The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Is a Parking Structure a Building, When It Comes to Ban on Gun Possession "in Any Publicly Owned Building"?
From a South Carolina Attorney General July 9 opinion:
We received your letter requesting an Attorney General's opinion regarding whether section 16-23-420 of the South Carolina Code prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a publicly owned parking lot or publicly owned parking garage….
Section 16-23-420 provides in relevant part:
… 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. The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to when the firearm remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle…..
The opinion concluded (relying on a past opinion that) "any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by" modifies only "school, college, …," and not "publicly owned building"; because of that, the statute doesn't limit firearm possession in non-school/college buildings' "surrounding premises." It then went on to conclude that parking garages shouldn't count as "building[s]" for purposes of the statute:
Black's Law Dictionary defines a building as "[a] structure with walls and a roof, esp. a permanent structure." We believe it is plain a parking lot would not be considered a building in accordance with its usual and customary meaning….
As to whether a parking garage qualifies as a building as used in section 16-23-420(A), we believe this is a closer question. Black's Law Dictionary does not define the term "parking garage"; however, Merriam-Webster English Dictionary defines a parking garage as "a building in which people usually pay to park their cars, trucks, etc." Despite this definition's use of the word building, we nevertheless believe a court would likely find a parking garage would not be considered a building under this statute because to hold otherwise would lead to a result clearly unintended by the General Assembly.
Like a parking lot, a parking garage's primary purpose is to provide parking for vehicles. To interpret the plain language of the statute as encompassing parking garages in the term building while excluding parking lots would result in an inconsistent application of the firearm prohibition in publicly owned buildings.
Moreover, section 16-23-20(D) of the South Carolina Code expressly grants a person legally possessing a firearm to store it anywhere in a vehicle, whether occupied or unoccupied. Construing this statute together with the firearm prohibition in publicly owned buildings, we believe a court would hold these two statutes can be read harmoniously by finding the term building does not encompass parking garages. Based on the foregoing, we believe a court would likely find the prohibition of firearms in publicly owned buildings under section 16-23-420(A) does not encompass publicly owned parking garages….
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Isn't the proper question "Does a total ban on all citizens bearing arms in a public building violate the second amendment?"
Yes, that's the proper question, but the judiciary aren't yet comfortable enough with the 2nd amendment to be capable of properly answering it.
I wonder why.
As has been previously pointed out, the judiciary is dominated by the "Ivies", elite law schools that are unrepresentative even of academia, let alone the general public. Think of Burger's crazy hostility to the 2nd amendment, or Stevens.
The judges/justices coming out of those institutions even 20-30 years ago would not be expected to be comfortable with the 2nd amendment, having come up in an environment radically hostile to the sort of thinking behind it. Even the conservative justices only decided to partially uphold it because principle dragged them screaming and kicking to the conclusion that they had to no matter how much they disliked it. The 'liberals' had no principle telling them that they had to uphold parts of the Constitution they dislike.
As a consequence, the best we can expect of the current Court is a halting, partial restoration. And then if no disaster ensues, maybe in a few years they'll take another halting step.
Long term, of course, Republicans have to break their lazy habit of relying on the Ivies for judges, because those institutions are now so radically hostile to anything even resembling conservatism that you'd be crazy to trust any lawyer emerging from them.
.
Not just the "Ivies" either. I took Con Law my first year of law school (1998) at a state university law school. The professor never once mentioned the Second Amendment!
On the other hand, my conlaw professor at Duke, the inimitable late Wm. Van Alstyne, authored a classic (and delightfully readable) law journal article in defense of the Second Amendment. Bill was a true scholar, an old school liberal who distrusted government power and believed in honest and faithful constitutional analysis. Accordingly, he favored liberal abortion laws but thought Roe was an indefensible overreach.
.
So much for "Our precious democracy!," "Respect for the rule of law!," etc. ...
100%. The only way to uphold conservative principles is to nominate South Texas College of Law grads (more classes taken with Blackman the better) who failed the bar a few times before passing, spent a couple years bouncing around between ambulance chasing and CJA work, and then found their true calling filing MAGA LOLsuits. Oh, and their "official" firm addresses must end in yahoo.com. Non-negotiable.
Yes, and Bruen affirms that
It obviously does. If the government doesn't set up a building with metal detectors, armed guards, and limited points of entry, it's not "secure," and non-secure government buildings have no right to ban guns.
When they first opened our County Courthouse there was a room full of small lockers. If you carried and had business in the Courthouse, you could lock your weapon in one of the lockers and then go through the metal detector.
Well when a certain political party got control over the County Government that went away fast.
Virginia?
Silly me, I didn't realize this legal principle you just completely pulled out of your ass was so obvious.
It's not out of my ass. Heller says guns can be banned in sensitive places. If the government doesn't care enough to secure it, it's not a sensitive place.
Well, that was a lot more succinct than me. Yes, exactly.
Again, the qualifier you're adding - building must be secured armed guards and metal dectors to prohibit firearms - is completely out of your ass. Heller suggests nothing of the sort. Rather, Heller says guns can be banned in sensitive places, and then identifies two examples of sensitive places: government buildings and schools. A government building is an inherently sensitive place.
First, Heller did not say that ALL prohibitions at schools and government buildings were permissible. Second, Bruen later clarified that the prohibitions had to be similar to what existed at the founding.
At the founding, government was so small that nearly all government buildings were "sensitive."
A government building in 1789 was an inherently sensitive place. At that time, it was likely limited to courthouses and legislatures.
Is a post office inherently sensitive? If so, why?
Is a rest stop with a few bathrooms and vending machines off an interstate highway inherently sensitive? If so, why?
Is a welcome center in a national park inherently sensitive? If so, why?
What about a regular municipal building? If it's so sensitive, why isn't it protected with guards and metal detectors?
The reasoning is pretty straightforward:
1. Carrying a gun is a constitutional right.
2. Government is supposed to only infringe constitutional rights if it has a important purpose that makes it necessary.
3. If the government infringes a constitutional right without making any effort to actually achieve that important purpose, the purpose is pretext, and the infringement no longer justified.
4. Declaring it important that nobody enter a building armed, and then not lifting a finger to actually achieve that convincingly demonstrates that pretext.
So,
5. You must actually secure a building against people who don't care about "no guns" signs, in order to justify having "no guns" signs...
Gotta love when people just ignore precedent and decide the constitution means what they want it to mean. But sure, if the Supreme Court ever adopts the Brett Bellmore bizarro tiers of scrutiny for 2A cases, I guess we can talk.
Also, if the purpose for the gun ban in your hypo (guns in government building is dangerous) is pretextual, what do you think the real purpose is? Do you honestly think that lawmakers believe that its perfectly safe for randos to walk around public buildings with guns, but they ban the guns anyway because “eww guns”? Fantasyland, I swear.
The real purpose is to harass and bother conservative gun owners, a group that leftists hate. There's nothing more to it.
Do they believe, in honesty, that its not safe for randos to walk around public buildings with guns? Perhaps. But they don't care enough to secure the buildings, and they know full well that the prohibitions aren't going to deter any deranged shooter or other criminal.
I am suspecting that the leadership of the anti-gun campaign is motivated by hostility against the White male conservative whom they perceive as enemies.
https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/10/02/gun-control-more-racial-disparities-than-the-drug-war/
Most socially liberal gun control champions don’t see themselves as pushing policies that would abet racial profiling or worsen the problem of mass incarceration. They see themselves as going after their political enemies—socially conservative white men in red states.
That's exactly it. That's also why they cheerlead so heavily for transgenders. Their entire raison d'etre is going after white conservative men and everything they hold dear
Bingo.
That's my pretty much part of my definition of "sensitive public places". A place only qualifies as a "sensitive public place" if the government...
(1) Scans/searches everyone entering for weapons,
(2) Insures that armed law enforcement will respond within 15 seconds to violent conflicts within the place,
(3) Provides a means, at no cost to the bearer, to quickly and securely store a firearm, and
(4) Provides for rapid return of any stored firearm at the planned place of exit of the person who stored it.
The latter point insures, for example, that if the subway is a "sensitive place" that when you get to your destination station and exit, your firearm is essentially waiting for you with minimal wait.
If it's not "sensitive" enough for the government to provide all of the above, it's not "sensitive" enough for the government to ban carrying of weapons in that place.
Well said. Without a means of securing it, any one stop along the way can functionally disarm you for the whole day.
"...Provides for rapid return of any stored firearm"
"...your firearm is essentially waiting for you with minimal wait"
I get this vision of you insurrectionists being like children outside a latrine bouncing from one foot to the other holding your crotches. Your little metal object more important than breath it seems. If only you were this obsessed with world peace or something
Which insurrectionists would they be?
Oh, you know. The ones who advocated for the nullification of millions of voters in seven states. You remember something about that, Michael?
Were these people that the historic American people ever asked for to be voters?
How many of them were the children of illegal immigrants?
Yes, and Bruen affirms that
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
This does not appear to be one of the circumstances where people contemplating questionable acts can rely on an official statement about the law. The Attorney General's opinion is just an opinion and is not binding on prosecutors and judges.
True. But, the state AG’s opinion is evidence that prosecution in this case violates the forms foreseeabilityrequirement of Due Process under the 14th Amdt.
And EV’s opinions on gun control have long been considered persuasive. He was cited favorably by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions in Heller.
More places for snipers to shoot from. Particularly the often-empty roof level. Good decision!
Sniping is illegal under other statutes so it isn't as if allowing firearms in parking garages licenses sniping.
Very great point!
"More places for snipers to shoot from. "
"I am going to try to murder people. Oh noes, I can't go into this garage because that will be illegal. Going to turn around now! No murdering for me!
Good lord are you dumb.
And we all know that no sniper intending to murder somebody would take a gun anywhere it's not allowed. If only they'd thought to post "no guns" signs on the edge of that roof, Trump's ear would be intact!
The garage I often park at has a metal detector and a guy goes around the bottom of the car (where the metal detector can't penetrate) with a special wand to make sure no guns are being carried in.
I'm pretty sure that's not how any of that works.
Car bodies and engines have a lot of metal, and a metal detector will not "penetrate" them. As a particular example, a trunk will be close to a Faraday cage, and will effectively block the EM field used by a metal detector -- or at least seriously distort it, making it impractical to detect relatively small metal items inside the trunk. Under-vehicle searches typically look for explosive devices, not guns.
Did Dr Ed take over captcrisis's account?
No, captcrisis just has a bit of trouble reasoning about guns.
Yeah, if the guy is looking under the car, he's not looking for guns, (Who'd wire a gun to their exhaust pipe anyway?) he's looking for bombs.
"Did Dr Ed take over captcrisis’s account?"
No. Dr Ed can answer this even more simply -- a metal detector is looking for metal. What's the car made out of?
"metal detector and a guy goes around the bottom of the car"
At a public garage? Cool story dude.
I assume it's a government facility that he didn't want to identify as such. One sees that kind of search in downtown DC, and I've seen similar searches at army bases when the vehicle doesn't have a base permit.
My taxi went though that sort of search in Manila back in the early Oughts, and it was absolutely, no bones about it, a search for bombs; They were having a bit of trouble with Islamic terrorists setting them at the time.
Ah, the good ol' MILFs - the best/worst named terrorist group ever.
That's an attempt to prevent another Oklahoma City, not another Las Vegas.
Ummm...
Oh, never mind.
A building with a roof is still a building. The place from where the sniper tried to assassinate former-president Trump would be covered by the statute if it were in South Carolina and a public building.
I don't know about that. A case could be made that since he climbed on to the roof, he never entered the building.
Curtilage!
Ah, curtilage. A gray area in the law and one of my favorite legal subjects
Do you need a building permit to build a parking garage?
Does the state building code regulate the construction of the same?
QED....
In South Carolina, you need a building permit to construct a fence. Is a fence a building?
My town requires a permit to put up a bird feeder if it's on a wooden pole...
But not a metallic or composite (say, fiberglass?) pole?
Seems like your townspeople need some rational zoning laws
Mother f*****.
My reply got eaten because a "potentially unsafe operation" came up when I tried to post the reply, and I didn't copy everything before posting. I sometimes do that just in case when I spend a lot of time writing something because that happens sometimes. F*** this comment system.
Try re-wording your post using the proper modern language - - - - - - -
I've had that happen a couple of times recently, it seems uncorrelated with the contents of the comment. Some kind of timing issue, perhaps.
As I said to Dr. Ed 2 below, I think you're right about the timing issue.
Oh well, just have to start writing shorter comments, remember to copy any longer ones, or just stop spending time fixing people on the internet.
Much shorter version of what I wrote before that got eaten.
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.
I'm going to greatly simplify this sentence.
It is unlawful to possess a firearm on A or in B.
A parking garage, building or not, falls within A. That should make it clear that this restriction does apply to firearms in parking garages.
Eugene summarizes the AG's opinion here:
The opinion concluded (relying on a past opinion that) "any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by" modifies only "school, college, …," and not "publicly owned building"; because of that, the statute doesn't limit firearm possession in non-school/college buildings' "surrounding premises."
Why does it matter what modifies "school, college, ..." and not "publicly owned building?" The parking garage just needs to be in one or the other, so if a parking garage for a public college isn't a building, it would still fall in the first part and be restricted. Also, where does this "surrounding premises" thing come from? I don't see anything like that in the statute quoted.
But none of that matters anyway, since the statute also says:
The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to when the firearm remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle…..
So, keep your gun properly locked up in your car, or only have it unsecured if you are there with it, and you can have your gun in your car in a parking garage. Why was this so hard to analyze?
The complication is that the bit about keeping a gun in a locked vehicle reuses, and applies under, the language you summarized as "A". So it's clear that the prohibition of guns "on A" has the locked-vehicle exemption, but not whether they're independently banned "in B".
If a parking garage is a building, it would fall under A for both public and private property, but it would also fall under B if it is on public property. If a parking garage is not a building, then it would fall under A only, and the exception would apply.
I don't know how laws are normally constructed and construed, but I would think that if a situation falls under two categories that are treated differently in the law, there would have to be some way to determine which applies. To me, it makes more sense to apply A, since the exception to A would most clearly be relevant to a parking garage, but not any other public buildings.
Yes, that's essentially what the AG opinion says, with fewer details glossed over: The legislature clearly wanted to allow storage of a gun in a closed automobile container (not "locked" as I wrote earlier) in A locations, and because of that, it does not make sense to read B to mean that parking garages are "buildings" covered by B rather than being like parking lots that are covered only by A.
Because you have to deal with people who are desperate to bar firearms anywhere they can, so they aren't terribly interested in reasonably construing laws.
Firearms are reasonably barred from a lot of public places. People that want to bar them “anywhere they can” are often opposed by people that want them allowed almost anywhere.
If we want to debate that policy choice, we should do so with specifics, rather than “gun grabber” vs. “gun nut” rhetoric.
No, most public places where they are barred are patently unreasonable, as they don't reduce crime at all, and don't even pretend to. Please give me an example of several that you consider "reasonable."
Not an exhaustive list, but some locations that at least some states or the federal government bans concealed and/or open carry (that I agree with):
K-12 schools and most government buildings. Airports (federal law lists "sterile areas" of airports as places where guns are banned. I didn't see on the place I looked what that means, but I assume that at a minimum, it would mean past the security screening areas.) Bars or restaurants serving alcohol. Large public event venues (such as sports stadiums or arenas, convention centers, and so on). Polling places. Hospitals. Child care facilities. Mental health facilities. Casinos and other gambling facilities that would have large amounts of cash.
There are some other places where private property owners typically do prohibit firearms on their property, which I generally think every private property owner should be able to do.
Okay, so any restaurant should be off limits to carry, even if not drinking. Good to know you're being reasonable!
Why hospitals? Why child care facilities? Why schools? If a parent is going to pick up his kids, what societal purpose is served by making him disarm?
Why casinos? What crime is deterred though?
Years ago when I first got my CCW California law allowed carrying with it on school property. During the last two decades of enhanced "Ewww! Guns!" by California politicians this was changed and it is now illegal to do so. Of course, there has never been an instance of any CCWer in California ever committing a school shooting but "For the Children!" and "We have to DO something!" trumps reason.
Also I disagree with banning guns in places that serve alcohol. I'm not a drinker but nearly every restaurant I go to serves alcohol. Why should I not be allowed to carry a gun while having dinner with my wife if I'm not drinking?
Jason -- an excessively lengthy post or one containing more than one URL is going to get tagged...
I don't think that is what happened with my first attempt. I've posted longer ones and ones with two links before that didn't have any problem. Most likely, I worked on it for too long and trying to post it conflicted with how the threads had changed since I opened the reply box.
"So, keep your gun properly locked up in your car, or only have it unsecured if you are there with it, and you can have your gun in your car in a parking garage. Why was this so hard to analyze?"
I haven't seen any indication that it was hard to analyze, but when the AG issues advisory opinions they are supposed to answer the question asked, not go off in the weeds crafting ways to not answer it. The AG is a public official obeying a statute duly passed by the legislature, not a Twitter smartass amusing himself.
Notice how your conclusion doesn't in any way answer whether section 16-23-420 of the South Carolina Code prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a publicly owned parking lot or publicly owned parking garage.
"a Twitter smartass amusing himself"
LOL.
…when the AG issues advisory opinions they are supposed to answer the question asked, not go off in the weeds crafting ways to not answer it.
Fair enough.
Notice how your conclusion doesn’t in any way answer whether section 16-23-420 of the South Carolina Code prohibits a person from carrying a firearm in a publicly owned parking lot or publicly owned parking garage.
That’s true. But I also don’t know how it would make a practical difference to ask about carrying a firearm or storing it in a car. Going with the parking garage not being a building conclusion:
I’m presuming that the question about parking lots and garages was to figure out if a person can drive to a public school/college/etc. and leave the gun in the their car, since the law in question is unambiguous that they wouldn’t be able to bring it inside any building. For a person headed to a public school/college on foot, by bus, bicycle or other transportation that wouldn’t end in a parking lot or garage, then the question would need to be broader than to ask about parking lots and garages.
Nothing wrong with imagining scenarios, but it's not a reason to criticize the AG's work. That's all I'm saying. To me, the most likely scenario is that the Senator is preparing a bill for introduction and doesn't want to create a conflict of laws.
I do think that I was unwarranted in my initial frustration and criticism. I think that I was mostly still hung up on the hyperfine nature of deciding whether a multi-level parking garage is a building or not, and the counter-intuitive conclusion that it isn't. (As I said in my OP, parking garages can sometimes be enclosed rather than open on the sides and top level, and some are even part of a larger structure that includes apartments, commercial offices or retail, and so on. This AG opinion doesn't address that.)
To me, the most likely scenario is that the Senator is preparing a bill for introduction and doesn’t want to create a conflict of laws.
Yeah, the whole thing does speak to legislators trying to think ahead as much as possible as they write legislation, rather than simply copy and paste from other states' laws or what some think tank gives them.
No, it’s not within A. A is (paraphrased) all premises of a school – which, yes, would include the garage and parking lot of the school. B is inside any other publicly owned building. The question to the AG was raised in the context of a non-school parking garage. So definitely not A – and per the first part of the AG’s analysis, also not B.
The second part of the AG’s analysis is the “none of that matters anyway” part because of the properly-locked exception but says it differently than you do. Basically, they said that the mere existence of that exception means that parking garages are more like parking lots than like courthouses and therefore a parking garage isn’t a building even if you’re not storing it properly.
Texas clarified its laws to allow guns in parking lots/garages so that people can leave their gun in the car when they aren't allowed in the building.
Under Texas Education Code 37.0815, a school district may not prohibit a person, including a school employee, from transporting or storing a handgun in their locked vehicle in the parking lot or other parking area provided by the school. Mar 20, 2023
As I understand it, this only applied to licensed carry. Constitutional carry does not permit your gun in the school parking lot.
Behold the marvels of textual analysis:
COURT: Parking structures are buildings as the word "building" is defined and used. But we know the Legislature didn't MEAN to include them so we're not going to apply the plain textual meaning of the statute.
The exception relied upon seems to have been enacted more recently than the prohibition you're relying upon, so to the extent they conflict it would amend it.
If it takes the court that much text to wrestle with whether a parking structure is a 'building' within the meaning of the law, then perhaps the law is void on account of vagueness, at least as it applies to parking structures.
If the court struggles, then how can we mere plebeian to know in advance whether it was a building. Were there any 'posted' signs on the garage clarifying where the right to carry ended?
That principle should be extended more broadly. If a whole slew of judges can't decide whether an action is criminal owing to debate over definitions, that should be grounds for acquittal. Only in subsequent cases should a defendant be held to the law - akin to QI,
What court? What garage? It's not a lot of text by any means, but you appear to have failed partway through the first sentence of the blog post, which consists of eight words and a numeral. I suppose these things are relative. I assume you stopped reading this comment when it reached 256 characters.
Of course they should ban guns in parking decks. Don't you watch any movies? Bad guys are always chasing good guys in parking decks. If bad guys were permitted to have guns while in the parking decks, they would be really dangerous.
EXT. PARKING GARAGE - DAY
Ehrmantraut: "If I need a gun, I'll use one of his."