III Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:07 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:07 PM Ok, so we all know about the 23 prohibited areas...plus the private property option to post. I would like to find some "clarity" in the debate of whether or not the ISP sign apply's to the owners of a piece of property that posts. It seems that most understand (and appreciate) that an owner of a private property can post the approved ISP sign in order to keep the CCL public from carrying on their property. Some also understand (and argue) that the same owner is allowed to carry on their property regardless of their sign (their property...their rules). Fewer members more, believe that the owner can extend permission to carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules). Now.....if the above is true, does the same train of thought extend to the areas included within the 23 prohibited areas? - Can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited areas carry themselves? - Can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited areas extend permission to employees and "friends" to carry? I know that it is a long shot to get some clarity on this debate on an issue such as this from this forum, but I would love to hear everyone's thoughts (and any legislative language to backup positions).
Elmer Fudd Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:12 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:12 PM It gets more interesting if you add "can the entity in control of one of the 23 prohibited places delegate the authority to a non-owner manager of the property.......as for me.....I wouldn't want to be the test case for one of these....
spec5 Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:15 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:15 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)." This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property?
III Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:17 PM Author Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:17 PM The whole reason I ask is that the State really has tied the hands of the entities that control 23 different categories of locations that people visit. While one side of me is glad that preemption keeps municipalities from further restricting our rights and abilities to defend ourselves from the wolves in society.....the other side of me is disappointed that those of us in control of one of the 23 prohibited places can not allow others that have been vetted by the CCL process to make their own decisions on how they handle self-defense (except for universities).
III Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:23 PM Author Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:23 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)." This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property? For example: Lets say I own a restaurant. I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post. I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post. I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element. Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).
spec5 Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:28 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:28 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property? For example: Lets say I own a restaurant. I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post. I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post. I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element. Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).You wanted a discussion so here goes. Then it wasn't concealed if she saw the firearm.
Scots Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:35 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:35 PM I've wondered about this in my situation as well. The owner of the building I work in has posted. So I of course follow the law and don't carry at work. I've wondered also if the owner who posts can give written permission to individuals to carry, even though it's posted. I haven't been able to find anything allowing this in the law. Maybe something to think about? In my particular situation, it's an owner of the building who is not against guns, or even concealed carry, but he says he has to post for pressure/insurance/business reasons. If allowed, he might be inclined to give me permission.
kurt555gs Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:40 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:40 PM You could open carry with a FOID card with the owners permission. Has nothing to do with the FCCL. Problem solved.
lockman Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:49 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:49 PM Unless specifiacally prohibited by statute outside of the FCCA, carry with permission of the owner, or for public properties by whomever has been given that autority to set policy is lawful and an exemption under UUW.
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:56 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:56 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)." This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property? For example: Lets say I own a restaurant. I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post. I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post. I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element. Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG). I would advise you to post a sign that does not comply with the ISP rules. That way, as the business owner, you can decide who is trespassing. If you you post a conforming sign, and you (as the owner) carry anyway, you are violating the law.
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:58 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:58 PM I've wondered about this in my situation as well. The owner of the building I work in has posted. So I of course follow the law and don't carry at work. I've wondered also if the owner who posts can give written permission to individuals to carry, even though it's posted. I haven't been able to find anything allowing this in the law. Maybe something to think about? In my particular situation, it's an owner of the building who is not against guns, or even concealed carry, but he says he has to post for pressure/insurance/business reasons. If allowed, he might be inclined to give me permission. What other state laws do you feel the business owner can write you a "permission slip" to violate that would hold up in court?
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:59 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 02:59 PM Unless specifiacally prohibited by statute outside of the FCCA, carry with permission of the owner, or for public properties by whomever has been given that autority to set policy is lawful and an exemption under UUW. Yes, that is a lawful exemption to UUW/AUUW, but it is not an exemption to the FCCA.
Scots Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:03 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:03 PM I've wondered about this in my situation as well. The owner of the building I work in has posted. So I of course follow the law and don't carry at work. I've wondered also if the owner who posts can give written permission to individuals to carry, even though it's posted. I haven't been able to find anything allowing this in the law. Maybe something to think about? In my particular situation, it's an owner of the building who is not against guns, or even concealed carry, but he says he has to post for pressure/insurance/business reasons. If allowed, he might be inclined to give me permission. What other state laws do you feel the business owner can write you a "permission slip" to violate that would hold up in court? Never said that I thought he could do that in this case, so I guess none?
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:18 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:18 PM Legalese examination time: 430 ILCS 66 Sec. 65(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into: (a-10) The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence. Sec. 70(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(4) Carries or possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land or in his own 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, any pistol, revolver, stun gun or taser or other firearm, ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(8) Carries or possesses any firearm, stun gun or taser or other deadly weapon in any place which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages, or at any public gathering held pursuant to a license issued by any governmental body or any public gathering at which an admission is charged, excluding a place where a showing, demonstration or lecture involving the exhibition of unloaded firearms is conducted. 720 ILCS 5/24-2(e) Subsection 24-1(a)(8) does not apply to any owner, manager or authorized employee of any place specified in that subsection nor to any law enforcement officer. So, there are statutory exemptions to 720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(4) & 720 ILCS 5/24-1 a(8), but those do not apply to 430 ILCS 66/65. The only possible way that I see to be exempt from 430 ILCS 66/65 (a) or (a-10) would be to not be a licensee under 430 ILCS 66. However, a reading of the plain language of Sec. 66/65(a-10) could suggest that the prohibition applies to everyone, not just licensees.
Packy Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:22 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:22 PM It appears to me you can not give permission for some to carry while others can not. Take Jewell Foods as an example. Their sign says only employees and vendors are not permitted to carry but the ISP on their FAQ page says once the sign is up no one can carry. And yes Jewell Foods is still doing this in my area.
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:41 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:41 PM It appears to me you can not give permission for some to carry while others can not. Take Jewell Foods as an example. Their sign says only employees and vendors are not permitted to carry but the ISP on their FAQ page says once the sign is up no one can carry. And yes Jewell Foods is still doing this in my area. My OPINION on this. If a sign conforming to the ISP rules is posted, then I agree with you. HOWEVER, if a NONconforming sign, like the one I have seen pictures of at Jewel, is posted, then the person(s) in control of the property certainly can pick and choose. A conforming sign has interpretation via state lawA nonconforming sign only has interpretation by the business "owner".
gangrel Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:53 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 03:53 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property? For example: Lets say I own a restaurant. I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post. I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post. I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element. Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).You wanted a discussion so here goes. Then it wasn't concealed if she saw the firearm. Carrying in your own home or abode, or fixed place of business, or with the permission of the home or business owner, in Illinois, neither requires a FCCL nor that the firearm be concealed. But does the sign posted take away the property or business owner's right to carry or delegate others to carry?
bmyers Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:26 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:26 PM Talking about owners, what about the local club or church that is owned by the members? Do they fall in as owners and can be exempt since the club/church is owned by the members and not an overseeing body?
mjw45 Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:33 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:33 PM Also remember there does not need to be a 'complainant'.If an officer observes you breaking the law they can arrest you, no one else needs to even be involved. Matt
wtr100 Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:40 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:40 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)." This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property? For example: Lets say I own a restaurant. I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post. I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post. I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element. Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG). why do you think you can change state law - if you post it's posted.
BIGDEESUL Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:48 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 04:48 PM "carry upon their posted property to employees and "friends" as well (again, their property....their rules)."This sort of stands out for me. So if they say employees and friends can carry who would be the complainant if it is their property? For example: Lets say I own a restaurant. I do not meet the 50% rule, so I am not obligated to post. I do not trust people who I do not know to carry, so I decide to post. I will carry myself within my restaurant because I know that this sign does not stop the criminal element. Furthermore, I want to allow my staff to carry if they so choose, as well as, my friends because I want to ensure they can protect themselves now that I have the magical CPZ signs on my door (remember, I know these people, so I trust them to carry in my presence). The "complainant" could be some mom that saw a gun within my restaurant which she thought was a CPZ (remember, they do not have to notify the owner...they can just call 9-1-1 and report a MWG).why do you think you can change state law - if you post it's posted. Yep
tkroenlein Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:11 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:11 PM The reason these "issues" are constantly re-hashed is because of the misconception that the FCCA is a stand alone law. It is only an exception to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. It does not nullify or void any other exception or exemption in any part of section 24. No, a posting does not apply to a property or business owner.
wtr100 Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:12 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:12 PM The reason these "issues" are constantly re-hashed is because of the misconception that the FCCA is a stand alone law. It is only an exception to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. It does not nullify or void any other exception or exemption in any part of section 24. No, a posting does not apply to a property or business owner. so it's ok for the owner of say a day care to carry? I think not ...
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:19 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:19 PM The reason these "issues" are constantly re-hashed is because of the misconception that the FCCA is a stand alone law. It is only an exception to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. It does not nullify or void any other exception or exemption in any part of section 24. No, a posting does not apply to a property or business owner. I do not think that is 100% correct. If it were, the FCCA would not need Sec.70 outlining violations specific to the Act. If what you said is true, violations would just revert back the violations/penalties in UUW... The way that laws are right now, it looks like you could be guilty of violating the FCCA and not be guilty of the UUW, and vice versa...
tkroenlein Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:19 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:19 PM Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6?
bobapunk Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:22 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:22 PM Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6? No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to. So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)...
Gamma Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:33 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:33 PM This has been discussed repeatedly. There won't be any clarity until there's an opinion from SA/AG, or caselaw, or a legislative change. The language of the FCCA appears to restrict the behavior of licensees under that act, not create a gun free zone. The most straightforward reading of the various laws leads to the nonsensical conclusion that if you are NOT a concealed carry licensee but do have a FOID, that you can utilize the landowner/businessowner and invitee provisions of the FOID act to carry regardless of whether it's a statutory or voluntarily posted location. However, if you ARE a licensee, you cannot. This IMO was one of the driving factors that got ISP to remove the requirement for instructors to hold an FCCL, so as to not restrict the LE/IROCC instructor folks. A security guard would be the ideal vehicle to clarify this. Licensed armed security guard, hired to protect a statutory prohibited location, who also has an FCCL for personal protection away from work. File suit as the FCCA is restricting him from performing his job, since he can't carry in that location since he's an FCCA licensee.
tkroenlein Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:41 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:41 PM Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6? No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to. So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)... Guns were prohibited in day cares long before the FCCA. I had assumed for this discussion that we were limiting it to whether or not the sign applied to owners who were legal to carry before the FCCA.
bob Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:47 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:47 PM Talking about owners, what about the local club or church that is owned by the members? Do they fall in as owners and can be exempt since the club/church is owned by the members and not an overseeing body? The reason these "issues" are constantly re-hashed is because of the misconception that the FCCA is a stand alone law. It is only an exception to 720 ILCS 5/24-1.6. It does not nullify or void any other exception or exemption in any part of section 24. No, a posting does not apply to a property or business owner.that is just not true. it is a standalone law and has to be considered that way. it has nothing to do with the UUW law at all. the UUW law does contain some additional exceptions for FCCL holders, but they are part of the UUW law and not the FCCA.
bob Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:48 PM Posted May 5, 2014 at 05:48 PM Are guns prohibited from day cares under section 24-1.6? No, they are prohibited under 430 ILCS 66/65, which the exemptions in 720 ILCS 24-1 & 2 do not apply to. So it would appear that a day care owner could only legally carry in their day care if a. they do not have an IL CCL, or b. they are open carrying (maybe)...Guns were prohibited in day cares long before the FCCA. I had assumed for this discussion that we were limiting it to whether or not the sign applied to owners who were legal to carry before the FCCA. what law prohibited them?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.