For those of you who have been either paying attention to the news here in South Carolina or have been reading my blog, you know that South Carolina recently passed a law allowing Concealed Weapon Permit holders in SC to carry concealed in establishments that serve alcohol for consumption. I've made a couple of posts about why this is a good thing and why it won't be The End Of The World As We Know It as the liberals and gun-grabbers want you to think it would be, so I won't go into that again. Instead I want to talk about a topic that has been going on non-stop for the past week in social media that is directly related to the issue, and one that, in my humble opinion, is pretty much a non-issue.
Let's talk about signs. Specifically, the legal sign as stated by South Carolina law that a business owner must display if he/she wishes to proclaim their business a "no concealed carry" zone. (Also known as the "I don't want your business or money" sign.)
According to South Carolina law, a business owner who wants to tell you to take your money elsewhere by posting his/her business as a "no concealed carry" business must display a sign of a certain dimension and design, and the sign must be posted in a certain specific location in a certain specific manner. (And since I don't believe in helping those who would deny me my rights, I'm not going to mention the specifics here. You wanna know, Google it, but I ain't tellin' ya.) If a business owner complies with the law and posts the prescribed (or 'proper') sign in the prescribed or proper manner, then all CWP holders are required to comply with the business owner's wishes, and will henceforth go shop or eat somewhere else.
Note I said "prescribed" or "proper" sign. That, friends and neighbors, is the topic of the chat on social media; specifically, if a business posts a sign that isn't proper and/or fails to post it in the proper manner, are CWP holders legally required to honor it?
To be honest, I see both sides of the argument and fully understand both. On the one hand you have a very specific state law in place which describes in very specific terms the limitations put upon us as CWP holders, and we face stiff penalties for not following the law. So it's only fair to expect that those who oppose our exercising of our rights by posting their businesses as "no concealed carry" areas to comply with the law as stringently as we do. Therefore, according to South Carolina law, if a sign is not "proper" and posted in the "proper" manner, the sign has no binding legal authority and those of us with CWPs are free to shop and/or eat there to our heart's content.
On the other hand, you have a business owner who has made his/her desires and/or wishes very clear by posting a sign of some type, and I'm quite sure that if said owner discovers a CWP holder in the business with a concealed weapon, there's gonna be trouble. By posting a sign - not "the" sign, but "a" sign - the business owner has made his/her wishes and desires clear for all to see, whether we think they're legal or reasonable or not, and is expressing them as the law allows.
This, friends and neighbors, is a classic example of the letter of the law versus the intent of the law.
Let me give you an example that we can all identify with - speeding. The letter of the law says that you cannot drive faster than the posted speed limit of, say, 70 MPH, and any cop in the nation can legally pull you over and give you a ticket for doing 71 in a 70 MPH zone. (We're not going to discuss whether or not the judge would throw it out, so don't go there. That's another topic for another day.) But the intent of the law is for you to not go faster than the posted speed limit, and the cops give you a certain amount of speed over that before they'll pull you over and write you up because the faster you're going, the easier it is for them to prove in court that your intent was to speed. After all, you can defend two or three miles per hour over the limit, but you can't defend fifteen or twenty.
It's the same with the signs. The letter of the law is very clear and specific, but the bad part is that the intent of the CWP holder who ignores an improper sign is also very clear and easy to prove in court.
If I were a police officer and was dispatched to a business where you, as a CWP holder, have ignored a sign which the laws says isn't "proper," I'd arrest your ass. Period. And I say this as a veteran of 19 years of law enforcement. I'd arrest you for violating the law and would let the judge figure it out. After all, my job as a cop is to enforce the law, and the judge's job is to interpret it and administer punishment. So if I'm the cop, you're going to jail.
If I were the judge sitting on the bench and hearing this case, I'd toss it out in a second because the business failed to comply with the letter of the law by posting an improper sign. In order to be enforceable under South Carolina law, the sign must be of a certain design, of certain dimensions, and be posted in a certain location and manner; if you as a business holder failed to follow the law by posting the proper sign in the proper manner, then you've failed to follow the law and the CWP holder is under no legal obligation to obey said sign. Case dismissed.
Now, having said all that, let me say this: I would not want to be the CWP holder to test this theory out in court. Chances are 50-50 at best that you'll get a conservative Republican or Tea Party judge who will cite the letter of the law and toss the case out of court. But the chances are also 50-50 that you'll get a liberal Democrat gun-grabber for a judge who will cite the intent of the law and slap you with a hefty fine and suspend your CWP for five years. Then the whole thing goes to the Appellate court since the CWP holder will most likely appeal the decision, and from there who knows? We could be hearing about this going to the Supreme Court one day. But I, for one, would not want to be the CWP holder who brings this all about.
The simple solution is this: if there's a sign on the business, then just stay out. Take your money elsewhere. The business owner has made it clear to you that they don't want your money, so why give it to them? To stand on the letter of the law and prove a point? Really? You're going to PAY someone your hard-earned money just to prove a point? You're going to willingly give your money to a liberal gun-grabber who wants to take away your right to self-defense just to prove a minor point like this? REALLY?
Not me. There's more than one place in town to shop or eat, and I'll go there in a minute rather than pay someone to let me make a point and run the risk of losing my permit for five years.
But that's just me. Y'all do as you want.
But if you get your ass in a crack and lose your permit for five years, don't come cryin' to me. All I'm gonna do is look you in the eye and say, "I told ya so!"
IHC
No comments:
Post a Comment