Do ISP Signs Still Apply to Owners?

[lockman]

 

Unless specifiacally prohibited by statute outside of the FCCA, carry with permission of the owner, or for public properties by whomever has been given that autority to set policy is lawful and an exemption under UUW.

 

Yes, that is a lawful exemption to UUW/AUUW, but it is not an exemption to the FCCA.

 

 

 

 

No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to.

 

So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)...

 

 

I did not give up my FOID card when I got an FCCL. I am still entitled by law any and all exemptions provided by the FOID act. When I carry on premises with the permission of the owner (otherwise lawful under section 720 ILCS 5 ) I need not claim exemtion under 420 66, as I already have my exemption under section 5 24 via 420 65, that is the one I claim.

[tkroenlein]

 

Talking about owners, what about the local club or church that is owned by the members? Do they fall in as owners and can be exempt since the club/church is owned by the members and not an overseeing body?

 

 

 

 

 

The reason these "issues" are constantly re-hashed is because of the misconception that the FCCA is a stand alone law. It is only an exception to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. It does not nullify or void any other exception or exemption in any part of section 24. No, a posting does not apply to a property or business owner.

 

 

that is just not true. it is a standalone law and has to be considered that way.

 

it has nothing to do with the UUW law at all. the UUW law does contain some additional exceptions for FCCL holders, but they are part of the UUW law and not the FCCA.

 

Under what provision in the FCCA may I purchase ammunition, bob?

[III]

I go to lunch and my thread takes off.....

 

....Bottom line, I am trying to determine if there is a way that CCL can legally be allowed within one of the 23 Prohibited Areas. I really wish that our classified CPZ (#5) could be worded similar to the college language (where the admin can determine whether or not to allow with permission). However, I also understand that such exemption would completely obliterate the concept of preemption. Which we definitely do not want to allow due to the intense anti-gun culture that is within Illinois at-large.

[bob]

 

Talking about owners, what about the local club or church that is owned by the members? Do they fall in as owners and can be exempt since the club/church is owned by the members and not an overseeing body?

 

 

 

 

 

The reason these "issues" are constantly re-hashed is because of the misconception that the FCCA is a stand alone law. It is only an exception to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. It does not nullify or void any other exception or exemption in any part of section 24. No, a posting does not apply to a property or business owner.

 

 

that is just not true. it is a standalone law and has to be considered that way.

 

it has nothing to do with the UUW law at all. the UUW law does contain some additional exceptions for FCCL holders, but they are part of the UUW law and not the FCCA.

Under what provision in the FCCA may I purchase ammunition, bob?

 

it has nothing to do with purchasing ammo, just like UUW has nothing to do with the FCCA.

[domin8]

The regulation of ammo purchasing in Illinois falls under the FOID Card Act. As we know, no FOID = No FCCL.

[bobapunk]

 

Yes, that is a lawful exemption to UUW/AUUW, but it is not an exemption to the FCCA.

 

No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to.

 

So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)...

I did not give up my FOID card when I got an FCCL. I am still entitled by law any and all exemptions provided by the FOID act. When I carry on premises with the permission of the owner (otherwise lawful under section 720 ILCS 5 ) I need not claim exemtion under 420 66, as I already have my exemption under section 5 24 via 420 65, that is the one I claim.

 

Yeah, you might have an exemption to 720 ILCS 24-1, carry on the land or in the abode of another as an invitee and with permission; but, that is NOT a legal exemption to 430 ILCS 66/65... Is it?

[tkroenlein]

Yes, that is a lawful exemption to UUW/AUUW, but it is not an exemption to the FCCA.

 

No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to. So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)...

I did not give up my FOID card when I got an FCCL. I am still entitled by law any and all exemptions provided by the FOID act. When I carry on premises with the permission of the owner (otherwise lawful under section 720 ILCS 5 ) I need not claim exemtion under 420 66, as I already have my exemption under section 5 24 via 420 65, that is the one I claim.

Yeah, you might have an exemption to 720 ILCS 24-1, carry on the land or in the abode of another as an invitee and with permission; but, that is NOT a legal exemption to 430 ILCS 66/65... Is it?

 

This is the same as saying that a licensee can't transport a long gun, since there is no exception for it in the FCCA.

[BIGDEESUL]

Yes, that is a lawful exemption to UUW/AUUW, but it is not an exemption to the FCCA.

No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to. So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)... I did not give up my FOID card when I got an FCCL. I am still entitled by law any and all exemptions provided by the FOID act. When I carry on premises with the permission of the owner (otherwise lawful under section 720 ILCS 5 ) I need not claim exemtion under 420 66, as I already have my exemption under section 5 24 via 420 65, that is the one I claim.

Yeah, you might have an exemption to 720 ILCS 24-1, carry on the land or in the abode of another as an invitee and with permission; but, that is NOT a legal exemption to 430 ILCS 66/65... Is it?

This is the same as saying that a licensee can't transport a long gun, since there is no exception for it in the FCCA.

 

Not really. Is there a no long gun transport sign?

[lockman]

The FCCA was created to license and regulate persons carrying concealed handguns. The 23 zones apply only to those carrying under the FCCA.

 

In essence your interpretation is that a licensee can not carry with permission of the owner in a prohibited location (no specific prohibition under UUW) until his FCCL is revoked, non-renewed or surrendered, then the former licensee can carry with permission in such otherwise prohibited location with his/her FOID card. Would that statement be correct?

[bob]

The FCCA was created to license and regulate persons carrying concealed handguns. The 23 zones apply only to those carrying under the FCCA.

 

In essence your interpretation is that a licensee can not carry with permission of the owner in a prohibited location (no specific prohibition under UUW) until his FCCL is revoked, non-renewed or surrendered, then the former licensee can carry with permission in such otherwise prohibited location with his/her FOID card. Would that statement be correct?

Actually, the law does not say that. It does refer to licensees being prohibited from carrying in 23 banned areas.

 

it does not matter much what the law was created to do. The actually wording of the law is what matters.

 

it is possible a court might take issue with some provision of the law and toss it out on some grounds, but they are never going to rule that what the law actually says is not what it means.

[dorvinion]

Owner's prerogative on who can carry in their fixed place of business supersedes the FCCA.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[chislinger]

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?

[lockman]

 

The FCCA was created to license and regulate persons carrying concealed handguns. The 23 zones apply only to those carrying under the FCCA.

 

In essence your interpretation is that a licensee can not carry with permission of the owner in a prohibited location (no specific prohibition under UUW) until his FCCL is revoked, non-renewed or surrendered, then the former licensee can carry with permission in such otherwise prohibited location with his/her FOID card. Would that statement be correct?

Actually, the law does not say that. It does refer to licensees being prohibited from carrying in 23 banned areas.

 

it does not matter much what the law was created to do. The actually wording of the law is what matters.

 

it is possible a court might take issue with some provision of the law and toss it out on some grounds, but they are never going to rule that what the law actually says is not what it means.

 

 

 

 

That statement is false, that has been done more times than my post count! And the courts should in cases where the results will otherwise be absurd.

[III]

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?

 

Would you hold the same opinion if the owner (or person in control) were of one of the 23 state-mandated prohibited places?

[chislinger]

 

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?

Would you hold the same opinion if the owner (or person in control) were of one of the 23 state-mandated prohibited places?

 

Yes. Rocky Wirtz can carry at the United Center, he can also allow employees to be armed. And he certainly does the latter, at every Hawks game there is armed security.

 

eta: again, the 23 prohibited places are for those carrying per the FCCL law.

[III]

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?Would you hold the same opinion if the owner (or person in control) were of one of the 23 state-mandated prohibited places?Yes. Rocky Wirtz can carry at the United Center, he can also allow employees to be armed. And he certainly does the latter, at every Hawks game there is armed security.

 

Are the Security guards carrying with a Tan Card....or are they off-duty cops?

[chislinger]

 

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?Would you hold the same opinion if the owner (or person in control) were of one of the 23 state-mandated prohibited places?Yes. Rocky Wirtz can carry at the United Center, he can also allow employees to be armed. And he certainly does the latter, at every Hawks game there is armed security.

Are the Security guards carrying with a Tan Card....or are they off-duty cops?

 

It really doesn't matter, it's a privately owned facility. Rocky could arm the peanut vendors if he wanted. Not that he does, he's not going to open himself up to that kind of liability.

[Tango7]

"The FCCA was created to license and regulate persons carrying concealed handguns in public . The 23 zones apply only to those carrying under the FCCA.

Clarified it for you.

 

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?

Good point.

[III]

So..... Now let's extend this same logic to mayors, directors of government entities, owners of zoos, child care facilities, Private schools, etc....

 

.... What say you?

[dorvinion]

So..... Now let's extend this same logic to mayors, directors of government entities, owners of zoos, child care facilities, Private schools, etc....

 

.... What say you?

 

Government generally no, they aren't the owner, although in some cases the head honcho of a facility does have discretion on who can carry.

Private zoo, yes

Child care facility no but not because of FCCA. Banned elsewhere in law.

Likewise for private schools

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

[soundguy]

Doesn't the "guns are prohibited in the 23 sensitive places" thing mean that guns are prohibited,,, except for cops and robbers?

 

So much time is spent discussing loophole possibilities.

[Pipedoc]

 

So..... Now let's extend this same logic to mayors, directors of government entities, owners of zoos, child care facilities, Private schools, etc....

 

.... What say you?

Government generally no, they aren't the owner, although in some cases the head honcho of a facility does have discretion on who can carry.

Private zoo, yes

Child care facility no but not because of FCCA. Banned elsewhere in law.

Likewise for private schools

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Do you know where that is located in the law? I am building a library in my computer of sections of law that relate to firearms, use of force, etc. and would like to add this section to it. Sort of Pipedoc's law library.

[III]

So..... Now let's extend this same logic to mayors, directors of government entities, owners of zoos, child care facilities, Private schools, etc....

 

.... What say you?

 

Government generally no, they aren't the owner, although in some cases the head honcho of a facility does have discretion on who can carry.

Private zoo, yes

Child care facility no but not because of FCCA. Banned elsewhere in law.

Likewise for private schools

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

So, would these cases allow a mayor to apply discretion? How about a board of directors, commissioners, city council, city manager, county board?

 

 

What if I buy up some ground and build a park and open it to the public?

 

What if my church holds its fall festival on its own property but opens it to the public (and need a liquor license) yet the pastor approves of CCW?

 

How is it that our right to self defense is so restrictive that we can not defend ourselves in the areas we spend our time in the most, yet are not afforded proper protection by those who disarm is while we are in attendance of these CPZ's? The State has placed everyone in a liability conundrum.

[tkroenlein]

 

 

 

So..... Now let's extend this same logic to mayors, directors of government entities, owners of zoos, child care facilities, Private schools, etc....

.... What say you?

 

 

Government generally no, they aren't the owner, although in some cases the head honcho of a facility does have discretion on who can carry.

Private zoo, yes

Child care facility no but not because of FCCA. Banned elsewhere in law.

Likewise for private schools

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Do you know where that is located in the law? I am building a library in my computer of sections of law that relate to firearms, use of force, etc. and would like to add this section to it. Sort of Pipedoc's law library.

 

225 ILCS 10/7

 

(14) Provisions requiring that any firearm permitted

 

on day care home premises, except handguns in the possession of peace officers, shall be kept in a disassembled state, without ammunition, in locked storage, inaccessible to children and that ammunition permitted on day care home premises shall be kept in locked storage separate from that of disassembled firearms, inaccessible to children;

 

It lays out the provisions for administrative rules, which I believe are at the DCFS website.

[Gamma]

The FCCA was created to license and regulate persons carrying concealed handguns. The 23 zones apply only to those carrying under the FCCA.

 

In essence your interpretation is that a licensee can not carry with permission of the owner in a prohibited location (no specific prohibition under UUW) until his FCCL is revoked, non-renewed or surrendered, then the former licensee can carry with permission in such otherwise prohibited location with his/her FOID card. Would that statement be correct?

That's not an unreasonable interpretation, it most closely adheres to the plain language of the law.

[dorvinion]

Before FCCA, you needed explicit consent from the owner to carry in a private business.

 

FCCA in a nutshell says anyone with a license to carry has implied consent to carry in a private business, unless the owner chooses to prohibit persons from carrying under the FCCA by posting the sign.

 

Posting such a sign does not remove the owner's ability to carry themselves, nor does it keep them from granting permission to specific individuals. Posting such a sign simply removes the implied consent those with a license to carry otherwise have, and gives the owner a legal remedy against those who violate it.

 

 

The FCCA has enough flaws on its own without making up new ones.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

[gangrel]

 

Owners can always carry, regardless of a sign. Since it is their business they are not carrying pursuant to the FCCL law. They were free to carry on their property before the law, they can carry after the law no matter what sign they post. Likewise they can allow employees to carry. Or do you think every gun store in Illinois was breaking the law by allowing their employees to carry prior to the FCCL law?

Would you hold the same opinion if the owner (or person in control) were of one of the 23 state-mandated prohibited places?

 

Depends on what the prohibited place is or whether it is also prohibited under any other law. I would suspect (though I am not providing any kind of legal advice) that the owner of a bar may carry in his bar, and may determine others who are allowed to carry in his/her establishment, as this was the case before the FCCA was enacted. OTOH, the owner of a daycare may NOT carry nor determine others who are allowed to carry in his/her establishment during business hours, as firearms in a licensed daycare facility while children are present is already prohibited by another law and by DCFS regulations.

[john_horstman]

Ok, so we all know about the 23 prohibited areas...plus the private property option to post. I would like to find some "clarity" in the debate of whether or not the ISP sign apply's to the owners of a piece of property that posts.

 

It seems that most understand (and appreciate) that an owner of a private property can post the approved ISP sign in order to keep the CCL public from carrying on their property. Some also understand (and argue) that the same owner is allowed to carry on their property regardless of their sign (their property...their rules). Fewer members more, believe that the owner can extend permission to carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules).

 

Now.....if the above is true, does the same train of thought extend to the areas included within the 23 prohibited areas?

 

- Can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited areas carry themselves?

- Can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited areas extend permission to employees and "friends" to carry?

 

I know that it is a long shot to get some clarity on this debate on an issue such as this from this forum, but I would love to hear everyone's thoughts (and any legislative language to backup positions).

I submit my argument.

 

"Can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited areas carry themselves?"

 

Generally, no. An FCCA licensee is prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm in any of the prohibited places listed in Sec 65 with the following exemptions from section 10 (CAVEAT: there may be superseding federal law):

 

430 ILCS 66/10

(g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the licensee carries a concealed firearm except:

(1) when the licensee is carrying or possessing a concealed firearm on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling [but not fixed place of business] of another person as an invitee with that person's permission;

(2) when the person is authorized to carry a firearm under Section 24-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012, except subsection (a-5) of that Section; or

(3) when the handgun is broken down in a non-functioning state, is not immediately accessible, or is unloaded and enclosed in a case.

 

 

 

Now, here, 430 ILCS 66/10(g)(2), is where owners, managers and authorized employees of gun shops and places which are licensed to sell intoxicating beverages can legally carry firearms on those premises.

 

 

 

Criminal Code of 2012, 720 ILCS 5/24-2 Exemptions

(e) Subsection 24-1(a)(8) {see below} does not apply to any owner, manager or authorized employee of any place specified in that subsection nor to any law enforcement officer.

 

 

720 ILCS 5/24-1(a) Unlawful Use of Weapons

(8) Carries or possesses any firearm, stun gun or taser or other deadly weapon in any place which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body or any public gathering at which an admission is charged, excluding a place where a showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of unloaded firearms is conducted.

 

 

In conclusion, 720 ILCS 5/24-2(e) rolls up into 430 ILCS 66/10(g)(2) providing an exemption for at least gun shops and bars and liquor selling restaurants to allow owners, managers and authorized employees to carry firearms in those premises.

 

I don't see any other exemptions for other types of 'entities in control', or their employees or friends, for the remainder of the 23 prohibited places. (These discriminatory signs should be outlawed, anyway, even on private businesses that are open to the public.)

[gangrel]

Before FCCA, you needed explicit consent from the owner to carry in a private business.

 

FCCA in a nutshell says anyone with a license to carry has implied consent to carry in a private business, unless the owner chooses to prohibit persons from carrying under the FCCA by posting the sign.

 

Posting such a sign does not remove the owner's ability to carry themselves, nor does it keep them from granting permission to specific individuals. Posting such a sign simply removes the implied consent those with a license to carry otherwise have, and gives the owner a legal remedy against those who violate it.

 

 

The FCCA has enough flaws on its own without making up new ones.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I'm not so sure I agree 100% with your police work there, Lou...

 

I believe, but am not certain, that the FCCA is still superseded by the UUW/AUUW statute exception for a bar owner to carry or delegate carry to people of their choice. But a violation of a gunbuster sign according to the FCCA is not a trespassing violation that would require a complaint from the owner or manager of the business. It is a violation of the FCCA, and does not require a complaintant. If a law enforcement officer discovers you carrying where you shouldn't be, he doesn't need the owner or anyone else to file a complaint in order to haul you in and charge you. Likewise, it does not need to be the owner of the business who notifies authorities and gets the ball rolling. Anyone who observes that you have a firearm in such a location can notify the authorities. This is one of the problems I have with the signage having force of law.

[kurt555gs]

The FCCA has no bearing on open carry. That is FOID law on your own property. Problem solved.

 

Kurt on G+ http://goo.gl/EX4gL2