"Restaurant Carry" - S. 1255

carsontech · Mar 1, 2012

I haven't seen this posted on here, yet, so I thought I would do so. If S. 1255 is passes in it's current form, it would allow a permit holder to carry in a establishment that serves alcohol, in SC. If the establishment is posted, it would be a misdemeanor to enter the establishment armed. It would also be a misdemeanor if you consume alcohol while armed in an establishment that serves alcohol.

"Section 16-23-465.

In addition to the penalties provided for by Sections 16-11-330, 16-11-620, and 16-23-460, and 23-31-220 and by Article 1 of Chapter 23 of Title 16, a person is guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than two years or fined not more than two thousand dollars, or both, if that person:

(1) carries a firearm into a business that sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises and at the time of the offense, notice of the prohibition of firearms was clearly and conspicuously posted in accordance with Section 23-31-220;

(2) carries a firearm into a business that sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises and refuses to leave or to remove the firearm from the premises when asked to do so by a person legally in control of the premises; or

(3) consumes alcohol while carrying a firearm in a business that sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises."

http://scstatehouse.gov/sess119_2011-2012/bills/1255.htm

I personally DON'T agree that the government should be able to tell citizens they can't patronize an establishment that serves alcohol and consume alcohol while armed. I believe that should be a decision left to the owner of the establishment. I also don't think someone should be charged, instantly, with a misdemeanor just for entering an establishment that is posted. I personally believe that if the owner doesn't want someone on their property, let the owner, or person in charge, tell the person to leave. If the person doesn't leave, then the owner can call the police to charge the person with trespassing. That is how things work in many other states.

BUT, looking back on how politics in SC work, I think this would be a good bill to get behind and push forward. Maybe we can even convince the legislatures to amend the bill to give back the right to decide who can drink alcohol in the establishment back to the owners. I believe the key to freedom is repealing laws, not adding or changing existing ones, but this may be a start.

Schultz · Mar 1, 2012

carsontech said:
I personally DON'T agree that the government should be able to tell citizens they can't patronize an establishment that serves alcohol and consume alcohol while armed.

I will agree that the Government should but out of certain things however however drinking while armed is stupid in my opinion and I think the penalty should be stiffer. I know too many people that after a drink or two turn into idiots. Bottom line if you want to drink leave your gun at home.

RyanEOD · Mar 1, 2012

I am a fan of actually allowing carrying as long as you aren't drinking. I moon-lite as a bouncer at times and not being able to carry when I have a strange suspicion that half the place is armed is a little un-nerving.

carsontech · Mar 1, 2012

Schultz said:
carsontech said:

I personally DON'T agree that the government should be able to tell citizens they can't patronize an establishment that serves alcohol and consume alcohol while armed.

Click to expand...

I will agree that the Government should but out of certain things however however drinking while armed is stupid in my opinion and I think the penalty should be stiffer. I know too many people that after a drink or two turn into idiots. Bottom line if you want to drink leave your gun at home.

So what about the people in the states that aren't prohibited from carrying and drinking? There's no blood running in the street, from what I can tell.

One drink of wine with dinner isn't going to turn someone into a gun brandishing idiot... well, most people, anyway.

If the government would let the establishment's owner decide on the issue... then people like you can go the the establishments where the owners DON'T ALLOW drinking while carrying, and people like me can find an establishment where the owner ALLOWS their customers to drink while carrying. Win-Win.

Schultz · Mar 1, 2012

carsontech said:
So what about the people in the states that aren't prohibited from carrying and drinking? There's no blood running in the street, from what I can tell.

There's a lot of incidents at establishments that serve alcohol that don't make the news, Take those blinders off and do some research.

carsontech said:
One drink of wine with dinner isn't going to turn someone into a gun brandishing idiot... well, most people, anyway.

Agreed most might not but you never know.

carsontech said:
If the government would let the establishment's owner decide on the issue... then people like you can go the the establishments where the owners DON'T ALLOW drinking while carrying, and people like me can find an establishment where the owner ALLOWS their customers to drink while carrying. Win-Win.

All I said was If your going to drink don't carry. You need to look at the overall picture most owners don't care as long as they are making money However if they are made accountable maybe they would police their establishments.

C_Carson · Mar 1, 2012

I don't believe drinking a glass of any alcoholic beverage negates one's right to self defense.

carsontech · Mar 1, 2012

Schultz said:
carsontech said:

So what about the people in the states that aren't prohibited from carrying and drinking? There's no blood running in the street, from what I can tell.

Click to expand...

There's a lot of incidents at establishments that serve alcohol that don't make the news, Take those blinders off and do some research.

I have read about incidents where people were armed and drunk, and things didn't go so well. I just haven't seen enough to come to the conclusion that nobody should drink alcohol while carrying. Nor have I seen enough incidents to make me think the government should be involved. Even if the 100% of people turned into idiots when they drank and carried firearms, I don't think my mind would be changed.

Rhetorical question: What about pocket knifes, forks, steak knives, etc? All tools, just like firearms are, and can be just as deadly. Should people have them on or about their person while drinking alcohol?

Regardless, I hope this bill, or something like it, passes soon. There are too many restaurants that we can't go to that server better food than the non-alcohol serving establishments.

Tigerstripe · Mar 1, 2012

what about driving after that drink? dont more people die on the highways now than by guns?

the owner can be held responsible if you leave his place after drinking and hit someone with your car.
how does he know who is an idiot with a gun after a drink?

John Canuck · Mar 1, 2012

Thanks for posting this. I hadn't seen this one yet.

I can get behind this. Aside from silly and unnecessary misdemeanors for victimless actions, this solves at least one problem here.

Schultz · Mar 1, 2012

carsontech said:
I have read about incidents where people were armed and drunk, and things didn't go so well. I just haven't seen enough to come to the conclusion that nobody should drink alcohol while carrying. Nor have I seen enough incidents to make me think the government should be involved.

Like I said I agree government should but out of a lot of things however there are a lot more incidents than what you've read about.

carsontech said:
Even if the 100% of people turned into idiots when they drank and carried firearms, I don't think my mind would be changed.

Thats a sad statement.

carsontech said:
Rhetorical question: What about pocket knifes, forks, steak knives, etc? All tools, just like firearms are, and can be just as deadly. Should people have them on or about their person while drinking alcohol?

True however different argument.

carsontech said:
Regardless, I hope this bill, or something like it, passes soon. There are too many restaurants that we can't go to that server better food than the non-alcohol serving establishments.

I'm not against this bill after some tweaks like i said I think the penalty's should be stiffer.

As for you avoiding restaurants well that's too bad cause there are quite a few very good restaurants out there and I have no problem going to them I simply leave my firearm in the car. I'm not going avoid enjoying a good meal over something like this life is too short.

Tigerstripe said:
the owner can be held responsible if you leave his place after drinking and hit someone with your car.

I never quite figured out how they would know which place would get in trouble over that. What if the person frequented several places Which one made him or her legally drunk?

Tigerstripe said:
how does he know who is an idiot with a gun after a drink?

That's a different story they aren't in the establishment.

John Canuck · Mar 1, 2012

Here is a link to send a message to the Committee on Judiciary in support of this bill. Take a couple of minutes and urge the members to send this bill to the house. It can't hurt to write your own reps as well.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/email.php?T=C&C=S2000000800

carsontech · Mar 2, 2012

It looks like the bill is heading to subcommittee where changes might take place. I don't see where any meetings are planned to discuss the bill in subcommittee this month.

I think's it's important to let the members of the judiciary committee and subcommittee know we want the bill passed as is, if not laxer.

armaborealis · Mar 4, 2012

My wife and I would be more likely to go out to eat if this passes, that's for sure. Or, if we did go out, we'd be more likely to dine in the restaurant (and thus provide tips for the employees, and maybe be talked into an appetizer or dessert) than getting take out from the side door. Many of the small mom and pop places I've been to have a case of domestic light beer AND don't have a takeout door/window so I've had to turn around and leave. This leads to me spending my money on delivery or a big national chain instead of supporting local business. We carry all the time it is lawful to do so and I'm not going to draw my firearm out of the holster, clear it in the parking lot, then secure it in the car just to try a new mom and pop place. It pretty much requires a special preplanned trip if we're going out to eat.

I have lived and traveled in many states with different laws, including states where it was legal to not only go into restaurants and bars armed but also legal to drink while armed. Is it a good idea? No, not tactically nor legally, just like it isn't smart to drink a drop and drive your car (would YOU want to get into an accident after "just one beer?" Guess who's going to be assumed to be at fault...). I wouldn't want to shoot someone after having a drop to drink, just like it'd be bad to be in a car wreck even after "just one beer." But it is nice to have the option to have a glass of wine with a nice steak dinner. In SC the choice has already been made for me and for the business owner by state law. I have seen no evidence that suggests that states which allow restaurant carry or drinking and carry have higher rates of CCW permit revocation or more negligent discharges.

People who are going to go into a bar, drink, and do stupid things while armed aren't going to be deterred by a law. These are the same sorts of people who drink and then do stupid things behind the wheel of a car (which is also Double Plus Illegal). Furthermore, the kind of person who has so little self control that they can't resist the Demon Rum in a restaurant and then turn into a stupid raging violent drunk after their first drink is likely the kind of person who can't pass a NICS check or a CWP background check as they've probably had run-ins with domestic violence or convictions for crimes that carry periods of incarceration longer than two years. Remember, you become a prohibited person under federal law (i.e. not allowed to TOUCH a gun) if you're convicted of any crime for which the period of incarceration could exceed two years regardless of whether or not such a sentence is served. In South Carolina, a second DUI meets that criteria. Even if the perp somehow passes the background check, the law doesn't seem to stop them (http://www.scalc.net/decisions.aspx?q=4&id=420).

On a tactical level, maybe it makes sense to get restauranters involved. I've been toying for awhile of a business card sized note appealing for restaurant owners to support legislation like this which can be slipped in with the check. Something like, "Hey, notice the 25% tip I gave and all the food and soda I ordered? I would come to your restaurant twice as often if this legislation were passed. SC CWP holders are far more law abiding than the average citizen; only about 0.01% of permit holders have their permits revoked for any sort of misconduct, including traffic tickets. Please contact your local politician at _____ and ask them to support S1255."

John Canuck · Mar 5, 2012

armaborealis said:
Remember, you become a prohibited person under federal law (i.e. not allowed to TOUCH a gun) if you're convicted of any crime for which the period of incarceration could exceed two years regardless of whether or not such a sentence is served. In South Carolina, a second DUI meets that criteria.

Didn't an anti-gun Senator get some legislation passed in the mid 90's that made anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence a prohibited person. I recall a big uproar from a particular public sector union complaining that an significant number of their members would become prohibited if it passed.

armaborealis said:
On a tactical level, maybe it makes sense to get restauranters involved. I've been toying for awhile of a business card sized note appealing for restaurant owners to support legislation like this which can be slipped in with the check. Something like, "Hey, notice the 25% tip I gave and all the food and soda I ordered? I would come to your restaurant twice as often if this legislation were passed. SC CWP holders are far more law abiding than the average citizen; only about 0.01% of permit holders have their permits revoked for any sort of misconduct, including traffic tickets. Please contact your local politician at _____ and ask them to support S1255."

I'm inclined to agree, other than I feel there would be so few CWP holders leave a similar card that it would be ineffective at displaying the volume of business that might be effected by a silly restaurant ban. I doesn't appear that there is an effective vehicle to get thousands of guns owners and rallied around a legislative session to get pro-gun laws passed. Having said that, I'm new in SC so I might not have found it yet. I know I've written my letters regarding this bill.

The rest of your post is spot on. How silly is it to force a gun carrier to disarm (risking a NG every time it's done) and lock their gun in the car so they can go into a restaurant and legally drink (or not). The gun owners, who were not (or were?) responsible enough to decide NOT to do something stupid if they were allowed into the restaurant with a gun, are then expected to make the correct decisions with regard to re-arming (or not) and driving (or not) a two ton car around.

Sigh

armaborealis · Mar 5, 2012

John Canuck said:
armaborealis said:

Remember, you become a prohibited person under federal law (i.e. not allowed to TOUCH a gun) if you're convicted of any crime for which the period of incarceration could exceed two years regardless of whether or not such a sentence is served. In South Carolina, a second DUI meets that criteria.

Click to expand...

Didn't an anti-gun Senator get some legislation passed in the mid 90's that made anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence a prohibited person. I recall a big uproar from a particular public sector union complaining that an significant number of their members would become prohibited if it passed.

Yeah, that's called the Lautenberg Amendment. Any DV conviction (even if it carries a prospective sentence of less than two years) is a federally disabling offense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_V ... er_Gun_Ban

John Canuck · Mar 21, 2012

"Restaurant Carry" - S. 1255 - UPDATE

This is an update on his bill:

Amending South Carolina?s CWP Law

Currently, the law pertaining to Concealed Carry in SC does not permit a CWP holder to carry into any establishment that serves alcohol. This eliminates your ability to carry into most restaurants or to carry while out if you possibly might be planning on stopping into a restaurant that serves alcohol.

A Bill was introduced last year in the SC House that would have amended the current statute to permit concealed carry into establishments that serve alcohol provided (1) you don?t carry where posted according to current law, (2) you leave the establishment when asked to leave by the owner, (3) you don?t consume alcohol. That Bill (H 3292) was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and never made it out. H 3292 remains ?alive? because the session goes through this year (June). At that time, if it has not been acted upon by both the House and the Senate, it will die.

I have been working with Senator Mike Rose over the session recess to have him introduce a similar Bill into the SC Senate to try to get this process revived and moving. Last week, my Bill (S 1255) was introduced by Senator Rose and received first reading before being referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

For a Bill to be passed into law in SC, it must be read and voted upon three times in each body of the legislature and then signed by the Governor. With these Bills, we need either one to be voted out of its respective Judiciary Committee and then addressed by the floor of each body another two times.

The reality of all things legislative right now is that time is working against us; right now the SC Legislature is consumed with budgetary issues and will find little time to address our concerns with this Bill unless we apply pressure. To effectively move these Bills along we need to target that pressure effectively at the correct ?pressure points? along the way. Right now the appropriate pressure point(s) will be the respective Judiciary Committee chairman. The Chairman of a committee has the power to call a vote on any Bill in that committee. He is the only one that can make that happen right now.

We have a better chance if we just focus on S 1255 right now because it is a shorter Bill focuses only on the issue of establishments that serve alcohol. Therefore we need to concentrate on the Senate Judiciary Committee right now. Therefore, I am asking all CWP holders to please call / contact the Senate Judiciary Chairman Glen McConnell and ask him to please do whatever it takes to get this Bill out of the Judiciary Committee.

S 1255 has been assigned to a Judiciary Subcommittee that is made up of Senators Knotts, Massey, and Coleman. Consider sending a message similar to the following sample I have provided below to each one of them. This is simple to do?simply go to the SC Legislature website, click on ?Committee Information? at the top, then scroll down the page to the ?Senate Standing Committees? below and click on ?Judiciary?. Once you?re on the Senate Judiciary Committee page, select each one of these three Senators listed above one at a time and click on the ?Send Message to?? link on their page. You can cut the following message and paste it if you like.

Senator _________, I just want to encourage you to please consider S 1255 for passage out to full committee and then onto the Senate floor. I also would ask you to co sponsor with Senator Rose. This Bill would remedy a problem for CWP holders with the current statute. Currently, the law pertaining to Concealed Carry in SC does not permit a CWP holder to carry into any establishment that serves alcohol. This eliminates a CWP holder?s ability to carry into most restaurants or to carry while out if he/she possibly might be planning on stopping into a restaurant that serves alcohol.

This is very important because our ability to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights and utilize a CWP is severely impacted by the language in the current statute. This Bill is very reasonable and makes accommodations for safety and private property concerns. CWP holders by nature are law abiding citizens that have undergone the training and background check to receive a SLED issued CWP. Criminals are carrying weapons all over the state in violation of our laws. Conversely, thousands of citizens are lawfully carrying concealed weapons everyday in our state without incident. Please help us with this simple and reasonable amendment to the current statute.

Respectfully,
Your Name

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/committeein ... iciary.php