Debate: Should South Carolina pass a bill

[Pcole]

Nope. But if a company has posted signs, company policies and communication stating no firearms allowed on their property then the liability of the company drops tremendously​ and it falls more on the nut case that decided to shoot up their co-workers.

Oh, I agree. If anyone works for a company that says no firearms then as stated before they have a choice to make every morning. It is, however, a crying shame that words like"liability" have replaced words like"common sense" in our society.

And, for what it's worth, if a man has the mindset that he'll shoot you for the change in your ashtray then him getting the money probably isn't going to save you from getting shot.

[Jozie & Me]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated......"

I like how folks can be gung ho about one right and lackadaisical about others.

[uga_dawg]

So I would be better off letting them shoot me over the $2.50 then trying to defend myself? Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you are obligated to use it.

Or just because you choose not to carry a gun doesn't mean that I have to follow suit.

I see alot of complaints about SC gun laws and how far we are behind the nation. But these threads never cease to amaze me at all the "you don't need a gun" comments on a hunting forum. I hope no one ever finds themselves in a situation that they need a gun. But I hope if they do they have a gun. But more than likely they will find themselves not having one because someone else decided that they didn't need one.

[Highstrung]

For a bunch of guys that love to quote Tombstone, I wonder if they rooted against the Earps.

[uga_dawg]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated......"

I like how folks can be gung ho about one right and lackadaisical about others.

:golfclap

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[justhuntin]

For a bunch of guys that love to quote Tombstone, I wonder if they rooted against the Earps.

That's funny no matter which side of the fence you stand on. Lol. BJ

[Timsmith]

Y'all must of misunderstood me. I will pick and choose my battles. Any material items I have can be replaced tomorrow. I have guns , will I shoot someone over $2.50? No. If they F with my family, Yes. If I feel in danger, Yes. But to pull a gun to see who ain't afraid to shoot first , if you pull a gun on anyone you have 50/50 chance of dying.

[Coastal Woodie]

Y'all must of misunderstood me. I will pick and choose my battles. Any material items I have can be replaced tomorrow. I have guns , will I shoot someone over $2.50? No. If they F with my family, Yes. If I feel in danger, Yes. But to pull a gun to see who ain't afraid to shoot first , if you pull a gun on anyone you have 50/50 chance of dying.

I understood you perfectly the first time and I will pick and choose my battles as well, but carrying a gun gives me options. Just incase that guy decides he wants more than that $2.50.

[Bigtimber2]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, [a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated......"

I like how folks can be gung ho about one right and lackadaisical about others.

The 4th amendment protects us from illegal searches by police not employers we choose to work for.

[Timsmith]

The 4th amendment protects us from illegal searches by police not employers we choose to work for.

For the money my company pays me, they can bring the swat team daily and search my car while I wear a clown suit. I abide by their rules cause I like money.

[uga_dawg]

Queue the "if you don't do anything wrong you have nothing to hide" comments in 3...2...1

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[Bigtimber2]

Straw man? Nice try.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[JayhawkLee]

For the money my company pays me, they can bring the swat team daily and search my car while I wear a clown suit. I abide by their rules cause I like money.

Word.

[fuzzy]

I like how folks can be gung ho about one right and lackadaisical about others.

There is nothing lackadaisical about honoring another persons rights. They own the land, therefore they make the rules.

I disagree with their opinion and stance of not allowing someone to have a firearm in their personal vehicle, but it is their property.

If you had a neighbor that was anti gun, and said that no guns were allowed in their yard, should the government make them allow you to walk around in their yard with one?

As stated before, I voted no. I didn't vote no because I was anti gun, I voted no because I am in favor of personal property rights.

[Tha Dick]

Is not "your" car "your" property? If it's your right to have a gun on your property, why is it not allowed if it doesn't leave your property?

[fuzzy]

Is not "your" car "your" property? If it's your right to have a gun on your property, why is it not allowed if it doesn't leave your property?

What happens when you pull "your" car on government property?

As I've said previously, I disagree with anyone that opposes allowing an individual to keep a firearm in their vehicle. But, it is their property. They pay the bills, they make the rules. My rights do not supercede your rights, any more than yours supercede mine. If you come in my yard, you will abide by my rules, or you can hit the road. Same goes if I enter your yard. I play by your rules, or I leave.

I do not believe that it is the government's place to pass laws allowing things on private property that the owner does not like, or forbidding things that they may like. It is the right of the property owner to decide what they will and will not allow.

[uga_dawg]

Is not "your" car "your" property? If it's your right to have a gun on your property, why is it not allowed if it doesn't leave your property?

Depends on what state you're in. SC is behind alot of states when it comes to the 2nd amendment.

[scatter shot]

SC State Law-

(M) A permit issued pursuant to this section does not authorize a permit holder to carry a concealable weapon into a:

(1) police, sheriff, or highway patrol station or any other law enforcement office or facility;

(2) detention facility, prison, or jail or any other correctional facility or office;

(3) courthouse or courtroom;

(4) polling place on election days;

(5) office of or the business meeting of the governing body of a county, public school district, municipality, or special purpose district;

(6) school or college athletic event not related to firearms;

(7) daycare facility or pre school facility;

(8) place where the carrying of firearms is prohibited by federal law;

(9) church or other established religious sanctuary unless express permission is given by the appropriate church official or governing body; or

(10) hospital, medical clinic, doctor’s office, or any other facility where medical services or procedures are performed unless expressly authorized by the employer.
A person who wilfully violates a provision of this subsection is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.

ECTION 23-31-220. Right to allow or permit concealed weapons upon premises; signs.

Nothing contained in this article shall in any way be construed to limit, diminish, or otherwise infringe upon:

(1) the right of a public or private employer to prohibit a person who is licensed under this article from carrying a concealable weapon upon the premises of the business or work place or while using any machinery, vehicle, or equipment owned or operated by the business;

(2) the right of a private property owner or person in legal possession or control to allow or prohibit the carrying of a concealable weapon upon his premises.

The posting by the employer, owner, or person in legal possession or control of a sign stating “No Concealable Weapons Allowed” shall constitute notice to a person holding a permit issued pursuant to this article that the employer, owner, or person in legal possession or control requests that concealable weapons not be brought upon the premises or into the work place. A person who brings a concealable weapon onto the premises or work place in violation of the provisions of this paragraph may be charged with a violation of Section 16-11-620. In addition to the penalties provided in Section 16-11-620, a person convicted of a second or subsequent violation of the provisions of this paragraph must have his permit revoked for a period of one year. The prohibition contained in this section does not apply to persons specified in Section 16-23-20, item (1).

[B]SECTION 23-31-225. Carrying concealed weapons into residences or dwellings.

No person who holds a permit issued pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 may carry a concealable weapon into the residence or dwelling place of another person without the express permission of the owner or person in legal control or possession, as appropriate. [/B]A person who violates this provision is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years.

[Duck cutter]

ScatterShot, in regards to your bold print, the argument could be made that there is a difference in carrying a concealed weapon and having one in the vehicle.

For instance if you go through a traffic stop and physically have the weapon on your person you must tell the officer. If it is just in the glove box you are not required to tell them you have it.

[scatter shot]

I understand the difference when being stopped by LEO.
The sections I highlighted above was to make a few significant points that haven't been discussed yet.

The section highlighted in black pertains to the original post in this thread. The portion highlighted in blue is significant IMO. If the employer posts proper, legally required signage then you would be in violation of both corporate policy and state law and thereby subject to criminal prosecution. Absent the signage you would only be in violation of corporate policy.

Since the conversation shifted to the private property rights of a homeowner, the section highlighted in red is significant as it pertains to their rights to not have unwanted guns in their homes.
If you read the red section you will notice that the homeowner has no duty to post or inform you of their prohibition of concealed guns in their home verses the posting requirements of the corporation. Absent the homeowner's "express permission", anyone entering their home with a concealed weapon would be in violation of the law and "must be fined not less than one thousand dollars or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, at the discretion of the court and have his permit revoked for five years."
I'm betting half the people that conceal carry do not know this.