joedav1228 Posted December 10, 2020 at 10:12 PM Share Posted December 10, 2020 at 10:12 PM since the OP has been absent in this thread since last Friday I suggest we close the thread? Maybe Friday he was in work, carrying and surfing this forum on his company computer and they found out he was carrying hahahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Teddybear Posted December 31, 2020 at 05:53 AM Share Posted December 31, 2020 at 05:53 AM They rent the property in a bigger building. The building doesnt restrict conceal carry, it has tenants and renters. There are surely firearms on the property. This is just an office inside the building with the conceal carry signs posted. If those signs didnt have the force of law, I wouldn't be asking the question. Only the building owners can prohibit CCW. Renters have no authority. If they terminate you for carrying concealed sue the company and building owner. If they have you arrested sue the city, the company, and the building owner for false for false arrest. I've already had this happen a year ago. The renters of a building said no firearms were allowed and threatened arrest if their policy was violated. I never got the opportunity to sue. Once the renter found out the law they dropped their no firearms allowed policy once they found out that the building owner threatened the renter with eviction Ask a Second Amendment attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdDinIL Posted December 31, 2020 at 03:57 PM Share Posted December 31, 2020 at 03:57 PM Only the building owners can prohibit CCW. Renters have no authority. If they terminate you for carrying concealed sue the company and building owner. If they have you arrested sue the city, the company, and the building owner for false for false arrest.Interesting, did not know that only the owner could do that. I wonder if that was an oversight, not that I'm complaining. Has anyone been successfully sued over that? Would this also mean that a store in a strip mall can't prohibit CCL, presuming that the store owners lease the property? 430 ILCS 66/65 (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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted December 31, 2020 at 05:14 PM Share Posted December 31, 2020 at 05:14 PM Regardless of building ownership, you can be fired for violation of company policy, or just on a whim. Can an employer terminate me without advance notice or without giving a reason or an unfair reason for the termination?Yes. Illinois is an "employment at-will" state, meaning that an employer or employee may terminate the relationship at any time, without any reason or cause. The employer, however, cannot discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, age, marital status, physical or mental handicap, military service or unfavorable military discharge. If you wish to locate additional information, visit the Illinois Department of Human Rights. Frequently Asked Questions - FAQs (illinois.gov) This is a guess on my part. Although the cited law does not mention renters, I think that common practice allows renters to control entry to the premises. It may even be part of rental agreements. I suppose that if you wanted to enter a posted rented store in a mall, you could ask who the building owner is and contact them. Maybe they would have the sign removed, maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted December 31, 2020 at 10:37 PM Share Posted December 31, 2020 at 10:37 PM I believe the intent of the above-quoted law is that tenants are powerless to allow firearms if their landlords prohibit them (unless it's a residence). I see nothing that prohibits a tenant from prohibiting firearms if their landlords allow them. I agree that prohibitions on prohibitions would most likely be specified by the lease, if at all. Employers can set nearly any employment conditions they want, anyway, subject to employment law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giant Teddybear Posted January 1, 2021 at 06:35 AM Share Posted January 1, 2021 at 06:35 AM I believe the intent of the above-quoted law is that tenants are powerless to allow firearms if their landlords prohibit them (unless it's a residence). I see nothing that prohibits a tenant from prohibiting firearms if their landlords allow them. I agree that prohibitions on prohibitions would most likely be specified by the lease, if at all. Employers can set nearly any employment conditions they want, anyway, subject to employment law. Maybe you need some glasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 1, 2021 at 07:10 AM Share Posted January 1, 2021 at 07:10 AM I believe the intent of the above-quoted law is that tenants are powerless to allow firearms if their landlords prohibit them (unless it's a residence). I see nothing that prohibits a tenant from prohibiting firearms if their landlords allow them. I agree that prohibitions on prohibitions would most likely be specified by the lease, if at all. Employers can set nearly any employment conditions they want, anyway, subject to employment law. Maybe you need some glasses. Feel free to point to the words that say a landlord can mandate that a tenant cannot prohibit firearms or that ONLY a landlord can prohibit firearms. I see no words about tenants at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted January 1, 2021 at 01:29 PM Share Posted January 1, 2021 at 01:29 PM Feel free to point to the words that say a landlord can mandate that a tenant cannot prohibit firearms or that ONLY a landlord can prohibit firearms. I see no words about tenants at all.The question is whether their posting a property they don't own would have any force of law under the FCCA. The Act only authorizes the owner to post a property as an exemption to a broader requirement to allow carry. This is consistent with a concern at the time about property rights, ie the rights of property owners. There was no concern publicly expressed about tenant's rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Observer Posted January 1, 2021 at 04:28 PM Share Posted January 1, 2021 at 04:28 PM The OP was about employer/employee relations. The FCCA has no bearing. Posting or ownership of the property have no effect on employment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 2, 2021 at 12:08 AM Share Posted January 2, 2021 at 12:08 AM ... There was no concern publicly expressed about tenant's rights. Not in the OP, but there was one rather strongly implied in the post to which I replied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Balkan Posted January 13, 2021 at 04:10 PM Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 at 04:10 PM Thanks for all the replies. I did not mean to go MIA. The whole owners thing seems like a legal grey area thats not worth risking employment over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted January 13, 2021 at 07:40 PM Share Posted January 13, 2021 at 07:40 PM Thanks for all the replies. I did not mean to go MIA. The whole owners thing seems like a legal grey area thats not worth risking employment over.THat's the crux of it. The employer can make it a facet of employment. But, it does appear their posted signs do not hold the force of law (i.e. arrest) behind them. Now, is it actually a stated employment policy? Or did the space rented come with the signs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord_Balkan Posted January 13, 2021 at 08:08 PM Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 at 08:08 PM Thanks for all the replies. I did not mean to go MIA. The whole owners thing seems like a legal grey area thats not worth risking employment over.THat's the crux of it. The employer can make it a facet of employment. But, it does appear their posted signs do not hold the force of law (i.e. arrest) behind them. Now, is it actually a stated employment policy? Or did the space rented come with the signs? Sounds like they put up the signs back when CC was allowed, and I'm not sure if they got the owner's permission for it. I wouldn't be surprised if they got permission, or if they didn't, that they easily could. There is no written policy, its just that the signs are up there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2A4Cook Posted January 14, 2021 at 02:54 AM Share Posted January 14, 2021 at 02:54 AM I would be willing to bet a court would extend "owner" to include parties in lawful possession, i.e., renters and lessees. A mini-mall shop is an example. The mall owner does not prohibit, but the store owner/lessee posts his front entrance. I'm willing to bet LEO would enforce, and a prosecutor would charge. In Crook county, I think my first sentence would ultimately follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mauserme Posted January 14, 2021 at 03:13 AM Share Posted January 14, 2021 at 03:13 AM Section 65 draws pretty clear distinctions between locations "under the control of", in the case of various government entities which are automatically prohibited, versus an ownership interest in the case of private buildings such as businesses which may be posted if the owner chooses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiberius Posted January 20, 2021 at 07:50 PM Share Posted January 20, 2021 at 07:50 PM Some store owners prohibit employees from carrying on the premises, but allow customers to carry. I have a PT job at a regional retail chain......the company handbook prohibits employees from carrying on duty. But the store sells ammo (but not firearms) and does not post. So when not on the clock, I can go in and carry as a customer, but if I report for work I have to leave my carry piece in the car.` Weird, but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lou Posted January 20, 2021 at 08:03 PM Share Posted January 20, 2021 at 08:03 PM Some store owners prohibit employees from carrying on the premises, but allow customers to carry. I have a PT job at a regional retail chain......the company handbook prohibits employees from carrying on duty. But the store sells ammo (but not firearms) and does not post. So when not on the clock, I can go in and carry as a customer, but if I report for work I have to leave my carry piece in the car.` Weird, but it is what it is.The Jewel stores in the Chicago area allow carry for customers but not employees or vendors. Maybe they don’t want to lose customers. ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted January 20, 2021 at 08:09 PM Share Posted January 20, 2021 at 08:09 PM The Jewel stores in the Chicago area allow carry for customers but not employees or vendors. Maybe they don’t want to lose customers. ?? More likely they don't want to cover workman's comp premiums for gunshots on the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.