Defensive Carry banner

South Carolina People - Alcohol Carry discussion

5K views 40 replies 13 participants last post by  SCfromNY 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
Hold on to your hats.

I am going to lay out a case here and at the bottom I am going to copy and paste all the references from the appropriate laws...

As to what you may ask?

To the fact that there NEVER WAS a prohibition on Concealed Carry in "places that serve alcohol for consumption on the premises" for Concealed Permit Holders.

It was simply an "additional offense" clause to charge when concealed carry was done with unlawful intent.

You can go to the list of Prohibited places for CWP's and you will not find it there. It never was. However, SLED did for a while teach it and list it as such. But it no longer is even mentioned... thats because it was WRONG.

It was taught that it was a prohibition to CWP's and it was intended for us to believe it was the case. But you're going to see (if you carefully follow through all this) that, in fact, a concealed weapons permit is the "Exception" to that.
And all the other laws are for criminal activity.

Now, what are you going to do with this? You're going to do what you wish and I am not going to go to court with you.
You're on your own how you interpret this.

And please don't drink and carry.
But this might get you into Appleby's... and if you're not convinced then DON'T carry. Your choice. Not mine.
I am not a lawyer nor am I going to take liability for your decisions.

I was told this all indirectly that this was the case by LEO's that will go unmentioned. They are training other LEO's though and they are telling them this.... and I didn't believe it when I heard it.... But I do now....

Here is your reading assignment.
You have to follow each reference carefully to the next.
Each one is posted after then next so carefully scan for the pertinent reference to this subject in each Chapter, Article and Title.

I will pull out the law that lead us to believe it.
And you will see that if your charged with an offense dealing with a Concealed Weapon you will then lose you CWP.
But... as a result of criminal activity or intent, not for simply carrying.

Starts here (these are the exact titles of the laws):

OFFENSES INVOLVING WEAPONS

ARTICLE 1.

HANDGUNS

SECTION 16-23-465. Additional penalty for unlawfully carrying pistol or firearm onto premises of business selling alcoholic liquors, beers or wines for on-premises consumption.

In addition to the penalties provided for by Sections 16-11-330 and 16-23-460 and by Article 1 of Chapter 23 of Title 16, a person convicted of carrying a pistol or firearm into a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

In addition to the penalties described above, a person who violates this section while carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23, must have his concealed weapon permit revoked.


Sections 16-11-330 and 16-23-460 and by Article 1 of Chapter 23 of Title 16


SECTION 16-23-20. Unlawful carrying of handgun; exceptions.

It is unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any handgun, whether concealed or not, except as follows, unless otherwise specifically prohibited by law:

(1) regular, salaried law enforcement officers, and reserve police officers of a state agency, municipality, or county of the State, uncompensated Governor's constables, law enforcement officers of the federal government or other states when they are carrying out official duties while in this State, deputy enforcement officers of the Natural Resources Enforcement Division of the Department of Natural Resources, and retired commissioned law enforcement officers employed as private detectives or private investigators;

(2) members of the Armed Forces of the United States, the National Guard, organized reserves, or the State Militia when on duty;

(3) members, or their invited guests, of organizations authorized by law to purchase or receive firearms from the United States or this State or regularly enrolled members, or their invited guests, of clubs organized for the purpose of target shooting or collecting modern and antique firearms while these members, or their invited guests, are at or going to or from their places of target practice or their shows and exhibits;

(4) licensed hunters or fishermen who are engaged in hunting or fishing or going to or from their places of hunting or fishing while in a vehicle or on foot;

(5) a person regularly engaged in the business of manufacturing, repairing, repossessing, or dealing in firearms, or the agent or representative of this person, while possessing, using, or carrying a handgun in the usual or ordinary course of the business;

(6) guards authorized by law to possess handguns and engaged in protection of property of the United States or any agency of the United States;

(7) members of authorized military or civil organizations while parading or when going to and from the places of meeting of their respective organizations;

(8) a person in his home or upon his real property or a person who has the permission of the owner or the person in legal possession or the person in legal control of the home or real property;

(9) a person in a vehicle if the handgun is:

(a) secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle; however, this item is not violated if the glove compartment, console, or trunk is opened in the presence of a law enforcement officer for the sole purpose of retrieving a driver's license, registration, or proof of insurance; or

(b) concealed on or about his person, and he has a valid concealed weapons permit pursuant to the provisions of Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23;

(10) a person carrying a handgun unloaded and in a secure wrapper from the place of purchase to his home or fixed place of business or while in the process of changing or moving one's residence or changing or moving one's fixed place of business;

(11) a prison guard while engaged in his official duties;

(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);

(13) the owner or the person in legal possession or the person in legal control of a fixed place of business, while at the fixed place of business, and the employee of a fixed place of business, other than a business subject to Section 16-23-465, while at the place of business; however, the employee may exercise this privilege only after: (a) acquiring a permit pursuant to item (12), and (b) obtaining the permission of the owner or person in legal control or legal possession of the premises;



Links:

S.C. Code of Laws Title 23 Chapter 31 Firearms - www.scstatehouse.net-LPITS

S.C. Code of Laws Title 16 Chapter 23 Offenses Involving Weapons - www.scstatehouse.net-LPITS

South Carolina Legislature Online - South Carolina Code of Laws
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
You see that the two important things are... the Prohibition exists only in an Additional Penalties section of the Criminal Portion of Chapter 16

The Exception to CWP carry in a Alcohol serving establishment, even being a criminal act in itself, is then over in Chapter 23. Which makes Licensed carry with no criminal intent and with a valid license, alone, not a criminal act.

And last, is a link to the CWP laws, as to how you can get one and what the prohibited places are. I will post them below but note... Places that Serve Alcohol for consumption on the premises is NOT in the list

(M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(1) police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or any other law enforcement office or facility;

(2) detention facility, prison, or jail or any other correctional facility or office;

(3) courthouse or courtroom;

(4) polling place on election days;

(5) office of or the business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district;

(6) school or college athletic event not related to firearms;

(7) daycare facility or pre-school facility;

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;

(9) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body; or

(10) hospital, medical clinic, doctor's office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed unless expressly authorized by the employer.

A person who wilfully violates a provision of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.
 
#4 ·
They are very hush hush about this. They trained all their trainers to tell us it was off limits. They just simply misinterpreted two different laws because one made some mention of surrendering CWP if you committed that offense. I would not expect them to want to ANNOUNCE to the world that you can carry into a place that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises. In fact I would expect many LEO's do not know that interpretation is wrong. But its being told to cadets at Police Academy that we are not violating any law and not to arrest us. They are also being told that "We" (meaning us CWP holders) think it is against the law.


But in order to commit that offense you have to go into a Place that serves alcohol intent on Robbery, Assault, violating a restraining order... well... things that are criminal offenses that then would result in them applying this "additional offense" charge if you also had a Concealed Weapon while doing so in a place that served alcohol for consumption on the premises. That was never intended to be applied as a "restriction of Concealable Weapons Permit" carry places or it simply would have been put in the prohibited carry section where it would then belong. And it's not there.

Now... one is not wise to carry into a bar intent on drinking... but wise and illegal is two different things. But it could end up being illegal if you commit a crime.
 
#5 · (Edited)
looks like you put your work in... it might be worth it to write a few letters to SC Dep of Justice or local LE to confirm and get an "insurance letter" in case something happens.

topic seems worth SC firearm community review...
 
#6 ·
Dunno if I wanna open that can of worms!

And I betcha if you ask half the LEO's in the state they will think its illegal. I know if you ask all the CWP's they will tell you it is. Because they were TOLD it was. And SLED, for a while, thought it was. All the new LEO's are being taught that its not illegal. And eventually that should trickle down.

Up to you if you want to act on this. Which would be your risk... but I doubt... if your just concealed and there is no trouble... and your not drunk.... and something like you just become unconcealed... even if they tried to arrest you thinking this applies... there would be no charges. But again, drinking and carrying don't mix. There are lots of other issues there. But going into Appleby's and having dinner and Ice Tea would probably not be an issue.

What concerns me even more about this is, if we publicize this, what will the Anti's do with it. I can see them now! "People can go drinking and carry guns legally in SC and all they have to do is have a card! What will we do!!!! I can see them pushing for legislation! The fact we have no restriction there is almost worse than some minor and reasonable restriction in that case. This may be a reason why SLED and LEO's are not going to publicize this and would rather just keep it mum. I am inclined to agree with that.

Your welcome to copy and paste the Titles, Chapters and Articles and paste them in to Google as a search for SC and read each one. Takes some time to find each one. But its all at the SC legislature site. Pretty easy to find but you have to go look at each reference to another law and then trace that one down till you get to that. I condensed it as best I could.
 
#9 ·
It appears that as long as you don't meet the "Unlawful" carry, one is legal to carry in places that serves alcohol if you have a permit or meet one of the other criteria. They define what "Unawful Carry" is. Has anyone sought the attorney general's opinon on this?
 
#10 ·
I am told that the AG (or someone from his office?) is the one that pointed it out to SLED that it did not mean what they originally thought it did. And since it never WAS law they did not have to go back to legislators and change a thing.

It never was in the Concealed Carry law which is in Title 23 Chapter 31 so it did not have to be removed or changed.

That reference was always in Title 16 "Crimes and Offenses" chapter 23 - "offenses involving weapons" which is all the Criminal Codes.

And Lawful Carry with permit is... not criminal nor is it specifically precluded by any other law... even in a place that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises.

So, reportedly, they started teaching this fact to LEO's after they were informed it was not illegal.

I can also tell you that they are teaching a very straight, no nonsense, interpretation of the No Carry sign posting. They are being taught that if it is not perfectly posted according to the verbiage it will not be enforced. Which is good.
 
#13 ·
In NC is clearly states we cannot carry in a establishment that serves alchohol. The above is clear as mud and not sure I would push it. I would contact the Grass Roots division of SC and work with them to get the law Clearly changed! I believe that the Grass Roots organizations are doing more for our gun rights than any other organization out there. I know the chapter in NC is working very hard to get this law changed as well as some of the other ones that make no sense, like carrying at a parade or funeral? They are also working hard to get Castle Law passed here. We need to do all we can to defeat the anti guns on their level = polictics. So vote and vote wisely, a lot could be riding on this.
NCH
 
#14 ·
Anyone know why Applebee's seems to always be the example used in discussion of this law? I understand the thought behind the "no exception" on alcohol sales but always thought it needed to be a difference between your resturant/sports bar and the local "juke joint". I grew up in the age of Saturday Night Specials at the local joint and there was an average of at least two shootings a week at the "Quarters" as it was known. However I really fell much safer in a nice restaurant than in the parking lot of Wal-Mart.
 
#15 ·
In many states it is clearly spelled out in their concealed carry law as an item in their prohibited carry places list. In ours it never was.

Appleby's has sort of become the "key reference example" used by us CWPers to show why we thought our law was excessive. Sort of like the Walmart trip is used to indicate we have just gotten our CWP. I don't know why.... it just happened. You could easily substitute almost any place. Almost any place serves alcohol for consumption these days. Which is why what we were told the law said made no real sense. But it appears in error now.

I don't go into bars anyway. So thats a moot point to me. I did, however, always disarm to go to my local steak house.

What you do with this information is up to you. If you don't feel comfortable with it then do what you feel is safest for you.
 
#18 ·
Actually I've heard two versions of this law:
1. Can't carry in an establishment that serves
2. Can carry if you don't actually drink an alcoholic beverage.
I wouldn't trust SLED to give accurate info. They told me that I could purchase a used gun in NC w/o any paperwork. Thanks to Cphilip I got the straight scoop.
 
#19 ·
Official Opinion Requested From SC Attorney General

At the end of January, I wrote the South Carolina Attorney General's office to ask for an official opinion on this subject. Two days ago I got a response from that office informing me that the AG's office only issues official opinions at the request of public officials. So I sent my original letter and the AG's response to my state senator. Today I received a copy of the letter that my state senator sent to the AG's office requesting an official opinion on the matter. When I get a response, I will post it here. Judging by how long it took for me to find out that I needed to get a public official to make the request, it may be a while.
 
#22 ·
I'm not from Grass Roots SC--just a concerned SC CWP holder. If they asked and never got a response, I may be wasting my time too, but it's worth a shot.
They asked... and got ignored. According to them.

I think they are pushing it again now that they have "heard" that something is not exactly right. But they read it and thought the same thing I am all along.

But keep up the good work! Never hurts to ask. Keep us in the loop what you hear.
 
#23 ·
We were 'taught' by the instructor that officially, "According SLED you cannot carry into an establishment that OFFERS alcohol for consumption on premises". Sales or otherwise is how he stated it.

I read the laws when I was taking the class, and after this statement, and saw what you saw CPhillip. I don't drink, so I am not going to let it change the way I live anyway.

Remember the unwritten rule......."Concealed means concealed". If they don't see it, then there is nothing to complain about.

Although most CWP holders believe what they are taught, and do NOT read the law for themselves.

We also were told that once we have a CWP, we can no longer carry in our glovebox or console. We all know that is wrong.

Maybe we will see something from the AG this time? Or we will hear about a change coming to the laws.

BTW, Fatz rocks! I hate to drive so far to eat there, but when I am in the area, I will be eating there.
 
#24 ·
I got a response from the SC AG

Well it didn't take long. I received a 6 page letter from the SC Attorney General's office in the mail today. I won't transcribe the entire letter, but here is the final paragraph:

-----
As the law of this state is currently written, a concealed weapons permit holder may not carry a firearm onto the premises of an establishment which serves alcohol. Any establishment which serves alcohol on the premises is included in the prohibition - bar and restaurant alike.

Sincerely,
David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
-----

The rest of the letter just discussed various other cases in the history of SC where the General Assembly obviously intended to keep alcohol and firearms separated. They concluded that the law mentioning establishments that serve alcohol was meant to be a prohibition--not an additional penalty for unlawful carry.

So this may not have been what everyone was wanting to hear, but this is straight from the horse's mouth. It looks like we need to continue pressuring our state representatives to change the law.
 
#26 ·
Well it didn't take long. I received a 6 page letter from the SC Attorney General's office in the mail today. I won't transcribe the entire letter, but here is the final paragraph:

-----
As the law of this state is currently written, a concealed weapons permit holder may not carry a firearm onto the premises of an establishment which serves alcohol. Any establishment which serves alcohol on the premises is included in the prohibition - bar and restaurant alike.
Sincerely,
David K. Avant
Assistant Attorney General
-----

The rest of the letter just discussed various other cases in the history of SC where the General Assembly obviously intended to keep alcohol and firearms separated. They concluded that the law mentioning establishments that serve alcohol was meant to be a prohibition--not an additional penalty for unlawful carry.

So this may not have been what everyone was wanting to hear, but this is straight from the horse's mouth. It looks like we need to continue pressuring our state representatives to change the law.


Interestingly enough... he is wrong.

It is NOT included in the prohibitions. Not at all. Its simply NOT there. As you can clearly see for yourself. That is simply a complete lie. That was and still is my point. Its not included in the prohibitions. Never has been and to date still has not been added.

I know what their intent was. Everyone knows. However they failed to meet the mark. And they know it. He seems to be admitting it there... almost... Which is why they are teaching the Law Enforcement Officers that it is NOT the law and to not charge people with that offense. Without seeing the whole letter it almost sounds to me like he is arguing that the "additional penalty" inclusion was a mistake. Which was one of my assumptions. However it surprises me that he wishes to hang his legal hat on that in court he can enforce their mistake! I would think they would change it if it was a mistake? Wondered about that all along.

Again... your on your own here. It is still a Gray area. Because its an opinion and its based upon a false statement of fact. And an argument of their position which has always been their position. That really surprises me that he would simply not point to the law as it stands. He says it is were it is not. Amazing. There you have it. It iss, according to him, a mistake in the way the law was written? And so its law anyway? Nope... it don't work that way. It would be fairly simple for them to have fixed this so why not do it? I think they are reaching here. Far reaching. But... again... be careful with any of this. But I simply don't buy what he is trying to claim. Of course we all know thats been their stance all along. But why teach otherwise to the LEO's if they really believe it will hold up? But I am not going to test it in court. I don't really have much reason too. But if they intended it to be a prohibition they completely missed the right place to put it.... IN THE PROHIBITIONS! LOL!

Bill, if you don't mind, could you scan that letter and post it up? Would be a valuable resource.

I think this tells us they intend to stick to this position and not publicly change their stance on it though. Which implies they are not willing to tell us different. Everyone I have talked to recently says that, officially, they are not going to change that position. This confirms that.
 
#25 ·
Atleast we have an "Official" response to this.

no more gray area
 
#27 ·
Ok now that I can... I will give you a little more background into why I even brought this up in the first place. Because I had no reason to do so until I was told that LEO's were being taught differently than we were. But at the time I first started researching this I couldn't tell you everything exactly as I wanted to. The reason for that was that my Kid was in SC Justice Academy and I didn't want something to interfere with his completing academy. But his teachings where the source of my being alerted to the fact that LEO's are being taught not to arrest for this charge alone. He had not graduated at that time but now has... and so it is clear now that it will not affect that.

But he came home one week from Academy telling me this fact. I asked him to go back and discuss it with the instructors and make sure. He did and he confirmed it. And he was told by them, and I quote... "... all CWP holders will THINK its against the law but do not arrest them for this alone..."

Now... at that point and after researching it a while (trying to prove them wrong) I ended up not being able to. And so I reported what I found. What does this mean? Well some thought it might mean that SLED and the AG had changed their stance on this. It appears not.

So why tell LEO's not to enforce it if they really believe it was law?

I have a few theories. I think I alluded to them earlier in this thread.

1) that they would rather not us know that the legislature missed the mark on the writing of the legislation. And they clearly did. No matter their intent they flat out wrote it wrong. Or did they? What was their exact intent? to prohibit all carry in a Restaraunt that happens to serve Alcohol no matter if your drinking or not? Who knows. I would guess bars for certain. But every case and instance? I dunno... because they put it in the WRONG place. Odd because they were CREATING a list of prohibitions and just failed to even put it there? Why?

2) By not enforcing it they never have to prove it is as they want to interpret it. Nor have to change it. So, it does appear to me that it will never BE proven in court. Because the charge will be something precluding it and it be only an Additional Penalty. So if your not going to arrest for simply concealed carry in a establishment that serves alcohol then you will never know will you? Every case I know of it was applied has some other circumstance before it. No one I know of has ever been charged for this and this alone. And it appears they are not going to charge you for it and it alone

Where does that leave us? Right back where we started. We got nothing! We got an unclear law that is going to be "defined" by "intent" rather than law. And one that may very well never be enforced because they just don't want to upset the apple cart of it.

I feared this was the case. And I don't know that it helps to even know any of this. Because, the whole thing is a mess.

What really bothers me is, as a Resident of SC, what legislation do you push for? Do you push for a relief of this so you can go into Appleby's and have a meal? Or do you leave it alone for fear the results will be worse? I mean, if you own legal system is going to "fool you and lie to you" then what do you do?

This is why I repeated my warnings all along that this whole thing will never be clear. Even with an AG opinion it will be only evidence that the Charade is being foisted upon us but may never be clear. I think we take this to Grass Roots and see what they can do with it all. They got a smart lawyer. Let him work on it some more.

Buy I am going to tell you this much. I for one, as a law abiding citizen of this state, do not take kindly to being "hoodwinked" by SLED, AG's office or anyone else. I simply want to know the law so I can follow the law. And this situation is intolerable and an outrage to me. I am pretty mad about it.

In the mean time we assume they are going to interpret it as law. Even when we cannot find it to be. I seriously doubt they will want to find out in court, from what I am seeing here.... nor will we!
 
#28 ·
One thing to remember is that an AG opinion is just that, an opinion and has no legal bearing. Under normal circumstances the LEO will make arrests or not based on AG opinions but then in a court of law the charges can be overturned. I have said many times that if a Supreme Court, who is supposed to be the most knowledgeable of our laws of anyone, cannot decide on what a law means, usually a 5-4 decision, then how is the average man to know what the law is.

Looks like it will take a popular vote of the SC Supreme Court to decide this but I don't plan to be the test case. I nominate XD in SC to do it and I will donate $10 to the defense fund.
 
#29 ·
I am told that there is no case law on this in SC. In fact there is NO case law involving specifically a Concealed Weapons Permit holder at all in SC. Which is good sort of. But not for this particular question because there is never a real answer until case law decides it.


And it appears to me that the way its being handled avoids settling it once and for all. I mean if you don't even arrest anyone for it, and it alone, how would it ever get determined?

I am going to try and get anything I can get now that I am free to pursue this. I think there may be some correspondence that is FOI that uncovers what I want to see.

Like I say... I don't mind what it is as long as I know it is. I can work from there. But I don't like being lied too. I, and any other SC resident deserves to know the truth. And be able to comply with the law. And if that resident doesn't like the law he needs to know what it is before he can work to change the law.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top