Labor: New Illinois law requires employer action to keep workplaces gun-free
Recent Illinois gun legislation means employers will shortly confront a new, potentially troublesome workplace issue: concealed firearms.
August 05, 2013 at 06:48 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Recent Illinois gun legislation means employers will shortly confront a new, potentially troublesome workplace issue: concealed firearms.
On July 9, Illinois lawmakers voted to override Governor Pat Quinn's veto of House Bill 183, thus making Illinois the last state in the nation to allow the concealed carry of firearms. The law's passage comes in the wake of last year's 7th Circuit ruling that Illinois' ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. The General Assembly's vote occurred just in the nick of time, since the 7th Circuit gave Illinois lawmakers until July 9 to revise its concealed carry law.
The bill reflects a compromise between both sides of the heated gun control debate that has stirred controversy throughout the state for years. Though certainly a victory for pro-firearm advocates, the legislation includes a host of limitations for those wanting to carry concealed firearms. Applicants seeking a concealed carry license must complete 16 hours of training, cannot have been convicted of a violent misdemeanor or any felony, and are subject to thorough mental health and background checks. Also, many places are off-limits to those carrying firearms, including schools, hospitals, public transportation and sports arenas.
Of most concern to employers, though, are the provisions pertaining to private property owners. The bill leaves it to the discretion of property owners whether to permit or prohibit the concealed carry of firearms on their premises. For those who wish to prohibit firearms on their property, the bill mandates that owners post a sign “clearly and conspicuously” at the entrance of their building or property. The sign will be standardized according to state police guidelines, which have yet to be issued, though the bill specifies that the sign shall be four by six inches.
Still, even if property owners prohibit concealed carry and comply with the sign-posting requirements, licensees may still lawfully store their firearms in their vehicles while parked on the premises. The bill, however, mandates that licensees keep their firearms out of plain view and that they keep their car locked. Also, the bill provides a caveat that allows concealed carry in the “immediate area surrounding” the licensee's vehicle for the purpose of storing and retrieving a firearm from the vehicle's trunk, provided the gun is unloaded.
There remains uncertainty for those employers who operate on leased premises. The bill is unclear on whether “owner” encompasses lessees and those running business on leased property. However, it is expected that once the state police department issues regulations regarding the signage requirements, which is to occur within the next six months, the ambiguity will be resolved.
For employers, the new concealed carry law is important in at least three respects. First, it leaves it entirely up to employers, as property owners, whether to allow or prohibit the concealed carry of firearms in their workplaces. Second, if employers want to keep their premises gun-free, they must post signs to that effect “clearly and conspicuously” around the entrances to their properties. Third, employers must be aware that even if they do prohibit firearms and comply with the law's sign requirements, guns may still be lawfully on their property if locked, and out of plain sight, inside a vehicle. Ultimately, it is up to employers to take affirmative steps if they want their workplaces to remain gun-free.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
7 minute readExits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
2 minute read'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
Trending Stories
- 1Wachtell Partner Leaves to Chair Latham's Liability Management Practice
- 2Morris Nichols Partners to Be Involved With PLI Program
- 3How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'Cultivating a Culture of Mutual Trust Is Essential,' Says Gina Piazza of Tarter Krinsky & Drogin
- 4People in the News—Feb. 3, 2025—Antheil Maslow, Kang Haggerty, Saxton & Stump
- 5Patent Pending ... and Pending ... and Pending? Brace Yourself for Longer Waits
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250