Concealed Carry prohibited in Municipal Parking Garages?

[ThePiousPriest]

I am of the opinion that concealed carry is prohibited in a municipal parking garage SC 16-23-420:

"(A) It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property. "

What's strange is that interstate rest areas are exempt from this,but I don't inherently see a difference qualitatively between an interstate rest area and a parking garage from a danger standpoint, anyone see this as viable interpretation?

 

[NavyLCDR]

I think we can agree on the definition of concealed.

 

[ThePiousPriest]

I'm not sure what you are getting at by stating that.

 

[niceshootintex]

I'm not sure what you are getting at by stating that.

I think I know what he means. I am more unsure about the parking garage, rest area discussion. Not sure if that is a declaration or a question.

The Place To Be

 

[ThePiousPriest]

I know that SC holds an exception by statute for interstate rest areas. Talked to a cop buddy of mine and he doesn't hold a public garage would count as a violation of "public owned place". I'll call SLED tomorrow and see if I can get something in writing and if they would hold that carrying a firearm as a CWP holder in a municipal parking garage violates the statute. If they would, I'll be contacting my state reps and senators promptly.

 

[niceshootintex]

I know that SC holds an exception by statute for interstate rest areas. Talked to a cop buddy of mine and he doesn't hold a public garage would count as a violation of "public owned place". I'll call SLED tomorrow and see if I can get something in writing and if they would hold that carrying a firearm as a CWP holder in a municipal parking garage violates the statute. If they would, I'll be contacting my state reps and senators promptly.

I don't know if this helps and I don't think there would be an issue based on perusing quickly. Asking for clarification is never a bad idea.

The Place To Be

 

[niceshootintex]

SECTION 16-23-420.*Carrying or displaying firearms in public buildings or areas adjacent thereto.


(A) It is unlawful for a person to carry onto any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or*into*any publicly-owned building a firearm of any kind, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property.


(B) It is unlawful for a person to enter the premises or property described in subsection (A) and to display, brandish, or threaten others with a firearm.


(C) A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


(D) This section does not apply to a guard, law enforcement officer, or member of the armed forces, or student of military science. A married student residing in an apartment provided by the private or public school whose presence with a weapon in or around a particular building is authorized by persons legally responsible for the security of the buildings is also exempted from the provisions of this section.


(E) For purposes of this section, the terms “premises” and “property” do not include state or locally owned or maintained roads, streets, or rights-of-way of them, running through or adjacent to premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, which are open full time to public vehicular traffic.


(F) This section does not apply to a person who is authorized to carry concealed weapons pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31 of Title 23 (CWP) when upon any premises, property, or building that is part of an interstate highway rest area facility.




The Place To Be

 

[Waffles]

I know that SC holds an exception by statute for interstate rest areas. Talked to a cop buddy of mine and he doesn't hold a public garage would count as a violation of "public owned place". I'll call SLED tomorrow and see if I can get something in writing and if they would hold that carrying a firearm as a CWP holder in a municipal parking garage violates the statute. If they would, I'll be contacting my state reps and senators promptly.

I'll call SLED tomorrow and see if I can get something ........ Did you call, and what did they say?

 

[Old_Coyote]

I think this paragraph may exempt parking garages.

(E) For purposes of this section, the terms “premises” and “property” do not include state or locally owned or maintained roads, streets, or rights-of-way of them, running through or adjacent to premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, which are open full time to public vehicular traffic.

Parking garages are publicly owned properties specifically for vehicular traffic. There is a public right of way, for the express purpose of parking your vehicle to facilitate public access, just as a public parking space on a public street. Also, with the dearth of parking in Columbia, you essentially have to use parking garages. Basically it would say, "You can carry, but only if you can find street parking." To deny carry in parking garages would be an undue burden on the exercise of the right, in this case, the 2nd Amendment. Undue, because other than educational facilities, medical facilities, and government offices, the right is not so burdened in public places such streets (directly comparable) and parks. I believe only parking garages restricted to only the owner's staff and clientèle (EG: USC faculty, staff, and students) would be classified as "gun free".
Still, Clarification is good...

 

[Eidolon]

I'm not sure what you are getting at by stating that.

He's telling you that he'll ignore the law if it suits his purpose