Prohibited Carry Zones - 23 Categories

[Davidl1978]

I'm interested in hearing the thoughts of the great folks on this forum. My wife and I have tickets to the Laugh Factory Club in Chicago for late October and I'm wondering if it a GFZ? It's not listed on the Posted Site, but do their would their booze revenues prohibit someone form carrying? I called and talked to a lady who said they are not posted but she seemed pretty clueless about what I was asking. I also tried to explained to her the law, but she seemed to have little interest in giving me any beneficial insight. They have a two drink minimum but you don't need to purchase alcoholic drinks, which I wouldn't if I were to carry. Does anyone think that their alcohol sales combine to 50% of their revenue when you factor in ticket prices and other items they sell? I also read over the prohibited locations listed in the law, but I'm still unable to determine if their establishment is prohibited. Has anyone ever carried in their establishment? Thanks in advance for your insights. I just want to stay on the right side of the law and not be a test case.

[Falstaff]

This thread should be forwarded to all our legislators. (1) It would demonstrate how concerned we are about not breaking the law; (2) it would demonstrate how the ambiguities in this law exposes otherwise law-abiding citizens to the criminal justice system because of an honest mistake. Ridiculous. Oh, to have a law like Georgia's, or even Missouri's.

[Blackbeard]

This thread should be forwarded to all our legislators. (1) It would demonstrate how concerned we are about not breaking the law; (2) it would demonstrate how the ambiguities in this law exposes otherwise law-abiding citizens to the criminal justice system because of an honest mistake. Ridiculous. Oh, to have a law like Georgia's, or even Missouri's.

 

it's cute that you think they're interested in making our lives easier. They're hoping we all slip up and get arrested and lose our gun rights.

[Falstaff]

 

This thread should be forwarded to all our legislators. (1) It would demonstrate how concerned we are about not breaking the law; (2) it would demonstrate how the ambiguities in this law exposes otherwise law-abiding citizens to the criminal justice system because of an honest mistake. Ridiculous. Oh, to have a law like Georgia's, or even Missouri's.

 

it's cute that you think they're interested in making our lives easier. They're hoping we all slip up and get arrested and lose our gun rights.

Not Downstate. Maybe in Chi-town.

[wishbone]

 

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of "right of way":

 

"Definition of right of way in English:

right of way Syllabification: right of way

Pronunciation:

NOUN

• 1The legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another."

I like the idea of using the common plain English definition of right of way that gives us the maximum freedom the legislature gave to us to carry legally . Northwestern University allows the public to walk across their campus. Right of way = legal carry. The Oakbrook Mall allows the public the right of way to walk outdoors through their mall, and that equals legal carry. Section 65 c allows you to walk on any right of way that "touches or crosses" a prohibited area. It is one of the most powerful tools we have for free movement while carrying. Let's not talk ourselves out of that freedom.

 

 

 

Why use that definition?

 

For definition of "public right of way" --> What does Federal Law say? Or a Federal regulation? Or a Federal Court/SCOTUS ruling? I wonder what the Americans with Disabilities Act say or the regulations for it say....

 

If any of those support your definition, then you've got something.

 

Anything else, and state law rules the roost.

 

 

Why not use that definition? I don't understand why you would use Federal law or a Federal regulation when, as you point out, it is a State of Illinois law we are talking about. The FCCA states:

 

"c- A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law."

 

Nowhere in the FCCA is "public right of way" defined, so until the Illinois courts rule one way or the other, I think the common plain english use of the phrase makes sense, and would provide a strong defense against any prosecution of a misdemeanor charge. Why use a definition that is not in the FCCA to restrict our rights?

[Blackbeard]

 

 

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of "right of way":

 

"Definition of right of way in English:

right of way Syllabification: right of way

Pronunciation:

NOUN

• 1The legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another."

I like the idea of using the common plain English definition of right of way that gives us the maximum freedom the legislature gave to us to carry legally . Northwestern University allows the public to walk across their campus. Right of way = legal carry. The Oakbrook Mall allows the public the right of way to walk outdoors through their mall, and that equals legal carry. Section 65 c allows you to walk on any right of way that "touches or crosses" a prohibited area. It is one of the most powerful tools we have for free movement while carrying. Let's not talk ourselves out of that freedom.

 

 

 

Why use that definition?

 

For definition of "public right of way" --> What does Federal Law say? Or a Federal regulation? Or a Federal Court/SCOTUS ruling? I wonder what the Americans with Disabilities Act say or the regulations for it say....

 

If any of those support your definition, then you've got something.

 

Anything else, and state law rules the roost.

 

 

Why not use that definition? I don't understand why you would use Federal law or a Federal regulation when, as you point out, it is a State of Illinois law we are talking about. The FCCA states:

 

"c- A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law."

 

Nowhere in the FCCA is "public right of way" defined, so until the Illinois courts rule one way or the other, I think the common plain english use of the phrase makes sense, and would provide a strong defense against any prosecution of a misdemeanor charge. Why use a definition that is not in the FCCA to restrict our rights?

 

 

I think you're confusing permission with right. Private property that is open to the public, is open by permission of the owner. You don't have a legal right to be there. You can be banned from a campus. You can't be banned from a public right-of-way. Rights-of-way mean streets and roads, generally. Trust me, the courts know what a right-of-way is and it ain't the mall.

[Falstaff]

Here is the Oxford Dictionary definition of "right of way":

 

"Definition of right of way in English:

right of way Syllabification: right of way

Pronunciation:

 

 

 

NOUN

• 1The legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another."

I like the idea of using the common plain English definition of right of way that gives us the maximum freedom the legislature gave to us to carry legally . Northwestern University allows the public to walk across their campus. Right of way = legal carry. The Oakbrook Mall allows the public the right of way to walk outdoors through their mall, and that equals legal carry. Section 65 c allows you to walk on any right of way that "touches or crosses" a prohibited area. It is one of the most powerful tools we have for free movement while carrying. Let's not talk ourselves out of that freedom.

 

 

Why use that definition?

 

For definition of "public right of way" --> What does Federal Law say? Or a Federal regulation? Or a Federal Court/SCOTUS ruling? I wonder what the Americans with Disabilities Act say or the regulations for it say....

 

If any of those support your definition, then you've got something.

 

Anything else, and state law rules the roost.

 

Why not use that definition? I don't understand why you would use Federal law or a Federal regulation when, as you point out, it is a State of Illinois law we are talking about. The FCCA states:

 

"c- A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law."

 

Nowhere in the FCCA is "public right of way" defined, so until the Illinois courts rule one way or the other, I think the common plain english use of the phrase makes sense, and would provide a strong defense against any prosecution of a misdemeanor charge. Why use a definition that is not in the FCCA to restrict our rights?

 

I think you're confusing permission with right. Private property that is open to the public, is open by permission of the owner. You don't have a legal right to be there. You can be banned from a campus. You can't be banned from a public right-of-way. Rights-of-way mean streets and roads, generally. Trust me, the courts know what a right-of-way is and it ain't the mall.

 

I don't think the people should overthink this. If concealed carry is banned on campus except for bike trails, then it is going to be banned on the sidewalks as you walk through campus. I agree with Blackbeard: generally excepted definition of a public right-of-way means roads. I believe it will also include sidewalks. I do not believe, under the statute, it will include sidewalks on university campuses. This is because there is a specific prohibition for universities. See page 8 of the Illinois Senate GOP Caucus pamphlet. http://www.senategop.state.il.us/Portals/0/Concealed-Carry/13%20Concealed%20Carry%20Report.pdf

[Falstaff]

I don't like the way the quoted material set up in my reply - made it easy for my point to get lost in the reply. So here it is again with grammatical and spelling corrections:

 

I don't think the people should over think this. If concealed carry is banned on campus except for bike trails, then it is going to be banned on the sidewalks as you walk through campus. I agree with Blackbeard: the generally accepted definition of a public right-of-way means roads. I believe it will also include sidewalks. I do not believe, under the statute, it will include sidewalks on university campuses. This is because there is a specific prohibition for universities. See page 8 of the Illinois Senate GOP Caucus pamphlet. http://www.senategop...arry Report.pdf

[Sunhaven1]

(19) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an airport.

 

I have a flight out of Midway on Thursday night and return Friday night. I carry everyday , are the remote lots completely off limits are can they be legally locked, unloaded in my vehicle?

[Glock23]

(19) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an airport.

I have a flight out of Midway on Thursday night and return Friday night. I carry everyday , are the remote lots completely off limits are can they be legally locked, unloaded in my vehicle?

Vehicle safe harbor provision applies, so you're good. And no need for it to be unloaded.

 

Edited October 1, 2014 at 12:30 PM by Glock23

[Indigo]

 

(19) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an airport.

I have a flight out of Midway on Thursday night and return Friday night. I carry everyday , are the remote lots completely off limits are can they be legally locked, unloaded in my vehicle?

Vehicle safe harbor provision applies, so you're good. And no need for it to be unloaded.

 

The major concern, to my mind, is the security of the firearm IN the car while you are away. Lots of incidences of cars in airport parking lots being broken into while the owner is off in the wild blue yonder. Stop, disarm, and secure your firearm BEFORE you get to the airport so no one can observe you doing that.

[wishbone]

"I think you're confusing permission with right. Private property that is open to the public, is open by permission of the owner. You don't have a legal right to be there. You can be banned from a campus. You can't be banned from a public right-of-way. Rights-of-way mean streets and roads, generally. Trust me, the courts know what a right-of-way is and it ain't the mall."

 

Right of Way = "The legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another."

 

Property "belonging to another" sure sounds like private property to me. An outdoor mall grants the public general access thus creating a public right of way "by usage or grant". They have a right to deny that access, but then, of course, no one could get to their stores. Remember this "right of passage" section of the law specifically applies to prohibited areas even those that are posted. .

 

 

[Blackbeard]

"I think you're confusing permission with right. Private property that is open to the public, is open by permission of the owner. You don't have a legal right to be there. You can be banned from a campus. You can't be banned from a public right-of-way. Rights-of-way mean streets and roads, generally. Trust me, the courts know what a right-of-way is and it ain't the mall."

 

Right of Way = "The legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another."

 

Property "belonging to another" sure sounds like private property to me. An outdoor mall grants the public general access thus creating a public right of way "by usage or grant". They have a right to deny that access, but then, of course, no one could get to their stores. Remember this "right of passage" section of the law specifically applies to prohibited areas even those that are posted. .

 

 

 

Really? Do you have an enforceable right to use their property? If you did, you could sue them when they lock the doors at night, denying you your right to their property.

Trust me, you're totally wrong on this.

[Pipedoc]

From Black's Law Dictionary.

The right of passage or of way is a servitude imposed by law or by convention, and by virtue of which one has a right to pass on foot, or horseback, or in a vehicle, to drive beasts of burden or carts, through the estate of another. When this servitude results from the law, the exercise of it is confined to the wants of the person who has it. When it is the result of a contract, its extent and the mode of using it is regulated by the contract. Civ. Code La. art. 722. “Bight of way,” in its strict meaning, is the right of passage over another man’s ground; and in its legal and generally accepted meaning, in reference to a railway, it is a mere easement in the lands of others, obtained by lawful condemnation to public use or by purchase. It would be using the term in an unusual sense, by applying it to an absolute purchase of the fee-simple of lands to be used for a railway or any other kind of a way. Williams v. Western Union Ry. Co., 50 Wis. 76, 5 N. W. 482. And see Kripp v. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62, 11 Pac. 879; Johnson v. Lewis, 47 Ark. 60. 2 S. W. 329; Bodfish v. Rodlish, 105 Mass. 317; New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 19 Sup. Ct. 128. 43 L. Ed. 407; Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 21 N. J. Law, 130, 57 Am. Dec. 156.

[tkroenlein]

I'm having a hard time understanding this conversation about "right of ways" and way it's being debated. I think folks must be talking about two different areas.

 

I have a public right of way in my front yard. Two actually. The village map shows that my property extends to the center of the street, yet I have a sidewalk and half a street that the public is legally entitled to travel. These are public right of ways. It is maintained by the taxpayers' money.

 

There are many such right of ways in, on, and around college campuses. The easiest way to tell if it is public or private is to look at it and decide if it desperately needs repair. That would be the public property.

[Pipedoc]

Me too.

 

I think wishbone is trying to argue that being granted permission to move about on private property is akin to legal "right of way" and one could carry there due to the exemption in the FCCA.

 

I give him kudos for thinking outside the box but I don't think that dog will hunt in court.

Edited October 6, 2014 at 05:47 PM by Pipedoc

[wishbone]

Me too.

 

I think wishbone is trying to argue that being granted permission to move about on private property is akin to legal "right of way" and one could carry there due to the exemption in the FCCA.

traveling

I give him kudos for thinking outside the box but I don't think that dog will hunt in court.

 

That's exactly what I am arguing. Read Section 65 c of the FCCA, it specifically mentions "any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section" . The premises under (a-10) covers private property that is posted by its owners. If that private property is crossed by a sidewalk or path that the owner has routinely allowed the public to use it is a public right of way. Thus Section 65 c gives us a right of passage as long as we are "traveling along" ie: moving. IMHO this section was included to keep a licensee from becoming trapped by a large prohibited area say Northwestern University, and not being able to proceed to a destination which is not a prohibited area, thus it provides an exemption for safe passage. I am not arguing that it permits a licensee to enter any posted building or other prohibited area, only to travel where the public has always had the ability to travel. This has been a good discussion, and we can all agree that the courts will ultimately decide the issue. I am hopeful and pretty confident that my interpretation is correct because it allows us considerable freedom of travel while armed.

[Pipedoc]

Are you talking about traveling on the sidewalk by the parkway that runs along the property line or traveling through a property on the grounds?

[wishbone]

Are you talking about traveling on the sidewalk by the parkway that runs along the property line or traveling through a property on the grounds?

 

The law says "touches or crosses any of the premises" including private property. I read crosses to mean more than just running along the property line. Crosses means crosses.

[Pipedoc]

How about an example scenario?

[Falstaff]

Wishbone, wishful thinking. Consult an attorney. In fact, consult two: A good property rights lawyer and a good criminal law attorney. If they will issue you an opinion letter that allows you to CC under these circumstances, carry it with you and have at it. At least you'll have an "advice of attorney" defense. Seriously, you are pushing the limits. Good luck.

[tkroenlein]

wishbone, thanks for the clarification. I believe this is the exception that you are referring to-

 

© A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.

 

And here is the prohibition in question-

 

(15) Any building, classroom, laboratory, medical clinic, hospital, artistic venue, athletic venue, entertainment venue, officially recognized university-related organization property, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.

 

And Black's definition of right of way-

 

The right of passage or of way is a servitude imposed by law or by convention, and by virtue of which one has a right to pass on foot, or horseback, or in a vehicle, to drive beasts of burden or carts, through the estate of another. When this servitude results from the law, the exercise of it is confined to the wants of the person who has it. When it is the result of a contract, its extent and the mode of using it is regulated by the contract. Civ. Code La. art. 722. Bight of way, in its strict meaning, is the right of passage over another mans ground; and in its legal and generally accepted meaning, in reference to a railway, it is a mere easement in the lands of others, obtained by lawful condemnation to public use or by purchase. It would be using the term in an unusual sense, by applying it to an absolute purchase of the fee-simple of lands to be used for a railway or any other kind of a way. Williams v. Western Union Ry. Co., 50 Wis. 76, 5 N. W. 482. And see Kripp v. Curtis, 71 Cal. 62, 11 Pac. 879; Johnson v. Lewis, 47 Ark. 60. 2 S. W. 329; Bodfish v. Rodlish, 105 Mass. 317; New Mexico v. United States Trust Co., 172 U. S. 171, 19 Sup. Ct. 128. 43 L. Ed. 407; Stuyvesant v. Woodruff, 21 N. J. Law, 130, 57 Am. Dec. 156.

 

 

In reading the first section that I pasted, it is clear that a licensee may travel along a public right of way. To be a right of way, refer to the definition. That would be the same type of right of way that's in my yard, and is a public right of way by virtue of the rights incorporated by the village. "My property," maintained by the village, and open to public travel.

 

In the second section that I've pasted, prohibition #15, the sidewalks owned or leased by the listed entities are clearly prohibited areas.

 

The difference between the two sidewalks lies in whether or not any legal right of way has been established by the state or a municipality via a process such as those described in the definition that I pasted.

 

Unfortunately, there appears to be no exception for "common use" in the statute such as you suggest.

[Blackbeard]

Let's put it this way -- a public right-of-way cannot be revoked or suspended by the land owner. If your mall is a public right-of-way, you can't lock the doors and keep the public out. Allowing the public into your store does not grant them rights to your land. Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

This is starting to remind me of those tax deniers who misinterpret the tax code and think your income is only taxable if you live on federal land.

[wtr100]

Let's put it this way -- a public right-of-way cannot be revoked or suspended by the land owner. If your mall is a public right-of-way, you can't lock the doors and keep the public out. Allowing the public into your store does not grant them rights to your land. Seriously, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

This is starting to remind me of those tax deniers who misinterpret the tax code and think your income is only taxable if you live on federal land.

or you only need a drivers license when 'driving' which they define as carrying freight or passengers for hire

[Blackbeard]

 

I am hopeful and pretty confident that my interpretation is correct because it allows us considerable freedom of travel while armed.

 

 

There's a simple way to test your theory. Go to the mall when it's closed. Kick down the door and walk around inside. When you're arrested, tell them it's a public right-of-way because they routinely let the public in. If you beat the trespass charges, then your interpretation is correct.

 

I might leave the gun at home for this experiment, though.

Edited October 8, 2014 at 01:35 PM by Blackbeard

[lockman]

 

 

I am hopeful and pretty confident that my interpretation is correct because it allows us considerable freedom of travel while armed.

 

 

There's a simple way to test your theory. Go to the mall when it's closed. Kick down the door and walk around inside. When you're arrested, tell them it's a public right-of-way because they routinely let the public in. If you beat the trespass charges, then your interpretation is correct.

 

I might leave the gun at home for this experiment, though.

 

I though he said not the buildings?

[Blackbeard]

 

 

 

I am hopeful and pretty confident that my interpretation is correct because it allows us considerable freedom of travel while armed.

 

 

There's a simple way to test your theory. Go to the mall when it's closed. Kick down the door and walk around inside. When you're arrested, tell them it's a public right-of-way because they routinely let the public in. If you beat the trespass charges, then your interpretation is correct.

 

I might leave the gun at home for this experiment, though.

 

I though he said not the buildings?

 

 

Missed that it was an outdoor mall. Same principle though. Can you go there when it's closed?

[wishbone]

"Missed that it was an outdoor mall. Same principle though. Can you go there when it's closed?"

 

Who said anything about going to an outdoor mall when it is closed? I would like someone to tell me exactly what they think Section 65 c which mentions an exemption to Section 65 (a-10) (which itself relates to private property) means. It either gives some kind of exemption or it doesn't. Reading a lot of the comments here gives the impression that it has no meaning at all. I don't believe that.

[Blackbeard]

"Missed that it was an outdoor mall. Same principle though. Can you go there when it's closed?"

 

Who said anything about going to an outdoor mall when it is closed? I would like someone to tell me exactly what they think Section 65 c which mentions an exemption to Section 65 (a-10) (which itself relates to private property) means. It either gives some kind of exemption or it doesn't. Reading a lot of the comments here gives the impression that it has no meaning at all. I don't believe that.

 

It means that despite prohibitions in (a), you are not in violation on a public right-of-way. You seem to be confused about the right-of-way concept, which is a centuries-old legal principle that is not really open to novel interpretations based on a misreading of the law. It is an encumbrance on the land, meaning the public has rights to use it to travel regardless of the owner's wishes. It stays with the land even when it changes owners.

 

If the mall were a public right-of-way, they would not be allowed to turn it into an enclosed mall. They couldn't have security guards throw you out if you're still there after midnight. They couldn't demolish the mall and put up a factory because that would obstruct the public right-of-way to travel across that land.

 

Bottom line is, it means public streets and sidewalks.

 

 

The legal right, established by usage or grant, to pass along a specific route through grounds or property belonging to another

 

 

The problem with the way you're reading this definition is -- it says what a right-of-way is. It doesn't say how one is created. Allowing the public into your mall does not create a legal right-of-way. They can be created by usage, but are not always created by usage. Letting the public shop at your mall does not create a legal right of the public to use that land in perpetuity.

Edited October 9, 2014 at 03:44 AM by Blackbeard

[Blackbeard]

P.S. The reason ( c ) was included is because in general, landowners own the land out to the middle of the street. So, if you are on the sidewalk or the street next to a hospital, you are on hospital land. The street passing by a school is school property. But the public right-of-way on that land (the street & sidewalk) is not prohibited.

Edited October 9, 2014 at 03:53 AM by Blackbeard