Question of the day
Friday, Mar 21, 2014 - Posted by Rich Miller
* A letter to the editor by Nicole Chen, Western Springs, Illinois chapter leader, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America…
The new concealed-carry law in Illinois requires businesses to post a standardized 4-by-6-inch picture of a semiautomatic handgun with a red line through it at their entrances if they wish to prohibit guns in their establishments. […]
Members of the business community need to know about Illinois Senate Bill 2669, which would change the signage requirement.
Instead of business establishments posting signs if they prohibit guns, the bill says businesses are free to post a “Concealed Carry Allowed” sign if they choose. […]
(C)urrently, our state’s new concealed-carry law specifies places where guns are always prohibited (including schools, day-care centers, libraries and museums) — and requires those locations to post the same sign, featuring an image of a semiautomatic gun with a red line through it.
As we enter my 4-year-old’s preschool, this is the only sign on the door.
Parents and teachers are vocalizing concerns about the effect these signs have on our children, and how to address the fears and questions of little ones who face this image every day as they enter their schools.
These signs on our schools and libraries are 100 percent redundant, and Senate Bill 2669 would eliminate them.
* The bill is sponsored by Sen. Don Harmon. It has no co-sponsors and is still in a subcommittee. From the synopsis…
Amends the Firearm Concealed Carry Act. Provides that a person shall not carry a concealed firearm onto private real property of any type without prior permission from the property owner. Provides that a real property owner shall indicate permission to carry concealed firearms onto the property by clearly and conspicuously posting a sign at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property under his or her control, except this posting is not required if the property is a private residence. Provides that the sign shall be at least 4 inches by 6 inches in size (rather than exactly that size). Effective immediately.
* The Question: Should SB 2699 pass? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
survey services
- OneMan - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:36 pm:
Places all over the country have this already and their children are not growing up traumatized..
If it is a right (and the courts have basically said it is to a degree) then it should be the allowed restriction of that right that requires signage, not the other way around.
Show me there is a real problem with the way it is, kids questions are not necessarily a real problem.
- countyline - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:36 pm:
Another dumb idea in a long list of Harmon’s dumb anti-gun ideas. We post when something is NOT allowed, why should CCW be any different.
- SO IL M - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:49 pm:
This should be like anything else that is banned on a certain property just like no smoming signs or no trespassing etc. Besides if kids are traumatised by a sign there are bigger problems there.
- Johnny Q. Suburban - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:51 pm:
I guess “Won’t someone please think of the children” is in keeping with yesterday’s Simpsons theme.
These types of bills always strike me as overwrought.
- SO IL M - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:53 pm:
And as long as Rich doesnt post a No Typos sign I will be ok.
- HoosierDaddy - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 12:54 pm:
Dumb. Sen. Harmon should take a look at some of the latest research on the effects of over sheltering our children.
- Todd - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:01 pm:
they want to use this an an end around to gut the law becuase they lost on the issue.
I think that some of these people need counseling. it seems that the signs are an everyday reminder tht they lost, and now they have to be reminded of it in their daily lives.
Not a single other state does it this way. And if you are gong to penalize people for going into a GFZ,m then they need to be posted.
- DG Dad - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:10 pm:
No. A simple, objective answer like “guns are legal to carry in this state, but not here at your school, princess” is all she has to say to her son if he asks.
- Beatbox - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:11 pm:
Spare me. Why is everyone acting like IL is the first state to do this?
Part of me does sympathize, a sign like this can leave you the impression that something bad has happened. (like the blue “safety” lights). So if you don’t like the signs, ask stores to take them down.
Schools and mandatory prohibited places, however..you will have to get used to that.
Mom’s Looking for Action needs to chill.
- Precinct Captain - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:14 pm:
==And if you are gong to penalize people for going into a GFZ,m then they need to be posted.==
If concealers are so smart and law abiding, why do they need signs everywhere telling them “not here”?
- Upon Further Review - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:16 pm:
Could we wait until the new law has been in place for a bit before we begin tweaking it?
- Beatbox - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:19 pm:
Wait a second, isn’t Mom’s Demand Action FOR the signs? I mean, they are going door to door handing them out!
http://lagrange.patch.com/groups/business-news/p/moms-campaign-for-no-guns-allowed-signs-in-local-businesses
- Demoralized - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:19 pm:
I don’t care either way. To me posting a sign that guns are allowed vs. posting a sign that no guns are allowed is the same thing. I have no idea why this is interpreted as anti-gun, but I supposed for some anything dealing with guns is anti-gun.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:20 pm:
===If concealers are so smart and law abiding, why do they need signs===
So, I guess we can get rid of the no smoking signs posted everywhere too? C’mon. The “no” signs are the norm. Harmon is a good legislator, but this is one of the silliest bills of the year. It’s pandering to his base. He introduced it because he had a primary opponent. He won. I doubt he moves it very far, if at all.
- Mr. T - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:21 pm:
Why do we need concealed carry when all we need are the signs?
I will be safe, the signs will protect us all.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:22 pm:
I voted “no.”
Obviously, I was fine with the former status quo, but the new law was passed fair and square, with much give and take, overwhelmingly. C’est la vie.
Harmon is making mischief here, in a nasty way, playing to the extreme among his supporters by trying to force business owners to look like they’re bad guys who just love guns in their shops all the time.
That’s not good for business, and that’s not cool, dude.
I don’t think it will pass, but it’s awfully cynical.
I’m an Oak Parker, and if Harmon wants to do something more about gun violence, he can work to put a lid on the open air drug markets in Austin.
- SO IL M - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:27 pm:
Signs signs everywhere theres signs
Do this dont do that….cant you read the sign
- Jechislo - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:28 pm:
“Provides that a person shall not carry a concealed firearm onto private real property of any type without prior permission from the property owner.”
Could someone please legally define ‘private real property’ for me? Does this mean that I have to get permission from my neighbor when I come to pick up my kid from a playdate? Or, is this just referring to businesses?
Or is this maybe just another way to try to make criminals of law-abiding conceal carry citizens?
- RetiredArmyMP - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:34 pm:
This is one of the things Quinn tried in his amendatory veto of the CC bill - reverse signage, which no other state requires. This would have had the effect of prohibiting anyone from carrying a gun almost anywhere in public unless a property owner posted a sign specifically allowing guns - and how many places would do that, especially north of I-80? So now the gun banners want to pass a slew of bills that woul dhave the effect of saying OK, the courts said you have the right to carry a gun in public, but we’re going to ensure you won’t be able to go anywhere with it by making every public place a prohibited area.
=Parents and teachers are vocalizing concerns about the effect these signs have on our children, and how to address the fears and questions of little ones who face this image every day as they enter their schools.=
Who besides the very few members of Moms Demand Action? Nice try for the emotional appeal of protecting children from the scary signs, though.
- Amalia - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 1:40 pm:
enough with the “it’s scary for my kid” thing. it’s just like a no smoking sign. every time I see “mom” in the title of a gun regulations group,I know that they are not going to make any progress.
- Irish - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:03 pm:
I voted no on this bill.
However Channel 7 had a segment last night that brought up an issue I was unaware of. It was also about the signs but it addressed the concerns of business owners who are being told that if they post a no guns sign and an incident occurs then they could be liable for not allowing their patrons to protect themselves.
And contrarily, if they don’t post a sign and an incident happens they are also liable. The jist of the segment was that laws in other states remove any liability from business owners pro or con guns. Where Illinois law leaves business owners hanging.
I didn’t care for some of the teasers that preceded the segment, one started out “Guns, guns, everywhere…” but I also don’t put it past our GA to miss something like this.
- Palanon - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:14 pm:
I thought the current sign meant “No Beretta 92’s”.
- Norseman - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:19 pm:
No! This is essentially a prohibition by inaction.
- Odysseus - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:24 pm:
@Rich Miller:
“So, I guess we can get rid of the no smoking signs posted everywhere too? C’mon. The “no” signs are the norm.”
The default should be that concealed carry on private land should indeed require explicit permission.
- Ahoy! - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:34 pm:
Yes, it should have been opt in from the beginning.
- Anonymous - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:37 pm:
@Odysseus
Because the default for smoking on private property includes explicit permission?
No…the default is a no smoking sign.
- countyline - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 2:51 pm:
“Yes, it should have been opt in from the beginning”
Only because you prefer a de facto ban on CCW.
I see Harmon has his cronies stuffing the ballot box.
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:00 pm:
–I see Harmon has his cronies stuffing the ballot box.–
LOL, it’s 62% “no.” I voted “no.”
Dude, you are the Eternal Victim. You’re not a conservative, you’re just a whiner.
- cod - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:00 pm:
Most kids probably think the sign means no video games in school.
- Rod - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:12 pm:
I voted no, which is to be expected since I am member of the State Rifle Association. I don’t always agree with the ISRA, but on Senate Bill 2669 I totally agree with opposing it. By the way I don’t have a concealed carry permit and I am not planning on getting one either.
But it is more than obvious what is going on, the gun control advocates who have lost in court are trying yet again to restrict the rights of those who chose to get a concealed carry permit. It won’t work and eventually it will stop when bill after bill is killed. But what a waste of the General Assembly’s time.
- Jerry - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:16 pm:
I voted yes - quite clearly businesses will be lining up to invite gun owners onto their property. I mean, it’s not like Illinois had concealed carry forced upon it, we’ve all been clamoring for more weapons for years. I say ‘opt in’ signage and I can virtually guarantee that within 6 months there will be almost no businesses that won’t allow guns in. After all, there’s nothing more American that apple pie, baseball, and lots of guns. Yeehah!
- Demoralized - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:17 pm:
==Only because you prefer a de facto ban on CCW.==
Man you really need to get a grip.
- Mechanic - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:22 pm:
I would have thought that Illinois legislators, school officials, and parents have been so successful in eradicating images of guns that the little ones would look at the sign and ask: “mommy, what’s that?”
- Louis Howe - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:31 pm:
I agree the bill is silly, but no sillier than allowing concealed-carry. I voted yes, so that I could avoid businesses welcoming the paranoid and other gun nuts.
- Caffeinated - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:31 pm:
Voted yes. Argument is always that criminals don’t read signs, so who are they for? If they’re for concealed carry holders, don’t they go to class for that? Learn in the class that unless a private business invites you in with you loaded weapon, then it’s not welcome. That way, business owners could be spared the hassle of making political statements just because the don’t want guns in; one that could ruin their trade.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:32 pm:
===spared the hassle of making political statements just because the don’t want guns in; one that could ruin their trade. ===
Oh, please. The opposite wouldn’t be even more true?
- wordslinger - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:39 pm:
I’ve noticed that in the Loop that the commercial skyscrapers put the “no-gun” signs on their buildings.
That makes sense, that’s just corporate risk management, no biggy, just like a no-smoking sign.
Out in the neighborhoods, and I share Sen. Harmon’s neighborhood, I’ve seen very few “no guns” signs at one-story businesses.
That’s anecdotal, of course, but it’s been noticeable to me. In my experience, it’s not much of an issue for small private businesses.
- Louis Howe - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:44 pm:
Rich….I am not clear on your response “The opposite wouldn’t be even more true?” Are you saying that businesses required to post a sign such as “We welcome all concealed-carry gun owners” would increase their business traffic?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:46 pm:
===would increase their business traffic? ===
LOL. No, in Cook it would kill their businesses off.
- railrat - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:47 pm:
voted NO Sen. Harmon knows it’s worth he just complied to a “wish”
- Hit or Miss - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:47 pm:
I think that it is too soon to change the law. The important question is not about the effect of the impact of the sign on children. Much more important to me is the question of the liability of the property owner as expressed or implied by the law and the presence or non-presence of the sign.
WLS TV carried a story yesterday about the liability of property owners with the new law titled “Concealed carry law raises liability concerns for business owners”.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/iteam&id=9474540
At some point the courts will decide on who carries the liability burden. Will the liability be on the property owner? or the gun owner? At that point (following the court decisions) property owners may wish to consider their options related to their liability, if any, under the law as currently written.
- Jerry - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:55 pm:
=== LOL. No, in Cook it would kill their businesses off. ===
If you agree that having an opinion one way or another, which is what placing a sign is, would have a detrimental effect on a business - then why single out only those who don’t want guns. A better solution would be to have everyone post a sign for or against. Then we see who really wants the guns versus who does not but are too worried to put a sign up for fear of loss of trade.
- Louis Howe - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 3:58 pm:
Actually, Wordslinger, I’ve noticed more no-gun signs than I thought would be posted, given the actual licensing so far. The Springfield YMCA, hospitals, doctors’ offices, Starbucks and some other local businesses. If I were still in business, I’d post one. If I owned an eating establishment that sold any amount of liquor, I’d definitely post a sign.
- Kevin Highland - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 4:11 pm:
Voted: No
This is a silly law and would make Illinois backwards compared to every other state.
I rarely agree with Speaker Madigan but I believe waiting a year to make any changes to the FCCA is the correct thing to do. This will allow it to be fully implemented. After that we can consider what works and what doesn’t.
- Mr. T - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 4:14 pm:
The sign will do nothing to stop gun crimes.
It may encourage gun crimes.
Everyone obeys other signs like speed limits,
red lights, one way, handicap, and stop signs.
- Louis Howe - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 4:17 pm:
@ Rick “LOL. No, in Cook it would kill their businesses off.”
Right Rich, and I am pretty sure it would hurt most businesses downstate as well. The ONLY reason this type of gun legislation passes is that some downstate legislators, unable to do anything really meaningful legislatively, stand on a soap box shouting about gun control. Intimidated by the minority, but vocal bullet voters, they champion guns because they can’t get it up for anything else.
- Michael C - Friday, Mar 21, 14 @ 4:21 pm:
I am a parent and I dislike having my children seeing these signs. I applaude their effort to change the conversation.
- countyline - Monday, Mar 24, 14 @ 9:44 am:
Keep it classy, LH.
- Anonymous - Monday, Mar 24, 14 @ 12:40 pm:
@Louis Howe
“so i can avoid the paranoid and other gun nuts”
How reasonable of you. I’m sure you consider our police force paranoid and gun crazed?
Lol unreal.
- Odysseus - Monday, Mar 24, 14 @ 1:18 pm:
@Anonymous:
“I’m sure you consider our police force paranoid and gun crazed?”
I’m not sure how to respond to this. There is plenty of evidence that they are more than they should be.
But even that is a red herring. Concealed carry has nothing whatsoever to do with police powers.
- Anonymous - Tuesday, Mar 25, 14 @ 5:10 pm:
@Odysseus
Louis Howe made the claim “so i can avoid the paranoid and other gun nuts”
Implying people who carry a firearm are paranoid, or nuts.
I am calling him on his assertion.
I see you neglected to respond to my comments directed at you @Mar 21, 14 @ 2:37 pm