Jump to content

Blackbeard

Members
  • Posts

    1,354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Blackbeard's Achievements

Member

Member (21/24)

  1. None of their Illinois facilities are compliant, even the Genesis Silvis Hospital campus, formerly known as Illini Hospital. They have been made aware of the law, and their posting requirements. They just don't seem to care. Which is strange because their Iowa campuses do have "no guns" signs on them (obviously not the Illinois sign). So we know it's not that they're friendly to CCW.
  2. I had occasion to be in this building today. It's a health-plex that houses various medical practices. There is a convenient-care clinic on site. On the surface it appears to be owned by the Genesis health group (which operates hospitals in Iowa). Yet, it is not posted. I fully expected to see the compliant sign and was going to photograph it for the Posted app. So, are they unposted in violation of Illinois statute, or are they not a "hospital affiliate" despite sharing the name and logo of a hospital. ETA site's web page: http://www.genesishealth.com/facilities/location-public-profile/?id=678
  3. I'd agree with that. You just have to realize that just being a sidewalk doesn't make it a public right-of-way.
  4. Entertainment venue is only used in 65 (a)(15), which are all areas under the control of a college or university. It doesn't include commercial theaters,etc.
  5. Read my P.S. post again. The streets and sidewalks are not owned by the public. They're on the public right-of-way across private land, in most cases. A sidewalk through the forest preserve is on public land, but is not necessarily a public right-of-way. If there were a street that crosses a public forest, that's a right-of-way. For example, parts of W 135th Street are entirely within the preserve, but it is a public right-of-way, so it is not prohibited per ( c ). A paved path that wanders through the park is not a public right-of-way.
  6. P.S. The reason ( c ) was included is because in general, landowners own the land out to the middle of the street. So, if you are on the sidewalk or the street next to a hospital, you are on hospital land. The street passing by a school is school property. But the public right-of-way on that land (the street & sidewalk) is not prohibited.
  7. It means that despite prohibitions in (a), you are not in violation on a public right-of-way. You seem to be confused about the right-of-way concept, which is a centuries-old legal principle that is not really open to novel interpretations based on a misreading of the law. It is an encumbrance on the land, meaning the public has rights to use it to travel regardless of the owner's wishes. It stays with the land even when it changes owners. If the mall were a public right-of-way, they would not be allowed to turn it into an enclosed mall. They couldn't have security guards throw you out if you're still there after midnight. They couldn't demolish the mall and put up a factory because that would obstruct the public right-of-way to travel across that land. Bottom line is, it means public streets and sidewalks. The problem with the way you're reading this definition is -- it says what a right-of-way is. It doesn't say how one is created. Allowing the public into your mall does not create a legal right-of-way. They can be created by usage, but are not always created by usage. Letting the public shop at your mall does not create a legal right of the public to use that land in perpetuity.
  8. There's a simple way to test your theory. Go to the mall when it's closed. Kick down the door and walk around inside. When you're arrested, tell them it's a public right-of-way because they routinely let the public in. If you beat the trespass charges, then your interpretation is correct. I might leave the gun at home for this experiment, though. I though he said not the buildings? Missed that it was an outdoor mall. Same principle though. Can you go there when it's closed?
  9. There's a simple way to test your theory. Go to the mall when it's closed. Kick down the door and walk around inside. When you're arrested, tell them it's a public right-of-way because they routinely let the public in. If you beat the trespass charges, then your interpretation is correct. I might leave the gun at home for this experiment, though.
  10. Let's put it this way -- a public right-of-way cannot be revoked or suspended by the land owner. If your mall is a public right-of-way, you can't lock the doors and keep the public out. Allowing the public into your store does not grant them rights to your land. Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree. This is starting to remind me of those tax deniers who misinterpret the tax code and think your income is only taxable if you live on federal land.
  11. Really? Do you have an enforceable right to use their property? If you did, you could sue them when they lock the doors at night, denying you your right to their property. Trust me, you're totally wrong on this.
  12. Why use that definition? For definition of "public right of way" --> What does Federal Law say? Or a Federal regulation? Or a Federal Court/SCOTUS ruling? I wonder what the Americans with Disabilities Act say or the regulations for it say.... If any of those support your definition, then you've got something. Anything else, and state law rules the roost. Why not use that definition? I don't understand why you would use Federal law or a Federal regulation when, as you point out, it is a State of Illinois law we are talking about. The FCCA states: "c- A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law." Nowhere in the FCCA is "public right of way" defined, so until the Illinois courts rule one way or the other, I think the common plain english use of the phrase makes sense, and would provide a strong defense against any prosecution of a misdemeanor charge. Why use a definition that is not in the FCCA to restrict our rights? I think you're confusing permission with right. Private property that is open to the public, is open by permission of the owner. You don't have a legal right to be there. You can be banned from a campus. You can't be banned from a public right-of-way. Rights-of-way mean streets and roads, generally. Trust me, the courts know what a right-of-way is and it ain't the mall.
  13. it's cute that you think they're interested in making our lives easier. They're hoping we all slip up and get arrested and lose our gun rights.
  14. I don't think the "public right of way" exception clears you for travelling on buses. It's clear the legislative intent was to exempt people carrying on a public street that crosses through an otherwise prohibited area, such as a college campus or public park. Maybe your lawyer could successfully argue that © applies to bus travel, but I wouldn't bet on it.
×
×
  • Create New...