Jump to content

Walmart Concealed Carry prohibited sign


mjw45

Recommended Posts

14 pages and we've resolved with certainty exactly... What again?

 

It's a prohibited area even if that wasn't their intent, as designated by the statement on the sign? All sort of bad things can happen if everything goes the wrong way? No one really knows what the ultimate outcome will be if indeed those bad things do happen? Few of us are willing to find out.

 

Does that about cover it?

Edited by JSharp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ccl4illinois.com/ccw/Public/ISPFaq.aspx

 

What if a business owner or employer wants to prohibit their employees from carrying in the workplace, can they have more restrictive employment policies? And, if they do so, should they post the required sign?

 

This is an employment law question. The Illinois State Police cannot give legal advice to employers; however, the law is not written to preempt a private employer’s right to have more restrictive employment policies. If a business owner or employer wants to prohibit only employees, they should not post the required sign as doing so makes the location a prohibited place. Rather, this should be addressed through appropriate employment policies.

 

But they don't specify about a text with the caveat that it only applies to employees.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

How can a corporation override state laws and regulations?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like a lot of us have contacted walmart corporate, anyone receive a response yet? I emailed them on Thursday, haven't even gotten an automated response yet. this makes me think 2 things

1) Corporate is coming up with an across the board response to everyone and will change the signs or take them down all together

2) The sign design is purposeful and they do not plan on addressing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ccl4illinois...lic/ISPFaq.aspx

 

What if a business owner or employer wants to prohibit their employees from carrying in the workplace, can they have more restrictive employment policies? And, if they do so, should they post the required sign?

 

This is an employment law question. The Illinois State Police cannot give legal advice to employers; however, the law is not written to preempt a private employer’s right to have more restrictive employment policies. If a business owner or employer wants to prohibit only employees, they should not post the required sign as doing so makes the location a prohibited place. Rather, this should be addressed through appropriate employment policies.

 

We have an answer! :clap: :clap: :clap:

 

That was posted days ago... However, people who want to carry at Walmart selectively ignored it...

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://ccl4illinois...lic/ISPFaq.aspx

 

What if a business owner or employer wants to prohibit their employees from carrying in the workplace, can they have more restrictive employment policies? And, if they do so, should they post the required sign?

 

This is an employment law question. The Illinois State Police cannot give legal advice to employers; however, the law is not written to preempt a private employer’s right to have more restrictive employment policies. If a business owner or employer wants to prohibit only employees, they should not post the required sign as doing so makes the location a prohibited place. Rather, this should be addressed through appropriate employment policies.

 

But they do't specify about a text with the caveat that it only applies to employees.

 

Sent from my Galaxy S4 using Tapatalk

 

How can a corporation override state laws and regulations?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

They can't. The ISP's statement on their FAQ page is quite clear. If a business posts a "No Guns" sign, whether the intent is just to bar employees from carrying or not, then it is a prohibited place. That is the ISP's words, not mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Ironically, if the sign did not reference the specific FCCA code the off duty officer would be in violation of the property owners policies.

 

My question is the graphic the whole 4x6 area of the mandated content or just the circle section? After all if it is printed from a JPEG or gif the whole thing is a graphic.

 

Compliant signage should have no wiggle room. There should be no doubt or confusion.

 

I will say if a business posts a confusing non standard sign and I was arrested there would be a civil suite for sure.

 

I will say I can foresee any person arrested under a optional GFZ posting calling the owners and CEO's into court to testify to determine if the signs were lawfully posted by the appropriate authority and not just plasters up by a rouge anti-gunner or employee.

 

A. If the ILCS reference was not present, the sign would not carry the force of law and the property would be statutorily prohibited. So your off duty could carry there. I am not even convinced that a 430 ILCS 66/65 sign would prohibit of duty LEO since the FCCA doesn't regulate that at all.

 

B. You are entitled to your opinion re: "wiggle room" in respect to compliant signs. However the ISP rules specifically allow such wiggle room.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Section 1231.150 Prohibited Areas

 

Section 65 of the Act specifies areas where concealed carry of firearms is prohibited and requires posting of those areas.

 

a ) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act shall be made available by the Department on its website.

 

b ) Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template provided at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the larger sign.

 

c ) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs. If prohibited areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the sign.

 

d ) The required signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide persons entering the prohibited area reasonable notice that they are entering a prohibited area and may not carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Act, therein.

 

Help an old , tired man out here please. Does B ) mean that if they use a larger sign , they have to put the legal size sign on the larger sign to make it legal?

 

Yes. You are correct. They can make a larger sign any size that suits them but they must include the uniform 4 x 6 template (image) somewhere on that larger sign. If they do not meet this requirement it is not a legal sign. They Wallyworld sign in question appears to me to be 8 x 11 and definitely does not include the 4 x 6 template on it. By simply increasing the size of the image makes this no longer uniform. This is why I argue that it is not an official gun buster amongst other reasons as well.

 

Nothing in the ISP rules state that the image size cannot be increased.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Edited by bobapunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Fallon Walmart has the offending sign up. I spoke with one of the managers on duty this morning and they acted as if they knew nothing about the sign. Didn't even realize it was up. I left my business card and requested the main store manager call me back on Monday.

 

I had sent a general email to corporate last week before the sign went up here (no response yet). I will contact them again on Monday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take this thread in a bit of a different direction. Contact you county States Attorney and explain the situation to them. They will be the ones making the call to prosecute. A few of them setting the word out to cops and Wally World will go a long way.

 

I will call tomorrow. I am still waiting on a response from one of them regarding a CCW issue at work....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen one of these signs in state other than illinois?

The signs specifically reference the Illinois carry law. It would make no sense to post them in states other than Illinois.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna take this thread in a bit of a different direction. Contact you county States Attorney and explain the situation to them. They will be the ones making the call to prosecute. A few of them setting the word out to cops and Wally World will go a long way.

 

So, ask for assurances that licensees will not be prosecuted for violating the no carry signs posted at Walmart?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone seen one of these signs in state other than illinois?

The signs specifically reference the Illinois carry law. It would make no sense to post them in states other than Illinois.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I guess I should have been more specific.

Has anyone seen similar signage in any other state besides Illinois.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Ironically, if the sign did not reference the specific FCCA code the off duty officer would be in violation of the property owners policies.

 

My question is the graphic the whole 4x6 area of the mandated content or just the circle section? After all if it is printed from a JPEG or gif the whole thing is a graphic.

 

Compliant signage should have no wiggle room. There should be no doubt or confusion.

 

I will say if a business posts a confusing non standard sign and I was arrested there would be a civil suite for sure.

 

I will say I can foresee any person arrested under a optional GFZ posting calling the owners and CEO's into court to testify to determine if the signs were lawfully posted by the appropriate authority and not just plasters up by a rouge anti-gunner or employee.

 

A. If the ILCS reference was not present, the sign would not carry the force of law and the property would be statutorily prohibited. So your off duty could carry there. I am not even convinced that a 430 ILCS 66/65 sign would prohibit of duty LEO since the FCCA doesn't regulate that at all.

 

B. You are entitled to your opinion re: "wiggle room" in respect to compliant signs. However the ISP rules specifically allow such wiggle room.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

The reference to off-duty refers only to the owners preference nothing statutory if there's a gun sign posted on a business with no statutory reference your excluded just as much as anybody else if you're not an on-duty law-enforcement officer in the enactment of your official duties. The only applicable law would be a civil suite or criminal trespass if remains after due notice. Same class as no shirt no service restrictions.

Edited by lockman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone in the State of Illinois must be using "influence" on Walmart. How can all these stores have the same sign, yet the managers don't know how they got there?

 

Maybe I should put on a tin foil hat, but it could be possible that the anti-gun crowd created the signs and is posting them at all walmarts, hence many managers not knowing what is going on with them, but since it does look like an official walmart sign (copyright walmart blah blah blah), the management is hesitant to remove it. Of course this also banks on the assumption that there is no internal communication between stores and corporate.

 

Unfortunately being Illinois, it would not surprise me at all if there is some "outside influence" on whoever is over IL walmart stores.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The store managers and department managers I talked to all knew about them AND the conference call they had explaining them.

 

Night/weekend manners may not have been on those conference calls.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing what happens if a customer calls in a man with a gun, my question is why on earth would a customer think you are an on duty employee or a vendor , the avg customer who doesn't carry certainly won't understand the subtle nuisance that we are debating, they will take it at face value

 

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing what happens if a customer calls in a man with a gun, my question is why on earth would a customer think you are an on duty employee or a vendor , the avg customer who doesn't carry certainly won't understand the subtle nuisance that we are debating, they will take it at face value

 

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

Exactly.... However, some of us are referring to the "face value" as being the sign creates a prohibited location. Thus, someone calling the police for seeing a gun and the licensee leaving with an arrest and misdemeanor charge instead of a gallon of milk or whatever else they went to buy.

 

We understand the "intent" of the sign... But you cannot ignore the ambiguity of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Nothing in the ISP rules state that the image size cannot be increased.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

I believe you are looking at this too narrowly and choosing to look at certain words or sentences in the law and administrative rules while disregarding others.

 

Yes, the administrative rules do say a property owner may have a larger sign. Of course they can. But in order for the sign to be a legal gun buster sign it must also contain the uniform 4" x 6" sign somewhere on the face of it. Simply increasing the size of the official sign from 4" x 6" to, for example, 24" x 36" would invalidate it unless the uniform 4" x 6" sign was also reproduced on the face. In other words, adding the larger portion would not invalidate the legal 4" x 6" portion of it.

 

We must also look at the FCCA which reads that the sign shall be 4" x 6".

Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection.

Emphasis added.

 

The Illinois State Police are allowed to adopt rules that govern the uniformity of these signs. They are not allowed to rewrite the law and change the FCCA. The FCCA is clear. The definition of 'shall' in the law is unambiguous.

 

Let's look at the rules for a moment.

 

 

Section 65 of the Act specifies areas where concealed carry of firearms is prohibited and requires

621 posting of those areas.

622

623 a) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act shall be made

624 available by the Department on its website.

625

626 B) Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template

627 provided at their discretion. Yes. We have established this. The key language is coming up. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template

628 provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by

629 the Act somewhere on the larger sign.WW's sign is 8" x 11" and does not reproduce the 4" x 6" sign on the larger sign.

630

631 c) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs.WW's sign also includes additional language. If prohibited

632 areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced no

633 smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the sign. WW's sign is 8" x 11" and does not reproduce the 4" x 6" sign on the larger sign

634

635 d) The required signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide persons entering

636 the prohibited area reasonable notice that they are entering a prohibited area and

637 may not carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Act, therein.

 

There are other things that also make this sign nonuniform as well.

 

Please see the picture here for a visual explanation of what I am trying say. In the picture, the top image would not be a legal gun buster even though it mirrors the uniform image but the bottom image would.

 

Respectfully

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing what happens if a customer calls in a man with a gun, my question is why on earth would a customer think you are an on duty employee or a vendor , the avg customer who doesn't carry certainly won't understand the subtle nuisance that we are debating, they will take it at face value

 

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

do you think an anti gun soccer mom will care?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc, good luck with that argument if you ever find yourself in court.

 

Do you really think that may reproduce the template NO SMALLER THAN 4*6" would be interpreted as "exactly 4*6"" in a court of law?

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Edited by bobapunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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