Jump to content

Identifying an area that might be "prohibited"


Recommended Posts

Does anyone have definition or detail on these prohibited carry areas from 430 ILCS 66/65, Section 65? Prohibited areas, subpara (a) (10) says: Public gathering or special event on property open to public that requires a permit…, with an exception for walking through the area to reach residence, business, or vehicle. Subpara (11) says: Building or property issued Special Event Retailer’s license during time specified

How is one supposed to know that the event or property is prohibited, especially since it might qualify part of the day and not the rest? Is the owner/organizer required to post the signs specified in the regulations? If the owner/organizer fails to post such signs does that become an affirmative defense in the event you are arrested for violation? Are these permits required to be posted as a public record, such as in the newspaper or government website?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You identify places that are posted by the signage. They must post the ISP approved signage. Please review section 65 again. This topic has been covered before perform a search. We thought for signs and we won.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no requirement for them to notify anyone, other than posting the correct and compliant signage in a conspicuous place. We aren't expected to be detectives when going about living our daily lives. As much as I'm sure the anti gunners would love to make that the world we live in, just like they do with home rule gun laws. But they can't do that with the FCCA. One state, one law.

But the only way for you to know beforehand is to call said establishment or use the posted app.

 

Nobody knows if its a valid defense or not. To the best of my knowledge nobody has been arrested for that and gone to court over it yet. Someone might be able to correct me if they are aware of a case, but I haven't heard of it. I suspect it would be a pretty good defense but I'm sure most people would just plea out. Its only a misdemeanor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intimidated persons plea down felonies, a misdemeanor would be the place to hang your test case hat. Even upon conviction the likelihood of jail time is remote for an FCCA violation. The monetary consequences are the primary concern. But this would be a cause many of us would contribute to mitigate the challengers financial burden.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intimidated persons plea down felonies, a misdemeanor would be the place to hang your test case hat. Even upon conviction the likelihood of jail time is remote for an FCCA violation. The monetary consequences are the primary concern. But this would be a cause many of us would contribute to mitigate the challengers financial burden. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Now see I would think just the opposite. Why pay all that money for something so insignificant. But I get what you're saying. Good point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all, thanks. Spec 5 - did search and didn't find a specific answer. TomKoz - the "knowingly" part makes a lot of sense, though my gut says it might be more useful in bargaining for a misdemeanor instead of a felony. But I don't see why anyone should need to plea down because others didn't meet their signage responsibilities.

 

The failure to comply with signage requirements is an irritant, especially with state facilities. Illinois rest stops, I'm talking about you. I'm been at several with this problem. I've also noticed several hospitals that don't have any signage or have only a small, all-white notice/decal posted on the clear glass door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see why anyone should need to plea down because others didn't meet their signage responsibilities.

There's a Federal law that says that all other laws, including state and local, must be reasonable. On controversial issues, however, what's reasonable to one person may be the complete opposite of what's reasonable to another. Fortunately there's also a "narrowly tailored" legal standard, so "arrest everyone, then make them prove their innocence" is never reasonable.

 

In this case, though, if a cop finds you with a firearm into a prohibited zone, it's not his job to determine what you knew or didn't know, although you might be able to convince him it was an honest mistake. You could still end up having to argue an "oops" defense before a judge.

 

In any case, if you have a CCL, if the weapon isn't full-auto, and if the zone isn't a Federal facility, it's never a felony in Illinois. It's a $500 fine, but maybe also a revocation of your license, which would still hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't see why anyone should need to plea down because others didn't meet their signage responsibilities.

There's a Federal law that says that all other laws, including state and local, must be reasonable. On controversial issues, however, what's reasonable to one person may be the complete opposite of what's reasonable to another. Fortunately there's also a "narrowly tailored" legal standard, so "arrest everyone, then make them prove their innocence" is never reasonable.In this case, though, if a cop finds you with a firearm into a prohibited zone, it's not his job to determine what you knew or didn't know, although you might be able to convince him it was an honest mistake. You could still end up having to argue an "oops" defense before a judge.In any case, if you have a CCL, if the weapon isn't full-auto, and if the zone isn't a Federal facility, it's never a felony in Illinois. It's a $500 fine, but maybe also a revocation of your license, which would still hurt.
From the statute:

 

Section 70. Violations.

(d) A licensee shall not carry a concealed firearm while under the influence of alcohol, other drug or drugs, intoxicating compound or combination of compounds, or any combination thereof, under the standards set forth in subsection (a) of Section 11-501 of the Illinois Vehicle Code.

A licensee in violation of this subsection (d) shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first or second violation and a Class 4 felony for a third violation. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for a third violation.

(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the statute:

 

Section 70. Violations.

...

(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees.

Bold mine. So $150, not $500. (d) doesn't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To all, thanks. Spec 5 - did search and didn't find a specific answer. TomKoz - the "knowingly" part makes a lot of sense, though my gut says it might be more useful in bargaining for a misdemeanor instead of a felony. But I don't see why anyone should need to plea down because others didn't meet their signage responsibilities.

 

The failure to comply with signage requirements is an irritant, especially with state facilities. Illinois rest stops, I'm talking about you. I'm been at several with this problem. I've also noticed several hospitals that don't have any signage or have only a small, all-white notice/decal posted on the clear glass door.

As various posters have said - no sign no crime. The sign must comply with the ISP Sign guidelines. I have been to several stores where there is a small written notice that says "No guns allowed". That is not a valid sign.

 

I spoke to one store manager and he said "Well as long as you are not waving your gun around we don't really care". In any case they know that they cannot enforce that sign.

 

Common sense is all you need. If you are going to Ribfest in Naperville or Taste of Chicago do not carry. They serve alcohol and that is a prohibited place. If you are going to drink don't carry. Guns and alcohol don't mix.

 

Each person has their own level of comfort. Follow the law. "Knowingly" is very hard to prove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the statute:Section 70. Violations....(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees.Bold mine. So $150, not $500. (d) doesn't apply.

Everyone read carefully.

 

The $150 fine is extra.

 

You are still subject to the class A or B misdemeanor, which can be up to 364 days in jail and $1500.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question — if a statutorily prohibited establishment fails to conspicuously post a legal sign and a CCL holder is subsequently arrested for violating said prohibition could the establishment then be sued under the concept of civil entrapment?

Yeah, I know anybody can sue anybody for anything, but......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question — if a statutorily prohibited establishment fails to conspicuously post a legal sign and a CCL holder is subsequently arrested for violating said prohibition could the establishment then be sued under the concept of civil entrapment? Yeah, I know anybody can sue anybody for anything, but......

IANAL, but entrapment means that the establishment purposefully didn't post in order to induce people who would have obeyed a posting to carry in the prohibited zone because it isn't posted. That seems like a stretch. Also, I'm not convinced there is such a thing as civil entrapment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the statute:Section 70. Violations....(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees.Bold mine. So $150, not $500. (d) doesn't apply.

 

Everyone read carefully.

The $150 fine is extra.

You are still subject to the class A or B misdemeanor, which can be up to 364 days in jail and $1500.

To clarify further, a Class B Misdemeanor in Illinois carries a maximum 180 days on jail AND a maximum $1,500 fine. A Class A Misdemeanor carries up to a year in jail AND up to a $2,500 fine. In both cases, the $150 "donation" to the "mental health fund" is in addition to the penalties listed above.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Places that serve alcohol are not automatically a prohibited place. Taste of Chicago is on park property, so that is automatically prohibited. I don't know anything about Naperville Ribfest though.

430 ILCS 66/65

Sec. 65. Prohibited areas.

(11) Any building or real property that has been issued a Special Event Retailer's license as defined in Section 1-3.17.1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special Event Retailer's license, or a Special use permit license as defined in subsection (q) of Section 5-1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special use permit license.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Places that serve alcohol are not automatically a prohibited place. Taste of Chicago is on park property, so that is automatically prohibited. I don't know anything about Naperville Ribfest though.

 

 

430 ILCS 66/65

Sec. 65. Prohibited areas.

(11) Any building or real property that has been issued a Special Event Retailer's license as defined in Section 1-3.17.1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special Event Retailer's license, or a Special use permit license as defined in subsection (q) of Section 5-1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special use permit license.

Right.

 

It's not prohibited because alcohol is served. Lots of places serve alcohol and aren't prohibited.

 

It's prohibited because of the issuance of a temporary permit to serve alcohol... and because it's in a park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...