Are You Going to Jail?

[GuyRelford]

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.

I agree - and I think that all of those factors go directly to the point I was trying to raise - that you can (under some circumstances) potentially be "denied entry" through management "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." That's just the wording of the statute. And that's why I was giving a "heads up" to Indiana gun owners. But that certainly doesn't mean that any "no firearms" sign is effective for that purpose. That's why I made my hypothetical "notice" so specific as to "denying entry" to anyone with a firearm.

And to your point - if there are multiple entrances, I think it's completely logical to argue that you were never "denied entry" if you went through an entrance with no notice.

 

[GuyRelford]

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.

Well said!!

 

[Mgderf]

No arrest for the gun, but it is very likely due to the fact that the responding officer does not know your level of intoxication without a test that he will impound your Glock 30, ask you to leave the bar and to pick up your handgun at the police department the next day. If you comply, there are no grounds for an arrest.

WHAT?

PLEASE cite the law/statute even city ordinance that gives this authority?

Try that with MY firearms, and I'll see you in court!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

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

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

Agreed, it depends. Even if you are legally in the clear it still depends.

[/color]

WHAT?

PLEASE cite the law/statute even city ordinance that gives this authority?

Try that with MY firearms, and I'll see you in court!

Indiana Code 35-47-14

IC 35-47-14-1
"Dangerous"
Sec. 1. (a) For the purposes of this chapter, an individual is "dangerous" if:
(1) the individual presents an imminent risk of personal injury to the individual or to another individual;

IC 35-47-14-3
Warrantless seizure of firearm from individual believed to be dangerous
Sec. 3. (a) If a law enforcement officer seizes a firearm from an individual whom the law enforcement officer believes to be dangerous without obtaining a warrant, the law enforcement officer shall submit to the circuit or superior court having jurisdiction over the individual believed to be dangerous a written statement under oath or affirmation describing the basis for the law enforcement officer's belief that the individual is dangerous.

I would almost guarantee you that if an LEO went into court and said you appeared intoxicated and he felt you were a immenent danger to yourself or others, it would be upheld. I'm not saying its right or wrong just IMO that is how a court would decide it. And not to thread jack, if a LEO seizes your firearm at a traffic stop for "officer safety" under this section are they required to hold it until a court orders its return? And do they have to submit a written statement of the officers belief that the individual is dangerous? And/or would this section of code be a reason for refusing to surrender a firearm to a LEO for a stop? If they can't/didn't submit a written statement of why they thought you were dangerous would that be grounds for a suit? Should I open a new thread with this question? What is the meaning of life? Should PI be rounded down to 3 for simplicity? Who am I? Where am I? Did I order a pizza?

 

[Roadie]

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.

Personally, I carry anywhere i am legally allowed to carry.

Do you really carry based on where you are going? Considering you can get mugged in broad daylight in Beech Grove these days, I think the "pick and choose" carry mentality doesn't fly.

 

[Mgderf]

Agreed, it depends. Even if you are legally in the clear it still depends.



Indiana Code 35-47-14

I would almost guarantee you that if an LEO went into court and said you appeared intoxicated and he felt you were a immenent danger to yourself or others, it would be upheld. I'm not saying its right or wrong just IMO that is how a court would decide it. And not to thread jack, if a LEO seizes your firearm at a traffic stop for "officer safety" under this section are they required to hold it until a court orders its return? And do they have to submit a written statement of the officers belief that the individual is dangerous? And/or would this section of code be a reason for refusing to surrender a firearm to a LEO for a stop? If they can't/didn't submit a written statement of why they thought you were dangerous would that be grounds for a suit? Should I open a new thread with this question? What is the meaning of life? Should PI be rounded down to 3 for simplicity? Who am I? Where am I? Did I order a pizza?

I find it hard to believe that a situation would arise whereas an LEO would find you to be a "public safety hazard" and want to "impound" your firearm WITHOUT arresting you?!!

Carrying a firearm is LEGAL! If you are causing an unsafe situation, it would seem to me that you would also be in violation of another statute, that WOULD invite arrest.

Barring any "unsafe public behavior", I cannot foresee a situation where LE would have a legal stance for confiscating a firearm! If you are causing an unsafe public condition, you should probably go to jail for THAT. Unless that "unsafe behavior involved a firearm, I see NO justification for this law!

 

[ocsdor]

 

[40calPUNISHER]

No, the worst that will happen is you will be trespassed from the business and asked to leave by the offices. Don't forget, you've had several drinks and should call for a ride just to be safe.

The sign that the business had posted has no legality behind it, just like no trespassing signs.

 

[INGunGuy]

​

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.

Why would race be a protected class. I as a business owner can choose who I want and not want to server in my establishment. Now I am not saying that it is the prudent thing to do, but I dont think there is anything illegal since it is a PRIVATE business. If someone can point out where it is illegal to exclude someone because of their race, please quote IC.

Thanks,

INGunGuy

 

[troy96]

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.

OK Mr Anti gun, if you need to carry a gun in your city...county...or sate, find a new place to live. I hear the England is nice, the cops dont even need guns.


I think the OP's question depends on the LEO that shows up. If he is anti like the above poster you may be arrested.

If he is pro gun and loves libery he may arrest the establishments owner for calling in a false trespass report.

And in IN it would be a crapshoot in either case if the prosecutor would move ahead or not.

 

[SirRealism]

OK Mr Anti gun, if you need to carry a gun in your city...county...or sate, find a new place to live. I hear the England is nice, the cops dont even need guns.

I understand why you'd react to DRob's post that way. But I think he meant it a little differently. I think he's questioning the intelligence of going into a bar where there's a good chance that you'll have to use your gun.

 

[Dashman010]

I agree - and I think that all of those factors go directly to the point I was trying to raise - that you can (under some circumstances) potentially be "denied entry" through management "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." That's just the wording of the statute. And that's why I was giving a "heads up" to Indiana gun owners. But that certainly doesn't mean that any "no firearms" sign is effective for that purpose. That's why I made my hypothetical "notice" so specific as to "denying entry" to anyone with a firearm.

And to your point - if there are multiple entrances, I think it's completely logical to argue that you were never "denied entry" if you went through an entrance with no notice.

Glad to see we are on the same page..

 

[Dashman010]

Why would race be a protected class. I as a business owner can choose who I want and not want to server in my establishment. Now I am not saying that it is the prudent thing to do, but I dont think there is anything illegal since it is a PRIVATE business. If someone can point out where it is illegal to exclude someone because of their race, please quote IC.

Thanks,

INGunGuy

Title II of the Civil Rights Act:

42 U.S.C. §2000a

(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)

(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment

 

[INGunGuy]

Title II of the Civil Rights Act:

42 U.S.C. §2000a

(a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. §2000a(b)

(b) Each of the following establishments is a place of public accommodation within this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence.
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment, or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of any such covered establishment

Looks like a Bar Room is not listed under this particular statute. Since my hypothetical bar does NOT serve food for consumption. And last time I checked food is different from drink.

INGunGuy

 

[GuyRelford]

No, the worst that will happen is you will be trespassed from the business and asked to leave by the offices. Don't forget, you've had several drinks and should call for a ride just to be safe.

The sign that the business had posted has no legality behind it, just like no trespassing signs.

That's really not true - which was the point of my post.

 

[LPMan59]

OK Mr Anti gun, if you need to carry a gun in your city...county...or sate, find a new place to live. I hear the England is nice, the cops dont even need guns.

i dont think he wasnt being anti-gun.

how many times i have read here and elsewhere that carrying a gun is not a superhero power. dont go places with a gun that you wouldnt normally go without one. i'm not some cowboy who's gonna clean up the town. having a gun requires more restraint than not having one. if a bar is known to be the site of brawls and shootings, why the hell would you go in there with a gun? or imo, at all?

 

[Dashman010]

Looks like a Bar Room is not listed under this particular statute. Since my hypothetical bar does NOT serve food for consumption. And last time I checked food is different from drink.

INGunGuy

I'm pretty sure a bar is included within the definition of the federal statute as construed by case law, but not wanting to take all the time to go through the federal case law, I'll just move to the Indiana counterpart, which is much more encompassing:

IC 35-46-2-1
Violation of civil rights
Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally denies to another person, because of color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, the full and equal use of the services, facilities, or goods in:
(1) an establishment that caters or offers its services, facilities, or goods to the general public; or
(2) a housing project owned or subsidized by a governmental entity;
commits a civil rights violation, a Class B misdemeanor.

 

[alfahornet]

WOW, am I the first person to see this... my guess is yes, you could be arrest for being drunk in public. It has nothing to do with the firearm.

I am not sure if a privately owned bar would count as being in public. May be someone else can shed light on that.

But assuming it would only if the officer has reasonable, like you smelling like alcohol, having difficulty walking, impaired,... and then it's still going to court. I think PI charges are hard to proof w/o breathalyzer or other clear impairement. My 2

No I don't/didn't think you could be arrested as long as you leave on your own when asked to do so. I have to read thru this post in its entirety...

 

[WabashMX5]

I'm pretty sure a bar is included within the definition of the federal statute as construed by case law, but not wanting to take all the time to go through the federal case law, I'll just move to the Indiana counterpart, which is much more encompassing:

IC 35-46-2-1
Violation of civil rights
Sec. 1. A person who knowingly or intentionally denies to another person, because of color, creed, disability, national origin, race, religion, or sex, the full and equal use of the services, facilities, or goods in:
(1) an establishment that caters or offers its services, facilities, or goods to the general public; or
(2) a housing project owned or subsidized by a governmental entity;
commits a civil rights violation, a Class B misdemeanor.

That section only provides a criminal penalty. I.C. 22-9-1-2 is the one that's civilly enforceable -- but it uses the same broader-than-federal terminology, so the end result is nearly the same.

For federal law, looks like a couple Lexis case annotations suggest that you're correct that a bar that serves ONLY booze doesn't fall within "restaurant," etc. under 42 USC § 2000a(b)(2). But other cases also suggest that if there's so much as a singlke pinball machine, dartboard, arcade game, or video poker on-site, it becomes a "place of exhibition or entertainment" under (b)(3). Granted, it can only apply if the business also affects interstate commerce, but that limitation has become nearly meaningless as a practical matter....

 

[GuyRelford]

I think this has been a great discussion. Do you guys see how this is all comes together?

Subject to civil rights protections, a private business owner can exclude anyone that he or she wants to from their property. That includes people with firearms.

And IC 35-43-2-2 says that a person commits criminal trespass when that person enters property after having been "denied entry." In addition, a person can be "denied entry" through a notice to that effect at the main entrance of the property.

Again, the reason that I posted this scenario is because I hear and read repeatedly that a sign prohibiting firearms on private property has "no legal effect." That may not be true, to the extent a sign could be intrepretted by a LEO, a prosecutor and/or a jury as having "denied entry" to a person with a firearm through its location and content.

Because the sign that I used in my scenario was so specific about "denying entry" to anyone carrying a firearm, I believe that this scenario presents a significant risk of arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass.

And, as WabashMX5 very correctly pointed out, additional factors, such as the mixture of alcohol and a firearm in this scenario, may motivate a LEO to take you to jail for the trespass violation - even though Indiana law doesn't prohibit the consumption of alcohol while carrying a firearm.