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

[Jack Ryan]

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.

It appears you'd be a lot of the reason people with some sense in this country has been saddled with a pack of laws to protect idiots and morons. They need everything explained to them in triplicate and the police to come explain something as simple as "No guns".

I see a bright future for you in the democrat party and government regulation, if not at the BATF may be OSHA.

Here you got, this one doesn't have any words. Think you can understand this one?

People wonder how gun owners get lable as ignorant hillbilly morons, this thread is the perfect example of where it comes from. Gun owners who pretend they can't comprehend two words and then even try to argue the point with a property.

 

[Hkindiana]

I'm using the word citation like an attorney would, while you're using it like a cop would. When you cite something, you provide a "citation." I'm not talking about tickets.

The basic format for a "citation" when it comes to the law, is:

name vs. name, and the case information (like volume number of the book in which it can be found, page number, year, etc.).

Here, let me help you. Start here.

Basic Legal Citation (2010)

Now. Cite some case law (i.e. provide a "citation") showing people convicted for trespass based solely on ignoring a no-guns sign. You've asserted that those signs hold the force of law, and if someone violates one they can be trespassed.

This is how you enforce it all the time, per you, so case law should be easy to come up with.

The fact that you do something "all the time" does not make it legal, or right. Hell, you couldn't even spell "probable cause" right in another thread. You expect anybody to take what you have to say seriously?

Can you cite case law where someone was CONVICTED of trespass for the FIRST TIME act of ignoring a "no trespassing" sign? Trespassing is not legal, but rarely gets prosecuted unless is is done repeatedly. Normally the trespasser is identified and escorted off of the property, the SAME way you would be identified and escorted off of someone's property for trespassing with a firearm.

 

[Hkindiana]

Saying you can't come in is one thing. Saying you CAN come in, but you can't bring <item> with you is entirely different. You're not denied entry in the second. I'm surprised he doesn't understand such an important distinction.
.

You, as a property owner, DO HAVE THE RIGHT to say what (or who) you will allow on your property - that is one of the BENEFITS of being a property owner, is that you CAN dictate what your property is used for. If someone REFUSES to comply with your guidelines for the use of your land, then they ARE trespassing, and LE can get involved to remove them. If you want to post a sign on your property that says "anyone found on this land that is not wearing a pink tu-tu is trespassing", that sign WILL have the teeth of law behind it. Now will anyone escorted off of your land for not wearing said pink tu-tu be prosecuted, that is a dufferent story. But, the fact remains that you would be trespassing, and LE could identify you and escort you off of the property, and if you resisted you could be arrested.

 

[jbombelli]

Can you cite case law where someone was CONVICTED of trespass for the FIRST TIME act of ignoring a "no trespassing" sign? Trespassing is not legal, but rarely gets prosecuted unless is is done repeatedly. Normally the trespasser is identified and escorted off of the property, the SAME way you would be identified and escorted off of someone's property for trespassing with a firearm.

I'm not the one asserting this is how the law is enforced. I'm the one asking for evidence of the assertion that was made. I don't have to prove ****.

 

[jbombelli]

You, as a property owner, DO HAVE THE RIGHT to say what (or who) you will allow on your property - that is one of the BENEFITS of being a property owner, is that you CAN dictate what your property is used for. If someone REFUSES to comply with your guidelines for the use of your land, then they ARE trespassing, and LE can get involved to remove them. If you want to post a sign on your property that says "anyone found on this land that is not wearing a pink tu-tu is trespassing", that sign WILL have the teeth of law behind it. Now will anyone escorted off of your land for not wearing said pink tu-tu be prosecuted, that is a dufferent story. But, the fact remains that you would be trespassing, and LE could identify you and escort you off of the property, and if you resisted you could be arrested.

You're not trespassing if they let you in. Even if it's under false pretenses, they still LET YOU IN.

Sure, we have the right to remove people from our property. We can even call a copper to walk off the property with them to make sure nothing happens. But they weren't trespassing if we let them in.

 

[Hkindiana]

I'm not the one asserting this is how the law is enforced. I'm the one asking for evidence of the assertion that was made. I don't have to prove ****.

My point is that trespassing on someone's land is illegal if it is posted "no trespassing" - even a moron would have to agree with that. Yet there are no cases where someone was Convicted of trespass for the first time ignoring of the sign on private property. That does NOT make it legal to ignore someone's "no trespassing" signs, just like ignoring someone's "no firearms" signs is not legal. Just because there is no conviction to "cite" does not mean that an act is noy illegal. A property owners rights trump SOME of your rights when you are on their property, and who or what is allowed on their property is one of those instances.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Again...clearly there MUST be a court case such at Katnupe14's suggestion that someone can be charged with "trespassing" if they are carrying onto property where a "no firearms" sign is posted. If there is SO much contension over this, someone must have contested it in a court of law. I've never read about someone being charged as Kanupe14 is suggesting.

Perhaps someone should call up Katnupe14's chief and say that someone with the screen name Katnupe14 is making the following assertions on the internet. Ask the chief if this is the practice that his officers are instructed to follow. If it is not, that he should train them appropriately.

Katnupe14 can provide us with the proper phone number so we can find out if this is how he was instructed to carry out his position.

knock yourself out yoda

 

[Hkindiana]

You're not trespassing if they let you in. Even if it's under false pretenses, they still LET YOU IN.

Sure, we have the right to remove people from our property. We can even call a copper to walk off the property with them to make sure nothing happens. But they weren't trespassing if we let them in.

So, using your "logic" someone can knock at your door and use false pretenses to gain entry to your house and they have done NOTHING wrong since you "let them in"?

 

[jbombelli]

My point is that trespassing on someone's land is illegal if it is posted "no trespassing" - even a moron would have to agree with that. Yet there are no cases where someone was Convicted of trespass for the first time ignoring of the sign on private property. That does NOT make it legal to ignore someone's "no trespassing" signs, just like ignoring someone's "no firearms" signs is not legal. Just because there is no conviction to "cite" does not mean that an act is noy illegal. A property owners rights trump SOME of your rights when you are on their property, and who or what is allowed on their property is one of those instances.

*sigh*

The fact that it's not prosecuted this way supports my position that the signs in question are not interpreted this way.

So, using your "logic" someone can knock at your door and use false pretenses to gain entry to your house and they have done NOTHING wrong since you "let them in"?

I'm not saying they've done nothing wrong. Wrong and Illegal are two different words with two entirely different definitions.

 

[Hkindiana]

*sigh*

The fact that it's not prosecuted this way supports my position that the signs in question are not interpreted this way.


They don't prosecute ANY form of trespassing on private property ths way. That does not mean that trespassing on private property is not illegal.

I'm not saying they've done nothing wrong. Wrong and Illegal are two different words with two entirely different definitions.

it's like flogging

 

[youngda9]

*sigh*

The fact that it's not prosecuted this way supports my position that the signs in question are not interpreted this way.

^^ +1 This is the correct answer...ding ding ding ding.

 

[Kutnupe14]

*sigh*

The fact that it's not prosecuted this way supports my position that the signs in question are not interpreted this way.

LE doesnt prosecute that way, because quite simply it's bad policing. If a person is willing to leave when confronted without causing an issue, good. If they choose to be a hard ass about it, which despite all the hard asses here it never happens, then they certainly will be charged.

You are clinging to the ridiculous position that b/c you can't find an instance where someone has been charged for ignoring signage, then it must be legal to do so.
I also bet you can't find an instance where someone has been cited for going 50.5 mph, in a 50 mph zone, but needless to say, you can still be cited.

and actually, perhaps you need to get in contact with the OP of this thread, and see how it worked out for him (here's your case):

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?69910-Green-Tree-Mall

So there, now you have a case that was apparently prosecuted against a person that didn't agree with the practice. Satisfied? I personally if the guy was willing to leave, wouldn't have had him summonsed

 

[jbombelli]

LE doesnt prosecute that way, because quite simply it's bad policing. If a person is willing to leave when confronted without causing an issue, good. If they choose to be a hard ass about it, which despite all the hard asses here it never happens, then they certainly will be charged.

"Bad policing?" Really? I'm sure liability doesn't have anything to do with it. But as you say: They'll be charged AFTER they become a hard-ass about it (i.e. refuse to leave as asked). AT WHICH TIME THEY'RE TRESPASSING, and not one single person here has advocated that or claimed to do that.

You are clinging to the ridiculous position that b/c you can't find an instance where someone has been charged for ignoring signage, then it must be legal to do so.
I also bet you can't find an instance where someone has been cited for going 50.5 mph, in a 50 mph zone, but needless to say, you can still be cited.



and actually, perhaps you need to get in contact with the OP of this thread, and see how it worked out for him (here's your case):

Green Tree Mall

So there, now you have a case that was apparently prosecuted against a person that didn't agree with the practice. Satisfied? I personally if the guy was willing to leave, wouldn't have had him summonsed


That's not a citation. But I think you know that. That's an internet forum thread with the same debate we have here in this thread, with most people in fact agreeing that the signs mean nothing. So find some actual Indiana case law to support your position.

But keep trying.

 

[Ltemfly4]

I am new to carrying, and not sure of where it
Is ok to carry, and where it is
Not. I want to carry wherever I can, but
I don't want to get in trouble just because
I want to protect myself, and my family.
Any help on this I would appreciate it!
Thanx!!!!

 

[Ltemfly4]

Just maybe some ideas, like where not to
I know obviously a courthouse, banks, any federal building
Or any government buildings.

 

[Ltemfly4]

Also how long it takes to get the CCW
It has been about 6 weeks for me
Now.

 

[ATM]

I am new to carrying, and not sure of where it
Is ok to carry, and where it is Not.

I know obviously a courthouse, banks, any federal building
Or any government buildings.

Banks are fine to carry as are some government buildings.

Also how long it takes to get the CCW
It has been about 6 weeks for me
Now.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_issues_and_self_defense/6875-current_ltch_wait.html


All your answers could be found in the INGO FAQ (<---click here)


...if only we had one.

 

[Hammerhead]

Let me spell this out once and for all in plain English.

If you post a sign that says "You may not enter if you possess *object*" where the *object* is the item you wish kept off your property, this is a specific denial of entry sign much like a sign that says "NO TRESPASSING" or "NO HUNTING, FISHING, OR SWIMMING" is a denial of entry as specified in the trespassing law.

If you post a sign that says "No Firearms", this is NOT a denial of entry. It is a request. It does not specify that someone is not allowed to enter, it says that you do not wish that object is on your property. There is a specific and legal distinction between denial of entry and conditional entry.

It is NOT illegal in any way shape or form to enter into a location with an item prohibited by a company policy, as company policy does not equal law.

Kutnupe's original comment in this thread:

No, it depends on where you are. If a person in on the property of a persons where it is clearly posted "no firearms," If I, personally arrive, you will be disarmed, you will be identified, you will be walked off the property, and then you will be given a written trespass notice.

Why go through all that, when you could have respected the property owners wishes in the first place?

Here, his first post in this thread, he says that once he arrives, he'll disarm you, ID you, and remove you. His own statement says NOTHING about having had any previous interaction with any property owner. So if he's called to the scene, even before you've had any interaction with the agent of the property, he'll trespass you. His own words. Aside from the fact that he suggests that you should follow the "property owner's WISHES" in the first place. I don't have to follow wishes. If wishes were horses, we'd all have a ride.

Or when LE arrives on the scene, the guy carrying the gun on property where "no firearms permitted" signs are emblazoned all over the place may end up the person being shot at...

Here, he's saying that for merely carrying a gun where someone doesn't like it, LEOs may shoot you. Of course, this was in response to a comment about a shooter entering into a business and being subdued by a citizen carrying even though there was a "no guns" sign posted. I'm guessing the police coming into an active shooter situation will read the sign and believe that no one but the shooter could be carrying.

He then quoted me the trespass law, trying to make me believe that a company policy or request fell under the purview of the law, that entry is denied.

Yes, the sign MUST clearly specify that entry is denied for it to fall under the trespass code. It MUST clearly be worded in such a way that there is no confusion over who is allowed to enter and who is not allowed to enter.

Merely stating that you do not wish an object to be present IS NOT a denial of entry. Roadie posted a very specific statement from GunLawyer in this regard, and yet those of you who have argued again and again that "no guns" = "no trespassing" seem to have overlooked this passage and the legal difference GunLawyer clearly explained.

"No Guns" is a request, period. It does NOT fall under the Indiana Code defining trespassing. As such, the only time you can be trespassed is if you are asked to leave and do not, or if you are specifically and clearly denied entry to begin with.

 

[finity]

Do you also IGNORE "No Trespassing" and "No Hunting" signs on private property?

Those signs are enforceable by law as written notice of denial of entry.

If I saw a sign like that, I'll OC my cross and my bible.

You can do that but you can also sue them under the Civil Rights Act. The latter may be more effective at flexing your “rights” (legal rights not actual Rights).

Not so. The FIRST time that you are caught trespassing or hunting on someones property you have to be warned first, then if you trespass or hunt AGAIN, you can face arrest or possible jail time.

I don’t think that’s correct.

People have been convicted for entering onto property with “no trespassing” signs with no other prior warning.

If you carry in a store that posts "no guns allowed", are caught carrying and asked to leave, and come back doing it again anyway, then you COULD face possible arrest or jail time. That is because you would be TRESPASSING.

That’s true because until you were asked to leave you had no legal warning. You wouldn’t be arrested until you came back because THAT IS WHEN YOU LEGALLY TRESPASSED, not before.

A "no guns" sign is not legal notice.

I know from personal experience, AND from the numerous posts on INGO, that LE WILL NOT arrest someone for trespassing without first warning them. The first time they are caught, they get off with a verbal warning.

Good because that’s the way the law is written.

The same as when you are caught carrying in a store with a "no guns" sign.

Exactly…

That being said,

Why worry about "No trespassing" or "no hunting" signs because they hold "no legal teeth"?

Ah, but they do.

“No trespassing”, “keep out”, “do not enter” are signs specifically for the intent of DENYING ENTRY. It means “don’t come onto my property. PERIOD.” If they are posted at public entrances then they constitute legal notice of denial of entry.

“No hunting” signs are similar but not exactly the same. The legal remedy for hunting without permission is laid out in the IN Administrative Code. It states that it is illegal to hunt on private property without the owner’s permission. So, technically, it isn’t the sign that makes it illegal even without warning, but the IAC that does it. If you know someone is hunting on your property without permission & you call the police or a CO that person can be arrested without ANY warning at all, even without a “no hunting” sign.

Of course, you'll also respect the property owners wishes and leave your duty weapon off the property, right?

Zing!!!

Good one…

That question wasn’t really answered was it?

He made an attempt to justify it by making the old “some animals are more equal than others” reply.

Do you want to see the alternative to government protection of commerce? Look at Afghanistan. The "country" has deteriorated into anarchy and chaos over the last 30-35 years (since the Soviet occupation). They have no roads, no health cars, no protection from roving groups of bandits, but you are right, no one is stepping on their rights, and they have all the guns they want to boot.

+1

Libertarian utopia’s do not exist outside of third-world cesspool’s.

The request is orginally that you NOT come on the premises with a frearm. You are bound by that request first. Once you enter a private owners premises after ignoring his original request, you think he needs to make another request for you to leave?

Ok, so here’s a scene for you:

A guy walks into BWW’s. He’s OC’ing & has a couple of friends with him. There is no “no guns” sign at the entrance.

The manager walks up after a short time & politely asks the younger guy to take it to his car. The younger guy refuses. The manager says (again politely) we don’t allow guns in here & it’s making the other customers nervous. Again the same response.

Now the manager gets irritated & says that if he doesn’t take it to the car then he will call the police. Same response.

I’m not going to argue whether the manager has the Right to ask him to cover it or take it to his car (that’s for another thread) but my question to you is –

When did this person commit “trespassing”?

I’d say he didn’t because he wasn’t asked to leave (I’m not saying he shouldn’t have left on his own but again that’s for that other thread ).

Isn’t his “please leave it in the car” the same as the “no guns” sign?

I’m not saying that the owner doesn’t have the Right to ask him to leave it in the car but if the OC’er doesn’t there is no legal enforcement aside from asking him to leave (or calling the cops & having them ask him to leave since he may be afraid of provoking a guy with a gun ) & if he doesn’t leave AT THAT POINT then he is trespassing.

If you are trespassed from a property, you will have to be identfied for obvious reasons, I can certainly disarm you, hell even though I didn't mention it, I can certainly cuff and detain you.

Perhaps you need a lesson on Indiana Law:
Trespassing:
35-43-2-2 (b)
A person has been denied entry under (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 prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public;

That sir is Trespassing subsection B.... thus you are breaking the law, if appropiate signage is evident. thus you are disarmed. possibly cuffed. certainly identifed. certainly walked to your car. and certainly told "don't come back."
If you have a lawyer that told you that you can beat that, you probably need your money back.

So you are really going to say that if I have an object on me & there is a sign saying “no {object}” then you can arrest me with no other warnings AT ALL.

How many people have been arrested ever for not wearing shoes into a convenience store? EVER!?

Just so we're clear what we are contesting. I'm sayng that if you enter the property of another where it is clearly stated "No firearms on the Premises," and you are indeed carryng a firearm, if the property owner calls the police, you have committed trespassing. Upon arrival of police, you will be identified, you will be disarmed, and you will be walked of the property and not even a legal hack will tell you that you have recourse.

You may resist, but all that will do is add an extra charge, because we wouldn't have arrested you in the first place. We would have just told you to not come back.

You keep saying that you will be escorted from the premises. You say you will not arrest someone unless they resist. Interestingly, if the have not been specifically told to leave, until they resist they really aren’t trespassing & the most you CAN do is escort them off the premises (until, like you said, they resist).

"No Bananas"

Hey! That’s my example!

I guess I'll be trespassed from a movie theater if I ever carry my own candy in. They usually put something like "no outside food or drink allowed" on a sign. So I can be arrested…for that, right?

I’d be interested to hear the answer to that.

Or at the very least forced by you to leave, just because there's a sign?

Ok, now I have to disagree with you.

The police CAN ask you to leave based on the sign. Most of the time they will be asked by the owner/agent to do it after he calls them, though I still think the cop can ask you to leave if you’re carrying a banana into a “banana free” zone.

Hunting with out permission is not the same as simple tresspass. There is no need for warning.

Agreed. But it’s not based on any signage. It’s based on IAC “laws”.

Does it have to be SPELLED out for you on the sign:

"The owner of this property says NO GUNS allowed on this property, so if you ARE in possession of a firearm on this property, you are TRESPASSING, this IS your warning"

Would this sign carry the legal weight of the law, and if so could a LE officer arrest you for trespassing when you IGNORE it and carry anyway?

Yes.

The owner of this property says NO BANANAS allowed on this property, so if you ARE in possession of a banana on this property, you are TRESPASSING, this IS your warning

"Are you just happy to see me or are you going to jail?"

Hey! What the…?

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?

Nope. See above.

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?

Right. “Private property” even if we go by your logic isn’t a request to do ANYTHING. It is simply stating a fact. That would be similar to posting a sign that says “the sky is blue” or “bananas are yummy”. Those are facts not requests.

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?

Well, I certainly don’t think it would be trespassing. Maybe, B&E. Maybe…

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.

Ok, first you have to explain what you mean when you say they are “trespassed”.

Are you saying they were informed to leave the premises & to not return? Maybe by requiring them to sign some sort of official notification form?

Or are you saying that they were arrested for the crime of “criminal trespassing”?

From reading the above it looks to be the former.

If that’s the case then I completely agree that those actions are legal. You can ID, & tell them to leave & not come back. I’d even say that you could probably even temporarily disarm them for the duration of the interaction if you thought they may be a danger to you or others. But I still say you couldn’t LEGALLY arrest them & the prosecutor would not be able to convict (unless they were good at getting the judge to see things their way like others from Carmel).

But that option certainly does exist, if a person wants to physcally contest their detainment.

Yes, but you seem to keep implying that it’s OK to arrest someone solely based on a “no {object}” sign but then you immediately qualify your statement with things like above.

Of course, they can be arrested if the resist their detainment. If they resist when they are told to leave THEN they are truly trespassing.

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.

There you go qualifying your “I can arrest you for violating a “no {object}” sign, again.

Of course you can arrest them after they “get mad” (IOW, resist). I don’t think anybody on this thread is arguing otherwise.

(OK, you can't arrest them for just getting mad - yet. If so then the entire popluation would in jail.)

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 somehow that was the lawyers fault for giving the woman otherwise good legal advice? Can you tell me the percentages of people involved in an altercation that would be BETTER OFF by talking to the police? Sometimes life is just a crap shoot. I’d rather take my chances in court with a lawyer standing by than spill my guts to the cops on the scene in hopes that they will somehow “like me” & that I won’t inadvertently give them something to hang me with.

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.

I hope you aren’t honestly trying to get us to somehow take a cops word over a lawyers word on legal interpretations, are you?

Because we all know that cops never screw it up…

Can you cite case law where someone was CONVICTED of trespass for the FIRST TIME act of ignoring a "no trespassing" sign? Trespassing is not legal, but rarely gets prosecuted unless is is done repeatedly. Normally the trespasser is identified and escorted off of the property, the SAME way you would be identified and escorted off of someone's property for trespassing with a firearm.

I know there was one on here a while back but my saved link for Findlaw.com is not bringing up the case. If anybody can help me out it was about a guy who was convicted for trespassing because he was standing on a gate with the sign right at his feet.

So, using your "logic" someone can knock at your door and use false pretenses to gain entry to your house and they have done NOTHING wrong since you "let them in"?

“Wrong”, yes. “Illegal”, no.

If they come in through false pretenses I still have ask them to leave then call the cops if they refuse. They didn’t force their way in. I let them in.

Are you saying that it is trespassing & is automatically illegal if I simply post a sign that says “no liars”?

and actually, perhaps you need to get in contact with the OP of this thread, and see how it worked out for him (here's your case):

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/showthread.php?69910-Green-Tree-Mall

So there, now you have a case that was apparently prosecuted against a person that didn't agree with the practice. Satisfied? I personally if the guy was willing to leave, wouldn't have had him summonsed

Interestingly (again), it looks as though everything turned out OK for the OP based on that thread. He said it was all worked out & he got to keep his LTCH. It just cost him time & money.

It looks like the cops arrested him for trespassing but the charge must not have stuck.

It looks like, instead of bolstering your argument, it refutes it instead.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Here, he's saying that for merely carrying a gun where someone doesn't like it, LEOs may shoot you. Of course, this was in response to a comment about a shooter entering into a business and being subdued by a citizen carrying even though there was a "no guns" sign posted. I'm guessing the police coming into an active shooter situation will read the sign and believe that no one but the shooter could be carrying.

Though you're first sentence is devoid of the application of context. I think, rather I hope it was fairly obvious that LE would shoot a carrier in confusion.