New legislation filed today in SC - No CWP Required :)

[AllAmerican]

Most States that have restaurant carry use the 51% rule. 51% food ok to carry, 51% alcohol not ok to carry.

Which I still think is wrong. So by that I have to ask the establishment how much of their revenue is food and alchohol based.

Proper wooding would make a distinction between a bar and a restaurant. Its pretty obvious which is which in most cases. But... what about the sports bar ? I mean I know Chilis is a. eating establishment but Ive been to some sports bars that serve food but everyone is drinking and its obvious that 4 beers costs more than the dozen wings you ate.

Its retarded. If you've got the permit you should be able to go to anyplace that serves food even if it is primarily a bar. You know because you have the permit that it is unlawful to have an illegal blood level and fire the gun. If you've been drinking and kill a bad guy they are gonna make you blow or take blood.

So, I wouldnt even drink in either situation just because of that.

 

[tattedupboy]

Most States that have restaurant carry use the 51% rule. 51% food ok to carry, 51% alcohol not ok to carry.

I could be wrong, but I always thought that Texas was the only state that specified a 51% rule. In all the other states, if a portion of a restaurant is devoted to selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, then it is off limits, whether or not alcohol sales account for 51% or more of total income.

 

[maybejim]

Laws stupid?

In all the other states, if a portion of a restaurant is devoted to selling alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, then it is off limits, whether or not alcohol sales account for 51% or more of total income.

Any law about carrying in a place that sells alcohol is in my opinion totally illogical and silly. Your being able to control yourself unimpeded has nothing to do with how much the guy across the room drinks or doesn't drink. I am not allowed to drink while carrying with my Kalifornia Concealed Carry Permit (of course that seems not to apply to law officers). That at least makes some sense though I believe it should follow the same limits as are applied to driving.

 

[blume357@]

Just to continue my pessimism .... I'm sure our law makers will come up with some kind of rule that makes little to no sense.... I was told in a boating class years ago there are no bars in S.C. only restaurants that serve alcohol... Some restaurants only serve crackers and maybe grilled cheese or such but there are no 'just' bars. Never really thought about it since I don't go our carousing anymore... actually never did.

 

[wolfhunter]

In Florida, the 51% rule is a guide for determining if a place is a bar or a restaurant. In those places that make most of their money from food sales, I can carry. But, if that same restaurant has an obvious bar area, I must sit in the dining area, not the "bar".

 

[FN1910]

Just to continue my pessimism .... I'm sure our law makers will come up with some kind of rule that makes little to no sense.... I was told in a boating class years ago there are no bars in S.C. only restaurants that serve alcohol... Some restaurants only serve crackers and maybe grilled cheese or such but there are no 'just' bars. Never really thought about it since I don't go our carousing anymore... actually never did.

I seem to remember that in SC for a place to serve liquor they must also serve foos and have an enclosed kitchen. I had a friend that has a neighborhood bar that served beer, hot dogs and hamburgers. To get his liquor license he had to build a "enclosure" around his cooking area. It was a joke of an enclosure but it passed. I think you are correct that there are no "bars" only resturants that serve liquor. Beer is a different story.

 

[Aggressive1]

The point of this post is that in SC we cannot carry anywhere that serves alchohol right now correct? I don't have my CWP but I am trying to get familiar with the laws and gun before I go take the class.

 

[blume357@]

You are correct Aggressive1, but I would not fret studying up too much before taking the class.... if you don't fall asleep you'll be fine... I don't want to put it down too much, but the testing is really a joke. Learning the laws of deadly force is not and is very helpful, but the official government test is kind of silly.

 

[Germanicus]

Where does it say anyone has an "inalienable right to feel safe and secure"? That's a personal decision and problem. Some people wouldn't feel safe and secure with squad of police and special forces.

I wouldn't feel safe in that environment either. But we do have to consider most people aren't familiar with other civvys openly carrying guns (this day in time) and can easily be intimidated by open carry.

 

[Ektarr]

As an out-of-State landowner of property in SC with the intent to relocate (soon, hopefully!), I have a strong interest in this topic. From my perspective, it feels to me that the same rules should apply, with respect to carrying in a liquor establishment, as they do for those who are driving and patronizing that establishment. Good common sense should prevail. If you can't be trusted to control yourself with alcohol while carrying -- OR driving -- then you shouldn't have a carry permit OR a driver's license. Somewhere along the line, if we're going to have to bend to be trusted and licensed (I mean rather than just allow the 2nd Amendment to prevail), then they're going to have to assume we're trustworthy enough to make those decisions for ourselves.

Funny..I thought that by selecting South Carolina, with its Castle Doctrine laws and enlightened Personal Freedoms attitude, I was making a good choice. I Love the State, and I haven't met an unfriendly person there yet. I hope they can get past this stuff.

 

[blume357@]

Welcome soon Ektar!

I grew up and have lived all my life in S.C. I hate to admit it, but our biggest problem is we elect idiots to the state legislature. It used to be that Educational Radio would play exerts from the senate debates every afternoon during the state news. I think they stopped this finally because it was just too embarrassing. Not to put any religion down but when they (both sides) start quoting the bible when debating seat belt laws... I think we are in a world of trouble.

Grassroots S.C. has really helped a lot with dealing with some of these folks and their idea of what is a good law... Like last year they proposed that any member of the Senate could carry anywhere they want to in the state... I'm sure all gun friendly senators thought this was a good idea as well as most that aren't so. Grass roots opposed it.. why? Because what makes one of these folks 'better than us."

I think what may really matter is that most LEO's in this state are gun friendly and don't have the big city mind set.

You do know you can go ahead and get a permit from S.C. right now?

 

[Germanicus]

Where does it say anyone has an "inalienable right to feel safe and secure"? That's a personal decision and problem. Some people wouldn't feel safe and secure with squad of police and special forces.

Obviously the Constitution doesn't say that verbatim, but People HAVE a right CONSTITUTIONALLY to not feel threatened in public by their peers. Open carry (in a populated city or town) is intimidating to people who do not know you or who are not well versed in the current legislation. If you don't believe that, go ahead and carry openly in SC and a judge will end up proving it to you. It is important for everyone to understand (including me) that you can't go around supporting and quoting the aspects of our Constitution that suit only your sensibility and then simply ignoring the rest because you don't agree. Your comment and ideology in this matter is most selfish and undemocratic. I believe that if you had your way, it would result in a castration of the 2nd Amendment for all of us and make and already delicate situation much worse. That said, I would like optional open carry as well, but not if it results in a public that gets freaked out and then having a total reversal of our carrying rights. Sorry if this came off as rude or a rant... just trying to be responsible here.

 

[Red Hat]

Obviously the Constitution doesn't say that verbatim, but People HAVE a right CONSTITUTIONALLY to not feel threatened in public by their peers.

Sorry but if it's not in the Constitution then It can't be deemed constitutional. That's like saying that you have a constitutional right to be happy and content all the time. There is no reason someone should feel threatened by anyone Open Carrying a firearm unless they are an anti-gun nut! I see no problem Open Carrying in SC. It just takes the general population learning that it is legal. SC is one of only Six states that doesn't allow OC. 44 states allow OC some with and some without a permit. The population of 44 states must not be too threatened by people carrying a firearm on their hip or they would have outlawed it a long time ago!

 

[maybejim]

but People HAVE a right CONSTITUTIONALLY to not feel threatened in public by their peers.

No, they do not. They may have the right not to be threatened, but they have no right to protection from some imagined but non existent threat.

It is important for everyone to understand (including me) that you can't go around supporting and quoting the aspects of our Constitution that suit only your sensibility and then simply ignoring the rest because you don't agree.

That's true. It is also important to know what is in the Constitution and what is not. Protection from an imagined but non-existent threat is not there.

That said, I would like optional open carry as well

I have no interest in open carry. As the CRPA says "everyone is safer when no one knows who is armed".

Your comment and ideology in this matter is most selfish and undemocratic. I believe that if you had your way, it would result in a castration of the 2nd Amendment for all of us and make and already delicate situation much worse. That said, I would like optional open carry as well, but not if it results in a public that gets freaked out and then having a total reversal of our carrying rights. Sorry if this came off as rude or a rant... just trying to be responsible here.

Ha! Ha! Ha! You have incorrectly jumped to a conclusion about what I said and have called me selfish and undemocratic. I corrected you on your claim that people have a Constitutional right not to feel threatened and you have incorrectly claimed I want to participate in open carry. Perhaps you should be a little more careful about jumping to conclusions that can't be supported by the facts.

 

[tattedupboy]

Sorry but if it's not in the Constitution then It can't be deemed constitutional. That's like saying that you have a constitutional right to be happy and content all the time. There is no reason someone should feel threatened by anyone Open Carrying a firearm unless they are an anti-gun nut! I see no problem Open Carrying in SC. It just takes the general population learning that it is legal. SC is one of only Six states that doesn't allow OC. 44 states allow OC some with and some without a permit. The population of 44 states must not be too threatened by people carrying a firearm on their hip or they would have outlawed it a long time ago!

Amen to that. You can't use a person's "right" to "feel" safe and secure to deny the constitutional rights of others. If I choose to carry openly, that's how I should be able to do it, as long as I'm not abusing the right (ie., going around threatening or killing people).

 

[Germanicus]

No, they do not. They may have the right not to be threatened, but they have no right to protection from some imagined but non existent threat.



That's true. It is also important to know what is in the Constitution and what is not. Protection from an imagined but non-existent threat is not there.



I have no interest in open carry. As the CRPA says "everyone is safer when no one knows who is armed".



Ha! Ha! Ha! You have incorrectly jumped to a conclusion about what I said and have called me selfish and undemocratic. I corrected you on your claim that people have a Constitutional right not to feel threatened and you have incorrectly claimed I want to participate in open carry. Perhaps you should be a little more careful about jumping to conclusions that can't be supported by the facts.

So be it gentlemen. But you need to know that I based my statements not only on our legislation but also on how it has been interpreted by the judicature. Speaking as a SC CWP as well, your comments above sound strongly in favor of open carry. I have always agreed with that CRPA statement, but I do believe people have a right to open carry under the certain circumstances mentioned above. If you want to quote me, do so that you don't mince my statements, a courtesy that I have extended you. I have always said CC is better than OC because it gives you the initiative, so that's not really a lesson I need.

Imagined? Non-existent threat? Perhaps from your POV, but what about the family with small children across the street who don't know you, don't see a badge, and don't know about OC and CC or guns. What happens when they dial 911 because they don't know any better? At that point I would say they are threatened, and that is where this goes from a black and white issue about our carry rights and into a VERY grey area in terms of both parties' rights. I don't see how in the current political climate OC is going to be supported by the majority, because most people ARE that hypothetical little family across the street and are going to have a hard time accepting what they consider to be (among other things) the Wild West. In the end I'm not saying that you don't have a right to do it, Constitutionally speaking that is, but don't you think we are in a position to tread lightly here and re-enforce what hasn't been taken from us?

ps even though we don't agree here, this is an excellent debate...

 

[maybejim]

If you want to quote me, do so that you don't mince my statements

I did so I don't understand your problem.

Imagined? Non-existent threat? Perhaps from your POV, but what about the family with small children across the street who don't know you, don't see a badge, and don't know about OC and CC or guns.

You offer a scenario that shows indeed imagined and most likely non-existent threat. Your wife is equipped to be a prostitute but that doesn't mean she should be reported to the police everytime she steps outside in a pair of shorts or a sexy dress.

What happens when they dial 911 because they don't know any better?

Hopefully they get an education that informs them what a threat is and what it is not.

At that point I would say they are threatened

Apparently you and they have a problem with the definition of words.
Definition of Threatened from dictionary.net

into a VERY grey area in terms of both parties' rights.

Clearly then you must support the Muslim idea that women should be allowed in public only if accompanied by a man and covered from head to toe.

I don't see how in the current political climate OC is going to be supported by the majority,

I wouldn't doubt that but that has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of not "feeling" threatened.

accepting what they consider to be (among other things) the Wild West.

Another position of the ignorant PC crowd. In the Wild West, women and children, indeed innocents were safer than they are in the inner city today. It is amazing how ignorance is allowed to drive the country.

 

[Germanicus]

What?!

 

[Germanicus]

I did so I don't understand your problem.
If you say so...

You offer a scenario that shows indeed imagined and most likely non-existent threat. Your wife is equipped to be a prostitute but that doesn't mean she should be reported to the police everytime she steps outside in a pair of shorts or a sexy dress.

This comparison, legally and circumstantially is quite a reach don't you think?

Hopefully they get an education that informs them what a threat is and what it is not.

The LEOs are going to love that.

Apparently you and they have a problem with the definition of words.
Definition of Threatened from dictionary.net

Definitions, like laws are written and then interpreted as to their meaning.

Clearly then you must support the Muslim idea that women should be allowed in public only if accompanied by a man and covered from head to toe.

Not only does this not make sense, it doesn't deserve a reply due to it's total lack of intelligence. Have you even been to a predominately Muslim country, sir?

I wouldn't doubt that but that has nothing to do with the Constitutionality of not "feeling" threatened.

True, 'feeling' is not the correct terminology here and was not used in my last post for this reason. However, 'threatened' is important. Depending on where you live, its surprising what is considered 'threatening' legally speaking, some of them far less intimidating than OC.

Another position of the ignorant PC crowd. In the Wild West, women and children, indeed innocents were safer than they are in the inner city today. It is amazing how ignorance is allowed to drive the country.

Sir, US history is my business, and while it is true that a heavily armed population will statistically reduce crime, the so-called Wild West was not a period of sustained law and order like today or better than such.

 

[tattedupboy]

If someone feels threatened by a law abiding citizen open carrying, that's their problem. The fact remains, RKBA is just that, RKBA, not RKBCA (with the C meaning concealed). Furthermore, no law abiding citizen should ever have to feel that he needs to keep his firearm concealed due to the fact that he may offend some others should he decide to keep it exposed. Good thing the legislatures in states like Virginia and Arizona (among others) have realized this.