Charleston Crab House hates gun carriers

[John Canuck]

Restaurant owner: 'Why would I let someone in with a gun?' - WCIV-TV | ABC News 4 - Charleston News, Sports, Weather

With regard to S 308 Restaurant Carry:

(John) Keener says no matter what, he has already made his decision in the matter. If the measure is passed, he says he fears backlash.

"I would say absolutely no guns in my restaurant at all, but then they would probably boycott you because you're a no-gun restaurant," he said.



What? That is about the dumbest thing ever written by a business owner. You tell people you don't want them in your restaurant, then blame them when they don't come?

I'll be sending him an e-mail informing him my business goes elsewhere... nicely of course

[email protected]

 

[NCIC105]

Here is the email I sent to him.

You tell a gun owner you don't want his business if he is armed..They you whine if he does not come in...

Grow up dude...We are citizens and can do business where we feel comfortable...You do not make us comfortable...I'm sure others will welcome us....

Good luck!

 

[melloyello]

It just could be that he doesn't want our business which suits me fine.

 

[CapGun]

"I would say absolutely no guns in my restaurant at all, but then they would probably boycott you because you're a no-gun restaurant," he said.


Just wondering what his reaction would be if he was asked how he was going to keep them out.
Maybe we should all ask him. Be interesting if a light goes on in his empty head.
For those of you who might like to comment on this post of mine >>>>>> Think before you type!

 

[MartyB]

What a idiot. Its not the restaurants responsibility to police concealed carriers.

 

[AndeyHall]

"I would say absolutely no guns in my restaurant at all, but then they would probably boycott you because you're a no-gun restaurant," he said.


Just wondering what his reaction would be if he was asked how he was going to keep them out.
Maybe we should all ask him. Be interesting if a light goes on in his empty head.
For those of you who might like to comment on this post of mine >>>>>> Think before you type!

He's gonna hire TSA to come set up a security checkpoint to get in the door.

 

[melloyello]

What a idiot. Its not the restaurants responsibility to police concealed carriers.

It is his property, his business, his employees....
He has the right to refuse people be able to protect themselves on his property....

Maybe we should create a law that if you deny a lawful person the right to defend themselves then it is the responsibility to demonstrate he can protect them.

 

[AndeyHall]

What a idiot. Its not the restaurants responsibility to police concealed carriers.

It is his property, his business, his employees....
He has the right to refuse people be able to protect themselves on his property....

Maybe we should create a law that if you deny a lawful person the right to defend themselves then it is the responsibility to demonstrate he can protect them.

As much as I'd love to agree with you, I think a lot of the problem with our country today is the federal gov't trying to intrude too much in our personal affairs. Passing such a law would open the door for all the sue-happy people. I think the best route to go would be to remove the law about signs so that they hold no legal weight, and all they are good for is to give the owner or management grounds to ask you to leave. That way we wouldn't have to worry about legal persecution for ignoring a sign, unless we refuse to leave when they ask us. I would gladly settle for that.

 

[melloyello]

As much as I'd love to agree with you, I think a lot of the problem with our country today is the federal gov't trying to intrude too much in our personal affairs. Passing such a law would open the door for all the sue-happy people. I think the best route to go would be to remove the law about signs so that they hold no legal weight, and all they are good for is to give the owner or management grounds to ask you to leave. That way we wouldn't have to worry about legal persecution for ignoring a sign, unless we refuse to leave when they ask us. I would gladly settle for that.

I can see your point and have thought the same, and with CC, how will they know.

However, I feel the less we exercise our rights openly, more lesser attitudes and negative opinions prevail.
The more people see no guns allowed and only acts of gun violence, the more I see people criminalize gun owners.
And as the saying goes the more people hear something the more they believe it...


Power (rights) need to be restored to the gun owners and our right to defend ourselves.

 

[AndeyHall]

As much as I'd love to agree with you, I think a lot of the problem with our country today is the federal gov't trying to intrude too much in our personal affairs. Passing such a law would open the door for all the sue-happy people. I think the best route to go would be to remove the law about signs so that they hold no legal weight, and all they are good for is to give the owner or management grounds to ask you to leave. That way we wouldn't have to worry about legal persecution for ignoring a sign, unless we refuse to leave when they ask us. I would gladly settle for that.

I can see your point and have thought the same, and with CC, how will they know.

However, I feel the less we exercise our rights openly, more lesser attitudes and negative opinions prevail.
The more people see no guns allowed and only acts of gun violence, the more I see people criminalize gun owners.
And as the saying goes the more people hear something the more they believe it...


Power (rights) need to be restored to the gun owners and our right to defend ourselves.

Oh I 100% agree with exercising your rights. That's not what I'm opposing. I was just saying that if you require gun-free businesses to be responsible for your safety and not pro-gun businesses, then the gun-free business are going to claim they're being discriminated against for their personal beliefs/preferences, which I agree with. However on the pro-gunner's side, they could argue that they are being discriminated against just as blacks were during segregation. It's a very slippery slope but in the end, I believe individuals should have the right to do what they wish with their property without gov't intervention. They'll just have to suffer the consequences of lost business if that's how they are going to choose to be.

To be honest, I applaud people who are willing to stand up for their beliefs and opinions (as long as they're educated ones) and aren't concerned with dancing around everybody's feelings. However I have a feeling he is being this way for 1 of 2 reasons, or possibly both: 1) he is trying to appeal go the average citizen who doesn't carry and may think that less guns equals being safer, or 2) he has an uneducated opinion on concealed carry and the law abiding citizens that take advantage of that right. But if he has a logical reason for why he doesn't want to allow concealed carry on his property, and he isn't doing it just to dance around someone else's feelings or please other people, then I have no problem with it.

 

[Berta]

I believe businesses have the right to not allow guns, and I have every right to take my money elsewhere. I emailed this guy a few weeks ago and his response was he was not worried about people like me (he does not know me at all) but he is afraid of "wackos with a CWP that should never have gotten one and come into his place and drink too much".

I emailed him back to let him know that CITIZENS with a CWP take it seriously and are not the ones to break the law and drink while carrying. He went on to tell me he has a close relative with a CWP that got arrested for running around naked in his yard trying to scare away demons. Charges were dropped, he still has his CWP and has over 50 guns. He doesn't want those kinds of CWP holders in his place.

He is set in his thinking and doesn't care that 99% of those with a CWP are law abiding citizens. I told him to enjoy his "gun free zone" and that I will take my business elsewhere.

 

[mappow]

SC law dictates that IF alcohol is served for on premise consumption. CC is not allowed. (Not living is SC for the last year it might have changed) Me thinks not......

 

[Berta]

As of right now you cannot carry into his restaurant legally. But there is a bill that is very close to becoming law that says as long as you are not drinking you can carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol. Mr. Keener was commenting on that law and said he will not allow CC in his restaurant.

 

[AndeyHall]

As of right now you cannot carry into his restaurant legally. But there is a bill that is very close to becoming law that says as long as you are not drinking you can carry into a restaurant that serves alcohol. Mr. Keener was commenting on that law and said he will not allow CC in his restaurant.

The law against discharging a firearm while under the influence of alcohol would still stand. So if he thinks laws actually deter crime then he's still covered. If got news for him though...the people that are going to follow his rules, and the ones that are going to take their business elsewhere are the 2 groups of people he doesn't have to worry about. It's the people who had no disregard for the law that he has to worry about. But how is he going to patrol that? So you're back around to the question of, what is the point of the law in the first place?

 

[mappow]

Without throwing the multiple tangents this conversation could go on. If you CC, who's gonna know.............UNLESS a BG happens upon you and forces through his actions that you need to defend yourself. Never would I advocate anyone to CC illegally, I only am stating a tangent to thought. Really don't care about all the maybe, would of, could of's and the like. Just saying.........
Take actions to protect and defend yourself or don't. It's your choice.

 

[melloyello]

The discussion was started by the OP wrt a new bill Senate Bill 308 proposal to clarify any questions about CC in place that serve alcohol for consumption on premise.
Hence, Crab House owner was interviewed and if the law passes, he said he would post no CW Allowed.

2013-2014 Bill 308: Firearms - South Carolina Legislature Online

(B)(1) This section does not apply to a person carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to and in compliance with Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23; however, the person shall not consume alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine while carrying the concealable weapon on the business's premises. A person who violates this subitem may be charged with a violation of subsection (A).

(2) A business owner or person in legal possession or control of a business may prohibit the carrying of concealable weapons into the business by posting a 'NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED' sign in compliance with Section 23-31-235. A person who carries a concealable weapon into a business with a sign posted in compliance with Section 23-31-235 may be charged with a violation of subsection (A).

(3) A business owner or person in legal possession or control of a business may request that a person carrying a concealable weapon leave the business's premises or request that a person carrying a concealable weapon remove the concealable weapon from the business's premises. A person carrying a concealable weapon who refuses to leave a business's premises when requested or refuses to remove the concealable weapon from a business's premises when requested may be charged with a violation of subsection (A)." /