Jump to content


Photo

Non compliant postings


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#31 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,966 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 08 March 2018 - 05:59 PM

And not just a 2017 bill. While valid still, a 2018 version has also been filed. Still waiting assignment but typical of the 100+ gun bills filed this year.

http://www.ilga.gov/...ionID=91&GA=100
NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️

#32 firepiper

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 839 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 09

Posted 08 March 2018 - 09:20 PM


What is your purpose of listing a bill that has been ignored by the legislature since May 2017?   You seem to be saying it would be wrong to protect the licenses of businesses that permit patrons to enter posted locations.


 
I was trying to add to bymers posting that some non-compliant signs may be the result of local managers trying to comply with corporate dictates while not complying at the same time.
 
It might not only be local managers trying to pull a fast one on corporate, it might also be businesses trying to pull a fast one on government coercion.
 
For example, the suburban Portillo's do not post, but the two in Chicago do. Portillo's is privately owned; it's not a franchise. I doubt if you can get the one guy in charge to give you an official reason why they post in Chicago, but not in Addison or Elgin. The text of HB1377 gives you a clue.
 
For the purpose of my post, it does not matter what happens to that bill, the text of it is enough to tell you that some municipalities are using their power of government to coerce posting.
 
In a community where that is so, posting a non-compliant sign might be enough to keep the Board of Health, and the electrical inspector, and the Liquor Commission, and the enforcers of the ADA, and the community activists at bay while allowing the CCW community to wink as they walk on in, legally.


IF the chicago locations serve alcohol they are required by city ordinance to post...

Separate but related to the statutory 51% posting requirements


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#33 Skolnick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 131 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 14

Posted 09 March 2018 - 08:51 AM

IF the chicago locations serve alcohol they are required by city ordinance to post...


Separate but related to the statutory 51% posting requirements

 

Agreed. And Portillo's does serve beer. Hence the "including the holder of a retail liquor license issued under the Liquor Control Act of 1934" language for HB1377.

 

It is a stated goal of cigarette taxes to discourage smoking. If 50¢ a pack doesn't get the job done, then let's try 60¢. In other words, government has an established right to manipulate the tax code to infringe on a legal activity.

 

Likewise, if Chicago is allowed to use one licensing power to discourage concealed carry, then what's to stop them from using other licensing powers to discourage concealed carry?

 

We can argue all day about whether, or not, this, or that, will work, but one ought to realize that the anti-rights contingent will continue to concoct schemes to make it less, and less, desirable for concealed carry until they find one that works. The text of HB1377 realizes that political reality. Whether HB1377, or something like it, can be successful is a separate, but related issue.


Edited by Skolnick, 09 March 2018 - 08:53 AM.


#34 Brownshoe

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Joined: 22-May 17

Posted 09 March 2018 - 11:27 AM

Last year I went to a large restaurant, it had several sets of doors. I looked at the doors carefully and didn't see any of the offending signs so I went in. After I ate and was leaving I saw that it was posted - on the sidelite next to the door, all the way at the bottom. And there was an outdoor waste basket in front of it so it couldn't be seen from outside. It was the only sign at either entrance.

I figured no harm no foul at that point.

 

That doesn't meet the conspicuous requirement, thought I don't know how that is measured. There is a restaurant I go to multiple times a week (okay, it's a bar), that I never knew was posted. After a couple of years, I happened to glance at a window nowhere near the door, and it has a compliant sign. I don't carry there, because I go there to drink, but it is posted, just not conspicuously.



#35 JTHunter

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined: 29-November 13

Posted 09 March 2018 - 04:07 PM

With regard to "conspicuous" - after the law was passed, one of the local grocers (part of a chain) had the sign posted at the top left corner of the automatic door on the inner pair of doors.  It was almost 7 feet above the floor and was almost invisible when the door opened.  The manager at that time was someone that I had chatted with and was also a gun owner and he didn't like the signs but "corporate" spoke.  I pointed out the problems of the signs placement and also told him that none of the other grocers in the area had posted their businesses.  If his chain kept their sign, they would likely lose business because of that sign.

 

About a week later, I was back at that store and the sign had been moved to the stationary panel between the outer pair of doors and was about 5 feet above the floor.  I again reminded him about the other stores, but he just shrugged.

 

About 10 days later, I was back and, to my amazement, the signs were GONE.  When queried, he pointed out that their other stores in Missouri, etc., had not been posted after those states and they had never had any trouble in those stores, SOooo - - -. :D

 

Sometimes, a little Q & A (plus some gentle prodding) can work wonders. :clap:


“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.” - - Abraham Lincoln

“Small minds adhere to the letter of the law; great minds dispense Justice.” - - S. C. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

Life member NAHC, Endowment member NRA

#36 Xwing

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,869 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 09

Posted 12 March 2018 - 10:42 AM

 

Sometimes, a little Q & A (plus some gentle prodding) can work wonders. :clap:

 

Absolutely!  It's always worth a try.  While some retailers are 100% anti and will never take down their sign, many more put it up in haste and may be willing to rethink their position.


NRA Lifetime Member
IGOLD 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018
CCW - 50 State Firearm Laws: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Posted anti-gun business listing: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Gun Range Tools & Logs: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)
Illinois Government: (Android), (iPhone/iPad)


#37 cmac0351

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 19 March 2018 - 01:04 PM

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

#38 InterestedBystander

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,966 posts
  • Joined: 15-March 13

Posted 19 March 2018 - 01:42 PM

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

Supposed to as I understand it, but some are awfully late getting around to it

(d) Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection.

Edited by InterestedBystander, 19 March 2018 - 01:42 PM.

NRA Life Member
ISRA Member
FFL-IL Supporter
🇺🇸 "Remember in November" 🗳️

#39 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,038 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 19 March 2018 - 03:23 PM

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

Where do you guys get this crap from??? The YMCA is NOT a statutory prohibited place!!!! They post voluntarily.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk


NRA Life Member

NRA Certified Range Safety Officer

NRA Certified Instructor - Basic Pistol, PPIH, PPOH, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Firearm Safety
ISP Approved Firearm Concealed Carry Instructor

Utah CCW Instructor


#40 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,621 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 19 March 2018 - 07:14 PM

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

Where do you guys get this crap from??? The YMCA is NOT a statutory prohibited place!!!! They post voluntarily.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

And THAT is why the sign is REQUIRED for ALL statutorily prohibited locations.

You cannot guess your way through the labyrinth of prohibitions.

#41 cmac0351

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 18

Posted 19 March 2018 - 08:07 PM

Thought it would fall under a child care facility, since it is called the YWCA Child Care Center.

 
(2) Any building, real property, and parking area
under the control of a pre-school or child care facility,
including any room or portion of a building under the
control of a pre-school or child care facility.

 

 

 

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

Where do you guys get this crap from??? The YMCA is NOT a statutory prohibited place!!!! They post voluntarily.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 


Edited by cmac0351, 19 March 2018 - 08:08 PM.


#42 wtr100

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,374 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 09

Posted 20 March 2018 - 10:59 AM

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

 

Do they have to post - as others have said yes.

 

If they don't post and you get caught inside will you escape persecution - I'm not convinced one way or the other..  Pays money and takes chances ... 


Have your musket clean as a whistle, hatchet scoured, 60 rounds powder and ball and be ready to march at a minute's warning

ISRA Life Member
NRA Life Member
NRA Certified Instructor Rifle, Pistol, Shotgun
NRA Certified Chief Range Safety Officer
ISP Approved Concealed Carry Instructor


#43 soylentgreen

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,182 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 15

Posted 21 March 2018 - 08:08 AM

 

Do places that are on the prohibited places list also have to post compliant signs, or is it enough that they are written into the law? e.g. schools, YMCA, etc.

 

Do they have to post - as others have said yes.

 

If they don't post and you get caught inside will you escape persecution - I'm not convinced one way or the other..  Pays money and takes chances ... 

 

 

If you live in Cook County and you are discovered to be carrying (or even transporting) a gun in a school, you WILL be prosecuted...regardless of any signage or lack of signage. You may eventually get off, but at what cost? Lose your home and your job?

There is at least one school I've been in over the last year that's not posted. I doubt the lack of posting will be an effective defense in court. If you testify in your own defense, the prosecutor will ask you if you went through the training. You will say you have. Then he will ask you if you learned in the class that schools are prohibited places. You will have to say that you did. If you say that you didn't, he will attack your intellect and insist that you're too stupid to have a license. Either way, you will be in a very bad position. What will a jury of soccer moms decide...?






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users