Posted on 10/13/2013 12:48:34 PM PDT by Libloather
With some businesses eager to let people know guns aren’t welcome, the Illinois State Police on Friday released the official sign to indicate a concealed carry ban.
Businesses can download the state-approved sign for banning concealed carry on the Illinois State Police Web site.
This summer, one Chicago restuarant put up a makeshift “no weapons” sign following the passage of Illinois’ concealed carry law. Keefer’s Restaurant managing partner Glenn Keefer expressed concerns about people carrying guns in his restaurant that serves alcohol as well as food.
Permits for concealed carry become available online on Jan. 5.
(Excerpt) Read more at chicagotribune.com ...
Sounds like a “Please don’t do business here” sign.
Who will track armed holdups at public establishments based on CC ban vs CC permitted? Concerned readers want to know.
“We don’t want your filthy money, take it somewhere else!” is what I’m hearing.
so only Beretta 92's are banned???
These business would no longer be safe, do not go in if you value your life.
And tell them that if a shooting does happen at their establishment, the victims will be supplied with copies of the official notice notifying them of the danger.
A “gun free zone” is a feel good act of empty headed symbolism. How about “Shoplifting free zones” at stores? That would be effective. Or perhaps “No rioting zones” in the inner cities. The insane concept of a sign preventing carnage is beyond comprehension.
Not a problem...carry a revolver.
Not a problem...carry a revolver.
Since liberals know little about firearms, they probably intend it to mean all pistols. Revolver owners throughout Illinois rejoice . . .
pretty much...
how about no catholics? or no muslims
they forgot to print up the second sign:
YO, HOMIES, WE ALL UNARMED IN HERE
they forgot to add “criminals- this means you too!”
That’s OK.
The gun on the sign is obviously a Beretta.
I carry a Walther.
” so only Beretta 92’s are banned???”
That’s good. I guessed that means my Beretta 96 is good to go...
LOL, guess so... worth a try anyway 8^)
I didn’t say it was a good idea. I said I had no problem with it from a Second Amendment standpoint.
I believe that the way this works out, a business has now taken the responsibility unto themselves to protect the employees and customers inside by displaying that sign. If any business with that sign is robbed and people besides the perps or police, they better be covered for it; if not, the business will be under new ownership - as well as the home(s) of the proprietor of the business.
Nonsense.
WTH! You obviously read the article.
WTH! You obviously read the article.
The unions have, for years, carried “Don’t Buy ... “ sections in their magazines. Too bad gun nuts we don’t do more of that. What irks me is the national sneaky-snake businesses that, depending on what state they are in are either anti-gun, or silent on the matter. A bit of sunlight on this subject is long overdue.
Keefer's is a fine restaurant with excellent food and service, but I won't be going there anymore. I REFUSE to step into a KILLING FIELD. Anyplace that doesn't allow one to defend ones self and their loved ones is a killing field IMO.
Bye By Keefers, I've enjoyed your restaurant over the last decade, but not any more.
That’s an AK-47, don’t you know. Ask a liberal.
Nor would I, subject to some conditions. A business which establishes a gun-free zone should be considered absolutely liable if someone comes to harm while in the gun-free zone, and if is is plausible that such harm was a consequence of the policy. Unless a business allows people to check their firearms on entry and retrieve them on exit, the gun-free zone created by a business will be deemed to extend to the nearest practical place where a person could store and later retrieve their weapon.
Even under such a rule, it's likely some businesses might opt to operate as a gun-free zone. For example, a jewelry store might have a guarded entryway with "airlock-style" security doors, a metal detector, and a "gun check" desk. Such security measures wouldn't be cheap, but if the shop instituted them to protect its merchandise, the shop could probably also protect its customers. Further, businesses could announce that people observed with firearms would be asked to leave and in most cases asked never return.
Allowing businesses to post "no guns" signs without imposing liability or other requirements upon them may not be an infringement upon the Second Amendment per se, but is problematic for another reason: businesses are not generally allowed to impose rules which are backed by criminal law. If a movie theater has a posted "no outside food or drink" policy, it would have the authority to eject without a refund anyone whom it found to be in violation, but could not prosecute such a person for anything. I can think of no case other than "no guns" signs where a business would have the right to declare mere possession of an otherwise-legal object to be a criminal offense unless it could establish some probable criminal intent. It's unclear how mere possession of a concealed firearm would meet that test, given that such firearms are routinely possessed by people whose sole intention is to use them in lawful self defense should the need arise.
Agree, however I'd add that Keefers is now advertising itself as a killing field to any whackjob who wants to go in, start shooting, and not have to worry about getting shot himself.
Every mass killing these past many years have happened in GUN FREE ZONES. I refuse to step into one.
Thank God. Now all will be safe as criminals bearing arms are no longer allowed in those SAFE stores. (Major sarc alert )
A “NO WEAPONS” SIGN means that the law abiding citizen will no longer take his concealed carry into the business. For the common criminal it means, “easy target” - no one inside this business is armed. It will be a piece of cake.
Put those fake bullet holes all over it.
It will be down in minutes.
I made it a point to talk to each owner who did and told them I would be taking my business elsewhere because of this and I encouraged my family and friends to do the same.
There are only two businesses in our town with the signs up today.
Agreed. (see my tagline)
If a business has conspicuous armed security, and provides a guarded place for law-abiding citizens to store their firearms before they enter the main part of the business, and retrieve them where they leave, I would not consider a policy that required that the only armed personnel within the business be the guards to be an invitation to criminals. Some businesses that handle very large amounts of cash or valuable merchandise (such as jewelry) might decide that metal detectors and other security offered sufficient tactical advantages to their security personnel as to justify the expense.
Of course, businesses which seek to disarm the law-abiding *without* offering any security as an alternative beyond "hope for the best" are another matter.
The best bet is if you can muster a group of people, and if its a restaurant make reservations, and then, when the business gets dollar signs in its eyes, at the last minute say, “Oops! I’m sorry, we can’t (eat, buy, or even come inside), because you have a no gun policy. Darn! Can you recommend a business that does what you do but permits guns?”
Also known as “a competitor”. This puts a little salt on their wound.
Amusingly, it being Chicago, they may likely try to “waive the rules” for you.
“Oh, we just couldn’t! It wouldn’t be fair to your other customers.”
ping
They are identifying themselves as a dangerous place to be.
I suppose on the one hand we ought to be grateful to know this and avoid them entirely.
This sign means we don’t want legal law abiding people to carry guns. The other people are going to do what they want sign or no sign. I try to stay out of trouble and dangerous places, that’s why I don’t patronize “gun free’ establishments and work at staying out of “gun free zones”.
I see that the next poster notified you of what your statement means. It is nonsense. I see Freepers say the same thing and there does not appear to be any evidence that the proprietor assumes any responsibility for your safety. Do you know of a case where this has happened, i.e., an establishment successfully sued on this basis?I await your answer.
That’s not a Beretta. That’s an assault rifle.
It’s absolute nonsense. Consider the alternative . . . would a business with a “guns welcome” sign be liable if someone gets shot on the premises?
What if they put up this sign? What I have going on underneath my clothes in nobody's business but mine and my wife's.
“I see the next poster notified you of what your statement means. It is nonsense. I see Freepers say the same thing and there does not appear to be any evidence that the proprietor assumes any responsibility for your safety. Do you know of a case where this has happened, i.e., an establishment successfully sued on this basis?I await your answer.”
Well (unfortunately), we shall see. But I can see that argument working, particularly in states that have a very limited list of places where guns can be excluded from and yet the employers have a “no weapons” policy.
my bad, i shoulda checked first... 
Should have used a cartoon gun instead. The sign is intended for a segment of the population too ignorant to identify even common weapons by silhouette.
Ping for later
seriesly .. don't let's get carried away with THAT absurd notion !
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.