Been open carrying on my property + Is this sign legal?

[MikeLovell]

I've been open carrying on my property in the suburbs (Grayslake). Both front and back lawn. No issues thus far. Anyone else do this? Or have any negative experiences?

Also Babys R Us have this posted...

Is the "Code 430 ILCS 66/1" reference REQUIRED or optional? (in two minds after reading the legislation).

Does the above look like valid signage to forbid CC (anything else that would make in unenforceable)?


Not that I'll likely be going there anymore Apparently people have tried contacting corporate before many times, brick wall.

 

[MikeLovell]

As I read the cited statute, the citation to the statute is not required to make the sign effective.

(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.)

I was afraid you'd say that.

My daughter has recently taken up residence in Mundelein. She is a professional, a doctor, in a field that persuades me that she should be armed.

Pretty close to me. Gurnee is the problem area around these parts. AFAIK Gurnee Mills isn't posted.

It's also where I got the training for my permit (arrived this morning, yay!).

 

[SteveInCO]

It doesn't require the statute reference on the sign. But it does require that the sign be of a standardized design (apparently to be set by ISP; presumably it has done so. Of course their standard design might end up including the cite!) and certain dimensions (4x6). Perhaps you could ignore it on that basis, if it doesn't conform.

Or... just don't carry a Beretta 92. (They can be difficult to conceal in any case.)

 

[RANDYT]

The truth is nobody at this time knows if non ISP conforming signs have force of law or not. But if you read the specs for the ISP sign, the ISP sign doesn't conform to its own specs. Sign has to be 4x6 but the circle must measure 4 inches. But the circle doesn't touch the border around the sign

 

[MikeLovell]

It doesn't require the statute reference on the sign. But it does require that the sign be of a standardized design (apparently to be set by ISP; presumably it has done so. Of course their standard design might end up including the cite!) and certain dimensions (4x6). Perhaps you could ignore it on that basis, if it doesn't conform.

Or... just don't carry a Beretta 92. (They can be difficult to conceal in any case.)

That's not a Beretta 92, I'm just pleased to see you!

 

[SteveInCO]

So the sign in the OP is invalid. Wrong size, contains other text, does NOT contain the cite.

 

[MikeLovell]

The truth is nobody at this time knows if non ISP conforming signs have force of law or not. But if you read the specs for the ISP sign, the ISP sign doesn't conform to its own specs. Sign has to be 4x6 but the circle must measure 4 inches. But the circle doesn't touch the border around the sign

Hrm, this is another problem. The intent of the sign is obvious of course, but then if a sign has to meet certain requirements, why set such requirements if invalid signs still carry the weight of law!

 

[SteveInCO]

The truth is nobody at this time knows if non ISP conforming signs have force of law or not. But if you read the specs for the ISP sign, the ISP sign doesn't conform to its own specs. Sign has to be 4x6 but the circle must measure 4 inches. But the circle doesn't touch the border around the sign

I didn't spot your statement when I last posted but the fact that the circle was the same diameter as the height of the sign had occurred to me.

Well picture this. Some company decides to make signs that comply with these rules. 6x4 with a red circle four inches in diameter, so that the top and bottom of the circle just kiss the edge of the sign.

What happens if the printer is slightly off and the top (or bottom) edge of the red circle is not there because it wasn't centered precisely enough? I imagine lawyers could get in quite a wrangle over whether that's a valid sign or not. Judges tending to be anti gun will rule that it is.

 

[lockman]

I've been open carrying on my property in the suburbs (Grayslake). Both front and back lawn. No issues thus far. Anyone else do this? Or have any negative experiences?

Also Babys R Us have this posted...

Is the "Code 430 ILCS 66/1" reference REQUIRED or optional? (in two minds after reading the legislation).

Does the above look like valid signage to forbid CC (anything else that would make in unenforceable)?


Not that I'll likely be going there anymore Apparently people have tried contacting corporate before many times, brick wall.

The state Police have issued the standard signage requirement. A non-conforming sign would not have the force of law in those locations not prohibited by law.

The approved signage is the required legal notice that the owner is specifically prohibiting persons licensed under 430 ILCS 66/65 and only to that extent. I have seen gun buster signs that have been up since way longer than IL has had carry and I do not pay attention to them as they by definition under 430 ILCS 66/65 do not conform to the requirements to prohibit persons carrying under the FCCA.

Simply put, the old signs or non-conforming ones are for illegal guns which would be the case for anyone but LEO's or licensed security prior to the act, as the business' allowed cops to carry it had to apply to illegal guns only. Just my take. Now, whether to spend your money at any of these places is another thread.