List of Restaurants...

[jisuho]

I first ask the Admin make this topic a sticky, here's why:

With the pending concealed carry bill about to be signed, law abiding citizens will be allowed to carry into restaurants/bars that serve alcohol, as long as you don't drink (I agree with this provision). However, I get the impression that some, or more than some, restaurants/bars will now post the "no concealed weapons" sticker on the front window. That is their right. But I for one am tired of going out to one place (malls, movie theaters, Wally world, etc) that allows CCW, then have to store my weapon in the trunk for dinner, then re-holster when I go somewhere else.

I think it would be a good idea that once the new CCW bill becomes law we should keep a running list of restaurants that put up the sticker. I am not trying to take business away from the restaurant/bar I am just trying to minimize the hassle by knowing which are the friendly CCW restaurants. As we go through the next few months and we see if Restaurant A applies the sticker but Restaurant B does not then we list them accordingly on this site so we may all gain the information.

Again I am not advocating we don't patronize non CCW friendly establishments nor advocate that we ask them to change their policies. This list is for us to know the friendly places before we venture out for the evening.

Thoughts?

j

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

I think it is also worth mentioning that it is not illegal to concealed carry in a restaurant (or other business) that has a sign saying they don't want you armed.

Carry on.

 

[Tigerstripe]

i will not relinquish my weapon for any establishment with a sign.

i have a permit to carry my weapon to keep my family and myself as safe as i can.

if you dont want me to come into your bussiness all you need is a no carry sign.

i will patronise you by spending my money elsewhere.

dont forget, gun free zones are where a lot of times people get shot.

i dont need a list of businesses with signs. there are plenty of places to spend my money for the same thing without giving up the right to keep and bare arms.

if CWP is here to stay the stores with signs will figure out why their competitors business is good and theirs is dropping off. nature of the beast.

i would advocate not patronising any business not willing to step into the 21st century.

 

[rotarymike]

I agree with most of the above, and would like to see a list as well. If nothing else, helps for planning when you've got a ton of errands a spouse and a toddler to juggle all while figuring out where you can eat without disarming.

Re: Avtomat's statement, using the new language under S3... I think it would depend on if Section 16-23-465(B)(1)'s language "This section does not apply to a person carrying a concealable weapon pursuant to and in compliance with Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23" (the Concealed Carry statutes) is interpreted as meaning This Section as in the entire Section (which is how I would read it, as Title 16 Chapter 23 Section 465) or as "This section" as in that particular paragraph. I'm willing to bet a donut that the LEOs and Solicitor's office will read it as the second interpretation. I'd hate to have to face a judge over that and lose my 2A rights over the interpretation of a possessive clause.

 

[John Canuck]

Thoughts? Well, it's going to be a pretty lengthy list, at least initially. The Moms Demand panty wetters are running around delivering signs and lying to the owners of restaurants and bars so lots of place will at least have a compliant sign. I bet Bloomberg is paying for them too.

If the list is to be of any use, it can't be 25 pages of restaurant names posted on at a time. It needs to be consolidated into a list. Don't forget to include the city and street in cases where there are more than one in a city.

Frankly, life is much easier in states that don't codify the sign requirements and haven't created (or at least attempted - see above) a victimless crime for ignoring a sign. This will be an inconvenience for a while, but I suspect signs will disappear slowly as nothing happens and they get tired of cluttering up their entrance ways with a huge ugly sign.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Thoughts? Well, it's going to be a pretty lengthy list, at least initially. The Moms Demand panty wetters are running around delivering signs and lying to the owners of restaurants and bars so lots of place will at least have a compliant sign. I bet Bloomberg is paying for them too..

Yeah, same thing happened in Virginia when the CC/Alcohol law passed a few years back. The local media was up in arms that there would be "blood in the streets" and "The OK corral". Of course, nothing happened, life went on, the media found the next stupid thing to crow about. IIRC, the first big problem with a drinking CCW was actually an off-duty cop. Go figure.

Anyway, I think the excitement will die down quickly. If you want, vote with your feet and wallet. I do, but don't make too big a deal about it. The average restaurant manager is either a) a corporate hack beholden to the franchise or b) too busy to give a crap.

I would actually like to see the reverse list: list of places where someone knows the owner is 2A friendly. VA had open carry and we would actually pick out nights to patronize these places as a group. Alas, we are somewhat more limited in this state but I for one would go out of my way to give my money to someone who openly supports our 2A rights.

 

[RK3369]

I think it is also worth mentioning that it is not illegal to concealed carry in a restaurant (or other business) that has a sign saying they don't want you armed.

Carry on.

??????? I thought the law said that the property owner, or person in control of the property, essentially had the "right of first refusal" iow, if they have a sign up saying no concealable weapons allowed, how does that not trump everything else? I saw one of the later posts attempting to sort it out, but I'm still confused. I thought if someone put up compliant signs that said "no concealable weapons allowed?" that was the end of the discussion? Is there something specific to this bill that changes things? Or does this statement imply that if the signs are not "legal" as prescribed in the current law (text size, sign size, format, etc,etc,etc) then they are not enforceable and essentially have no legal effect? Even so, I would bet that if an owner put up any sign, even non compliant ones, it would behoove anyone to pay attention to them because it would be clear that the "intent" of the owner would be to prohibit concealed weapons. And we all know how courts rule on the issue of "intent" nowadays. Yes, the CCW holder may be legally right, but still might loose because the owner of the property had the "intent" to ban weapons. Whether or not the sign was "legal" is a separate matter in the eyes of many judges.

 

[Dave29461]

I would actually like to see the reverse list: list of places where someone knows the owner is 2A friendly. VA had open carry and we would actually pick out nights to patronize these places as a group. Alas, we are somewhat more limited in this state but I for one would go out of my way to give my money to someone who openly supports our 2A rights.

I could go along with this. It would be a good way to get together, sometime, other than on the range.

Dave

 

[sc1911cwp]

I think restaurants should just have "Carry" and "No Carry" sections. :lol:

 

[melloyello]

Sounds good to me but I would like to suggest breaking it into regions: Low Country, Pee Dee, Midlands, Piedmont.

BTW - there is already a law that makes it illegal to use a firearm when drinking/intoxicated.
Our law makers really really need to consolidate all firearms laws and have other sections refer to it.

 

[TheGriff]

I think restaurants should just have "Carry" and "No Carry" sections. :lol:

+1 :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[bambamcliffy]

i would love to see a list asap now that restaurant carry is now a reality. :lol:

 

[Tigerstripe]

Grace and i went to the copper river, boiling springs, to meet her son his wife and daughter. while waiting for them we sat at the bar where she had a drink. i dont drink but there were no signs and im always packin. nobody had a clue.

 

[rotarymike]

I think it is also worth mentioning that it is not illegal to concealed carry in a restaurant (or other business) that has a sign saying they don't want you armed.

Carry on.

I had a continuing legal ed seminar on Friday that went over changes to the SC gun laws. Among other lawyer-types, there were several judges and at least one county sheriff, as well as several prosecutors in the audience. I asked about the Subpart B and how that could/might invalidate the signage requirements.

What I was told, by several judges who sat down to discuss it with me, is that the subordinate clauses of a section only refer back to the text of the main section, not the section in its entirety. So as written, if an establishment that serves alcohol is properly posted and you carry there under auspices of your CWP, you have committed a 2 year misdemeanor.

If you or anyone else gets charged with this, your lawyer would and should argue for a different interpretation of the law. I would too - I see the ambiguity there. But the judiciary and Solicitor's office do not. Ultimately, a jury of non-gun-law-specializing people will judge you on it, and my experience with juries is that they convict about 80% of the time regardless of arguments or evidence.

Obviously a law isn't going to stop you or anyone from doing some action, and in theory if you are carrying properly (adequately concealed) it should never come up. But to say as a blanket statement that such practice is legal is disingenuous.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

But to say as a blanket statement that such practice is legal is disingenuous.

Thank you for this comment. Nobody should take legal advice from a self-appointed internet law expert.

 

[rotarymike]

So...

Los Reyes in North Charleston (Old Navy/Best Buy shopping center) - not posted and according to my friend there, won't be.
Carolina Ale House in Columbia near Columbiana mall - not posted. And good food.

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

Obviously a law isn't going to stop you or anyone from doing some action, and in theory if you are carrying properly (adequately concealed) it should never come up. But to say as a blanket statement that such practice is legal is disingenuous.

I didn't say it "is legal." I said it "isn't illegal."

Kind of like how it isn't illegal for me to play the SC Lottery but the Attorney General put out a memo that says it is forbidden by the SC Constitution.

 

[TheGriff]

Obviously a law isn't going to stop you or anyone from doing some action, and in theory if you are carrying properly (adequately concealed) it should never come up. But to say as a blanket statement that such practice is legal is disingenuous.

I didn't say it "is legal." I said it "isn't illegal."

Kind of like how it isn't illegal for me to play the SC Lottery but the Attorney General put out a memo that says it is forbidden by the SC Constitution.

Do you have a source for that? Genuinely interested in reading about it.

 

[Lupinus]

Obviously a law isn't going to stop you or anyone from doing some action, and in theory if you are carrying properly (adequately concealed) it should never come up. But to say as a blanket statement that such practice is legal is disingenuous.

I didn't say it "is legal." I said it "isn't illegal."

Kind of like how it isn't illegal for me to play the SC Lottery but the Attorney General put out a memo that says it is forbidden by the SC Constitution.

Same difference and an all around bad idea. Personally, I don't have any interest in being the test case so a lawyer can argue a veeeeery shaky technicality that 99.9% of folks aren't going to see as a technicality at all.

 

[Avtomat-Acolyte]

Obviously a law isn't going to stop you or anyone from doing some action, and in theory if you are carrying properly (adequately concealed) it should never come up. But to say as a blanket statement that such practice is legal is disingenuous.

I didn't say it "is legal." I said it "isn't illegal."

Kind of like how it isn't illegal for me to play the SC Lottery but the Attorney General put out a memo that says it is forbidden by the SC Constitution.

Do you have a source for that? Genuinely interested in reading about it.

http://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/02jan7ryberg.pdf

People holding public office, police officers, judges and even notaries (LOL!) are forbidden from playing the lottery by the opinion of the former Attorney General Charlie Condon. In his opinion he shows where it is not illegal, because it would first require there to be a conviction of playing the lottery, for which there is no longer an applicable criminal charge, as the lottery is now legal. But he says that playing the lottery, while not illegal, is still prohibited by the Constitution and you will be fired, de-certified, removed from office, et al. depending upon your "office of honor, trust or profit."

So, while it isn't illegal for me to play the lottery, it isn't legal, either.