Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
they would just give a winning ticket to their spouse.
List of Restaurants...
- Thread starter jisuho
- Start date
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
First gun buster sign in Greenville. The Roost at 220 Main Street in Greenville. It appears to be a compliant sign.
It's connected to the Hyatt Regency so I took a look inside. As expected, they forgot to identify to gun owners entering from the hotel that they didn't want their money. Shame on them.
It's connected to the Hyatt Regency so I took a look inside. As expected, they forgot to identify to gun owners entering from the hotel that they didn't want their money. Shame on them.
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
so its not posted on all doors. like the malls.
doesnt that mean you can carry there?
doesnt that mean you can carry there?
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
23-31-235 says in part:
When I entered the hotel, I did not walk past a visible sign and don't see one in the picture of the entrance to the restaurant from the hotel. May you carry there without breaking the law? I'll let others answer that. The point is mute for me because they've told me they want me to spend my money elsewhere. I'm happy to do so.
When I entered the hotel, I did not walk past a visible sign and don't see one in the picture of the entrance to the restaurant from the hotel. May you carry there without breaking the law? I'll let others answer that. The point is mute for me because they've told me they want me to spend my money elsewhere. I'm happy to do so.
Tigerstripe
Well-Known Fanatic
good point.
rotarymike
Well-Known Fanatic
While making the case for spending your money elsewhere, IMHO the loophole (all entrances must be posted) is most useful for when you're going somewhere and you don't realize the place is posted until you get there. Not a huge deal when going to a restaurant, but a big deal if you're from out of town and staying in the hotel.
Also, from my recollection (don't have time to look at the law) you are allowed to carry into a (your) hotel room, so posting the hotel entrances would be pointless as I think that provision preempts the sign clause.
I bet they figure that if you have a few signs up that the majority of law abiding CCW'ers won't carry, thus lowering the amount of potential armed people in the establishment. You get the desired effect without having to follow the low to the letter such that you can get people arrested.
I don't agree with that idea, but I know a lot of non-gun owners that don't understand the deterrence effect.
Also, from my recollection (don't have time to look at the law) you are allowed to carry into a (your) hotel room, so posting the hotel entrances would be pointless as I think that provision preempts the sign clause.
I bet they figure that if you have a few signs up that the majority of law abiding CCW'ers won't carry, thus lowering the amount of potential armed people in the establishment. You get the desired effect without having to follow the low to the letter such that you can get people arrested.
I don't agree with that idea, but I know a lot of non-gun owners that don't understand the deterrence effect.
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
I think you're right about carrying from your car into your hotel room. I wasn't suggesting that the hotel could, would, should post all of it's doors, just pointing out that the restaurant is in the same building as the hotel and that they had not posted all entrances as required.
The sign kinda looks like the one distributed by the Moms Demand Attention group so it's possible that they just stuck the sign up without bothering to read what the requirements are. The city sent an e-mail out about it to business owners, but didn't?bother to tell them what the requirements where either.
The sign kinda looks like the one distributed by the Moms Demand Attention group so it's possible that they just stuck the sign up without bothering to read what the requirements are. The city sent an e-mail out about it to business owners, but didn't?bother to tell them what the requirements where either.
Dayman
Well-Known Fanatic
I work in downtown Greenville and frequent a lot of restaurants downtown. If they post either compliant or not I will no longer go there. Just shows which side of the fence they are on. There are at least 20 resturants with in a mile or less of Roost they will get my business from now on. So far not noticed anything on the west end but will keep an eye out.
Not like the city wasted anytime making sure signs were available to print offline :roll:
But yeah, I'd say it's not at every entrance so it's technically moot. Whether I trust the city of Greenville to make the distinction is a little more gray though, I'm debating that one.
But yeah, I'd say it's not at every entrance so it's technically moot. Whether I trust the city of Greenville to make the distinction is a little more gray though, I'm debating that one.
TS12000
Active Fanatic
I'm a college student that works in a local non-corp restaurant. We got our signs today. The place is Steel City Pizza in MT. Pleasant. Don't know about the North Charleston location but would figure they put them up too.
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
Well, if your employer put up signs, thanks for letting the rest of us in the area know. I'm sure there are many of us locals who won't be coming to your restaurant. You should tell your boss about that. He or she might think differently if they realize it's costing them business. I'm just across the other side of the Ravenal Bridge and I go to Mt. Plastic often. I'll be sure and let all my gun owning friends know also.
TS12000
Active Fanatic
I will. Gonna dig up some numbers about CC I have somewhere as well to bolster my argument. Without going into too much detail I will say it wouldn't surprise me if the signs were party gifts from one of those people with too much time organizations, and I think they may be easily (relatively) removed with a little logic.
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
TS12000 said:
Well, as I understand it, they do need to be a specific size, layout, type size, etc to be in strict compliance with the law, but if someone puts up anything that says they don't want guns, that's fine with me. I can very easily go elsewhere, and I will very willingly do so. I don't need to spend my money with them, there are plenty of other places around that will take it, and if not, I'll just use it to buy more ammo to store anyhow, in anticipation of the next round of gun grab that the antis will likely try to do again within a few years. LOL.
Yeeep.RK3369 said:
Greenville wasted no time in putting a compliant sign up for folks to print off.
Except that I'd be willing to bet at least 99% of the signs printed off weren't compliant as they weren't the right size. Regulation size is different than standard office printer paper :twisted:
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
Yes, I believe that is correct. I think the compliant sign has to be 12" tall and regular letter size is 11". Anyhow, I'm not going to argue it with anyone, I'll just go someplace else. Hit them in the pocketbook and maybe it won't make any difference but I don't really care as long as they don't try to tell me I can't carry or own at all. Then I'll have a problem with that one.
Dayman
Well-Known Fanatic
Smoke on the water in the west end of Greenville posted. Shame was a pretty good resturant. So I just walked 100ft to the Velo Fellow. Probably wont matter to them but I won't be going back.
Went back by to check there other entrances, not posted. Only front is posted at knee level on a non compliant sign. :roll:
Went back by to check there other entrances, not posted. Only front is posted at knee level on a non compliant sign. :roll:
Kickin' Chicken in West Ashley was posted today. Small, noncompliant stickers placed INSIDE the glass doors behind window tint. I walked right by it (wasn't looking hard) on the way in and didn't see it. Wasn't until I was walking to my truck to retrieve my wallet that I saw the sign from the inside.
Spoke with manager, it was a company-wide decision to "keep their employees safe." I politely asked him if he believed that was effective and he said yes, they don't want armed people in their establishment. We had a very civil and casual discussion as to the interpretation of the law on his end, and his idea of which part of society actually cares about those signs. He wasn't hearing it.
I did NOT inform him that the signs were non-compliant.
Spoke with manager, it was a company-wide decision to "keep their employees safe." I politely asked him if he believed that was effective and he said yes, they don't want armed people in their establishment. We had a very civil and casual discussion as to the interpretation of the law on his end, and his idea of which part of society actually cares about those signs. He wasn't hearing it.
I did NOT inform him that the signs were non-compliant.
RK3369
Well-Known Fanatic
Well, I guess it's a good thing you didn't tell him the signs were non compliant because that gives us a legal "out" if you did carry into the place and they tried to take legal action against you. My understanding is that if the signs are not compliant, then they are not enforceable and thus, you have no liability for carrying into the establishment. Now if they ask you to leave because they somehow determine you are carrying and you don't leave, that's another story. It's interesting to hear about these responses and the reasoning (or lack thereof) behind the owner's actions. "They want their employees to be safe"................. if it were my place and I had permit holders who I knew were not illegal carriers and were committed to safety and responsible carry and ownership inside my bar, I guess I'd feel a lot more comfortable with those folks there than not. It's also kind of like the "no gun" zones posted in school areas. Kind of tells anyone with a nefarious intent that hey, nobody in there has a gun so if you want to go in and rob the place or shoot it up, chances are good you won't get shot in the process. Knowing that the law does not allow carriers to consume alcohol, it seems ridiculous to me that a bar owner wouldn't want legal carriers in their establishment, simply for the added security of having everyone, including the bad guys, know that it's not a good place to try something criminal. Seems like it would be much safer to allow carriers than to prohibit them, but I guess we can't always figure out how the mindset of the anti forces uses logic at all.
I occasionally stop by Kickin Chicken to get wings or something to go. Since the signs are non compliant I guess I won't worry about carrying there anyhow. I'll carry in and out and if they tell me to leave, I'll comply and won't come back again. There's lots of other places around the area to spend my money.
I think a lot of the knee jerk reaction is due to the fact that most people don't understand that you can't legally carry and consume alcohol anyhow, so it's not like the gunfight at the OK Corral is all of a sudden going to break out inside a bar somewhere. The law only extends the right of self defense to someone who wants to go to dinner in an establishment that serves alcohol, not to allow someone to carry and drink alcohol, and I think that is a lot of the problem with the public's initial reaction to the law. I guess perhaps as permit holders, we need to try to do a better job at communicating the intent and requirements of the law to those who seem to be opposed.
I occasionally stop by Kickin Chicken to get wings or something to go. Since the signs are non compliant I guess I won't worry about carrying there anyhow. I'll carry in and out and if they tell me to leave, I'll comply and won't come back again. There's lots of other places around the area to spend my money.
I think a lot of the knee jerk reaction is due to the fact that most people don't understand that you can't legally carry and consume alcohol anyhow, so it's not like the gunfight at the OK Corral is all of a sudden going to break out inside a bar somewhere. The law only extends the right of self defense to someone who wants to go to dinner in an establishment that serves alcohol, not to allow someone to carry and drink alcohol, and I think that is a lot of the problem with the public's initial reaction to the law. I guess perhaps as permit holders, we need to try to do a better job at communicating the intent and requirements of the law to those who seem to be opposed.
John Canuck
Well-Known Fanatic
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2011
- Messages
- 832
I really don't think it's the messaging. I've talked with a few restaurant owners and they know what the law says, they just don't want guns in their restaurants. What they seem confused about, is when I tell them I'll spend my money elsewhere. They have told me they don't want me inside their business, and if I respect their wishes, which I do, I can't spend money there. Simple.
It would be so much simpler if one didn't have to worry about silly sign laws, but that's another battle.
It would be so much simpler if one didn't have to worry about silly sign laws, but that's another battle.
