IL restricted places: day Care facility?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

milemaker13

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
1,389
Location
Chicago suburbs
My boy has recently started going to day care. They don't have the silly "no gun" stickers on the doors (thank God), but I'm not sure if day care facilities are restricted places.
Its a corporate place, not like park district or similar.
 
From the act:

(2) Any building, real property, and parking area
under the control of a pre-school or child care facility, including any room or portion of a building under the control of a pre-school or child care facility. Nothing in this paragraph shall prevent the operator of a child care facility in a family home from owning or possessing a firearm in the home or license under this Act, if no child under child care at the home is present in the home or the firearm in the home is stored in a locked container when a child under child care at the home is present in the home.

I wouldn't carry there.
 
TomJ- thank you for the clarification. I now remember this from CCW class. I will be sure to continue locking it in the car.

I'm still glad they didn't post those silly "no gun" stickers.... I can't think of a dumber thing to post on your building.
 
It brings up another question that I'm a little unclear on. What is the crime/punishment for carrying in a place that has chosen to post the " no gun" stickers? Not a restricted place by law, but a private business (a mom & pop store or restaurant, for example).
 
milemaker13 said:
It brings up another question that I'm a little unclear on. What is the crime/punishment for carrying in a place that has chosen to post the " no gun" stickers? Not a restricted place by law, but a private business (a mom & pop store or restaurant, for example).
Click to expand...

Attached is the text from the act. As far as I can tell, it's increasing penalties for continued violations. Keep in mind that we live in an anti-gun state, so don't be surprised if they try to find a way to throw the book at you for any violations.


A licensee in violation of this subsection (d) shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first or second violation and a Class 4 felony for a third violation. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for a third violation.
(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees.
(f) A licensee convicted or found guilty of a violation of this Act who has a valid license and is otherwise eligible to carry a concealed firearm shall only be subject to the penalties under this Section and shall not be subject to the penalties under Section 21-6, paragraph (4), (8), or (10) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1, or subparagraph (A-5) or (B-5) of paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1.6 of the Criminal Code of 2012. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, nothing in this subsection prohibits the licensee from being subjected to penalties for violations other than those specified in this Act.
 
TomJ said:
Attached is the text from the act. As far as I can tell, it's increasing penalties for continued violations. Keep in mind that we live in an anti-gun state, so don't be surprised if they try to find a way to throw the book at you for any violations.


A licensee in violation of this subsection (d) shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first or second violation and a Class 4 felony for a third violation. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for a third violation.
(e) Except as otherwise provided, a licensee in violation of this Act shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor. A second or subsequent violation is a Class A misdemeanor. The Department may suspend a license for up to 6 months for a second violation and shall permanently revoke a license for 3 or more violations of Section 65 of this Act. Any person convicted of a violation under this Section shall pay a $150 fee to be deposited into the Mental Health Reporting Fund, plus any applicable court costs or fees.
(f) A licensee convicted or found guilty of a violation of this Act who has a valid license and is otherwise eligible to carry a concealed firearm shall only be subject to the penalties under this Section and shall not be subject to the penalties under Section 21-6, paragraph (4), (8), or (10) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1, or subparagraph (A-5) or (B-5) of paragraph (3) of subsection (a) of Section 24-1.6 of the Criminal Code of 2012. Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, nothing in this subsection prohibits the licensee from being subjected to penalties for violations other than those specified in this Act.
Click to expand...

Also keep in mind that if you actually do use a gun, even justified, that if you have a self defense coverage program, that some, like Carry Guard will not step up with money for bail or attorneys either, even though you may have paid them for several years. Some programs, like ACLDN will however cover you anyway. Some hotels/motels also are now employing surreptitious security systems to look for guns, knives, etc.
 
The "parking area" language could possibly present an issue even for a lawfully possessed firearm in a locked container
in your motor vehicle :-(
 
rodregier said:
The "parking area" language could possibly present an issue even for a lawfully possessed firearm in a locked container
in your motor vehicle :-(
Click to expand...
There's actually a specific section that makes your vehicle an exception in most prohibited places (doesn't include nuclear facilities):

"(b) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (a-5), and (a-10) of this Section except under paragraph (22) or (23) of subsection (a), any licensee prohibited from carrying a concealed firearm into the parking area of a prohibited location specified in subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section shall be permitted to carry a concealed firearm on or about his or her person within a vehicle into the parking area and may store a firearm or ammunition concealed in a case within a locked vehicle or locked container out of plain view within the vehicle in the parking area. A licensee may carry a concealed firearm in the immediate area surrounding his or her vehicle within a prohibited parking lot area only for the limited purpose of storing or retrieving a firearm within the vehicle's trunk. For purposes of this subsection, "case" includes a glove compartment or console that completely encloses the concealed firearm or ammunition, the trunk of the vehicle, or a firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container"
 
Craig_VA said:
Not so!
The last information I recall seeing from ACLDN is that they will NOT engage in a member's behalf if the member was carrying illegally at the time of the incident.
See
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/june-2017-editorial
and
https://armedcitizensnetwork.org/november-2015-presidents-message
Click to expand...

Thank you for your correction. From the same website, this is what I was basing my comment on: The fact that many businesses and organizations make themselves feel good by posting “No Guns Allowed” signs certainly muddies this aspect of Network policy, because many times–especially on private property–disobeying the sign is not a crime in itself. You must know your state’s laws. Having said that, if a Network member didn’t see the “No Guns Allowed” sign at the entrance to the shopping mall, and was not subsequently charged with a gun crime after a lawful act of self-defense, we would provide him or her Network assistance.

Their supposed willingness to cover one for bail and attorney and civil suit even in a no gun zone area was one of the reasons I chose their coverage some time back. Now you have me rethinking my decision.
 
ChanceMcCall said:
Their supposed willingness to cover one for bail and attorney and civil suit even in a no gun zone area was one of the reasons I chose their coverage some time back. Now you have me rethinking my decision.
Click to expand...

Chance, I encourage you to continue to support ACLDN and keep you membership, as I do. There is a significant difference between a case of intentionally carrying in violation of law and the situation described of carrying where the proprietor does not want you to do so, but there is no force of law on the matter. The ACLDN position is to support legal carry situations, but not to support any intentional violation of law. I suggest that position is completely in line with the ethics prescribed for The High Road.

Those who choose to engage in civil disobedience by knowingly violating a law they believe to be unjust or improper must be prepared for the consequences. If they can find supporters for their action in order to become a test case for the validity of the law, more power to them. However, they should not insist that other must be party to their illegal action.

I refer you to the synchronicitously timed thread over in Activism proposing efforts to change the law prohibiting carry in U.S. Post Offices. I, and many others, regularly stow our carry guns in an adjacent parking lot before going into a PO. Others do not, choosing to carry into the PO property. We each make a personal decision; but if we choose to violate the law for ten minutes we should not expect others to defend our action simply because we want coverage.

The ACLDN is a valuable organization that provides great support for the armed community. Use the network for its stated purposes; do not abandon it because it is not 100% in line with your wishes.
 
Craig_VA said:
Chance, I encourage you to continue to support ACLDN and keep you membership, as I do. There is a significant difference between a case of intentionally carrying in violation of law and the situation described of carrying where the proprietor does not want you to do so, but there is no force of law on the matter. The ACLDN position is to support legal carry situations, but not to support any intentional violation of law. I suggest that position is completely in line with the ethics prescribed for The High Road.

Those who choose to engage in civil disobedience by knowingly violating a law they believe to be unjust or improper must be prepared for the consequences. If they can find supporters for their action in order to become a test case for the validity of the law, more power to them. However, they should not insist that other must be party to their illegal action.

I refer you to the synchronicitously timed thread over in Activism proposing efforts to change the law prohibiting carry in U.S. Post Offices. I, and many others, regularly stow our carry guns in an adjacent parking lot before going into a PO. Others do not, choosing to carry into the PO property. We each make a personal decision; but if we choose to violate the law for ten minutes we should not expect others to defend our action simply because we want coverage.

The ACLDN is a valuable organization that provides great support for the armed community. Use the network for its stated purposes; do not abandon it because it is not 100% in line with your wishes.
Click to expand...

There are times where there is very little choice but to violate given the Illinois rules of concealed carry, and the sometimes murkiness of the LEOSA rules. For example: There is a Chicago hotel in downtown Chicago that is posted as a no-gun area, even though the chain they are a park of is fairly pro-gun. They do not post that on their website. What does an Illinois concealed carrier do when they book that hotel without knowing the rules and they come in by air or train. Under Illinois law, it is illegal for them to carry or possess on the premise so ACLDN apparently would not protect them, yet they likely don't have any place to put their gun legally. Now it gets even more complicated. Under LEOSA rules for retired carry, I should be able to ignore the signage and in fact when my wife and I checked in, she turned her gun over to me. So if there was an incident and I gave my wife her gun back would ACLDN cover her actions? Apparently not. Would they cover mine at the same time they don't cover her? Frankly, I now have no idea which I don't like at all.

In all candor, we only stayed at that hotel once after they decided to post despite the fact we had stayed there for years. The irony is we now stay with the same chain about eight blocks away where they welcome concealed carriers and we don't have to be concerned about legalities.

I am an advocate of concealed carry programs, but the issuers need to treat their customers fairly. I am a strong advocate of the NRA, but I am less than happy they jumped in with Carry Guard because of all the outs they seem to have, and because much of their coverage is reimbursement rather that up front advances where it is really needed.
 
Hello everyone, I try to chime in whenever there are ACLDN questions on these forums, although I don't get a chance to follow them often.

Regarding the ACLDN policy, please understand that legally, ACLDN cannot publically support people carrying guns illegally. To do so would open ACLDN up to a huge liability, both criminally and civilly. We have always been specific about this. ACLDN was formed to protect the rights of law abiding citizens who are forced to use a gun in self-defense. I empathize with those of you who must weigh the illegality of carrying a gun in your particular circumstances v. the ability to protect yourself. In fact, just yesterday I drove through California and Oregon, both places I am not allowed to carry legally. So, I took off the gun and secured it in compliance with the law of those states. Yeah, it sucks.

If someone joined ACLDN to have their right protected while carrying illegally, then we will cheerfully refund your unused portion of the membership. And, if you find another program that would cover you, then please let us all know, okay?

Sincerely,

Marty Hayes, President
The Armed Citizens' Legal Defense Network, Inc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mljdeckard
  • Locked
Car carry in National Guard facilities
Replies
18
Views
1K
Mags
M
A
  • Locked
Appeals court rules restrictions to gun-ranges in Chicago are unconstitutional
Replies
6
Views
1K
SC Shooter
SC Shooter
D
  • Locked
(MI) Agreed: Disarm school, day care
Replies
19
Views
751
scout26
S
C
  • Locked
Illinois: "Orland board rejects gun sales close to school "
Replies
6
Views
761
Dr.Who
D
M
  • Locked
What the?????
Replies
4
Views
726
CasualShooter
C
Back
Top