CCing where it is "not allowed"......

[Roadie]

Here is GunLawyer's take on it..

Several of you have nailed this one - Scutter01 was the first, I believe.

The purpose of my post was to point out the difference between "notices" on the entrances of buildings that merely attempt to regulate conduct (e.g., "shirt and shoes required," or "no pets allowed," or even "no firearms") and notices that may actuallly constitute a "denial of entry" under Indiana's Crimincal Trespass statute.

As Scutter and others have correctly pointed out, IC 35-43-2-2
states the following:

"Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;

* * *

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of:
(1) personal communication, oral or written;
(2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public . . . ."

I wrote my hypothetical "notice" with 35-43-2-2(a)(1) in mind:

"ABSOLUTELY NO FIREARMS!!
ANYONE CARRYING A FIREARM IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU CARRY A GUN INTO THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."​

To me, this may likely distinguish this situation from the general rule, as discussed by Bryan Ciyou on p. 94 of "Indiana Handgun Law, 2d Edition," which states:

"[A] retailer has the right to limit and qualify the right to enter the property subject to not carrying a hadgun. It would be improper to enter, and the Licensee would be subject to ejection for possession of a handgun thereat. Failure to leave once requested, would subject the Licensee to arrest for criminal trespass."

Clearly, Bryan has IC 35-43-2-2(a)(2) in mind as he states this, not section (a)(1). And that is what is different about my scenario. The gun owner has arguably been "denied entry" to the premises, yet entered anyway - and that is what creates the possibility of arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass.

Finity is also correct to point out that Alves v. State stands for the proposition that a general "no trespassing" sign on an entrance to property is sufficient to allow a jury to convict a defendant for criminal trespass if he ignores the sign.

There is no Indiana case that addresses my specific scenario, but I do believe that the notice involved - which was much more specific than a general "no firearms" notice on the issue of "denial of entry" - creates a serious risk of arrest.

As always - this isn't meant to be legal advice - just my view and a general "heads up."

I address this issue (and many, many others) in my Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law class. The next class in Indy is November 7. I also have a class in Hammond scheduledf or November 21. Check out Home Page for details.

Guy

Again, fine line, but a legally viable one indeed, between "No Guns"
..and
"ANYONE CARRYING A FIREARM IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here is GunLawyer's take on it..


Again, fine line, but a legally viable one indeed, between "No Guns"
..and
"ANYONE CARRYING A FIREARM IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES"

Roadie I can appreciate your devotion to the subject, but the difference between the two signs is pure semantics. No one expects a gun to walk into a business on it's own. Any reasonable person understands that the two signs are essentially the same. Code doesn't specficy the exact language needed to illustrate a denial of entry, that said, the reasonable person test is used. INGO members have tipped their hat in acknowledging that a "No Guns" sign means that they specifically (while w/firearm) aren't welcome on the premises. What are their responses? "It carries no weight of law, I didn't see it, or I will ignore it." So the reasonable person test sticks, if even INGO members know what is meant by the simple signage of "No Firearms Allowed."

It may be a fine line, but the language in support of the Trespass is certainly there. One may try to argue that point, fine, that's their right. I've never seen anyone act up after being disarmed, identified, and trespassed for purposefully carrying a firmarm where it is posted "no firearms allowed." And I've never seen anyone taken to jail for it. But that option certainly does exist, if a person wants to physcally contest their detainment. There are a bunch of things, I thread lightly with in regards to my interaction with the public. I certanly do not want to infringe on anyone's rights.

However, if someone who purposefully ignores a "no firearms signs" enters private property, and has the audacity to get mad when LE arrive (after being called), disarm, identify, and escort them off the property, then feel free to take legal recourse. And as that person gives gun owners an even further tarnished image, among the public, for lack of common sense, remember, that it could have all been avoided if he had respected the property owner's wishes...


And I personally don't know Gunlawyer, so this isnt in refernce to him per se. I once went to a domestc between a mother and daughter. Both had marks and both had obviously been fighting. The mother told me the exactly what her daughter had done to her, and denied doing anything wrong. When I tried to speak to the daughter, she told me "I've dated 2 lawyers, and they told me never speak to police without a lawyer present." Then she lawyered up. I looked at her a begged her to tell me what went down, and that it was in her best interest. No dice. So, I had the mother's side, and not the daughter's side. The daughter was arrested, based on a lawyers advice. Had she spoken to me, neither woman would have went to jail, I would have filled out 2 PCs for battery, and let the pros chalk it up to mutual battery (no charges filed).

And having the tag "lawyer" only holds weight in this discussion if they practice criminal defense or prosecution. I an tell you a million stories of lawyers, outside of that realm, that have no grasp of even the most basic criminal law.

 

[Hammerhead]

It's not semantics, it's a legal distinction. One does not equal the other.

 

[Hkindiana]

Why do so many of you have ZERO respect for the property rights of others?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why do so many of you have ZERO respect for the property rights of others?

Apparently quite a few. Ironic coming from a bunch of guys that are always screaming about their natural rights.... apparently, as long as they can trample on others wishes, theyre ok with it.

 

[Wwwildthing]

However, if someone who purposefully ignores a "no firearms signs" enters private property, and has the audacity to get mad when LE arrive (after being called), disarm, identify, and escort them off the property, then feel free to take legal recourse. And as that person gives gun owners an even further tarnished image, among the public, for lack of common sense, remember, that it could have all been avoided if he had respected the property owner's wishes...

Amen Brother.

 

[Kutnupe14]

What should be noted that I am not against carrying weapons on private property. I just want property owners rights respected. By gunowners continuing to patronize these businesses, even CCW, you are being complicit in acepting their policies. If someone sees such signage, go in (sans your weapon) and verbalize your disagreement with the policy, and walk out, making sure that you express that all your friends will be made aware of the policy. Organize and go to places, in a group, where firearms are welcome among customers. Businesses, especially in smaller areas will take note, I assure you.
But if you continue to spend your hard earned cash in places that prohbit firearms, you are doing nothing but re-affirming their stance.

 

[Jack Ryan]

Here's the thing, Jack. No dogs, no pets, no smoking (depending on those crappy anti-smoking ordinances) are requests. No hunting, no fishing, no trespassing are legally enforceable warnings.

What part of a request not being equal to a law do you not understand?

If I bring a dog or other pet, or light up a stogie where someone doesn't like it, they can ask me to leave. That's the enforceable part. Hunting, fishing and trespassing are defined in the law. Bringing my dog somewhere isn't, unless it's not on a leash (and even then, I am not clear on the state or local leash laws).

And the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" falls under the "I can ask you to leave for any reason, these are specific things that will cause me to do that". It still is not a denial of entry, it's a warning that you'll be asked to leave if you don't comply. It's still a request.

It's not a request, it's a statement of the owners requirement for entry. There's no question mark or please. Deliberate entry to the premis in violation of the owner's stated requirements is tresspass. They don't have to ASK you any thing. They NEED to TELL you to GTF off.

Animals and pets are prohibited in food establishments by law and the same kind of idiots try the same kind of stupid arguements as is being exhibitted here. Then need a good kick down the steps, same as a moron who starts the blather in this thread after deliberately tresspassing where he's not wanted with a gun.

There's NO request in NO.

 

[youngda9]

Kutnupe14....SURELY you can come up with one single case to proove your point, right.....I'll check back periodically.....

I mean if you're going to refute the lawyers, have something to back it up other than your opinion...you know what they say about opinions, right.

 

[jbombelli]

It's not a request, it's a statement of the owners requirement for entry. There's no question mark or please. Deliberate entry to the premis in violation of the owner's stated requirements is tresspass. They don't have to ASK you any thing. They NEED to TELL you to GTF off.

Animals and pets are prohibited in food establishments by law and the same kind of idiots try the same kind of stupid arguements as is being exhibitted here. Then need a good kick down the steps, same as a moron who starts the blather in this thread after deliberately tresspassing where he's not wanted with a gun.

There's NO request in NO.

I guess I'll ask again for a citation? Since this is how it's supposedly enforced, there must be a few cases available for you to reference that will prove your point.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Kutnupe14....SURELY you can come up with one single case to proove your point, right.....I'll check back periodically.....

I mean if you're going to refute the lawyers, have something to back it up other than your opinion...you know what they say about opinions, right.

Who said opinion? That's the way business is conducted. I have done exactly what I have stated personally slightly more than a handful of times (and teh person disarmed is never happy). So there's no opinion to be expressed, that's the way it is. Find me a lawyer that has tried and won such a case, I will change the way "I do business"
Or, if youre that confdent....

 

[Kutnupe14]

I guess I'll ask again for a citation? Since this is how it's supposedly enforced, there must be a few cases available for you to reference that will prove your point.

I can't think of a case where a guy who ignores a "no firearms" sign has attempted to seek legal recourse. Probably because they don't have a case.... no one has challenged it.

No idea why that would be. Because if it was challenged, and went against LE, you can bet that it would included in the next prosecutors update.

 

[jbombelli]

I can't think of a case where a guy who ignores a "no firearms" sign has attempted to seek legal recourse. Probably because they don't have a case.... no one has challenged it.

No idea why that would be. Because if it was challenged, and went against LE, you can bet that it would included in the next prosecutors update.

I'm not asking about people who seek legal recourse, which would imply that they were suing someone.. I'm asking about people who have been convicted of trespass solely based on ignoring a "no guns" sign. Even a guilty plea will do. You say you've busted people for this, so unless you're all alone in your opinion a citation should be easy to post.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not asking about people who seek legal recourse, which would imply that they were suing someone.. I'm asking about people who have been convicted of trespass solely based on ignoring a "no guns" sign. Even a guilty plea will do. You say you've busted people for this, so unless you're all alone in your opinion a citation should be easy to post.

#1, what would ever make you think I'd post a citation involving Trespass without the expressed consent of my respective department?

#2, I never said, I had arrested anyone in relation to Trespassing after ignoring a "no firearms" sign.

What I did say, is that I have removed (ie detained, disarmed, identified) individuals based on that premise.

Please don't try to troll me into doing something unethical; 'cause it won't happen.

 

[Hammerhead]

Quite frankly, I'll just say again, I won't be traveling to Carmel without a good reason. I don't want to be near a police officer who believes that a request or company policy is an enforceable law.

In another thread similar to this, someone attempted to bring up the property rights vs. natural rights argument. They used the same "I can't believe so many people who espouse protecting rights would violate property rights" argument.

I'll say again what I said then. Not complying with a request isn't a violation of property rights. Property rights are violated when a subject prevents the owner of the property from the fair possession and use of said property. Carrying a firearm against the wishes of a property owner doesn't prevent possession or use of the owner's property, unless you use that firearm to coerce or to threaten and/or actually use force to either keep the property owner from using said property, or to take the property from the owner.

The term "right" tends to be used in place of privilege or power when it comes to what property owners have. A business owner has the privilege or power to tell someone to leave the property. They do not have a privilege or power to prohibit the possession of someone else's property. The reason I say this is because there is no duty or requirement for a person to honor a request. For a violation of a "right", there must be a legally enforceable "duty" to comply.

As a "no firearms" sign is a request that you not possess a specific physical object (doesn't matter what object is being defined, again could be bananas or socks). There's no law that requires you follow said request, in the state of Indiana. The law requires you to leave when asked. You have a duty to comply, as this demand is legally enforceable with the trespass law.

I have no legally enforceable duty to comply with stupid signage or stupid company policies. Some people may think that I have a moral obligation instead, or that I shouldn't give money to places that try to deny my rights. Sometimes, I might agree that I should be outraged that people don't see things the same way I do and not put my coins into their pockets if they attempt to tell me what I can and can't carry. Sometimes, I just don't give a darn.

Requests are still not legally enforceable, no matter how much you may try to make them so. Policies do not equal law.

 

[jbombelli]

#1, what would ever make you think I'd post a citation involving Trespass without the expressed consent of my respective department?

#2, I never said, I had arrested anyone in relation to Trespassing after ignoring a "no firearms" sign.

What I did say, is that I have removed (ie detained, disarmed, identified) individuals based on that premise.

Please don't try to troll me into doing something unethical; 'cause it won't happen.

So in other words, no citation; no proof to back what you say. Just the assertions that 1) you're right, and 2) the attorneys who have previously posted on this matter right here on INGO are wrong, and my personal attorney is wrong.

Maybe you should go teach a course at IU School of Law.

 

[lashicoN]

So signs that state "no hunting" are simply a request that you can ignore because the person who posted the sign didnt, come up to you, and request you not do it? That's the logic you're using right?

If a person has a sign that simply states "private property," that doesnt mean anything either right. because the owner didnt specifically ask you not to be there, right?

Or, if a business has a sign posted that says "Closed: business hours from 5am to 5pm," and for some reason they left the door unlocked, and you waltz in to a dark empty store, purposefully, at 6pm, that's alright too because they didn't specifically say that they didnt want you in their business after 5pm, when the signage says closed?

I've given you guys the code, if reading comprehension is that difficult, then that's on you.

Hahaha. Where are you coming from? I'm pissed that you think you can charge someone with trespassing simply for having a firearm on their person while a sign somewhere in a place of business says they aren't allowed. I've never hunted at a place of business, never seen a "Private Property, DO NOT ENTER" sign at a place of business, and I have no idea what you're talking about with your last, terrible, terrible excuse of an example to win this argument. This is all about being charged with trespassing for perhaps not seeing a sign, and like other users have said, NOT BREAKING A LAW. Everything else you cited is, in fact, illegal. Carrying a firearm with a LTCH into a place of business is legal in Indiana, and that's why I would sue the **** out of you for charging me with trespassing, when I wasn't trespassing, I was shopping while armed and no one asked me to leave.

I've heard people talk about Toys R Us, Hobby Lobby, or Post Offices having signs that say "No Guns allowed" or something similar, but I've never seen signs at those three places near me. It's possible I missed them, it's possible someone torn them down and the person who put the sign up doesn't realize it's gone when they call the police to have me arrested for trespassing, instead of just coming over to me, like HUMAN BEING, and communicating to me that they do not want my money if there is a gun on my hip. I would gladly leave and spend my money elsewhere. I wouldn't even think about telling a private property owner "No, I'll do what I want!!!!!!! I can carry a gun in your store and there is nothing you can do to stop me!!!"

Do you have any right of privacy when you enter a place of business? Can they put cameras in the bathrooms? If you have the "right" to privacy, why do you not have the "right" to defend yourself with your firearm and LTCH?

It's not a request, it's a statement of the owners requirement for entry. There's no question mark or please. Deliberate entry to the premis in violation of the owner's stated requirements is tresspass. They don't have to ASK you any thing. They NEED to TELL you to GTF off.

So if you walk into a grocery store, and on their property (in the women's bathroom) there is a sign that says "No Boots Allowed on premises" and you walked in with your boots on, IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF COMPANY POLICY, do you think you should be charged with trespassing? The reason I know a sign doesn't carry any weight of law when it's a business open to the public, saying "No Guns Allowed" is because there would be a whole set of laws regarding how many signs must be posted, what size font must be used, if the sign must be reflective so customers can see it at night or not, if the sign must be blue, red, yellow, or green. None of these laws exist, because a sign is just a company policy, not an enforceable law.

Who said opinion? That's the way business is conducted. I have done exactly what I have stated personally slightly more than a handful of times (and teh person disarmed is never happy). So there's no opinion to be expressed, that's the way it is. Find me a lawyer that has tried and won such a case, I will change the way "I do business"
Or, if youre that confdent....

That really sickens me, coming from a guy who I just saw make the argument that if a police officer, unlawfully, enters your home and kills your family BUT THOUGHT he was acting in good faith, he shouldn't be charged with anything. Have you ever thought that the people you harass, disarm, and idiotically charge with trespassing, THOUGHT they were carrying in good faith and honestly didn't see a piece of paper on a door or window that said "No Guns Allowed".

 

[Kutnupe14]

That really sickens me, coming from a guy who I just saw make the argument that if a police officer, unlawfully, enters your home and kills your family BUT THOUGHT he was acting in good faith, he shouldn't be charged with anything. Have you ever thought that the people you harass, disarm, and idiotically charge with trespassing, THOUGHT they were carrying in good faith and honestly didn't see a piece of paper on a door or window that said "No Guns Allowed".

Whoa there playboy, if you are referencing me, you better back that up with a thread and post number.... meaning, you talking out of turn, b/c I never implied such a thing

 

[Rookie]

I think the correct term is "playa". Playboy is so 80s.

 

[lashicoN]

Whoa there playboy, if you are referencing me, you better back that up with a thread and post number.... meaning, you talking out of turn, b/c I never implied such a thing

I'd love to feed you those words. Maybe it'll give you some perspective. Not everyone reads signs posted on a window, at my local gas station, there about about 50 signs, ads, and notices, I don't read any of them. For all I know, every time I enter, I'm entering against company policy, which is all it is.

When you say unlawful are you speaking in terms of the officers knowing it's unlawful, or in terms of an officer believing that his actions are lawful, but is incorrect?

And after you got your answer you went on to say -

Ok, lets run with that. Let's say an officer attempts to pull you over because he thought your vehicle was driving recklessly. Unfortunately, the officer got it wrong, and it was another car that looked exactly like yours. The officer by attempting to detain you, is unlawful in his actions. If you knew 100% that you had done nothing wrong, do you stop, or do you keep going (RLE-motor vehicle-felony); because the officer has no legal right to detain you?

Which means that you believe that as long as an officer believes he's acting in good faith, he can do whatever wrong he pleases. And your first comment was about a police officer entering a home, it had nothing to do with the spin in your second post, which I only insert here as proof that you are defending that belief. How do those words taste? Now how about the rest of my post?