Does anyone know if SC restaurant/bar carry repeal has passed Senate??

[tacops]

I know that SC law states that one cannot carry into a restaurant or bar that sells alcohol but news said that a repeal already passed SC house and is going to the Senate. Does anyone know the status of this?

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Eagleks]

hope you get it passed. Ours started out with that and was changed, where you can carry in a restaurant, bar, or whatever as long as it's not posted with the AG signage. There have been NO problems as a result. Interesting how law-abiding citizens, remained law-abiding citizens, and have continued to act responsibly. Don't drink and carry, common sense. I don't drink .... but I do go to restaurants and at times some bars with friends.

[First Sgt]

That's S1436....On 4/12/12 it was read for first time...On 4/12/12 it was referred to judicary...On 4/20/12 it was referred to sub-committee...I could find NO indication that it has been passed by the Senate... South Carolina Legislature Mobile

[OldVet]

If it does pass and become law, please send a copy to NC. I'd like to be able to take my daughter to a nice resturant when I'm there.

[tacops]

Anyone else have any updated news?

[beni]

That Bill got stripped of all the parts relating to concealed carry by the chairman of the senate judiciary committee Jake Knotts, as he said he wouldn't allow it to pass with all those provisions. He is one of those politicians that was a LEO, which means he automatically knows better than the rest of us when it comes to people carrying in restaurants.

On a brighter note I did find this in the prefiled legislation for the next session: Senate Bill S115 which is a bill to introduce Constitutional carry in South Carolina. After a quick glance of the bill, it appears that the bill apart from allowing constitutional carry, will change signage from having the force of law to it being trespassing if you refuse to leave.

With regard to carrying in restaurants did did not mention any changes to the CWP statues which is where the prohibition on carrying in restaurants that serve alcohol. It also does not mention anything about being able to still get a CWP if Constitutional carry is enacted. that is problematic to me because having a CWP provides me with reciprocity with other states, and allows me to skip the NICS check when purchasing a gun at an FFL.

However, I don't see much hope for leaving committee due to it going strait to the one that Jake Knotts is the chairman of.
Edit: It appears that Jake Knotts has lost his senate seat in the last election. Maybe now there will be hope that we can advance some pro gun bills.

Here is the link to the prefiled bill:
South Carolina Legislature Mobile

[erfarrell]

Received this information from Palmetto Gun Rights email today.

A bill that will allow a person with a valid concealed weapon permit to carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol will be heard in a South Carolina Senate subcommittee Wednesday. The hearing on the bill, S308, will be Wednesday, February 13th, at 10:00 a.m. in room 105 of the Gressette building on the Statehouse grounds.

It’s vital that the members of the subcommittee hear from you, so call or e-mail each of them today!

Here are the five members of the subcommittee and their contact information:

Senator Shane Massey (chairman)
(803) 212-6024
shanemassey@scsenate.gov

Senator Katrina Shealy (bill sponsor)
(803) 212-6056
katrinashealy@scsenate.gov

Senator Creighton Coleman
(803) 212-6032
creightoncoleman@scsenate.gov

Senator Sean Bennett (bill sponsor)
(803) 212-6116
seanbennett@scsenate.gov

Senator Floyd Nicholson
(803) 212-6000
floydnicholson@scsenate.gov

[WHEC724]

I got the same email, and wrote them this morning regarding bill S308.

I got very positive responses from Massey, Bennet & Shealy, indicating that restaurant carry was still very much on the agenda. We'll see what happens this Wednesday.

[mbguy29577]

Contacted all of them too. Lets get rid of gun free zones!

[JungleJim]

Good luck with that, talk about pointless restrictions.

[KLR2007]

I have been trying to follow this one by watching live from the Senate's website. Can someone fill me in on what I am seeing? I know it got voted on yesterday to be a "Special Order" and they debated it for a while today. What does the Special Order status mean?

[gregnsc]

I'm not familiar with Special Order myself.I glanced over the proposed bill on, Palmetto Gun Rights,but,since,the Special Order thing just happened today,may not be updated.

[cphilip]

Last I heard it was on the Contested Calendar. So perhaps (and this is just a guess until further research) it was an attempt to get it to a vote rather than let it languish and die on the Contested Calendar. There are procedures for getting something off that status. One person alone cannot cause a bill to be in contest. I know of one method of removing a contest is getting the cosigners to remove their names being one. But that one rarely happens. If its not brought to a vote in some other fashion it remains on the contested calendar and those are not heard until all other legislation is done and approved for the year. So rarely do they even to them. And, in the past, those would carry over to the next term. And only for one additional term may they remain on the contested calendar. Then they "sin die" and have to be reintroduced all over again. Not sure that process has not changed though.

It is still my belief that there is no specific prohibition for carry in an establishment that serves alcohol for consumption on site. It exists only in a past AG opinion that is based mostly on his "belief" of what the legislature intended. Backed up with no real documentation. It is his belief that they intended to put it in the wrong section and under the guise of an "additional penalty for unlawful carry" description. This is the section that SLED and all others will tell you is the prohibition. But yet a clear read of it makes no sense. It is not under the Concealed Carry prohibitions. Not to even mention that Concealed Carry with permit is clearly defined as "lawful Carry" and so expressly exempt from being unlawful carry.... but.... I don't intend to be the test case, nor does anyone else that I know of. But I will note that, to my knowledge, no one has ever been charged and convicted of this "additional Penalty" while peaceably concealed carrying with permit. And I imagine there is a reason why. So we try and fix it with more legislation. I would actually prefer a clear new AG opinion that acknowledges that the previous AG was simply.. wrong.

[phreddy]

There is a potential test case in Charleston. It is not ideal because the guy was drinking heavily from what I understand. He was refused service and then made a scene. Cops were called and he was searched. That was when the firearm was found. I guess the only good news out of it is that he did not pull his gun on anyone. It will be interesting to see what kind of defense the guy puts up.

It looks like the bill is now a special order, but debate was stopped the 21st. There are comments that are going to be posted by Sen. Peeler but have not been added to the senate journal yet. There was considerable movement on the special order vote. 31 ayes, 9 nayes and 1 present. That means five nayes have switched to aye from the last vote.

[cphilip]

Yea... I would have to know did they actually charge him with the "Additional Charge for unlawful carry..." portion and will that part even eventually stick. Sounds like they have a lot more to get him on. And, is there a compound of other laws that at some point make carry while intoxicated "unlawful carry"? There clearly is one for discharging a firearm while under the influence. Not to mention how you impair your right to self defense when your intoxicated. And so then not just the act of carrying with permit but the actions of the permittee could be the key to it being used, and so at some point, being unlawful carry even if you have a permit. I mean, going into a bank and telling the clerk "fill up the bags" would probably rise to the occasion of nullifying your permit and right to carry I would think? Interesting to see. I doubt it will ever be prosecuted as a stand alone charge to a law abiding behaving citizen that just happens to be that situation like its being portrayed to all of us. One would have to be doing something wrong, thereby giving the argument that you have violated the limits of your permit and therefor transformed yourself into the land of "unlawful carry" in order for it to even come into play.