Jump to content

POST PHOTOS OF INVALID NO CONCEALED CARRY SIGNS


SigShooter

Recommended Posts

I'm still not convinced that the "non-legal" signs won't get you in a bunch of trouble anyway, if you get caught.

 

Technically, if they don't meet the requirements of the law then you should be "fine", but I have a feeling that you'll go through a lot of money fighting it before it's all over.

 

All I'm saying is that I don't want to be the one that has to find out the hard way. I'll let somebody else go first. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the sign is valid or not, I would still avoid these places. They can still tell you to leave even if the sign is not per ISP standard. If you leave at that point you are probably not in violation of the FCCA since the sign was not valid. If you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing. You might also then be in violation of the FCCA because the owner/agent has made you aware of the no guns policy.

 

If the sign is valid they can probably have you arrested for violation of the FCCA. You might have a defense in court on whether the sign was conspicuous. A conspicuously posted valid sign is a legal warning. It is like a stop sign or speed sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whether the sign is valid or not, I would still avoid these places. They can still tell you to leave even if the sign is not per ISP standard. If you leave at that point you are probably not in violation of the FCCA since the sign was not valid. If you refuse, you can be arrested for trespassing. You might also then be in violation of the FCCA because the owner/agent has made you aware of the no guns policy.

My contention is an anti gun establishment with a non-compliant sign isn't going to ask anyone to leave. They are just going to call the cops about a 'man with a gun'. No thanks. They can keep their signs, I'll keep money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw one at the local Teamsters Hall yesterday.

We share the hall with them.

I'll update load a picture when I get home.

8 1/2 x 11

No black border

And hanging on a hook/suction cup kinda like they might remove it and then place it each morning?

Seems weird to not have it affixed to the side window!

 

And really, the Teamsters are Anti 2A?

I went down to Teamster City a few weeks ago with my Brother. The building itself isn't posted, but when we arrived at the office foyer, the glass doors leading in were posted. The doors were locked and when we knocked on the glass, you would have thought they were expecting Attilla the Hun the way they looked at us. A couple of BA's came out into the foyer, closed the door behind them and we had our discussion there.

I thought the same thing... Anti 2A?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Springleaf Financial in my neighborhood wants TWICE the amount of no guns brought on their premises. Does that mean that they want a negative number of guns there? Would that indicate that they are, in fact, giving guns away?

 

I think that would be the logical way of taking this combination of signs.

 

post-14647-0-55480900-1438208361_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This Springleaf Financial in my neighborhood wants TWICE the amount of no guns brought on their premises. Does that mean that they want a negative number of guns there? Would that indicate that they are, in fact, giving guns away?

 

I think that would be the logical way of taking this combination of signs".

 

While I disagree with their position, I see nothing wrong with their style of posting. The ISP approved sign is next to the door handle, so it is hard to miss. A little redundancy makes their position clear. Do not even need to look twice before walking away. It is better than those posting signs ankle high or mall entrances that had signs posted 20 feet from a door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Springleaf Financial in my neighborhood wants TWICE the amount of no guns brought on their premises. Does that mean that they want a negative number of guns there? Would that indicate that they are, in fact, giving guns away?

 

I think that would be the logical way of taking this combination of signs.

 

I thought the double negatives cancelled each other out and there for they allow CCL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A business near me used to have a compliant sign, but no longer does. It now just has a sign with lettering only, no images, silhouettes or examples of any type of firearm.

 

This company has been well known for prohibiting carry. I see it as odd that they'd still ban carry on their website and have a letters only sign, but the legal signage, which was a permanent sticker on the inside of the glass doors, visible from the parking lot, being gone indicates a tacit don't ask / don't tell policy, the lettering only sign is a ruse to the anti gunners?

 

I ain't saying who or where this business is, but its making me cautiously optimistic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*No not advocating a breaking of the law as written*

 

I think in many of the posts and discussions here that we forget a part of the process which we wanted and got, and that is to "Conceal Carry".

I'm not sure that many, if not all of these compliant or what we think are non-compliant signs are being followed up with daily, hourly, by the minute scrutiny by owners or store managers.

Many if not all those with a CCL make every normal attempt to not print, flash, talk about, that we are in fact carrying.

 

So the assumption that the minute you walk into a place with a non compliant or not easily visible sign, you wouldn't be found out.

And if for some very odd reason you were sniffed out, would they say something to you, and/or would you offer to leave?

 

After reading for what seems years now, and there's a huge amount of what if's mixed in with the factual stuff, I haven't seen anyone post about being spotted, talked to, have had any mention of LEO's being called etc!

If anything I believe it's slowly becoming a non issue with more and more people whom we walk with and thru' each day.

I for one have now stopped fidgeting with the belt, forward to rear shift to tuck in the grip better, and I don't walk around with my right hand holding down the tails of my shirts like I did to begin with.

 

Bottom line I guess is, when peeps say that they don't want to get tossed or get the ride, why would you in more that likely 99% of the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and here is the infamous 'applies to on-duty employees and vendors' sign from Jewel (95th and Route 59 in Naperville):

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

 

Yes. The Jewel thread. Only beat by the Walmart thread. But for those who missed it: Several of us had discussions with Jewel management (both at several stores and at the corporate security level). They really have no problem with customers carrying, but don't want their employees to. Their sign is noncompliant on purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong size, wrong color, wrong wording, wrong graphic, wrong position, not conspicuous, makes no difference to me. I don't care if it's a picture of a shotgun drawn in crayon at the bottom of the door. I know their intent, and that's what the law in Illinois will consider over signage. If a reasonable person knew the intention of the venue's signage, and if the person intentionally ignored the signage, the state has a case. The outcome will depend on how much money you want to spend for intentionally ignoring the sign. Personally, I prefer to keep my money and my firearm with me, and not separate them for people that don't respect my rights or are just plain idiots. Giving money to stupid people means they'll probably use that money on stupid things...like donating to Hillary's campaign.

- chip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know their intent, and that's what the law in Illinois will consider over signage. If a reasonable person knew the intention of the venue's signage, and if the person intentionally ignored the signage, the state has a case.

 

The law doesn't speak to intent, or what a reasonable person may or may not believe; it speaks to a uniform design, set forth by the ISP. Period.

 

Life's too short to worry about piddly crap like where my $2 might go if I buy milk from a store whose intent may or may not be to prohibit carry.

 

If it's not the correct sign, I'm carrying. And truthfully, unless it's got a red circle/slash on it, I probably wouldn't see it in the first place, as that's what I look for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know their intent, and that's what the law in Illinois will consider over signage. If a reasonable person knew the intention of the venue's signage, and if the person intentionally ignored the signage, the state has a case.

The law doesn't speak to intent, or what a reasonable person may or may not believe; it speaks to a uniform design, set forth by the ISP. Period.

 

Life's too short to worry about piddly crap like where my $2 might go if I buy milk from a store whose intent may or may not be to prohibit carry.

 

If it's not the correct sign, I'm carrying. And truthfully, unless it's got a red circle/slash on it, I probably wouldn't see it in the first place, as that's what I look for.

 

How laws are written, and how they're interpreted in court are often somewhat disparate. If every law were as simple as 2+2=4, there'd be no need for lawyers (not a bad idea). However, the world we live in does consider both intent as well as the reasonable person test in most cases. As for how you spend your money, I have no right to advise you than you to advise me. I was just pointing out my personal preferences. On all these points, we can agree to disagree. I'm sure we both have good reasons for what we do and how we think. I don't have to agree with you to respect your position.

 

I'm glad that you carry, and wish you well in your travels.

 

- chip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this differently: They've realized that being anti-gun has definite consequences. Look at Target, Starbucks...they said "no guns" but don't officially post it. That's their olive branch to the Moms for Handwringing and Hiding in a Corner. What matters to me is the outcome. They can say "No redheads" all they want, but as long as my girlfriend gets in without hassle, I don't care what they say.

 

This is the best of all possible moves for them. They're giving the hysterical moms what they ask for and hold the door for us, with a wink and a nod. The anti gunners are duped (really, really not hard) into believing that they've won, and we carry on.

 

Pass the blue cheese dressing, these BBQ wings need more dip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see this differently: They've realized that being anti-gun has definite consequences. Look at Target, Starbucks...they said "no guns" but don't officially post it. That's their olive branch to the Moms for Handwringing and Hiding in a Corner. What matters to me is the outcome. They can say "No redheads" all they want, but as long as my girlfriend gets in without hassle, I don't care what they say.

 

This is the best of all possible moves for them. They're giving the hysterical moms what they ask for and hold the door for us, with a wink and a nod. The anti gunners are duped (really, really not hard) into believing that they've won, and we carry on.

 

Pass the blue cheese dressing, these BBQ wings need more dip!

 

While that is true for Starbucks, it is not true for BW3. Starbucks specifically stated that they will not post any locations (w/ anti-gun signs) and admitted that they "ask" you not to bring your gun in one statement, but that they will do nothing to stop someone from carrying in their stores (even from OC in states that allow it.) BW3, by comparison, is very anti-gun. They have "no guns" signs up across all states, and they "mean" for them to be effective. However, they often use the same generic sign across states, not bothering to learn that this sign is not compliant in Illinois.

 

IMO it is a difference of intent.

Starbucks has no plans to prohibit you, and would not do anything if you're carrying. I do truly believe they are trying somewhat to please both sides w/ their position.

BW3 wants to prohibit you, and their managers would likely call the police if they find you are carrying. While you would almost certainly win in court w/ their non-enforceable sign, it's not worth the trouble and supporting such an anti-gun company. They are firmly on the anti-gun side, but are just somewhat inept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I know their intent, and that's what the law in Illinois will consider over signage. If a reasonable person knew the intention of the venue's signage, and if the person intentionally ignored the signage, the state has a case.

The law doesn't speak to intent, or what a reasonable person may or may not believe; it speaks to a uniform design, set forth by the ISP. Period.

 

Life's too short to worry about piddly crap like where my $2 might go if I buy milk from a store whose intent may or may not be to prohibit carry.

 

If it's not the correct sign, I'm carrying. And truthfully, unless it's got a red circle/slash on it, I probably wouldn't see it in the first place, as that's what I look for.

 

As a former police officer, having taken many law classes, as well as having been involved in many legal proceedings, I can tell you that from my experience, the law may not "speak to intent, or what a reasonable person may or may not believe" but it is not cut and dry.

 

Have you ever gotten out of a speeding ticket? Many have. The law doesn't say anything except that a person who exceeds the posted limit is in violation...however many have avoided a ticket or prosecution BECAUSE of their intent or some sense of how a reasonable person would perceive their actions. That's just one example.

 

Choosing to patronize a gun free zone over an alternative is your choice, but not mine. I always prefer to spend every dollar with sense.

 

- chip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wrong size, wrong color, wrong wording, wrong graphic, wrong position, not conspicuous, makes no difference to me. I don't care if it's a picture of a shotgun drawn in crayon at the bottom of the door. I know their intent, and that's what the law in Illinois will consider over signage. If a reasonable person knew the intention of the venue's signage, and if the person intentionally ignored the signage, the state has a case. The outcome will depend on how much money you want to spend for intentionally ignoring the sign. Personally, I prefer to keep my money and my firearm with me, and not separate them for people that don't respect my rights or are just plain idiots. Giving money to stupid people means they'll probably use that money on stupid things...like donating to Hillary's campaign.

 

- chip

+1000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You guys realize that weck hasn't been part of the Buffalo Wild Wings name since 1998. There's no 3rd W. Maybe start calling it BW2's? Or just call it Buffalo Wild Wings?

 

I've always wondered what the heck the 3rd W was supposed to be.

I had to Google "weck". I thought it was a typo from BigDeesul. I had no clue what it was. No wonder they removed it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Springleaf Financial in my neighborhood wants TWICE the amount of no guns brought on their premises. Does that mean that they want a negative number of guns there? Would that indicate that they are, in fact, giving guns away?

 

I think that would be the logical way of taking this combination of signs.

 

 

 

 

This Springleaf Financial in my neighborhood wants TWICE the amount of no guns brought on their premises. Does that mean that they want a negative number of guns there? Would that indicate that they are, in fact, giving guns away?

 

I think that would be the logical way of taking this combination of signs.

 

I thought the double negatives cancelled each other out and there for they allow CCL.

 

 

Beat me to it, I was going to say "doesn't the double negative actually mean we CAN carry here" :D ???

 

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see this differently: They've realized that being anti-gun has definite consequences. Look at Target, Starbucks...they said "no guns" but don't officially post it. That's their olive branch to the Moms for Handwringing and Hiding in a Corner. What matters to me is the outcome. They can say "No redheads" all they want, but as long as my girlfriend gets in without hassle, I don't care what they say.

 

This is the best of all possible moves for them. They're giving the hysterical moms what they ask for and hold the door for us, with a wink and a nod. The anti gunners are duped (really, really not hard) into believing that they've won, and we carry on.

 

Pass the blue cheese dressing, these BBQ wings need more dip!

 

While that is true for Starbucks, it is not true for BW3. Starbucks specifically stated that they will not post any locations (w/ anti-gun signs) and admitted that they "ask" you not to bring your gun in one statement, but that they will do nothing to stop someone from carrying in their stores (even from OC in states that allow it.) BW3, by comparison, is very anti-gun. They have "no guns" signs up across all states, and they "mean" for them to be effective. However, they often use the same generic sign across states, not bothering to learn that this sign is not compliant in Illinois.

 

IMO it is a difference of intent.

Starbucks has no plans to prohibit you, and would not do anything if you're carrying. I do truly believe they are trying somewhat to please both sides w/ their position.

BW3 wants to prohibit you, and their managers would likely call the police if they find you are carrying. While you would almost certainly win in court w/ their non-enforceable sign, it's not worth the trouble and supporting such an anti-gun company. They are firmly on the anti-gun side, but are just somewhat inept.

 

 

^this^

 

I don't hate sixbucks, OR target for merely trying to operate a business and NOT wanting to be involved in the 2A debate! I respect that they issued PR "statements" along the lines of "please leave your guns at home" yet refuse to post any signage that makes it legal for us to "stay out"... This to me makes plenty of sense, they just want to do business with anyone who will give them their money, how a business should be ran.

 

I even had a friend who was super "fuming" @ sixbucks and target, until I "talked some sense" into him. I said look they issued mere PR statements to appease the anti bed-wetters, meanwhile NOT posting so that we CAN still carry in their stores. That was actually a smart move IMHO.

 

Now yes, I agree, a business that is known to be anti 2A, but doesn't post "legal" signage such as BWW. SCREW THEM! I wouldn't give those bigots one red cent of my money!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Saw one at the local Teamsters Hall yesterday.

We share the hall with them.

I'll update load a picture when I get home.

8 1/2 x 11

No black border

And hanging on a hook/suction cup kinda like they might remove it and then place it each morning?

Seems weird to not have it affixed to the side window!

 

And really, the Teamsters are Anti 2A?

I went down to Teamster City a few weeks ago with my Brother. The building itself isn't posted, but when we arrived at the office foyer, the glass doors leading in were posted. The doors were locked and when we knocked on the glass, you would have thought they were expecting Attilla the Hun the way they looked at us. A couple of BA's came out into the foyer, closed the door behind them and we had our discussion there.

I thought the same thing... Anti 2A?

 

I'm sure they believe this too:

 

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-14-aflcio.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Saw one at the local Teamsters Hall yesterday.

We share the hall with them.

I'll update load a picture when I get home.

8 1/2 x 11

No black border

And hanging on a hook/suction cup kinda like they might remove it and then place it each morning?

Seems weird to not have it affixed to the side window!

 

And really, the Teamsters are Anti 2A?

I went down to Teamster City a few weeks ago with my Brother. The building itself isn't posted, but when we arrived at the office foyer, the glass doors leading in were posted. The doors were locked and when we knocked on the glass, you would have thought they were expecting Attilla the Hun the way they looked at us. A couple of BA's came out into the foyer, closed the door behind them and we had our discussion there.

I thought the same thing... Anti 2A?

 

I'm sure they believe this too:

 

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2008-10-14-aflcio.jpg

 

 

As a union member I say:

CoC violation that guy.

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...