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This topic has been archived.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

#1 III

    Domari Nolo

  • Members
  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:07 AM

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).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington


#2 Elmer Fudd

    CPA

  • Members
  • 5,899 posts
  • Joined: 27-July 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:12 AM

It gets more interesting if you add "can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited places delegate the authority to a non-owner manager of the property.......as for me.....I wouldn't want to be the test case for one of these....



#3 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,787 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:15 AM

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."

This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?
NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#4 III

    Domari Nolo

  • Members
  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:17 AM

The whole reason I ask is that the State really has tied the hands of the entities that control 23 different categories of locations that people visit.  While one side of me is glad that preemption keeps municipalities from further restricting our rights and abilities to defend ourselves from the wolves in society.....the other side of me is disappointed that those of us in control of one of the 23 prohibited places can not allow others that have been vetted by the CCL process to make their own decisions on how they handle self-defense (except for universities).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington


#5 III

    Domari Nolo

  • Members
  • 1,841 posts
  • Joined: 04-December 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:23 AM

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."

This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?

 

 

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).

 

The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington


#6 spec5

    Nuclear Member

  • Members
  • 4,787 posts
  • Joined: 18-April 09

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:28 AM

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."
This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?

 
 
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).
 
The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).
You wanted a discussion so here goes. Then it wasn't concealed if she saw the firearm.
NRA Member Life Member
ISRA Member
Illinois Carry
Pershing Nuclear Missile 56th Field Artillery Brigade Veteran
1/41 Field Artillary Germany

#7 Scots

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:35 AM

I've wondered about this in my situation as well. The owner of the building I work in has posted. So I of course follow the law and don't carry at work. I've wondered also if the owner who posts can give written permission to individuals to carry, even though it's posted. I haven't been able to find anything allowing this in the law. Maybe something to think about?

 

In my particular situation, it's an owner of the building who is not against guns, or even concealed carry, but he says he has to post for pressure/insurance/business reasons. If allowed, he might be inclined to give me permission.


NRA Life Member, SAF Life Member, ISRA Member

#8 kurt555gs

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,021 posts
  • Joined: 09-October 09

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:40 AM

You could open carry with a FOID card with the owners permission. Has nothing to do with the FCCL. Problem solved.


Kurt on G+

#9 lockman

    Member

  • Members
  • 8,070 posts
  • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:49 AM

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. 


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF


#10 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:56 AM

 

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."

This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?

 

 

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).

 

The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).

 

 

I would advise you to post a sign that does not comply with the ISP rules.  That way, as the business owner, you can decide who is trespassing. If you you post a conforming sign, and you (as the owner) carry anyway, you are violating the law.



#11 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:58 AM

I've wondered about this in my situation as well. The owner of the building I work in has posted. So I of course follow the law and don't carry at work. I've wondered also if the owner who posts can give written permission to individuals to carry, even though it's posted. I haven't been able to find anything allowing this in the law. Maybe something to think about?

 

In my particular situation, it's an owner of the building who is not against guns, or even concealed carry, but he says he has to post for pressure/insurance/business reasons. If allowed, he might be inclined to give me permission.

 

What other state laws do you feel the business owner can write you a "permission slip" to violate that would hold up in court?



#12 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 08:59 AM

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.



#13 Scots

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,686 posts
  • Joined: 29-April 11

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:03 AM

 

I've wondered about this in my situation as well. The owner of the building I work in has posted. So I of course follow the law and don't carry at work. I've wondered also if the owner who posts can give written permission to individuals to carry, even though it's posted. I haven't been able to find anything allowing this in the law. Maybe something to think about?

 

In my particular situation, it's an owner of the building who is not against guns, or even concealed carry, but he says he has to post for pressure/insurance/business reasons. If allowed, he might be inclined to give me permission.

 

What other state laws do you feel the business owner can write you a "permission slip" to violate that would hold up in court?

 

 

Never said that I thought he could do that in this case, so I guess none?


NRA Life Member, SAF Life Member, ISRA Member

#14 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:18 AM

Legalese examination time:

 

430 ILCS 66 Sec. 65(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into:

 

(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.

 

Sec. 70(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act.

 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm,

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(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.

 

720 ILCS 5/24-2(e) Subsection 24-1(a)(8) does not apply to any owner, manager or authorized employee of any place specified in that subsection nor to any law enforcement officer.

 

 

So, there are statutory exemptions to 720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(4) & 720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(8), but those do not apply to 430 ILCS 66/65. The only possible way that I see to be exempt from 430 ILCS 66/65 (a) or (a-10) would be to not be a licensee under 430 ILCS 66.  However, a reading of the plain language of Sec. 66/65(a-10) could suggest that the prohibition applies to everyone, not just licensees.



#15 Packy

  • Guests
  • 40 posts
  • Joined: 17-April 14

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:22 AM

It appears to me you can not give permission for some to carry while others can not. Take Jewell Foods as an example. Their sign says only employees and vendors are not permitted to carry but the ISP on their FAQ page says once the sign is up no one can carry. And yes Jewell Foods is still doing this in my area.



#16 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:41 AM

It appears to me you can not give permission for some to carry while others can not. Take Jewell Foods as an example. Their sign says only employees and vendors are not permitted to carry but the ISP on their FAQ page says once the sign is up no one can carry. And yes Jewell Foods is still doing this in my area.

 

My OPINION on this.  If a sign conforming to the ISP rules is posted, then I agree with you. 

 

HOWEVER, if a NONconforming sign, like the one I have seen pictures of at Jewel, is posted, then the person(s) in control of the property certainly can pick and choose.

 

A conforming sign has interpretation via state law

A nonconforming sign only has interpretation by the business "owner".



#17 gangrel

    Member

  • Members
  • 3,153 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 11

Posted 05 May 2014 - 09:53 AM

 

 

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."
This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?

 
 
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).
 
The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).
You wanted a discussion so here goes. Then it wasn't concealed if she saw the firearm.

 

Carrying in your own home or abode, or fixed place of business, or with the permission of the home or business owner, in Illinois, neither requires a FCCL nor that the firearm be concealed.  But does the sign posted take away the property or business owner's right to carry or delegate others to carry?


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


#18 bmyers

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 4,124 posts
  • Joined: 31-May 12

Posted 05 May 2014 - 10:26 AM

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?

Life Member, Gun Owners of America
Life Member, NRA

ISRA Member


#19 mjw45

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 921 posts
  • Joined: 06-January 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 10:33 AM

Also remember there does not need to be a 'complainant'.

If an officer observes you breaking the law they can arrest you, no one else needs to even be involved.

 

Matt


Matt Wehland
Allguntraining.com NRA Firearms Instruction
Kankakee and Will County

#20 wtr100

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,402 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 09

Posted 05 May 2014 - 10:40 AM

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."

This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?

 
 
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).
 
The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).



why do you think you can change state law - if you post it's posted.

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


#21 BIGDEESUL

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,040 posts
  • Joined: 02-January 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 10:48 AM

"carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?  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). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).why do you think you can change state law - if you post it's posted.


Yep

Supporting member
NRA Endowment Member

IALEFI Member/Instructor
Certified Illinois Concealed Carry Instructor
NRA certified Pistol Instructor
NRA certified Personal Protection Inside The Home Instructor

NRA certified Personal Protection Outside The Home Instructor
NRA certified Chief Range Safety Officer
NRA certified Home Firearm Safety Instructor
 


#22 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,865 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:11 AM

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.

#23 wtr100

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,402 posts
  • Joined: 08-April 09

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:12 AM

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.


so it's ok for the owner of say a day care to carry? I think not ...

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


#24 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,865 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:19 AM

Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6?

#25 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:19 AM

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.

 

I do not think that is 100% correct.

 

If it were, the FCCA would not need Sec.70 outlining violations specific to the Act.  If what you said is true, violations would just revert back the violations/penalties in UUW...

 

The way that laws are right now, it looks like you could be guilty of violating the FCCA and not be guilty of the UUW, and vice versa...



#26 bobapunk

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:22 AM

Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6?

 

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)...



#27 Gamma

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,514 posts
  • Joined: 29-December 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:33 AM

This has been discussed repeatedly.

There won't be any clarity until there's an opinion from SA/AG, or caselaw, or a legislative change.

The language of the FCCA appears to restrict the behavior of licensees under that act, not create a gun free zone. The most straightforward reading of the various laws leads to the nonsensical conclusion that if you are NOT a concealed carry licensee but do have a FOID, that you can utilize the landowner/businessowner and invitee provisions of the FOID act to carry regardless of whether it's a statutory or voluntarily posted location. However, if you ARE a licensee, you cannot. This IMO was one of the driving factors that got ISP to remove the requirement for instructors to hold an FCCL, so as to not restrict the LE/IROCC instructor folks.

A security guard would be the ideal vehicle to clarify this. Licensed armed security guard, hired to protect a statutory prohibited location, who also has an FCCL for personal protection away from work. File suit as the FCCA is restricting him from performing his job, since he can't carry in that location since he's an FCCA licensee.

Edited by Gamma, 05 May 2014 - 11:41 AM.

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

#28 tkroenlein

    OFFICIAL MEMBER

  • Members
  • 8,865 posts
  • Joined: 12-January 13

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:41 AM


Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6?


 
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)...


Guns were prohibited in day cares long before the FCCA.

I had assumed for this discussion that we were limiting it to whether or not the sign applied to owners who were legal to carry before the FCCA.

#29 bob

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:47 AM

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.


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/

#30 bob

    Member

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

Posted 05 May 2014 - 11:48 AM

 

Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6?


 
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)...


Guns were prohibited in day cares long before the FCCA.

I had assumed for this discussion that we were limiting it to whether or not the sign applied to owners who were legal to carry before the FCCA.

 

what law prohibited them?


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/