Jump to content

Another Non-Compliant Sign


Frank

Recommended Posts

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn25/frankwhitmore/IllinoisCarry/01916a03-0c0e-44e6-b894-77846407dbaa_zpsklc02da2.jpg

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1".

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1".

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

 

So, did you have to sleep, shower, and use other bathroom facilities, in the breeze way in order to be compliant? :unsure:

 

It might be interesting to know the hotel's national headquarters on stand on posting. The local hotel may not be following corporate policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1".

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

 

So, did you have to sleep, shower, and use other bathroom facilities, in the breeze way in order to be compliant? :unsure:

 

It might be interesting to know the hotel's national headquarters on stand on posting. The local hotel may not be following corporate policy.

 

 

Unfortunately, the training I was attending was in a building listed in the Prohibited Areas of the FCCA.

 

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.

 

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had to go out of town for some training, and the company booked me in a pretty decent hotel this time. At least I thought so until I saw this sign in the breezeway between the inner and outer entrance doors:

 

 

http://i300.photobucket.com/albums/nn25/frankwhitmore/IllinoisCarry/01916a03-0c0e-44e6-b894-77846407dbaa_zpsklc02da2.jpg

 

 

The border was about 5-1/2 by 3-3/4 inches, a bit smaller than required by law. But the text was a little off, too. Instead of "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" it says "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/1".

 

I don't think the FCCA or JCAR specify the orientation of the border, i.e. 4 X 6 versus 6 X 4.

 

I just thought it was pretty darned odd.

 

 

-- Frank

The creator of that sign had to go through a lot of effort to make a sign so close yet also so far from being compliant. As in, it's way easier to just print off the correct sign or create an obviously non-compliant sign.

 

But to create a sign that references the wrong section of the law and is oriented the wrong way (but with the right dimensions)? That's a special level of doing it wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say non-compliant per the official dictates of the official organization that was delegated to design and publish the ONLY official sign.....

 

Therefore, it has no force of law and is just a bad case of interior design. How about a picture of a boat on a lake instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say non-compliant per the official dictates of the official organization that was delegated to design and publish the ONLY official sign.....

 

Therefore, it has no force of law and is just a bad case of interior design. How about a picture of a boat on a lake instead?

Yeah, but do you want to be 'that guy' who ignores it and makes gun owners and CCW carriers look like ********? We all know what the property owner is trying to convey. Just be respectful of their private property rights. IOW be decent human being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but do you want to be 'that guy' who ignores it and makes gun owners and CCW carriers look like ********? We all know what the property owner is trying to convey. Just be respectful of their private property rights. IOW be decent human being.

 

 

You mean like this guy?

 

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-gun-signs-must-comply-to-be-enforceable/article_d5a4fe35-683c-532a-a50b-79d060b4fce1.html

 

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/boch-s-attitude-actions-are-alarming/article_3d651cd1-a845-5974-8cce-e1445284ebe9.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The regulation references Illinois Code 430 ILCS 66/1, which I emboldened below, while the example sign shows Illinois Code 430 ILCS 66/65. It appears that either citation could be acceptable. I cannot find any verbiage in regards to the orientation of the sign.

 

”Owners of any statutorily prohibited area or private property, excluding residences, where the owner prohibits the carrying of firearms must clearly and conspicuously post the Illinois State Police approved sign, in accordance with Firearm Concealed Carry Act, at the entrance of the building, premises or real property. Please refer to Section 65 (Prohibited Areas) of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act for more information on statutory requirements for signage as well as where concealed weapons are prohibited.

Pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Firearm Concealed Carry Act, signs must be of a uniform design and the Illinois State Police is responsible for adopting rules for standardized signs. The Illinois State Police has proposed rules which require a white background; no text (except the reference to the Illinois Code 430 ILCS 66/1) or marking within the one-inch area surrounding the graphic design; a depiction of a handgun in black ink with a circle around and diagonal slash across the firearm in red ink; and that the circle be 4 inches in diameter. The sign in its entirety will measure 4 inches x 6 inches”.

https://www.ispfsb.com/Public/Signage.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Yeah, but do you want to be 'that guy' who ignores it and makes gun owners and CCW carriers look like ********? We all know what the property owner is trying to convey. Just be respectful of their private property rights. IOW be decent human being.

 

 

You mean like this guy?

 

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-gun-signs-must-comply-to-be-enforceable/article_d5a4fe35-683c-532a-a50b-79d060b4fce1.html

 

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/opinion/mailbag/boch-s-attitude-actions-are-alarming/article_3d651cd1-a845-5974-8cce-e1445284ebe9.html

 

This is excellent. To quote the second piece: "What was learned by the Diversity Project youth from Boch's actions? That you only follow rules or laws you agree with? That it's OK to disobey safety guidelines or lie, cheat or omit the truth if there's a printing error, technical glitch or miscommunication in information? That your own cause or opinion is more important than putting others' lives at risk? As a leader, Boch's actions are alarming and apt to have far reaching consequences. He should be held legally and morally accountable by all of us."

 

At no time did anyone's life come into danger by Boch's actions. And, in fact, this author demonstrates once again that they antis have nothing to stand on but hyperbole and hysteria. They're gun-phobic. They have an irrational fear of a mechanical device. It's a superstition, really.

 

Furthermore, Boch didn't violate any law or rule. In fact, he was doing his best to follow the letter of the law. These sort of technicalities appear in legal realms all the time. Everyday, in fact. If you don't want someone with a concealed handgun in your private building, use the right talisman! If you care enough about it, you'll do your research and make sure you have legal standing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about the sign! I saw a sign here in Chicago a few days ago (can't remember where), but the pistol was a 1911 instead of a Beretta. It was the correct size and had the correct statute. Is this sign invalid because the pistol is different?

I think it's still valid if it meets the requirements in the Administrative Code above. The Administrative Code does not specify a Beretta handgun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.

I travel for work and I am Diamond with Hilton. In my travels I've come across exactly one Hilton property that was posted, and it wasn't in Illinois. I complained to corporate and I won't book that location again despite quite a bit of travel to that city.

 

Hilton corporate responded and said (based on my memory) that they have no policy either way, it's up to the franchisee to decide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.

I travel for work and I am Diamond with Hilton. In my travels I've come across exactly one Hilton property that was posted, and it wasn't in Illinois. I complained to corporate and I won't book that location again despite quite a bit of travel to that city.

 

Hilton corporate responded and said (based on my memory) that they have no policy either way, it's up to the franchisee to decide.

 

 

I think I saw another Hilton in Illinois in the POSTED app. But I think you are correct, it must be a franchisee decision.

 

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's funny (in the way that our beloved overlords only can be) is that while the ISP CCW sign page has the incorrect section number, the PDF version that the link references has the legal and correct nomenclature.

 

Just to follow up, I sent a message to ISP about the incorrect reference on the web page. Their reply? "We will review this information." That's it. Nothing else.

 

 

-- Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

What's funny (in the way that our beloved overlords only can be) is that while the ISP CCW sign page has the incorrect section number, the PDF version that the link references has the legal and correct nomenclature.

 

Just to follow up, I sent a message to ISP about the incorrect reference on the web page. Their reply? "We will review this information." That's it. Nothing else.

 

 

-- Frank

 

In other words, 'We don't plan to do anything'. :frantics:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

BTW - the hotel was a Hilton. It seems they are posted per corporate policy. I didn't bother to tell the clerk that their sign was technically non-compliant.

 

 

I travel for work and I am Diamond with Hilton. In my travels I've come across exactly one Hilton property that was posted, and it wasn't in Illinois. I complained to corporate and I won't book that location again despite quite a bit of travel to that city.

Hilton corporate responded and said (based on my memory) that they have no policy either way, it's up to the franchisee to decide.

 

 

 

 

I think I saw another Hilton in Illinois in the POSTED app. But I think you are correct, it must be a franchisee decision.

 

 

-- Frank

 

I know there's a Hilton double tree posted by 355 and Butterfield

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with all the complaints about not being compliant, the law states a sign has to be posted or the owner/manager of a building/residence can verbally tell you that guns aren't allowed. I would think any form of sign telling you that you are not allowed to have guns in the location would be legally binding. I understand everyone wanting a way out of this law, but are there any incidents of a non compliant sign being useless by a court? In my opinion, being told verbally or seeing a sign that says no firearms (compliant or not) would keep me away from that location. Just my two cents.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with all the complaints about not being compliant, the law states a sign has to be posted or the owner/manager of a building/residence can verbally tell you that guns aren't allowed. I would think any form of sign telling you that you are not allowed to have guns in the location would be legally binding. I understand everyone wanting a way out of this law, but are there any incidents of a non compliant sign being useless by a court? In my opinion, being told verbally or seeing a sign that says no firearms (compliant or not) would keep me away from that location. Just my two cents.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about this link posted elsewhere in this thread?

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-gun-signs-must-comply-to-be-enforceable/article_d5a4fe35-683c-532a-a50b-79d060b4fce1.html?mobile_touch=true

 

ISP refused to arrest him because the sign was missing part of the black border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Additionally, no where does it say a private property owner can just verbally notify you. The statute says:

 

(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.
So the owner "MUST post a sign in accordance with subsection ( d )." Not MAY post a sign. Not must post ANY sign. It's pretty specific about the requirements, and that's a good thing. It's to protect licensees from being tripped up by any random posting we may or may not see.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with all the complaints about not being compliant, the law states a sign has to be posted or the owner/manager of a building/residence can verbally tell you that guns aren't allowed. I would think any form of sign telling you that you are not allowed to have guns in the location would be legally binding. I understand everyone wanting a way out of this law, but are there any incidents of a non compliant sign being useless by a court? In my opinion, being told verbally or seeing a sign that says no firearms (compliant or not) would keep me away from that location. Just my two cents. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I believe the only place where a verbal request is legally binding is a private residence. Every other place must have a sign...the correct sign.

 

Another incident occurred wherein a man dropped his gun in a post office in Woodstock, Illinois. The police did not charge the man even though the post office is posted per federal regulation. The local police didn't arrest the man because the post office was not posted per Illinois law with the proper sign. They referred the matter to the postal inspector. I don't know if the inspector did anything about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How about this link posted elsewhere in this thread?

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-gun-signs-must-comply-to-be-enforceable/article_d5a4fe35-683c-532a-a50b-79d060b4fce1.html?mobile_touch=true

 

ISP refused to arrest him because the sign was missing part of the black border.

 

 

It would be a terrible way to spend a weekend:

 

Sitting in [insert your favorite] county jail over the holiday, bemoaning that the ED from GSL did it and was not charged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...