Jump to content

Sticky Situation


Giant Teddybear

Recommended Posts

In the last month I have carried to my AA meetings in this Podunk town of 5500 population (Fairfield, IL 62837) and to another AA meeting 8 miles away population 1200 (Wayne City). The Fairfield group which is my home group consists of 10-15 members twice a week at two different churches.

 

Last night at the Friday night group they had a big 8" X 11" sign that said: Notice - No Firearms Allowed, with the picture of a pistol with the slash through it.

 

 

I talked to the leader of this group of 10-15 members and told him and the others attending the meeting that they were violating my Constitutional right to carry. Both churches where there meetings are at have not stated that firearms are not allowed. The group meetings rent the rooms where the meetings are held. The leader of the group said that if I carried to anymore meetings that they would call the police and have me arrested for violating their rule.

 

Here are two of Alcoholic's Anonymous 12 Traditions:

 

Tradition 2
For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

 

Tradition 10
Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.
No A.A. group or member should ever, in such way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside issues - particularly those of politics, alcohol reform or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.

 

None of this rule from the small Fairfield group is in writing anywhere. It's just 10-15 people in one small group saying no firearms are allowed at their two meetings.

 

They would actually have to frisk me or see my concealed carry pistol to actually enforce it.

 

On Monday I am going to call the AA main office in New York City and consult with their attorney's about the legality of this. I will also call the NRA.

 

My questions are:

 

1. Is their unwritten rule legal to enforce with arrest?

2. Is my Constitutional right to carry being violated by this small group when the two churches where the meetings are held have no opinions about carrying?

 

 

My ideal situation in my own opinion would be for 20-30 of other people that carry to show up at one of their meetings and when the time comes to state their first name as all newcomers do is to say "Hello I'm (your first name) and I'm here to support me in my Second Amendment right to carry concealed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK it's the property owner or tenant that has to post. In other words, the church. Not some group that's using a room in the church free of charge. I can't just decide that I don't want guns in a church that I do not own, do not have ANY equity in, when my group is having a meeting inside the building. They're not violating your rights as they're not the government, but they're not making friends either. I wouldn't want anything to do with that echo chamber. Others may feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but that is my own interpretation of the law. Isn't it great that we gun owners have to become armchair attorneys just to attempt to comply with the law?

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sign is non-compliant.

 

THEIR rule does not bear the force of law without compliant signs.

 

I would push it to the point of arrest, as long as the sign is non-compliant.

 

THEN the lawsuits will fly. False arrest mainly.

 

THAT will educate them to use the proper sign, and after that you're up the polluted creek without a paddle.

 

 

 

WHAT happened to initiate the placement of the signs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just my interpretation but they could put up a billboard outside and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Nor would a legally compliant sign. Unless it's the church that is posting, then it carries zero legal weight because the group cannot post someone else's property.

 

430 ILCS 66/65, subsection (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."

 

My reasoning is that the AA group does not own the property. It also has no control over the church property. I mean, the definition of "owner" hasn't been litigated, but it's not like the AA group exercises any modicum of control over the property. It is allowed to use the space at a specific time. Keep material there, whatever. Point is the church calls the shots. I'd like to note that this reasoning does not extend to leases.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make a copy of 430 ILCS 66/65.

 

Go to your next meeting.

If asked if you are carrying refuse to answer the question. Simply DO NOT answer. Never answer, you are under zero obligation to do so.

If pressed state that under the law a License holder is only required to answer that question for law enforcement.

But do not answer the question - either affirmative nor negative. Answer only to law enforcement.

 

Hand them the copy of 430 ILCS 66/65 and ask them to point out under what authority they are using to post the meeting as prohibited.

Since they have no authority under the law to post and since the building owner has chosen NOT to post under the law their sign is irrelevant.

 

And then go find another meeting to attend as this one obviously has agendas in addition to what their stated goals are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are absolutely right, go to NY. and talk with them, see if they can get things settled down. Now if the church has instituted a new rule on no firearms that's a different story.

I have carried in meetings for 30 some years and will continue to do so. So far no one has ever noticed or if they did were reluctant to say something about it to an crabby old biker.

Good luck and keep going to the meetings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to sue for. They're not infringing on his rights because they can't infringe on his rights. If they call the cops on him, get him arrested, then that could be a cause of action but as it stands, they aren't infringing on anything. They also have no right to ask for your license. They can go ahead and have you arrested, but it would either require an incompetent officer or filing a false police report and lying to the police on a continuing basis which is a crime in and of itself. They'd basically be SWATting you, which is a misuse of the 911 system and carries a hefty fine. Knowing me, I'd make them feel like intellectual peons, possibly dare them to have me arrested and explain exactly how I will ruin them both professionally as well as financially should they continue with the "We're the law" charade, then drop the mic. For multiple reasons, I DO NOT suggest you threaten them. I would only do so as a last resort.

 

I would just go in there, hand them a copy of the pertinent section of 430 ILCS 66/65. Highlighted, perhaps. Explain that they are not the property owner(s), they are not lessees, they have exactly zero control over the property, and that they cannot have control. Tell them they have no right to post someone else's property, that their sign does not nor will it ever carry legal weight. Knowing how AA works, I'm guessing you can't go over their heads because each group is autonomous. Or it would be very difficult. Honestly I can't believe that you'd find that many anti-gun people in Fairfield. Could it just be one or two members of the group that are truly anti-gun and have intimidated others into joining their "faction"? I honestly wouldn't want to be a part of a group that's gonna judge me that way. That judgy behavior is exactly what AA is NOT about. They are NOT supposed to be judging anyone, it's counter-productive, actually violates their own code of conduct. If they're not willing to listen to you, just walk away.

 

I hate to say it but I've dealt with this attitude when I was going to Al-Anon. I don't know if it's isolated incidents or just how it pans out because the most controlling members of the group tend to take leadership. Not the "no guns" stuff but the people who create problems where there are none simply because they have serious issues with control (as spouses and children of alcoholics, we're control freaks). During a discussion, I gave my two cents and was mercilessly attacked by four women while the men just sat there with that "I agree with you but I'm not gonna defend you" look. There would be one or two people who basically tell others how to think (reminded me of a high school clique or cult-like behavior) and that doesn't mesh well with my personality. Not knocking the program(s), just that they aren't for me. AA didn't work well for my dad either because of the reasons above.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing to sue for. They're not infringing on his rights because they can't infringe on his rights. If they call the cops on him, get him arrested, then that could be a cause of action but as it stands, they aren't infringing on anything. They also have no right to ask for your license. They can go ahead and have you arrested, but it would either require an incompetent officer or filing a false police report and lying to the police on a continuing basis which is a crime in and of itself. They'd basically be SWATting you, which is a misuse of the 911 system and carries a hefty fine. Knowing me, I'd make them feel like intellectual peons, possibly dare them to have me arrested and explain exactly how I will ruin them both professionally as well as financially should they continue with the "We're the law" charade, then drop the mic. For multiple reasons, I DO NOT suggest you threaten them. I would only do so as a last resort. I would just go in there, hand them a copy of the pertinent section of 430 ILCS 66/65. Highlighted, perhaps. Explain that they are not the property owner(s), they are not lessees, they have exactly zero control over the property, and that they cannot have control. Tell them they have no right to post someone else's property, that their sign does not nor will it ever carry legal weight. Knowing how AA works, I'm guessing you can't go over their heads because each group is autonomous. Or it would be very difficult. Honestly I can't believe that you'd find that many anti-gun people in Fairfield. Could it just be one or two members of the group that are truly anti-gun and have intimidated others into joining their "faction"? I honestly wouldn't want to be a part of a group that's gonna judge me that way. That judgy behavior is exactly what AA is NOT about. They are NOT supposed to be judging anyone, it's counter-productive, actually violates their own code of conduct. If they're not willing to listen to you, just walk away. I hate to say it but I've dealt with this attitude when I was going to Al-Anon. I don't know if it's isolated incidents or just how it pans out because the most controlling members of the group tend to take leadership. Not the "no guns" stuff but the people who create problems where there are none simply because they have serious issues with control (as spouses and children of alcoholics, we're control freaks). During a discussion, I gave my two cents and was mercilessly attacked by four women while the men just sat there with that "I agree with you but I'm not gonna defend you" look. There would be one or two people who basically tell others how to think (reminded me of a high school clique or cult-like behavior) and that doesn't mesh well with my personality. Not knocking the program(s), just that they aren't for me. AA didn't work well for my dad either because of the reasons above. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

That is actually more of what I was thinking. I enjoy setting idiots up for litigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the sentiments here:

 

1) If you know their sign isn't compliant or that they don't have the right to post in the first place, carry on and keep your mouth shut about it (although, I commend you for raising your concerns!)

 

2) The sign sounds non-compliant just by the size alone and the wording.

 

3) As said by others, the property owner is the only one with authority to post a sign anyway.

 

4) Why is it that everyone is involved in every political issue these days...and ill informed about them to boot?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone unwanted shows up to a meeting, wouldn't the meeting organizers call the police? Would this situation be any different? I agree that it is completely legal to carry at the meeting; however, if someone calls the cops, would they not see it just as a trespassing issue? These people have paid to use the space, and this person is not wanted here.

 

I am not saying it's right, but I would think the cops would kick the OP out and arrest them if they did not leave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone unwanted shows up to a meeting, wouldn't the meeting organizers call the police? Would this situation be any different? I agree that it is completely legal to carry at the meeting; however, if someone calls the cops, would they not see it just as a trespassing issue? These people have paid to use the space, and this person is not wanted here.I am not saying it's right, but I would think the cops would kick the OP out and arrest them if they did not leave.
That's a different story. They can have anyone escorted off the premises and given a warning to not return, but if they tell the police why they want him off the property...I'm not sure how well that'll go over with some LEOs. "Because he has a gun? So you called us, armed police, because you DON'T want guns on premises?" I mean, it's within their right to call, but it's so petty and nonsensical to have armed men remove an armed man because he's armed.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all so very much for your opinions and voices about this matter you have been so helpful.

 

I quoted the law to the group and also gave the law and quoted it to the two church preachers.

 

In turn the church preachers called their attorneys to find out what the law states and what it meant.

 

Each church official showed up at the meetings and informed each group could not make that rule as they were not the owner's of the property. That the church was the only ones that could prohibit firearms not the AA group as they did not own the property and that the AA group was not to make anymore rules unless consulting the church first as their no firearms rule made the church liable.

 

Again. Thank-you so very much for your opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad it has been resolved.

 

Question for the armchair lawyers... In the original post it was stated that AA "rented" the rooms.

 

Does the act of renting, financial exchange, change the ownership or control? If even for a short limited time period.

 

I rent a hotel room and that becomes my domicile for a predetermined agreed upon time frame.

 

Does renting vs loaning the space change the answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad it has been resolved.

 

Question for the armchair lawyers... In the original post it was stated that AA "rented" the rooms.

 

Does the act of renting, financial exchange, change the ownership or control? If even for a short limited time period.

 

I rent a hotel room and that becomes my domicile for a predetermined agreed upon time frame.

 

Does renting vs loaning the space change the answer?

 

 

I'm not going to push the matter any further. I got my desired results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad it has been resolved.

Question for the armchair lawyers... In the original post it was stated that AA "rented" the rooms.

Does the act of renting, financial exchange, change the ownership or control? If even for a short limited time period.

I rent a hotel room and that becomes my domicile for a predetermined agreed upon time frame.

Does renting vs loaning the space change the answer?

Just for the sake of argument, a lease or some sort of contractual arrangement to use that space, consideration (money or something of value) given in exchange, then that's a whole different animal. A lessee is considered to exercise ample control over real property (otherwise police couldn't search apartments), so that's why lessees/tenants can post and the signs will carry legal weight.

 

It's only because the group doesn't have a lease, nor could they (I believe, it's been a while since I took contracts) as the church is not for profit, that they cannot post.

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the last month I have carried to my AA meetings in this Podunk town of 5500 population (Fairfield, IL 62837) and to another AA meeting 8 miles away population 1200 (Wayne City). The Fairfield group which is my home group consists of 10-15 members twice a week at two different churches.

 

Last night at the Friday night group they had a big 8" X 11" sign that said: Notice - No Firearms Allowed, with the picture of a pistol with the slash through it.

 

 

I talked to the leader of this group of 10-15 members and told him and the others attending the meeting that they were violating my Constitutional right to carry. Both churches where there meetings are at have not stated that firearms are not allowed. The group meetings rent the rooms where the meetings are held. The leader of the group said that if I carried to anymore meetings that they would call the police and have me arrested for violating their rule.

 

Here are two of Alcoholic's Anonymous 12 Traditions:

 

Tradition 2For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as He may express Himself in our group conscience. Our leaders are but trusted servants; they do not govern.

 

Tradition 10Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy.

No A.A. group or member should ever, in such way as to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside issues - particularly those of politics, alcohol reform or sectarian religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning such matters they can express no views whatever.

 

None of this rule from the small Fairfield group is in writing anywhere. It's just 10-15 people in one small group saying no firearms are allowed at their two meetings.

 

They would actually have to frisk me or see my concealed carry pistol to actually enforce it.

 

On Monday I am going to call the AA main office in New York City and consult with their attorney's about the legality of this. I will also call the NRA.

 

My questions are:

 

1. Is their unwritten rule legal to enforce with arrest?

2. Is my Constitutional right to carry being violated by this small group when the two churches where the meetings are held have no opinions about carrying?

 

 

My ideal situation in my own opinion would be for 20-30 of other people that carry to show up at one of their meetings and when the time comes to state their first name as all newcomers do is to say "Hello I'm (your first name) and I'm here to support me in my Second Amendment right to carry concealed.

 

 

Are they considered tennants of the rooms that they use? If so they may be legally allowed to post the room that they use while it is use by them. If they do not have the proper signage and call the police to report an FCCA violation they they technically are falsely reporting which is illegal.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all so very much for your opinions and voices about this matter you have been so helpful.

 

I quoted the law to the group and also gave the law and quoted it to the two church preachers.

 

In turn the church preachers called their attorneys to find out what the law states and what it meant.

 

Each church official showed up at the meetings and informed each group could not make that rule as they were not the owner's of the property. That the church was the only ones that could prohibit firearms not the AA group as they did not own the property and that the AA group was not to make anymore rules unless consulting the church first as their no firearms rule made the church liable.

 

Again. Thank-you so very much for your opinions.

 

Glad to hear the successful resolution!

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...