Jump to content

Walmart Concealed Carry prohibited sign


mjw45

Recommended Posts

I am not a lawyer, but since the statute states the following -

 

(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.

 

 

The signs clearly indicate that they pertain only to employees, and are posted because Illinois now has the legislation allowing citizens to carry (thus perhaps the reference to the statute).

 

The reply from Walmart posted above states that the store supports our right to carry, that is a good thing, isn't it?

 

Have we determined the signs make it illegal to carry in the store to be fact of law, or is it the interpretation of an instructor or instructors that are not an authority on the rule of the law? I am asking that question sincerely, as I cannot see that this has been proven one way or the other at least not in this thread.

 

best

 

mqqn

 

That is what we are discussing. Some think that since the sign is not exactly 4x6 inches, or that it doesn't contain the "proper" boarder, or that Walmart meant something different than what the ISP template designates, that it doesn't have the force of law.

 

Others are not so sure the arrest/conviction risk is worth carrying there.

 

Most of us just want the signs removed since prohibiting customers is against Walmart corporate policy.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Nick!

 

I will report what they say when we get the answer back from the Walmart Corporate -

 

One has to assume that the lawyers in legal had some basis for the signage, but of course they do not give justification to the local store management, they just sent a package of signs and instruct the local employees to post them up.

 

My double-quote reply was really in reference to the post you quoted.

 

Hope all is well with you -

 

best

 

mqqn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So their intent was to ONLY ban those indicated, we knew that. The problem is that the sign some bone head jr. manager/graphic designer picked also bans everybody else. This has to get fixed.

 

This is what I have been saying since my first post in this thread! Thank you Larry!

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

The signs were not picked by "some bonehead jr. manager". They were sent from the corporate legal offices of Walmart to the Illinois stores.

 

The facts are that a team of lawyers came up with the signage for Illinois stores, and people here are suggesting that the signs are not legal or that they make it illegal for non-employees/agents to carry, based on their extensive experience teaching CCL classes and reading laws and FAQs.

 

I find it refreshing that the large Walmart Corporation is embracing the concealed carry public and the Second Amendment, but it is sad that the employees cannot carry (nor can I at my work at a large manufacturing concern).

 

I have asked the manager listed above to make an inquiry with the Walmart corporate legal department to get their response to as to the legality of the signage. I will post that information when it is received.

 

best

 

mqqn

 

Not sure why you quoted me there. I never said a bonehead Jr. Manager made the sign. I actually said that the store manager I talked to face to face told me that "corporate" sent them the signs. However, I do not know who, or how many Walmart lawyers, were involved in designing the sign.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Nick!

 

I will report what they say when we get the answer back from the Walmart Corporate -

 

One has to assume that the lawyers in legal had some basis for the signage, but of course they do not give justification to the local store management, they just sent a package of signs and instruct the local employees to post them up.

 

My double-quote reply was really in reference to the post you quoted.

 

Hope all is well with you -

 

best

 

mqqn

 

We all know the position of Walmart corporate. The do not intend to prohibit customers from carrying. They need to remove the signs. Our, at the very least, remove the ISP prohibited place template from it.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread is really beginning to turn into a witch hunt. I've never seen a greater display of paranoia on a discussion forum. Some of you are even suggesting conspiracies with WM and antigun people. Someone even suggested anti gunnies going around and putting the signs up without the knowledge of WM management. If we follow some of the logic here: Most people won't notice the signs or know the rules. As someone said, a soccer mom won't know what the sign says or if there is one. So, what happens when someone see's you out in public anywhere with your firearm and calls the police? Will you be prosecuted on some technicality? Surely a responding officer would be able to find something wrong and arrest you. A witness could catch a glimpse of your firearm momentarily when your shirt lifted up. Maybe that witness tells the police that he felt threatened by you showing your gun off and you get sent up the river. You could easily forget that you have it on you and walk into a hospital to visit a sick relative and end up being arrested. All of these things are just as likely as the circumstances that would have to line up to get you arrested for carrying into WM when the store policy and their intention has been clearly established all throughout this thread. My point is this, carrying a concealed firearm is going to have certain risks associated with it. If you're not willing to take the risk of a possible misunderstanding then you're not prepared to carry a concealed firearm. And you certainly aren't prepared to be among the first generation of people to carry a concealed firearm in this state that has always been anti-gun. We are probably three months away from even seeing the first permits issued and as the WM manager told someone on this thread, the signs will probably come down after a period of time anyway. I've contemplated contacting walmart myself, not to complain but to thank them for supporting my rights. I've read this thread from the beginning and read both sides of the debate. I've witnessed the argument go around in circles and it doesn't seem to matter how many times we hear the policy of Walmart, we end up knit picking law. How many laws do we all break inadvertently every day and not give it a second thought? We are splitting hairs here and I think if we just let the process go then it will take care of itself. I can tell you one thing, if I got my permit in the mail tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate to carry in Walmart ten minutes later.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Are you seriously comparing a hospital, which is REQUIRED to post, with a retail store that, regardless of their intent, chooses to post a sign? If you "forget" and carry into a hospital, you are committing a crime. Carry into Walmart when that sign is on the door and you also may be committing a crime and could be arrested and charged.

 

Do you seriously not see the legal difference between carrying in a prohibited zone versus a non-prohibited zone? Cops called when you are not in a prohibited zone, no crime no arrest. Cops called when you are carrying in a prohibited zone, you are committing a crime and will likely be arrested and charged.

 

Call it a witch hunt, paranoia, or whatever. I intend to follow the law to the fullest extent I am able. Licensees intentionally carrying in prohibited places can do nothing to further our cause.

 

If we are not proactive and choose to sit back and let things take care of themselves, we may not like the results. Be sure the across aren't about to sit back and wait to see what happens.

 

Trying to have a full understanding of our new law should not be characterized as nit picking.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Did you seriously miss the entire message in my post? I was simply giving an example to other things that could happen and other misunderstandings that could occur while carrying and comparing it to the unlikely event that one of us could get arrested carrying in a Walmart. Please read a little more carefully.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mqqn, thanks for clearing up my quote confusion. The Tapatalk app only displays one quote ink each reply.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. What a read! I knew that there was a reason I had been dodging this thread.

 

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that JCAR Rule 1231.150 sec. C allows for the private property poster to add additional verbiage to their sign. So given that it is the property owner's sole discretion to prohibit carry on their property, or allow it, can they not also specify how and to whom any prohibitions affect, as far as the FCCA is concerned?

 

The JCAR approved rules have been posted several times in this thread.

 

My non lawyer understanding is that a private corporation cannot selectively choose who state law applies to on their property.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I'm not really convinced it means that either. But it is completely ambiguous. It doesn't say that they can't. It simply says they can add additional language, and gives no specifics.

 

Given this rule, it is entirely possible that this sign is just fine with respect to the law, and does prohibit (by force of law) employees and vendors from carrying and not customers. I agree it doesn't seem "right," but I read nothing in the law or rules preventing it.

 

Just a dumb play by WM, and TyGuy has it right, the easiest way to fix it is to get the signs removed, especially since their official position is that CC is welcome.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole thread is really beginning to turn into a witch hunt. I've never seen a greater display of paranoia on a discussion forum. Some of you are even suggesting conspiracies with WM and antigun people. Someone even suggested anti gunnies going around and putting the signs up without the knowledge of WM management. If we follow some of the logic here: Most people won't notice the signs or know the rules. As someone said, a soccer mom won't know what the sign says or if there is one. So, what happens when someone see's you out in public anywhere with your firearm and calls the police? Will you be prosecuted on some technicality? Surely a responding officer would be able to find something wrong and arrest you. A witness could catch a glimpse of your firearm momentarily when your shirt lifted up. Maybe that witness tells the police that he felt threatened by you showing your gun off and you get sent up the river. You could easily forget that you have it on you and walk into a hospital to visit a sick relative and end up being arrested. All of these things are just as likely as the circumstances that would have to line up to get you arrested for carrying into WM when the store policy and their intention has been clearly established all throughout this thread. My point is this, carrying a concealed firearm is going to have certain risks associated with it. If you're not willing to take the risk of a possible misunderstanding then you're not prepared to carry a concealed firearm. And you certainly aren't prepared to be among the first generation of people to carry a concealed firearm in this state that has always been anti-gun. We are probably three months away from even seeing the first permits issued and as the WM manager told someone on this thread, the signs will probably come down after a period of time anyway. I've contemplated contacting walmart myself, not to complain but to thank them for supporting my rights. I've read this thread from the beginning and read both sides of the debate. I've witnessed the argument go around in circles and it doesn't seem to matter how many times we hear the policy of Walmart, we end up knit picking law. How many laws do we all break inadvertently every day and not give it a second thought? We are splitting hairs here and I think if we just let the process go then it will take care of itself. I can tell you one thing, if I got my permit in the mail tomorrow, I wouldn't hesitate to carry in Walmart ten minutes later.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Are you seriously comparing a hospital, which is REQUIRED to post, with a retail store that, regardless of their intent, chooses to post a sign? If you "forget" and carry into a hospital, you are committing a crime. Carry into Walmart when that sign is on the door and you also may be committing a crime and could be arrested and charged.

 

Do you seriously not see the legal difference between carrying in a prohibited zone versus a non-prohibited zone? Cops called when you are not in a prohibited zone, no crime no arrest. Cops called when you are carrying in a prohibited zone, you are committing a crime and will likely be arrested and charged.

 

Call it a witch hunt, paranoia, or whatever. I intend to follow the law to the fullest extent I am able. Licensees intentionally carrying in prohibited places can do nothing to further our cause.

 

If we are not proactive and choose to sit back and let things take care of themselves, we may not like the results. Be sure the across aren't about to sit back and wait to see what happens.

 

Trying to have a full understanding of our new law should not be characterized as nit picking.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

Did you seriously miss the entire message in my post? I was simply giving an example to other things that could happen and other misunderstandings that could occur while carrying and comparing it to the unlikely event that one of us could get arrested carrying in a Walmart. Please read a little more carefully.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

And I simply stated the fact that if a paranoid anti gun individual calls the cops on you when you are not in a prohibited place you have nothing to sorry about. Knowingly carrying a gun into a posted prohibited place is a completely different situation.

 

Carrying your by gun into a hospital is NOT a "misunderstanding".

 

I read carefully enough and your patronizing responses contribute nothing constructive to this conversation.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd Sa you have Walmart legal opinion - the sig in question. I stand by what said about the jr graphic designed. Legal told them they needed sign that met qualification or the IS rule 65whatever, the kid looks up the number, sees the reference number for the no gun graphic, he adds the text legal say is needed an emails it to all Illinois Walmart.

 

It's a goof up. It will b fixed, But not by all this fussin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd Sa you have Walmart legal opinion - the sig in question. I stand by what said about the jr graphic designed. Legal told them they needed sign that met qualification or the IS rule 65whatever, the kid looks up the number, sees the reference number for the no gun graphic, he adds the text legal say is needed an emails it to all Illinois Walmart.

 

It's a goof up. It will b fixed, But not by all this fussin.

 

Well, as I stated, you would be wrong. I have first hand knowledge, you are making assumptions.

 

best

 

mqqn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. What a read! I knew that there was a reason I had been dodging this thread.

 

I'm surprised that no one has pointed out that JCAR Rule 1231.150 sec. C allows for the private property poster to add additional verbiage to their sign. So given that it is the property owner's sole discretion to prohibit carry on their property, or allow it, can they not also specify how and to whom any prohibitions affect, as far as the FCCA is concerned?

 

The JCAR approved rules have been posted several times in this thread.

 

My non lawyer understanding is that a private corporation cannot selectively choose who state law applies to on their property.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I'm not really convinced it means that either. But it is completely ambiguous. It doesn't say that they can't. It simply says they can add additional language, and gives no specifics.

 

Given this rule, it is entirely possible that this sign is just fine with respect to the law, and does prohibit (by force of law) employees and vendors from carrying and not customers. I agree it doesn't seem "right," but I read nothing in the law or rules preventing it.

 

Just a dumb play by WM, and TyGuy has it right, the easiest way to fix it is to get the signs removed, especially since their official position is that CC is welcome.

 

Walmart in within their rights to deny RTC to their on duty employees. The issue here is that their sign clearly references the FCCA. Walmart cannot select whom a state law applies to. The ISP has said that additional text can be added. However, they did not say or imply that additional text can be used to alter the meaning of the sign.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd Sa you have Walmart legal opinion - the sig in question. I stand by what said about the jr graphic designed. Legal told them they needed sign that met qualification or the IS rule 65whatever, the kid looks up the number, sees the reference number for the no gun graphic, he adds the text legal say is needed an emails it to all Illinois Walmart.

 

It's a goof up. It will b fixed, But not by all this fussin.

 

Well, as I stated, you would be wrong. I have first hand knowledge, you are making assumptions.

 

best

 

mqqn

 

If a Walmart lawyer is responsible for the design of that sign, they should be fired!

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You are omitting words and accusing others of ignoring parts of the rules...???

 

The Act days the ISP makes the rules in respect to the signs. The ISP rules say "no smaller than" NOT "exactly"...

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

Nice try.

 

I am not omitting anything. Read my earlier post. I fully quoted the pertinent section of law and administrative rule. In the above quote I was displaying the remainder of the text that Bushy left out of his quoted post. I also identified where text was missing from the sentence in the customary way.

 

"Nice try"? Why the adversarial attitude?

 

We are on the side here, right?

 

You still have not addressed the fact that the ISP rules state "no smaller than 4x6 inches".

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Please do not read an adversarial attitude into my replies. No animosity is intended. I do not always choose the best words when typing.

 

I have addressed the "no smaller" language several times in this thread. Please search back through my posts for the answers to your questions. I see that you mentioned that Tapatalk does not display everything on your device. Maybe that's the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So your first hand knowledge is some $500 a hour lawyer spent his time drawing this and Is responsible for sending it out? Dang, you're amazing! Got a name?

 

My name is Andy Moon, and my wife is the "bone-headed manager" that had to post the signs.

 

I am not amazing, but I also don't spew non-facts on the internet making myself out to be a legal expert.

 

You can see from my responses in this thread and elsewhere that I do not resort to cheap and snide snarking type comments.

 

I believe we should see what the legal department at Walmart intended and determined when they came up with the signage.

 

You, however, have become expert at the legal intricacies of this very new law by reading the statute and the ISP frequently asked questions page.

 

I will indeed post the reply when it comes back, if it comes back, and I will do so because I want to be telling my students the facts.

 

So, geezer, your name please?

 

best

 

mqqn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, no one is disparaging the local managers who are following their marching orders.

 

The question here is who designed the sign and why did they include the elements of the ISP template.

 

Let's remember, we all want the same things. Advancement of the 2A in Illinois. Internal bickering and snide remarks will not advance our interests.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, no one is disparaging the local managers who are following their marching orders.

 

The question here is who designed the sign and why did they include the elements of the ISP template.

 

Let's remember, we all want the same things. Advancement of the 2A in Illinois. Internal bickering and snide remarks will not advance our interests.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I disagree, calling the managers bone-heads is disparaging, yes?

 

You are not dong it, but you did infer that a lawyer should be fired.

 

You and I are in agreement, and maybe even geezer, albeit his delivery is lacking.

 

Let's find out if the signs are legal or not, and we can start with questioning the corporate office at Walmart. I will craft a question for them and let them know our concerns about the signage.

 

I think it is a HUGE plus that Walmart considers our Second Amendment Rights sacred.

 

Let's let them know that we think the signs may be preventing customers from carrying legally in the store and see what the lawyers have to say.

 

Fair enough?

 

best

 

mqqn

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Let's let them know that we think the signs may be preventing customers from carrying legally in the store and see what the lawyers have to say.

 

mqqn

 

Please keep one thing in mind during that process... Lawyers issue opinions while judges issue rulings. It is not out of the realm for an overzealous states attorney (in certain parts of this state) who wants to make a name for themselves, to choose to prosecute someone no matter what Walmart or their corporate lawyers THINK is the correct interpretation of Illinois law... And in the end, only a judge gets to decide...

 

It is not worth the risk...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole issue will be done and over with and the signs will be gone, moved to the break room or service desk or changed by the time any of us get a permit in the mail. this Walmart deal is a rare event, from now on those signs WILL be for us. It's great to see everyone all cranked up like this, I bet we can get some businesses to take down their signs if we get all over them all at once with the calls and emails and visits. Like a bee hive, one bee doesn't come out, all the bees come out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, no one is disparaging the local managers who are following their marching orders.

 

The question here is who designed the sign and why did they include the elements of the ISP template.

 

Let's remember, we all want the same things. Advancement of the 2A in Illinois. Internal bickering and snide remarks will not advance our interests.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I disagree, calling the managers bone-heads is disparaging, yes?

 

You are not dong it, but you did infer that a lawyer should be fired.

 

You and I are in agreement, and maybe even geezer, albeit his delivery is lacking.

 

Let's find out if the signs are legal or not, and we can start with questioning the corporate office at Walmart. I will craft a question for them and let them know our concerns about the signage.

 

I think it is a HUGE plus that Walmart considers our Second Amendment Rights sacred.

 

Let's let them know that we think the signs may be preventing customers from carrying legally in the store and see what the lawyers have to say.

 

Fair enough?

 

best

 

mqqn

 

Sounds fine to me. However, I don't think Walmart HQ is the right place to ask about the legality of the sign. They sent them out, do the probably think they are A-OK.

 

I do agree with, and already have, let local Walmart managers know that the sign they were given is likely to be considered a legally binding sign that makes carrying a crime.

 

BTW, whoever designed that sign for Walmart should be fired as they designed a sign that is not aligned with Walmart courage policy.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As lomg as there is a veil of secrecy, there is going to be speculation. If you know something then spill it.

Walmart is into people coming in and dropping some $$$, not political statements or rights or anything except racking in the dough. they don't want the boat rocking or any boycotts and such. we aren't the only ones calling, emailing and confronting store managers on this. somehow some higher up like a division manager dreamed this up with no intent to keep us gun carriers out. just like all the other stores in other states no problem with CCW. that person figured just add some words and it's cool but it's not. once the phone calls and emails start pouring in at HQ and all these managers start reporting what's going on some really higher up is going to order " fix this right now " and it will be resolved. I bet the signs will be moved to the service desk and away from the entrance, employees will be reminded and vendors will get a letter. they will want this under the rug before a TV news crew shows up
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think Walmart considers our 2A rights as sacred as they ban employees and vendors from exercising those exact rights.

 

My guess is that if Wm thought they wouldn't lose too much business that they would post.

 

It's more a liability issue than being anti 2A. There's not many employers outside if law enforcement that allow their employees to carry or possess firearms on company property.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, I was NOT referring to local managers. I was talking about corp. graphic designer intern that legal would assign a job like this. I would have thought I was clear since I was talking about legal and graphic designers. As far as I know there are none in local stores and further to believe that I would think it was a specific manager in a local store that made these signs for the whole state is a stretch beyond reason.

 

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I also would never disparage ANY mans bride. Especially since I had no idea you, her or anyone worked for wally world, how could I?

 

Also, when I asked for a name, I was asking for the name of the lawyer the sign came from, not yours buddy. :D It's way too easy too get upset because of a misunderstanding that would be perfectly clear in person. :D

 

edit - most people find me a nice guy, but I do have a very sense of humor. Sometimes too dry, sorry

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...