Jump to content

Walmart Concealed Carry prohibited sign


mjw45

Recommended Posts

@prez

I 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.

 

Edit

I'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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Archived

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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