In Greenville, S.C., No Issues As Gun Owners Dine Out With Guns
BY Herschel Smith
10 years, 3 months ago
Marina Lambrou, owner of the Boston Pizzeria on Woodruff Road, said she knew some of her customers had permits to carry concealed weapons before the law changed in February to allow permit holders to take their guns into establishments that serve alcohol.
Lambrou chose not to prohibit guns, and she said the issue hasn’t been a problem.
“I don’t prohibit and I don’t encourage it,” she told The Greenville News. “I just feel this is a free nation, and if someone feels like they need the extra protection, then God willing, let them do it.”
State law enforcement and restaurant officials say they know of no problems since the law went into effect seven months ago. The law allows permit holders to take guns into places that serve alcohol but allows businesses to prohibit guns and doesn’t allow permit holders to consume alcohol.
Erin Dando, leader of the South Carolina Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun reform group, said more businesses would prohibit guns but the new law requires the signs banning guns be 8 by 12 inches with 1-inch lettering.
“Frankly, the size requirement is alarming for business owners and it’s prevented some from putting them up,” she said. She said one business that has posted a sign has heard negative feedback from members of a gun rights organization.
Gun owners said on The Greenville News‘ Facebook page they are voting with their feet if restaurants choose to ban weapons.
“Only a couple of the restaurants where I have eaten decided to post signs after the new law went into effect,” posted Stephen Combs. “Their food wasn’t exceptional enough for me to feel the need to disarm and patronize them.”
“If there have been any incidents, I’m not aware of them,” said Jerrod Bruder, executive director of the South Carolina Sheriffs Association.
He said the organization’s concerns about the changes in the law had to do with training and education. The new law still requires training of permit holders but has dropped the number of mandatory hours of training.
Thom Berry, a spokesman for the State Law Enforcement Division, said he wasn’t aware of any incidents involving concealed weapons permit holders and businesses that serve alcohol under the new law.
Sgt. Jennings Autrey, a spokesman for the Greenville County Sheriff’s office, also said he wasn’t aware of any such incidents.
Board members of the South Carolina Restaurant and Hotel Association said they think the new law hasn’t produced any problems.
My goodness. Is that what we have to do to make an informative news report? Ask everyone and their cousin too about it? How about my dog? Wonder what Heidi thinks about it? Does she know of any issues resulting from the law?
No, there aren’t any issues. There won’t be with concealed carriers, and the next step is to get open carry passed in South Carolina, over the objections and opposition of communist State Senator Larry Martin. Martin opposed recent attempts at legalization of open carry in S.C. because those horrible Negros down around Charleston might open carry and thus affect the tourism industry in South Carolina. Yes. Seriously. Really. I wouldn’t be able to make this up if I tried. That’s why he opposed open carry.
But open carry worked as well in Mississippi as I said it would. My readers in South Carolina might want to tell Larry what you think about him – one way or another.
|
|
On September 2, 2014 at 9:07 am, Geoffry K said:
Don’t forget about the 4 RINOs that voted against Open Carry also, including the one representing Horry County.
On September 2, 2014 at 9:16 am, Herschel Smith said:
I have all of the votes on the judiciary on open carry listed in one of my links (that can be found by following the links back to starting point).
On September 2, 2014 at 9:21 am, Nosmo King said:
So, how many of the open carry opposition in SC are up for re-election in November? I’ve got some time and gas money I can contribute to the cause.
And, as far as not patronizing restaurants that post, I suspect other businesses are subject to that as well, and many, if not most, of them are unaware how many of us go elsewhere. I changed banks when I saw a small, not-statute-legal “no firearms or weapons” sign near the door of my old bank, and I stopped patronizing a local UPS store when they posted a notice about “this store will not ship or receive firearms or ammunition,” and obtained a FedEx account instead (not least because the FedEx terminal at GSP is easier to reach than any UPS installation and I wouldn’t trust anything of great value to an indepently-operated shipping store – only hand it directly to the carrier’s employee). If I see a store posted, regardless of type, I find somewhere else to spend my money, and let that establishment know why I’m there.
On September 2, 2014 at 9:54 am, Herschel Smith said:
Hmmm … I thought UPS corporate policy controlled things with local hubs. I’ve shipped firearms through UPS before (Charlotte), and it’s annoying because you have to do overnight air (which is expensive), making it almost not beneficial to use UPS yourself and making use of an FFL more attractive (I think it’s a racket, honestly).
But there are trials and tribulations with use of FedEx too.
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2013/11/11/good-customer-experience-with-springfield-armory/
On September 2, 2014 at 1:33 pm, Nosmo King said:
I don’t think FedEx is noticeably better than UPS, they both have their problems. FedEx does stupid stuff – like leaving a nice, bright white note at the center of the front door – were everyone driving by can see it – that says “the package was left at the front door.”
In my case, I always specify firearms coming back from repair be shipped back to me as “hold at depot” using my FedEx account number so I can pick them up at GSP and avoid the tag game. I agree, you should be able to reach someone local in FedEx rather than the 800 number drones (which you can do if you can read numbers upside down when standing at the depot counter…..)
On September 4, 2014 at 2:10 pm, Archer said:
“Erin Dando, leader of the South Carolina Chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a gun reform [sic] group, said more businesses would prohibit guns but the new law requires the signs banning guns be 8 by 12 inches with 1-inch lettering.
‘Frankly, the size requirement is alarming for business owners and it’s prevented some from putting them up,’ she said.”
Oh, Heaven forbid a business owner creating a “Gun-Free Zone” be required to clearly display their intention!
We wouldn’t want potential patrons to be in violation of the law for not noticing a sign, would we? [/sarcasm]
There’s a reason “posted signage” regulations are what they are. Tying a tag to a tree branch and calling it a “speed limit” sign doesn’t make it one; it’d be laughed out of court because no reasonable person could be expected to be able to read it while driving. For a sign to be legally enforceable, it must be readily visible AND clearly understandable. For example, the familiar red-octagon STOP sign is unmistakable in our culture, even to children who can’t read.
But people like Erin Dando just want gun owners out of society – in jail or dead, doesn’t matter. They’re well aware that “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and are just fine with allowing a “No Guns Allowed” sign – and only this sign – to be a footnote written in Braille on the inside-bottom of a trash can, as long as it’s legally enforceable and ends with one or more of us incarcerated.