“No firearms” signs this weekend for NRA convention

[KittySlayer]

The legal part comes into play if, for some reason they find out you have a firearm (which they shouldn't if you carry[STRIKE] correctly [/STRIKE]concealed) and they ask you to leave.

FIFY a handgun can be open carried correctly.

1) Care to explain, or better yet, show how to do so without anyone knowing you have gun, which is the point in this case?

You implied that the only way to correctly carry a handgun was concealed. Rather it should be no one should know if you adequately conceal your firearm. Semantics I suppose.

2) Show his quote or audio giving the advice you are recommending be followed.

Based on reputation and no other knowledge I would follow Guy's second hand advice.

I do not have a quote. Like all internet based legal advice I evaluate posters and information they share on a number of factors. These can include prior statements, grammar, demonstration of other knowledge... In this case I am going to personally follow a second hand suggestion buy Guy that the Mom's got good legal advice and carefully worded the sign to give it more force of law than a GFZ sign showing a gun crossed out.

 

[jsharmon7]

I do not have a quote. Like all internet based legal advice I evaluate posters and information they share on a number of factors. These can include prior statements, grammar, demonstration of other knowledge... In this case I am going to personally follow a second hand suggestion buy Guy that the Mom's got good legal advice and carefully worded the sign to give it more force of law than a GFZ sign showing a gun crossed out.

If you’re on Facebook, go to the post on Abdul-Hakim Shabazz’s page. Guy weighed in a couple times in the discussion. I’d post a screen shot for the group, but that’s a pain in the butt.

I’m extremely familiar with how things are actually filed and enforced in Marion County, but my humble opinion is simply to follow state law and not risk it. Whether the case is immediately dismissed or not will not be much comfort after wasting time at turn key. It’s close enough that I doubt you’d have much legal recourse if you got arrested and then kicked loose the next morning.

 

[printcraft]

1) Care to explain, or better yet, show how to do so without anyone knowing you have gun, which is the point in this case?.

You implied that the only way to correctly carry a handgun was concealed. Rather it should be no one should know if you adequately conceal your firearm. Semantics I suppose.

Hush, we haven't had one of these for a while.

 

[HoughMade]

Please take some time to check out this thread. I think it will help with confusion.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/58317-you-going-jail.html

...and for the impatient:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...efense/58317-you-going-jail-9.html#post641253

 

[MarkC]

I would not disagree with Guy.

I would simply state that in my quick look at the issue, it is a close enough call that if I were advising a client, I would tell them that it is possible that a trespassing charge could stick. There is no way to know for certain until someone is charged and the case works it's way into the appellate courts. What they would do with that information....

I would have to agree. I personally would not want to be the test case to determine if that sign barring entry is sufficient under IC 35-43-2-2:

[FONT=&amp](c) A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of:[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](1) personal communication, oral or written;[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp](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;[/FONT]

Yes, Marion County generally does not prosecute trespassers who are only given notice by a sign. However, they sometimes will.

I have to agree with HoughMade: I would advise a client not to try this out. It is their property, they get to set the rules (within limits).


ETA: See the posts, just above, that HoughMade posted while I was typing this.

 

[d.kaufman]

If retailers give into this fear mongering by moms can't get action, and post these signs, i will not be stepping foot in their establishments. Therefore i need not worry about it. Easy enough for me.

 

[MadMan66]

Sounds like a horrible business decision. Largest Firearms convention in the world right in your city, but you deny the convention goers into your business. Whatever. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

 

[lonehoosier]

...and for the impatient:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...efense/58317-you-going-jail-9.html#post641253

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

.

 

[printcraft]

I have to agree with HoughMade: I would advise a client not to try this out. It is their property, they get to set the rules (within limits).

Denying a Constitutional right? Bake the ****ing cake.

 

[KellyinAvon]

In 2014, $55 million in economic impact came to Indianapolis. They are expecting a higher turnout this year, Let’s see how many businesses have those signs up.

 

[SwikLS]

ok fine let's say you can be prosecuted for trespassing for entering a restaurant that has one of these signs, well if they apply for restaurants then why not parking garages? One can quickly see how this becomes a very slippery slope.

 

[HoughMade]

OK, but we're talking about what we believe the current law to be, not what we wish it were.

 

[HKUSP]

OK, but we're talking about what we believe the current law to be, not what we wish it were.

I think that's really the problem. IANAL, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of cases directly dealing with the subject at hand. Generally, doesn't a trespassing charge require a direct request to leave the property?

Any experience I have with this comes from Ohio, and the signs there had weight of law. Even there the police weren't immediately wanting to arrest you. Most of the time they just wanted you to leave and it only became an issue when the person was acting like a jerk.

 

[Thor]

That would be kind of like putting up a "No Gearheads" sign outside of a hot rod convention. Take your money elsewhere folks, it's not welcome here.

 

[HoughMade]

I think that's really the problem. IANAL, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of cases directly dealing with the subject at hand. Generally, doesn't a trespassing charge require a direct request to leave the property?

Any experience I have with this comes from Ohio, and the signs there had weight of law. Even there the police weren't immediately wanting to arrest you. Most of the time they just wanted you to leave and it only became an issue when the person was acting like a jerk.

It all comes down to whether the sign meets the requirements of this:

(c) A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) 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;…
Ind. Code Ann. § 35-43-2-2.

Since there is no case directly on point, we are left trying to analyze whether any given sign will fit the bill. What is crystal clear is that a sign at the entrance can serve as a denial of entry.

...and some goofy advocacy group handing out signs doesn't mean any of these signs will find a home...other than the trash.

 

[SwikLS]

In 2014, $55 million in economic impact came to Indianapolis. They are expecting a higher turnout this year, Let’s see how many businesses have those signs up.

Do not think a fear of losing business income would dissuade downtown business owners to tell the Moms Who Need Some Action to take a hike.

Most downtown business owners are likely anti-gun and the Action Challenged Moms would be spewing BS about banding together or some such sales pitch.

Bonus if they could get one or two arrested. Don't make the mistake of thinking the antis think like us because they don't.

If I had to guess, I'll bet there are many downtown Indy business owners that would happily sacrifice income to ensure none of their customers were law abiding gun owners

 

[Cameramonkey]

Looks like I'll be putting a few more of those no guns no money cards in my wallet for my trip downtown. I'll be sure and stop and and drop one off with the manager should I be walking by and see one. And if I'm feeling extra AF, might even ask the hostess for a menu first and note what I would have spent had I not been deterred by the signage. More than just a vague note of non patronage.

 

[HKUSP]

Do not think a fear of losing business income would dissuade downtown business owners to tell the Moms Who Need Some Action to take a hike.

Most downtown business owners are likely anti-gun and the Action Challenged Moms would be spewing BS about banding together or some such sales pitch.

Bonus if they could get one or two arrested. Don't make the mistake of thinking the antis think like us because they don't.

If I had to guess, I'll bet there are many downtown Indy business owners that would happily sacrifice income to ensure none of their customers were law abiding gun owners

It has been my experience that you are correct in your assumption. Some people are that stupid, and they own businesses.

 

[fullmetaljesus]

Speaking of guy, why doesn't he post here anymore did everyone scare him off?

 

[cbhausen]

I don't remember any of this nonsense going on 5 years ago. I roamed freely OCing and went into several places without issue. Have things changed THAT much downtown in 5 years? I guess we'll find out.