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

[Kutnupe14]

So in other words, no citation; no proof to back what you say. Just the assertions that 1) you're right, and 2) the attorneys who have previously posted on this matter right here on INGO are wrong, and my personal attorney is wrong.

Maybe you should go teach a course at IU School of Law.

Ok, you keep using this "citation" reference.... Trespassing is a criminal charge, so "citation" isn't the preferred nomenclature. It's a charge, validated by PC, a "citation" is of a lower standard.

secondly, lawyers argue the law, they don't decide it. If you have one lawyer arguing one way, then obviously one is arguing the other way.... so based on that alone lawyers are wrong 50% of the time, right?

Who's to say that your lawyer isn't typically on the "bad end" of that 50%?

The proff I have is in the act of removing such individuals that chose to ignore such signs. This is a well held course of action. A course of action that has yet to meet with a challenge. Take it for what it's worth, but I know who won't put this issue to the test....

(hint: that would be you)

 

[lashicoN]

The proff I have is in the act of removing such individuals that chose to ignore such signs. This is a well held course of action. A course of action that has yet to meet with a challenge. Take it for what it's worth, but I know who won't put this issue to the test....

(hint: that would be you)

It really doesn't bother you that you actually charge people with trespassing, because they may not have seen a damn sign, and carried a firearm, while you, somehow, insanely justify the fact that you are carrying a firearm onto the premises to charge someone who is doing the exact same thing as you? I'm not talking about removing an ******* who refuses to leave, I mean you flat-out just charge them with trespassing because they had a gun? Even if no one asked them to leave?

I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror if I lived like that. How is the view from up there, in 1st class America?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'd love to feed you those words. Maybe it'll give you some perspective. Not everyone reads signs posted on a window, at my local gas station, there about about 50 signs, ads, and notices, I don't read any of them. For all I know, every time I enter, I'm entering against company policy, which is all it is.

And after you got your answer you went on to say -

Which means that you believe that as long as an officer believes he's acting in good faith, he can do whatever wrong he pleases. And your first comment was about a police officer entering a home, it had nothing to do with the spin in your second post, which I only insert here as proof that you are defending that belief. How do those words taste? Now how about the rest of my post?

Holy "Jumping to Conclusions" Batman! I'm going to have you recall exactly what you said I said:

coming from a guy who I just saw make the argument that if a police officer, unlawfully, enters your home and kills your family BUT THOUGHT he was acting in good faith, he shouldn't be charged with anything

There is zero mentioning of being charged with anything in either of those posts, but you "magically" from the back of you unicorn jumping over a rainbow, say that I have said that (an officer) shouldn't be charged with anything? What part of your brain constructed that lil tidbit...

I will have to say, you lil post is a gem. It's been a long time since I've seen somebody owned so hard by reading comprehension.

"which means I believe..." are you serious? I'm in tears, apparently you have a crystal ball and palm reader as side kick.

Rest of your post will be addressed presently... after I finish laughing of course.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Quite frankly, I'll just say again, I won't be traveling to Carmel without a good reason. I don't want to be near a police officer who believes that a request or company policy is an enforceable law.

In another thread similar to this, someone attempted to bring up the property rights vs. natural rights argument. They used the same "I can't believe so many people who espouse protecting rights would violate property rights" argument.

I'll say again what I said then. Not complying with a request isn't a violation of property rights. Property rights are violated when a subject prevents the owner of the property from the fair possession and use of said property. Carrying a firearm against the wishes of a property owner doesn't prevent possession or use of the owner's property, unless you use that firearm to coerce or to threaten and/or actually use force to either keep the property owner from using said property, or to take the property from the owner.

The term "right" tends to be used in place of privilege or power when it comes to what property owners have. A business owner has the privilege or power to tell someone to leave the property. They do not have a privilege or power to prohibit the possession of someone else's property. The reason I say this is because there is no duty or requirement for a person to honor a request. For a violation of a "right", there must be a legally enforceable "duty" to comply.

As a "no firearms" sign is a request that you not possess a specific physical object (doesn't matter what object is being defined, again could be bananas or socks). There's no law that requires you follow said request, in the state of Indiana. The law requires you to leave when asked. You have a duty to comply, as this demand is legally enforceable with the trespass law.

I have no legally enforceable duty to comply with stupid signage or stupid company policies. Some people may think that I have a moral obligation instead, or that I shouldn't give money to places that try to deny my rights. Sometimes, I might agree that I should be outraged that people don't see things the same way I do and not put my coins into their pockets if they attempt to tell me what I can and can't carry. Sometimes, I just don't give a darn.

Requests are still not legally enforceable, no matter how much you may try to make them so. Policies do not equal law.

Still not wanting to read the code huh? That's fine but sticking your head in the sand doesn't prevent you from being subject to written law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It really doesn't bother you that you actually charge people with trespassing, because they may not have seen a damn sign, and carried a firearm, while you, somehow, insanely justify the fact that you are carrying a firearm onto the premises to charge someone who is doing the exact same thing as you? I'm not talking about removing an ******* who refuses to leave, I mean you flat-out just charge them with trespassing because they had a gun? Even if no one asked them to leave?

I wouldn't be able to look in the mirror if I lived like that. How is the view from up there, in 1st class America?

You want to find the post were I said I charged someone with Trespassing too? It's right next to "I bet you don't find it" over in aisle 3. Seriously dude are you reading posts or are you just writing? Cause rght now I'm concerned about you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I think the correct term is "playa". Playboy is so 80s.

It's coming back into style... trust me

 

[Rookie]

It's coming back into style... trust me

That's groovy man.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Hahaha. Where are you coming from? I'm pissed that you think you can charge someone with trespassing simply for having a firearm on their person while a sign somewhere in a place of business says they aren't allowed. I've never hunted at a place of business, never seen a "Private Property, DO NOT ENTER" sign at a place of business, and I have no idea what you're talking about with your last, terrible, terrible excuse of an example to win this argument. This is all about being charged with trespassing for perhaps not seeing a sign, and like other users have said, NOT BREAKING A LAW. Everything else you cited is, in fact, illegal. Carrying a firearm with a LTCH into a place of business is legal in Indiana, and that's why I would sue the **** out of you for charging me with trespassing, when I wasn't trespassing, I was shopping while armed and no one asked me to leave.

I've heard people talk about Toys R Us, Hobby Lobby, or Post Offices having signs that say "No Guns allowed" or something similar, but I've never seen signs at those three places near me. It's possible I missed them, it's possible someone torn them down and the person who put the sign up doesn't realize it's gone when they call the police to have me arrested for trespassing, instead of just coming over to me, like HUMAN BEING, and communicating to me that they do not want my money if there is a gun on my hip. I would gladly leave and spend my money elsewhere. I wouldn't even think about telling a private property owner "No, I'll do what I want!!!!!!! I can carry a gun in your store and there is nothing you can do to stop me!!!"

Do you have any right of privacy when you enter a place of business? Can they put cameras in the bathrooms? If you have the "right" to privacy, why do you not have the "right" to defend yourself with your firearm and LTCH?



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.

On second thought, I won't address this. I think you need to read a lill bit....no, a lot more. Some, I disagree with but I respect their opinions because I think they have solid views and back it up with solid logic. E5Ranger, GT88 (who loves me), MJarrell (or something like that), and others have solid stances that I will admit make me think.... you just make me laugh.

 

[lashicoN]

You want to find the post were I said I charged someone with Trespassing too? It's right next to "I bet you don't find it" over in aisle 3. Seriously dude are you reading posts or are you just writing? Cause rght now I'm concerned about you.

Who said opinion? That's the way business is conducted. I have done exactly what I have stated personally slightly more than a handful of times (and teh person disarmed is never happy). So there's no opinion to be expressed, that's the way it is. Find me a lawyer that has tried and won such a case, I will change the way "I do business"
Or, if youre that confdent....

Ok, you keep using this "citation" reference.... Trespassing is a criminal charge, so "citation" isn't the preferred nomenclature. It's a charge, validated by PC, a "citation" is of a lower standard.

The proff I have is in the act of removing such individuals that chose to ignore such signs. This is a well held course of action. A course of action that has yet to meet with a challenge. Take it for what it's worth, but I know who won't put this issue to the test....

(hint: that would be you)

I took those two posts as you had charged a handful of people with "exactly what you had stated", trespassing. I'm glad to see you only disarmed and harassed them, instead of charging them with trespassing, which it appears to me now, that we both know you can't do, which is what we've been saying to you, and you kept arguing that you could. Then you said you had done exactly what you stated more than a handful of times. That's where I was gathering that you charged people with trespassing, because that's what you kept saying the law was...and you're a law enforcement officer...

Holy "Jumping to Conclusions" Batman! I'm going to have you recall exactly what you said I said:

[/SIZE]

There is zero mentioning of being charged with anything in either of those posts, but you "magically" from the back of you unicorn jumping over a rainbow, say that I have said that (an officer) shouldn't be charged with anything? What part of your brain constructed that lil tidbit...

Right, you didn't say anything about him being charged, because you don't believe he should be charged, just like you believe that even if an officer makes a mistake and pulls the wrong car over, you should still have to stop for the idiot who made a mistake and listen to him make up some lie as to why he pulled you over, which isn't a great way to start an interaction with someone who is on their way home, and has no idea why they were pulled over, but sure as **** knows they weren't driving recklessly.

I admit, I made a leap, but it wasn't a very big one. You clearly believe if an Officer was acting in good faith, then the citizen just has to shut up and take whatever the officer has to give, whether it's a ticket, or a bullet. You displayed that by asking the question I quoted and by following it up with an example as to why you believe that way, which I also quoted.

This argument is getting away from me, and I have put a few words in your mouth, which I don't like to do, so I would like to get back to the topic. I apologize for putting a few words in your mouth, but I still believe that you believe as long as an officer is acting is good faith, he should get away with whatever he did, based off of the quoted question you submitted.

 

[Rookie]

You should seriously read some other posts he's made. You're confusing him with a few other officers on this board.

 

[lashicoN]

You should seriously read some other posts he's made. You're confusing him with a few other officers on this board.

I've positive repped him in the past and I'm sure I will again in the future. He and I are just having a major disagreement over real trespassing Vs. walking into an open place of business, while armed, which has a sign that may or may not be clearly displayed that reads "No Guns Allowed", no one has asked you to leave, and then the police show up to charge you with Trespassing, out of the blue.

I brought his quote from the other thread in to offer him some perspective on "good faith" and how it doesn't only apply to police officers. Not every citizen is a bad guy and it would be nice if police officers understood that and didn't try to make a criminal out of anyone who carries into a place of business that has a sign stating a company policy. That didn't work out for me, since I jumped to conclusions as to what he meant by "Did the officer know he was breaking the law, though?" Because, last I checked, not knowing something is illegal is not a legal excuse to break the law, otherwise, people would say, "I didn't know it was illegal to speed, enter a home without a warrant, or kill this guy, ooops."

I've seen a lot of moronic things said the past few days with the IN SC ruling and I probably have mashed a few of the users together. Plus it's almost four in the morning, so it's time to turn the computer off and go to bed. I'm sure we'll pick this back up tomorrow night though.

 

[modelflyer2003]

I won't even drive onto the post office parking lot when I have a gun CCW or even in my car. I park on the street, put the Glock in the Glove compartment and re-arm when I'm finished. I have too much to lose. I know I'm taking a chance of someone going postal and not being prepared but after weighing the risks that's my decision.

 

[Hkindiana]

Quite frankly, I'll just say again, I won't be traveling to Carmel without a good reason. I don't want to be near a police officer who believes that a request or company policy is an enforceable law.

In another thread similar to this, someone attempted to bring up the property rights vs. natural rights argument. They used the same "I can't believe so many people who espouse protecting rights would violate property rights" argument.

I'll say again what I said then. Not complying with a request isn't a violation of property rights. Property rights are violated when a subject prevents the owner of the property from the fair possession and use of said property. Carrying a firearm against the wishes of a property owner doesn't prevent possession or use of the owner's property, unless you use that firearm to coerce or to threaten and/or actually use force to either keep the property owner from using said property, or to take the property from the owner.

So, when you hunt on someone's property without permission, you are not preventing the owner of the property from the fair possession and use if their property. And you think this is OK? Don't say it's not the same thing - ALL property owners have rights, and ONE of those rights is to keep whomever they want OFF of their property. If you have an unnatural fear of bananas, and put up a sign on your property that says "anyone is welcome on my property, unless you have a banana, then you are forbidden to enter" and someone chooses to IGNORE your sign, then they are TRESPASSING, and a law enforcement officer CAN escort them off of your property without a verbal request for them to leave, because the SIGN meets Indianas requirement of notification. Now, once you have been escorted off of the property, it would be up to the officer as to whether or not to actually charge you with trespassing. If nit, it would be the same as a verbal warning for speeding instead of a ticket, even though you were breaking the law by speeding, the officer did not think you deserved a fine.

 

[Hkindiana]

The term "right" tends to be used in place of privilege or power when it comes to what property owners have. A business owner has the privilege or power to tell someone to leave the property. They do not have a privilege or power to prohibit the possession of someone else's property. The reason I say this is because there is no duty or requirement for a person to honor a request. For a violation of a "right", there must be a legally enforceable "duty" to comply.

As a "no firearms" sign is a request that you not possess a specific physical object (doesn't matter what object is being defined, again could be bananas or socks). There's no law that requires you follow said request, in the state of Indiana. The law requires you to leave when asked. You have a duty to comply, as this demand is legally enforceable with the trespass law.
.

When you are a property owner, you have RIGHTS with respect to your property, and NOT privileges. One of those RIGHTS is to forbid entry to ANYONE that you want, as long as it is legal (ie not based on sex, age, religion, or sexual preference). Until we get a law that prohibits discrimination based on whether or not you are carrying a firearm, then the property owner has the RIGHT to deny you entry for carrying a firearm. You have only three options, IGNORE him and TRESPASS, comply and don't bring in your firearm, or DON'T ENTER. Again, he could FORBID you to bring bananas or socks onto his property, and that is his RIGHT as a property owner. If you did it anyway, you would be trespassing.

 

[Hkindiana]

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..

the sign has to be well posted. If you enter someone's property who has a " no trespassing" sign that is only two inches square and is posted at ground level, you ARE trespassing, but no one in their right mind would prosecute you for it. As for your second assertion, there is not a whole set of laws regarding how many signs must be posted, what size and what font, and what color scheme concerning " no hunting", and general "no trespassing" signs that I am aware of, so are you SURE they don't carry any weight of law either?

 

[youngda9]

Kutnupe14....SURELY you can come up with one single case to proove your point, right.....I'll check back periodically.....

I mean if you're going to refute the lawyers, have something to back it up other than your opinion...you know what they say about opinions, right.

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.

 

[jbombelli]

Ok, you keep using this "citation" reference.... Trespassing is a criminal charge, so "citation" isn't the preferred nomenclature. It's a charge, validated by PC, a "citation" is of a lower standard.

secondly, lawyers argue the law, they don't decide it. If you have one lawyer arguing one way, then obviously one is arguing the other way.... so based on that alone lawyers are wrong 50% of the time, right?

Who's to say that your lawyer isn't typically on the "bad end" of that 50%?

The proff I have is in the act of removing such individuals that chose to ignore such signs. This is a well held course of action. A course of action that has yet to meet with a challenge. Take it for what it's worth, but I know who won't put this issue to the test....

(hint: that would be you)

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?

 

[youngda9]

Now. Cite some case law 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?

I expect excuses or crickets...anyone want to take bets on which it will be?

 

[jbombelli]

I expect excuses or crickets...anyone want to take bets on which it will be?

I've been asking for case law on this issue for a LOOONG time. I have yet to have ANYONE in Indiana point me to a case wherein someone was arrested, charged with trespass, and convicted based solely on ignoring a "no guns" sign. Said conviction including pleading guilty.

I don't expect excuses or crickets... I expect a more confrontational approach including sidetracking of the issue, more blather about how my attorney is stupid, how I'm stupid, I lack guts, I won't test this myself, and he's right because he said so.


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.

But this is why nobody should ever ask the police for legal advice.

 

[Gareth]

While visiting the range, I engaged a LEO in a conversation concerning our right to bear arms. During this rather interesting exchange, he informed me that anyone discovered carrying "weapons" of any kind at the mall located in Terre Haute would be arrested by the LEO assigned to a post there, and whatever "weapon" the violator was in possession of would be confiscated. Plus, they would lose their LTCH.

Normally, my wife and I never shop at the mall, but whenever we did, I never saw a sign clearly posted anywhere stating that all "weapons" were prohibited on the premises. Then, due to my little chat with the LEO at the range, I deliberately searched for such a sign, and finally discovered it posted in small font on an inside wall beside the entrance... Wow.

Anyway, I was packin' several items that would have been considered "weapons" that day. But they were all concealed on my person. So my wife (wheelchair bound) and I took a casual stroll throughout the trendy establishment without ever purchasing anything that we could buy for less practically anywhere else. During our visit, we encountered one inattentive security officer and one T.H.P.D. officer. Only the LEO visually inspected me, but since I was carrying concealed, I was not approached by him, or anyone else.

I won't be visiting the stuffy mall again, armed, or unarmed. The place is for those on a completely different wavelength.

As for what could actually happen to someone caught carrying a "weapon" onto mall property, I really don't know. And this thread sure hasn't provided me with any definitive answers. But, frankly, I don't really want to find out the hard way. I much prefer maintaining a low profile while venturing off my own property while at least trying to avoid unpleasant confrontations.