Could a South Carolina university permit selected staff to carry concealed handguns on campus?

Plain-English summary

In 2018, a senator asked whether Charleston Southern University could allow selected faculty or staff members with concealed weapon permits to carry handguns on campus. The Attorney General concluded that the statute’s express permission exception allowed a university to authorize particular people to carry on its premises, provided they followed the permission’s terms and were not otherwise barred from possessing concealed handguns.

The office said the permission could be limited to certain people, times, or parts of campus. Its conclusion addressed legal permissibility under the criminal law; it left the wisdom and prudence of the proposed policy to the university’s board.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2018. 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: Could a university give only selected staff permission to carry?
A: The AG said yes. It saw no legal obstacle to permission limited by person, time, or part of the premises.

Q: Was a concealed weapon permit alone enough under the opinion?
A: No. The opinion rested on express permission from the university and said the person could not otherwise be prohibited by law.

Q: Did the AG recommend adopting the proposed campus security policy?
A: No. It left the wisdom and prudence of that policy to the university’s board.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion read South Carolina Code section 16-23-420’s general ban on firearms on educational premises together with its exception for express permission from the authorities in charge. It drew on earlier AG opinions construing that exception and noted that other firearms law still mattered.

Citations and references

• The statute quoted in the opinion made campus firearm possession unlawful “without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property.”

• The AG concluded that a person with express permission who was “not otherwise prohibited by law” could carry consistently with that permission.

Official title

On the legality a university policy allowing faculty or staff who also is a CWP holder carrying with express permission a concealed weapon on the campus.

Requester

The Honorable Paul G. Campbell, Jr., Member, South Carolina Senate.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-25-2018/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Campbell-P.-OS-10287-FINAL-Opinion-9-25-2018-01789514xD2C78-01792263xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

Alan Wilson
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 25, 2018
The Hon. Paul G. Campbell, Jr.
South Carolina Senate
PO Box 142

Columbia, SC 29202

Dear Senator Campbell:

We received your request seeking an opinion on the legality of a Charleston Southern University faculty or staff member who also is a CWP holder carrying, with express permission, a concealed weapon on the campus of CSU. This opinion sets out our Office's understanding of your question and our response. Issue(as quoted from your letter, slightly edited):

I am requesting an opinion on behalf of Charleston Southern University's Board of Directors, who has directed their Executive Vice President Michael Bryant to ask me to submit a request to the Attorney General's office. CSU is considering implementing a policy which would allow approved CSU faculty and staff(excluding students) with a Concealed Weapons Permit to carry a concealed weapon on campus for the purpose of responding to an active shooter. As a private institution with limited financial resources, they are looking for ways to provide stronger security within a limited budget.

Their university lawyer has informed them that according to SC Code § 16-23-420, CSU would be allowed to implement the policy provided that the Board of Trustees grant their permission for this policy. Response:

It is the opinion of this Office that a person who has the express permission of a university may lawfully carry on the university premises consistent with the terms of that permission. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-420(2015). As referenced in your letter, Section 16-23-420 of the South Carolina Code generally addresses the legality of carrying a firearm on the campus of a college or university in this State and provides in relevant part:

fiHMBERT C. Dennis Building

o Post Office Box. 11549 • Columbia,SC 29211-1549 . Telephone 803-734-3970 » Facsimile 803-253-6283

Senator Paul G. Campbell, Jr.
Page 2

September 25, 2018

It is unlawful for a person to possess a firearm of any kind on any

premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, other post-secondary institution, or in any publicly owned building, without the express permission of the authorities in charge of the premises or property. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-420(A) (2015).

Although our Office has issued several relevant prior

opinions on the lawful carrying of handguns, this author's research has not identified any reported South Carolina case or prior opinion of this Office which addresses your question

directly.

It appears that a court faced with this question would rely upon the rules of statutory

construction to give effect to the intention of the Legislature in codifying the various statutes set out above. As this Office has previously opined,

The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and effectuate the legislative intent whenever possible. State v. Morgan , 352 S.C. 359, 574 S., E.2d

203 (Ct. App. 2002) (citing State v. Baucom, 340 S.C. 339, 531 S.E.2d 922 (2000)).

All rules of statutory interpretation are subservient to the one that

legislative intent must prevail if it can be reasonably discovered in the language used, and that language must be construed in light of the intended purpose of the statute. State v. Hudson, 336 S.C. 237, 519 S.E.2d 577 (Ct. App. 1999).

Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2005 WL 1983358 (July 14, 2005).

Additionally, "[t]he rules of statutory

construction developed by our Supreme Court establish that a criminal statute must be strictly construed against the state and any ambiguity or doubt or uncertainty must be resolved in favor

of the defendant."

Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1983 WL 182044 (November 2, 1983) (citing State v.

Germany, 216 S.C. 182, 57 S.E.2d 165 (1950); State v. Lewis, 141 S.C. 483, 86 S.E. 1057 (1927).).

Turning to the question presented in your letter, we observe that several prior opinions of this Office have construed Section 16-23-420 as generally prohibiting possession of a firearm on

a college or university campus with the exception that a college or university may expressly permit such possession. See, e.g., Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 1996 WL 599441 (September 20, 1996). For example, a 1996 opinion of this Office addressed to the General Counsel of the Medical

University of South Carolina considered then-recent amendments to South Carolina's CWP statute and concluded:

Based upon the foregoing, it would appear to me that the law specifically prohibits with certain designated exceptions the carrying of a firearm of any kind "onto the premises or property, owned, operated or controlled by a private or

public

school,

college,

university,

technical

college,

other

post-secondary

Senator Paul G. Campbell, Jr.
Page 3
September 25, 2018

institution or any kind without the express permission of the authorities in charge

of the premises or property." Thus, only if those in charge of the property choose to so allow such weapons, would they be permitted. Id. (emphasis added); cf. S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-20 (2015) (providing exception from criminal liability for possession of a handgun for "a person who has the permission of the . . . person in legal control of the home or real property"). Similarly, a 2007 opinion addressed to the President of Piedmont Technical College considered whether the school could offer a gunsmithing program and noted that "Section 16-23-420 would appear to be specific legislation particularly allowing the possession of firearms in a school setting with the express permission of the

relevant authorities."
added).

Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2007 WL 655620 (February 16, 2007) (emphasis

And most recently, an opinion of this Office issued earlier this year on the subject of

shooting ranges observed that "we are not aware of any legal impediment to a school

constructing a shooting range for the purpose of its students safely engaging in shooting sports" and that "[a]t least a few secondary schools in South Carolina offer shooting sports opportunities for their students." Op. S.C. Att'y Gen., 2018 WL 3326904 (June 27, 2018). For these reasons we believe that a court would conclude that the plain language of Section 16-23-420 is dispositive of the question presented in your letters, in that § 16-23-420

does not prohibit a person from carrying a concealed weapon on university property with express permission and so long as they act consistent with the terms of that permission. S.C. Code Ann.

§ 16-23-420 (2015); see also S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-20 (2015) (providing exception from criminal liability for possession of a handgun for "a person who has the permission of the . . .

person in legal control of the home or real property"). This opinion should not be construed to read that where a college or university chooses to extend permission to certain persons to carry a handgun on its premises, that permission must be "all-or-nothing." While this author's research

has not identified any reported decisions on this question, we see no legal obstacle to a university choosing to grant permission only to certain persons to carry a handgun only at certain times or only upon a certain portion of the premises. See S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-420 (2007). We also note that our Office has issued numerous prior opinions regarding firearms generally and Concealed Weapons Permits specifically, and this opinion should be read in the context of those other discussions of applicable law. Conclusion:

This Office has reiterated in numerous opinions that it strongly supports the Second

Amendment and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, and we affirm that position again here. See, e.g., Op S.C. Att'y Gen., 2015 WL 4596713 (July 20, 2015). We note that our opinion

here is focused solely on the law, and that wisdom and prudence of any particular policy such as

the one discussed here is a decision for the Board of CSU after careful consideration of specific

Senator Paul G. Campbell. Jr.
Page 4
September 25, 201 8

proposals and consultation with legal counsel for the university. We simply opine today that we arc not aware of any legal prohibition under South Carolina's criminal law which would preclude implementing such a policy.

See S.C. Code Ann. § 16-23-420 (2015).

Accordingly, it is the

opinion of this Office that a court would conclude that where a person has the express permission of the university, and where that person is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing a

concealed handgun, that person may lawfully carry on the university premises consistent with such permission. See id.

Sincerely,

#
jjaviers. Jones

Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

<

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General