The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) issued this Informational Alert today about the "No Guns Allowed" signs that are beginning to appear. I saw my first one in Woodstock yesterday at 100 N. Benton St. That building houses Headstart on the first floor, and I believe there may be residential housing above it. I wonder how that sign affects a resident there.
WHAT TO DO ABOUT THOSE PESKY "NO-GUNS" SIGNS
As you may know, the
concealed carry law enacted last year ironically includes provisions
that will greatly impede your ability to defend yourself against violent
criminals. Among these impediments to self defense is a provision
allowing private property owners to prohibit concealed firearms on their
property. The law requires such property owners to post
government-approved "no guns allowed" signs on property entrances.
As implementation of
concealed carry goes forward, more and more of these "no guns allowed"
signs will be springing up in businesses across Illinois. Although
law-abiding firearm owners are offended by such signs, most of us accept
that private property owners are free to limit access to their property
as they see fit. Nonetheless, the placement of such signs poses some
serious public policy implications to those who honor free exercise of
basic human rights.
In practical terms, the
official "no guns allowed" sign actually declares, "No Self Defense
Permitted Beyond this Point." Thus, a property owner who posts a "no
guns allowed" sign is telling you point blank, "I don't care if you and
your family are in danger, I will not allow you to defend yourself."
The net effect of the property-owner's self-righteous indignation is
that anyone who enters the posted property unarmed is being set up for
violent attack.
The beauty of concealed
carry is that only handful of citizens need to be armed in order to
protect the greater part of society from harm. This benefit arises out
of the fact that would-be criminals are never really sure which citizens
around them may be armed. As a result, their criminal urges may be
stifled in the interest of not getting shot.
Given the deterrent
value of concealed carry, the posting of "no guns allowed" signs openly
invites criminals to enter a business to commit mayhem without the fear
of facing an armed citizen. Under the concealed carry statute, persons
licensed to carry must obey these signs. By their very nature,
criminals will not be deterred by a plastic pictogram stuck to a
window. Consequently, armed criminals will be absolutely assured that
nobody in the establishment is capable of warding off their violent
behavior. "No guns allowed" signs give a distinct advantage to those
who seek to harm others.
For thugs who may be too
shy to perform for an audience, the parking lots of "no guns allowed"
establishments would be little more to their liking. It would be a
given that anyone leaving such a business would be unarmed and, thus,
easy pickings for robbers or rapists. Likewise, these criminals would
be free to burglarize cars in the parking lot to harvest guns dutifully
left behind by permit holders who enter the antigun business.
All in all, it's
distinctly possible that posting a "no guns allowed" sign makes
patronizing a business more dangerous now that concealed carry has been
passed than it had been to patronize the same store before the passage
of concealed carry.
Quite a few people have
contacted ISRA headquarters to report businesses that have posted "no
guns allowed" signs. Many of the people ask how they should respond to
the posting of such signs. Below are our recommendations.
1. Carrying a concealed
firearm in to an establishment bearing an official "no guns allowed"
sign is not lawful and should not be attempted.
2. Business owners who
post "no guns allowed" signs consider lawful firearm owners to be social
outcasts. Therefore, those businesses should be avoided, but not
without first hearing how displeased you are with their decision. We
recommend that you ask to see the manager and then politely tell him or
her that you are a lawful firearm owner and that you disagree with their
position on concealed carry. Advise the manager further that, as long
as the offensive sign is posted, you will not spend money at their
establishment and that you will tell all your friends to avoid doing
business with them as well.
3. Reward businesses who allow concealed carry by spending money in their establishments.
4. Remain active in the gun rights movement at a local level.
5. Join the ISRA.
6. Donate to the ISRA so that we may carry on the fight to preserve, protect, and enhance gun rights in the state.
6 comments:
I will NEVER shop or eat at a place that displays that sign.
I have to play devils advocate and suggest that some of these business owners may be responding to the demands of their customers, landlords or insurance carriers. I have great sympathy for small business owners being put in this position, no doubt choosing between vocal customers on both sides of the issue.
Gus - I'd be interested to read the stories/reasoning behind business owners decisions one way or another.
I'll collect some stories. I gave a ride to a neighbor to Prairie State Legal Service today. A No-Guns sign is on the door to their offices, but after you enter the building lobby. Their reasoning? "We don't want people with guns in our offices."
What they mean is, they don't want BAD people with guns in their offices. How does the Good Guy defend himself, if the Bad Guy ignores the sign and enters?
Hey Gus -
All well-written & well-stated in both your post and comments.
Yes, it gets complicated
I think the best thing for all concerned is to look at the relevance, experience and actual reality of what amounts to 49 other states' experience on this, in consideration that Illinois is finally the VERY LAST STATE of among 50, that are trying to find their way on this. And sadly, it was the Supreme Court that had to remind the Illinois State Legislature - and higher courts as regards the City of Chicago - that YES! There is a inviolable Bill of RIGHTS! LOL!
What caught my curiosity was your example of the Benton St. Building. Your exposition on various other properties and businesses well discusses the issues. Like you, I will absolutely respect ANY posted "no gun" zones. That's their right and prerogative, and so it is mine also to decide whether or not to patronize them, as regards all the other issues and potential for "informed" and potential dangers at such "no-gun" venues.
As you and I might say, "Uh-Duh!
Questions, though, as regards Benton St:
1) Is that policy Headstart's - or is it the policy of the Building owner? I doubt the building owner can legally do so. After all, even by previous Illinois law, citizens have an already established right to own a gun and defend themselves either on their owned property or within their leasehold.
You already have established case law in other States - some of which have already been decided by superior courts - or the Supreme Court - that even employees of "no gun" workplaces HAVE been allowed the right to "pack" in their glove compartments. Further court decisions have also allowed those arriving by any other means of transport to still carry, but that they be granted a facility by which they have the means to check in their guns on arrival.
2) Whether residential or commercial, the other tenants of this building still have their own previously-established gun rights on private property that they can reserve and should be able to rely on.
Where is the "gun-free zone" sign? If there's a separate vestibule for the upstairs space, I would assume that sign means nothing for upstairs.
Even if there's a common vestibule for all tenants? As long as the sign itself is within the window of the Headstart offices themselves? I would logically assume it relates to the Headstart leasehold only.
If there's any possible confusion whatsoever? Headstart (and the rest of us) would be best served by having that sign posted at the very point where you enter their property or leasehold only.
Dave, thanks for your good comment. In this example, the no-guns sign is on the entrance door to the lobby. Head Start has its own door off the lobby. Attorney Jim Hecht had an office off that lobby, too; I don't who is in that office now.
The Village Cove (senior independent living) was (or is) on the second floor at 104 N. Benton. Trying to remember if it was the same entrance.
As you stated then, Headstart needs to get that sign out of a shared lobby, and either post the sign in either or both their own exclusive outside window and/or outside their own exclusive entry to their offices from the vestibule. Same for Village Cove, if that's their preference as well. Remaining tenants have their own right to declare as they wish.
That they don't know this logical, argued and PROVEN reality? Hey - "good enough for government work"?! Ignoramuses - which is (thankfully or resignedly), all that we know we can expect of government employees and related mentality.
If it's the landlord that's not paying attention? I think they then have a world of hurt applicable that they're not aware of, and they better get it straightened out to their own liable satisfaction!
Post a Comment