Jump to content

Walmart Concealed Carry prohibited sign


mjw45

Recommended Posts

pipedoc said:

 

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.

______________________________

 

The caps and underline were added by me. The reproduced graphic (sign) Wally is using is not smaller than 4"x6". This rule does not say the 4x6 sign must be there, in addition to any larger reproduction.

 

Bushy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stopped in front of a Rockford Wally on the way home from church and it's posted with the hideous piece of paper adhered with packing tape as well. If it's a policy for employees then just make them acknowledge awareness. Someone just came up with this bad idea, but I bet it get's the boot.

I personally am not overly concerned as I do not plan on carrying a .454 Casull in a speedo.

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.

 

Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pipedoc said:

 

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.

______________________________

 

The caps and underline were added by me. The reproduced graphic (sign) Wally is using is not smaller than 4"x6". This rule does not say the 4x6 sign must be there, in addition to any larger reproduction.

 

Bushy

Sure it does!
shall be reproduced............. 4" x 6" required by the Act somewhere on the larger sign.
You chose to ignore the rest of the sentence.

And the Act says the sign shall be 4" x 6".

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 "average customer" isn't going to know ANYTHING, other than they see someone with a gun. They will have no concept whatsoever of whether there is a sign or not or anything else or care who you are if you're not uniformed LE or security.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, but the real question is if the building code says the drain must be 2", can I use 4"?

 

The FCCA says the legal gun buster shall be 4" x 6". It does not say at least 4" x 6". ISP has no authority to rewrite the law. ISP has been granted authority to adopt other rules for uniformity though.

 

This and the fact that when I sent the Walmart image to isp they said to make sure the borders print would lead me to believe its not a legal sign

 

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, but the real question is if the building code says the drain must be 2", can I use 4"?

 

The FCCA says the legal gun buster shall be 4" x 6". It does not say at least 4" x 6". ISP has no authority to rewrite the law. ISP has been granted authority to adopt other rules for uniformity though.

 

The rules they promuglate are reviewed and approved by the legislature. That's the whole purpose of JCAR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me try this.

 

The state of Illinois enacts a law that says that residential bathtub drains shall be 2" pipe (FCCA, Sec 65 (d) 4x6 sign). That same law says that local zoning boards (ISP) may make rules to implement the requirement. Schaumburg's zoning board (ISP) says that residential bathtub drains shall be no smaller than 2" pipe.

 

You have been hired by a Schaumburg homeowner (any private property owner) to install a new residential bathtub drain. The homeowner wants a 4" drain (a bigger sign) on his tub (his door).

 

A) Are you allowed to install a 4" drain for the homeowner?

 

:cool: Must you install the state required 2" drain (4x6 sign) alongside the 4" (his preferred larger sign)?

 

Bushy

 

Edit: emoticon is supposed to be a B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent Walmart corporate an email after seeing this sign at the Lockport Walmart stating that they've posted their stores incorrectly making them prohibited place and that I would not be shopping at any Walmart until the signs are removed.

 

I understand that the sign says it is not a prohibited place, but posting that sign certainly does seem to make it so, regardless of their intention. Not worth the risk of getting jammed up.

 

I really don't think that there is anything nefarious going on, I think it was probably some regional manager or director that didn't bother running this past the corporate attorneys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law says the pipe shall be 2" in diameter than the pipe shall be 2" in diameter. Period. But if the law says the pipe shall be 2" in diameter and the local building department can promulgate other rules for the uniformity then said local building depart can tell me that the 2" pipe must be purple or be labeled as a drain or encased in a larger pipe or of what material it may be constructed of or anything else if JCAR approves it.

 

I respectfully ask;

 

1. Do you think the "shall be 4" x 6" in size" in the FCCA is ambiguous?

2. If not, can ISP change the law by rule?

3. If so, could the ISP have passed a rule that says the sign could be 2" x 2"?

 

And lastly, how are all of these signs uniform? If I can move the language around as I see fit and make them all different sizes and add all kinds of language to them, we will have thousands of different versions of this sign across the state and uniformity is lost. We don't read every sign every place we go. By ensuring all legal gun buster signs are uniform, we will be able to spot them easier as we should be. This is why the law demanded the the uniformity of the size and allowed ISP to design the appearance of the sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I) No, it is not.

 

2) Yes, when the enabling statute (FCCA) requires the Department to do so. The "Department shall adopt rules for

standardized signs to be used under this subsection "

Emphasis added

 

3) Good question. Here I'll go with my opinion. Answer - yes, if JCAR approved it to be 2x2.

 

Lastly, I agree with you completely. There should be uniformity. My disagreement has only been over the issue of whether a sign can be larger than 4x6 and be lawful. At this time, based on the rules, it can.

 

This is not unlike the EPA, with whom I'm positive you are familiar. Congress or our legislature, as the case may be, passes a law saying that water must run uphill, and mandates that the Agency (federal) or Department (state) shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this ACT.

 

The devil is in the details, and when you turn "crats loose to develop rules and regulations, they will do so. In spades! And there may or may not be a plumber among them. You, as the one tasked to actually make water run uphill will have to abide by their rules and requirements, no matter how many other ways you could do so.

 

Water can run uphill by installing a pump. The EPA will tell you the size of the pipe, the type of material of the pipe, the inspection/pressure standards of the pipe, the capacity of the pump,how it's to be connected and wired, and on and on. None of those requirements is in the Act, just the authority to make rules. Making rules is what they do, and noncompliance runs straight into the full force of law, with both civil and criminal penalties.

 

The only uniformity in the mandated signs will be the content or looks of the graphic, not their size. ISP has said that the graphic shall not be smaller than 4x6, so that has become a minimum requirement. By rule, there is no requirement where the graphic is on the sign. I can only imagine what some will place on other areas of whatever size "sign" they choose to post.

 

It is what it is. You're right, it shouldn't be that way for the protection of FCCL holders, but there's probably no one on the rule committee within ISP who advocated for that.

 

Bushy

 

Edit for quote

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We want your monies, so please refrain from any shooting until after you have checked out." In the event of a shooting and depending on any potential legal action against Walmart, our legal team will review and decide what the sign actually means".

 

Haha

 

Those that believe Walmart is going to be there by your side to defend your rights in a court of law should really rethink their position on corporations at large.

 

In a nutshell, this sign only protects them. Whether it be via an internal grievance, external lawsuit or from political pressure. If they truly cared about our rights, these signs (or any for that matter) would never have been posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gamma

 

The "average customer" isn't going to know ANYTHING, other than they see someone with a gun. They will have no concept whatsoever of whether there is a sign or not or anything else or care who you are if you're not uniformed LE or security

 

 

So your saying they will call regardless if there is a sign or not ?

 

Then what's the difference ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gamma

 

The "average customer" isn't going to know ANYTHING, other than they see someone with a gun. They will have no concept whatsoever of whether there is a sign or not or anything else or care who you are if you're not uniformed LE or security

 

 

So your saying they will call regardless if there is a sign or not ?

 

I am not sure what Gamma is saying, but I say yes, they will call with or without a sign. The difference at Walmart will be if the sign they have posted is legal enough to get you arrested when LOE shows up for an MWAG call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gamma

 

The "average customer" isn't going to know ANYTHING, other than they see someone with a gun. They will have no concept whatsoever of whether there is a sign or not or anything else or care who you are if you're not uniformed LE or security

 

 

So your saying they will call regardless if there is a sign or not ?

 

Then what's the difference ?

 

It's going to take time to educate the people of Illinois. I stopped in Arizona for a day on my way to school in San Diego and saw a guy walk into a zippy-mart with a huge wheel gun strapped on his hip. Had to stop a sec and reason it in my head. Some people don't have that reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pipedoc said:

 

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.

______________________________

 

The caps and underline were added by me. The reproduced graphic (sign) Wally is using is not smaller than 4"x6". This rule does not say the 4x6 sign must be there, in addition to any larger reproduction.

 

Bushy

Sure it does!
shall be reproduced............. 4" x 6" required by the Act somewhere on the larger sign.
You chose to ignore the rest of the sentence.

And the Act says the sign shall be 4" x 6".

 

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

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wally World could solve the issue by simply removing the "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" language.

 

From the ISP's CCL4Illinois FAQ Page (emphasis added):

 

 

 

Where can business owners or property owners obtain information about required signage?

 

The 4 inch by 6 inch sign is available for download at

The Illinois State Police has adopted administrative rules permitting the design and posting of a larger sign (of any size)
if the property owner feels the entrance to their building, premises or real property requires one. The 4 inch by 6 inch sign must be visible somewhere on the larger sign.

The administrative rules proposed by the Illinois State Police also permit the larger sign to include additional language.
The administrative rules have been filed with the Illinois Secretary of State pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act and will be published in the January 17th Illinois Register.

 

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.

 

Sorry for having to resort to THE BIG LETTERS but it appears some folks are trying to use mouse excrement as cover, when it's not, especially in this state. Maybe you have the funds to support a long legal battle arguing the sign was actually 3 52/64" x 5 69/72", but given the butthurt that many (D) politicians and judges still have over Moore in this state I'd bet that unless it was noticeably smaller - like 2"x3" - and thus arguable harder to see, as long as it has a border and/or the "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" language you'd wind up with a strike on your record and a heft bill for services rendered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law says the pipe shall be 2" in diameter than the pipe shall be 2" in diameter. Period. But if the law says the pipe shall be 2" in diameter and the local building department can promulgate other rules for the uniformity then said local building depart can tell me that the 2" pipe must be purple or be labeled as a drain or encased in a larger pipe or of what material it may be constructed of or anything else if JCAR approves it.

 

I respectfully ask;

 

1. Do you think the "shall be 4" x 6" in size" in the FCCA is ambiguous?

2. If not, can ISP change the law by rule?

3. If so, could the ISP have passed a rule that says the sign could be 2" x 2"?

 

And lastly, how are all of these signs uniform? If I can move the language around as I see fit and make them all different sizes and add all kinds of language to them, we will have thousands of different versions of this sign across the state and uniformity is lost. We don't read every sign every place we go. By ensuring all legal gun buster signs are uniform, we will be able to spot them easier as we should be. This is why the law demanded the the uniformity of the size and allowed ISP to design the appearance of the sign.

If you ever ask, "Can the ISP (or any other law enforcement agency) do..." the answer is always YES.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gamma

 

The "average customer" isn't going to know ANYTHING, other than they see someone with a gun. They will have no concept whatsoever of whether there is a sign or not or anything else or care who you are if you're not uniformed LE or security

 

 

So your saying they will call regardless if there is a sign or not ?

 

Then what's the difference ?

 

The difference is that with the sign you are committing a crime. If no sign were present, and you had a valid CCL, no crime was being committed.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am wondering if some regional manager has a antigun bone in their backside and are pulling this in order to just cause the confusion we are enduring?

 

I'm a guy who confesses to not being a "fan" of wally world, but this is just badly executed for ANY business, not just for a mega giant everything store.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I) No, it is not.

 

2) Yes, when the enabling statute (FCCA) requires the Department to do so. The "Department shall adopt rules for

standardized signs to be used under this subsection "

Emphasis added

 

3) Good question. Here I'll go with my opinion. Answer - yes, if JCAR approved it to be 2x2.

 

Lastly, I agree with you completely. There should be uniformity. My disagreement has only been over the issue of whether a sign can be larger than 4x6 and be lawful. At this time, based on the rules, it can.

 

This is not unlike the EPA, with whom I'm positive you are familiar. Congress or our legislature, as the case may be, passes a law saying that water must run uphill, and mandates that the Agency (federal) or Department (state) shall promulgate rules and regulations to implement this ACT.

 

The devil is in the details, and when you turn "crats loose to develop rules and regulations, they will do so. In spades! And there may or may not be a plumber among them. You, as the one tasked to actually make water run uphill will have to abide by their rules and requirements, no matter how many other ways you could do so.

 

Water can run uphill by installing a pump. The EPA will tell you the size of the pipe, the type of material of the pipe, the inspection/pressure standards of the pipe, the capacity of the pump,how it's to be connected and wired, and on and on. None of those requirements is in the Act, just the authority to make rules. Making rules is what they do, and noncompliance runs straight into the full force of law, with both civil and criminal penalties.

 

The only uniformity in the mandated signs will be the content or looks of the graphic, not their size. ISP has said that the graphic shall not be smaller than 4x6, so that has become a minimum requirement. By rule, there is no requirement where the graphic is on the sign. I can only imagine what some will place on other areas of whatever size "sign" they choose to post.

 

It is what it is. You're right, it shouldn't be that way for the protection of FCCL holders, but there's probably no one on the rule committee within ISP who advocated for that.

 

Bushy

 

Edit for quote

Bushy I regret to inform you that the police have no authority to change the law.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wally World could solve the issue by simply removing the "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" language.

 

From the ISP's CCL4Illinois FAQ Page (emphasis added):

 

 

 

Where can business owners or property owners obtain information about required signage?

 

The 4 inch by 6 inch sign is available for download at

The Illinois State Police has adopted administrative rules permitting the design and posting of a larger sign (of any size)
if the property owner feels the entrance to their building, premises or real property requires one.
The 4 inch by 6 inch sign must be visible somewhere on the larger sign.

The administrative rules proposed by the Illinois State Police also permit the larger sign to include additional language.
The administrative rules have been filed with the Illinois Secretary of State pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act and will be published in the January 17th Illinois Register.

Thank you for posting that Tango. I don't know how I missed that on ISP's site. I guess ISP agrees that the larger sign must include the 4" x 6".

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...