Restaurant carry in SC

[markt99]

Hi all,
I'm visiting SC this weekend. I have a CHP in my home state of NC.

While looking at the SC gun laws (via the iCHL app). There is a paragraph about up to 3 years in prison for carrying in establishment that sells alcohol for on-premise consumption. However, this is not listed in the section for places you can not carry concealed.

So, will I have to disarm when dining in a restaurant that serves alcohol?

Thanks in advance.

[chiefpropellerhead]

My interpretation is that you will have to disarm yourself. I too find it interesting that restaurants are not listed in the "prohibited to carry" list as well. My general rule of thumb is that if I do not feel like disarming myself to go into the establishment because they sell alcohol for on site consumption I simply do not spend my money there. Another interesting piece of information is that almost all of the restaurant managers I have spoken to about this are totally clueless about the fact that legal CWP holders are not allowed to carry concealed in their establishments. Heck, most of them do not even realize that there are folks who can legally carry concealed weapons in SC. How do you like that? I guess ignorance is bliss.

[G50AE]

You cannot legally carry into any establishment that serves alcohol in SC. This is the current law unfortunately. There have been efforts to change this law, but they got snagged in the last legislative session. However, I do expect that the issue will be revisited soon.

[mappow]

That is correct G50AE, NO CC in any business that is licensed to sell alcohol for on premise consumption. You're also correct on revisiting this issue in the new Legislative Session next year. I hope all who reside in the State contact their representatives, both House and Senate and push them into action. Start pushing NOW. It'll take some time but we've got to spread the word.

[kelcarry]

No CC is obvious according to current law. How about stun gun, pepper spray, bear spray?

[chiefpropellerhead]

I have spoken to several restaurant managers here in Charleston and every one of them were clueless about this. As a matter of fact the managers I spoke to did not know that there was such a thing as a concealed carry permit. Imagine my astonishment. LOL

[kelcarry]

Hey Chief: I do not know why you are surprised. Unless you are inclined to be CC, why would you ever know anything about such laws and regulations and, by definition, anyone who is CC in your restaurant is not going to be recognized by restaurant staff as they worry and rush about in their restaurant business.

[SCfromNY]

My favorite topic. As you have said in the "restrictions" it does not mention restaurants selling alcohol for consumption. There is a code ending in "465" that claims additional fines and jail time for UNLAWFUL CARRY OF A HANDGUN IN A ESTABLISHMENT THAT SELLS ALCOHOL FOR CONSUMPTION. If you have a permit is not unlawful since it is not mentioned in the "restrictions" on the SLED website.

Looking for a TEST case. I hope we will clear this up soom.

[FN1910]

First of all I am also of the opinion that from a careful reading of the SC Code it is not unlawful to carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol as long a you have a CWP so I am not arguing with you.

However the SCAG issued an opinion on April 17, 2001 and then reinterated it on Feb. 28, 2008 stating that it is illegal in restaurants or bars to carry even with a CWP. (Westlaw 2001 WL 564590 (S.C.A.G.)) I have a copy of it but it is too large to post and I cannot get it to convert to a different format.

I do not plan on being the test case but I am willing to donate to the legal fund for whoever is willing. One just has to remember that an AG opinion is just that, an opinion and in court counts no more than anyone else's opinion including yours or mine. An AG opinion is not law.

[AndeyHall]

Well given that they are trying to pass a bill to allow people with a CWP to carry in restaurants that serve as long as they are not consuming themselves, I would safely assume that it is currently illegal.

That being said, my CWP instructor always went by the very wise saying: "Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6". This is what I personally go by, and I tend to ignore the "No concealed weapons allowed" signs and laws such as this one that make no sense. However, I do follow the laws pertaining to gov't buildings such as police stations, court houses, hospitals, schools, etc, simply because those laws make sense to me (with the exception of schools, but I don't carry there because there is too much risk of getting caught). So before you bash me and say I'm promoting illegal activity, consider this:

There are 2 documents that I live my personal and public life by...one being the Bible and the other is our extremely well written Constitution. If you can read the 2nd amendment and find a way to justify any law prohibiting or restricting our ability to carry a firearm, which you can't because "shall not be infringed" pretty much covers all basis, then we'll all give you a round of applause and see if Congress will rewrite that amendment for us to make it better understandable. But until that time, until our government can find a way to protect it's citizens in all of the places where they restrict our ability to protect ourselves other than with some paper, ink, and some fancy wording, my gun will just have to do whether they like it or not.

I sit in a classroom at Clemson University 5 days a week for roughly 6-8 hours a day. A law telling us we can't carry a gun to class doesn't make us any safe than a law telling us we can, because the fact of the matter is someone bent on committing a crime such as a school shooting isn't worried about a petty "violation of gun law" charge. If they did then I'm sure the shooter at Virginia Tech would have been walking to campus that day and then said "Crap! I forgot I'm not legally allowed to carry a gun on school campus! I guess the plan's off now." and then would have returned home where he would leave his guns and return back to campus and attend class just like every other student. But we all know that's not what happens.

So as far as being the "test case", if it means I'm still alive to defend myself as opposed to being dead in a coffin, I'll gladly take the trial and whatever expenses come along with it. And again, if anybody can look at the statement "shall not be infringed" and then still defend any gun law legitimately, then I think we should rename the Bill of Rights the "Bill of Privileges".