Could an off-duty South Carolina officer carry a pistol into a bar outside the officer’s jurisdiction?

Plain-English summary

A sheriff’s office asked about an off-duty officer, outside the officer’s jurisdiction, carrying a pistol into a business serving alcohol while there for social purposes. The opinion relied on earlier AG readings of the officer exception, which did not limit it to duty hours or the officer’s local territory. It interpreted the separate penalty for unlawfully carrying a firearm into an alcohol-serving establishment as compatible with that exception. The author concluded that, under the law then described, an officer could carry in the stated setting even off duty.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the officer’s jurisdiction end the pistol-carry exception in the 1996 opinion?
A: No. It read the exception as allowing an officer to carry anywhere in South Carolina.

Q: Did being off duty change that conclusion?
A: No. The opinion cited prior office interpretations that the exception was not limited to duty hours.

Q: What did the opinion say about an alcohol-serving business?
A: It held that the unlawful-carrying penalty did not eliminate the officer exception for that kind of premises.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion compared the law-enforcement exception with a statute imposing an additional penalty for unlawfully carrying a pistol onto premises selling alcohol for on-site consumption. It reasoned that the two provisions could operate together and noted that the legislature had reenacted them side by side.

Citations and references

• Officer carrying exception: Section 16-23-20.
• Alcohol-premises unlawful-carry penalty: Section 16-23-465.

Source passage:

“until the General Assembly says otherwise, it is my opinion that law enforcement officers
may carry their weapon whether on or off duty including onto premises licensed to sell
alcoholic beverages for consumption thereupon.”

Official opinion PDF

Official title

Regarding statutes numbers 16-23-20 and 16-23-465 and inquiring “if an off duty law enforcement officer, outside of his/her jurisdiction, may carry a pistol into a business which sells alcoholic beverages; and that the said officer is at that business merely to engage in social activities, not related to law enforcement, and consuming alcoholic beverages.”

Requester

Lieutenant D. C. Beaty, Horry County Sheriff’s Office

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/august-8-1996/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/96aug8beaty.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLES I'v10L()NY ("'O'.'.'DO'.\'
,-\'CfOR'.\'EY GE'::'.'ERAL

August 8, 1996

Lieutenant D. C. Beaty
Hony County Sheriffs Office
P. 0. Box 380
Conway, South Carolina 29526
Re: Informal Opinion
Dear Lieutenant Beaty:
You note that you have been "directed by the Sheriff to resolve a question that we have regarding statute numbers 16-23-20 and 16-23-465 (S.C. Code as amended)." You further state:
[d]ue to a recent incident that occurred in Hony County, we are asking if an off duty law enforcement officer, outside of his/her jurisdiction, may cany a pistol into a business which sells alcoholic beverages; and that the said officer is at that business merely to engage in social activities, not related to law enforcement, and consuming alcoholic beverages. In addition, you indicate: 16-23-20(1) clearly grants peace officers the right to cany a pistol "when they are canying out their official duties while in this State," 1971-72 (Ops.) Atty. Gen., No. 3261 page 58 states that a city police officer may cany a pistol outside his jurisdiction, however, does not distinguish whether the officer must be "canying out their official duties". This issue is further clouded by 16-23-465 which does not address the question of law enforcement officers. (

I J1 ', '-i~ Bt I'

.,,

-lA -

Lieutenant Beaty
Page 2
August 8, 1996
Section 16-23-20 provides in pertinent part as follows: It shall be unlawful for anyone to carry about the person any pistol, whether concealed or not, except as follows: ( l) Regular, salaried law enforcement officers and reserve police officers of a municipality or county of the State, uncompensated Governor's constables, law enforcement officers of the federal government or other states when they are carrying out official duties while in this State, and deputy enforcement officers of the Natural Resources Enforcement Division of the Department of Natural Resources. As you indicate, previous opinions of this Office are definitive in interpreting this provision as not limited to the carrying of a pistol by a law enforcement officer while on duty. In an opinion dated May 30, 1978, we opined:
[a ]s noted in a previous Opinion of this Office, 1972 Opinion Attorney General No. 3261, p. 58 (interpreting the 1962 Code section which is similar to the present section regarding this matter), there is no requirement that the officer be on duty. Similarly, the statute does not require the officer to be on duty. Similarly, the statute does not require the officer to be in uniform. The reference in the statute to "when they are carrying out official duties while in this State," regards only "law-enforcement officers of the Federal Government or other states." See Section 16-23-20. While a previous opinion of this office may seem to render a different interpretation of that reference ( 1971) Opinion Attorney General No. 3143, p. 115) the effect of that opinion and this opinion is identical. And in Op. No. 3261, we stated:
[s]ince the statute does not limit the exception quoted to the territorial jurisdiction of the officer involved, nor to the times in which he is actually on duty, no such limitations can be inferred. It follows that a city policeman may lawfully carry

Lieutenant Beaty
Page 3
August 8, 1996

his pistol on his person anywhere in the State. (emphasis added). P.S.

The phrase "when they are carrying out official duties" in lines 5-6 of Section 16-129.1 applies to "peace officers of the Federal Government or other states."

Thus, it is clear from these opinions that the fact that the officer is outside his jurisdiction does not change the fact that Section 16-23-20 authorizes him to carry a pistol "anywhere in the State." You also inquire whether Section 16-23-465 changes this reading. conclusion that it does not. Section 16-23-465 provides as follows:

It 1s my

[i]n addition to the penalties provided by Section 16-11330 and 16-23-460 and by Article I of Chapter 23 of Title 16, a person convicted of unlawfully carrying a pistol or firearm onto the premises of a business which sells alcoholic liquor, beer, or wine for consumption on the premises is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined not more than two thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible. Bankers Trust of S.C. v. Bruce, 275 S.C. 35, 267 S.E.2d 424 ( 1980). Statutes in pari materia have to be construed together and reconciled, if possible, so as to render both operative. Lewis v. Gaddy. 254 S.C. 66, 173 S.E.2d 376 ( 1970). While Section 16-23-465 was first enacted after Section 16-23-20, implied repeals are not favored. A repeal of a statute by implication is to be resorted to only in event of irreconcilable conflict between provisions of two statutes, and if the statutes can be construed so that both can stand, the Supreme Court will so construe them. In Interest of Shaw, 274 S.C. 534, 265 S.E.2d 522 ( 1980). Here, both Sections 16-23-20( l) and 16-23-465 are reenacted virtually intact and side by side in the new concealed weapons Jaw which will take effect soon. See, Act No. 534 of J996. Had the General Assembly wished to place any limitation upon law enforcement officers as to where they could or could not carry their weapon, it could easily have done so in the new legislation. Moreover, any other reading of the two Acts could undermine law enforcement officers who are on duty carrying their weapons into an establishment which sells alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises. Thus,

Lieutenant Beaty
Page 4
August 8, 1996
until the General Assembly says otherwise, it is my opinion that law enforcement officers may carry their weapon whether on or off duty including onto premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages for consumption thereupon. If the Legislature desires to change this situation, of course, it is free to do so. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Deputy Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific questions asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion. With kind regards, I am Very truly yours,

if&

Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
RDC/an