Official Signs Carry Force of Law Against The Owner?

[TyGuy]

Thanks. Ill chat with her tomorrow.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[TyGuy]

She seemed more concerned about losing $$$$ from people like me no longer shopping there.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[bobapunk]

 

 

 

You always had the right to carry at your own business, so the sign referring to the FCCA doesn't apply because you're not carrying under the authority of the FCCA.

 

 

I do not believe that that is how the law reads.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

So you are saying the following scenario is the law:

You are a business owner -- You don't have a CCL -- You post ISP sign at your business -- You can legally carry because UUW gives you that right and FCCL doesn't apply to you since you have no license.

 

You are a business owner -- You DO have a CCL -- You post ISP sign at your business -- You CANNOT legally carry because FCCL restricts you since you have a license (doesn't matter that you own the joint).

 

Do I have that right?

 

I don't agree. I don't think that the law actually takes your rights away from you. I do however think that the law needs clarification (in all areas), as it is about a clear as mud, but in this instance, I'll stick to what I believe the law reads.

 

It's not something I plan to argue. I'm not going to change your mind nor do I have any desire to. That's the crazy part of Law. We all have our own interpretations, and even judges and regular folks who sit in the jury. They will interpret it and have their say. Then it gets appealed and up the latter it goes.

 

Yeah. The FCCL needs to be amended to add additional exemptions to sec 65a-10.

 

You might be able to beat the charges in court, based on other legal precedents of the prohibition being unconstitutional. But it does appear to be illegal as the law is written right now.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Drylok]

I don't care what the statutes say in this law or any other, an owner of any private establishment can do whatever the f they want and if any government entity has a problem with that ill be at the private owners place ready to fight for all of his rights till death do us part

[bobapunk]

 

 

 

You always had the right to carry at your own business, so the sign referring to the FCCA doesn't apply because you're not carrying under the authority of the FCCA.

 

 

I do not believe that that is how the law reads.

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

So you are saying the following scenario is the law:

You are a business owner -- You don't have a CCL -- You post ISP sign at your business -- You can legally carry because UUW gives you that right and FCCL doesn't apply to you since you have no license.

 

You are a business owner -- You DO have a CCL -- You post ISP sign at your business -- You CANNOT legally carry because FCCL restricts you since you have a license (doesn't matter that you own the joint).

 

Do I have that right?

 

I don't agree. I don't think that the law actually takes your rights away from you. I do however think that the law needs clarification (in all areas), as it is about a clear as mud, but in this instance, I'll stick to what I believe the law reads.

 

It's not something I plan to argue. I'm not going to change your mind nor do I have any desire to. That's the crazy part of Law. We all have our own interpretations, and even judges and regular folks who sit in the jury. They will interpret it and have their say. Then it gets appealed and up the latter it goes.

 

I used to have the same opinion that you do. Then it was explained to me the way a prosecutor would argue the case.

 

A. Was there a compliant sign clearly and conspicuously posted?

 

Yes

 

B. Do you have a CCL?

 

Yes

 

C. Where you in/on the the property referenced in question A?

 

Yes

 

The prosecution rests.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

[bobapunk]

I don't care what the statutes say in this law or any other, an owner of any private establishment can do whatever the f they want and if any government entity has a problem with that ill be at the private owners place ready to fight for all of his rights till death do us part

 

Yes, and this is why the FCCA needs fixed/amended ASAP.

 

It makes no difference if we like or agree with a law, it is still the law. Until we change the law, all we have is what we have.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Drylok]

But for generations now we've had a bunch of holier than thou, silent majority pussies who haven't drawn a line in the stand. High time we do and no this is not a PWD. Ill say the same over breakfast or any other time 24/7 I am sick of this crap

[mqqn]

I can see that argument mqqn. Would you think differently if she had a permit? (IDK if she does or not). Are you then carrying under permit or the fixed place of business exemption? IDK

 

The presence or not of a CCL would have no bearing if it were the person owning the business.

 

It is similar to the private individual.

 

I could tell you that you could not carry in my house, even post the sign if I so wanted (although a private residence does not have to post...).

 

I would still have the right to carry inside my place of residence, and the business owner has the same right in their business, with the exception of having to post in order to prevent others from carrying.

 

It would be the ultimate hypocrisy, in my opinion, but there it is.

 

best

 

mqqn

[Drylok]

 

I can see that argument mqqn. Would you think differently if she had a permit? (IDK if she does or not). Are you then carrying under permit or the fixed place of business exemption? IDK

 

The presence or not of a CCL would have no bearing if it were the person owning the business.

 

It is similar to the private individual.

 

I could tell you that you could not carry in my house, even post the sign if I so wanted (although a private residence does not have to post...).

 

I would still have the right to carry inside my place of residence, and the business owner has the same right in their business, with the exception of having to post in order to prevent others from carrying.

 

It would be the ultimate hypocrisy, in my opinion, but there it is.

 

best

 

mqqn

Yes it would be hypocrisy but for that individual on his own property we will fight for his rights. May try to persuade him on other things but the rights are most important and I mean actual rights not made up ones by the left

[bobapunk]

 

I can see that argument mqqn. Would you think differently if she had a permit? (IDK if she does or not). Are you then carrying under permit or the fixed place of business exemption? IDK

 

 

 

The presence or not of a CCL would have no bearing if it were the person owning the business.

 

It is similar to the private individual.

 

I could tell you that you could not carry in my house, even post the sign if I so wanted (although a private residence does not have to post...).

 

I would still have the right to carry inside my place of residence, and the business owner has the same right in their business, with the exception of having to post in order to prevent others from carrying.

 

It would be the ultimate hypocrisy, in my opinion, but there it is.

 

best

 

mqqn

 

Although this is logically "right", I challenge you to justify your position citing IL statue. There simply is not this exemption in the FCCA. Ask your reps to file amendments.

 

Sent from my SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

 

 

[tkroenlein]

10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

[bobapunk]

Ok, lets read this. 430 ILCS 66/10(g):

 

 

(g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the licensee carries a concealed firearm except:

(1) when the licensee is carrying or possessing a

concealed firearm on his or her land or in his or her abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an invitee with that person's permission;

(2) when the person is authorized to carry a firearm

under Section 24-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012, except subsection (a-5) of that Section; or

(3) when the handgun is broken down in a

non-functioning state, is not immediately accessible, or is unloaded and enclosed in a case.

Not only does this section not state that it is an exemption to 430 ILCSW 66/65(a-10), the only exemption created is one that allows a licensee to carry in specific defined places without their carry license on their person. The exemption that likely should be there, is not. The FCCA needs to be amended to fix this oversight.

[bobapunk]

10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

I am confused by you post.

 

What are you saying?

 

"10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted [not included in the category or group specified] in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this."

 

So you agree that 720 ILCS 5/24-2 (UUW exceptions) does not apply to 430 ILCS 66/65 (FCCA)?

[Uncle Harley]

this cracks me up, so a business owner can post, yet determine who can carry based on their wishes, IE: themselves and anyone that is invited per the exemptions in the UUW................ yet the jewel and walmart sign that clearly invited those with a permit to carry since they were only wishing to prohibit employees and vendors is no good?

[borgranta]

If the owner has a carry license the owner risks being arrested as a licensee carrying in a prohibited place unless they insert language specifically exempting a licensee from the carry ban while in their fixed place of business or on the property thereof.

[tkroenlein]

 

10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

 

 

I am confused by you post.

 

What are you saying?

 

"10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted [not included in the category or group specified] in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this."

 

So you agree that 720 ILCS 5/24-2 (UUW exceptions) does not apply to 430 ILCS 66/65 (FCCA)?

What I'm saying is that no provision to possess, carry, transport, etc. within section 24-2 is affected by any FOID holder's status as a licensee under the FCCA. The FCCA only provides more exceptions.

 

I do agree that this could be written more clearly.

 

ETA: I think that exception in 10(g) is clear.

What I think is unclear is that the FCCA is an exception in it's entirety.

[DoktorPaimon]

Heres a murky question: say you own a business that is required to post, can you carry in your fixed place of business?

[TyGuy]

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

[tkroenlein]

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

 

Without the 10(g) exception, that is how it would be.

[bobapunk]

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

 

Welcome to the result of the all-knowing ILGA...

[bobapunk]

 

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

Without the 10(g) exception, that is how it would be.

 

 

All 10(g) does is say that your CCL does not have to be on your person in the locations listed. It does not say anywhere that you are exempt from all restrictions in the act.

[TyGuy]

K, thanks.

[bobapunk]

 

10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this.

 

 

I am confused by you post.

 

What are you saying?

 

"10(g) CLEARLY acknowledges that the authority granted to carry and possess firearms in 24-2 is excepted [not included in the category or group specified] in the FCCA. It doesn't get much simpler than this."

 

So you agree that 720 ILCS 5/24-2 (UUW exceptions) does not apply to 430 ILCS 66/65 (FCCA)?

What I'm saying is that no provision to possess, carry, transport, etc. within section 24-2 is affected by any FOID holder's status as a licensee under the FCCA. The FCCA only provides more exceptions.

 

I do agree that this could be written more clearly.

 

ETA: I think that exception in 10(g) is clear.

What I think is unclear is that the FCCA is an exception in it's entirety.

 

 

This is the exact same way that I used to think about this. If any exemption form 720 ILCS 5/25-2 applied, then you were A-OK since you do not need a CCL in those instances. However, it was explained to me that the 720 ILCS 5/25-2 exemptions only get you out of a UUW/AUUW charge. The FCCA has its own list of violations and penalties that you may be subject to.

[Gamma]

The question won't be resolved without court opinions/caselaw or else a legislative fix.

 

One option not explored is that of specifically NOT possessing one's carry license while at one's fixed place of business so as to specifically fall into the 10(g) exemption. So your car may be a safe haven to store either your license card or else your firearm depending on the situation. Not purple.

[bob]

The question won't be resolved without court opinions/caselaw or else a legislative fix.

 

One option not explored is that of specifically NOT possessing one's carry license while at one's fixed place of business so as to specifically fall into the 10(g) exemption. So your car may be a safe haven to store either your license card or else your firearm depending on the situation. Not purple.

 

You are making a leap from what it says to something that you want it to say.

 

(g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the

licensee carries a concealed firearm except:

(1) when the licensee is carrying or possessing a

concealed firearm on his or her land or in his or her

abode, legal dwelling, or fixed place of business, or on

the land or in the legal dwelling of another person as an

invitee with that person's permission;

(2) when the person is authorized to carry a firearm

under Section 24-2 of the Criminal Code of 2012, except

subsection (a-5) of that Section; or

(3) when the handgun is broken down in a

non-functioning state, is not immediately accessible, or

is unloaded and enclosed in a case.

 

 

 

 

10 (g) says a licensee has to possess a license anytime they are carrying except for the three exemptions listed. Since it refers to a licensee, which is someone who has been issued a FCCL, the word possess will almost certainly be interpreted by the courts as being in physical possession of the ID card.

 

Incidentally, this provision pretty much kicks the legs out from under those who are claiming that an unloaded and encased firearm is not being carried, since this provision says it is being carried. Otherwise there would be no need for the provision at all.

 

In any case, someone who is licensed is licensed regardless of whether he has the card in his physical possession. The section 65 prohibitions state "a licensee shall not carry...", not a licensee in physical possession of the ID card shall not carry.

[tkroenlein]

 

 

 

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

 

 

Without the 10(g) exception, that is how it would be.

 

 

 

 

All 10(g) does is say that your CCL does not have to be on your person in the locations listed. It does not say anywhere that you are exempt from all restrictions in the act.

No, it also excepts possessing your license for those authorizations under 24-2, because it is not the FCCA that regulates those particular exceptions.

[TyGuy]

I have my answer. Thanks again.

[borgranta]

Based on the fact exemption quoted by bob a license does not affect carry within your own place of business.

[bobapunk]

 

 

 

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

 

 

Without the 10(g) exception, that is how it would be.

 

 

 

 

All 10(g) does is say that your CCL does not have to be on your person in the locations listed. It does not say anywhere that you are exempt from all restrictions in the act.

No, it also excepts possessing your license for those authorizations under 24-2, because it is not the FCCA that regulates those particular exceptions.

 

 

10(g) does not say that licensees are exempt from the provisions of the FCCA while on their own property. All it says is there their CCL card does not need to be on their person...

[tkroenlein]

 

 

 

 

So under FCCA they can not carry, but if they don't have a license they can?

Without the 10(g) exception, that is how it would be.

 

 

All 10(g) does is say that your CCL does not have to be on your person in the locations listed. It does not say anywhere that you are exempt from all restrictions in the act.

 

No, it also excepts possessing your license for those authorizations under 24-2, because it is not the FCCA that regulates those particular exceptions.

 

 

 

 

10(g) does not say that licensees are exempt from the provisions of the FCCA while on their own property. All it says is there their CCL card does not need to be on their person...

If you are subject to the regulations, prohibitions, and penalties set forth in the FCCA when you are not participating in activities defined by it, why then are you not required to possess the license that the same act requires you to have to practice the exemptions contained in it?