Somehow, I don't think this is in the spirit of the IL FCCL Act...

AMC Theater in Springfield.

It is not the correct sign required by law either.  I wouldn't have seen it anyways all the way down there...

Good eyes. Notice how all the other signs are at door-handle height? The smoked-glass doesn't help much with visibility either.

I do believe these signs went up quite a while before the FCCL Act passed. The same theater was shot-up one night a few years ago by some wanna-be high school gangbangers fighting over a girl.

Only a court can decide if a sign is conspicuous enough to meet the requirements of the FCCA.

Not saying a court might or might not decide individual cases but, police officers can decide and so can a State's Atty....these blanket statements like the one above sure get old and are not accurate.

If you reread the FCCA, you'll find that the location must be posted with a standardized sign, developed by the ISP, to be posted off-limits to CC. And since the sign is nowhere near eye-level to anyone except a toddler, I would hazard a guess that this sign is not clearly and conspicuously posted.

This location is not using the sign standardized by the ISP. As such, the location is not in compliance with the FCC Act as far as being properly posted. Thus, the penalties for a violation under the FCCA may not apply. However, since the location does have some form of sign, I'm thinking that a person in violation can still be trespassed.

What I find interesting, as Mas describes the concept in the CLIC video, is how this signage example speaks towards the manifest intent of the location management...



Swan, if that photo would help serve the greater good with the GA/ISP, feel free to copy it and put it to work for us.

I don't think you could be charged with trespass unless you were confronted and asked to leave without doing so.  The "mostly hidden" or difficult to see sign doesn't just mean they have failed to comply with no CC, it doesn't exist if the intended message doesn't reach the intended audience.

Right now, unless someone finds a reason I don't know about, I think these signs are working in our favor.  They are not a "get out of jail free" card but, they would provide an outstanding argument in the event of an unlikely detection in the establishment.  Again, I suspect that some businesses are doing this purposely to play to both sides of the issue.  They have the sign up to appease the anti-gunners but, it carries no weight of law for the pro-gunners.  It is a very milk toast attempt at preventing concealed carry.  

Modification accepted.

This would be a good question to bring up quietly with the NRA reps. My current understanding is that if a prohibitive sign is posted, and a detection occurs, the person can be charged with trespass for failing to heed the sign's warning.

We can try to run it up the flagpole...don't know if they will respond.
However, that is why there is a display standard in the law.  Without a set standard, someone could make up their own sign or scale down the official sign to the size of a postage stamp and "trap" practitioners of the CC law.  The signage aspect of the law is designed to make the public aware of the owners wishes.  If you fail communicate that information, then the information doesn't exist and compliance with your intent goes out the door....(my take).

You saw the sign well enough to post it, so I would imagine it meets the definition of conspicuous.  We saw it and it appeared to be at least 4" x 6" in size.

If we keep focused on this tiny bullshit, we will lose sight of what really needs to be addressed like whittling down the list of Prohibited  Places and additions to the statute as to what would be an affirmative defense for a violation of the statute.  We also need to address the issue of civil immunity if we are justified when using a firearm in self defense.

Stay focused gentlemen.

The ADA has determined what height is allowed for signage.

Understand the "big picture" but right now, there isn't much we can do as far as making changes to the law...Springfield doesn't have the stomach for any changes for now.  It is OK to try to figure out where the boundaries are and get the law defined so we can all understand it as much as possible.  It is a complex beast...we need to know how to make it work for us as much as possible.

Also, we do have some pretty good civil immunities in cases of justified use of force in IL...Just sayin.

I created this thread specifically to help educated people on the requirements for businesses to post locations, and to show examples of what to watch for. I do this because despite a lot of people taking courses, few people seem to have actually read the FCCA and any related/relevant statutes. Paying attention to "tiny bullshit" is what will keep you out of jail for FCCA violations, or may possibly even allow you to carry in a location that appears to be off-limits. I saw this sign because I was specifically looking for it at this location, as I knew it had been reported as having a sign in the Posted! app database.

As an instructor, I have no financial or creative interest in this app whatsoever, but I can say that I love it. When I load this up in class and let the students play with it, I see most everyone with an Android or iPhone download it immediately to their phones. This app, along with it's companion CCW app are the best tools I can recommend for having CCW information handy in public. Having the correct information is arguably more important than having ammunition right now.

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/posted!-carry-list-anti-gun/id530004581?mt=8

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ryan.posted

As far as prohibited places go, the only real places on the list that we can reasonably go after are all the DNR recreational/park facilities, municipal properties including park districts/public parks/playgrounds, public gatherings requiring permits, and public transportation. College, university, and state government buildings/facilities is an uphill fight even in pro-CCW states. Everything else on the list would still have the option to post as private businesses, or would remain off limits due to federal law. If you review the video of the debates on the FCCA, the low-hanging fruit just also happened to be the locations that the Chicago politicians fought tooth-and-nail over. They're not going to give those locations up without a court-ruling or some severe political pressure, and that will take time. The General Assembly has already sent a strong "wait-and-see" message for this year, although a few bills both good and bad have been proposed.

I don't see any affirmative-defenses to violations being coded into IL law that would not already be taken into consideration by a court under necessity/incidental circumstances, such as being pursued or forced into one of those posted locations in an emergency, or under threat or duress.

Civil immunity is covered, both in defense of a person and dwelling, under (720 ILCS 5/7-1), as long as no wanton or willful misconduct takes place.

(from Ch. 38, par. 7-1)

Sec. 7-1. Use of force in defense of person.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or another, or the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)

Sec. 7-2. Use of force in defense of dwelling.

(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling. However, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, and he reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent an assault upon, or offer of personal violence to, him or another then in the dwelling, or

(2) He reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of a felony in the dwelling.

(b) In no case shall any act involving the use of force justified under this Section give rise to any claim or liability brought by or on behalf of any person acting within the definition of "aggressor" set forth in Section 7-4 of this Article, or the estate, spouse, or other family member of such a person, against the person or estate of the person using such justified force, unless the use of force involves willful or wanton misconduct.

(Source: P.A. 93-832, eff. 7-28-04.)




That is an excellent point that I had not considered. Maybe the person who put these up was possibly on our side?

It is not the sign mandated by the FCCA. Therefore, whatever provisions the proper sign would put into place under the terms of the FCCA are not triggered.

Whether it is conspicuous enough to trigger the prohibition (if it were the correct sign) is something else. That is a judgement for the courts to make.

I do not think the sign by itself makes one liable to a criminal trespass charge either. I do think a sign that is worded properly might.

In any case, it is private property. The people in control of it have a right to decide how their property is used and in what manner. If they do not want armed people on the premises that is their right and we should respect that right.

We should not give them a single cent of our money, rather-


Larry

and that would be your right as a response to them exercising their right.

Personally, I am unwilling to get into a pissing match over something like this. I might be willing to send them a polite letter telling them what I think, but I am unwilling to personally boycott a place I would otherwise patronize just because I do not like their concealed carry beliefs.  Polite and well thought out letters might make a difference. Boycotts by a handful of people just are not going to matter any.

I would also hope you would send them flowers and maybe a pajama-gram just so they know you aren't upset with their "beliefs"...  SHEESH!

As I have started to look for signs, I have seen a number of them which do not meet the statutory requirements.  I really do not care.  If, as a business owner  they do not want vetted, trained and licensed citizens exercising the their right to carry concealed in their business, simple notification is all I need.  They have right to post a sign on private property, and I have a right not to spend my hard earned money there.

The theater owners should have stuck a joker card next to that sign.

We think you need to communicate that to them in a calm courteous fashion.

If a business posts a No Concealed Carry sign, I will politely inform them that I respectfully disagree with their policy and will be spending my hard earned money elsewhere.

Other people may do as they wish, but like minded people will most likely not spend their hard earned money at the business as well.

Unfortunately, you can count on EVERY movie theater to post these signs. I don't care, because I don't go to movies anymore. Had my fill of cell phones and crying infants.

For the record, I am willing to push back and would hope that many other people are willing to do the same.

 










 

I'm not entirely sure what the discussion is here???  I stand by my statement and have talked to our local Sheriff about this....
In particular, I'm saying that you haven't been notified by the owner of his intentions if the sign isn't displayed in such a manner as you would be likely to see it.  (again, he could use a postage stamp sized sign at floor level)  Since the signage didn't meet any communicative standard, that notification would come in the form of a verbal request and being asked to leave and if you refuse to do so, then you could be charged.

It seems clear that a sign that does not comply with the signage laws in the FCCA does not trigger whatever it is that the FCCA triggers by posting a compliant sign.

It is less clear what happens if you post a sign that does not comply with the FCCA but clearly conveys the owners desire that no firearms be brought on the premises and complies with the criminal trespass sign requirements. I am not sure the sign in the OP meets those requirements. I think a private property owner could craft and locate a sign that might meet the requirements of the criminal trespass law. It is not clear to me whether it gets past the 'building open to the public" clause.



Unless I am completely misreading what the law says, there is no way to ban anyone under the criminal trespass statue from entering a building otherwise open to the public. yet, i know of a couple cases where people have been charged with criminal trespass for entering malls after being told to stay out.

 

YUP...Agreed

Sounds right, Swan.

I don't get these people that think you can be arrested for trespass on a business owner's whims.

ETA:  Hell, shoplifters aren't charged with trespass, but rather given a notice that they can't come back.  I think stealing a pressure washer is a helluva lot more offensive to a business owner than a CCW holder packing their heater.

There's been a bunch of discussion about the trespass issue. What we've yet to see is a case where someone was arrested for trespass in a public place that wasn't posted 'no trespassing' without first being asked to leave. The path to get you arrested in this manner is as convoluted as the worry that someone will somehow decide you're carrying and immediately call the police who will then show up and arrest you without warning.

My sense is that there are people who have more paranoia worries than the rest of us do...

FIFY

Off Topic here but....That's funny!  I always thought the term referred to an "easy on the stomach" bland bowl of actual milk with toast in it...My dad used to eat it for breakfast with a ton of sugar on it...
Also funny, I had to look up FIFY!!!!  adding to my education!

So, thanks for the FIFY!

Actually, I think the french used powdered sugar on theirs.

I was in the city for a concert at House of Blues on Friday.  On my walk over there, I noticed that about half of the businesses had signage and almost half of those placed the signage at foot level.  What the heck?  Here are a couple of examples from walking down South Wacker Drive: