Tip

Or homes that school-aged children might visit…. Gotta get them grandparents and neighbors….

Illinois Gun laws are onerous enough without folks adding in things that simply aren’t there…..

Yes you can prohibit folks from carrying on your property - that is not in dispute. As for trespassing — Criminal trespass to real property occurs when a person knowingly enters or remains on land without the owner’s consent. If you invite them in it’s not trespassing. If they remain after being asked to leave then it is trespassing. If YOU do not inform them you ban carrying and then invite them in and they are carrying it is NOT trespassing unless they remain after you ask them to leave…. If YOU inform them you don’t want them carrying and invite them in and they carry it is NOT trespassing. It’s possibly a violation of FCCL but it’s certainly not trespassing. ALL of this is predicated on “knowingly” — You must inform them of your wishes - nowhere is “prior permission” a requirement. It simply is not a violation of anything unless first you inform them of your wishes. You certainly have a right to ban carrying on your property BUT you must make it known that you do. While it’s good etiquette to ask prior to carrying there simply is no requirement anywhere to get “prior permission”.

And John Q you are certainly entitled to that opinion, and certainly entitled to request or ban whoever you wish from carrying on your property— I do not think any here take exception to that. What I take exception to is your assertion that “Without prior permission you are in violation” and that “All private, land/property are prohibited without prior permission”. I’ll ask again - in violation of what? The law - provide a citation, your wishes - that’s entirely your right. As for the second assertion - you make a blanket statement covering “All private, land/property” can you provide a citation for this? Your citations of trespassing laws are not particularly relevant to the assertion you make.

Violation of what? - the law? Can you please provide a citation for your assertion that all private land/property are prohibited without prior permission?

A bunch more infringement, a bunch more hoops to jump through for marginal gain. Take out the notification of CLEO, take out the extended waiting period. Ship as soon as background check clears and you might have something. Lets keep in mind that waiting periods have nothing to do with 4473’s and background checks — to the best of my knowledge state law says 3 days from Agreement to purchase, not from submittal of 4473 or successful background check…. i’ll pass.

If an ID and background check are not required to exercise 1st Amendment Rights, or 4th Amendment Rights, or to vote, or for ANY other Constitutional Rights why is one required to exercise 2nd Amendment Rights?? Is the 2nd some inferior Amendment? SCOTUS has alluded to it NOT being inferior but we need them to come out and forcefully rule that it is not and to treat it EQUAL to other rights.

Euler, do you have a link to the text of the Judges “clarification”?

the injunction covers all present and FUTURE members of SAF So you wouldn’t need to BE a member, just be a “future” member — I.e. eligible to become a member….. How is the injunction actually worded?? I’m looking at the injunction but anybody know??

I know what Barnett is. I believe there are (and were) suits pending in state’s courts regarding the laws in VA, CA and CO when the DOJ announced their actions. None of which got DOJ’s actions dismissed….

Will we see a DOJ lawsuit fall on Illinois now, as it has on others — VA, CA, CO???

Don’t overlook Easterbrook‘s inflated sense of self worth…. I think it’ll come out before Viramontes so Easterbrook can tell SCOTUS what they should do since he knows best…

Most likely it’ll be some form of “national reciprocity with states allowed restrictions” and you’ll end up with red states moving to being all basically constitutional carry and blue states allowing you to “carry” but only in the 3 spots so designated and properly signed with the prior approval of the property owner and local mental health agency who’s only open on fifth fridays of the month….

SCOTUS cannot enforce their rulings - they have no mechanism to do so and it’s, simply put, not their job to do so.

What would his opponent have done? Probably an outright ban! Which do you prefer now? Pick your poison carefully….