Did South Carolina’s 2005 dealer restriction cover a taser with no die-cast metal alloy frame?

Plain-English summary

In a 2005 letter to Darlington’s police chief, the Attorney General concluded that the 1984 taser opinion had been overtaken by an amendment to the dealer statute. The conclusion rested on his understanding that the described taser did not have the frame or receiver named in the amended text.

The opinion revisited a 1984 AG letter about former Section 23-31-180, which then barred licensed retail dealers from selling certain low melting point handguns. A 1990 amendment added “metal alloy” to the description of the prohibited frame or receiver. On the AG’s understanding that a taser did not have a die-cast metal alloy frame or receiver, the old interpretation no longer applied. The AG also explained that neither the old letter nor the dealer statute addressed law enforcement officers’ possession or use of tasers.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2005. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Did the AG still consider a taser prohibited under the dealer statute in 2005?
No. He said the 1990 addition of “metal alloy” made the 1984 opinion inapplicable to the described taser.

Did the 1984 opinion prohibit officers from using tasers?
No. The AG said that opinion concerned licensed dealers’ possession at their businesses and sales, not law enforcement use.

What fact about the taser mattered to the 2005 answer?
The AG understood that it lacked a “die-cast, metal alloy frame or receiver,” the feature named in the amended statute.

Background and statutory framework

Former Section 23-31-180 referred to a die-cast frame or receiver that melted below eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The amendment cited as Act No. 556 of 1990 inserted “metal alloy.” The AG based both 2005 letters on that textual change and his stated understanding of the taser’s construction.

Citations and references

• Section 23-31-180: dealer restriction addressed in the letters.
• Act No. 556 of 1990: amendment that added “metal alloy.”

Official title

Requesting clarification of an over twenty year old opinion of this office dated September 27, 1984 which dealt with the applicability of former S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-180.

Requester

J. A. Cox, Jr., Chief of Police, City of Darlington

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/march-15-2005/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/05march-15Cox.pdf

Original opinion text

r

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsTER
ATI'ORNEY GENERAL

March 15, 2005

J. A. Cox, Jr., Chief of Police
City of Darlington
400 Pearl Street
Darlington, South Carolina 29532
Dear Chief Cox:
In a letter to this office you requested clarification of an over twenty year old opinion of this office dated September 27, 1984 which dealt with the applicability of former S.C. Code Ann. § 2331 -180. Such former statute provided in part that:

No licensed retail dealer shall possess in his place of business or sell any pistol or other handgun which has a clie-cast frame or receiver which melts at a temperature ofless than eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit. The 1984 opinion determined that a taser was within the prohibition of Section23-31-180 " ...since it has a frame which melts at less than 800 F." It is my understanding that the original purpose of Section 23-31-180 was to ban the sale of pistols described as "Saturday night specials". The 1984 opinion simply addressed the applicability of such provision to a taser.

r

Since the 1984 opinion was issued Section 23-31-180 has been amended several times. Presently, such provision states: No licensed retail dealer may bold, store, handle, sell, offer for sale, or otherwise possess in his place ofbusiness a pistol or other handgun which has a die-cast, metal alloy frame or receiver which melts at a temperature of less than eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit. (emphasis added). An amendment, effective almost fifteen years ago, added "metal alloy" following "die-cast" in the first sentence. See: Act No. 556 of 1990. The 1984 prior opinion of this office dealt with a taser which was described as a "plastic encased" weapon. Therefore, such weapon was within the definition of a weapon "which has a diecast frame or receiver which melts at a temperature ofless than eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit." However, as noted, pursuant to the amendment enacted in 1990, in order to presently be prohibited

/)

~ER1c. DENNIS Bun.o(N() • Posr OmcE Box 11549 • CoLUMBJ.A, s.c. 292 11-1549 • TEl.EPHONE: 803-734-3970 • FAcslM.IU: 803-253~283

kl~ J .IA.j ("Xc..77/N ,

Chief Cox
Page2
March 15, 2005

by Section 23-31-180, the weapon must have a "die-cast, metal alloy frame or receiver which melts at a temperature ofless than eight hundred degrees Fahrenheit." Inasmuch as it is my understanding that a taser does not have a "die-cast, metal alloy frame or receiver", it would no longer be within the prohibition of Section 23-31-180. Therefore, the 1984 opinion was made inapplicable many years ago by a change in the applicable statute. While with the passage of the referenced amendment to Section 23-31-180, the 1984 opinion is no longer effective, it must be noted that the referenced opinion never prohibited the possession or use of a taser by law enforcement officers in this State. The statute referenced in the opinion only prohibited the possession in a place ofbusiness or sale of the weapons prohibited by such provision and had nothing to do with the legality oflaw enforcement's use of any weapon.

I

If there are any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,

~~-Ptti:!aJ._
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~

ii

1A1~P·~

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General