Jump to content


Photo

Non compliant postings


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 vito

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,745 posts
  • Joined: 30-October 04

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:40 AM

Im a bit indecisive about even starting this thread, but I do find in interesting. There are certain businesses that seem to be known, at least among those of us in the concealed carry community, as Posted locations. Yet in fact some of these so-called GFZs are using small, non compliant signs that while they clearly indicate the intent of the owner, they do not meet the standard by which their intent can be enforced with the force of law. I wont name the place that brought this to my mind, but it is a large business that I did not question it being posted, but when entering recently all I could find was a very small No Guns type decal in the corner of the entrance, and it clearly did not meet the state standard. I actually went back to my car and retrieved my concealed firearm which I had taken out and left in the console. But if I named the store I risk someone associated with that business correcting their error and making it, in fact. A Posted location.

Retired U.S. Army and Veteran of the Vietnam conflict

NRA Life Member

Fully retired!

 


#2 Craigcelia

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,204 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 09

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:49 AM

Yep, carry on.  I wouldn't want to ruin it for the next guy who wants to carry by letting them know.



#3 04 Cobra

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 243 posts
  • Joined: 05-October 15

Posted 07 March 2018 - 10:04 AM

I'm noticing this more often,  I'm not going to tell them.  If I knew how to post pictures, I'd post a picture of the sign on the door of a popular local restaurant that  read in big white letters, and I quote...

"- - - - - --- INC.  BANS GUNS ON THESE PREMISES"  ..yeah, sure you do.



#4 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,688 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 07 March 2018 - 10:10 AM

I've given this much thought, as anyone who legally carries in Illinois should. The requirement is very clear. The 4x6 sign meeting the legislated criteria must be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance to prohibit by law. Any person who is smart enough to own a door, is smart enough to follow those directions. I genuinely believe any posting short of that is intentional. If the intent is truly to prohibit legal firearms, those conditions can be easily and exactly met.

The act of posting outside of these easy to follow guidelines is proof positive that the true intent is NOT to prohibit firearms. The true intent is almost certainly an effort to meet some other goal, such as an unwanted statutory requirement, appeasement of some part of a customer base, or some perceived liability.

Life's too short to be checking side windows and measuring signs.

If it looks right I leave, otherwise I see nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#5 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 07 March 2018 - 11:34 AM

I've given this much thought, as anyone who legally carries in Illinois should. The requirement is very clear. The 4x6 sign meeting the legislated criteria must be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance to prohibit by law. Any person who is smart enough to own a door, is smart enough to follow those directions. I genuinely believe any posting short of that is intentional. If the intent is truly to prohibit legal firearms, those conditions can be easily and exactly met.

The act of posting outside of these easy to follow guidelines is proof positive that the true intent is NOT to prohibit firearms. The true intent is almost certainly an effort to meet some other goal, such as an unwanted statutory requirement, appeasement of some part of a customer base, or some perceived liability.

Life's too short to be checking side windows and measuring signs.

If it looks right I leave, otherwise I see nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This is an interesting perspective. I think you're giving people too much credit...although I have no doubt there are SOME businesses doing as you have suggested. I'd guess the majority just don't know any better.

The people on this page are more well-versed in the law than the average person. Running a business involves a lot of details. Becoming an expert on Illinois gun laws isn't one of them. I imagine most business owners don't care if customers carry guns. Others do care but don't want to get involved.

I haven't heard anyone say "I won't patronize that business because they DON'T have a 'no guns' sign". But, I have heard people say they won't patronize a business that does have a 'no guns' sign.

I think the consensus here is that a non-compliant sign has no force of law. Also, I think the consensus here is that a poorly placed compliant sign also has no force of law (for example, when I enter a business from one door that's not marked even though another door might be marked).

But, whenever possible, I will avoid businesses with non-compliant postings. These businesses don't like my freedom to defend myself and my family.

 


Edited by soylentgreen, 07 March 2018 - 11:35 AM.


#6 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,738 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 07 March 2018 - 12:48 PM

I see a lot of otherwise conforming signs if it were not for the lack of a black border. I ignore them, excepting an obvious location such as a hospital.


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#7 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,915 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 07 March 2018 - 12:52 PM

But, whenever possible, I will avoid businesses with non-compliant postings. These businesses don't like my freedom to defend myself and my family.

 

 

+1.  In the "Posted!" app, users have the ability to note in the UserDesc if the sign is not a compliant one and also take a picture.  But if a business puts up a "No Guns allowed" sign, it is a sign that gun-owners are not welcome (even if they're not smart enough to put up the ISP sign).  I would rather not do business with such a place at all. 


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#8 Euler

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 759 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 18

Posted 07 March 2018 - 02:50 PM

... I genuinely believe any posting short of that is intentional.

... The true intent is almost certainly an effort to meet some other goal, such as an unwanted statutory requirement, appeasement of some part of a customer base, or some perceived liability....

 
... I think you're giving people too much credit...although I have no doubt there are SOME businesses doing as you have suggested. I'd guess the majority just don't know any better.

... I think the consensus here is that a non-compliant sign has no force of law....


Some business insurance companies require their policy holders to post. I suppose it's possible that the store owner doesn't want to post, but does it in a non-compliant way to meet the insurance requirement. I'd more likely believe they don't know a non-compliant sign has no force of law.

In other states, they can only ask you to leave. A posting has no force of law, anyway.

#9 bmyers

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,884 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 07 March 2018 - 02:56 PM

One of our local business, which will remain anonymous, has the incorrect sign posted. I asked the manager who is a friend and pro-gun. He said he knew and he did it on purpose. He was told by corporate to post a no guns sign, so he did exactly as told ("No Guns Allowed"), knowing full well that it wouldn't affect anyone who was legally carrying.



#10 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,688 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 07 March 2018 - 03:12 PM

One of our local business, which will remain anonymous, has the incorrect sign posted. I asked the manager who is a friend and pro-gun. He said he knew and he did it on purpose. He was told by corporate to post a no guns sign, so he did exactly as told ("No Guns Allowed"), knowing full well that it wouldn't affect anyone who was legally carrying.


^Mmmmm hmmmm.

#11 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 07 March 2018 - 03:26 PM

I've seen quite a few that WOULD be compliant, but have a 'clear' see through background.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#12 Glock23

    I am no one.

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,040 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 13

Posted 07 March 2018 - 03:51 PM

I've seen quite a few that WOULD be compliant, but have a 'clear' see through background.

Those signs are invisible to me. I do a quick scan for a white sign with a red circle/slash. Most often, all I see is the no smoking sign.

** Illinois Carry - Supporting Member

** National Association for Gun Rights - Frontline Defender

** Illinois State Rifle Association - 3 year Member

** National Rifle Association - Patron Life Member

 


#13 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,051 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 07 March 2018 - 03:56 PM

My rules: 1) Never point out a non-compliant sign to a business owner. He is probably just too dense to look up the actual rules. 2) Always avoid giving my hard earned money to people who don't like my kind. 3) Never assume that a non-compliant sign was posted as a wink to gun owners and a false signal to antis. The average person is NOT that clever. Don't believe me? Look at every liberal anti. Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#14 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:27 PM

My rules: 1) Never point out a non-compliant sign to a business owner. He is probably just too dense to look up the actual rules. 2) Always avoid giving my hard earned money to people who don't like my kind. 3) Never assume that a non-compliant sign was posted as a wink to gun owners and a false signal to antis. The average person is NOT that clever. Don't believe me? Look at every liberal anti. Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

I agree, and if you ever feel the need to ignore one of those non-compliant signs and enter.  Then are, somehow, discovered suspected to be carrying and asked to leave.  You may be subject to a trespassing charge, if you refuse to leave.



#15 quackersmacker

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,711 posts
  • Joined: 21-September 12

Posted 07 March 2018 - 04:33 PM

One of my wife's friends has the "correct" sign posted up on the front door of her house.   Sheer genius.   (I don't have any friends like that!)


Life Member --- NRA
Life Member --- Second Amendment Foundation
Member        --- ISRA
Member        --- Single Action Shooting Society    [Lt John Dunbar]
Member        --- Aurora Sportsmen's Club
Member        --- Tri County Gun Club
 
Fellow Members:  Please consider making at least an annual $25 contribution to this fine organization, which has proven its worth -----and you will then become a member of the Supporting Members Team.   In this case, it's definitely about putting your money where your mouth is!   And, getting results.  Who knows what the future holds.....these may just be some of the best dollars you'll ever spend.

#16 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,688 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 07 March 2018 - 05:15 PM

My rules:

1) Never point out a non-compliant sign to a business owner. He is probably just too dense to look up the actual rules.

2) Always avoid giving my hard earned money to people who don't like my kind.

3) Never assume that a non-compliant sign was posted as a wink to gun owners and a false signal to antis. The average person is NOT that clever. Don't believe me? Look at every liberal anti.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


I certainly didn't say it was a "wink to gun owners," I said their intention was something other than banning cc guns, ergo, their lack of effort put into getting it right. (But there are some winks too.)

The first page of any google search for "Illinois no gun signs" not only yields many sources for the right sign, but the actual law pops up.

#17 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,051 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 07 March 2018 - 06:29 PM

My rules:1) Never point out a non-compliant sign to a business owner. He is probably just too dense to look up the actual rules.2) Always avoid giving my hard earned money to people who don't like my kind.3) Never assume that a non-compliant sign was posted as a wink to gun owners and a false signal to antis. The average person is NOT that clever. Don't believe me? Look at every liberal anti

I certainly didn't say it was a "wink to gun owners," I said their intention was something other than banning cc guns, ergo, their lack of effort put into getting it right. (But there are some winks too.) The first page of any google search for "Illinois no gun signs" not only yields many sources for the right sign, but the actual law pops up.

I don't know...a sign with a picture of a gin and a circle with a line drawn through it diagonally seems pretty clear in its intention to me. As does a sign printed in crayon that says "NO GUNZ." You seem to have an awful lot of faith in liberal's googling skills.

Edit to add I am not saying I think such signs would be legally bimding, but that the intent is plain as day, and that they won't see a penny of my hard-earned cash.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Edited by gangrel, 07 March 2018 - 06:40 PM.

NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#18 RoadyRunner

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 3,888 posts
  • Joined: 03-October 12

Posted 07 March 2018 - 06:39 PM

I had to go into a school yesterday, and the door was not posted at all! I left the sidearm secure in the car anyway because....the Law. Still, it annoys me that the School could not be bothered to comply with the legal requirement to post...

IC Supporting member
NRA life member
NRA certified Basic Pistol Instructor

Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

 


#19 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,006 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 07 March 2018 - 09:05 PM

Last year I went to a large restaurant, it had several sets of doors. I looked at the doors carefully and didn't see any of the offending signs so I went in. After I ate and was leaving I saw that it was posted - on the sidelite next to the door, all the way at the bottom. And there was an outdoor waste basket in front of it so it couldn't be seen from outside. It was the only sign at either entrance.

I figured no harm no foul at that point.
"I'm not worried about following the U.S. Constitution." - Washington County, Alabama Judge Nick Williams

#20 Patriot Millennial

    Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 97 posts
  • Joined: 30-April 17

Posted 07 March 2018 - 10:20 PM

I believe that doesn't meet the "conspicuously" requirement.

#21 Bitter Clinger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 933 posts
  • Joined: 05-February 14

Posted 08 March 2018 - 08:23 AM

I occasionally visit a restaurant (will remain nameless) which I've recently heard was posted, but I don't recall ever seeing a sign. Last week the wife and I visited there again and on my way in I very carefully looked for the sign, but there was none.

On my way out I scanned every door I could find and finally saw the sign. It was on an emergency exit, all the way on the bottom corner of the door and was mixed in with a bunch of other decorative stickers. Also, the sign looked to be smaller than "regulation". Also on the door was another sign that said "Please use main doors".

The placement of that sign was no accident. Whoever put it there, really never meant anyone to see it which seems to support tkroenlein's theory.

#22 Odinson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 14

Posted 08 March 2018 - 08:29 AM

 

My rules:1) Never point out a non-compliant sign to a business owner. He is probably just too dense to look up the actual rules.2) Always avoid giving my hard earned money to people who don't like my kind.3) Never assume that a non-compliant sign was posted as a wink to gun owners and a false signal to antis. The average person is NOT that clever. Don't believe me? Look at every liberal anti

I certainly didn't say it was a "wink to gun owners," I said their intention was something other than banning cc guns, ergo, their lack of effort put into getting it right. (But there are some winks too.) The first page of any google search for "Illinois no gun signs" not only yields many sources for the right sign, but the actual law pops up.

I don't know...a sign with a picture of a gin and a circle with a line drawn through it diagonally seems pretty clear in its intention to me. As does a sign printed in crayon that says "NO GUNZ." You seem to have an awful lot of faith in liberal's googling skills.

Edit to add I am not saying I think such signs would be legally bimding, but that the intent is plain as day, and that they won't see a penny of my hard-earned cash.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

Please don't suggest banning gin. Last week was hard enough...

 

Kidding aside, the UIC has a new, multi-panel sign on some doors.  I'll take a picture and describe it better but have given up on trying to post pictures.



#23 Skolnick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 14

Posted 08 March 2018 - 09:39 AM

One of our local business, which will remain anonymous, has the incorrect sign posted. I asked the manager who is a friend and pro-gun. He said he knew and he did it on purpose. He was told by corporate to post a no guns sign, so he did exactly as told ("No Guns Allowed"), knowing full well that it wouldn't affect anyone who was legally carrying.

 

Regardless of what happens to the bill below, the very fact that it was drafted tells you that government is sometimes willing to employ sketchy means to get those signs posted. In some instances, those non-compliant signs might be an end run around orders from Big Brother.

 

 

http://amgoa.org/Pro...State-Law/50103

 

Proposed Illinois Gun Law HB0377

Legislation Overview

Title: CON CARRY-BUSINESS LICENSE

Description: Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a municipality, including a home rule unit, may not revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a business license or otherwise interfere with a business license issued by the municipality to a business owner, including the holder of a retail liquor license issued under the Liquor Control Act of 1934, because the business owner lawfully permits a concealed carry licensee to carry firearms into his or her business establishment. Effective immediately.

Session: 100th General Assembly

Last Action: Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Reginald Phillips

Last Action Date: May 12, 2017



#24 Skolnick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 14

Posted 08 March 2018 - 09:54 AM

I wont name the place that brought this to my mind, but it is a large business that I did not question it being posted ... But if I named the store I risk someone associated with that business correcting their error and making it, in fact. A Posted location.

 Go to: http://rightapp.net/...wLocationIl.php

 

Search by name and enter in "Jewel" (arguably the largest grocer in Chicagoland). Scroll down to the Jewel Food Stores and notice that, despite the differences in the way submitters spelled "Jewel" and/or "Osco", the site administrator designated all of them as "Anti-gun 'Lite' Not Posted"

 

Many of the postings themselves note that the non-compliant sign is very deliberate, that the non-compliant sign is meant to apply to the employees and vendors, not to the customers (whereas a compliant sign would apply to customers).



#25 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:08 AM

 

One of our local business, which will remain anonymous, has the incorrect sign posted. I asked the manager who is a friend and pro-gun. He said he knew and he did it on purpose. He was told by corporate to post a no guns sign, so he did exactly as told ("No Guns Allowed"), knowing full well that it wouldn't affect anyone who was legally carrying.

 

Regardless of what happens to the bill below, the very fact that it was drafted tells you that government is sometimes willing to employ sketchy means to get those signs posted. In some instances, those non-compliant signs might be an end run around orders from Big Brother.

 

 

http://amgoa.org/Pro...State-Law/50103

 

Proposed Illinois Gun Law HB0377

Legislation Overview

Title: CON CARRY-BUSINESS LICENSE

Description: Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a municipality, including a home rule unit, may not revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a business license or otherwise interfere with a business license issued by the municipality to a business owner, including the holder of a retail liquor license issued under the Liquor Control Act of 1934, because the business owner lawfully permits a concealed carry licensee to carry firearms into his or her business establishment. Effective immediately.

Session: 100th General Assembly

Last Action: Added Co-Sponsor Rep. Reginald Phillips

Last Action Date: May 12, 2017

 

 

What is your purpose of listing a bill that has been ignored by the legislature since May 2017?   You seem to be saying it would be wrong to protect the licenses of businesses that permit patrons to enter posted locations.

Corporation xyz insists that all franchises are posted.  Local manager posts compliant sign, but does not enforce it.  What is the problem?  The manager may have to deal with corporate, but why should a local unit of government be able to revoke his business because he allowed CC on the premises?



#26 cybermgk

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 1,739 posts
  • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:20 AM

 

I wont name the place that brought this to my mind, but it is a large business that I did not question it being posted ... But if I named the store I risk someone associated with that business correcting their error and making it, in fact. A Posted location.

 Go to: http://rightapp.net/...wLocationIl.php

 

Search by name and enter in "Jewel" (arguably the largest grocer in Chicagoland). Scroll down to the Jewel Food Stores and notice that, despite the differences in the way submitters spelled "Jewel" and/or "Osco", the site administrator designated all of them as "Anti-gun 'Lite' Not Posted"

 

Many of the postings themselves note that the non-compliant sign is very deliberate, that the non-compliant sign is meant to apply to the employees and vendors, not to the customers (whereas a compliant sign would apply to customers).

 

Our local one actually says on the sign it is for employees and vendors only.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2


#27 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:56 AM

Our local one actually says on the sign it is for employees and vendors only.

 

 

 Same at mine.



#28 Odinson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 493 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 14

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:59 AM

Posted a picture! Tried using Chrome before, worked this time so I will go with it.

 

This is the non-compliant sign (6 x 6in, blue border) now posted on a bunch of UIC buildings.  These were off limits by statute anyway so nothing changes I guess.  These same doors used to have a compliant sign on them.UIC Posted.jpg



#29 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,214 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 08 March 2018 - 12:00 PM

 

 

... I genuinely believe any posting short of that is intentional.

... The true intent is almost certainly an effort to meet some other goal, such as an unwanted statutory requirement, appeasement of some part of a customer base, or some perceived liability....

 
... I think you're giving people too much credit...although I have no doubt there are SOME businesses doing as you have suggested. I'd guess the majority just don't know any better.

... I think the consensus here is that a non-compliant sign has no force of law....

 


Some business insurance companies require their policy holders to post. I suppose it's possible that the store owner doesn't want to post, but does it in a non-compliant way to meet the insurance requirement. I'd more likely believe they don't know a non-compliant sign has no force of law.

In other states, they can only ask you to leave. A posting has no force of law, anyway.

 

 

This is possible. I'd say I encounter very few postings...compliant or not...and I live in Cook County. I suppose if a business owner doesn't like the insurance requirement, they can change insurance companies. Apparently, most companies do not require their clients to post as evidenced by the lack of signs pretty much everywhere.

This brings up an interesting question. If I'm in a business that requires me to disarm due to insurance reasons...is that business and their insurance company going to be liable for my safety if a bad actor injures or kills me in an incident where I may have used my weapon to prevent the attack?



#30 Skolnick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 139 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 14

Posted 08 March 2018 - 01:51 PM

What is your purpose of listing a bill that has been ignored by the legislature since May 2017?   You seem to be saying it would be wrong to protect the licenses of businesses that permit patrons to enter posted locations.

 

I was trying to add to bymers posting that some non-compliant signs may be the result of local managers trying to comply with corporate dictates while not complying at the same time.

 

It might not only be local managers trying to pull a fast one on corporate, it might also be businesses trying to pull a fast one on government coercion.

 

For example, the suburban Portillo's do not post, but the two in Chicago do. Portillo's is privately owned; it's not a franchise. I doubt if you can get the one guy in charge to give you an official reason why they post in Chicago, but not in Addison or Elgin. The text of HB1377 gives you a clue.

 

For the purpose of my post, it does not matter what happens to that bill, the text of it is enough to tell you that some municipalities are using their power of government to coerce posting.

 

In a community where that is so, posting a non-compliant sign might be enough to keep the Board of Health, and the electrical inspector, and the Liquor Commission, and the enforcers of the ADA, and the community activists at bay while allowing the CCW community to wink as they walk on in, legally.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users