Are You Going to Jail?

[INGunGuy]

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.

So then, in my example about being specifically excluded if you wear a blue shirt or are not carrying a GI Joe with Kung Fu grip would put you in jeopardy of arrest if you enters said establishment for trespass, correct?

INGunGuy

 

[GuyRelford]

So then, in my example about being specifically excluded if you wear a blue shirt or are not carrying a GI Joe with Kung Fu grip would put you in jeopardy of arrest if you enters said establishment for trespass, correct?

INGunGuy

I don't think those would be taken seriously.

 

[troy96]

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.

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?

He may have not meant it that way, but when you start surrendering to the ideas of the antis you may as well just join them. Expand the idea of not going into a bar with a gun because it is bad to a any business, neighborhood or city. Do you see where I am going with this, where the antis will go if you give up just a small portion of your rights?

"But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."
— John Adams

 

[INGunGuy]

I don't think those would be taken seriously.

Then why would a No Handguns sign be taken seriously. I mean, the same would hold true for NO Shirt No Shoes NO service signs, or how about a restaurant that posts a sign that ties and coats are required. It seems to me that EVERY SIGN or NO SIGN would be construed as law if it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander. I would really like to know if there is any case law about signs and trespass based upon what is or is not allowed in an establishment. What about a sign that expressly forbids someone who is sick? Or a sign that expressly forbids a person who is married? Or even a sign that forbids a person if the are NOT carrying a firearm.

INGunGuy

 

[WabashMX5]

Then why would a No Handguns sign be taken seriously. I mean, the same would hold true for NO Shirt No Shoes NO service signs, or how about a restaurant that posts a sign that ties and coats are required. It seems to me that EVERY SIGN or NO SIGN would be construed as law if it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander.INGunGuy

Yes, it should. But like I said, there often is (shouldn't be, but IS) a "guns are scary" distortion factor that could result in different outcomes between "no blue shirts" and "no guns" -- even though you're correct that, in an ideal (non-Brady) world, there SHOULD be no analytical difference.

 

[INGunGuy]

Yes, it should. But like I said, there often is (shouldn't be, but IS) a "guns are scary" distortion factor that could result in different outcomes between "no blue shirts" and "no guns" -- even though you're correct that, in an ideal (non-Brady) world, there SHOULD be no analytical difference.

But isnt Justice Blind?

INGunGuy

 

[WabashMX5]

But isnt Justice Blind?

Sure should be. Nearly always is. But where guns (or the Commerce Clause) are involved, I wouldn't bet anything I couldn't afford to lose. Unfortunately, ignoring the reality of the "guns are scary" distortion factor (i.e., "justice might not be blind where guns are involved") won't make it go away.

I do think there's a very fair chance that someone charged under these circumstances could win. But I would (and do) think twice before risking my own bacon on something no stronger than a "very fair chance."

 

[dburkhead]

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.

Who said anything about "a good chance"? Most places it's very unlikely that one will need a gun. But, long shots do come in. The unlikely does happen.

Look at it another way: how many of the many people each year who did need their gun expected beforehand to need it at that time and place?

 

[GuyRelford]

Then why would a No Handguns sign be taken seriously. I mean, the same would hold true for NO Shirt No Shoes NO service signs, or how about a restaurant that posts a sign that ties and coats are required. It seems to me that EVERY SIGN or NO SIGN would be construed as law if it is good for the goose, it should be good for the gander. I would really like to know if there is any case law about signs and trespass based upon what is or is not allowed in an establishment. What about a sign that expressly forbids someone who is sick? Or a sign that expressly forbids a person who is married? Or even a sign that forbids a person if the are NOT carrying a firearm.

INGunGuy

Because guns are different than G.I. Joe dolls. The point is that police officers, prosecutors and juries are much more likely to enforce a private business owner's decision to exclude firearms from their premises than any of the silly examples that you raise, and Indiana's criminal trespass statute gives them a basis to do so - as I've identified through the specific wording of the statute.

In addition, I very specifically said that not any sign would constitute a "denial of entry" under the criminal trespass statute, and I explained in detail why I used the wording that I did in my hypothetical sign. So I've already addressed your rant about "EVERY SIGN."

And I've also said specifically that there is no case law that directly addresses this point, which is what creates the ambiguity that any intelligent Indiana gun owner should be aware of - which is why I posted this scenario to begin with. If you disagree with that point, it is certainly within your prerogative to ignore it.

 

[alfahornet]

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.

My understanding has always been that under federal law a private business may not dicriminate based on race, age, religion, national origin, ... Is that correct?

I understand the firearms argument, it's certainly different and after reading through your wording I agree with your conclusions.

 

[INGunGuy]

Because guns are different than G.I. Joe dolls. The point is that police officers, prosecutors and juries are much more likely to enforce a private business owner's decision to exclude firearms from their premises than any of the silly examples that you raise, and Indiana's criminal trespass statute gives them a basis to do so - as I've identified through the specific wording of the statute.

In addition, I very specifically said that not any sign would constitute a "denial of entry" under the criminal trespass statute, and I explained in detail why I used the wording that I did in my hypothetical sign. So I've already addressed your rant about "EVERY SIGN."

And I've also said specifically that there is no case law that directly addresses this point, which is what creates the ambiguity that any intelligent Indiana gun owner should be aware of - which is why I posted this scenario to begin with. If you disagree with that point, it is certainly within your prerogative to ignore it.

I completely understand where you are coming from. And you are correct, some of my examples are really dumb, but lets use the "Coat and Tie required" example. Could a person be placed under legal jeopardy for arrest if they went into an extablishment that required that.

INGunGuy

 

[Chuck26287]

I completely understand where you are coming from. And you are correct, some of my examples are really dumb, but lets use the "Coat and Tie required" example. Could a person be placed under legal jeopardy for arrest if they went into an extablishment that required that.

INGunGuy

I would suspect the answer is yes. Not likely, and you'd probably have to provoke action, but I'd say you could be physically removed from private property with that posting if you didn't have a coat and tie, should the owner wish to enforce it. Possible prosecution for criminal trespass, as once again, the charge is for forceably entering after being "denied entry", not a charge of "not wearing a tie". The reason being it's reasonable for what the owner is trying to do. He is trying to establish a minimum standard for his establishment within socially acceptable tolerances. It's a requisite he places on entry which doesn't violate the rights of others. That is his right.

 

[alfahornet]

I completely understand where you are coming from. And you are correct, some of my examples are really dumb, but lets use the "Coat and Tie required" example. Could a person be placed under legal jeopardy for arrest if they went into an extablishment that required that.

INGunGuy

If the wording of the sign is specific and following these conclussion, I guess you could as it could be considered trespassing. Now I doubt charges would be filed but same reasoning should apply.

 

[GuyRelford]

If the wording of the sign is specific and following these conclussion, I guess you could as it could be considered trespassing. Now I doubt charges would be filed but same reasoning should apply.

I agree, but as my friend Fargo has pointed out, there is a very important distinction between signs that merely attempt to regulate conduct ("no smoking," etc.) and signs that could truly be interpreted as a "denial of entry." In that regard, there may very likely be a critical distinction between a sign that just says "no firearms allowed," and my hypothetical sign, which said that "any person carrying a firearms is expressly denied entry to these premises." I used the latter language in an attempt to track the actual wording of the criminal trespass statute.

To be guilty of criminal trespass, you either have to have been "denied entry" and enter the property anyway, or refuse to leave after being asked to leave by the property owner or his/her agent.

 

[INGunGuy]

I agree, but as my friend Fargo has pointed out, there is a very important distinction between signs that merely attempt to regulate conduct ("no smoking," etc.) and signs that could truly be interpreted as a "denial of entry." In that regard, there may very likely be a critical distinction between a sign that just says "no firearms allowed," and my hypothetical sign, which said that "any person carrying a firearms is expressly denied entry to these premises." I used the latter language in an attempt to track the actual wording of the criminal trespass statute.

To be guilty of criminal trespass, you either have to have been "denied entry" and enter the property anyway, or refuse to leave after being asked to leave by the property owner or his/her agent.

So based upon the exact wording of the sign, one could be under legal jeopardy of arrest if they entered an establishment against what is posted on the sign at the door.

INGunGuy

 

[GuyRelford]

So based upon the exact wording of the sign, one could be under legal jeopardy of arrest if they entered an establishment against what is posted on the sign at the door.

INGunGuy

That's right, if the sign could be construed as an actual "denial of entry."

 

[rcflyer]

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

Should you drive after having "just one" beer? No you shouldnt. The odds of most people having just one are very low. Should you have one beer in a bar while carrying your weapon. No you shouldnt.
Alcohol effects are different in each person.
I will agree in principal with you that pulling a license may be a broad statement for "just having one beer".
IMHO anybody that consumes any alcohol while carrying a deadly weapon or driving one is irresponsible.

 

[INGunGuy]

Should you drive after having "just one" beer? No you shouldnt. The odds of most people having just one are very low. Should you have one beer in a bar while carrying your weapon. No you shouldnt.
Alcohol effects are different in each person.
I will agree in principal with you that pulling a license may be a broad statement for "just having one beer".
IMHO anybody that consumes any alcohol while carrying a deadly weapon or driving one is irresponsible.

And I too will agree that drinking and carrying, or drinking and driving, or drinking and flying an aircraft, or drinking and trying to fix a broken washing machine is probably not the best thing to do. BUT, since it is NOT illegal to drink and carry a handgun then just because one consumes one beer and is carrying shouldnt get their license pulled. And as for people who go out and "have just one" well everyone that I know does just that. And if anyone in the group has more than just one, then they arent driving home, period. I personally cant count the amount of times that I have sat as the designated driver because we are all smart enough to have that designated driver.

INGunGuy

 

[rcflyer]

And I too will agree that drinking and carrying, or drinking and driving, or drinking and flying an aircraft, or drinking and trying to fix a broken washing machine is probably not the best thing to do. BUT, since it is NOT illegal to drink and carry a handgun then just because one consumes one beer and is carrying shouldnt get their license pulled. And as for people who go out and "have just one" well everyone that I know does just that. And if anyone in the group has more than just one, then they arent driving home, period. I personally cant count the amount of times that I have sat as the designated driver because we are all smart enough to have that designated driver.

INGunGuy

I completely respect your rights under the law to consume alcohol in moderation and stay under the legal limit of sobriety. A designated driver is the smart thing to do.
You sound like a very responsible person.
However, thats you and your friends. Unfortunately not everyone is as responsible as you seem to be.
I know it probably will never happen, but IMHO no one should be able to carry a deadly weapon or drive one, or be out in public (while carrying) after consuming any amount of alcohol.

 

[dburkhead]

I completely respect your rights under the law to consume alcohol in moderation and stay under the legal limit of sobriety. A designated driver is the smart thing to do.
You sound like a very responsible person.
However, thats you and your friends. Unfortunately not everyone is as responsible as you seem to be.
I know it probably will never happen, but IMHO no one should be able to carry a deadly weapon or drive one, or be out in public (while carrying) after consuming any amount of alcohol.

And that is the very argument used by the anti's to ban guns entirely. Since some people won't "be responsible" then we need to take guns from everyone.

Have you really considered where that argument leads?

Being tired affects ones judgment. Therefore the right to have effective self defense is taken away when one is even a little bit tired.

Being ill affects ones judgment. Head cold? No gun for you.

Being frightened affects one's judgment. Therefore one should never have a gun when one is frightened (which basically means one could never legitimately use a gun in self defense since one of the key touchstones of legitimate self defense is "I was in fear for my life").