A bill that would end South Carolina's ban on tattooing has hit yet another roadblock.

The amendments tacked onto the bill by the House of Representatives did not meet the approval of the Senate. As a result, the bill was sent to a conference committee this week.

The committee comprises Sens. William Mescher, R-Pinopolis; Harvey Peeler, R-Gaffney; and Phil Leventis, D-Sumter; and Reps. David J. Mack, D-Charleston; Brian White, R-Anderson; and David Umphlett, R-Moncks Corner. Mescher is the primary sponsor of the bill.

"Basically, Sen. Mescher and the rest of the Senate didn't concur with the House amendments," Mescher's spokeswoman Debbie Griffin said. "Now, the committee will meet and try to iron out some of the differences they have."

Proponents of legalizing tattooing say the amendments the House tacked onto the bill make actually opening a tattoo parlor in South Carolina nearly impossible.

"The amendments are completely bogus, ridiculous additions," said Florence tattoo artist Ron White, whose arrest for violating the state ban brought the fight to legalize tattooing to national prominence. "With the language the way it is in these amendments, it doesn't matter whether it's legal or not. You'd never be able to open up a tattoo parlor anywhere in South Carolina anyway."

The amendments that most concern White and his colleagues pertain to zoning.

The bill stipulates that a tattoo parlor cannot be located within 1,000 feet of a church, school or playground. But another amendment added by the House gives counties and municipalities the power to "regulate the location of a licensed tattoo facility more strictly."

"Basically, it gives a county or a municipality the power to completely zone out tattoo parlors," White said. "Instead of having the 1,000 feet restriction, a city or a county can come along and impose a 5,000 feet restriction. With these amendments, all they're doing is legalizing tattooing on paper."

Furthermore, the bill requires any person who intends to apply for a tattooing license to advertise those intentions at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in the newspaper circulated nearest to the proposed site of the business.

"The way they've got the bill written, it would be easier to open a liquor bar than it would a tattoo parlor," White said.

White has a lawsuit against S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster and the state pending in federal court. John Black and D.J. Minor, a pair of tattoo artists who are South Carolina natives but have been forced to take their art elsewhere, have filed a similar lawsuit against the state in federal court.

White said he believes legislators who have always been opposed to tattooing haven't changed their minds on the issue, as they claim, but are willing to legalize the practice in name only to avoid the lawsuits.

"It's a completely false compromise just to get us to drop our lawsuits," he said. "They don't want tattooing to have a fair chance so they put these amendments on the bill to make sure it wouldn't.

"The maneuver here is quite obvious. The House did this so the bill wouldn't pass and if we were stupid enough to accept it as it is now, we'd never see a tattoo parlor in South Carolina -- never ever."