Illinois Gun Grabbers Attempt “Backdoor Ban” on CCW

 Gun fun at Dave & Buster's (courtesy http://martinzoo.homeschooljournal.net)

“Patrons at a planned Dave & Buster’s in Vernon Hills might be able to play shoot-’em-up video games in the venue, but village officials have decided they don’t want people bringing real weapons into the restaurant and arcade,” chicagotribune.com reports. And so the Vernon Hills village board added a stipulation to D&B’s special use license compelling the restaurant chain to ban otherwise lawful concealed carry on the premises, and post signs at the entrance alerting patrons no gats allowed. This despite the fact that Illinois’ new concealed carry (CCW) law contains preemption (local firearms laws cannot obviate state law). Texas-based Dave & Buster’s agreed to the stipulation, which will no doubt stand until it faces legal challenge. Which can’t happen until there’s a permittee with standing to challenge the law. Meanwhile, Chicago’s reportedly planning the same strategy for the Windy City: no liquor licenses for establishments that “allow” concealed carry. This “backdoor gun ban” shows the amount of respect the forces of civilian disarmament have for the rule of law. None. Meanwhile, capitalizing on tax incentives aplenty, AMC cinemas are due to open in the same mall. Guess what their firearms policy is?

comments

  1. avatar Bear says:

    I say ignore them en masse carry concealed and no one should know you have it.

    1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

      Absolutely. It isn’t even illegal. Those signs do not have to be followed in most states with preemption laws, like IL now has. Naturally if it’s private property and the business asks you to leave, then you have to or you are trespassing. But if you are carrying concealed and doing a good job at that and not blabbing about your gun or otherwise being a ‘tard, then there would be no reason for anybody to ask you to leave.

      Obviously I’m still against this whole thing, but it’s meaningless in actuality. Although, I’m sure, some patrons may end up not entering or leaving their gun in their car (because THAT’S safer!?!?!) because of these signs.

      Does anything in the law say that the establishment can’t post other signs pointing to the required signs saying something along the lines of “we don’t actually believe in this or enforce it, we were simply forced into posting this as a condition of getting a business license. Carry on.”? 😉

      1. avatar Shawn says:

        I like this sign that says We ignore this bullshit sign.

  2. avatar Hal says:

    Typical

    1. They really are like cock roaches…you just keep stomping and they keep coming.

  3. avatar skeev says:

    Dave and Busters is still a relevant chain? Their food stinks, the arcade industry has been on life support for the last 5-10 years, and most of their games are ticket cash-in scams.

    1. avatar AznMike says:

      one reason why i love going back to China, the arcade industry is still strong in the Asian countries. Ghost Squad was actually pretty fun.

  4. avatar shawn says:

    Really does it matter. It is a public place their right. Dont like it dont go there. These articles make the gun owners look like cry babies.

    1. avatar Ducky says:

      The issue at stake seems to be that the city governments can blackmail local businesses into making their areas gun free zones, therefore it is not D&B’s choice to allow or ban CCW, it is the city government’s choice.

      1. avatar Jeremy S. says:

        Exactly. If it were a private property/business owner choosing to do this on their own that’s one thing. I 100% completely and totally support private choice in any matter. In my opinion, if a private business wants to have signs banning Jews from being customers (and I use this example because I’m Jewish, so don’t get all offended) I’m 100% fine with their right to do so. Obviously I would never patronize them and I think many other people, non-Jews included, would choose to do the same for their policy choice. Just like I do when places have no-gun policies. Anyway choice is choice and that’s good.

        This is a situation of the government FORCING and quite truly blackmailing businesses into specific business decision policies by holding their business license ransom if they don’t! This is heavy handed fascism. Quite literally fascism. You’re a private business but you WILL agree with the policies of the government or we will shut you down or now allow you to start. Right now it’s no guns allowed but next they’ll refuse to issue business licenses unless the business agrees to never use incandescent bulbs or standard flow toilets or they HAVE to use X brand of this product or service or MUST sign up for X city program (trash collection, social programs, donations, etc) or MUST have signs on their walls for X politicians or MUST give 25% discounts to any city employees or MUST have a workforce that’s at least 40% female/minority/gay/etc. It’s coercion, tyranny, fascism, blackmail, whatever.

        1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Jeremy,

          A quick question: how is it coercion, blackmail, etc. if the government does it … but it is NOT coercion, blackmail, etc. if a business does it? I have never read a dictionary definition of coercion, blackmail, etc. that listed any stipulations upon who was coercing, blackmailing, etc. Curiously, you are taking the opposite approach of Statists who claim that it is coercion, blackmail, etc.when a business does it but it is okay if the State does it. In reality I claim that both of you are wrong.

          I bring up this point because your position is effectively stating that a person’s dignity only exists on real estate that they own — step foot anywhere else and the real estate owner can demand anything of you. That is an incredibly dangerous situation. And as it turns out common law even contradicts that notion. (For example a real estate owner cannot legally demand sex from a minor on their property.)

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          “Uncommon_sense” – where do you see any coercion, blackmail, or any other misdoing by any private individual or business here?

          Or are you just another anti-free-enterprise socialist?

        3. avatar B says:

          If you are going there why not also say a property owner can also not require a person to kill another person as a condition of being on their private property. Both already have laws against the act (murder and rape.) Its a ridiculous straw man argument.

          A business has the right to ban guns on their private property. It doesn’t have the right to rape people on said property.

          The local government does not have the right to pass anti CHL laws due to statewide preemption. It forcing businesses to to ban CHL as a requirement for licensing seems to violate that law. See the difference?

        4. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Rich Grise asked, “Or are you just another anti-free-enterprise socialist?” I am no such thing. I oppose restrictions on our right to self defense regardless of who imposes the restrictions. Saying it another way, I oppose the notion that we have to give up rights as a condition to participate in free-enterprise.

          Besides, whether or not a person has self-defense tools — especially concealed self-defense tools — does not impact free-enterprise at all.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          B,

          Why does a business have the right to ban guns on their property? As you try to answer that question, please explain why a business can dictate self defense to employees or patrons but a business cannot dictate rape to employees or patrons. What’s the difference?

          If a patron or employee has a handgun — especially a concealed handgun — it does not affect the business operation in any way whatsoever. If it does not affect the business operation, why does the business have any say? Why would the business operation even want to have any say?

          There is a reason that rape and murder laws apply to businesses and private property: because our rights are inalienable. Let me state that another way. Our rights are not a function of where we happen to be standing or whether the people around us approve of our rights. That is why a business has no say in what objects an employee or patron carries on their person.

        6. avatar Pete S says:

          My daughter’s only half Jewish. Can she go in just to browse?

    2. avatar In Memphis says:

      What Ducky said. That last part about Chicago is especially important, denying liquor permits to a business that allows CCW.

      I know these people dont care about whats legal, but is that at all legal?

      1. avatar JSIII says:

        Not to mention local regulation of carry is illegal under state law. Only the state can say where you can’t carry, not Vernon Hills, not Chicago.

    3. avatar JeffR says:

      One of the main features of Illinois’s concealed carry law was the preemption of local laws on the carrying of handguns. This is why this story makes people so angry. I have no problem with private business owners doing as they see fit, but a lot of us foresaw that anti-gun municipalities were going to try to use business permits to force bans in certain businesses while arguing that they are not passing laws on the carrying of handguns, they’re just excercising their right to regulate business. It’s complete B.S., but it may make it more difficult to challenge in court once the business agrees to the restriction. If a concealed carry holder tries to challenge the law, the muncipality will just argue that the business agreed to post the sign, it didn’t have to.

      1. avatar Ropingdown says:

        It might be time-consuming to defend, but the charge against a CCW permit holder found in the restaurant will be one of violating a municipal ordnance, and the ordinance is clearly one which has the purpose of regulating firearms possession or use, though containing an optional aspect for the establishment, which also isn’t allowed to regulate firearms. Therefore the ordinance does contravene state law, no? Illinois is baffling to me, like NJ. I once watched a trial (on Fifth Street…remember the DC Courts?) involving union goons who clubbed some ‘scabs’ I get the feeling there are states in which the powers that be don’t want the good ol’ days, when a truncheon had some value, to go away.

    4. avatar David PA/NJ says:

      “Their store, their right”
      I’m sorry but my Constitutionally recognized God-given rights don’t become subject to your whims when I step through your front door. I don’t care if it’s your property. you have rights to it but not the right to take mine away.

      1. avatar Nathan says:

        I have to disagree with you. As a property owner, I (ideally) have the right to deny anyone the right to access my property and or business for any reason. If I’m carrying, and a business owner asks me to leave, I’ll just leave and never come back. It’s their right to refuse my business just as much as it’s my right to refuse to give it to them. If you refuse to leave when asked then you’re trespassing. This is why I just make it a point to not do business with places that voluntarily ban legal carry.

        1. avatar David PA/NJ says:

          I understand that argument at that level. But let’s say I walk into a place and exercise my 1st Amendment rights, talking about abortion guns or homosexuality around a group of people who strongly disagree. The owner could ask me to leave but that would be discriminating against me for whatever it was I believe they disagree with. The 2nd Amendment should be treated the same as the first. You can’t discriminate for exercising the 1st in a way you disagree with, so why should you be able to discriminate against someone exercising their 2nd Amendment rights in a way you disagree with?

          What do you guys think? I’m throwing this idea around myself

        2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          You don’t have First Amendment rights on my private property either. You do have the right not to enter my property. Don’t like it? Buy me out.

    5. avatar gs650g says:

      Best policy righ5 there. Vote with your wallet.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        And don’t forget to tell them loud and clear that you walked on by and why. If they don’t know, your action has NO effect.

  5. avatar Ardent says:

    You get what you vote for. Around here a play like that would offend both sides of the debate, those for a ban because it’s dirty pool and those against for that reason and the fact that it runs counter to their rights.

    Looks like the people of Vernon Hills love them some liberalism and hate individual rights. Someone local ought to gum up the works however they legally can, I surely don’t have standing, I won’t go into a state that doesn’t recognize my rights.

    The larger question in my mind is about ‘unconscionable contracts’. Since preemption exists I think one could make a compelling argument that the village authorities are attempting to coerce D&B’s into assisting them in disobeying the law which would render at least the portion about the carry ban unenforceable and may under certain circumstances make the entire contract null. In fact I’m a little surprised that will the ambiguities and potential for a cluster effect that D&Bs lawyers are giving this a green light.

    1. avatar ThayneT says:

      No – you get what the majority votes for. Big difference.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        Only if you’re in the minority.

  6. avatar Swarf says:

    Ignore it.

  7. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    The Village is overstepping by obscene degree its authority. It shouldn’t be legal for them to leverage their legitimate authority to impose indirectly a policy which would be flatly illegal were they to do so directly. Replace “guns” with “blacks” or “handicapped” or “homosexuals” or “Jews”, for examples, and see how far their end run around the law would get them.

    This shouldn’t be regarded as a simple matter of zoning or ordinance technicalities, subject to review and injunction in civil court. This constitutes a gross abuse of power by the City and should be punishable by criminal prosecution of individuals and the Village. It’s tantamount to bribery, official oppression, and extortion.

    1. avatar Nordic says:

      Once again, gun owners are being equated with protected racial groups, religious groups, and other protected minorities.

      Being a gun owner is not the same as being black, or gay, or disabled, or Jewish. The latter groups are protected by civil rights laws, which means a business can not put up a No Blacks sign. They can put up a sign that says No Guns, or No Flip-flops, or whatever else the owner of the establishment wants as long as they don’t violate any discrimination laws.

      1. avatar JeffR says:

        Actually, some states do have anti-discrimination laws that would apply to gun owners. Even Illinois has a “lawful use” law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees who use lawful products off the job. It was designed to protect smokers but is far broader than that.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        You’re missing the point. Nobody is challenging whether D&B as a private entity can bar firearms carriers from their private property. So let’s remove that (willful?) misconception of yours from the table straight away. Firearms and straw men do not mix.

        The issue is whether the Village government may use their legitimate authority to effect a policy indirectly which they would be forbidden to do so directly. If the Village of Vernon Hills made license approval contingent upon acceptance of Village Hill Bucks as the only legal tender, then I would be here proclaiming that to be an overstepping of their authority and an infringement of the federal government’s power to coin money. Likewise, were the Village to mandate that permits are subject to making donations of a percentage of net income to the Village coffer, I would argue against the legality of that, too. Such would constitute a local income tax, which is illegal in Illinois. In this case, the Village is exploiting its local licensing authority to strong arm private entities into complying with a policy of discrimination against a protected class (i.e., Individuals who choose to keep and bear arms) and that should be just as illegal as any other illegal discrimination.

        Equal protection must apply, well, equally, by way of the government’s enforcement of the law. The local government has no legal authority to regulate concealed carry like this. The equality, or inequality for that matter, of the underlying discriminated-against groups themselves is irrelevant to the overall discussion. It is that the local government is overstepping its authority which is at issue. In what specific direction they’re overstepping, by what repulsive magnitude, or on whose specific freedoms they’re trampling, is only used to illustrate the point of the illegal overstepping.

        But hey, to your other point, I’d agree: being a gun owner is not the same as being black, or gay, or disabled, or Jewish. It’s MORE important than those other categories. Being a gun owner or choosing not to be, goes to the definition of a sovereign human being; one who has a right to himself, his own self defense and the free will to decide. Those other traits are merely givens. I do understand that you don’t agree with me characterizing gun owners as a protected class; but your disagreement is invalid. You should understand that your basic quarrel in that regard is not with me, but with the Constitution (see 2A and 14A) and with the SC (see Heller and McDonald.)

      3. avatar Shawn says:

        I am a gun owner I am a minority why do they get to discriminate against me for my beliefs in self protection???

        1. avatar Jus Bill says:

          Because you don’t use punctuation?

  8. avatar Smitty says:

    Typical liberal Northern IL bullshit.

  9. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

    Yeah, I saw this coming. It’s their MO. Expect much more of this, and expect that a lot of this will be happening “off the record.” The inspector for some business happens to mention that they can expect a permit/license/whatever to go though faster if they play ball.

  10. avatar Russ Bixby says:

    Bleah!

  11. avatar Daniel says:

    How could lawmakers expect people to follow the law when they themselves refuse to?

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Because they are hypocrites.

  12. avatar Nine says:

    That gun looks like an amalgamation of an MP5 and a G36.

  13. avatar Swarf says:

    In fact, don’t just ignore it; a bunch if IL CCW folks should sign a petition *stating* that you’re going to ignore it and why and then publish it in all the papers.

    What are they going to do, frisk everybody?

  14. avatar Chip says:

    Can we just build a giant wall around the Chicagoland Area and charge people to get out?

  15. avatar Cubby123 says:

    They do the same thing in Nevada.Northern Nevada you can open carry,or if permitted ,conceal carry,you can own a machine gun with proper licensing or a suppressor with same.You must obey the State laws one and obey posted signs at establishments that have the Legal Right to post them,I.E.Schools,federal buildings ,Airports Indian Reservations( although they do not ave to post but you better know).In Northern Nevada you do a background check on a NEW firearm ,pass and out you go.
    Now in Southern Nevada,different story,Las Vegas and North Las Vegas.you must obtained a blue card and a three day delay on you first purchase and they Register your firearm for ANY law enforcement to see and potentially confiscate.This completely goes against Nevada statues ,but they don’t care and do it anyway.Although NRS statutes of 2007 specifically state No local authority supersedes state authority, they simply choose to ignore it unless challenged Nevada Supreme Court. No Class three weapons allowed,no suppressor s allowed at least for private ownership.And North Las Vegas is worse.they CAN and WILL arrest you for open carry( State Law Allows) and conceal carry with a State permit.They can also arrest you for having a loaded handgun in your glovebox ( State Law Allows as your car is an extension of your home) SO… You will win the case,it will take six months ,you will loose your firearm and have to beg to get it back and it will cost you $5000.00 plus,but they don’t care.
    This is all because these Jackasses all of the country Break Federal Laws everyday ,and only understand Lawsuit and Supreme Court Rulings as they Wrongly believe the 2nd amendment is a Privilege,not a Right and they do not have to honor your RIGHTS.

  16. avatar Pat says:

    Ya vote libtard (democrat), ya get this.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email