16-23-465 says in addition to penalties stated in 16-23-460. 16-23-460 says that this section does not apply to those with a CWP. So if 16-23-460 does not apply then how can 16-23-465 be an additional penalty? That is the question that is brought up about restaurant carry and I think a very good case.
On April 17, 2001 the AG issued an opinion at the request of Sled Chief Robert Stewart. In 2008 Sen. Robert Hayes asked for a new opinion but was just sent a copy of the original on Feb. 28, 2008. The Westlaw number appears to be WL 564590(S.C.A.G.) is you have access to Westlaw. I have a copy saved on my PC but it is too large to post here so I need some way to post it or convert it and make it smaller. The key was that the AG based his opinion on what he thought to be the intent of the Legislature rather than the wording of the law and it took him 6 pages rather then the normal 1-2 for opinions.
On April 17, 2001 the AG issued an opinion at the request of Sled Chief Robert Stewart. In 2008 Sen. Robert Hayes asked for a new opinion but was just sent a copy of the original on Feb. 28, 2008. The Westlaw number appears to be WL 564590(S.C.A.G.) is you have access to Westlaw. I have a copy saved on my PC but it is too large to post here so I need some way to post it or convert it and make it smaller. The key was that the AG based his opinion on what he thought to be the intent of the Legislature rather than the wording of the law and it took him 6 pages rather then the normal 1-2 for opinions.