S.308 (restaurant carry) debate from 4/17/13 - Page 43
Page 43 of 60 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast
Results 421 to 430 of 596

Thread: S.308 (restaurant carry) debate from 4/17/13

  1. #421
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The first state to secede!!!!
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by DLB1964 View Post
    I downloaded an app that has all the CC laws in a nice format per state, including rest/bar carry, laws, what states are reciprocal etc.

    It updates about 2 times a month.

    Nice for those that travel, etc.
    Name of said app??

  2.   
  3. #422
    Quote Originally Posted by nca_mm View Post
    The next battle we'll face, once Haley signs it, will be the restaurants, especially the big chain ones, putting the no concealed weapons signs on the doors. Assuming they are the proper signs & are placed in the precise spots, remind me....these signs won't carry the force of law, right?
    If the sign is in compliance with the sign requirements in the SC Code, it will be a legal notice that guns are not allowed. It's in black and white in the law. Why wouldn't it?

    Here is my prediction. The chains aren't going to put up signs, because they don't have signs in any other State. They will just keep on taking your money. One of two might if they have a national policy, but most don't.

    Some restaurants will post a little tiny sign on the bottom of their door so they can proclaim their gun free status. No body will see it, nothing will happen and it will be forgotten in time.

    Some restaurants will post a compliant sign. it will look like an anti-gun billboard on their door and they will piss and moan about it for a while, they will hear from gun owners that tell them they won't spend money there. Either they will leave it there and loose the business of gun owners, or they will remove it. Either way, I don't think we should get to wrapped around the axle about it. There are lots of restaurants.

    This might actually provide a little leverage to get rid of the entire sign requirements section of the law. That would be a win.

  4. Quote Originally Posted by jhodge83 View Post
    Legal Heat? that's the one i use.
    Its called CCW.

    It had the highest rating of all the apps related to CC, like 4.9 if I remember correctly.

  5. #424
    [QUOTE=John Canuck;499900]

    "Here is my prediction. The chains aren't going to put up signs, because they don't have signs in any other State. They will just keep on taking your money. One of two might if they have a national policy, but most don't."

    Good point. I agree.

  6. #425
    Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    If the sign is in compliance with the sign requirements in the SC Code, it will be a legal notice that guns are not allowed. It's in black and white in the law. Why wouldn't it?

    Here is my prediction. The chains aren't going to put up signs, because they don't have signs in any other State. They will just keep on taking your money. One of two might if they have a national policy, but most don't.

    Some restaurants will post a little tiny sign on the bottom of their door so they can proclaim their gun free status. No body will see it, nothing will happen and it will be forgotten in time.

    Some restaurants will post a compliant sign. it will look like an anti-gun billboard on their door and they will piss and moan about it for a while, they will hear from gun owners that tell them they won't spend money there. Either they will leave it there and loose the business of gun owners, or they will remove it. Either way, I don't think we should get to wrapped around the axle about it. There are lots of restaurants.

    This might actually provide a little leverage to get rid of the entire sign requirements section of the law. That would be a win.
    Toby Keith's probably will.
    You can have good intentions and not be right.

  7. #426
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Manchester State Forest, SC
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    If the sign is in compliance with the sign requirements in the SC Code, it will be a legal notice that guns are not allowed. It's in black and white in the law. Why wouldn't it?

    Here is my prediction. The chains aren't going to put up signs, because they don't have signs in any other State. They will just keep on taking your money. One of two might if they have a national policy, but most don't.

    Some restaurants will post a little tiny sign on the bottom of their door so they can proclaim their gun free status. No body will see it, nothing will happen and it will be forgotten in time.

    Some restaurants will post a compliant sign. it will look like an anti-gun billboard on their door and they will piss and moan about it for a while, they will hear from gun owners that tell them they won't spend money there. Either they will leave it there and loose the business of gun owners, or they will remove it. Either way, I don't think we should get to wrapped around the axle about it. There are lots of restaurants.

    This might actually provide a little leverage to get rid of the entire sign requirements section of the law. That would be a win.
    Huh? Say what? Why would you think getting rid of the signage requirement would be a good thing? The sign requirement was developed as a protection for CWP holders. The 23-31-235 was originally written that way specifically so that if the sign and location did not comply exactly with the letter of the law, it had no force of law. That keeps a business, which will now include restaurants and bars, from just slapping up a "No Guns" sign anywhere they please and creating criminals out of law abiding citizens. Getting rid of 23-31-235 would benefit only businesses and LEO's who wish to selectively enforce the law.
    "I believe we should achieve a national standard on gun control, and that standard should be none whatsoever."

  8. #427
    If no sign had a legal status, they wouldn't be important. There would be no selective enforcement of crimes that don't exist.

    What happens in other states where there is no reference to signs in the code and a defined crime for walking past one? And yes, this is a serious question. Are there states that rely on trespass laws for excluding people from property that are having problems with this?

  9. Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    If no sign had a legal status, they wouldn't be important. There would be no selective enforcement of crimes that don't exist.

    What happens in other states where there is no reference to signs in the code and a defined crime for walking past one? And yes, this is a serious question. Are there states that rely on trespass laws for excluding people from property that are having problems with this?
    Yes but as pro-gun as I am, I also believe in a store owner's right to do with his property as he pleases. If he wants to keep people with guns out, that's his business. The law we have protects those on both sides. If they want to keep us out, they have the law backing them up. But at the same time the law keeps just anybody from throwing up any sign willy-nilly and claiming it to have the force of law.

  10. #429
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Yes but as pro-gun as I am, I also believe in a store owner's right to do with his property as he pleases. If he wants to keep people with guns out, that's his business. The law we have protects those on both sides. If they want to keep us out, they have the law backing them up. But at the same time the law keeps just anybody from throwing up any sign willy-nilly and claiming it to have the force of law.
    i still laugh every time i see your avatar...lol.

    need to watch the most recent episode still.

  11. #430
    Quote Originally Posted by AndeyHall View Post
    Yes but as pro-gun as I am, I also believe in a store owner's right to do with his property as he pleases. If he wants to keep people with guns out, that's his business. The law we have protects those on both sides. If they want to keep us out, they have the law backing them up. But at the same time the law keeps just anybody from throwing up any sign willy-nilly and claiming it to have the force of law.
    How would a person go about throwing up any sign willy-nilly and claiming it has the force of law when there is not crime for being on property that has a sign? Trespass laws still work don't they?

Page 43 of 60 FirstFirst ... 33414243444553 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast