Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
That's a separate issue of course, I was just talking about the requirement in general.

Well they could take the round about issue of only certifying a hand full of people in the state to conduct the course, thereby limiting the amount of people who can get it. But yeah, requirement wise it's not horribly burdensome.

 d-usa wrote:
16 hours is really not that crazy. 2 weekend days or 4 weeknight. A bit of a pain, but nothing that should keep anybody from getting one.

I don't have a problem with anyone having 16 hours of training, I just don't want to see it end up being used as a way to keep people who want to get licensed from getting licensed. Any CCW course, whether it's 8 hours or 16 hours or however long is really only the absolute bare minimum of training, and I think people should continue to get as much training as possible. As long as they don't do something like djones520 mentioned, like having an extremely limited number of instructors in order to limit peoples' opportunity to get a license as much as possible, I don't have a problem with a 16 hour requirement per se. They'll probably need 16 hours to learn about all the ways that the Illinois law probably includes to get well-meaning CCW holders in trouble.


Anyone know if the Illinois CCW law mandates that people inform law enforcement officers if they are carrying when they get pulled over or approached? Ohio does, but I know quite a few other states don't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
That's a separate issue of course, I was just talking about the requirement in general.

Well they could take the round about issue of only certifying a hand full of people in the state to conduct the course, thereby limiting the amount of people who can get it. But yeah, requirement wise it's not horribly burdensome.

One of my instructors said that when Ohio first started allowing CCWs, some county sheriffs would only accept CCW applications one day a month for an hour (this is after you've paid for and taken the 12 hour training course). Now they have to accept applications for at least 15 hours a week. There's also a line in the updated law that if a law enforcement officer has to take possession of your gun during the course of a stop or some other interaction, it has to be returned to you in the same condition it was taken in. Supposedly that was added because there were instances of an officer taking someone's weapon, disassembling it, and throwing it into the ditch before leaving. Things have gotten a lot better, luckily.

Hopefully we won't see this kind of thing going on in Illinois.

 djones520 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Thanks for the further explanation. You see, I probably have a skewed view on this topic, I've been to America for a year, but mainly up in Milwaukee studying all the time. I kinda thought that since guns are such a common item in the US, with so many gun owners, people wouldn't be freaked out if other people carried them openly - but, as you stated, I guess that's not really the case, and I can totally understand that. I wouldn't be completely relaxed next to a group of strangers with pistols on their hips either, I guess.

Just keep in mind that if you do see something like that, just keep relaxed. Most people with evil intent aren't going to be calmly eating at a diner with some pistols strapped to their waists. As a general rule of thumb criminals are going to try to not bring attention to themselves, unless their actually in the process of committing a crime.

Okay, that makes sense. As a follow-up question, are there (and if, many?) places or businesses where CCW holders would have to openly state that they are either carrying a gun and/or remove their gun because of a restriction concerning CCWs in that place/business? I heard that some cinemas now have a no-gun policy, but I was wondering how concealed weapons are "controlled" in general.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Thanks for the further explanation. You see, I probably have a skewed view on this topic, I've been to America for a year, but mainly up in Milwaukee studying all the time. I kinda thought that since guns are such a common item in the US, with so many gun owners, people wouldn't be freaked out if other people carried them openly - but, as you stated, I guess that's not really the case, and I can totally understand that. I wouldn't be completely relaxed next to a group of strangers with pistols on their hips either, I guess.

Just keep in mind that if you do see something like that, just keep relaxed. Most people with evil intent aren't going to be calmly eating at a diner with some pistols strapped to their waists. As a general rule of thumb criminals are going to try to not bring attention to themselves, unless their actually in the process of committing a crime.

Okay, that makes sense. As a follow-up question, are there (and if, many?) places or businesses where CCW holders would have to openly state that they are either carrying a gun and/or remove their gun because of a restriction concerning CCWs in that place/business? I heard that some cinemas now have a no-gun policy, but I was wondering how concealed weapons are "controlled" in general.

At least in my state, there are no places where you have to state to anyone that you are carrying a concealed weapon. The only exception is you are stopped by a law enforcement officer, you have to immediately inform him that you are licensed and that you have a concealed weapon. Some states only require that you inform an officer if he or she asks you first.

There are several places where you are not allowed to carry concealed, such as schools, universities, government buildings, airport terminals, and that sort of thing. You are allowed to carry in businesses unless they have a conspicuously posted sign that says you are not allowed to carry, in which case you are not allowed to carry your weapon, concealed or otherwise. However, other than when interacting with law enforcement, you do not have to disclose that you are carrying a weapon.

Carrying in any theater might be against the law in some states, but in my state you can carry in a theater unless the theater has a "no carry" sign posted. Some theaters have a sign posted, and some don't.

Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

Seen quite few "no handguns" allowed. Either stated our outline of a pistol with red slash through it.

 Witzkatz wrote:
Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

I'm not sure, but I think it depends on the circumstances. With law enforcement interactions, it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony, and you can lose your license. On private property, it probably depends on whether or not the property owner wants to press charges. They can ask you to leave, and if you refuse you can be liable for trespassing. In a government building, I don't know what the penalty would be, but I'm guessing it would be pretty harsh and you'd probably lose your license. There's also the question of how anyone found out if you were carrying if it was concealed. It's also possible that if a private business had a sign posted, but it was not in a conspicuous location, that the charges wouldn't hold up in court. I'm pretty sure you have to knowingly enter a posted area to be in violation.

Basically, if you have a CCW and are carrying, you have to pay attention to a lot of stuff that you might not normally pay attention to, and you have to know the rules. It's a big responsibility and it shouldn't be taken lightly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you're interested Witzkatz (or anyone else), there's a nice little booklet that explains the basics of Ohio CCW laws here. It's not too long and pretty easy to get the gist of. Laws will vary by state but this can at least give you a general idea of how things work.

Aye, that makes sense. Thanks for explaining! In theory, people are able to get a CCW license in Germany, but only under exceptional circumstances; they have to prove that their life is more endangered than that of the average Joe and that a gun can reduce this risk in a meaningful way, and even then there are no indefinite licenses, they have to be re-evaluated every three years. Since I don't know of a single person who falls under that category, it's interesting of things work in countries where far more people have and carry guns.

Edit: Thanks for the link, I'll look into it!

 Witzkatz wrote:
Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

It depends on the state. For example, in Minnesota if a given establishment (public or private) posts a sign indicating that "X bans guns on these premises*" then any person found to be carrying one may be asked to leave and, if they do not, then they are guilty of a petty misdemeanor (25 USD fine).


*Where X is a term indicating the establishment.

 dogma wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
Thanks, that helps understanding the situation. Out of curiosity, how hard is the punishment for carrying concealed in a place that has a no-carry rule? Does it differ between privately owned buildings like theaters and government buildings?

It depends on the state. For example, in Minnesota if a given establishment (public or private) posts a sign indicating that "X bans guns on these premises*" then any person found to be carrying one may be asked to leave and, if they do not, then they are guilty of a petty misdemeanor (25 USD fine).


*Where X is a term indicating the establishment.

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it would be worse than a misdemeanor with a $25 fine. I think there's a good chance you'd lose your license. If you look at the section in the booklet dealing with informing law enforcement, the penalties are much higher. Depending on the situation and how people react, you could also be charged with inciting panic or something like that.

I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

 Witzkatz wrote:
I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

Yes, most definitely. I don't think it's really a huge problem, because after spending all the time and money it takes to get a CCW, most people aren't going to do something stupid like carry their CCW into a government building or a police station. People who are serious about CCW generally don't want to do anything that would risk their license or make the CCW community look bad.

 Hordini wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

Yes, most definitely. I don't think it's really a huge problem, because after spending all the time and money it takes to get a CCW, most people aren't going to do something stupid like carry their CCW into a government building or a police station. People who are serious about CCW generally don't want to do anything that would risk their license or make the CCW community look bad.

Aye, that's understandable. I take it you live in Ohio, then? Anyhow, it's hard to get a picture of the actual situation out of the dakka gun threads sometimes...I was wondering how many people in Ohio (or the state you live in if I'm mistaken) carry openly and how many carry concealed? Can you give a rough estimate on that one, percent-wise? I'm just asking because dakka itself is probably not a representative sample of all US citizens.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

No, there are special exemptions for certain state facilities. In Minnesota they are correctional facilities, public schools, court complexes, any federal facility, and the Capitol area.

Any violation in those cases entails either a gross misdemeanor, or a felony.

 dogma wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Hm, a petty misdemeanor and $25 fine sound like it's not seen as a big deal. I just read the Ohio CCW handbook posted by Hordini...I guess correctional facilities and police stations fall under a no-carry rule in Minnesota, too? Can you still walk into those with a concealed gun, be spotted by someone and only be fined $25? I would have guessed that the law enforcement might be especially unhappy about people carrying guns on their premises when explicitly told not to.

No, there are special exemptions for certain state facilities. In Minnesota they are correctional facilities, public schools, court complexes, any federal facility, and the Capitol area.

Any violation in those cases entails either a gross misdemeanor, or a felony.

Thanks for the update. We don't have a felony/misdemeanor - system over here as far as I can see it...wikipedia says a felony is traditionally classified as something worthy of a punishment of more than one year in prison. I think there are some other effects, though, right? Convicted felons can't own X or drive X or carry X or something?

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
I agree. Not informing officers during a LE stop that you are carrying seems to be at least a first-degree misdemeanor in addition to whatever else the court might find wrong with the situation. Basically doing this in a place - probably a government-controlled or LEO controlled space - where you shouldn't even be carrying will probably be a real bad day for someone.

Yes, most definitely. I don't think it's really a huge problem, because after spending all the time and money it takes to get a CCW, most people aren't going to do something stupid like carry their CCW into a government building or a police station. People who are serious about CCW generally don't want to do anything that would risk their license or make the CCW community look bad.

Aye, that's understandable. I take it you live in Ohio, then? Anyhow, it's hard to get a picture of the actual situation out of the dakka gun threads sometimes...I was wondering how many people in Ohio (or the state you live in if I'm mistaken) carry openly and how many carry concealed? Can you give a rough estimate on that one, percent-wise? I'm just asking because dakka itself is probably not a representative sample of all US citizens.

Yeah, I'm an Ohioan. I don't know the percentages, but I can tell you about my own experience. I've lived in both rural and urban areas of Ohio. Open carry is legal in Ohio, but I have never actually seen someone open carrying in public (unless you count hunting or being at a range, which I don't really, since in those cases it was always on private property). I do know several people who have licenses and carry concealed, but I would say a lot of people I know don't carry or have a license, or even own a gun. I know a few people who have licenses but don't actually carry on a regular basis. I know quite a few people who own guns but don't have a concealed carry license.

So the best way to put it is probably: it varies. When I've lived in urban areas, I knew very few people who owned guns and knew a lot of people who hadn't even seen one or fired one. When I've lived in rural areas, almost all of my friends either owned guns or were at least familiar with them. Ohio has both big urban areas and a lot of rural space, so the firearm situation is going to be different depending on where in the state you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Witzkatz wrote:
We don't have a felony/misdemeanor - system over here as far as I can see it...wikipedia says a felony is traditionally classified as something worthy of a punishment of more than one year in prison.

I know it's not really exactly the same, but I thought in general a Vergehen was similar to a misdemeanor and a Verbrechen was similar to a felony?

 Witzkatz wrote:
Convicted felons can't own X or drive X or carry X or something?

Again, it depends on the state; at least regarding firearms.

But I can't think of any instance in which a convicted felon is not permitted to possess a driver's license. Though they certainly cannot vote.

As an aside: You said you were studying in Milwaukee; Marquette?

@Hordini: Well, now I just look stupid. I just looked up Vergehen and Verbrechen, and it seems that German law uses them quite comparably to misdemeanors and felonies. It's apparently even one of the big definitions in the German Criminal Code. You learn something new every day!

About the rest: See, that's interesting - everybody could theoretically carry openly, but nobody does. The pro-gun side in gun threads on dakka sometimes make it look to outsiders as if every second citizen has a 1911 on his/her hip when walking the streets, if you know what I mean. Your observation in Ohio seems very reasonable, though, with rural populations owning and using more firearms for pest control, hunting and sports and the urban areas not that much affected by gun culture. Thanks!

@dogma: Ah, no right to vote is an interesting one. Maybe I'll check how it is here with Vergehen/Verbrechen and further restrictions.

Yeah, I was in Milwaukee for a student exchange program. I studied at MSOE though, Mechanical Engineering. Had a pretty good time there, and I hope it gave me a less media-colored picture of the US in general!

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Hordini: Well, now I just look stupid. I just looked up Vergehen and Verbrechen, and it seems that German law uses them quite comparably to misdemeanors and felonies. It's apparently even one of the big definitions in the German Criminal Code. You learn something new every day!

Don't feel too bad. The only reason I know the difference is I had to translate almost 30 police reports into German last year. I got more closely acquainted with German/Austrian legal terms than I ever expected or wanted!

 Witzkatz wrote:

About the rest: See, that's interesting - everybody could theoretically carry openly, but nobody does. The pro-gun side in gun threads on dakka sometimes make it look to outsiders as if every second citizen has a 1911 on his/her hip when walking the streets, if you know what I mean. Your observation in Ohio seems very reasonable, though, with rural populations owning and using more firearms for pest control, hunting and sports and the urban areas not that much affected by gun culture. Thanks!

Yeah, it's easy for Europeans to imagine that the US gun culture is like the wild west when we start talking about open carrying and concealed carrying, and I think a lot of it gets over sensationalized even in the US media. It seemed like every time a new US state started allowing open carry, people would start screaming about how we'd be having a massive number of shootouts in the street over parking spaces and nonsense like that, which never ended up happening. The truth is, there are more guns in the US than in countries like Germany, and there are people who do carry (like I said, I know several people with CCWs, and there definitely are people who open carry) but it's not the kind of thing you're going to encounter every time you go to a store or a restaurant or something. When it comes to carrying concealed, unless something bad happens, you'll likely never be the wiser anyway. Depending on where you've been in the US, it's possible you've been around someone who was carrying without ever realizing it. Of the people I know who carry, if I didn't already know them and know they were carrying, I don't think I ever would have been able to notice.

At the end of the day, it's not really anything to get freaked out over.

@Hordini: You had to translate police reports into other languages? Forgive my curiosity, but sounds like you got a kinda interesting job, what do you do?

Rest: It definitely sounds more sensible like you explained it. I couldn't really imagine places where everyone was walkin around openly armed, it sounded a bit too much like...I don't know, the medieval ages or some African warlord state. I can see why people would want to carry concealed. This is getting a bit into the technical side of it now: That Ohioan booklet said CCW holders must make sure their weapon can't be easily reached by someone else I think...? I can't find the page right now. Does that mean that holsters need some kind of safety feature, some strap or button, so other can't reach for the gun? I'd expect something like that at least for open carry, I'm just wondering about concealed carry.

Ah, as a quick addendum for those interested: It seems if you're convicted of a Verbrechen/felony here in Germany, you lose public offices and can't be placed in a public office for five years. In addition, your right to vote can be revoked for 2 to 5 years at the court's discretion. So there seem to be quite a few comparable aspects in our law system there.

 Witzkatz wrote:
@Hordini: You had to translate police reports into other languages? Forgive my curiosity, but sounds like you got a kinda interesting job, what do you do?

I sent you a PM.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Rest: It definitely sounds more sensible like you explained it. I couldn't really imagine places where everyone was walkin around openly armed, it sounded a bit too much like...I don't know, the medieval ages or some African warlord state. I can see why people would want to carry concealed. This is getting a bit into the technical side of it now: That Ohioan booklet said CCW holders must make sure their weapon can't be easily reached by someone else I think...? I can't find the page right now. Does that mean that holsters need some kind of safety feature, some strap or button, so other can't reach for the gun? I'd expect something like that at least for open carry, I'm just wondering about concealed carry.

Ah, as a quick addendum for those interested: It seems if you're convicted of a Verbrechen/felony here in Germany, you lose public offices and can't be placed in a public office for five years. In addition, your right to vote can be revoked for 2 to 5 years at the court's discretion. So there seem to be quite a few comparable aspects in our law system there.

For the weapon not being easily reached, as far as I understand it that just means the weapon needs to be under your control, on your body (or in a purse or bag that you're carrying). I've just recently started researching CCW stuff, but there are a ton of different options for holsters and carry methods. You don't have to have a retention strap or button on your holster, but there are holsters that have those things. They make holsters that you can carry in your pocket, inside your waistband (IWB), outside your waistband (OWB) which requires a long shirt, jacket, or other cover garment, shoulder holsters which would also require a jacket, ankle holsters, and so on. The main thing is that you have to maintain control of your own weapon. For example, if you were in a car with passengers, you wouldn't just set the gun on a seat where anyone could grab it.


Edit: As for the legal bit, yeah, it's interesting that there are parts of the German legal system that are pretty similar to the US system. I thought it was pretty interesting that Germany has CCW licenses, even though it's a lot harder to get one. I read the other day that state level politicians can get them, and celebrities, and people like that.

 Hordini wrote:

For the weapon not being easily reached, as far as I understand it that just means the weapon needs to be under your control, on your body (or in a purse or bag that you're carrying). I've just recently started researching CCW stuff, but there are a ton of different options for holsters and carry methods. You don't have to have a retention strap or button on your holster, but there are holsters that have those things. They make holsters that you can carry in your pocket, inside your waistband (IWB), outside your waistband (OWB) which requires a long shirt, jacket, or other cover garment, shoulder holsters which would also require a jacket, ankle holsters, and so on. The main thing is that you have to maintain control of your own weapon. For example, if you were in a car with passengers, you wouldn't just set the gun on a seat where anyone could grab it.


Edit: As for the legal bit, yeah, it's interesting that there are parts of the German legal system that are pretty similar to the US system. I thought it was pretty interesting that Germany has CCW licenses, even though it's a lot harder to get one. I read the other day that state level politicians can get them, and celebrities, and people like that.

Ah, allright. I was just thinking of some official police duty holsters that I saw somewhere and which seemed to have very cumbersome safety features, in essence prohibiting the officer from drawing his or her weapon fast enough to react to a criminal with a knife 12 yards away or so. (Might not even be about an American law enforcement unit, I'm not sure.) That's why I was wondering whether civilians required something like that, but it makes sense that the options seem to be more...open.

I can imagine that polticians and celebrities could apply for one and probably even get one; though I highly doubt many actually do this, primarily because if it would become public knowledge, it might hurt their image to a certain degree. Since the RAF terrorist attacks, Germany is generally a very anti-gun oriented country, I think. Politicians carrying guns probably would look weird to the general populace, I'd imagine they leave the protection duties to their bodyguards.

I read stories about ordinary citizens that got caught up in local gang or ethnic violence and, after two or three close calls, got a rifle to protect their home in case of break-ins. However, I'm not sure even those people would be granted a full CCW license; I would imagine the responsible government office is really not keen on handing out these lincenses. Probably in fear of bad press in case a legal CCW holder gets convicted of some crime later and they get flak for letting this guy have a gun; I'm not sure.

If you've lived in the USA for a good period of time, odds are you've met at least a couple people conceal carrying. Unless you lived in Chicago your whole life or something every other state has a license for concealed carry. Some states have far more, some have less.

In case anyone cares about the minutiae of the issue that started this thread, concealed carry in Illinois had been becoming a bit of an issue in Southern Illinois, since some of the counties down here weren't enforcing the existing laws anyway. There's been some friction between the rural counties and the urban ones up around Chicago for some time on the issue of gun control. There was a handgun ban in Chicago and some of the suburbs for a while, but when the Supreme Court ruled DC's ban on handguns unconstitutional, a bunch of the suburbs changed their laws. Chicago and Oak Park were the last ones to cave, when the US Supreme Court ruled their bans unconstitutional in 2010.

There have been attempts to get concealed carry made legal in Illinois on a practical basis before, but they've always failed. It will be interesting to see how it develops.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
If you've lived in the USA for a good period of time, odds are you've met at least a couple people conceal carrying. Unless you lived in Chicago your whole life or something every other state has a license for concealed carry. Some states have far more, some have less.

I think Milwaukee had very strict gun regulations at the time I lived there. I don't remember the specifics, but it might've been close to "no carrying guns inside the city whatsoever". Nevertheless, a friend told stories of a pizza delivery guy who got shot on THREE different occasions doing his job and actually died because of that last incident...MKE has or had some pretty crappy crime rates, I think.

We (the other exchange students and me) sometimes wondered if they kept the cliché shotgun under the bars in some drinking establishments. Is that really a thing or more of a hollywood/western thing?

The only places I know of where the cashier is armed all have pistols under the register. Never seen one use a shotgun, but I wouldn't swear that none of them do. Most establishments that I know of, even in neighboring states with more relaxed gun control laws, don't allow their employees to be armed at work, and don't arm their employees. Most places would rather get robbed than risk being held financially liable for injuries to the perpetrator, the employee, or bystanders. The only places I'm aware of where the person is armed are privately owned places, and in all but one case are only staffed by immediate family members.

Hope that helps.

(I'm also talking about So-Ill, and it occurs to me that you were probably only interested in your area. My bad.)

 Jimsolo wrote:
The only places I know of where the cashier is armed all have pistols under the register. Never seen one use a shotgun, but I wouldn't swear that none of them do. Most establishments that I know of, even in neighboring states with more relaxed gun control laws, don't allow their employees to be armed at work, and don't arm their employees. Most places would rather get robbed than risk being held financially liable for injuries to the perpetrator, the employee, or bystanders. The only places I'm aware of where the person is armed are privately owned places, and in all but one case are only staffed by immediate family members.

Hope that helps.

(I'm also talking about So-Ill, and it occurs to me that you were probably only interested in your area. My bad.)

Thanks for the quick answer! That helps.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
The only places I know of where the cashier is armed all have pistols under the register. Never seen one use a shotgun, but I wouldn't swear that none of them do. Most establishments that I know of, even in neighboring states with more relaxed gun control laws, don't allow their employees to be armed at work, and don't arm their employees. Most places would rather get robbed than risk being held financially liable for injuries to the perpetrator, the employee, or bystanders. The only places I'm aware of where the person is armed are privately owned places, and in all but one case are only staffed by immediate family members.

Hope that helps.

(I'm also talking about So-Ill, and it occurs to me that you were probably only interested in your area. My bad.)

Thanks for the quick answer! That helps.

As far as I know, people in gun stores usually carry while working, for good reason. It's hard to imagine that someone would be that stupid, but I've heard of at least one instance where someone tried to hold up a gun store and multiple people (employees as well as customers) drew their weapons.

I doubt very many bar employees carry weapons, but I could be wrong.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Some people freak out at the sight of a gun, or just don't like being around them. I can legally open carry all around town if I wished, but I don't, because people get freaked out about it. Unless you look like a cop or soldier off duty, it brings a lot of headaches. Plus, depending on where you live, cops who dont know the law might harass you over it, or arrest you for "disturbing the peace" or some other random offense. In other words, its a lot of headaches that I'd rather just avoid with conceal carry.

Indeed. I have no problem with open carry being lawful, but I simultaneously find it to be, for lack of a better word, distasteful.