Jump to content

Walmart Concealed Carry prohibited sign


mjw45

Recommended Posts

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!!!?

 

Did you tell the "Lady" that the posted sign is the ISP approved sign that band carry on the property it is posted?

 

Again, their intent does not matter. Unknowingly creating a No Carry does not change the fact that a No Carry zone was created.

 

It is fine that Wall Mart will not call the police. What about other shoppers? On or off duty police?

 

The sign carries the force of law and creates a criminal offense, regardless of the intent.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Yes, no other text ON THE 4 X 6 PORTION. The ISP has already stated that the sign can by a part of a larger sign.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we move on now? Maybe to a different company that doesn't support our rights. Perhaps we could take all this wasted energy and re-direct it at them. If you can't understand this simple concept, then I can't help you.

 

With all due respect, you're new here, about a week, and only have about a dozen posts. This space has been open for us to come and debate issues to death until we get a resolution. We don't just try to shut all other opinions down because we disagree with them.

 

You should look at the history here, about what we have accomplished by working together. We didn't get here by taking legal advice from some unknown who happened to post an opinion because they knew someone who had a lawyer once.

 

Not trying to pick on you, welcome to the forum and we appreciate your contribution. But usually things ain't over here until the fat lady sings.

 

So sorry Mr. Fife. Apparently I'm suppose to be here a while before I can voice my opinion. What's the required time? Three months? Six months? Perhaps I will learn something from the bickering that will be invaluable to me in the future and qualify me to offer my opinion.

Apparently I've stirred some people up here and a wise man once told me: "If you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that yelps is the one that got hit." Very sorry if I offended anyone with some common sense. Carry on gentlemen. Hopefully,common sense will prevail.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

wrong wrong wrong...

 

 

This is what the ISP says about signs:

 

619 Section 1231.150 Prohibited Areas
620
621 Section 65 of the Act specifies areas where concealed carry of firearms is prohibited and requires
622 posting of those areas.
623
624 a) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act shall be made
625 available by the Department on its website.
626
627  Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template
628 provided at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template
629 provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by
630 the Act somewhere on the larger sign.
631
632 c) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs. If prohibited
633 areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced no
634 smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the sign.
635
636 d) The required signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide persons entering
637 the prohibited area reasonable notice that they are entering a prohibited area and
638 may not carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Act, therein.

 

Their rules clearly state that the sign may be larger than 4x6, may be a part of a larger sign, and may contain additional language. However, the ISP did not give the authority to change the meaning of the sign. Again, 430 ILCS 66/65 applies to EVERYONE in the state in ILLINOIS, not only to "On duty Wal-Mart employees and vendors."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

It is sickening watching others, who do not comprehend the law and the regulations, advise others to break the law be cause "the lady said it was OK"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

Yes the sign may be larger but if it is it still must have the 4x6 uniform sign on it. Wallyworld could put up a billboard in their parking lot scaled to perfect proportions to the uniform sign and it doesn't mean diddly squat unless it has the uniform 4x6 sign posted on it. This isn't rocket science here. It is clearly stated in the administrative rules.

 

That is not what the rules say, not at all...

 

Let me help you (pay close attention to lines 627-630):

 

619 Section 1231.150 Prohibited Areas
620
621 Section 65 of the Act specifies areas where concealed carry of firearms is prohibited and requires
622 posting of those areas.
623
624 a) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act shall be made
625 available by the Department on its website.
626
627  Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template
628 provided at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template
629 provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by
630 the Act somewhere on the larger sign.
631
632 c) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs. If prohibited
633 areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced no
634 smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the sign.
635
636 d) The required signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide persons entering
637 the prohibited area reasonable notice that they are entering a prohibited area and
638 may not carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Act, therein.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sign appears to me as non-compliant as the extra wording is not separated from the mandated 4X6 portion. Secondly, If taken at face value it states some FCCL's will be honored and others will not. I believe their intentions are good but their hasty signage is lacking in legal clarity. Cut them some slack I am sure it will resolve shortly.

 

Or perhaps the sign is non-compliant deliberately. In some other states where signage carries the weight of law and signage is strictly defined, I have heard of establishments deliberately posting non-compliant signs to keep antis happy, but have no weight of law if a CCL holder disregards it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really beginning to think that they should have included a written exam in the ccw requirements and requiring people to be able to read English. What is so difficult about this? Let's see if I can help clear things up here. The sign says only for on duty associates and vendors.

 

ONLY adv.

1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left.

2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence.

adv.

1. Without anyone or anything else; alone: room for only one passenger.

2.

a. At the very least: If you would only come home. The story was only too true.

b. And nothing else or more: I only work here.

3. Exclusively; solely: facts known only to us.

 

ON DUTY

1.Working.

2. On the clock

3. The opposite of off duty.

 

ASSOCIATES

1.Individuals who work at Wal-Mart.

 

VENDORS

1.Individuals who work for third party business who come in to stock items such as pop,chips and bread.

2.Idiots driving delivery trucks at break neck speeds almost running everyone off the road.

(Sarcasm emphasis added to the above section)

 

I can't believe that we are bickering about something so stupid. Every single person out there who signed up and paid for a ccw permit in this state HAS to know that we are going to face some opposition and even be accused of being a violent person. We are pioneers here and our actions will influence how easy it is for our children to carry concealed and exercise their second amendment rights and we can't even stop bickering about a stupid sign that doesn't even APPLY to any of us unless you meet one of the definitions of associate or vendor. Geez people! Let's take a breath here! Do you really think that a multi-billion dollar company like Wal-Mart would post signage without running it through the legal department? They are aware it's not a legal sign by law and they posted it anyway. Why? Because it doesn't have anything to do with us and is only reminding associates and vendors of their policy. Why would they go through all the trouble of modifying a sign to respect YOUR rights when it would be so much easier to just print out the signs as they were and just post them, banning everyone's rights? We shouldn't be criticizing them, we should be thanking them! I also got the clarification for the signs from a member of management today and they said the exact same thing. "IT ONLY APPLIES TO ASSOCIATES AND VENDORS" his exact words. Now either this is a very elaborate scheme to get us all to carry in their stores so that we can get arrested or they actually are supporting our rights! You decide which one. If you're so paranoid that you smell a conspiracy here then you probably need to re-examine your motivations to carry and perhaps wait a year or two before carrying your weapon until things calm down. Can we move on now? Maybe to a different company that doesn't support our rights. Perhaps we could take all this wasted energy and re-direct it at them. If you can't understand this simple concept, then I can't help you.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

Yes, please learn to read and comprehend english. Wal-Mart, unintentionally or otherwise, posted a sign that complies with the law and regulations to prohibit licensees from legally carrying on their property. Wal-Mart does not have the authority to change the statutory meaning of that sign. The sign that they posted makes it a criminal offense to carry a firearm there.

 

Wal-Mart needs to post a different sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are Missing the part about No TEXT! Keep searching.....

 

 

 

YOU NEED TO USE SOME COMMON SENSE!

 

 

 

 

 

 

This thread needs to be locked before Molly pulls one oar outta the water!!!!

 

You are missing lines 632-634 of the regulation..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and here we go again.no common sense. NOT EVERY PERSON WALKING INTO WALMART IS A LAWYER AND WILL NOT BREAK DOWN EVERY LETTER LIKE YOU ARE DOING.

 

AND THEY WILL NOT HAVE A SWAT TEAM HIDING BEHIND THE WOMENS CLOTHING RACK WAITING TO ARREST THEM.

 

It is VERY simple. If you are working in my store,you cannot legally have a gun on you.

 

please....lets just use some COMMOM sense here for a minute

 

 

This thread needs to be locked before Molly pulls one oar outta the water!!!!

 

As I said, do as you wish. We could use a test case.

 

Intent doesn't mean squat, and common sense has little bearing on legalities. My opinion is that the Walmart sign as currently implemented is a valid GFZ notice for all FCCL holders. All they need to do is remove the "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" line to clear it up.

 

 

Then obviously you missed what I copied and pasted from the isp website under signage and to be a legal sign it must not contain any other text and shall be 4x6. If you don't believe me go to the isp website and read with your own eyes, its comical that you work with complex legal crap but can't comprehend simple grade school vocabulary lol

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

Pot...Kettle...

 

Something like that... The ISP Regs have been posted in this thread more than once. They very clearly state that the sign may be larger than the 4x6 minimum and may contain additional language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wal-Mart needs to post a different sign.

 

 

True....IF, Walmart does not want to cause any misunderstandings between an otherwise law-abiding citizen and the those who enforce the law. Granted, such encounters may be up to the officers discretion...and/or the zeal of the local States Attorney....but who really wants to personally be placed in such a misunderstanding?....I know that I would prefer not to be. And it will be my personal policy (as it is in other states I carry within) to NOT patronize a business which chooses to post signage saying that I am not welcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then obviously you missed what I copied and pasted from the isp website under signage and to be a legal sign it must not contain any other text and shall be 4x6. If you don't believe me go to the isp website and read with your own eyes, its comical that you work with complex legal crap but can't comprehend simple grade school vocabulary lol

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

You obviously missed the specific JCAR rules language quoted above. The rules being adopted are more detailed than the statute which isn't unusual.

 

I'm done with you and your insults.

 

 

Son,you are missing the whole point of this conversation.You are missing the WHOLE point of walmart posting the sign.The sign is not intended for me CC'ing. The walmart manager told me she wants me to come on inside her store if i am legal to carry.Walmart does not have a problem with law abiding CC. Period.They love it. You wont be arrested by breaking the stores policy as long as you are not a vendor of,or an employee on duty.I don't know how much simpler i can word it for you to comprehend.They allow CC.

 

Then why on God's green earth does it say Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/6??? 430 ILCS 66/65 is the enacted FCCA. If that sign is posted "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" (as is stated RIGHT ON IT) then it most certainly DOES APPLY to anyone carrying on an Illinois FCCL.

 

Please read, understand, and obey the laws and regulations. We do NOT need "envelope" pushers adding fuel to the fire of the anti's...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Then why on God's green earth does it say Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/6??? 430 ILCS 66/65 is the enacted FCCA. If that sign is posted "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" (as is stated RIGHT ON IT) then it most certainly DOES APPLY to anyone carrying on an Illinois FCCL.

 

Please read, understand, and obey the laws and regulations. We do NOT need "envelope" pushers adding fuel to the fire of the anti's...

 

Right. if we're passive enough maybe they'll throw us some crumbs.

 

I just got done searching for the word pedantic. I don't understand it. I kept getting links to this thread...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

English definition of “pedantic”

pedantic

/pɪˈdænt·ɪk/ adj

› caring too much about unimportant rules or details and not enough about understanding or appreciating a subject:

Professor Harris had a narrow, pedantic approach to history that put us to sleep.

(Definition of pedantic adj from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

Focus on the pronunciation of pedantic

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why on God's green earth does it say Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/6??? 430 ILCS 66/65 is the enacted FCCA. If that sign is posted "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" (as is stated RIGHT ON IT) then it most certainly DOES APPLY to anyone carrying on an Illinois FCCL.

 

Please read, understand, and obey the laws and regulations. We do NOT need "envelope" pushers adding fuel to the fire of the anti's...

 

Right. if we're passive enough maybe they'll throw us some crumbs.

 

I just got done searching for the word pedantic. I don't understand it. I kept getting links to this thread...

 

That is NOT was I am saying.

 

There is a right and wrong way a push for expanded rights. This past summer, the OC'ers at Starbucks showed us the wrong way to do it. I would advise, as some have done, speaking to local management and escalating up the ladder if necessary. Simply ignoring the sign will not effect any positive change and if you get arrested for carrying there, you may very well end up as a poster child for the anti's.

Edited by bobapunk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new here so you can just bypass my $0.02 --

 

All of this is fairly clear when visiting the FAQ on ISP's IL Concealed Carry License Page.

 

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.

 

For me, I wouldn't shop where the sign is posted, as it makes it a GFZ. I think from just reading the FAQ I can easily make that determination. On the other hand, I haven't visited my WM this week to see if it is posted, and I'm one to bet that it is as it seems to be the trend in the Chicagoland area (as it seems to be for most of the state now).

 

Heading back into my corner to await the abuse that is sure to follow.

Edited by mbrich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new here so you can just bypass my $0.02 --

 

All of this is fairly clear when visiting the FAQ on ISP's IL Concealed Carry License Page.

 

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.

 

For me, I wouldn't shop where the sign is posted, as it makes it a GFZ. I think from just reading the FAQ I can easily make that determination. On the other hand, I haven't visited my WM this week to see if it is posted, and I'm one to bet that it is as it seems to be the trend in the Chicagoland area (as it seems to be for most of the state now).

 

Heading back into my corner to await the abuse that is sure to follow.

 

Great find!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm new here so you can just bypass my $0.02 --

 

All of this is fairly clear when visiting the FAQ on ISP's IL Concealed Carry License Page.

 

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.

 

For me, I wouldn't shop where the sign is posted, as it makes it a GFZ. I think from just reading the FAQ I can easily make that determination. On the other hand, I haven't visited my WM this week to see if it is posted, and I'm one to bet that it is as it seems to be the trend in the Chicagoland area (as it seems to be for most of the state now).

 

Heading back into my corner to await the abuse that is sure to follow.

 

There it is settled from the CCL site Walmart is a prohibited site. Now can we all just shake hands and continue working together for OUR rights.

Edited by Hatchet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why on God's green earth does it say Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/6??? 430 ILCS 66/65 is the enacted FCCA. If that sign is posted "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65" (as is stated RIGHT ON IT) then it most certainly DOES APPLY to anyone carrying on an Illinois FCCL.

 

Please read, understand, and obey the laws and regulations. We do NOT need "envelope" pushers adding fuel to the fire of the anti's...

 

Right. if we're passive enough maybe they'll throw us some crumbs.

 

I just got done searching for the word pedantic. I don't understand it. I kept getting links to this thread...

 

That is NOT was I am saying.

 

There is a right and wrong way a push for expanded rights. This past summer, the OC'ers at Starbucks showed us the wrong way to do it. I would advise, as some have done, speaking to local management and escalating up the ladder if necessary. Simply ignoring the sign will not effect any positive change and if you get arrested for carrying there, you may very well end up as a poster child for the anti's.

 

Well, I thought those Starbucks guys pulled an asinine stunt. It did no one any good that I can see and I didn't get the point other than it being simple attention whoring. As if the world needs more of that.

 

This case is different though. I think it's clear to most lay people the intent of the sign Walmart posted even if it is somehow complicated and ambiguous to a lot of us. But the statement about applying only to employees seems straightforward enough to me as I think it would to most people. Their true intent and if it's legal to carry there or not is obviously subject to some ruling by a court if it came to that. But I doubt that it would for a variety of reasons. And frankly I'm not a bit worried about it.

 

My point isn't to try to prove anything here. My object is to exercise my rights which I fully intend to do. If they meant for it to apply to everyone they should have left off the employees only statement. If they want to see me arrested because of that ambiguity then I suppose that's fine too. We'll let the legal system sort it out.

 

I already made my choice. I wouldn't try to convince anyone that mine is the right one for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

That is not what the rules say, not at all...

 

Let me help you (pay close attention to lines 627-630):

 

619 Section 1231.150 Prohibited Areas
620
621 Section 65 of the Act specifies areas where concealed carry of firearms is prohibited and requires
622 posting of those areas.
623
624 a) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act shall be made
625 available by the Department on its website.
626
627  Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template
628 provided at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template
629 provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by
630 the Act somewhere on the larger sign.
631
632 c) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs. If prohibited
633 areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced no
634 smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the sign.
635
636 d) The required signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide persons entering
637 the prohibited area reasonable notice that they are entering a prohibited area and
638 may not carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Act, therein.

It is you that should pay a little more attention to lines 627-630.

What do you think is the purpose of this paragraph? If it was simply to state that one could make a sign larger than 4x6 then why not just state that very thing? Why all of the unneeded language?

 

The purpose of lines 627-630 are to ensure that all signs are uniform and easily identifiable by licensee's. If I wanted to make and post a very large sign 3' x 3' that read "We Prohibit the Carrying of Firearms" it would not have the force of law. If I wanted to post a sign the resembled the ISP template that measured 3' x 3' it would not have the force of law. If I posted either of the aforementioned signs and reproduced the 4" x 6" template somewhere on that sign, either would have the force of law. The purpose is uniformity so we are all looking for the same exact sign where ever we go. Otherwise it can be too easy to miss. I don't know about the rest of you but I do not spend my time reading every single sign every place I go.

 

That is my interpretation of the law and until I see differently from ISP or the legislature that is what I am sticking with. If I am arrested, I will gladly be the test case and report back the outcome here on the forum.

 

I do have one other question for those of you who believe that the sign pictured in this thread prevents you from carrying at Wallyworld. Are you saying that if I posted my business that I no longer have the power to grant you or anyone else I deem fit to carry with special permission? Let me ask this another way. If I posted my business with an official gun buster sign and my friend wanted to come over, are you saying that I could no longer give my friend permission to carry as long as the gun buster sign was hanging on my door? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So sorry Mr. Fife. Apparently I'm suppose to be here a while before I can voice my opinion.

 

Nobody has a problem with you voicing an opinion. It's when you dismiss everyone else's opinion and tell us to move on as if you somehow have the last word that creates the problem. Also, stating things like people running around telling people not to shop at Walmart is disingenuous, there's nobody running around saying that. Welcome to the fight, sorry about the rock.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Edited by Mr. Fife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walking the walk. I went to our local store and it was posted. Apparently the sign went up last night, as the Asst Mgr to whom I spoke was unaware of it even being there. I asked about the source of the signs and she had no idea. She listened and said she would ask about them.

 

The following was sent to Wally:

________________

Illinois has recently enacted a concealed carry of firearms law. I went to your Jacksonville IL store this morning and on the entrances , this sign was posted: http://allguntraining.com/images/walmart.pdf.

 

At the top it said" This prohibition applies only to on-duty Walmart associates and vendors." The intent seems clear, however the print is small and the gun-buster image is much more prominent and what shoppers will see first.

 

The graphic on the sign is universal, and the particular graphic being used is the one specified by the Illinois State Police as the only sign a private property owner may use to prohibit carry on their property. The sign includes the required statutory language "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65."

 

The following is from the Illinois State Police Concealed Carry FAQ page, (https://ccl4illinois.com/ccw/Public/ISPFaq.aspx item 6 under Employment) regarding private employers and posting:

"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.

 

I am a member of the illinoiscarry.com forums, and this sign is being discussed at great length. From the discussions, it appears this same sign is being extensively posted at Walmart stores throughout the state, not just in Jacksonville.

 

Hopefully you can find another way to bring this matter to the attention of your employee and vendors which will not prohibit lawful firearm owners from entering your store.

 

Thank you

____________

 

We'll see what happens.

 

Bushy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sent this to corporate.:

 

First off let me say that I am an Illinois certified firerams instructor.

 

Many in Illinois have noticed that their Walmarts posting "no guns" signs with some extra text on them regarding how the signs only apply to on duty employees.

 

However the rest of the sign contains the image and text as required by the IL state police for a business that wishes to be a banned location. As such all the IL Walmarts are inadvertently becomming banned locations.

 

This seems to not be Walmart's intent, but in reality it is what has occured. If Walmart's intent is to only prohibit employees from carrying firearms while working then I suggest a sign that doesn't contain the IL state police approved image and text or else an internal employee directive.

 

I believe the current signs will result in two things. One, Walmart will lose business as the signs posted clearly meet the legal requirement and shoppers that desire to follow IL law will be forced to shop elsewhere. Two, if an individual follows the intent of the sign and another shopper is frightened and calls the police the shopper carrying a firearm as per the intent of the sign will end up arrested for breaking the law. Which could lead to a public relations problem for Walmart.

 

 

Please consider the two corrective actions I have outlined above.

-TyGuy (real name used)

Edited by TyGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

*IDK why that is small?

 

Also, if you go to walmart.com, scroll to the bottom, under the heading "Get To Know Us" click on "Corporate", then scroll to the bottom, click "Contact Us", then click "Email customer service", then choose "Company Feedback and Questions"

 

Strangely enough I can't find the DeKalb Walmart from their choices?

Edited by TyGuy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

wrong wrong wrong...

 

 

This is what the ISP says about signs:

 

619 Section 1231.150 Prohibited Areas
620
621 Section 65 of the Act specifies areas where concealed carry of firearms is prohibited and requires
622 posting of those areas.
623
624 a) A template for signs required pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act shall be made
625 available by the Department on its website.
626
627  Owners of prohibited areas may utilize signage larger in size than the template
628 provided at their discretion. If prohibited areas use a larger sign, the template
629 provided shall be reproduced no smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by
630 the Act somewhere on the larger sign.
631
632 c) Prohibited areas may include additional language on their signs. If prohibited
633 areas include additional language, the template provided shall be reproduced no
634 smaller than the 4" x 6" dimension required by the Act somewhere on the sign.
635
636 d) The required signs shall be placed in such a manner as to provide persons entering
637 the prohibited area reasonable notice that they are entering a prohibited area and
638 may not carry a concealed firearm, pursuant to the Act, therein.

 

Their rules clearly state that the sign may be larger than 4x6, may be a part of a larger sign, and may contain additional language. However, the ISP did not give the authority to change the meaning of the sign. Again, 430 ILCS 66/65 applies to EVERYONE in the state in ILLINOIS, not only to "On duty Wal-Mart employees and vendors."

 

so based on this new information, your gripe should be with ISP and not walmart because ISP has clearly not made that information abailable on their website which is what I quoted from that says the sign shall be 4x6 inches and shall not contain any additional text. How is a random place of business supposed to know this unless they have insider information like you apparently do? The general public has the law, the law states ISP shall make the rules pertaining to the standardization of the sign, so when you go to the isp website to find said rules you find nothing of this. In walmart's mind and based off of the information they were provided by the ISP, they were not posting a legal sign, and I don't think you will find one prosecuter who would charge you based on that information. Still waiting on a confirmation from ISP wether or not it's a legal sign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Walking the walk. I went to our local store and it was posted. Apparently the sign went up last night, as the Asst Mgr to whom I spoke was unaware of it even being there. I asked about the source of the signs and she had no idea. She listened and said she would ask about them.

 

The following was sent to Wally:

________________

Illinois has recently enacted a concealed carry of firearms law. I went to your Jacksonville IL store this morning and on the entrances , this sign was posted: http://allguntraining.com/images/walmart.pdf.

 

At the top it said" This prohibition applies only to on-duty Walmart associates and vendors." The intent seems clear, however the print is small and the gun-buster image is much more prominent and what shoppers will see first.

 

The graphic on the sign is universal, and the particular graphic being used is the one specified by the Illinois State Police as the only sign a private property owner may use to prohibit carry on their property. The sign includes the required statutory language "Pursuant to 430 ILCS 66/65."

 

The following is from the Illinois State Police Concealed Carry FAQ page, (https://ccl4illinois.com/ccw/Public/ISPFaq.aspx item 6 under Employment) regarding private employers and posting:

"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.

 

I am a member of the illinoiscarry.com forums, and this sign is being discussed at great length. From the discussions, it appears this same sign is being extensively posted at Walmart stores throughout the state, not just in Jacksonville.

 

Hopefully you can find another way to bring this matter to the attention of your employee and vendors which will not prohibit lawful firearm owners from entering your store.

 

Thank you

____________

 

We'll see what happens.

 

Bushy

 

Good job Bushy. I live in Jax too but haven't been to WM recently.

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...