Jump to content

POSTED! - NO CARRY Signs


mauserme

Recommended Posts

 

The new Whole Foods at 255 E Grand Ave, Chicago in addition to having "No Concealed Carry" signs, has just added an armed security guard with a bullet proof vest and two spare magazines on his hip. That's the most heavily armed security guard I've ever seen for a grocery store.

Seemingly, they think they may be more liable for civil damages by their posting of the sign - so they've decided to provide their own security!

 

That Security Guard is "Scary". Ha Ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see that sign as a "comedic piece" in that, they're actually mocking, or "making fun of", the CPZ sign - I for one would feel safe carrying there! That sign is in no way shape or form statutory!

Agree, but technically the only missing component is the "pursuant to" language.

 

 

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I see that sign as a "comedic piece" in that, they're actually mocking, or "making fun of", the CPZ sign - I for one would feel safe carrying there! That sign is in no way shape or form statutory!

 

Agree, but technically the only missing component is the "pursuant to" language.

 

 

 

 

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see that sign as a "comedic piece" in that, they're actually mocking, or "making fun of", the CPZ sign - I for one would feel safe carrying there! That sign is in no way shape or form statutory!

 

Agree, but technically the only missing component is the "pursuant to" language.

 

 

 

 

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.
They have had plenty of time to update per the rules and haven't so are we going with what they say per the law or what they say per the rules?

It still says 4x6 per the FCCA. See link. How would YOU know if they don't know?

 

https://www.ccl4illinois.com/ccw/Public/Signage.aspx

"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."

 

This is exactly what it says now on 3/10/2015

 

 

I don't see where it says refer to the JCAR rules for updates. Are we all confused enough now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I see that sign as a "comedic piece" in that, they're actually mocking, or "making fun of", the CPZ sign - I for one would feel safe carrying there! That sign is in no way shape or form statutory!

Agree, but technically the only missing component is the "pursuant to" language.

 

 

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.
They have had plenty of time to update per the rules and haven't so are we going with what they say per the law or what they say per the rules?

It still says 4x6 per the FCCA. See link. How would YOU know if they don't know?https://www.ccl4illinois.com/ccw/Public/Signage.aspx

"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."

This is exactly what it says now on 3/10/2015

I don't see where it says refer to the JCAR rules for updates. Are we all confused enough now?

It wouldn't be Illinois if the law was written and interpreted clearly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I see that sign as a "comedic piece" in that, they're actually mocking, or "making fun of", the CPZ sign - I for one would feel safe carrying there! That sign is in no way shape or form statutory!

 

Agree, but technically the only missing component is the "pursuant to" language.

 

 

 

 

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.

 

 

Well you /can/ have a sign "bigger" (or smaller) than 4x6, but that's still not the LEGAL sign then. You could make a sign as big as a billboard and it wouldn't be "legal" unless it ALSO contained the specified 4x6 size. Also, I don't believe it to be a "template" or "example" based upon the "uniform design" and "standardized signs" wording.

 

For example (my interpretation):

 

This sign is the exact legal sign (so clearly legal):

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2015/post-1104-0-54482200-1426046758.png

 

This sign would also be legal:

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2015/post-1104-0-40331300-1426046766.png

 

This sign would NOT be legal:

http://www.illinoiscarry.com/forum/uploads/monthly_03_2015/post-1104-0-04053800-1426046774.png

 

Because the exact wording is "The sign in its entirety will measure 4 inches x 6 inches.", this means there can be no deviance in size to be "LEGAL". So again, you could make one as big as a billboard, but in order to be the LEGAL sign, you'd have to also include one that was the exact prescribed 4*6...

post-1104-0-54482200-1426046758_thumb.png

post-1104-0-40331300-1426046766_thumb.png

post-1104-0-04053800-1426046774_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I see that sign as a "comedic piece" in that, they're actually mocking, or "making fun of", the CPZ sign - I for one would feel safe carrying there! That sign is in no way shape or form statutory!

Agree, but technically the only missing component is the "pursuant to" language.

 

 

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

 

 

It's on the door at Chicago Comics, and I believe it is supposed to be sincere, albeit with a geeky spin on it. It's actually close to the standard size; that's just a close-up from an angle that makes it look bigger than it is. I also don't think the people in this store are very conversant with actual Illinois firearm statutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.

JCAR actually requires the 'provided template' to be included at 6x4 if the sign it is a part of is larger that 6x4, complete with the black border. The Law says 'exactly' 6x4, which the JCAR rule 'technically' confirms to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's on the door at Chicago Comics, and I believe it is supposed to be sincere, albeit with a geeky spin on it. It's actually close to the standard size; that's just a close-up from an angle that makes it look bigger than it is. I also don't think the people in this store are very conversant with actual Illinois firearm statutes.

Well then it's good to know, I can still legally carry in there anyway. Maybe if they were serious they'd put the real statutory sign :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.

JCAR actually requires the 'provided template' to be included at 6x4 if the sign it is a part of is larger that 6x4, complete with the black border. The Law says 'exactly' 6x4, which the JCAR rule 'technically' confirms to.

 

Awesome, that's exactly what I thought :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JCAR actually requires the 'provided template' to be included at 6x4 if the sign it is a part of is larger that 6x4, complete with the black border. The Law says 'exactly' 6x4, which the JCAR rule 'technically' confirms to.
No.http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/020012310C01500R.html

 

B) Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template provided, at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template provided shall be reproduced somewhere on the larger sign no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act.
I agree that the wording should be cleaned up, as it is not consistent. However, the law says the department shall adopt rules, the ISP website has proposed rules, and JCAR has established/approved rules.Take SIUE for example... Driving onto campus, there are speed limit sign sized versions of the ISP template posted, as the law requires the entrance of buildings and real property to be posted. Would a postcard sized sign on the side of the road be conspicuous to a driver?As for the sign itself, I see the template provided as a template, not the template. The specified components are the template. Otherwise, why detail the specific components of the sign? Why not just say, "Here is the exact sign you must use, exactly 4 x 6 inches in size, no exceptions."This has been discussed here many, many times over the past almost 2 years now. I honestly don't understand why this is still an issue, and anyone trying to actually legally challenge that a larger, easier to read, more conspicuous sign is not enforceable is just begging for a conviction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The JCAR rules say no smaller than 4x6. And it doesn't have to be a Beretta, just a black handgun. The ISP template is just an example.

JCAR actually requires the 'provided template' to be included at 6x4 if the sign it is a part of is larger that 6x4, complete with the black border. The Law says 'exactly' 6x4, which the JCAR rule 'technically' confirms to.
6" x 4" and 4" x 6" are actually different signs and it does make a difference. JCAR says 4x6 not 6x4. Verticle and horizontal measurement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template provided shall be reproduced somewhere on the larger sign no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act.

 

Why say "no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension" if they really mean "no smaller or larger than the 4" x 6" dimension"?

 

At what point in anyone's interpretation do the words "no smaller than" completely lose their meaning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a business has a non-compliant sign, I am still not going in. Their intent to keep out firearms and to deny customers their 2A rights is nonetheless clear. They're not getting my business. And, I'm not going to be the test case for when the courts eventually decide on some kind of "substantial compliance" or "reasonable notice" standard. When it comes to your rights, or your freedoms, or your reputation, this is not some kind of game, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the size (HAS to be exactly 4x6) looking at that photo I'm going to say that one is somewhere around 8.5x11 or 8x10, and the beretta (not a raygun)... There's just so much wrong with that sign, that make it clearly not legal, because then yes, there's no pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65...!

I think you may be playing with fire there by basing it solely on the sizing. There is some room for interpretation and case law, in how the statute & JCAR rules specify the sign size. Personally, I will treat similar signs as statutory until proven otherwise by clear court cases (finding someone not guilty in similar scenario.) You may be right, and you may not; I don't want to be the test case. The raygun would be a very good argument against, but it's probably still close enough to get you taken downtown if you were noticed carrying inside.

 

I would rather focus on trying to get businesses to take down their signs, and refusing to patronize that that post, instead of spending time to determine if a "close" sign is enforceable or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a business has a non-compliant sign, I am still not going in. Their intent to keep out firearms and to deny customers their 2A rights is nonetheless clear. They're not getting my business. And, I'm not going to be the test case for when the courts eventually decide on some kind of "substantial compliance" or "reasonable notice" standard. When it comes to your rights, or your freedoms, or your reputation, this is not some kind of game, IMO.

 

I actually got into an "argument" (read: debate) with a close personal friend on this matter. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. If it's a *clearly* not legal sign then I will not "oblige" it, but I wont "boycott" either. Now something on the mere SIZE of the sign, yea I wouldn't probably "risk it" either. But it DOES need some clarification in the verbiage! Something like the Jewel sign, clearly NOT legal - I'm not boycotting Jewel over that! My one friend was so "hard core" he was quick to be willing to "boycott" Target after hearing their "PR" about "please leave your guns at home". After debating for a while I think he's actually fell back more to my stance. As I put it to him - if a business REALLY wants to keep me (while armed) out, they'll post the COMPLIANT sign. Until then for all I know and am to assume is, any NON compliant sign is to appeaase the anti 2A people AND us. Like the whol Starbucks, Target, Chipotle etc... They don't want to get involved in the 2A debate, they just want to do BUSINESS. They don't care whether their customer is pro or anti 2A, they just want to sell/provide X, Y, or Z...

 

Yea I wouldn't "test" the size issue either, but it's the only thing I feel unclear on. Other than that - it's plain and clearly spelled out that it must be at least 4x6, black border, white background, red circle covering a black silhouette of a pistol. Plus of course the 430 ILCS 66/65 verbiage in the bottom right corner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JCAR says:

 

a) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act is provided in Appendix A and is available on the Department's website. B) Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template provided, at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template provided shall be reproduced somewhere on the larger sign no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act. c) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs. If prohibited areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced somewhere on the larger sign no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act.
http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/020/020012310C01500R.htmlSo yes, it can be bigger, per JCAR. But must still be the provided template.However........
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Law says:

 

(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. (Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)
What part of 'shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size' allows any sign to he bigger? Law overrides JCAR I believe. JCAR pays deferance to 'the requirements of the act'
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The new Whole Foods at 255 E Grand Ave, Chicago in addition to having "No Concealed Carry" signs, has just added an armed security guard with a bullet proof vest and two spare magazines on his hip. That's the most heavily armed security guard I've ever seen for a grocery store.

Seemingly, they think they may be more liable for civil damages by their posting of the sign - so they've decided to provide their own security!

 

That Security Guard is "Scary". Ha Ha

 

 

I sent the store owners a follow-up letter:

 

"I was pleased to see that your store on 255 E Grand Ave, Chicago IL now has heavily armed security. Clearly your company understands the utility of armed defense. But your security guard will not protect me on my way to and from your store; a journey which your signs require I take unarmed. Your company may still be exposed to liability should anything happen to one of your customers on their way to or from your store if they had to disarm because of your irresponsible and unjustifiable decision to post those signs requiring such."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI Liquor Barn in Wheeling is now posted; they were not as of around January or February.

 

I sent them this e mail and will post(no pun intended) any reply I get.

 

Also added them to the posted app today, which will take 1-3 days to show up.

 

Take your business elsewhere and if you shop there or know someone who does please take the time to send them an e mail.

 

 

 

Re: Wheeling IL store posted "gun free" zone

Dear Liquor Barn; due to the recent addition of a posted "No guns" sigh at your Wheeling IL location I will be taking my patronage elsewhere. My family and second amendment conscious friends will also be taking their business to your competition to the sum of $500/week.
I would love to bring my business back to the Liquor Barn, your prices, staff friendliness and selection have always been superb, however I cannot in good conscience as a citizen licensed to lawfully conceal carry a firearm support a business which has chosen to deny me my second amendment right to bear arms for the purpose of defending my family and loved ones.
I urge you to reconsider the "no guns" sign that is currently posted, study after study have shown that citizens who are lawfully licensed to conceal carry a firearm are far less likely than the general public to commit crimes of all types.
In addition to that your business is not required to post per statute as they do not "serve" alcohol to the general public on the premises, merely sell it.
Once again, I wish the Liquor Barn to reconsider its infringement upon the rights of lawful citizens to defend themselves against criminals if your company values the business of pro second amendment customers.
Thank you for taking the time to read this
XXX-Wheeling IL
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Krapil's Great Steak in Worth, Il is posted. I know we have some active members from the area because we got FairPlay to change last year and we need to start stopping by and dropping off the no money cards. Another great steak place is Jenny's on 111th between Central and Cicerio. Big time supporter on CC they even had a class thought there.
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...