Are You Going to Jail?

[Phil502]

No arrest for being in there if you leave as requested.

 

[rcflyer]

Anybody that goes into a bar with a loaded weapon "and" drinks alcohol, even just one beer, should have their licensed pulled. Weapons and alcohol dont mix, period. As far as the original question, I dont know. What's the answer?

 

[INGunGuy]

Anybody that goes into a bar with a loaded weapon "and" drinks alcohol, even just one beer, should have their licensed pulled. Weapons and alcohol dont mix, period. As far as the original question, I dont know. What's the answer?

Can I assume that you feel the same way about drinking, even just one beer, that a person should have their drivers license pulled also? I mean since drinking and driving kills way more people each year than drinking and carrying a gun. Now I am not advocating drinking and carrying a firearm, but to make a blanket statement that the person should have their license pulled is kind of a stretch.

INGunGuy

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

Impatiently waiting for the answer .

 

[GuyRelford]

Answer

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

 

[INGunGuy]

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

So then, from what I take it, a person would NOT be arrested for a firearms related offense as your question posed. BUT, a person would face arrest if they entered an establishment that clearly displayed a no firearms sign with a firearm for trespass only, NOT a firearms related offense.

Yes, no, maybeso?

Thanks,

INGunGuy

 

[GuyRelford]

So then, from what I take it, a person would NOT be arrested for a firearms related offense as your question posed. BUT, a person would face arrest if they entered an establishment that clearly displayed a no firearms sign with a firearm for trespass only, NOT a firearms related offense.

Yes, no, maybeso?

Thanks,

INGunGuy

That's my view - trespass: maybe. Firearm-related offense: nope.

But by the way, my question wasn't limited to a firearms-related offense - I merely asked if you were going to jail.

 

[rich8483]

i went to jail today. to the court house part of the building to serve jury duty.

 

[Kingrat]

without reading past the first page and losing the origional idea, i would have to say NO, the sign has no legal standing and since they never asked you to leave prior to the cops showing up, it is not tresspassing, and it is also not illegal to drink while carrying in a bar (not a good idea is different from illegal)...worst he will get is his gun back disassembled and told to leave (assuming the officer follows the law)

edit: damn apparently i only get half credit...though the whole sign deal seems like a bit of a grey area to me, what if you dont see the sign (put on a door, someone is holding the door open for you etc) what if this what if that..of course i havent seen any signs that specific either, usually its just a small generic "no firearms" sign

also im not sure about the trespassing laws if there is any difference between a public place (business of any kind) versus private property (residential) or if destruction of property comes into play at all

 

[finity]

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.

...

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.

Thanks for the thread & the info.

I assume that based on the above quotes that there IS case law concerning the difference between a generic "notice" & a legal notice defined in the Trespassing IC.

Could you please post any cases you might know of (gun related would be even better) that are the basis of the difference. There must be SOME legal information that make people so absolutely sure that generic notices aren't legal notices & for the belief to be so widespread. I honestly don't get that just by reading the stated IC.

 

[INGunGuy]

OK, I want to change the question slightly and I know I am probably going to be flamed for this, but flame away...

In the initial question, the notice that was posted was:

"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."

​

Now, lets say you have some racist who puts up a sign as follows:

"ABSOLUTELY NO BLACKS!!
ANY BLACK PERSON IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU ARE BLACK IN THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."​

Or some real nutjob puts up a sign as follows:

"ABSOLUTELY NO BLUE SHIRTS!!
ANYONE WEARING A BLUE SHIRT IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU WEAR A BLUE SHIRT INTO THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."​

Would these signs put a black person, or a person wearing a blue shirt on notice that if they come into the building, they would be possibly arrested not for being black, or wearing a blue shirt, but for trespass?

Where does this "Notice" end? Can I forbid a certain segment of the population from entering my establishment just by posting a notice at the front door?

How about:

"GI JOE WITH A KUNG-FU GRIP REQUIRED FOR ENTRY!!
ANYONE NOT HAVING A GI JOE WITH A KUNG-FU GRIP IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU DONT HAVE A GI JOE WITH A KUNG-FU GRIP IN YOUR POSSESSION AND COME INTO THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."​

Would this notice legally fly? I mean if you can exclude a certain portion of the population based upon your own, however obscure, wants, then I would figure that any sign written as your example would carry the weight of law based upon IC 35-43-2-2.

INGunGuy

 

[Boilers]

I believe that the GI Joe with Kung Fu grip can be trumped by the only other childhood toy that surpasses it in coolness.... evel knievel stunt cycle.

I'm pretty sure precedents have been set. At least by my friends... back when I was 8.

 

[DRob]

Bad choice

In the end it would be up to the owner. IMO if you "need" to carry into said bar. Get a small ankle setup.

I haven't read the entire thread (I stopped at the above post) so I apologize if this has been previously stated.

If you're going into a bar where you feel like "you need to carry", what you really "need" to do is find another bar. Just my 2 cents.

 

[WabashMX5]

CARRYING A FIREARM, BLACK, WEARING A BLUE SHIRT, NOT CARRYING GI JOE WITH KUNG-FU GRIP

Fantastic examples. At, say, someone's home not usually open to the public, I think each one of those would have equal legal effect (or lack thereof, this being an open question of law).

For public accommodations, racial restrictions would be off the table (race being a protected class). But leaving protected-class issues aside, I'd still say that each of those signs would have the same legal effect (or, again, lack thereof). And because of that, I'd also says that's a strong argument that none of these signs should have any greater legal effect than the typical "circle-and-slash" type sign -- that is, still requiring a request to leave.

The real lessons GunLawyer is teaching with this one though, are that (1) this is an open legal question (i.e., no precedent in either direction to rely on); and (2) whenever the question does get decided, there's likely to be a judicial "guns-are-scary" distortion factor that may tip the decision differently than in your otherwise equivalent "no-blue-shirts" example. (A closer call might be a similar "smokers are expressly denied entry" sign, since smoking provokes some of the same visceral heebie-jeebies as guns....)

So boiling those down to a single lesson, it would be "Nobody knows, so be aware that you're taking a risk." A valuable lesson, indeed.

 

[fg12351]

I'm guessing NO right now because you were not asked to leave first. Ask me in a month or so after I have read "Indiana Handgun Law" that I just bought at the 1500 on Saturday and I may have a different answer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

That's my view - trespass: maybe. Firearm-related offense: nope.

(emphasis added)

What firearm-related offence? Where did this come from? No gun law is at issue. Are we channeling Kirk's First Law???

Jail? Like I said earlier, maybe. It depends--but it always does in my profession.

Potentially Criminal Trespass and Public Intox. I would think the cops would likely tell you to hit the road. Salute and turn on your heel and leave. I'd call a cab too just so they don't follow you and pop you for OWI.

 

[Dashman010]

Perhaps a pertinent follow up question is this:

It appears from the original post and relevant statutes that if the sign in posted at the main entrance, and you see it, you are likely to risk arrest. But what if you don't come in via the main entrance, or don't see the sign?

As an example, say the Mall posts a sign at the main entrance mirroring the sign in the hypo here. However, you don't enter via the main entrance, and instead go in through Sears. Transitioning from Sears to the mall, there is no sign. My guess is that the "knowingly or intentionally" culpability standard would be defeated, relieving you of liability. My thinking is that you can't knowingly enter some place "after having been denied entry" if you don't know that you've been denied entry.

Likewise if a sign was posted that wasn't as conspicuous as the one in the post. Using the mall example again, most malls have these signs (I think), but usually they are buried somewhere where I never see them unless you are hunting for them. This of course would go directly to the "likely to be observed by the public" definition.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No notice=no conviction.

However, you may still go to jail. It depends.

 

[GuyRelford]

(emphasis added)

What firearm-related offence? Where did this come from? No gun law is at issue.

That was my point.

 

[xamsx]

If you act within the law during the conversation with the LEO, I see no reason you should go to jail - legally or morally. A sign does not make law, it merely informs of the owner's opinions on what he wants on his land.

Does the owner have the right to ask you to leave? Yes.
Does the owner have the right to create a felony or misdemeanor that otherwise does not exist in law? No.

Property rights do not create law.

on that logic.