III Posted January 9, 2014 at 03:41 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 03:41 AM Another thing not helping our cause is all the people providing misinformation in order to further their "anti" agenda. I too agree that we need to be professional with informing and clarifying or concerns so that we do not lose any ground that has been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mata777 Posted January 9, 2014 at 03:44 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 03:44 AM @prezI agree with you to a certain extent. Boycotting businesses who decide to make their space a "gun free zone" for customers and letting them know why, is the only way to get their attention. Once they start to loose business they will rethink their own policy. It happens all the time in other states. If they are smart enough to know what the isp sign means, they should know what legal ccw is. I have zero problems with taking my money elsewhere if a business decides to be a gun free zone by choice and letting them know why.I can be a funds free customer if I choose to. EditI'm sure local walmarts have no clue they are violating company policy , but other local businesses have no excuse other that they hate guns just like the politicians who deprived us of or right for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted January 9, 2014 at 03:50 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 03:50 AM I can choose where I will or won't spend my money and nobody else has any say in it. If I choose not to spend my money at Walmart while those signs are up, there is nothing anyone can do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:29 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:29 AM Let me see if I understand this. Any business can post a legal sign, and say it only applies to ????, women may not carry, people with blue eyes can not carry. Illinois State Police approved sign either has legal standing or doesn't. This is the company that fired an employee for stopping an assault in their parking lot, NOT WALLYWORLD BUSINESS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:47 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:47 AM It is amazing how worked up we can get when our Wally Walk (right of passage) is threatened *** PURPLE *** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Fife Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:50 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:50 AM F Walmart. Some innocent law abiding license holder is going to get busted and have their whole apple cart turned over because of this stupidity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colt guy Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:39 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:39 AM Never been in a Walmart. No Wallywalk for me. Sign or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jc2601 Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:05 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:05 AM Wow - lots of postings here on the topic. Now how many have actually contacted corporate? Talking to local managers is a good idea (thanks to those that did), but anybody who plans on shopping there needs to fire off a letter and/or call corporate. I did. A hundred emails on this should get things cleared up at headquarters pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad O. Posted January 9, 2014 at 08:16 AM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 08:16 AM I find the sign a little confusing especially with the text at the bottom. I just got back from the Huntley Walmart. I spoke with the assistant manager and explained my concerns. He told me that he'd bring it up with the head manager tomorrow. I will follow up in a day or so with her. Yeah, the text at the bottom, "pursuant to...." and the text at the top: "this applies only to....." Are contradictory. I'd chalk the whole thing up to lazy, disinterested and sloppy management. Lazy because they obviously pulled the image off the ISP web site, disinterested because if they actually used their head for more than a hat rack it would have occurred to them to redact the text at the bottom. Sloppy because using the same image even with the text at the bottom redacted and the text added at the top would still cause some confusion. The real tragedy is I bet they thought they were doing good using the same image. Sad! Sad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_prez3 Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:00 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:00 PM Let me see if I understand this. Any business can post a legal sign, and say it only applies to ????, women may not carry, people with blue eyes can not carry. Illinois State Police approved sign either has legal standing or doesn't. This is the company that fired an employee for stopping an assault in their parking lot, NOT WALLYWORLD BUSINESS. Get a grip sir! This only pertains to their employees and vendors! If you hire someone, you can set the rules. They are perfectly within their rights as I see it. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karim18 Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:08 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:08 PM Just a thought, the crowd that is anti-gun tends to lean very hard anti-walmart as well, I don't think walmart corporate would want to do anything to appease people who's goal is to see their company go belly up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:46 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:46 PM I'm not worried about this. It is not a FCCA compliant sign. It does not meet the uniform requirements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:56 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:56 PM I'm not worried about this. It is not a FCCA compliant sign. It does not meet the uniform requirements. However, the ISP has allowed certain deviations within their rules. This sign appears to meet such deviations, thus making it valid for all carriers.... Regardless of "intent" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:58 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 01:58 PM Please explain how this sign conforms to said rules. (the sign that is pictured earlier in the thread) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:02 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:02 PM I'm not worried about this. It is not a FCCA compliant sign. It does not meet the uniform requirements. However, the ISP has allowed certain deviations within their rules. This sign appears to meet such deviations, thus making it valid for all carriers.... Regardless of "intent" no it doesn't it clearly states for employees and vendors. How the heck does that validly apply to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:07 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:07 PM Seriously this thread right here is the reason we are called nut jobs. The paranoia that is becoming rampant on this site is driving me bat chit crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:09 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:09 PM I'm not worried about this. It is not a FCCA compliant sign. It does not meet the uniform requirements. However, the ISP has allowed certain deviations within their rules. This sign appears to meet such deviations, thus making it valid for all carriers.... Regardless of "intent" no it doesn't it clearly states for employees and vendors. How the heck does that validly apply to me? Because the legal portion of the approved sign is present. Everyone is more than welcome to carry as they please. However, I will not (on advise from my lawyer) be carrying into places with signs like this because I am not going to risk having to pay my lawyer to sort out any misunderstandings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pipedoc Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:15 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:15 PM The "legal portion" is not the only qualifier that makes a sign official or of uniform design. I seem to remember a thread not long ago or maybe it was this thread earlier (I am having a hard time keeping up on all of the threads lately) where (I believe it was TyGuy) who posted a picture of a sign drawn in crayon that had the "legal language". Would that sign also be compliant in your opinion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:19 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:19 PM how the heck you going to get into a gander mountain in states that don't have a specific legal sign ? http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj40/UncleHarleysAntlerArt/gandermountainsign_zpsc8384f13.jpg If you lawyer can't comprehend basic English, I would get a better lawyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:23 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:23 PM Next time you pay your lawyer write out a check and make a photo copy of it and give him the photo copy with a note that says " Hey all the legal info is there" and see if he accepts it. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:34 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:34 PM Well...the difference is that many states are not as specific as Illinois regarding the signage requirements. There is room for the business to customize their sign to their needs. Illinois is quite specific that you need to have their approved sign on display if you want to create a CPZ. You can increase the size of the sign as you see fit and you can add additional information as you see fit. However, if the approved sign is there, then it is "legal." I am not as concerned about other states non-standard signage because it typically is not a criminal offence if you accidentally violate the sign. In Illinois you will be charged with a misdemeanor. All I am saying is that I will not be everyones test case in a situation that is as ambiguous as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeavyDuty Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:59 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 02:59 PM It incorporates the IL specified sign. I will not be carrying at WM until this is resolved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:45 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 04:45 PM I'm not worried about this. It is not a FCCA compliant sign. It does not meet the uniform requirements.However, the ISP has allowed certain deviations within their rules. This sign appears to meet such deviations, thus making it valid for all carriers.... Regardless of "intent"no it doesn't it clearly states for employees and vendors. How the heck does that validly apply to me?IF they have posted the legally defined sign to create a GFZ, they can't then create their own qualifications different from the legal results that are attached to that sign. Either they've posted the sign or not, if they have, then the criminal penalties defined in the statute are applicable. They could post something that is obviously NOT the legal sign and have it say whatever they want, it wouldn't have the force of law other than they could trespass people if they so desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:06 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:06 PM Seriously this thread right here is the reason we are called nut jobs. The paranoia that is becoming rampant on this site is driving me bat chit crazy. WM is trying to have the best of both world, allow customer carry and have the teeth of a criminal offense for violation of a company rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockman Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:14 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:14 PM IF they have posted the legally defined sign to create a GFZ, they can't then create their own qualifications different from the legal results that are attached to that sign. Either they've posted the sign or not, if they have, then the criminal penalties defined in the statute are applicable. They could post something that is obviously NOT the legal sign and have it say whatever they want, it wouldn't have the force of law other than they could trespass people if they so desire. Yes, and therefore have created an implied grant of permission for non employees and vendors. If prosecuted for such would put WM in a bad position for a civil suite and IMO the likely hood of conviction is remote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
POAT54 Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:27 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:27 PM If the walmart sign is legal and only applies to their employees and vendors, if a pool hall puts up a sign saying only applies to NRA members does that mean only NRA members are in violation of the law? No one is saying employers can't make rules or policies. However when they use state approved sign, it applies to whomever the police officer says. I am sure state attorney of crook county would decline to prosecute because a approved sign was modified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:32 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:32 PM IF they have posted the legally defined sign to create a GFZ, they can't then create their own qualifications different from the legal results that are attached to that sign. Either they've posted the sign or not, if they have, then the criminal penalties defined in the statute are applicable. They could post something that is obviously NOT the legal sign and have it say whatever they want, it wouldn't have the force of law other than they could trespass people if they so desire.Yes, and therefore have created an implied grant of permission for non employees and vendors. If prosecuted for such would put WM in a bad position for a civil suite and IMO the likely hood of conviction is remote.They're trying to offload enforcement of their own internal company policies onto the legal system. Or at least threaten such. Unintentionally or not, they're also involving their customer base as well. Send a memo to employees, post a notice in the employee areas, deal with their own internal issues internally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryrxtx Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:50 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:50 PM Seriously this thread right here is the reason we are called nut jobs. The paranoia that is becoming rampant on this site is driving me bat chit crazy. WM is trying to have the best of both world, allow customer carry and have the teeth of a criminal offense for violation of a company rule.+!1, EXACTLY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:54 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 05:54 PM So has anyone that lives near one of the afected Walmarts bothered to call the store or corporate yet? 1-800-WALMART (925-6278) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckfarrack Posted January 9, 2014 at 06:27 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 06:27 PM Naw,it all depends what WM store you go to.....LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.