That video does show how desperate Illinois is to restrict rights, but like other states that have gone shall-issue, Illinois will feel the steady pressure of the people demanding places be removed from the prohibited list.
"Lawmakers were forced to cobble together the new law after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state's long-standing concealed carry ban in December 2012."
I'm afraid I have zero sympathy for the lawmakers. They put off doing anything until the last minute in the hopes that the Attorney General would appeal it. You have but to listen to the video of them reading off the rules to see what a mess the law is. But, this is Illinois we're talking about.
You can ride a bicycle through a park in Chicago legally, but you cant legally stop in the park to use a restroom? And it only applies to that particular park in Chicago? That takes complicated to new levels.
I don't think so. In some places it's probably worse, they wouldn't even allow you to use the bike path if you're armed. Isn't that the classic problem with various city ordinances?
"Isn't that the classic problem with various city ordinances?"
You are correct. And many states have preemption laws in place to prevent this. That way there is one set of laws that everyone knows about. Many gun control advocates don't like preemption laws. And if I recall correctly, you sided against preemption in regards to the ordinance passed by Sunnyvale CA. Has your opinion changed? Or am I misreading?
No, my opinion has not hanged in spite of the exaggerated annoyance of the over-acting characters in this video. If carrying a gun is so difficult, then leave it home. You don't need it anyway.
"Brian Malte, national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the NRA has a track record of getting states to gradually ease up on requirements, often after initially throwing its support behind tougher standards."
This comment is really funny considering its also the same tactic used by gun control advocates.
You stated I did not answer your question. Since I have answered all your questions, please, again, tell me which question I did not answer and I will reply. You can use that URL garbage on anon, but not me. If I quote you, it's a direct reprint of your own words. Now, do you want to try and reply to my question, or just change the subject like (as anon says) a cowardly liar?
I require a URL because I don't trust your side to quote accurately and in context. The question that you haven't answered is under what circumstances you carry a gun.
Well then go back and reread my reply, because you just lied again. My "side?" I'm not Steve. I did not reprint your quotes. Since your words are printed on this site, that's good enough for me. You can use whatever you want to define, or explain your words. including whatever you think Steve left out. "Revenge is justice" is one statement by you. That is wrong and criminal thinking. Now post whatever was left out that explains that thinking on your part. As I said before I'm not playing along with your cowardly excuse for URL's. It's YOUR game and then you claim if a URL is not provided, you never said it. BULLSHIT, cowardly liar. Play your childish, cowardly games with Steve.
"Do you ever comply with "no guns allowed" signs, or do you bring your gun anywhere you want?"
Different states have different rules when it comes to posting. In Minnesota, the sign is required to meet standards of size, wording, and posting location to ensure recognition. If you are found to be carrying in a posted business and refuse to leave, then you can be cited for trespassing. I carry concealed, and could likely go in without notice, but I respect the signs and vote with my wallet. While everyone has been claiming victory with Starbucks bending to the will of the MOMs, while they made the statement they did, as far as I know, they haven't formally posted to legally ban carry. A local mall has their entrances posted to ban carry, though the signage is not to standard and state law specifically prohibits landlords (mall owners) from posting, so I ignore it. In this case, I actually emailed the management informing them that they couldn't legally post and got no reply. My guess is the signage might have been there prior to the current law's passage.
The president of Starbucks has asked that people do not bring their guns in his stores; but like the site cowardly liar, you refuse his request. According to you guys he has no business asking you to not bring your guns into his store, and you will ignore his request and bring your guns into his stores.
As I said Mike, the posting at the mall was both the wrong format AND specifically prohibited by law. In the case of the mall, individual stores are allowed to post, just not the whole mall. As for other places, I tend not to go there because they post. That is called voting with your wallet.
A business has every right to put stipulations on the condition of people who enter their store. No drunks allowed. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No guns allowed. Instead of ignoring and breaking their legitimate requests, why don't you just go somewhere else, instead of insisting on telling them to shove their rules?
"why don't you just go somewhere else, instead of insisting on telling them to shove their rules?"
As I said, I do just that. Malls are specifically prohibited from posting because they are considered landlords. That would be the equivalent of a landlord telling you that you cant keep firearms in the house or apartment you are renting. In the case of malls in the state, individual stores can ban guns by properly posting. In the case I've mentioned, more proof that this sign is likely old is that there is currently a sporting goods store there that sells firearms. As for the email I sent to the mall management, I didn't tell them to shove it. I just informed them that their sign was improper.
Mike, I tend to keep my shirt on as a public service to others who might see me. Private establishments are perfectly free to ban whomever they want, because its their property.
Anon, When I carry, as with most of those who have carry permits, I follow the law. The law went through a very rigorous debate process during its passage and also experienced a challenge on constitutional grounds in regards to churches. It has also now been in force over ten years with few changes being needed. Mike often says that things need to be spelled out in a law to insure compliance. So its spelled out, and I do comply. If it isn't important enough to make a lawful request, why should I feel obligated to try and follow everyone's hints? The CEO of Starbucks in his statement also said that if anyone did carry, they wouldn't be turned away.
Proof again you will do what you want to do, not what others request you do on their property. I'm sure you would get angry with people who do not follow your request of behavior on your property.
Greg's ways are different than mine, but both are legal. Starbucks is engaged in what Mike would call artful dodging. They could easily have sided with the MOMs by formally banning guns in their venues and would be within their rights. Or they could have stuck to their guns (pun intended) and stayed with their previous policy which is what the majority of businesses do currently, in that if you are following local laws, it isn't a problem. Instead they tried to make a statement that has no force of law and likely succeeded in satisfying no one. Baldr tried to list incidents that happened inside, outside, or even nearby a Starbucks to try to show there was a problem, but they all turned out to be people who weren't legally carrying.
There is no law on the books that says I cannot bring my gun on your property, but I'll bet you would use my action as an excuse to pull your gun on me, or even shoot me.
"There is no law on the books that says I cannot bring my gun on your property,"
Provided I invite you onto it. In my case, I'm not running a business, so the implication is that you need permission to enter. When you run a business that is open to the public you are inviting anyone who wishes to enter onto your property. Private businesses are free to limit entrance such as you see when they impose dress codes, and also banning people who carry firearms. You can also be asked to leave after you enter, even if there is no sign simply because the owner wants you gone. For example, if you're behaving loudly and rudely and disturbing other customers. Surely you aren't implying that walking into someone's home without permission and walking into a business open to the public are similar.
"When you run a business that is open to the public you are inviting anyone who wishes to enter onto your property." What a crock of shit from the shit giver.
That video does show how desperate Illinois is to restrict rights, but like other states that have gone shall-issue, Illinois will feel the steady pressure of the people demanding places be removed from the prohibited list.
ReplyDelete"Lawmakers were forced to cobble together the new law after the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the state's long-standing concealed carry ban in December 2012."
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid I have zero sympathy for the lawmakers. They put off doing anything until the last minute in the hopes that the Attorney General would appeal it. You have but to listen to the video of them reading off the rules to see what a mess the law is. But, this is Illinois we're talking about.
I thought it was pretty much like that in many states.
DeleteYou can ride a bicycle through a park in Chicago legally, but you cant legally stop in the park to use a restroom? And it only applies to that particular park in Chicago? That takes complicated to new levels.
DeleteI don't think so. In some places it's probably worse, they wouldn't even allow you to use the bike path if you're armed. Isn't that the classic problem with various city ordinances?
DeleteIllinois is an example of how making things complicated is a bad idea.
Delete"Isn't that the classic problem with various city ordinances?"
DeleteYou are correct. And many states have preemption laws in place to prevent this. That way there is one set of laws that everyone knows about.
Many gun control advocates don't like preemption laws. And if I recall correctly, you sided against preemption in regards to the ordinance passed by Sunnyvale CA.
Has your opinion changed? Or am I misreading?
No, my opinion has not hanged in spite of the exaggerated annoyance of the over-acting characters in this video. If carrying a gun is so difficult, then leave it home. You don't need it anyway.
DeleteIt's not so difficult in most states. No thanks to you.
Delete"Brian Malte, national policy director for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said the NRA has a track record of getting states to gradually ease up on requirements, often after initially throwing its support behind tougher standards."
ReplyDeleteThis comment is really funny considering its also the same tactic used by gun control advocates.
Do you ever comply with "no guns allowed" signs, or do you bring your gun anywhere you want?
ReplyDeleteI presume that question is directed at ss. Greg's already told us his policy is "bad laws be damned."
DeleteI'll answer your question after you answer mine, Jim.
DeleteWhich question?
DeleteYour refusal to answer questions is well documented on this site.
Any time you want to ask a question, go for it. But if you're quoting me, you have to provide a URL to the original comment since I don't trust you.
DeleteYou stated I did not answer your question. Since I have answered all your questions, please, again, tell me which question I did not answer and I will reply. You can use that URL garbage on anon, but not me. If I quote you, it's a direct reprint of your own words. Now, do you want to try and reply to my question, or just change the subject like (as anon says) a cowardly liar?
DeleteI require a URL because I don't trust your side to quote accurately and in context. The question that you haven't answered is under what circumstances you carry a gun.
DeleteWell then go back and reread my reply, because you just lied again.
DeleteMy "side?"
I'm not Steve. I did not reprint your quotes. Since your words are printed on this site, that's good enough for me. You can use whatever you want to define, or explain your words. including whatever you think Steve left out.
"Revenge is justice" is one statement by you. That is wrong and criminal thinking. Now post whatever was left out that explains that thinking on your part.
As I said before I'm not playing along with your cowardly excuse for URL's. It's YOUR game and then you claim if a URL is not provided, you never said it. BULLSHIT, cowardly liar. Play your childish, cowardly games with Steve.
Of course, no reply from the lying coward.
Delete"Do you ever comply with "no guns allowed" signs, or do you bring your gun anywhere you want?"
ReplyDeleteDifferent states have different rules when it comes to posting. In Minnesota, the sign is required to meet standards of size, wording, and posting location to ensure recognition. If you are found to be carrying in a posted business and refuse to leave, then you can be cited for trespassing.
I carry concealed, and could likely go in without notice, but I respect the signs and vote with my wallet. While everyone has been claiming victory with Starbucks bending to the will of the MOMs, while they made the statement they did, as far as I know, they haven't formally posted to legally ban carry.
A local mall has their entrances posted to ban carry, though the signage is not to standard and state law specifically prohibits landlords (mall owners) from posting, so I ignore it. In this case, I actually emailed the management informing them that they couldn't legally post and got no reply. My guess is the signage might have been there prior to the current law's passage.
So, because the sign isn't the right kind you ignore it? Isn't the successful communication of the owner's wishes enough for you?
DeleteA business open to the public has to accept the public coming in.
DeleteThe president of Starbucks has asked that people do not bring their guns in his stores; but like the site cowardly liar, you refuse his request. According to you guys he has no business asking you to not bring your guns into his store, and you will ignore his request and bring your guns into his stores.
DeleteAs I said Mike, the posting at the mall was both the wrong format AND specifically prohibited by law. In the case of the mall, individual stores are allowed to post, just not the whole mall.
DeleteAs for other places, I tend not to go there because they post. That is called voting with your wallet.
A business has every right to put stipulations on the condition of people who enter their store. No drunks allowed. No shirt, no shoes, no service. No guns allowed. Instead of ignoring and breaking their legitimate requests, why don't you just go somewhere else, instead of insisting on telling them to shove their rules?
Delete"why don't you just go somewhere else, instead of insisting on telling them to shove their rules?"
DeleteAs I said, I do just that. Malls are specifically prohibited from posting because they are considered landlords. That would be the equivalent of a landlord telling you that you cant keep firearms in the house or apartment you are renting.
In the case of malls in the state, individual stores can ban guns by properly posting. In the case I've mentioned, more proof that this sign is likely old is that there is currently a sporting goods store there that sells firearms.
As for the email I sent to the mall management, I didn't tell them to shove it. I just informed them that their sign was improper.
So you disagree with Greg, who has stated he would bring his gun into Starbucks regardless of Starbucks asking him not to?
Deletess, do you also boycott establishments that post sings like Anonymous mentioned, "no shoes, no shit, no service?" It's the same principle, isn't it?
DeleteMike,
DeleteI tend to keep my shirt on as a public service to others who might see me. Private establishments are perfectly free to ban whomever they want, because its their property.
Typical gun loon. They only follow laws and requests, they feel are legitimate.
DeleteAnon,
DeleteWhen I carry, as with most of those who have carry permits, I follow the law. The law went through a very rigorous debate process during its passage and also experienced a challenge on constitutional grounds in regards to churches. It has also now been in force over ten years with few changes being needed.
Mike often says that things need to be spelled out in a law to insure compliance. So its spelled out, and I do comply. If it isn't important enough to make a lawful request, why should I feel obligated to try and follow everyone's hints? The CEO of Starbucks in his statement also said that if anyone did carry, they wouldn't be turned away.
Proof again you will do what you want to do, not what others request you do on their property. I'm sure you would get angry with people who do not follow your request of behavior on your property.
DeleteGreg's ways are different than mine, but both are legal. Starbucks is engaged in what Mike would call artful dodging. They could easily have sided with the MOMs by formally banning guns in their venues and would be within their rights. Or they could have stuck to their guns (pun intended) and stayed with their previous policy which is what the majority of businesses do currently, in that if you are following local laws, it isn't a problem.
ReplyDeleteInstead they tried to make a statement that has no force of law and likely succeeded in satisfying no one.
Baldr tried to list incidents that happened inside, outside, or even nearby a Starbucks to try to show there was a problem, but they all turned out to be people who weren't legally carrying.
So unless it's a law there's no reason to comply? A request isn't good enough?
DeleteThere is no law on the books that says I cannot bring my gun on your property, but I'll bet you would use my action as an excuse to pull your gun on me, or even shoot me.
Delete"There is no law on the books that says I cannot bring my gun on your property,"
DeleteProvided I invite you onto it. In my case, I'm not running a business, so the implication is that you need permission to enter. When you run a business that is open to the public you are inviting anyone who wishes to enter onto your property.
Private businesses are free to limit entrance such as you see when they impose dress codes, and also banning people who carry firearms. You can also be asked to leave after you enter, even if there is no sign simply because the owner wants you gone. For example, if you're behaving loudly and rudely and disturbing other customers.
Surely you aren't implying that walking into someone's home without permission and walking into a business open to the public are similar.
"When you run a business that is open to the public you are inviting anyone who wishes to enter onto your property."
DeleteWhat a crock of shit from the shit giver.
"Greg's ways are different than mine, but both are legal.'
DeleteOne makes you a stupid ass hole, and will get you shot someday.