Cold Breakdown of the SC CWP Bill

If you read my blog regularly, you know that I'm both a lawyer and a gun owner with a CWP here in South Carolina. The new CWP bill that is about to become law hasn't really received an in-depth analysis other than focus on "you can carry in restaurants" line.

I'm not just blaming newspaper journalists here. Even the NRA's legal blog team has a cursory few sentences about this law that don't really tell you much. When you dig into this bill, there are actually some serious things that people need to know.

So, I (your humble blogger) have done the hard work of looking at the actual legislative language of the bill to let you know exactly what this bill does and doesn't do. So, here goes. (The alphabetical list is my own. It doesn't refer to any specific subsections. It was just a way to organize the points.)

A.     Carry Allowed into Restaurants and Bars: This is what most people know, as it's the big headline getter. As it stands right now, a person with a valid CWP (like me) cannot carry concealed into a bar or restaurant that sells alcohol for on-premises consumption. That means I can't carry into Apple-bee's or Rosso tonight because they serve alcohol. So, this law now amends that provision to say that a person who has a valid CWP license may carry concealed into a a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption. However, that person may not consume alcohol at all. If you drink while carrying, you lose your CWP, and can go to jail for up to two years.

B.     Restaurants and Bars May Prohibit Carry: Now, there are a good number of people who don't like the new tweak to the law as described above. Accordingly, there's a second tweak. Any restaurant and bar may simply post a sign that prohibits carrying concealed, and no one will be allowed to carry concealed. If you ignore the sign and carry concealed anyway, same penalty as above. I like to think of this as the "If you like your gun free zone, you can keep your gun free zone" provision.

Additionally, even if the bar or restaurant doesn't post the sign, they can still request that any particular person carrying concealed leave on a case-by-case basis. If that person refuses to leave, same penalty as above. So if you're a bar or restaurant, you can either chose to have an entirely gun free zone, or a selectively gun free zone.

C.     Tweaks to CWP Applications/Requirements: Before, you had to have a valid SC driver's license. Now, any photo ID issued by a state will work, as long as you qualify as a resident. The residency definition is also modified to allow certain classes of applicants (former and/or current military, police, law enforcement) to be exempt from most the training certifications.

D.     Elimination of the 8 Hour Training Requirement: Before, pretty much everyone had to go through a class that was a minimum of 8 hours as a requirement for your CWP. The 8 hour class length requirement has been eliminated. You still have to do the same things (including actually firing a handgun in the presence of the instructor) but there's no time minimum for each class.

E.     Online Applications: You can now submit your application to SLED online.

F.     Express Written Consent In Contradiction of Posted Sign: Kind of an interesting amendment. You can now, post a sign in front of your business and completely prohibit concealed carry. This bill now has a provision that would allow the owner to issue someone a written exemption from the sign generally prohibiting carrying.

G.     Renewals/Vehicle Storage: Currently, your CWP is valid for four years, then you have to renew. The bill changes that to five years. The renewal fee is still $50.00. Also, it allows CWP holders to store a pistol under their seat in their vehicle or in any storage compartment. (Although I wouldn't recommend that.)

That's basically it. So on to the opinion part of this.

Is this a good bill or not? The substantive part about carrying in places that serve alcohol is not as big of a deal as either side would probably want you to believe. If you run a bar or restaurant and you want to keep CWP folks out, then all you have to do is put up a sign. The good thing about this law is that it doesn't force anyone to do anything. It offers a set of rules for everyone to follow according to whatever choices they want to make, and I like that.

Just because I like to carry CWP doesn't mean everyone does. I'm sure there are people out there who own restaurants that don't want guns in their establishments. That's fine. This law respects their wishes.

As for the other provisions, I'm not really wild about eliminating the 8 hour minimum class time. I took the class, and it was really informative, even though I already had a solid background in guns and shooting. There were some people in my class who has zero knowledge going in, and they needed every minute of that eight hours to get comfortable. At the end, they felt very much empowered by their knowledge of how a gun actually works, the different parts of a gun, and all sorts of other basics. I just don't feel like 8 hours is too much to ask for if you're going to want to carry CWP, if you're going to take it seriously.

Also, if you read the NRA's summary of the law, they say this bill "improves training standards". I kind of think that's misleading at best.

I'm fine with the online application, since you have to send all the same information anyway. It's just an acknowledgement that e-mail is a simple way to communicate.

The express written consent is an interesting tweak. It means that someone can selectively allow CWP into their place by giving written consent to whomever they choose. I guess if a bar or restaurant wanted to ban CWP, but then wanted to allow a regular guy they know really well to carry, they can exempt him. Kind of interesting, and since it's all left up to the individual owners, I'm fine with that. I doubt this will happen much in practice, though.

So is it a good law? I think it's a good law in that it has taken an existing law and given more flexibility for each individual citizen and business to decide how they want to conduct themselves. Will it actually change that much of what goes on in practical terms? Probably not. All the folks who say this bill will turn SC into the "wild west" with shootouts in saloons are blowing smoke. Guns are a hot-button issue, so each political "team" will try to amp their base up by either saying this law is horrible or that it's panacea. To me, it's very vanilla stuff that could have easily been included in the first CWP Bill.

If you're an anti-gun person, I hope this analysis has calmed you. If you're pro-gun, I hope this has shown you that you don't have the freedom to carry anywhere anytime, and that there are stiff penalties for breaking the law in this regard.

So there you have it, campers. I feel that I've done my public service for the week and made up for not posting yesterday. If you have any questions or comments about the CWP bill, I'd be interested to hear them. Also, if you think I got any interpretation of the law wrong, let me know.