Posted: 3/24/2014 6:02:17 AM EDT
|
quick question? What is the official rule for signage. Does it have to be the official Illinois State police no gun sign. Or any sign that says no firearms. I've seen a couple places that have their own sign that says no guns.
Thanks |
|
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. (d) Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection. Seems like the law is pretty clear on this one - "must" "shall" etc etc. |
|
so are you are you interpreting the law stating that must be the official State Police sign. Since it says it must be uniform. These signs just have a red gun with a circle and a hash mark through it. Roughly the same size but doesn't have the white background as the State Police shows there's.
I'll respect the owners wishes but my question is what does the law state. If you read it as written. |
| My employer had initially put up the signs on every door (maybe 3). Then they were taken down which I interpreted to be doing away with the policy because the owners had been getting flack from the public. They decided to put ONE sign back up (the official one) and instead of having it at waist/chest level where it could be seen easily, it was placed at the far bottom of the side door where it can't be seen without doing a serious comb-over of the entire entrance. They are still trying to adhere to having no firearms in the workplace but are trying to do it as nonchalantly as possible. Bitch move if you ask me. Put that fucker up high where people can see it (and no problems are caused) or don't put it there at all. Kinda pissed they are trying to hide the fact that they are anti-gun. |
|
Quoted:
so are you are you interpreting the law stating that must be the official State Police sign. Since it says it must be uniform. These signs just have a red gun with a circle and a hash mark through it. Roughly the same size but doesn't have the white background as the State Police shows there's. I'll respect the owners wishes but my question is what does the law state. If you read it as written. That's exactly how I interpret it. I haven't read the regulations yet which may have more specifics. Maybe somebody has a link to the state police regs on this? Obviously we have no court interpretation on this yet, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you want to ban firearms you have to post the approved sign. |
|
Quoted:
My employer had initially put up the signs on every door (maybe 3). Then they were taken down which I interpreted to be doing away with the policy because the owners had been getting flack from the public. They decided to put ONE sign back up (the official one) and instead of having it at waist/chest level where it could be seen easily, it was placed at the far bottom of the side door where it can't be seen without doing a serious comb-over of the entire entrance. They are still trying to adhere to having no firearms in the workplace but are trying to do it as nonchalantly as possible. Bitch move if you ask me. Put that fucker up high where people can see it (and no problems are caused) or don't put it there at all. Kinda pissed they are trying to hide the fact that they are anti-gun. From what I read that would be a violation of the rule, since it is not "clearly and conspicuously posted" |
|
Bitch move if you ask me. Put that fucker up high where people can see it (and no problems are caused) or don't put it there at all. Kinda pissed they are trying to hide the fact that they are anti-gun. Actually, this can work to CC advantage...As the law reads that you must knowing carry into a no-carry business before it is a violation. Should someone actually get "pinched" in this establishment, the "pinchee" would have a valid claim they didn't see the notice.... |
|
Quoted: Actually, this can work to CC advantage...As the law reads that you must knowing carry into a no-carry business before it is a violation. Should someone actually get "pinched" in this establishment, the "pinchee" would have a valid claim they didn't see the notice.... Quoted: Bitch move if you ask me. Put that fucker up high where people can see it (and no problems are caused) or don't put it there at all. Kinda pissed they are trying to hide the fact that they are anti-gun. Actually, this can work to CC advantage...As the law reads that you must knowing carry into a no-carry business before it is a violation. Should someone actually get "pinched" in this establishment, the "pinchee" would have a valid claim they didn't see the notice.... Mike, I understand what you are saying, however, the defense of ignorance doesn't usually work. "I didn't see the speed limit sign" is not a way to get out of a speeding ticket...
|
|
Quoted: That's exactly how I interpret it. I haven't read the regulations yet which may have more specifics. Maybe somebody has a link to the state police regs on this? Obviously we have no court interpretation on this yet, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you want to ban firearms you have to post the approved sign. Quoted: Quoted: so are you are you interpreting the law stating that must be the official State Police sign. Since it says it must be uniform. These signs just have a red gun with a circle and a hash mark through it. Roughly the same size but doesn't have the white background as the State Police shows there's. I'll respect the owners wishes but my question is what does the law state. If you read it as written. That's exactly how I interpret it. I haven't read the regulations yet which may have more specifics. Maybe somebody has a link to the state police regs on this? Obviously we have no court interpretation on this yet, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you want to ban firearms you have to post the approved sign. Here you go: |
|
Mike, I understand what you are saying, however, the defense of ignorance doesn't usually work. "I didn't see the speed limit sign" is not a way to get out of a speeding ticket... I understand where you are coming from but, the law specifically states "knowingly". The difference is that speed limit signs are posted regularly and conspicuously. If they were all hidden behind trees, they would have a hard time making any charges stick. The same is true of lost or stolen...It is specifically stated in the law that you have to report guns that are knowingly stolen...In other words, if it is missing and you didn't know it was stolen, you cannot be held accountable...plus, there are no penalties at this point either. |
|
they can also just put up a no guns sign and you are pretty much in the same boat, just that it is a trespassing violation not a FCCA violation.
it is unclear to me what the ramifications are of putting up a non-standard FCCA sign. it may just mean it is a trespassing violation and not a FCCA violation. In any case, the property owner has made his wishes known and you should respect them even if the signage is not perfect. |
|
Quoted:
I understand where you are coming from but, the law specifically states "knowingly". The FCCA does not use the word "knowingly" WRT to signage violations. In fact, it does not even actually say anywhere in the act that entered a posted area is even a violation of the FCCA. |
|
Quoted:
they can also just put up a no guns sign and you are pretty much in the same boat, just that it is a trespassing violation not a FCCA violation. it is unclear to me what the ramifications are of putting up a non-standard FCCA sign. it may just mean it is a trespassing violation and not a FCCA violation. In any case, the property owner has made his wishes known and you should respect them even if the signage is not perfect. At the risk of agreeing with ILbob, this seems to be a fair application of the law as I see it too. We met with our local Sheriff last week to go over their officer protocols and we discussed the fact that you can transport in a no-CC posted establishment as long as it isn't a federal building etc. So, unloaded and enclosed in a case would make you legal but, if the owner finds out, he can request you leave and if you refuse or most likely are habitually transporting in his establishment, he can press trespass charges. This area seems a little murky to me... |
|
Quoted:
That's exactly how I interpret it. I haven't read the regulations yet which may have more specifics. Maybe somebody has a link to the state police regs on this? Obviously we have no court interpretation on this yet, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you want to ban firearms you have to post the approved sign. Quoted:
Quoted:
so are you are you interpreting the law stating that must be the official State Police sign. Since it says it must be uniform. These signs just have a red gun with a circle and a hash mark through it. Roughly the same size but doesn't have the white background as the State Police shows there's. I'll respect the owners wishes but my question is what does the law state. If you read it as written. That's exactly how I interpret it. I haven't read the regulations yet which may have more specifics. Maybe somebody has a link to the state police regs on this? Obviously we have no court interpretation on this yet, but it seems pretty clear to me that if you want to ban firearms you have to post the approved sign. or the word"Conspicuously" as of yet either |
|
Quoted:
It has to be the specified sign. If someone makes up a sign with some other gun, or whatever, it's not the legal sign. Quoted:
Quoted:
The only real variation that is allowed is the type of gun pictured. I've seen glocks, 1911's, and Beretta 92's. It has to be the specified sign. If someone makes up a sign with some other gun, or whatever, it's not the legal sign. The ISP website says "handgun in black ink". Not Beretta 92. I have two friends who are owners/managers of businesses that are forced to post. Both of them were issued stickers with 1911 silhouettes. |
|
Quoted:
The FCCA does not use the word "knowingly" WRT to signage violations. In fact, it does not even actually say anywhere in the act that entered a posted area is even a violation of the FCCA. Quoted:
Quoted:
I understand where you are coming from but, the law specifically states "knowingly". The FCCA does not use the word "knowingly" WRT to signage violations. In fact, it does not even actually say anywhere in the act that entered a posted area is even a violation of the FCCA. 
Man...this gets tiresome...If it wasn't on an open forum where others will read the wrong headed information you continually put out, I wouldn't even bother to reply... (430 ILCS 66/65) Sec. 65. Prohibited areas. (a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into: d) Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection. (Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.) (430 ILCS 66/70) Sec. 70. Violations. (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 (Prohibited areas) of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees. |
|
Quoted:
I understand where you are coming from but, the law specifically states "knowingly". Quoted:
Mike, I understand what you are saying, however, the defense of ignorance doesn't usually work. "I didn't see the speed limit sign" is not a way to get out of a speeding ticket... I understand where you are coming from but, the law specifically states "knowingly". Knowingly can be interpreted to mean that you are knowingly carrying, not that you are knowingly entering a restricted area. Wishful thinking aside, that would even be the most straightforward interpretation of the phrase in the statute. Federal prosecutions of firearms law are rife with that kind of nullification of legislative intent of "knowingly" provisions. |
|
Knowingly can be interpreted to mean that you are knowingly carrying, not that you are knowingly entering a restricted area. Wishful thinking aside, that would even be the most straightforward interpretation of the phrase in the statute. Federal prosecutions of firearms law are rife with that kind of nullification of legislative intent of "knowingly" provisions I'm a little confused at the statement...but, it would be hard to argue that you didn't know you were carrying a concealed carry weapon...That would have to go in the known column. However, walking into an establishment that has the signage in the bottom right corner of the door with 50 other signs on it, could be argued that you didn't know the place was posted. That is why the law is somewhat specific about size and placement. As far as federal prosecutions being rifle with nullification, I'm not aware of that unless it is being used to obviously subvert the law...in that case, it would not be a "get out of jail free" card...."I'm sorry officer, I didn't know it was illegal to shoot annoying window salesmen" (example) |
|
The Administrative Rules for Concealed Carry
Section 1231.Appendix A Prohibited Area Posting
Pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act, signs must be of a uniform design. The Department has adopted the following sign format. The background is white, with no text, other than the reference to 403 ILCS 66/65, and no other marking within the one-inch area surrounding the graphic design. The graphic design is a handgun in black ink surrounded by a red circle with a diagonal slash across the handgun. The circle shall be 4 inches in diameter. The black rectangle surrounding the image must measure 4 inches tall by 6 inches wide. So the four attributes of an Approved sign are:
There are some who are saying that any component of the Approved sign makes it a GFZ, and there are "hybrid" signs out there. Like all the other states there are bound to be public/police interactions, even some arrests, some charges and maybe some trials. But in my non-lawyer opinion by the reading of the Admin Rules any sign lacking those four elements is not an "Official" GFZ sign. If someone made their own version with some other gun, but it met all the other conditions I don't think I'd push my luck. 
ETA - as others have said entering a non-standard posted premises while carrying could very well land you with a trespassing charge. Again, we don't have a lot any case law on this issue yet. As far as non-standard signage on non-prohibited places goes, if they don't see your gun because it is well concealed or because you left it in your vehicle is up to you... |
|
Until somebody gets pinched and the DA in that county drops the charges or prosecutes them everybody is in limbo.
I emailed the state police with the exact question I posted, asked is it a crime, would I be arrested by a trooper for carrying in a location with this type of non standard sign. This is the reply I got. "The Illinois State Police is prohibited from offering Legal advice." Obviously if you are CC properly this is a non issue but, it is a valid question and god forbid you would actually have to use it or even draw your weapon in one of these areas what Illinoistan would do to you. Yes allot of what ifs but still people like to know what the law is. |
|
Quoted:
god forbid you would actually have to use it or even draw your weapon in one of these areas what Illinoistan would do to you. Yes allot of what ifs but still people like to know what the law is. With all due respect, I think the penalties for attempted murder are a whole lot more severe than violating a no-carry area. Use a little common sense. If you're justified in using deadly force, why are you worried about prosecution over a "no guns" zone? I saw this over at TTAG this morning at it rings true: “If fear, doubt and hesitation has been bred into you then being armed is probably not going to help you at all.” – Tactical Response Trainer Jay Gibson. I have to agree. As it was explained to me by a lawyer who aught to know, if the sign is non-compliant with ISP directives then it is invalid. Period. Frankly, if your piece is properly concealed, then nobody is going to know. I've had a FL permit for a long time (thank you hunter ed) and carried a-plenty in other states and not once has my piece been noticed by LEOs or have I been quizzed about it. If you want to get all tied up in knots over this, be my guest. If you're that worried, don't carry. I can't wait for a lot of this worrisome hand-wringing to be over. |
|
Quoted: I'm a little confused at the statement...but, it would be hard to argue that you didn't know you were carrying a concealed carry weapon...That would have to go in the known column. However, walking into an establishment that has the signage in the bottom right corner of the door with 50 other signs on it, could be argued that you didn't know the place was posted. That is why the law is somewhat specific about size and placement. As far as federal prosecutions being rifle with nullification, I'm not aware of that unless it is being used to obviously subvert the law...in that case, it would not be a "get out of jail free" card...."I'm sorry officer, I didn't know it was illegal to shoot annoying window salesmen" (example) Quoted: Knowingly can be interpreted to mean that you are knowingly carrying, not that you are knowingly entering a restricted area. Wishful thinking aside, that would even be the most straightforward interpretation of the phrase in the statute. Federal prosecutions of firearms law are rife with that kind of nullification of legislative intent of "knowingly" provisions I'm a little confused at the statement...but, it would be hard to argue that you didn't know you were carrying a concealed carry weapon...That would have to go in the known column. However, walking into an establishment that has the signage in the bottom right corner of the door with 50 other signs on it, could be argued that you didn't know the place was posted. That is why the law is somewhat specific about size and placement. As far as federal prosecutions being rifle with nullification, I'm not aware of that unless it is being used to obviously subvert the law...in that case, it would not be a "get out of jail free" card...."I'm sorry officer, I didn't know it was illegal to shoot annoying window salesmen" (example) It would be more clear if it said, "a licencee carrying a concealed firearm under this act, shall not knowing enter on or into:" Or something like that. I made the point of the word knowingly immediately proceeding the work carry a few months back...
|
|
Quoted: The Administrative Rules for Concealed Carry So the four attributes of an Approved sign are:
There are some who are saying that any component of the Approved sign makes it a GFZ, and there are "hybrid" signs out there. Like all the other states there are bound to be public/police interactions, even some arrests, some charges and maybe some trials. But in my non-lawyer opinion by the reading of the Admin Rules any sign lacking those four elements is not an "Official" GFZ sign. If someone made their own version with some other gun, but it met all the other conditions I don't think I'd push my luck. ETA - as others have said entering a non-standard posted premises while carrying could very well land you with a trespassing charge. Again, we don't have a lot any case law on this issue yet. As far as non-standard signage on non-prohibited places goes, if they don't see your gun because it is well concealed or because you left it in your vehicle is up to you... Quoted: The Administrative Rules for Concealed Carry Section 1231.Appendix A Prohibited Area Posting Pursuant to Section 65(d) of the Act, signs must be of a uniform design. The Department has adopted the following sign format. The background is white, with no text, other than the reference to 403 ILCS 66/65, and no other marking within the one-inch area surrounding the graphic design. The graphic design is a handgun in black ink surrounded by a red circle with a diagonal slash across the handgun. The circle shall be 4 inches in diameter. The black rectangle surrounding the image must measure 4 inches tall by 6 inches wide. So the four attributes of an Approved sign are:
There are some who are saying that any component of the Approved sign makes it a GFZ, and there are "hybrid" signs out there. Like all the other states there are bound to be public/police interactions, even some arrests, some charges and maybe some trials. But in my non-lawyer opinion by the reading of the Admin Rules any sign lacking those four elements is not an "Official" GFZ sign. If someone made their own version with some other gun, but it met all the other conditions I don't think I'd push my luck. ETA - as others have said entering a non-standard posted premises while carrying could very well land you with a trespassing charge. Again, we don't have a lot any case law on this issue yet. As far as non-standard signage on non-prohibited places goes, if they don't see your gun because it is well concealed or because you left it in your vehicle is up to you... And if every LEO in the state where an logical and as informed as you, things would be a lot more black and white.
|
|
Quoted:
With all due respect, I think the penalties for attempted murder are a whole lot more severe than violating a no-carry area. Use a little common sense. If you're justified in using deadly force, why are you worried about prosecution over a "no guns" zone? I saw this over at TTAG this morning at it rings true: “If fear, doubt and hesitation has been bred into you then being armed is probably not going to help you at all.” – Tactical Response Trainer Jay Gibson. I have to agree. As it was explained to me by a lawyer who aught to know, if the sign is non-compliant with ISP directives then it is invalid. Period. Frankly, if your piece is properly concealed, then nobody is going to know. I've had a FL permit for a long time (thank you hunter ed) and carried a-plenty in other states and not once has my piece been noticed by LEOs or have I been quizzed about it. If you want to get all tied up in knots over this, be my guest. If you're that worried, don't carry. I can't wait for a lot of this worrisome hand-wringing to be over. Quoted:
Quoted:
god forbid you would actually have to use it or even draw your weapon in one of these areas what Illinoistan would do to you. Yes allot of what ifs but still people like to know what the law is. With all due respect, I think the penalties for attempted murder are a whole lot more severe than violating a no-carry area. Use a little common sense. If you're justified in using deadly force, why are you worried about prosecution over a "no guns" zone? I saw this over at TTAG this morning at it rings true: “If fear, doubt and hesitation has been bred into you then being armed is probably not going to help you at all.” – Tactical Response Trainer Jay Gibson. I have to agree. As it was explained to me by a lawyer who aught to know, if the sign is non-compliant with ISP directives then it is invalid. Period. Frankly, if your piece is properly concealed, then nobody is going to know. I've had a FL permit for a long time (thank you hunter ed) and carried a-plenty in other states and not once has my piece been noticed by LEOs or have I been quizzed about it. If you want to get all tied up in knots over this, be my guest. If you're that worried, don't carry. I can't wait for a lot of this worrisome hand-wringing to be over. Very nicely said , I agree 101% with you. I made the same comment over on IC "If you are that worried . the answer is Simple Don't carry boy oh boy was I flamed for it LOL |
|
Quoted:
Very nicely said , I agree 101% with you. I made the same comment over on IC "If you are that worried . the answer is Simple Don't carry boy oh boy was I flamed for it LOL Lots obsessing over crap that doesn't really matter over there. I visit there from time to time. Sometimes the drama there makes GD look tame, and the professionalism of the staff there varies widely. Hell, I've seen where some of their mods personally attack members and their posts. Classy. The spam in the training section makes it damn near worthless. They got a whole phalanx of brand new so-called instructors rushing to cash in on the gold rush by advertising classes where they read power point slides for their entire class! If it weren't for Rocco and Giblin, and Vandermyde, I wouldn't visit IC much at all. |