Could Charleston County post a permanent ban on carrying firearms in county parks?

Plain-English summary

In July 2022, the South Carolina Attorney General addressed signs at Charleston County parks that purported to prohibit concealable weapons. The office reaffirmed its view that state law generally preempted local firearm regulation in parks. A 2021 amendment created a narrow exception allowing a local government to temporarily restrict otherwise lawful open carry on public property in connection with a permitted protest, rally, fair, parade, festival, or other organized event, if it followed the statute's limits.

The opinion did not make a factual finding about any particular sign. It said a local restriction beyond that or another express statutory exception would be preempted.

What this means for you

County park officials

The opinion treated permanent, general park-wide firearm regulation as outside the local authority described in the statute. For a permitted organized event, it described a temporary restriction limited by the statute's requirements about area, duration, manner, and notice when feasible.

Park visitors

The office distinguished a temporary restriction on otherwise lawful open carry at a qualifying event from a standing ban on possession across county parks. The opinion did not decide whether a particular visitor's conduct was lawful under every other applicable law.

County councils and event organizers

The opinion said the amended statute allowed a governing body to use the limited event exception only through strict compliance with its terms. The office left its earlier general preemption opinions in place outside those circumstances.

Common questions

Q: Could a county impose a permanent firearms ban across its parks under this opinion? A: The Attorney General said local park firearm regulation remained generally preempted and described the event exception as temporary and narrow.

Q: When could a county restrict open carry at a park event? A: The opinion said the governing body could do so for a permitted organized event on public property if the restriction stayed within the event's place and time and met the statute's other conditions.

Q: Did the 2021 amendment authorize a general concealed-carry ban? A: No. The opinion described it as authority to temporarily restrict otherwise lawful open carry, not to create a standing rule for every park visitor.

Q: Did the Attorney General decide that the Charleston signs themselves violated the law? A: The office gave a legal interpretation of the statutory exception and preemption rule. It did not make factual findings about each sign or event.

Background and statutory framework

A senator asked whether signs at all Charleston County parks were consistent with state firearm law. The Attorney General compared the statewide preemption provision, section 23-31-510, with amended S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-520. It said the amendment provided one express exception to the general preemption rule and did not displace the office's earlier opinions about park regulation outside that exception.

Citations and references

• S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-520: temporary event-restriction provision discussed in the opinion.
• S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-31-510: statewide preemption provision cited in the opinion.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/opinion-regarding-signs-placed-at-all-charleston-county-parks-prohibiting-the-carrying-of-concealable-weapons/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/media/tudnhori/03057597.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

July 22, 2022

The Hon. Shane Martin
South Carolina Senate
PO Box 142
Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Martin:

We received your request for an opinion regarding signs placed at all Charleston County parks prohibiting the carrying of concealable weapons. This opinion sets out our Office's understanding of your question and our response.

Issue (as quoted from your letter):

It was brought to my attention that signs have been placed at all Charleston County parks prohibiting the carrying of concealable weapons.

Section 23-31-510 of the South Carolina Code of Laws prohibits political subdivisions from regulating the possession of firearms and I believe these permanent signs in the Charleston County parks violate this law.

In addition, while the recently amended Section 23-31-520 outlines that “a governing body of a county, municipality, or political subdivision may temporarily restrict the otherwise lawful open carrying of a firearm on public property” they may only do so “when a governing body issues a permit to allow a public protest, rally, fair, parade, festival, or other organized event [the] governing body exercising the authority granted to it pursuant to this section must be specific in the area, duration, and manner in which the restriction is imposed and must provide prior notice of the restriction when feasible. In no event may the restriction extend beyond the beginning and conclusion of the event or beyond the location of the event. The duration of an event may not be scheduled for such a length of time as to frustrate the intent of this section.”

In short, any signs posted may only prohibit open carry of a firearm and may only be issued when accompanied by a specific event permit that outlines the temporary nature of the restriction.

I understand Charleston County has responded that they believe they are not in violation of the law and will not remove the signs.

ERT CO. DENNIS BUILDING © POST GrFICE

Boy 11549 2 CoLumma, SC 29211-1549 6 Ten

The Hon. Shane Martin

Page 2

July 22, 2022

(Supp.

I am, therefore, bringing this matter to your attention and request an opinion from your office about this situation to help remove any confusion municipalities may have resulting from the passing of the Open Carry with Training Act in 2021.

Law/Analysis:

Several prior opinions of this Office have concluded that a local measure which expressly purports to criminalize or otherwise regulate possession of a firearm conflicts with Section 23- 31-510 of the South Carolina Code of Laws which preempts all such local regulations. See, e.g., Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2017 WL 6940255 (December 29, 2017); S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-31-510 2019) & -520 (2007). This conclusion has been reiterated numerous times, and we refer

the reader to the cited opinions for a full discussion of the legal foundation. See id.

For our purposes here, it suffices to say that “our Office consistently has construed Sections 23-31-510 and -520 to mean the General Assembly intended that state law expressly occupy the entire field of South Carolina firearm regulation and preempt any local ordinance on the same subject, except where local regulation are expressly permitted by those same statutes.” See, e.g., Ops. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2019 WL 6794777 (December 2, 2019); 2019 WL 6794778

(December 2, 2019).

In 2021 the General Assembly amended section 23-31-520, and it now reads in full:

(A) Notwithstanding another provision of law, a governing body of a county, municipality, or political subdivision may temporarily restrict the otherwise lawful open carrying of a firearm on public property when a governing body issues a permit to allow a public protest, rally, fair, parade, festival, or other organized event. However, if a permit is not applied for and issued prior to an event as described in this subsection, a county, municipality, or political subdivision may not exercise the provisions of this subsection. A person or entity hosting a public protest, rally, fair, parade, festival, or other organized event must post signs at the event when open carrying is allowed or not allowed at the event.

(B) A governing body exercising the authority granted to it pursuant to this section must be specific in the area, duration, and manner in which the restriction is imposed and must provide prior notice of the restriction when feasible. In no event may the restriction extend beyond the beginning and conclusion of the event or beyond the location of the event. The duration of an event may not be scheduled for such a length of time as to frustrate the intent of this section.

The Hon. Shane Martin
Page 3
July 22, 2022

(C) A county, municipality, or political subdivision may not confiscate a firearm or ammunition for a violation of this section unless incident to an otherwise lawful arrest.

S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-520. In summary, section 23-31-520 has been amended so as to allow a local government to restrict temporarily the open carry of firearms when specific criteria are met as set out in the statute. See id.

Consistent with a long line of prior opinions of this Office, we believe this 2021 amendment set out one specific circumstance “where local regulation [is] expressly permitted by
[sections 23-31-510 & -520].” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2019 WL 6794777 (December 2, 2019). To the extent that a local government strictly complies with section 23-31-520, the General Assembly has empowered that local government to “temporarily restrict the otherwise lawful open carrying of a firearm on public property.” S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-520. To the extent that a local government might seek to exceed this or another express exception, such action would be preempted, consistent with our prior opinions.

As to a local government purporting to restrict firearm possession in a public park, we refer the reader to two prior opinions of this Office. First, an opinion dated December 7, 2010 concluded that “a local governing body, such as a county, may not enact any regulation dealing with the carrying of concealed weapons, such as in a county park.” Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2010 WL 5578965 (December 7, 2010). Second, an opinion dated September 30, 2014 reached a similar result with respect to municipal parks. Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2014 WL 5073495 (September 30, 2014). “Traditionally, this Office does not overrule a prior opinion unless there has been a change in the law or where there is clear error.” Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2017 WL 1528200 (April 13, 2017) (internal citations omitted). Consistent with our discussion above, section 23-31-520 has been amended so as to allow a local government to restrict temporarily the open carry of firearms when specific criteria are met as set out in the statute. See discussion supra. Outside of those particular circumstances, the 2010 and 2014 opinions continue to stand for the general rule that, otherwise, local regulation of firearms in parks is preempted.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, section 23-31-520 has been amended so as to allow a local government to restrict temporarily the open carry of firearms when specific criteria are met as set out in the statute. S.C Code Ann. § 23-31-520. Consistent with a long line of prior opinions of this Office, we believe this is one circumstance “where local regulation [is] expressly permitted by [sections 23-31-510 & -520].” Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2019 WL 6794777 (December 2, 2019). To the extent that a local government strictly complies with section 23-31-520, the General Assembly has

The Hon. Shane Martin
Page 4
July 22, 2022

empowered that local government to “temporarily restrict the otherwise lawful open carrying of a firearm on public property.” S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-520. To the extent that a local government might seck to exceed this or another express exception, such action would be preempted, consistent with our prior opinions.

Outside of those particular circumstances, two prior opinions of this Office, dated December 7, 2010 and September 30, 2014, continue to stand for the general rule that, otherwise, local regulation of firearms in parks is preempted. Ops. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2010 WL 5578965 (December 7, 2010); 2014 WL 5073495 (September 30, 2014).

Our Office consistently has construed Sections 23-31-510 and -520 to mean that the General Assembly intended that State law expressly occupy the entire field of South Carolina firearm regulation and preempt any local ordinance on the same subject, except where local regulation are expressly permitted by those same statutes. See, e.g., Op. S.C. All’y Gen., 2017 WL 6940255 (December 29, 2017); see also S.C. Code Ann. §§ 23-31-510 (Supp. 2019) & -520 (2007). The 2021 amendment to section 23-31-520 simply set out one express exception, as contemplated in our prior opinions. We hope this clarification and the two prior opinions cited above remove any possible confusion in this area.

This Office has reiterated in numerous opinions that it strongly supports the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. See, e.g., Op S.C. Alt'y Gen., 2015 WL 4596713 (July 20, 2015); see also D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald vy. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010): New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S.Ct. 2111 (2022).

Sincerely,

ea Cook
olicitor General