Jump to content


Photo

Do ISP Signs Still Apply to Owners?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
230 replies to this topic

#211 Pipedoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 14 May 2014 - 03:27 PM

 

What do you think they would be charged with?

they would be
with a violation of the FCCA.

 

Incorrect. Cite the specific section please.


2A Firearms Education
www.2AFE.com
815-714-9757

NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah Certified Concealed Carry Instructor


#212 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 14 May 2014 - 08:36 PM

 

 

It would seem that an FCCL licensee would be in violation of the FCCA by openly carrying a handgun while hunting small game such as rabbit since the hunter is not carrying concealed. If an off-duty cop decided to get a license they are then in violation by openly carrying while on duty due to the license

the FCCL does not allow you to openly carry so you are not in violation of the FCCA by open carry while hunting.
 
the license only covers carry of fully, completely, mostly, or partially concealed firearms.
Problem is a licensee could get charged for violating the FCCA by openly carrying since the FCCA does not allow open carry.

 

I think the charge would more likely be UUW. The FCCL is issued to carry at least partially concealed. You are not engaged in an activity that is covered by the license if it is not at least partially concealed.

 

I don't think you can be charged with AUUW if you have been issued a FCCL for carrying a handgun either openly or concealed. My reasoning is in this post .

 

http://fccaillinois....ct-of-fcca.html


bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#213 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 14 May 2014 - 09:43 PM

What do you think they would be charged with?

off-duty and retired LEOs carrying under the provisions of FCCL license can be charged with a violation of the FCCA by carrying in a posted location unless the provision that grants the force of law to signage is either removed by legislative action or by order or if a legislative revision exempts off-duty and retired LEOs from being prohibited from entering a posted location.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#214 Pipedoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 14 May 2014 - 10:02 PM

Off duty and retired leo's are not carrying under the FCCA.


2A Firearms Education
www.2AFE.com
815-714-9757

NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah Certified Concealed Carry Instructor


#215 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 14 May 2014 - 11:01 PM

Probably just sloppy legislative writing, However, as written, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of 430 ILCS 66/10(g) provide ways a licensee may legally "carry a concealed firearm" when they do not have the CCL with them.
 
I am not saying I agree with it, I am just reading the words in the law.

Due to the sloppy wording we may see many off-duty and/or retired LEOs with FCCL licenses being
arrested for carrying and/or transporting a firearm in posted prohibited locations. If my prediction
comes true it could put enormous pressure from police unions for the legislature to fix the law.

Why would off duty or retired LEO even bother to get an FCCL instead of LEOSA/IROCC? They even changed the proposed regulation so that LEOSA bearing FCCL instructors don't have to get an FCCL.
Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#216 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 05:42 AM

Probably just sloppy legislative writing, However, as written, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 of 430 ILCS 66/10(g) provide ways a licensee may legally "carry a concealed firearm" when they do not have the CCL with them. I am not saying I agree with it, I am just reading the words in the law.

Due to the sloppy wording we may see many off-duty and/or retired LEOs with FCCL licenses beingarrested for carrying and/or transporting a firearm in posted prohibited locations. If my predictioncomes true it could put enormous pressure from police unions for the legislature to fix the law.
Why would off duty or retired LEO even bother to get an FCCL instead of LEOSA/IROCC? They even changed the proposed regulation so that LEOSA bearing FCCL instructors don't have to get an FCCL.
The freedom of being able to carry any handgun they want without having to qualify with them first which gives them the freedom to carry any caliber they wish.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#217 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 05:50 AM

Off duty and retired leo's are not carrying under the FCCA.

I have read in various forums that many cops prefer to apply for the civilian carry permits due to wanting to be treating equally with the civilian as well as wanting to be able to carry any handgun without having to qualify with it first and because it is needed to prevent them being in violation of the gun free shool act on the feder level.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#218 Pipedoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 15 May 2014 - 07:21 AM

Do some searching on this forum. It has been discussed numerous times. There are a lot of leo's who are members here.


2A Firearms Education
www.2AFE.com
815-714-9757

NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah Certified Concealed Carry Instructor


#219 domin8

    Banned!

  • Members
  • 7,299 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 13

Posted 15 May 2014 - 07:22 AM

Cased is still concealed from view, and by default meets the definition of "concealed firearm".

Wrong. Different statutes. A cased firearm does not require the possession of a FCCL. If it did everybody would be in violation whenever they go to the range.

Edited by domin8, 15 May 2014 - 07:31 AM.

I'm either banned, going to be banned, or just returned from being banned. The truth hurts.

#220 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 07:26 AM

LEOSA does not preempt prohibited places for off-duty and retired LEOs and instead it grants them the
rights and restrictions of the least restrictive carry permit in localities with differing levels of
permits as a result I have seen quite a few comments current and former LEOs stating that thanks to our state defining prohibited place they now can not legally carry within a posted location or mass transit.
As a result applying for an FCCL would be more appealing to retired and/or off-duty especially since if they are going to be bound to obey the gun free zones than they might as well be able to carry any
handgun that they want.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#221 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 07:39 AM

Cased is still concealed from view, and by default meets the definition of "concealed firearm".

I agree which a lawsuit should be filed demanding open carry to be able to freely transport a
firearm when forced to pass through a prohibited place.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#222 Pipedoc

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,271 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 15 May 2014 - 08:42 AM

LEOSA does not preempt prohibited places for off-duty and retired LEOs and instead it grants them the
rights and restrictions of the least restrictive carry permit in localities with differing levels of
permits as a result I have seen quite a few comments current and former LEOs stating that thanks to our state defining prohibited place they now can not legally carry within a posted location or mass transit.
As a result applying for an FCCL would be more appealing to retired and/or off-duty especially since if they are going to be bound to obey the gun free zones than they might as well be able to carry any
handgun that they want.

Leosa has nothing to do with off duty police.


2A Firearms Education
www.2AFE.com
815-714-9757

NRA Certified Instructor
NRA Range Safety Officer
Illinois Certified Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah Certified Concealed Carry Instructor


#223 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 15 May 2014 - 09:09 AM

LEOSA does not preempt prohibited places for off-duty and retired LEOs and instead it grants them the
rights and restrictions of the least restrictive carry permit in localities with differing levels of
permits as a result I have seen quite a few comments current and former LEOs stating that thanks to our state defining prohibited place they now can not legally carry within a posted location or mass transit.
As a result applying for an FCCL would be more appealing to retired and/or off-duty especially since if they are going to be bound to obey the gun free zones than they might as well be able to carry any
handgun that they want.

Much of this is not true at all. 

 

Read what LEOSA actually says. it says absolutely nothing about permits at all. 

 

it also specifically overrides all local and state restrictions on where those people can carry.


bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#224 bobapunk

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,639 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 15 May 2014 - 09:20 AM

 

LEOSA does not preempt prohibited places for off-duty and retired LEOs and instead it grants them the
rights and restrictions of the least restrictive carry permit in localities with differing levels of
permits as a result I have seen quite a few comments current and former LEOs stating that thanks to our state defining prohibited place they now can not legally carry within a posted location or mass transit.
As a result applying for an FCCL would be more appealing to retired and/or off-duty especially since if they are going to be bound to obey the gun free zones than they might as well be able to carry any
handgun that they want.

Much of this is not true at all. 

 

Read what LEOSA actually says. it says absolutely nothing about permits at all. 

 

it also specifically overrides all local and state restrictions on where those people can carry.

 

 

No, it does not...

 

 

LEOSA,

as Amended by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013 (Jan 2, 2013)

(Changes have been italicized.)

§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (B).

(B) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

 

The LEOSA clearly states that is not NOT supersede state law.



#225 bob

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,153 posts
  • Joined: 14-November 05

Posted 15 May 2014 - 10:02 AM

 

 

The LEOSA clearly states that is not NOT supersede state law.

 

so what does the "not with standing language mean"?  I take it to mean the places it says they can carry they can carry. there are some limits to where it says they can carry, but where LEOSA says they can carry it overrides state and local laws.I don't see how it can mean anything else.


bob

Disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, cop, soldier, gunsmith, politician, plumber, electrician, or a professional practitioner of many of the other things I comment on in this forum.

The opinions expressed by this poster do not reflect the official stance of Illinois Carry. Apparently there was some confusion on the part of at least one person that it does, and I want to make things clear that my opinion is my own and that whatever the official stance of IC is or is not at present, it may or may not reflect my own opinion.

http://ilbob.blogspot.com/

#226 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 11:10 AM

so what does the "not with standing language mean"?  I take it to mean the places it says they can carry they can carry. there are some limits to where it says they can carry, but where LEOSA says they can carry it overrides state and local laws.I don't see how it can mean anything else.

Below is legalese that specifically allows private persons or entities to restrict or prohibit
concealed firearms on their property in the first section below and in the second section it allows the restriction of firearms on any state or local government property, installation ,building, base, or park. In other words it allows for prohibited places.

This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--
(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.
The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#227 borgranta

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,038 posts
  • Joined: 29-June 12

Posted 15 May 2014 - 11:17 AM

Leosa has nothing to do with off duty police.

"§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers"
If what you are saying is true than that means off-duty police are not qualified law enforcement officers as defined by LEOSA and therefore they all need to be fired.

Edited by borgranta, 15 May 2014 - 11:18 AM.

The following referral code will grant provide a new User of Uber a free ride up to $15
donaldd4557ui

#228 bobapunk

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,639 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 15 May 2014 - 11:21 AM

 

 

 

The LEOSA clearly states that is not NOT supersede state law.

 

so what does the "not with standing language mean"?  I take it to mean the places it says they can carry they can carry. there are some limits to where it says they can carry, but where LEOSA says they can carry it overrides state and local laws.I don't see how it can mean anything else.

 

 

Notwithstanding (in spite of) any State law, LEOSA "licensees" may carry subject to subsection B.  Subsection B states that "This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that--

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park."

 

So,apparently, LEOSA does supercede State law, but not in the areas of private property, or government owned parks, bases, buildings, installations, or other property.

 

Some with with LEOSA carry would need to inspect Sec.65 and figure out which ones are superseded by LEOSA and which ones are not.



#229 bobapunk

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,639 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 09

Posted 15 May 2014 - 11:22 AM

 

Leosa has nothing to do with off duty police.

"§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers"
If what you are saying is true than that means off-duty police are not qualified law enforcement officers as defined by LEOSA and therefore they all need to be fired.

 

§ 926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers

§ 926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers



#230 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,551 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 15 May 2014 - 12:30 PM

Why would off duty or retired LEO even bother to get an FCCL instead of LEOSA/IROCC? They even changed the proposed regulation so that LEOSA bearing FCCL instructors don't have to get an FCCL.

The freedom of being able to carry any handgun they want without having to qualify with them first which gives them the freedom to carry any caliber they wish.

IROCC only requires qualification with Revolver and/or Semi, same as the armed security qual, there is nothing about calibers or models. Some particular department might require qual with backup/off duty guns as dept policy I guess.


Edited by Gamma, 15 May 2014 - 12:30 PM.

Illinois' FCCA is a prime example of the maxim that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

#231 67vtx1800

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined: 23-January 14

Posted 15 May 2014 - 07:25 PM

For example:  Lets say I own a restaurant.  I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post.  I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post.  I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element.  Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence).


How does one justify that while they can carry, other's should be denied while knowing that others had to meet the same standard? If the example guy doesn't trust me to carry, then I don't trust him either.

No Print 1/5er 98 Days to Active