bobapunk Posted January 12, 2014 at 02:36 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 02:36 AM The Walmart signs say they only apply to employees and vendors. As a customer, don't worry about it. After all, it's concealed, so nobody will know anyway. You guys worry too much. Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk I sincerely hope that, as an instructor, that is not the advice you give students... Advising to go ahead and carry in a Business posted as prohibited as long add you keep it concealed is terrible advice. Especially from an instructor... Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted January 12, 2014 at 02:48 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 02:48 AM I worry too much...??? Probably... On the other hand it's kept my record spotless since the 40's.... I think I'll just keep on worrying... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 03:06 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 03:06 AM The Walmart signs say they only apply to employees and vendors. As a customer, don't worry about it. After all, it's concealed, so nobody will know anyway. You guys worry too much. Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk I sincerely hope that, as an instructor, that is not the advice you give students... Advising to go ahead and carry in a Business posted as prohibited as long add you keep it concealed is terrible advice. Especially from an instructor... Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk No that is not advice I'd give to students. That's my personal opinion of this thread. It has absolutely nothing to do with instructing students, or what advice I would give them. Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 03:29 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 03:29 AM It is a business posted as prohibited to employees, and left up to interpretation. I personally beleive it is exactly as the signage states, that it applies only to employees and vendors. The fact that the text seems to be over an inch away from the graphic could lead one to beleive it carries the force of law as being posted as prohibited. I personally would take it at face value, and that it does not apply to me, and I'd carry without worry, because I would properly conceal, and it wouldn't cause me any problems. If a student were to ask me about it, I'd advise them that even though the text states only employees and vendors are prohibited, that the sign technically can be interpreted to carry force of law being posted prohibited due to the distance of the text from the graphic, and that it would be a decision they would have to make for themselves, and to remember the penalties involved if caught carrying in a prohibited area. But, as I stated before, for the purpose of this thread, you guys worry too much, and it means what it says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobapunk Posted January 12, 2014 at 04:11 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 04:11 AM No, it means whatever the responding officer believes it says. The sign clearly states that it is pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65. That law applies to ALL people in Illinois. Walmart can't change state law. Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RacerDave6 Posted January 12, 2014 at 04:27 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 04:27 AM No, it means whatever the responding officer believes it says. The sign clearly states that it is pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65. That law applies to ALL people in Illinois. Walmart can't change state law. Sent from my Nexus 7 using TapatalkNo they can't, but they also do not have to sign a complaint.Because it is private property, not a specific listed prohibited place, I believe the property owner/agent would have to sign a complaint.Sounds like Walmart does not intend to do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papa Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:05 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:05 AM I just don't understand why they are doing this here in Illinois. I would think they have the same requirements in all the other states and have managed to do just fine without posting . It just doesn't make sense to me. Seems to be a lot of that lately though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:21 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:21 AM No, it means whatever the court would rule it means in such a case, should there be some "responding officer" for some reason. It would mean whatever the business owner or representative would explain to the officer it means. Before there would be a responding officer, there would have to be something for the officer to respond to. Unless the business made the call to the police, there would be nothing to respond to. It's illogical to believe a business would have specific text explaining that the sign only applies to employees or vendors, and then going against that text to call and report someone discovered carrying. If that were the case, the signage would be posted without the additional text. The reasoning for listing 430 ILCS 66/65 is the fact that it is included in the graphic available from ISP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:27 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:27 AM Unless the business made the call to the police, where would be nothing to respond to. Big D, this is the part I don't understand. What would stop any good Samaritan (especially a virulent anti-gun one) from making a 911 "man with a gun call"..?? It wouldn't be the first time a citizen complaint got called in. And it's not like the police can just ignore it. And once they have responded, it would seem to me to no longer be within Walmart's control. (In parts of this state) what would stop an arrest..? And prosecution..?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:29 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:29 AM I'm not so sure that Wally would have to sign a complaint, although I suspect that most prosecutors would want them to do so. For this response, assume the sign is valid and makes Wally a privately posted prohibited place. Facts: There is a sign. It is a statutorily compliant sign. It is visible and posted at the entrance to the prohibited space. A licensee went past the sign and entered the premises covered by the sign. There is a witness who saw the licensee at a point past the sign. An officer responds, sees and verifies the sign, contacts the private citizen who called the police, contacts the Licensee who presents his/her license to the officer and is arrested for violating the FCCA, section 65, Prohibited Places, in that, on or about January___, 2014, at approximately XX;XX AM/PM, said Licensee did proceed past a properly posted and compliant sign and enter upon the prohibited place. The arrest is not for trespass, its for violating the FCCA. The officer testifies he saw the sign and it complied. The officer and witness testify they saw the licensee within the premises. The officer testifies that the Licensee had been issued, possessed and presented a valid FCCL. There is no mental state involved. That would seem to satisfy the elements of the offense. (Now, I didn't go back and reread all of the FCCA, section 65, so if a detail is missing ....... Bushy And there have been three posts while I was typing :^) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargeezer Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:34 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:34 AM Exactly Eldererry, one call to police of a man with a gun and the police will be doing strip searches. Particularly in Chicago area. Peoria, not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:41 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:41 AM Well, nothing would stop anybody from making a call like that. Other than ensuring proper concealment, which would avoid the situation of being detected all together. But with that line of thinking, what's to stop anybody anywhere from making a frivolous call like that even without seeing a gun? The fact that the firearm is being legally carried should stop arrest and prosecution, especially given the fact that the text directly on the signage states that the sign only applies to employees and vendors. Any half decent lawyer would have any charges brought from such frivolous prosecution dropped. If even arrested or charged in the first place. And finally, the part that would absolve a legal FCCL holder of any legal ramifications of carrying in this case is this: (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into: (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. How could a legal FCCL holder be charged for knowingly carrying a firearm into a business that's posted prohibited when the signage prohibiting carry specifically states it does not apply to them? THEY CAN'T BECAUSE IT STATES IT DOES NOT APPLY TO THEM THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT KNOWINGLY BREAKING THE LAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:47 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:47 AM Exactly Eldererry, one call to police of a man with a gun and the police will be doing strip searches. Particularly in Chicago area. Peoria, not so much. Actually, in Peoria, there would probably be more of a response. In Chicago, it would take an hour for the police to arrive, if at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:50 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:50 AM If it's that big of a deal, shoot me a message if you want to go to Walmart, and I'll show up and write some text within 1" of the graphic on the sign, invalidating it so you guys can carry without worry of being arrested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:53 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:53 AM BIGDEESUL, you raise the knowingly, and that's a good point, but one that will take motions and hearings to clarify. There doesn't have to be a statement from the accused that he/she "knew" there was a sign and went in anyway. The knowledge is that of a reasonable person. Was the sign properly posted and visible to a reasonable person? Was the accused past the sign? One can deduce that the accused knowingly proceeded past the sign. I would guess that most judges would let it go to trial if the prosecutor was arguing against a motion. I'm almost positive it would make it past a hearing for probable cause. Remember, if you're even responding to my post, that I said I was assuming for the sake of my argument, the sign was a valid, prohibiting sign. Again, two posts while typing. Bushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:55 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 05:55 AM And, just for the record, I don't believe Wally really wants to keep anyone from carrying, except employees and vendors. Bushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade13 Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:00 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:00 AM At least at the store in my town there will end up being confusion amongst license holders. I've read the posts here and know what the extra text on the sign says. My local Walmart tho has put the sign on the sliding door. From a distance you just see the gun with the slash. As you get closer the door opens and obscures the sign before you can read the extra text. Many may just assume it's a prohibited place and turn around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:02 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:02 AM Have ya'll contacted walmart yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade13 Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:03 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:03 AM i emailed them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:04 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:04 AM I did, at 10 something yesterday morning. Sent an email to Wally, too. It's posted in this thread. Bushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:04 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:04 AM By the technical definition of the law, the signage in question IS a valid, prohibiting sign. From what I see, it is the proper dimensions, and the additional text specifying that it only applies to employees and vendors looks to be over 1" away from the graphic of the sign, which technically would make the sign valid. But the fact that the text on the sign specifying that it only applies to employees and vendors would cause any reasonable person to believe it does not apply to them. So while technically a valid prohibiting sign by the technical explanation of the law and the signage rules stated by ISP, a reasonable person would read it as not applicable to non-employees or vendors. This is for me where the argument comes from, and also the confusion of why they would post this rule in such a manner. If only applicable to employees, one would think it would be a company policy, and would be addressed in an employee memo or handbook. My employer has an employee handbook with such rules that has to be read and an agreement signed stating you understand the contents of the handbook. Seems to be common HR practice. So the fact that they would post signage that specifies it only applies to employees, yet post in a manner such that legally is a valid prohibiting sign even though the text on it states it is not applicable makes absolutely no logical sense at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TyGuy Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:05 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:05 AM Good. Sorry, hard to read every post here. ;-) We should just get the signs taken down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marie Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:05 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:05 AM Have ya'll contacted walmart yet? I emailed corporate tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmp Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:07 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:07 AM I think some of you guys are over reacting on this. I for one appreciate that this sign only applies to employees and vendors. The question of the sign not being legal isn't valid because it speaks of company policy for their employees. It states on duty employees and vendors, so I'm assuming employees off the clock are good. I'm not surprised they are banning carry for employees, they already have a policy banning them from physically detaining anyone shop lifting and they probably don't want their employees walking the isles with a firearm and risk offending those who don't like guns. They are posted on the front doors because many of the vendors come in the front. I think we should all thank walmart for supporting our right to carry in their stores. If we make a bunch of waves about it then they might just ban everyone. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Maybe. But you can see how much confusion this is causing. It would not hurt asking corporate for a clarification. I don't suspect we will have any miscommunication south of I-80...But I do suspect that there could be an issue with some "anti" calling the cops on someone as soon as they see something poking out from clothing. All this sign is is litigation waiting to come crashing down on some poor guy (or gal) that can't afford their day in court... Just so the "anti" crowd can further their misguided narrative. Not sure how this can be confusing? It's in clear easy to read English. Very clearly states applies to ON DUTY EMPLOYEES & VENDORS ONLY. Why is everyone reading more into this than it is. ISP also clearly states the requirements for the NO CARRY signage to be valid. This sign posted at Wal-Mart clearly does not meet ISP requirements. This sign at Wal-mart means ZERO to CCW holders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:07 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:07 AM Exactly. And Uncle Harley raised a good point that I had missed: the black border isn't on the Wally sign. Impact? Bushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blade13 Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:10 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:10 AM Exactly. And Uncle Harley raised a good point that I had missed: the black border isn't on the Wally sign. Impact? Bushy The one's in Salem have a black border. and are laminated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:10 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:10 AM rmp, I agree. That is my sentiment exactly, that everybody is worrying about this way too much. It doesn't apply to us anyway, and like I stated before, the firearm is CONCEALED, so it's a non-issue for me. But I understand the confusion, which is stated in my last post. I wouldn't go out of my way to break the law, but I'm not going to freak out about it either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elderberry Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:11 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:11 AM So after 6 days, 12 pages, and 355 posts, we are still at odds with each other as to just what this sign means from a legal standpoint. And folks around here are not neophytes when it comes to gun laws in Illinois... Imagine the average Joe Schmo who has owns one gun, a new permit, and darn little knowledge or experience.... How many of them will cross Walmart's threshold...?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bushy223 Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:11 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:11 AM rmp said: Not sure how this can be confusing? It's in clear easy to read English. Very clearly states applies to ON DUTY EMPLOYEES & VENDORS ONLY. Why is everyone reading more into this than it is. ISP also clearly states the requirements for the NO CARRY signage to be valid. This sign posted at Wal-Mart clearly does not meet ISP requirements.____________________________ Because? Cite? Or is this opinion? Bushy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIGDEESUL Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:12 AM Share Posted January 12, 2014 at 06:12 AM "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." There is no requirement for a black border. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.