narcoden Posted January 9, 2014 at 06:53 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 06:53 PM Are Walmart employees allowed to carry on their day off? If they stop in for a few items while not on the clock? Does Walmart want them tossed in jail? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:18 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:18 PM Apparently WalMart employees have better heath care plans than ObamnaCare provides: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/07/surprise-walmart-health-plan-is-cheaper-offers-more-coverage-than-obamacare/ so they at least they have that going for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:30 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:30 PM I'm not anti-lawyer. In fact, there are two in my family. On the other hand, my ex-wife married one so I guess there is this yin and yang thing present.... But the more I read this thread (and a few others) I am struck by the thought that lawyers issue opinions and judges issue rulings... So far I see reports of a few of the former but none of the latter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:56 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 07:56 PM I'm not anti-lawyer. In fact, there are two in my family. On the other hand, my ex-wife married one so I guess there is this yin and yang thing present.... But the more I read this thread (and a few others) I am struck by the thought that lawyers issue opinions and judges issue rulings... So far I see reports of a few of the former but none of the latter... And I am not going to be the one responsible for helping obtain said ruling....I like you guys and all...but not more than my squeaky clean record. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 08:19 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 08:19 PM Are Walmart employees allowed to carry on their day off? If they stop in for a few items while not on the clock? Does Walmart want them tossed in jail? yeah if they have a permit, It clearly states ON DUTY It's basic 3rd grade reading comprehension, not Bill Clinton's famous " depends on what the definition of is is " LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckfarrack Posted January 9, 2014 at 08:51 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 08:51 PM lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:34 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:34 PM By using the ISP graphic, are they unintentionally prohibiting customers from carrying?IANAL, but if they post the exact specified legal sign, it's a prohibited area. They can't post the legal sign and then try to qualify it with additional text or signs.If it's a modified sign and has to do with company policy and not the law, they can do whatever they want. It's not a legal sign for us, so it can be ignored. The writing they added makes their intentions clear. It has nothing to do with us. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Umm, the sign in question says, "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65". 430 ILCS 66/65 is not Wal-Mart's employee handbook... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:40 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:40 PM Totally understandable. I'm merely suggesting that we all be very professional about this. I don't like some of the attitudes I'm seeing on this thread and I certainly don't want those attitudes to speak for me. This is meant to be a positive experience for this state and the more professional we are, the more likely the other restrictions we have will loosen up in the coming years. The concept is to win concealed carry, which we did, then to begin to expand our rights. It will be much easier if we don't have people running around telling everyone they won't shop there until the signs, that don't ban carrying by the public, come down. Let's keep in mind that many of the people we deal with won't even know the laws. I've talked to a couple of businesses about this and they didn't even know what the concealed carry was. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD See, that is the problem. The sign DOES ban the lawful carry of concealed firearms by the public on the property. That may very well have not been Wal-Mart's intention, but they prohibited everyone by posting that sign. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:44 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:44 PM Umm, the sign in question says, "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65". 430 ILCS 66/65 is not Wal-Mart's employee handbook... That's because they copied the image and pasted into a word document. You can copy a $ 100 bill and put it on paper and even though it says Federal Reserve note and has the treasury seal does not make it legal tender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:45 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:45 PM no it doesn't it clearly states for employees and vendors. How the heck does that validly apply to me? 430 ILSC 66/65 applies at ALL people in the state of IL Please explain how this sign conforms to said rules. (the sign that is pictured earlier in the thread) The Portion that the ISP made is 4"x6" or larger and contains the correct image and the reference to 430 ILCS 66/65. What do you think make it not comply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:46 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:46 PM no it doesn't it clearly states for employees and vendors. How the heck does that validly apply to me? 430 ILSC 66/65 applies at ALL people in the state of IL Please explain how this sign conforms to said rules. (the sign that is pictured earlier in the thread) The Portion that the ISP made is 4"x6" or larger and contains the correct image and the reference to 430 ILCS 66/65. What do you think make it not comply? because it SAYS it only applies to on duty employees and vendors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:47 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:47 PM Umm, the sign in question says, "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65". 430 ILCS 66/65 is not Wal-Mart's employee handbook... That's because they copied the image and pasted into a word document. You can copy a $ 100 bill and put it on paper and even though it says Federal Reserve note and has the treasury seal does not make it legal tender. That is a terrible comparison. The ISP sign is intended to be re-printed by the public, currency is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:49 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:49 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? The Wal-Mart sign also contains the ISP image and is equal to or larger than the mandated minimum size... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:50 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:50 PM That is a terrible comparison. The ISP sign is intended to be re-printed by the public, currency is not.There goes my retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:52 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:52 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. I do not understand your point in this post at all... #1 not every state has a uniform sign requirement.#2 signs do not carry the force of law in every state#3 Violating "No Gun" signs will not result in criminal charges in all states#4 The image you posted in NOT and ISP approved sign, therefore I do not understand why you posted it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:53 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:53 PM That is a terrible comparison. The ISP sign is intended to be re-printed by the public, currency is not.There goes my retirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:55 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 09:55 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? The Wal-Mart sign also contains the ISP image and is equal to or larger than the mandated minimum size... It's a stock image, who says they got it from ISP It also say copywrite walmart 2013, How can they copywrite someone else's image? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:04 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:04 PM no it doesn't it clearly states for employees and vendors. How the heck does that validly apply to me? 430 ILSC 66/65 applies at ALL people in the state of IL The Portion that the ISP made is 4"x6" or larger and contains the correct image and the reference to 430 ILCS 66/65. What do you think make it not comply? because it SAYS it only applies to on duty employees and vendors. Now, I know that Wal-Mart is HUGE and POWERFUL. However, I do not believe they have the authority to re-write Illinois Criminal Code... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:05 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:05 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? The Wal-Mart sign also contains the ISP image and is equal to or larger than the mandated minimum size... It's a stock image, who says they got it from ISP It also say copywrite walmart 2013, How can they copywrite someone else's image? If the removed the reference to the IL Criminal Code, I would agree with you 100% Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckfarrack Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:27 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:27 PM Ok Uncle Harley!!!! You (and several other including me not reading into the WM sign waywayway too deep)were RIGHT! I just got off the phone from talking to the manager (Belinda)at the Rochelle Walmart. I explained WHY i was asking,because they DID use a ISP sign. She assured me that is IS NOT a Walmart policy and WE are not against CC in our store. The sign will more than likely be temporary until all of our employees take note,and it ONLY apllies to our employees.NOT citizens that are allowed to conceal carry. That's what i thought and If i am near a store posted like they did,i am willing to be one that will put it to the test.I have been to many WM's am that one isn't going to be any different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
III Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:35 PM That's what i thought and If i am near a store posted like they did,i am willing to be one that will put it to the test.I have been to many WM's am that one isn't going to be any different. Lets hope you pass with flying colors. If they are not wanting to infringe on the public, then they should have used something other than the approved sign....or at least NOT use the reference to the criminal code (which applies to all). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talonap Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:40 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:40 PM You guys are making me paranoid. Guess my Wally Walk will be in NWI instead of Illinois. It really wouldn't surprise me if Cook County Walmart's end up with total ban on CC just like they don't sell ammo. My WM is in Cook, and I've bought a bunch of ammo there... ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:42 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:42 PM bob is right. If they remove the reference to the criminal code then it becomes copyright infringement because they are taking something that has been created for public use and removing the implied (or is it expressly stated?) license of sorts to modify the sign as long as the reference to the Criminal Code remains. Not only would it be copyright infringement but the posting would also lose the weight of the law behind it. It'd become a mere suggestion. Keep in mind I'm not an attorney so that last part it's conjecture. I'm not 100% sure about the copyright part because it's been so long since I've studied IP law. Intellectual property law is some of the most mindless, nitpicky, gotcha crap I have ever studied. You'd truly be amazed what constitutes a copyright infringement (think of the home button on an iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy S series, well Samsung infringed on Apples design even though they look NOTHING alike). If you think con law is difficult, contracts and IP will make your head explode with all of the criteria and this Act preempts this Act etc. It's a maze of bleep. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckfarrack Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:47 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 10:47 PM bob is right. If they remove the reference to the criminal code then it becomes copyright infringement because they are taking something that has been created for public use and removing the implied (or is it expressly stated?) license of sorts to modify the sign as long as the reference to the Criminal Code remains. Not only would it be copyright infringement but the posting would also lose the weight of the law behind it. It'd become a mere suggestion. Keep in mind I'm not an attorney so that last part it's conjecture. I'm not 100% sure about the copyright part because it's been so long since I've studied IP law.Intellectual property law is some of the most mindless, nitpicky, gotcha crap I have ever studied. You'd truly be amazed what constitutes a copyright infringement (think of the home button on an iPhone vs. Samsung Galaxy S series, well Samsung infringed on Apples design even though they look NOTHING alike). If you think con law is difficult, contracts and IP will make your head explode with all of the criteria and this Act preempts this Act etc. It's a maze of bleep. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk 2 The lady just got through telling me she or WM will not call the cops and it is ok to carry in her store..What the hey!!!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:06 PM Not to mention nobody that was freaking bothered to read what the isp states is a legal sign, if you notice it says NO OTHER TEXT. 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. from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamma Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:12 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:12 PM The lady just got through telling me she or WM will not call the cops and it is ok to carry in her store..What the hey!!!?It's irrelevant whether they call the police if you happen to be spotted by an officer in the store, or someone else calls 911 or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:18 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:18 PM The fact that the isp says the sign in its entirety will be 4 in by 6 in makes this 8.5 x .11 sheet of printer paper a non compliant sign Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckfarrack Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:20 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:20 PM It is truly amazing how paranoid this state has made some of it citizens when it comes to firearms. My GOSH. i really don't think they are trying to trick you two. Come on,follow me i will help you relax. WOW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckfarrack Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:24 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:24 PM Thanks AGAIN Uncle Harley!!! You are right-on AGAIN! Good call. They aren't out to get me are they....LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Harley Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:25 PM Share Posted January 9, 2014 at 11:25 PM It is truly amazing how paranoid this state has made some of it citizens when it comes to firearms. My GOSH. i really don't think they are trying to trick you two. Come on,follow me i will help you relax. WOW. It's sickening seeing our own people not having the common sense God gave a turkey, not everything should need to be broken down barney style Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.