The list of Shame (places where concealed carry is banned)

MCA

Member
armaborealis said:
MCA said:
I know the director and am going to ask why the change all of the sudden? I don't think the sign follows proper protocol either. Have to double check the requirements.
I wouldn't point out that the sign is non-compliant. The last thing you want them to do is fix it and post a compliant sign.
Goes without saying my friend but thanks for the reminder! I used to work for the Y in San Diego so I am curious how this decision came about.
 

armaborealis

New Member
Avtomat-Acolyte said:
Just a friendly reminder:

It is not a criminal offense to carry a concealed weapon into a business or other private property if there is a sign or verbal direction prohibiting it.

If you go visit your aunt's house and before you enter she says "No weapons allowed" or if you go to K-Mart and there are huge "NO CONCEALED WEAPONS" signs everywhere, and you enter anyways, you are not breaking any law.

SECTION 23-31-220. Right to allow or permit concealed weapons upon premises; signs.

Nothing contained in this article shall in any way be construed to limit, diminish, or otherwise infringe upon:

(1) the right of a public or private employer to prohibit a person who is licensed under this article from carrying a concealable weapon upon the premises of the business or work place or while using any machinery, vehicle, or equipment owned or operated by the business;

(2) the right of a private property owner or person in legal possession or control to allow or prohibit the carrying of a concealable weapon upon his premises.

The posting by the employer, owner, or person in legal possession or control of a sign stating ?No Concealable Weapons Allowed? shall constitute notice to a person holding a permit issued pursuant to this article that the employer, owner, or person in legal possession or control requests that concealable weapons not be brought upon the premises or into the work place. A person who brings a concealable weapon onto the premises or work place in violation of the provisions of this paragraph may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620. In addition to the penalties provided in Section 16-11-620, a person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this paragraph must have his permit revoked for a period of one year. The prohibition contained in this section does not apply to persons specified in Section 16-23-20, item (1).
South Carolina Code 16-11-620. Entering premises after warning or refusing to leave on request; jurisdiction and enforcement

Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person after having been warned not to do so or any person who, having entered into the dwelling house, place of business, or on the premises of another person without having been warned fails and refuses, without good cause or good excuse, to leave immediately upon being ordered or requested to do so by the person in possession or his agent or representative shall, on conviction, be fined not more than two hundred dollars or be imprisoned for not more than thirty days.
All municipal courts of this State as well as those of magistrates may try and determine criminal cases involving violations of this section occurring within the respective limits of such municipalities and magisterial districts. All peace officers of the State and its subdivisions shall enforce the provisions hereof within their respective jurisdictions.

The provisions of this section shall be construed as being in addition to, and not as superseding, any other statutes of the State relating to trespass or entry on lands of another.
Under the law, if you carry a weapon into a place that the owner/operator doesn't want you to, then you are to be treated like any other "trespasser" for any other reason they don't want you there. They must ask or instruct you to leave. Once you refuse to comply with their directive are you now, finally, committing a criminal offense.
I can't find my copy of SC Gun Law (http://www.scgunlaw.com/), which is written by several attorneys, but I'd bet dollars to donuts that they wrote that no gun signs carry the force of law in SC.

Avtomat's interpretation is certainly one. The other interpretation would be that the posting of the sign itself constitutes effective notice that you are not allowed on the property, the same as if someone told you to leave, and that the moment you proceed past the sign you are effectively trespassing. Some states have no statutory language similar to South Carolina's, in which case the normal trespass rules apply; why would the SC legislature pass 23-31-220 and assign specific penalties including revocation of a permit if they didn't have an intent to provide additional private property rights?

The other concern is that "SECTION 16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions" states that it is unlawful to carry a handgun in South Carolina unless you fall under an exception. One of those exceptions is #12:

(12) a person who is granted a permit under provision of law by the State Law Enforcement Division to carry a handgun about his person, under conditions set forth in the permit, and while transferring the handgun between the permittee?s person and a location specified in item (9);
Arguably, honoring a no-guns sign per SECTION 23-31-220 is a condition of your permit. A prosecutor could certainly make that case, given that the penalty for ignoring a gunbuster sign is permit revocation. If you aren't carrying in accordance with all the rules attached to a permit, then Section 16-23-20 applies and you're committing a crime.


As for the other example given (going to your Aunt's house) that is clearly forbidden:

SECTION 23-31-225. Carrying concealed weapons into residences or dwellings.

No person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate.
I personally honor no guns signs in South Carolina which are properly posted. The legal gray area is one of those "you may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride" sort of situations. Moreover, why would I want to give my patronage to a place that is actively working against my rights?

I think the SC statutory language is BS and the simple trespass statute should apply (thus forcing property owners to actually set up searches/metal detectors if they want to enforce a no gun zone) but it is what it is.
 
SC needs Constitutional carry (the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution clearly delineates the uncompromising Civil Right to own and carry any weapon, of any type or configuration, at any time, at any place.

The only "No Weapons" areas should be detention centers and prisons. And that is only because the people incarcerated there are already denied access to Civil Rights and fall under basic Human Rights.

Guns in schools, guns in courts, guns in the DMV, guns while drinking alcohol at a bar, et al. There is zero justification for prohibition of the US Constitution to placate inane, obscure and illogical "what if" scenarios.
 

armaborealis

New Member
Avtomat-Acolyte said:
SC needs Constitutional carry (the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution clearly delineates the uncompromising Civil Right to own and carry any weapon, of any type or configuration, at any time, at any place.

The only "No Weapons" areas should be detention centers and prisons. And that is only because the people incarcerated there are already denied access to Civil Rights and fall under basic Human Rights.

Guns in schools, guns in courts, guns in the DMV, guns while drinking alcohol at a bar, et al. There is zero justification for prohibition of the US Constitution to placate inane, obscure and illogical "what if" scenarios.
I generally agree.

Private property owners should also be allowed to trespass you, though. I'd prefer to let the normal trespass statutes do the work, though. There's no need for a special super-duper Gunbuster Sign Double Plus Trespass statute.

Regrettably, even our "friends" in the legislature seem unable to craft the language properly or overcome the minority party's obstructionism on restoring rights.

So until then, we're stuck with boycotting businesses that don't want us.
 

Landy

New Member
I read the statement and I would say they were just fed up with all the crap from both sides. Although he just requested we don't bring guns.. Plus he never said anything about Concealed carry.. I for one will go ,just to see where this goes. I don't buy at Starbucks very often. Losing my business will not hurt them .Although losing hundreds like me will over time.
I say lets watch this and see where they go with it. If signs go up then let the tree huggers and such have it... :!:
 

Dayman

Member
Landy said:
I read the statement and I would say they were just fed up with all the crap from both sides. Although he just requested we don't bring guns.. Plus he never said anything about Concealed carry.. I for one will go ,just to see where this goes. I don't buy at Starbucks very often. Losing my business will not hurt them .Although losing hundreds like me will over time.
I say lets watch this and see where they go with it. If signs go up then let the tree huggers and such have it... :!:

Good post
 

Dave29461

Active Member
Landy said:
I read the statement and I would say they were just fed up with all the crap from both sides. Although he just requested we don't bring guns.. Plus he never said anything about Concealed carry.. I for one will go ,just to see where this goes. I don't buy at Starbucks very often. Losing my business will not hurt them .Although losing hundreds like me will over time.
I say lets watch this and see where they go with it. If signs go up then let the tree huggers and such have it... :!:

Well said.
 

John Canuck

New Member
Thats ok. For the number of times I would buy an overpriced cup of coffee from them, I'll just save the few bucks and buy another box of ammo.
 

armaborealis

New Member
Landy said:
I read the statement and I would say they were just fed up with all the crap from both sides. Although he just requested we don't bring guns.. Plus he never said anything about Concealed carry.. I for one will go ,just to see where this goes. I don't buy at Starbucks very often. Losing my business will not hurt them .Although losing hundreds like me will over time.
I say lets watch this and see where they go with it. If signs go up then let the tree huggers and such have it... :!:
For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas
Starbucks doesn't want your gun in their store, whether open or concealed. They aren't going to enforce the ban, but that doesn't mean that they value your presence.

I'm personally giving my business to a local place and Dunkin Donuts now. Dunkin hasn't told me that I'm unwelcome. Why would you give money to a business that has specifically told you that you are not welcome, and whose owners donate a ton of money to gun grabbers? I am writing a letter to the manager of the local starbucks that opened in Sumter letting them know they've lost my business, but I am willing to consider coming back if corporate revises their policy.

Starbucks could have crafted a more careful statement that just said they were sick of open carry shenanigans. They didn't. They said they want no guns in the store, period. I don't need to see an official SC-compliant gun buster sign to know that I am not welcome.
 

Acecool

New Member
I just noticed that the First Federal on Harborview road; Charleston / James Island has a brand-spanking-new no ccw sign. It's not clearly posted by the entrance, it's on the wall to the left away from the entrance so unless you're looking at that specific angle it's not visible.

Needless to say, I'll be closing my account there and moving to TD up the road.
 

Tigerstripe

Active Member
if its not a legal sign id go speak to the manager. it may just be there to CYA type thing.

my bank doesnt have a sign, or was it they had one not legal, anyway i spoke to the manager and he said they were not against carry inside.
 

Acecool

New Member
It appears to be legit; Maybe I should go measure the outer ring to be certain but the line is from the lower left to upper right, the text appears to be centered and properly typed. I'll grab a picture next time I swing by; and I'll definitely speak with the manager and check out another First Federal I frequent as well on Folly road to see if they've added a sign there too.
 

RK3369

New Member
Re: The list of Shame (places where concealed carry is banne

thebrasilian said:
Columbia:
Childrens Museum -- Not legal sign
Toys r Us (Harbison) -- Not legal sign
Regal Columbiana Grande 14 -- Legal (and have had armed muggings inside)
lol, isn't that what happens in "gun free" zones???
 
This really hurts to have to post this one.

We have two Navy Federal Credit Unions in the Tri County area. One in North Charleston on Rivers Ave and one in Summerville off Berlin G. Myers Pkwy.

The picture I will post is from the Summerville location. It appears to be a legal size sign meeting the requirements of SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.



The colors didn't come through but they are correct.

WELL it has been several years now and I am happy to report Navy Federal Credit Union has come to their senses! THe signs have come down (Later part of 2016 early part of 2017). I thought the were smart enough to figure this out!
 
Top