Info to help get a no gun sign removed

[Flynn]

No. If you post a sign, the law applies to everybody.

 

Sorry I beg to differ, as I said previous the right to carry on private property (concealed or otherwise) with permission is a right exclusive and disconnected from CCL laws and restrictions, having a CCL does not mean you have less rights than others. As posted above the right to carry with permission on private property (no mention signs nullify it) was codified long before the CCL existed and that section of the UUW law still exist and still does not indicate that it's nullified when you get a CCL or if signage is posted, it's as close to black and white ambiguity in laws as you will generally see and thus under the rule of lenity has to be ruled in the most favorable way for the defendant.

[Euler]

You don't have fewer "rights" after the FCCA. You can choose not to post and have all the rights you had before.

[soundguy]

No. If you post a sign, the law applies to everybody.

 

 

It's time for proof... can you show us where this appears in Illinois law?

[Euler]

 

No. If you post a sign, the law applies to everybody.

 

It's time for proof... can you show us where this appears in Illinois law?

 

The posting of the sign prohibits carry without exception. Prohibited means prohibited. The FCCA doesn't say "The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying or concealed firearms, except by his favorite peeps" nor does any law provide that a private individual may selectively direct police and prosecutors to enforce any law only against the people he chooses. The police and prosecutors aren't your personal enforcers of company policy.

 

Indeed, it's time for proof. Prove to me that the police must follow your orders and ignore the law when you so direct them.

 

If you post your business as "no carry" so that you can selectively have the police arrest some people but not others, when they're all in violation of the law, that's pretty much just being a dick to the police. I'm not sure how they'd deal with that if they found out, but I'm pretty sure they'd think of something you wouldn't like.

[Glock23]

The posting of the sign prohibits carry without exception. Prohibited means prohibited.

 

So even a business owner and his/her own employees can't carry if the business is posted?

 

Without exception means without exception, right?

[lockman]

No. If you post a sign, the law applies to everybody. It's time for proof... can you show us where this appears in Illinois law?The posting of the sign prohibits carry without exception. Prohibited means prohibited. The FCCA doesn't say "The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying or concealed firearms, except by his favorite peeps" nor does any law provide that a private individual may selectively direct police and prosecutors to enforce any law only against the people he chooses. The police and prosecutors aren't your personal enforcers of company policy.Indeed, it's time for proof. Prove to me that the police must follow your orders and ignore the law when you so direct them.If you post your business as "no carry" so that you can selectively have the police arrest some people but not others, when they're all in violation of the law, that's pretty much just being a dick to the police. I'm not sure how they'd deal with that if they found out, but I'm pretty sure they'd think of something you wouldn't like.

 

Criminal trespass laws are enforced exactly the way described in the above latter sentences.

 

 

^ this ***

[Euler]

 

The posting of the sign prohibits carry without exception. Prohibited means prohibited.

So even a business owner and his/her own employees can't carry if the business is posted?

 

Without exception means without exception, right?

 

Yes, if that's the choice the employer makes. In fact, that's what a lot of anti-gun groups advise if employers want to prohibit their employees from carrying. They don't bother mentioning that employers can prohibit employees from carrying merely through a company policy.

 

This is all rather an odd strawman, however. You've proposed a situation where a business owner wants to arrest some of his customers who carry, but then also carry himself. Most, if not all, businesses are posted by owners who want to prohibit everyone from carrying. The law was written by people who think the same way as those owners. The only time I think that a situation similar to the strawman would occur is when bars hire non-licensed (i.e., not firearm control carded or whatever it's called) armed security inside the bar.

 

FWIW, if you really want armed employees and unarmed customers, posting only prohibits concealed carry. Employees could still carry openly. The business could still have firearms behind the counters.

[Euler]

Sort of getting back to the main topic of this thread, Wisconsin's conceal carry law includes this little gem:

(21)  Immunity.

(a) The department of justice, the department of transportation, and the employees of each department; clerks, as defined in sub. (11) (a) 1. a., and their staff; and court automated information systems, as defined under sub. (11) (a) 1. b., and their employees are immune from liability arising from any act or omission under this section, if done so in good faith.

(b) A person that does not prohibit an individual from carrying a concealed weapon on property that the person owns or occupies is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

(c) An employer that does not prohibit one or more employees from carrying a concealed weapon under sub. (15m) is immune from any liability arising from its decision.

(d) A person providing a firearms training course in good faith is immune from liability arising from any act or omission related to the course if the course is one described in sub. (4) (a).

I think there are states other than WI that grant employers civil immunity for not posting their businesses as prohibited. Obviously IL doesn't.

[1911]

 

Since it sounds like you have a good relationship with the store owner I would use that as a way to educate him on the law and situation. Explain how gun owners view the situation, invite him out for a shooting and educational day. Start with the basics and build up from there. Explain gun safety and how most gun owners tend to be very safe and that includes licensed carry holders. Encourage him to sit through a basic class like hunter safety or something similar. If he’s still receptive after that, ask him to sit through a CCL class as the legalities discussed in that class are exactly what he needs to hear. Even offer to pay for it if you can afford it.

Just a thought.

[Xwing]

One tactic that's worked well in other situations is to politely let the store owner that their establishment has or will be added to Posted! online list + iPhone & Android apps of 2nd-amendment--unfriendly businesses. And that 10s of thousands of pro-gun users see this list and use it to make purchasing decisions. (Close to 60,000 people have the paid full version, and an uncountable number use the free "lite" version.) No-one is going to start going to a business due to an anti-gun sign, but an awful lot of customers will stop going to a business because of it.