Jump to content


Photo

Another Non-Compliant Sign


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,366 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:16 AM

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

01916a03-0c0e-44e6-b894-77846407dbaa_zps

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1". 

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank


Edited by Frank, 18 May 2017 - 09:25 AM.

NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#2 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:26 AM

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1". 

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

 

So, did you have to sleep, shower, and use other bathroom facilities, in the breeze way in order to be compliant? :unsure: 

 

It might be interesting to know the hotel's national headquarters on stand on posting.  The local hotel may not be following corporate policy.



#3 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,366 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 18 May 2017 - 09:34 AM

 

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1". 

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

 

So, did you have to sleep, shower, and use other bathroom facilities, in the breeze way in order to be compliant? :unsure:

 

It might be interesting to know the hotel's national headquarters on stand on posting.  The local hotel may not be following corporate policy.

 

 

Unfortunately, the training I was attending was in a building listed in the Prohibited Areas of the FCCA. 

 

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.

 

 

-- Frank


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#4 SiliconSorcerer

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,979 posts
  • Joined: 11-March 12

Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:32 AM

Looks like it's on a wall, that's not compliant regardless, the law doesn't require you to look around for one. 


You give peace a chance; I'll cover you if it doesn't work out.

 

NRA Benefactor Member

Remington Society of America Life Member

Ruger Collectors Association Life Member

Texas Gun Collector Honorary Member

Colt Collectors Association Honorary Member

Ruger Society Honorary Member

etc etc etc

 


#5 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 18 May 2017 - 11:48 AM

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

01916a03-0c0e-44e6-b894-77846407dbaa_zps

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1". 

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

The creator of that sign had to go through a lot of effort to make a sign so close yet also so far from being compliant. As in, it's way easier to just print off the correct sign or create an obviously non-compliant sign.

 

But to create a sign that references the wrong section of the law and is oriented the wrong way (but with the right dimensions)? That's a special level of doing it wrong.


Edited by Hazborgufen, 18 May 2017 - 11:48 AM.


#6 Kaeghl

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,360 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 05

Posted 18 May 2017 - 12:41 PM

I would say non-compliant per the official dictates of the official organization that was delegated to design and publish the ONLY official sign.....

 

Therefore, it has no force of law and is just a bad case of interior design. How about a picture of a boat on a lake instead?



#7 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,366 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 18 May 2017 - 04:44 PM

I would say non-compliant per the official dictates of the official organization that was delegated to design and publish the ONLY official sign.....

 

Therefore, it has no force of law and is just a bad case of interior design. How about a picture of a boat on a lake instead?

 

LOL!


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#8 ScottFM

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Joined: 09-January 17

Posted 18 May 2017 - 07:09 PM

I would say non-compliant per the official dictates of the official organization that was delegated to design and publish the ONLY official sign.....

 

Therefore, it has no force of law and is just a bad case of interior design. How about a picture of a boat on a lake instead?

Yeah, but do you want to be 'that guy' who ignores it and makes gun owners and CCW carriers look like ********? We all know what the property owner is trying to convey. Just be respectful of their private property rights. IOW be decent human being. 


--

Beer, it's the reason I get out of bed every afternoon!

 

 


#9 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

Posted 18 May 2017 - 08:57 PM

Yeah, but do you want to be 'that guy' who ignores it and makes gun owners and CCW carriers look like ********? We all know what the property owner is trying to convey. Just be respectful of their private property rights. IOW be decent human being. 

 

 

You mean like this guy?

 

http://www.pantagrap...d060b4fce1.html

 

http://www.pantagrap...445284ebe9.html


Posted Image


#10 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 7,559 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:32 AM

The sign makes a reference to the title of the act only and not the whole act which includes the prohibitions. Legally worthless. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

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

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


#11 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:48 AM

The regulation references Illinois Code 430 ILCS 66/1, which I emboldened below, while the example sign shows Illinois Code 430 ILCS 66/65.  It appears that either citation could be acceptable.  I cannot find any verbiage in regards to the orientation of the sign. 

 

”Owners of any statutorily prohibited area or private property, excluding residences, where the owner prohibits the carrying of firearms must clearly and conspicuously post the Illinois State Police approved sign, in accordance with Firearm Concealed Carry Act, at the entrance of the building, premises or real property. Please refer to Section 65 (Prohibited Areas) of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act for more information on statutory requirements for signage as well as where concealed weapons are prohibited.

Pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, signs must be of a uniform design and the Illinois State Police is responsible for adopting rules for standardized signs. The Illinois State Police has proposed rules which require a white background; no text (except the reference to the Illinois Code 430 ILCS 66/1) or marking within the one-inch area surrounding the graphic design; a depiction of a handgun in black ink with a circle around and diagonal slash across the firearm in red ink; and that the circle be 4 inches in diameter. The sign in its entirety will measure 4 inches x 6 inches”.

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Signage.aspx



#12 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 19 May 2017 - 08:45 AM

Per the Administrative Code, no other text than the reference to 430 ILCS 66/65 is allowed within the border. It also says the border must be 4 inches TALL by 6 inches WIDE.


ftp://www.ilga.gov/jcar/admincode/020/02001231ZZ9996AR.html

Edited by stm, 19 May 2017 - 08:50 AM.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#13 Quiet Observer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 785 posts
  • Joined: 20-May 15

Posted 19 May 2017 - 11:53 AM

Thanks for the link stm,

 

It would have been less confusing if the ISP would have posted the same verbiage in their link as is found on the JCAR link. 



#14 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 19 May 2017 - 12:35 PM

Thanks for the link stm,
 
It would have been less confusing if the ISP would have posted the same verbiage in their link as is found on the JCAR link. 

No problem, and I agree with you about ISP' s FAQ's.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#15 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 19 May 2017 - 03:23 PM

 

Yeah, but do you want to be 'that guy' who ignores it and makes gun owners and CCW carriers look like ********? We all know what the property owner is trying to convey. Just be respectful of their private property rights. IOW be decent human being. 

 

 

You mean like this guy?

 

http://www.pantagrap...d060b4fce1.html

 

http://www.pantagrap...445284ebe9.html

 

This is excellent. To quote the second piece: "What was learned by the Diversity Project youth from Boch's actions? That you only follow rules or laws you agree with? That it's OK to disobey safety guidelines or lie, cheat or omit the truth if there's a printing error, technical glitch or miscommunication in information? That your own cause or opinion is more important than putting others' lives at risk? As a leader, Boch's actions are alarming and apt to have far reaching consequences. He should be held legally and morally accountable by all of us."

 

At no time did anyone's life come into danger by Boch's actions. And, in fact, this author demonstrates once again that they antis have nothing to stand on but hyperbole and hysteria. They're gun-phobic. They have an irrational fear of a mechanical device. It's a superstition, really.

Furthermore, Boch didn't violate any law or rule. In fact, he was doing his best to follow the letter of the law. These sort of technicalities appear in legal realms all the time. Everyday, in fact. If you don't want someone with a concealed handgun in your private building, use the right talisman! If you care enough about it, you'll do your research and make sure you have legal standing.

 



#16 Hazborgufen

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 970 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 13

Posted 19 May 2017 - 04:06 PM

There's a reason that signs should be standard. Otherwise:

 

30890-2__08646.1436310757.500.750.jpg?c=

 

stop-GO-sign.png



#17 Tango7

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,680 posts
  • Joined: 06-November 08

Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:24 PM

What's funny (in the way that our beloved overlords only can be) is that while the ISP CCW sign page has the incorrect section number, the PDF version that the link references has the legal and correct nomenclature.
You will not 'rise to the occasion', you will default to your level of training - plan accordingly.

Despite their rallying around us at election time, honoring only 8 hours of Illinois' 40+ hour law enforcement class towards a 16 hour requirement shows the contempt that our elected officials hold us in.

#18 jeterlancer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 124 posts
  • Joined: 20-February 17

Posted 19 May 2017 - 06:33 PM

Question about the sign! I saw a sign here in Chicago a few days ago (can't remember where), but the pistol was a 1911 instead of a Beretta. It was the correct size and had the correct statute. Is this sign invalid because the pistol is different?



#19 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 19 May 2017 - 07:12 PM

Question about the sign! I saw a sign here in Chicago a few days ago (can't remember where), but the pistol was a 1911 instead of a Beretta. It was the correct size and had the correct statute. Is this sign invalid because the pistol is different?

I think it's still valid if it meets the requirements in the Administrative Code above. The Administrative Code does not specify a Beretta handgun.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#20 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,122 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 20 May 2017 - 08:16 AM

I doubt I would have even noticed the sign due to the less than conspicuous location and the vertical orientation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#21 matkinson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 292 posts
  • Joined: 27-November 13

Posted 21 May 2017 - 02:40 PM

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.


I travel for work and I am Diamond with Hilton. In my travels I've come across exactly one Hilton property that was posted, and it wasn't in Illinois. I complained to corporate and I won't book that location again despite quite a bit of travel to that city.

Hilton corporate responded and said (based on my memory) that they have no policy either way, it's up to the franchisee to decide.

#22 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,366 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 22 May 2017 - 08:21 AM

 

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.


I travel for work and I am Diamond with Hilton. In my travels I've come across exactly one Hilton property that was posted, and it wasn't in Illinois. I complained to corporate and I won't book that location again despite quite a bit of travel to that city.

Hilton corporate responded and said (based on my memory) that they have no policy either way, it's up to the franchisee to decide.

 

 

I think I saw another Hilton in Illinois in the POSTED app. But I think you are correct, it must be a franchisee decision.

 

 

-- Frank


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#23 Frank

    "Frank can Glock"

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 2,366 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 09

Posted 23 May 2017 - 10:21 PM

What's funny (in the way that our beloved overlords only can be) is that while the ISP CCW sign page has the incorrect section number, the PDF version that the link references has the legal and correct nomenclature.

 

Just to follow up, I sent a message to ISP about the incorrect reference on the web page. Their reply? "We will review this information." That's it. Nothing else.

 

 

-- Frank


NRA Life Member - NRA Basic Pistol Instructor - NRA PPIH Instructor - NRA PPOH Instructor - USPSA Range Officer - IL Firearms Concealed Carry Instructor - ITWT Club Member #438

"The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside." -Moore v. Madigan, 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, December 11, 2012


#24 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 25 May 2017 - 12:22 PM

 

What's funny (in the way that our beloved overlords only can be) is that while the ISP CCW sign page has the incorrect section number, the PDF version that the link references has the legal and correct nomenclature.

 

Just to follow up, I sent a message to ISP about the incorrect reference on the web page. Their reply? "We will review this information." That's it. Nothing else.

 

 

-- Frank

 

In other words, 'We don't plan to do anything'. :frantics:



#25 blck10th

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 588 posts
  • Joined: 13-December 15

Posted 25 May 2017 - 05:29 PM


 

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.


I travel for work and I am Diamond with Hilton. In my travels I've come across exactly one Hilton property that was posted, and it wasn't in Illinois. I complained to corporate and I won't book that location again despite quite a bit of travel to that city.
Hilton corporate responded and said (based on my memory) that they have no policy either way, it's up to the franchisee to decide.
 


 
I think I saw another Hilton in Illinois in the POSTED app. But I think you are correct, it must be a franchisee decision.
 
 
-- Frank


I know there's a Hilton double tree posted by 355 and Butterfield


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

#26 cjvandyke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 195 posts
  • Joined: 30-August 13

Posted 26 May 2017 - 06:55 AM

So with all the complaints about not being compliant, the law states a sign has to be posted or the owner/manager of a building/residence can verbally tell you that guns aren't allowed. I would think any form of sign telling you that you are not allowed to have guns in the location would be legally binding. I understand everyone wanting a way out of this law, but are there any incidents of a non compliant sign being useless by a court? In my opinion, being told verbally or seeing a sign that says no firearms (compliant or not) would keep me away from that location. Just my two cents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

www.tactical-defense.us
facebook.com/tactdefen
twitter.com/tactdefen
NRA Life Member
NRA Cerfified Instructor / CRSO
Pistol - Rifle - Shotgun
Personal Protection - Home Firearm Safety
Illinois Firearms Instructor
Utah Firearms Instructor


#27 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 26 May 2017 - 08:35 AM

So with all the complaints about not being compliant, the law states a sign has to be posted or the owner/manager of a building/residence can verbally tell you that guns aren't allowed. I would think any form of sign telling you that you are not allowed to have guns in the location would be legally binding. I understand everyone wanting a way out of this law, but are there any incidents of a non compliant sign being useless by a court? In my opinion, being told verbally or seeing a sign that says no firearms (compliant or not) would keep me away from that location. Just my two cents.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about this link posted elsewhere in this thread?
http://www.pantagrap...bile_touch=true

ISP refused to arrest him because the sign was missing part of the black border.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#28 stm

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,826 posts
  • Joined: 26-April 11

Posted 26 May 2017 - 09:17 AM

Additionally, no where does it say a private property owner can just verbally notify you. The statute says:

 (a-10) The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence.
So the owner "MUST post a sign in accordance with subsection ( d )." Not MAY post a sign. Not must post ANY sign. It's pretty specific about the requirements, and that's a good thing. It's to protect licensees from being tripped up by any random posting we may or may not see.

yea everyone makes fun of the redneck till the zombies show up. . .


#29 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 850 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 26 May 2017 - 12:44 PM

So with all the complaints about not being compliant, the law states a sign has to be posted or the owner/manager of a building/residence can verbally tell you that guns aren't allowed. I would think any form of sign telling you that you are not allowed to have guns in the location would be legally binding. I understand everyone wanting a way out of this law, but are there any incidents of a non compliant sign being useless by a court? In my opinion, being told verbally or seeing a sign that says no firearms (compliant or not) would keep me away from that location. Just my two cents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe the only place where a verbal request is legally binding is a private residence. Every other place must have a sign...the correct sign.

 

Another incident occurred wherein a man dropped his gun in a post office in Woodstock, Illinois. The police did not charge the man even though the post office is posted per federal regulation. The local police didn't arrest the man because the post office was not posted per Illinois law with the proper sign. They referred the matter to the postal inspector. I don't know if the inspector did anything about it.



#30 Black Flag

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Joined: 06-October 05

Posted 26 May 2017 - 01:02 PM

 

How about this link posted elsewhere in this thread?
http://www.pantagrap...bile_touch=true

ISP refused to arrest him because the sign was missing part of the black border.

 

 

It would be a terrible way to spend a weekend:

 

Sitting in [insert your favorite] county jail over the holiday, bemoaning that the ED from GSL did it and was not charged.


Posted Image





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users