Illinois Business's started to put up signs

We walked in to Wal-Mart in Hodgkins, Illinois and Orland Hills, Illinois to find this sign

 which states " This Prohibition applies to on-duty Wal-Mart associates and vendors."

Um do you see at the bottom right hand corner that is the law and even thou they put what is quoted at the top doesn't mean shit. In other words if you go in to the store with a gun on and a cop see's you are going to jail because

430 ILCS 66/65)

    Sec. 65. Prohibited areas.

    

(a) A licensee under this Act shall not knowingly carry a firearm on or into:

(1) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of a public or private elementary or secondary school.

(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.

(3) Any building, parking area, or portion of a

building under the control of an officer of the executive or legislative branch of government, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed firearm onto the real property, bikeway, or trail in a park regulated by the Department of Natural Resources or any other designated public hunting area or building where firearm possession is permitted as established by the Department of Natural Resources under Section 1.8 of the Wildlife Code.

(4) Any building designated for matters before a

circuit court, appellate court, or the Supreme Court, or any building or portion of a building under the control of the Supreme Court.

(5) Any building or portion of a building under the

control of a unit of local government.

(6) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of an adult or juvenile detention or correctional institution, prison, or jail.

(7) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of a public or private hospital or hospital affiliate, mental health facility, or nursing home.

(8) Any bus, train, or form of transportation paid

for in whole or in part with public funds, and any building, real property, and parking area under the control of a public transportation facility paid for in whole or in part with public funds.

(9) Any building, real property, and parking area

under the control of an establishment that serves alcohol on its premises, if more than 50% of the establishment's gross receipts within the prior 3 months is from the sale of alcohol. The owner of an establishment who knowingly fails to prohibit concealed firearms on its premises as provided in this paragraph or who knowingly makes a false statement or record to avoid the prohibition on concealed firearms under this paragraph is subject to the penalty under subsection (c-5) of Section 10-1 of the Liquor Control Act of 1934.

(10) Any public gathering or special event conducted

on property open to the public that requires the issuance of a permit from the unit of local government, provided this prohibition shall not apply to a licensee who must walk through a public gathering in order to access his or her residence, place of business, or vehicle.

(11) Any building or real property that has been

issued a Special Event Retailer's license as defined in Section 1-3.17.1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special Event Retailer's license, or a Special use permit license as defined in subsection (q) of Section 5-1 of the Liquor Control Act during the time designated for the sale of alcohol by the Special use permit license.

(12) Any public playground.         (13) Any public park, athletic area, or athletic

facility under the control of a municipality or park district, provided nothing in this Section shall prohibit a licensee from carrying a concealed firearm while on a trail or bikeway if only a portion of the trail or bikeway includes a public park.

(14) Any real property under the control of the Cook

County Forest Preserve District.

(15) Any building, classroom, laboratory, medical

clinic, hospital, artistic venue, athletic venue, entertainment venue, officially recognized university-related organization property, whether owned or leased, and any real property, including parking areas, sidewalks, and common areas under the control of a public or private community college, college, or university.

(16) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of a gaming facility licensed under the Riverboat Gambling Act or the Illinois Horse Racing Act of 1975, including an inter-track wagering location licensee.

(17) Any stadium, arena, or the real property or

parking area under the control of a stadium, arena, or any collegiate or professional sporting event.

(18) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of a public library.

(19) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an airport.

(20) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of an amusement park.

(21) Any building, real property, or parking area

under the control of a zoo or museum.

(22) Any street, driveway, parking area, property,

building, or facility, owned, leased, controlled, or used by a nuclear energy, storage, weapons, or development site or facility regulated by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The licensee shall not under any circumstance store a firearm or ammunition in his or her vehicle or in a compartment or container within a vehicle located anywhere in or on the street, driveway, parking area, property, building, or facility described in this paragraph.

(23) Any area where firearms are prohibited under

federal law.

(a-5) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit a public or private community college, college, or university from:         (1) prohibiting persons from carrying a firearm

within a vehicle owned, leased, or controlled by the college or university;

(2) developing resolutions, regulations, or policies

regarding student, employee, or visitor misconduct and discipline, including suspension and expulsion;

(3) developing resolutions, regulations, or policies

regarding the storage or maintenance of firearms, which must include designated areas where persons can park vehicles that carry firearms; and

(4) permitting the carrying or use of firearms for

the purpose of instruction and curriculum of officially recognized programs, including but not limited to military science and law enforcement training programs, or in any designated area used for hunting purposes or target shooting.

(a-10) The owner of private real property of any type may prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms on the property under his or her control. The owner must post a sign in accordance with subsection (d) of this Section indicating that firearms are prohibited on the property, unless the property is a private residence.     (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, provided the licensee ensures the concealed firearm is unloaded prior to exiting the vehicle. 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.     (c) A licensee shall not be in violation of this Section while he or she is traveling along a public right of way that touches or crosses any of the premises under subsection (a), (a-5), or (a-10) of this Section if the concealed firearm is carried on his or her person in accordance with the provisions of this Act or is being transported in a vehicle by the licensee in accordance with all other applicable provisions of law.     (d) Signs stating that the carrying of firearms is prohibited shall be clearly and conspicuously posted at the entrance of a building, premises, or real property specified in this Section as a prohibited area, unless the building or premises is a private residence. Signs shall be of a uniform design as established by the Department and shall be 4 inches by 6 inches in size. The Department shall adopt rules for standardized signs to be used under this subsection. (Source: P.A. 98-63, eff. 7-9-13.)

which my friend's is the law. Some asked why carry a gun in Wal-Mart well this is why.




On or about May 22 2013 A woman accused of shoplifting at a Wal-Mart store in Rockford, Ill., shot and wounded three employees at the store today before police shot and killed her.

So basically with this sign posted  you might want to change it to this.

I mean really so as of right now the stores I refuse to buy products from is anyone with the no guns allowed sign. if we all did this business that pride themselves on supporting veterans would remove this sign because what you are saying to the people who protect you and lay their life on the line you are telling them you don't want their business because they carry a gun but yet you relay on these same people every day. So I suggest you stop and look at your glass before calling 911 and realize even the police can not come in with their guns cause that would put them in violation of the law they are to enforce.

Speed kills well not this type of speed

Nearly 90 percent of interstate highway miles in Illinois will have 70-mph speed limits starting Wednesday, state transportation officials announced Friday, but the sponsor of the law raising the limits is upset almost all existing posted speeds in the Chicago area will remain unchanged and he vowed to push for them to be higher.

Drivers on almost 1,900 of the state's nearly 2,170 miles of interstate will be able to travel at 70 mph instead of the existing speed limits, generally 65 along rural highways, after crews post the new speed limit signs — weather permitting — Jan. 2-17, according to the Illinois Department of Transportation.

But only about 30 percent of the Illinois Tollway's 286-mile network will get the higher speed limit, according to a map released by IDOT. And in the Chicago area, the 70-mph limit will be posted only on five fairly short stretches of interstate. Those are sections of I-80 and I-55 in Will County, a stretch of I-57 in far southern Cook County and all of Will County, a portion of the I-88 toll road in far western Kane County and part of the I-94 tollway in northern Lake County.

"It's unacceptable," said State. Sen. Jim Oberweis, R-Sugar Grove, who sponsored the bill that Gov. Pat Quinn signed into law in August. Oberweis said he was upset that IDOT, which had the authority to draw up the speed limit map, left unchanged the 55-mph speed limit across virtually all of the Chicago region. "They're putting law-abiding citizens into danger."

"It's quite clear" that 85 percent of vehicles are traveling at 70 mph or faster on almost all expressways, Oberweis said, and that the variation between the 55-mph legal limit and 70-mph higher speed is a significant factor in crashes. Oberweis, who is running for U.S. Senate, owns a family dairy company that runs trucks on the highways.

The IDOT map was released two weeks after a Chicago Tribune analysis showed the actual speed limit — the point at which most motorists are ticketed on interstates in the six-county Chicago region — is about 80 mph. Earlier Tribune research showed 9 of 10 cars on the tollway disregard and exceed the 55-mph speed limit. The average speed in those stretches was 66-70 mph, Tribune research found.

"It's just clear that they (IDOT) are disregarding the will of the people." Oberweis said, adding that the interstates are designed to handle vehicles traveling 70 mph and speed limits were set at that level before the federal government imposed a national 55-mph limit in 1974. That limit was scrapped in 1995, and states across the U.S. have been raising highway speed limits since then.

In a statement, IDOT said the new speeds will be placed on interstate stretches "where deemed reasonable and safe." Department spokesman Paris Ervin said the agency conducted traffic engineering studies of all locations with limits below the existing 65-mph maximum and "other locations deemed necessary."

IDOT considered the widely accepted 85th percentile — the speed at which 85 percent of the traffic is traveling at or below — and "additional considerations" on those stretches before reaching its recommendations, Ervin said.

"IDOT's top priority is the safety of those using our transportation system," she added. The department and Illinois Tollway will continue reviewing "any roadway speed limit as needed, including monitoring changing traffic behaviors and the completion of construction projects," the agency's statement reported.

Oberweis said he will try to bring his push for 70-mph Chicago-area speed limits to the legislature and may settle on a 65-mph limit.

"It's a safe, reasonable and consistent speed," Oberweis said of 70 mph.

Mr. Potatohead named ccw appeals board

Gov. Pat Quinn on Friday named former federal prosecutors, FBI agents and judges to a seven-member panel to review objections raised by law enforcement to people who apply to carry a concealed firearm under the state’s new law.

The move is the latest step to put in place the state’s new concealed carry law, a legislative compromise enacted last summer after a federal appeals court ruled Illinois had to give up its status as the last state in the nation to ban possession of firearms in public.

Under the law, people apply for concealed carry permits and police departments can object to the application. The review panel hears appeals of those objections and is supposed to decide within 30 days whether the applicant poses a danger to themselves or others or is a threat to public safety.

The panel’s membership represents the state’s five judicial districts, including three from Cook County, and is supposed to include commissioners with judicial, prosecutorial, criminal justice and mental health treatment experience.
Appointed from the First District were Robinzina Bryant of Flossmoor, who spent a decade as a special agent with the FBI in Chicago and St. Louis; Dr. James Lewis Cavanaugh of Winnetka, a professor of psychiatry at Rush University Medical Center and a behavioral risk analyst; and Virginia Wright of Palatine, who served as a special agent with the FBI for 24 years in New York, New Haven and Chicago.

Sergio Acosta of Elmhurst was picked to represent the Second District, which includes the west suburbs and north and northwestern Illinois. Acosta is the former Illinois Gaming Board administrator, a partner with Hinshaw & Culbertson and once headed the general crimes section of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago.

For the Third Judicial District, which includes Will County and north central Illinois, Quinn named John Diwik of Naperville, a criminal investigator with Amtrak’s office of inspector general and a former FBI special agent.

From the Fourth Judicial District, made up of central Illinois, Quinn named Patrick Chesley, a private attorney who served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Springfield for nearly 30 years. Chesley previously worked in the state attorney general’s office.

Representing the Fifth Judicial District, covering southern Illinois, Quinn named recently retired federal judge G. Patrick Murphy of Williamson County.

Quinn called his choices “highly qualified and committed individuals” who will “carry out their duties diligently to protect public safety.” The initial appointments, which require Senate confirmation, are for a term that ends Jan. 12, 2015. The positions pay $37,571 a year.

Wildabeast escaped zoo in Chicago winter

Shootings early this morning have left a 23-year-old man dead and four other people injured, according to police.

The fatal shooting happened about 4:10 a.m. in the 4500 block of Indiana Avenue. Police said two male shooters stepped out of a dark-colored sedan and opened fire on a 23-year-old man walking on the sidewalk.

The man was struck multiple times but managed to run to a vacant lot before collapsing, according to police.

He died on the scene.

No suspects are in custody as Area Central detectives investigate the killing.

In the most recent shooting, a 23-year-old man was shot in the buttocks as he stood on the sidewalk in the 5700 block of South Laflin Street.

Police said the man was in serious condition at John H. Stroger, Jr. Hospital of Cook County.

Earlier, a 20-year-old man was shot in the lower abdomen after stepping out of a vehicle into a gangway in the 6400 block of South Homan Avenue, police said. The man was taken to Advocate Christ Medical Center in Oak Lawn and listed in serious condition.

About 2:50 a.m., a 25-year-old man was shot in the 4300 block of South Western Avenue. The man was walking down the sidewalk when he heard gunfire and realized he was shot.

The man sustained a gunshot wound to the shoulder and was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital, where his condition was stabilized.

About 1:10 a.m., a 23-year-old woman drove herself to St. Anthony Hospital after being shot in the arm. The woman told police she had been shot while sitting in a vehicle at a stoplight in the 2800 block of West 31st Street.

The woman did not provide police with a description of the shooter or the vehicle the shooter was traveling in.

Red light cameras constitutional or not

California Court of Appeal Throws Out Red Light Camera Ticket
California Court of Appeal overturns red light camera ticket evidence as hearsay.
The Newspaper,  12/31/12
Borzakian, a former deputy public defender, decided to fight the citation. During her January 2010 trial, Officer Mike Butkus provided the standard testimony that introduces Redflex evidence in all jurisdictions. Commissioner Carol J. Hallowitz ignored Borzakian’s objections, admitted the evidence and found Borzakian guilty, imposing a $435 fine plus a twelve-hour traffic school. Borzakian immediately appealed, citing the US Supreme Court case Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which the traffic camera industry has feared since it was decided in 2009.


See California v. Borzakian (Court of Appeal, State of California, 1/26/2012)

US Supreme Court DecisionsThese cases can be cited as precedent in other cases.   Melendez-Diaz (2009) 557 U.S. 305 (2009), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that it was a violation of the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation without the testimony of the person whoof submitted these reports without testimony was unconstitutional.
In the Melendez-Diaz case, the high court ruled that merely producing such a certificate in court is insufficient. Defendants have the right to cross-examine any individual who claims to have certified evidence.

"Violators often object that they cannot challenge their accuser if it is a camera," Leslie Blakey, executive director of the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running said. "This new ruling may spur more court cases and lawsuits on the basis of the right to challenge the human elements of the evidentiary chain."

Blakey is principal of the Blakey and Agnew public relations firm that five of the top photo enforcement companies -- Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), CMA Consulting, Gatso of the Netherlands, Lasercraft of the UK and Redflex of Australia -- paid to create the National Campaign to lobby on their behalf. Each of these firms could face a tremendous challenge if their methods are brought into closer scrutiny, although Blakey believes that this constitutional protections may not apply in states where photo tickets have been made "civil" violations.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the majority opinion in Melendez-Diaz, a 5-4 majority agreed that despite the possible hassle involved in confirming each fact at trial, it is essential to the integrity of the court system that questioning of the evidence be allowed under the ruling, it becomes the burden of the state or local authority to ensure photo enforcement company employees show up to testify in court


 KANSAS CITY, Mo. —A ruling from the Missouri Court of Appeals has put the brakes on Kansas City's red-light camera program, at least for the time being.
Kansas City's program is similar enough to the one in Ellisville that leaders said they will hold back on enforcing it.
Kansas City will keep the cameras rolling, but it won't issue any tickets to violators.
One driver told KMBC 9 News that he supports the ruling, but he can see the need for cameras at some intersections.
"I can see in, like, high-traffic areas with a lot of foot traffic, where people run through red lights, like on 71 Highway, it's kind of good to have them because it encourages people and slows them down," he said. "But for the most part, a lot of times, I just try to avoid those intersections."
Many experts believe the issue will eventually be decided by the Missouri Supreme Court. If the high court affirms the appeals court ruling, the city said it will determine whether to change or eliminate the red-light camera program.
In 2012, Kansas City issued 34,000 tickets from red-light camera violations. Police statistics indicate that crashes at intersections with those cameras were down 54 percent last year.

The Washington Times

Monday, August 30, 2010

A Supreme Court ruling last year requiring that scientists be made available to testify in court cases about lab evidence they prepare may have the added effect of curtailing the use of automated traffic-enforcement cameras to assess criminal penalties.
California is one of 23 states and the District of Columbia that operate red-light camera programs, but in 21 of those jurisdictions — including Maryland, Virginia and the District — violations generated by the cameras are civil infractions, like a parking ticket, issued to the vehicle’s owner instead of criminal violations levied against the driver. Making it a violation of Constitutional law since the owner of the vehicle is not the one who committed the violation but the person who drove the vehicle.The absence of the camera technicians in criminal cases, the judges said, violates the 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause of the Bill of Rights, which guarantees criminal defendants the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against them.” The Confrontation Clause — and the court decision — only applies to criminal cases. Which is incurred by the driver and not the owner unless the owner was the one driving.

14 year old boy killed in Richmond, California can be seen on Google Earth

The father of Kevin Barrera is livid. His son was murdered four years ago at the age of 14 in Richmond, California. Shockingly, his dead body can be seen near railroad tracks when using Google Maps.
Scroll down to see 7 pictures of an uncensored look at Kevin Barrera’s remains. His dad is currently asking the billion dollar company to remove the shots from Google Earth.
This is just an unfortunate situation all around. The murder is still yet to be solved. And the fluke occurrence that satellite imagery would pick it up is just adding salt to the wound. I’m sure Google will do the right thing and at least blur out the body.


Read more: http://www.everyjoe.com/2013/11/19/crime/kevin-barrera-dead-body-uncensored-photos-go

Your right to remain silent is no more

As most of us know, we have the right to remain silent once read our Miranda rights by law enforcement officers, in the event we are arrested and/or under suspicion for a shooting or a crime. However, a recent major U.S. Supreme Court decision on June 17th, 2013 changed this based on theSalinas v. Texas Case. Here is the general issue: what if we have not been arrested and haven’t been read our Miranda rights and we are merely being questioned? Can we remain silent? What this 5-4 Supreme Court decision means to this lay, non-attorney person is that in order to invoke your right to remain silent you have to initially speak up first. Confusing?Hopefully, we will never have to be involved in a shooting or crime investigation, but if we are there are some new things we must understand. It now seems that we have to invoke our 5th Amendment rights in our U.S. Constitution immediately when the Police begin to question us. The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and outlines basic constitutional limits on police procedure. It is a prohibition against required self-incrimination and applies to states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.If we do not invoke the 5th, our silence now can be used against us. As a result of this Salinas Supreme Court decision, silence can now be more solidly construed as meaning we have something to hide or are trying to be deceitful. So, if that terrible situation occurs where there is much uncertainty of facts and circumstances, where someone is injured or dies, or a crime or shooting has occurred, and we are being questioned, we have to be very cautious, even as an innocent person, about the statements we make.A complex issue that arises is do prosecutors violate an accused criminal’s Fifth Amendment right against forced self-incrimination when they use evidence of his silence against him, even when the evidence comes fromquestioning conducted before he was taken into police custody?Here is a summary of the facts of the Salinas v. Texas case. Police in Houston, Texas questioned Genovevo Salinas during a murder investigation. Salinas answered all of their questions until the police asked whether he thought that casings found at the murder scene would match the shotgun the police found in his house. In response, Salinas remained silent. He looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clenched his hands in his lap, and began to tighten up. After a few moments of silence, the officer asked additional questions, which Salinas answered. Later, he was charged with murder, tried, and convicted partially on the basis of evidence that he had remained silent during police questioning before he was arrested and given his Miranda warnings.Salinas claims that the Texas trial court should not have admitted evidence of his silence because of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. He argued that allowing evidence of his silence would violate the Fifth Amendment by forcing him to speak or have his silence used against him. The State of Texas argued that the evidence was appropriately admitted and outside the protection of Fifth Amendment privilege because Salinas’s silence was non-testimonial and the police questioning was non-coercive. The Supreme Court’s decision determined the scope of the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination and, more specifically, whether it extends to the protection of a defendant’s pre-arrest, pre-Miranda statements to the police. Mr. Salinas’ silence was used against him in court. and the court sided with the prosecution. In essence, the Supreme Court is saying that you must speak up or silence will be used against you. So it seems according to the Supreme Court, the Fifth Amendment is now a privilege and not a right.Click Here for the 6-17-13 full legal version of the decision.Click Here for the U.S. Supreme Court Blog about the Case:If this non-attorney with very limited legal background is involved in any way with a highly unlikely shooting or any crime investigation, I want to minimize any possible personal risks. So, the only initial statement I will probably make is:“I want to cooperate fully with law enforcement, but I do not want to make a statement or answer any questions until I talk to my attorney.”Understand this is not legal advice or a legal opinion, but just this lay person thinking out loud. Thus, I am communicating to the police that:I am willing to cooperate and have nothing to hide: “I want to cooperate fully with law enforcement”;I do not want to talk at all at this time for the official record: “I do not want to make a statement”; andI do not want to be questioned at all nor provide any answers or information until I speak with my lawyer: “or answer any questions.”This case affects the Miranda Warning and we probably should consider adding this statement to protect ourselves from any further questioning by police. Without adding this, law enforcement can still ask us questions and if we answer any of those questions, it can be used against us.Another consideration is to NOT initiate a conversation with law enforcement after invoking your Miranda rights. If you do initiate a conversation, it could possibly be interpreted that you revoked your rights under Miranda. Without a doubt, this decision will significantly impact law enforcement practices, including how police question individuals and advise them of their Miranda rights. It will also influence the way prosecutors introduce evidence and attempt to prove defendants’ guilt.The Constitution was created to protect all of us, even the person like me who is not legally trained and doesn’t deeply understand the law. It is supposed to be the basis for fair justice for everyone. Because the Court on the surface seemingly disagreed in this situation, some might think it is best to not talk to the police at all and strictly invoke all their Constitutional rights. However, this can hinder justice. So if you are involved in a shooting or criminal investigation, perhaps the best approach is to think positive and only make the initial statement… and wait for your attorney to arrive. What are your thoughts about this?Continued Success!

* This personal opinion article is meant for general information & educational purposes only and the author strongly recommends that you seek counsel from an attorney for legal advice and your own personal certified weapons trainer for proper guidance about shooting & using YOUR firearms, self-defense and concealed carry in your state. It should not be relied upon as accurate for all shooters & the author assumes no responsibility for anyone’s use of the information and shall not be liable for any improper or incorrect use of the information or any damages or injuries incurred whatsoever.