potentially hazardous.
I used to have a pencil flare gun. These were once issued to Army aviators for survival purposes.
It was about the size of a fountain pen and used a shotgun primer, and perhaps a tiny amount of powder to eject a signal flare. It also had tear gas cartridges. The cartridges screwed into the end of the firing mechanism. It's a nifty little device, although I can't find cartridges for it any more.
I believe that with the flare cartridges, it is specifically exempted from the National Firearms Act, as a signal projector. But I could easily machine an adapter for one that would fire a .22 or a .25 pistol cartridge. That would make it a firearm as well as "Any Other Weapon," and subject to the NFA transfer tax (IOW, an Uber Firearm). The tear gas cartridge kinda falls on the line, particularly since it could potentially be reloaded with a projectile or shot.
I suspect this device is what the statute intended to control, and what SC AG was referring to, although I doubt he realized it.
In any case, Charleston really is a nice city.
Given the line about it being okay in a glove box or trunk I would think concealment isn't the entire issue. I'm also guessing that a fine upstanding lawyer likely didn't have a great deal to worry about but the AG has to write about the law as it is written not as it is enforced.
If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.
Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.
We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.
And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.