Could Travelers Rest ban concealed weapons at Trailblazer Park by city ordinance?

Official title

Regarding whether the City of Traveler’s Rest possesses the authority to enact an ordinance restricting concealed weapons “from all or any part of Trailblazer Park,” a city-owned, multi-use facility regularly hosting special events.

Requester

Robert C. Childs, III, Esq., City Attorney, Traveler’s Rest City Council.

Plain-English summary

The Travelers Rest city attorney asked whether the city could restrict concealed weapons at Trailblazer Park, a city-owned venue for concerts and other events. The Attorney General concluded that the city lacked authority to enact such an ordinance. It read the state firearm statute as preempting local rules on carrying weapons and reaffirmed its earlier opinion about concealed weapons in public parks.

The city suggested that event workers made the park a workplace and pointed to statutes allowing employers or business operators to prohibit concealable weapons on their premises. The AG said those provisions did not grant a city legislative authority over a subject the state had reserved from local regulation. The conclusion was about a city ordinance, not a general ruling on every employer’s use of those provisions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2014. 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 Travelers Rest pass a concealed-weapons ordinance for Trailblazer Park? A: The AG concluded it could not. The opinion said the state’s express firearm preemption rule barred a local ordinance regulating carrying concealed weapons in the public park.

Q: Did concerts and event employees make the park an exception? A: No. The office considered the workplace argument and said the cited employer and business statutes did not authorize city legislation on concealed weapons at the park.

Q: Did the opinion decide whether every private event operator could post a weapons sign? A: No. It addressed the city council’s proposed ordinance. It quoted the separate sign and employer provisions only to explain why they did not supply ordinance-making authority to the city.

Background and statutory framework

The office quoted Section 23-31-510(1), which barred local governing bodies from regulating firearms’ “transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation.” It compared that provision with the employer and business-premises sections raised by the city attorney and followed its earlier park opinion. The original scanned PDF is linked below.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/september-30-2014/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Childs-R.-OS-9795-09-30-2014-00455707xD2C78.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ALAN WILSON
ATTORNEY GENERAL

September 30, 2014

Robert C. Childs, III, Esq.

City Attorney, Traveler’s Rest City Council
2100 Poinsett Highway, Suite D
Greenville, South Carolina 29609

Dear Mr. Childs:

We are in receipt of your letter dated June 11, 2014 requesting an opinion as to whether the City of Traveler’s Rest (“the City”) possesses the authority to enact an ordinance restricting concealed weapons “from all or any part of Trailblazer Park,” a city-owned, multi-use facility regularly hosting concerts and special events. Because our prior opinions explain state law, Section 23-31-510(1) in particular, preempts local governing bodies from passing legislation regarding the “transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combinations of the things” we believe the City lacks authority to regulate this subject matter.!

Law/Analysis

In your request letter, you acknowledge that a prior opinion of this Office addressed the issue of whether local governing bodies can prohibit carrying concealed weapons in a public park. See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2010 WL 5578965 (December 7, 2010) (“[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.”). However, your question appears to focus on whether City Council could, in spite of our prior opinion, restrict concealed weapons at Trailblazer Park pursuant to Sections 23-31-220 and 16-13-465(B)(2) on the basis that Trailblazer Park, when it is utilized as a venue for concerts and other events, serves as a place of employment for individuals working at such events.” Since neither Section 23-31-220 nor Section 16-13-465(B)(2) bestow authority upon localities to legislate within the subject matter of the “transfer, ownership,

' Section 23-31-510(1) of the Code states, “[nJo governing body of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision in the State may enact or promulgate any regulation or ordinance that regulates or attempts to regulate the transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combination of the things.” S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-510(1) (2013 Supp.).

• See S.C. Code Ann. § 23-31-220 (stating concealed weapons permits do not limit or otherwise infringe upon “the
  tight 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 workplace”); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-13-465(B)(2) (“[A] property owner, holder of a lease interest, or operator of a business may prohibit carrying of a concealable weapon in the business by posting a ‘NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED’ sign.”).

REMBERT C. DENNIS BUILDING « POST OFFICE BOX 11549 « COLUMBIA, SC 29211-1549 TELEPHONE 803-734-3970 FACSIMILE 803-253-6283

Robert C. Childs, III, Esq.
Page 2
September 30, 2014

possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combinations of the things” a subject matter from which the Legislature has preempted local governmental regulation pursuant to Section 23-31-510 of the Code, we are unpersuaded. See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2010 WL 5578965 (December 7, 2010) (finding Section 23-31-510’s reservation of regulatory authority concerning the subject matter of possessing, carrying and transporting a firearm “predominates” other statutes concerning an employer’s ability to prohibit concealed weapons at a place of business meaning local government lacks authority to pass an ordinance regulating possession of a concealed weapon at a public park).

In a 1991 opinion, this Office explained that a local ordinance regulating the sale of firearms was clearly preempted from local control pursuant to Section 23-31-510(1) of the South Carolina Code and therefore the locality at issue lacked authority to pass legislation concerning the sale of firearms. Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 1991 WL 633056 (October 3, 1991). This conclusion was reiterated in our December 7, 2010 opinion where we found Section 22-31-220’s “public or private employer” language could not be read as providing a local governing body with the authority to craft an ordinance prohibiting the possession of a concealed weapon in a local park in light of Section 23-31-510’s clear expression to the contrary. See Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2010 WL 5578965 (December 7, 2010) (“[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.”). More recently, we restated this in a 2012 opinion concluding, “it is clear to us § 23-31-510 expressly indicates that the Legislature intended to preclude any local regulation regarding the carrying of concealable weapons.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 1260182 (April 2, 2012). Thus, because our prior opinions have already addressed this issue and our research indicates there have been no amendments modifying Section 23-31-510’s wholesale reservation of regulatory authority to the Legislature concerning the subject matter of “transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms, or any combinations of the things,” we reaffirm our prior opinions on this issue. As a result, we believe Section 23-31-510(1) prohibits the City from enacting an ordinance regulating the carrying of concealed weapons at Trailblazer Park.

Conclusion

As noted in our prior opinions, “[t]his Office strongly supports the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and citizens’ right to bear arms.” Op. S.C. Att’y Gen., 2012 WL 1260182 (April 2, 2012). It is in keeping with this tradition that we conclude, consistent with our prior opinions, that statutes permitting employers to prohibit concealed weapons at their place of business cannot be read as authorizing local governments to regulate the carrying of concealed weapons in a public park. Indeed, our prior opinions clearly explain local regulation of the “transfer, ownership, possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, ammunition, components of firearms or any combinations of the things” is prohibited pursuant to the express terms of Section 22-31-510(1) of the South Carolina Code. As a result, we reaffirm our prior

Robert C. Childs, Ill, Esq.
Page 3
September 30, 2014

opinions and conclude that the City lacks authority to pass local legislation concerning this subject matter.

Sincerely,

LLL

Brendan McDonald
Assistant Attorney General

REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

Robert D. Cook
Solicitor General