SC Senate panel responds to national gun control debate in its own special way — allowing guns in bars

Here’s the report:

COLUMBIA — A S.C. bill that would allow concealed weapons permit holders to carry firearms into restaurants and bars advanced Wednesday.

Concealed permit holders would be allowed to carry firearms into places serving alcohol as long as the business owner allows it, if the bill becomes law. The bill would ban consuming alcohol while carrying…

    Some speakers at the hearing … said they would prefer the bill allow some alcohol consumption.

Ralph Baker, who spoke at the hearing, said he “would like to see the bill change so that a person could go in and have a glass of wine with their lasagna….The CWP people are responsible. They’ve proven themselves in that area.”…

I like that bit about how “CWP people (have) proven themselves,” responsible while drinking and packing. How did they prove that? You can’t prove someone won’t go postal in a bar. You can only prove that someone will — when they do.

But this makes me feel much better about myself. I’ve proven myself responsible, too. I have never shot up a bar after drinking. Ever. Yet.

Anyway, the panel didn’t go along with the suggestion that drinking be allowed, which I suppose is something.

47 thoughts on “SC Senate panel responds to national gun control debate in its own special way — allowing guns in bars

    1. Steven Davis II

      Why? I’m willing to bet that you’ve been in several restaurants and bars where someone was carrying. I know of a few people that just ignore those signs on the front door. I seriously doubt if this passes and bar owners allow CCW carry in their establishment that you’re going to see or hear of an OK Corral scenario suddenly break out.

  1. Dave Crockett

    I’m beginning to think we need an UNconcealed weapon permit law instead of the CWP. Make anyone who wants to carry heat must ADVERTISE the fact by openly carrying a weapon on their hip. Hell, make bandoliers a requirement instead of allowing high capacity clips.

    This is only half in jest. Part of the argument for CWPs is that having a weapon on one’s person makes them safer…even if it is only as a result of the doubt on the part of bad guys about whether their mark is or is not armed. Unconcealed weapons would seem to be more of a deterrent to those bent on nefarious deeds and bandoliers seem to be a happy compromise for those who need more than five or six shots to bring down their target.

    At least for those of us who will never carry a gun in public, maybe our assailants won’t feel obliged to shoot first and then take our valuables. That’s what in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound conundrum facing a would-be robber that concerns me about the CWP explosion now.

    1. Steven Davis II

      It’s called “open carry” and becoming more popular each year. Arizona I believe passed it last year. The nice thing about CWP is that bad guys don’t know who’s carrying and who isn’t.

      1. Steve Gordy

        Now let me get this straight: you’d rather go with concealed carry and expect to spring a surprise on any bad guys who walk into the bar, instead of having open carry, where it should be immediately obvious to anyone looking to start trouble.

    2. Steven Davis II

      Anyone else find it ironic that someone with a name like “Dave Crockett” doesn’t like guns?

      1. Dave Crockett

        I claim blood kinship to Davy Crockett but working as a ‘copshop’ reporter right out of college in SC exposed me to all the pain and suffering, usually among family members, that handguns can and do cause.

        I never covered a case where someone successfully protected themselves, their home or their family with a gun. I DID see convenience store owners sprayed across the back on their stores when they tried to draw down on a gun-toting robber…mentally unstable guys shoot up their homes before finally shooting themselves…folks shot by relatives in the heat of anger….and a number of bereaved families mourning the death of a young child accidentally shot with an ’empty’ or ‘locked up’ handgun in the hands of the child or others.

        I have never, in nearly 60 years of life, found myself in a situation that would have been resolved, minimized or avoided if I’d had a gun for protection. I don’t hunt either and I have NO issue with those who do, but that is an entirely different issue than we’re talking about here.

        My experience and statistics are enough for me to go without a gun in my home.

        1. Steven Davis II

          So what you’re saying is that having a gun in the house has never successfully protected anyone.

  2. Mark Stewart

    I wold trade the restaurant / bar thing for a total ban on drinkng while carrying – with a serious penalty attached.

    1. Bryan Caskey

      So you’re in favor of this bill, then. By the way, it’s already illegal to use a firearm while under the influence of alcohol (See, S.C. Code 23-31-400 et. seq).

  3. Karen McLeod

    Wunnerful. A bunch of drunks in bars with guns. What are we trying to do, clean out the gene pool?

      1. Steven Davis II

        Yep, according to you anti-gun folks it’s going to turn into a regular Wild West if this passes. Why I bet you won’t even be able to walk down the street without seeing someone getting shot.

  4. Bryan Caskey

    Are we talking about an establishment that is only a bar, or a restaurant that has a bar located within it? I only ask, because “The State” has a pay-wall up, and I can’t read the whole article.

    Also, you can choose to be responsible, or you can choose to be irresponsible – and that’s your choice. Prohibiting because you might be stupid is stupid. Deciding to carry is an important decision; it’s not to be taken lightly. Regardless of where you carry, you’re an idiot to consume ANYTHING while carrying.

    With great power comes great responsibility. I would be in favor of a law saying that carrying into bars is fine, but you cannot drink if carrying.

      1. Steven Davis II

        Texting and driving is beyond their control. I bet we’ll see more texting driver fatalities when guns are allowed in restaurants and bars than we will see gun related fatalities from their customers.

    1. Liane

      In all actuallity, if any medication OTC or prescription has a warning not to operate machinery you legally can not carry.

    1. Steven Davis II

      Or do what everyone else does, hit the X in the Navigation Toolbar to stop loading the page a few seconds after opening it.

  5. die deutsche Flußgabelung

    I love how the Right’s gun fetish is beginning to intrude on individuals’ right to private property. In the original story from “The State” one of the hoplophiles were arguing that people, who violate a business’s policy on concealed weapons, should not be punished. So the NRA and its supporters are now arguing to take away the rights of business owners to decide who can bring a gun on to their property.

    Just a few months ago in Tennessee the NRA pushed a bill through the state legislature that stripped business owners of their right to regulate who can and can not bring weapons on company property and when one of the Republican legislators had the gall to vote against the bill on the grounds that it violated individual’s property rights, the NRA crucified her. Reason magazine covered the story.

    1. Liane

      I stand firm in the right to possess firearms. However, businesses should have the right to ban Concealed Weapons and they have that right. The problem is most businesses do not post correct signage. There is one local shopping mall that only has the correct signage on one door in the entire mall. How can CWP holders abide by the law if they do not enter through that specific door?

      1. Bryan Caskey

        Liane, ALL entrances MUST be posted for a building to be considered posted. If you don’t post EVERY entrance, the building is not covered. See, S.C. Code 23-31-235

        1. Mark Stewart

          So if ya forget to post the old coal shoot in the back alley, people are free to walk in through your front door?

          You can understand why reasonable people might be fed up with this absolutist sense of gun entitlement? Carrying on your property, fine; on mine, no; on someone else’s, maybe – if you ask them first.

          Sensible solutions in an irrational world…

  6. John

    Seriously? So our legislature is talking about nullification and carrying guns into saloons, and last year we were talking about switching to gold based currency… I admire the energy of these guys. Most legislatures are too busy governing to fit in all these trips in the way-back machine.

  7. susanincola

    @Bryan – it’s easy to get around the paywall if you’re so inclined….not morally OK, maybe, but it is easy.

    This is just getting crazy. While I was in the dentist’s waiting room last week, the receptionists were talking about how all their friends were taking CWP classes and whether they wanted to sign up or not, worried about the (nonexistent) crime in their lives. Two middle-aged women who work in a dentist office and live in Lexington. Crazy.

    And wouldn’t allowing people to carry guns in my restaurant create a liability situation for me? I’d be surprised if insurance companies didn’t have an opinion on this which would include upping my rates.

    I myself would avoid a restaurant that did not post a no-guns sign. I do not want to participate in this madness. (And I like guns just fine — they’re fun to shoot out on the range. Just not with dinner).

    1. Dave Crockett

      Both of my grown sons have their CWPs. Both insisted on packing heat at Christmas gatherings and childrens’ birthday parties at home over the past few months.

      They didn’t get the notion from me… ***sigh***

    2. Steven Davis II

      “I myself would avoid a restaurant that did not post a no-guns sign. ”

      Several others in the gun forums say just the opposite so I see it averaging out.

    3. JesseS

      So if they aren’t with you they are against you? I can’t say it is the kind of issue that would or wouldn’t keep me away from a business.

  8. bud

    Cause banninating drinking and driving was so successful.

    Not sure exactly what you mean by that Silence but it does bring up a nice comparison. State law prohibits anyone from operating a motor vehicle if they have a 0.08 BAC level. Is this law 100% effective in preventing drunk driving? Of course not. But to suggest (if that’s what you’re doing here) that have laws against drunk driving are a failure is nonsense. Drunk driving traffic crashes are almost certainly lower because of anti-drunk-driving laws. I suggest gun incidents would also be lower if reasonable gun laws were to be enacted.

  9. Bryan Caskey

    It actually seems very “common sense” to me. If you want to legally carry, you can’t drink. You can go into Garibaldi’s and have your Crispy Flounder (delicious by the way) and water, all while you carry concealed. Right now, you can’t go in at all while legally carrying.

    Also, if Garibaldi’s didn’t want folks to carry concealed, they could put a little sign up.

    Sounds entirely common-sense to me.

    1. Mark Stewart

      Common sense is not carrying a weapon onto someone else’s property. Doing othrwise is just exercising one’s self-absorbtion.

    1. Steven Davis II

      Then I suggest never leaving your house. There are more people than ever with CWP’s and likely carrying to your displeasure.

    1. Steven Davis II

      Now there’s a surprise… the three of you could save bandwidth by just having one person reply.

Comments are closed.