Kids planet "no firearms" ic

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    OK- I'll preface this by saying again, that in my personal non-legal advice opinion- this kind of thing is highly unlikely to be prosecuted.
    Not an unreasonable personal opinion, since nobody has yet cited where it has happened, ever.

    That being said, if the defense is "I didn't see the sign", the prosecution can present pictures of the sign and the entrance and a jury can decide whether to believe your testimony that you did not see the sign. Of course, that would involve testifying and cross examination.....and if the sign was obvious enough, cross would be fun and what answer is given to the questions would be irrelevant. My argument is made with my questions.

    [ETA] Social media posts about how ridiculous the sign is would be a bonus.
    Sure. If you claim that you didn't see the sign, it would be counter-productive to post images of said sign on social media.

    What a sign would have to say to allow for a case to be brought is a different matter altogether.
    To me, this is the bigger issue. I think trying to apply the specific denial under (c)(1) to a general denial under (c)(2) would be problematic.

    [ETA 2]

    Anyhoo, this is absolutely the right place to have a conversation about what would constitute a criminal trespass for carriers...but whenever this comes up, I have thoughts about the private property rights of others and whether denying these businesses our $$ when they exercise their private property rights to exclude carriers and using the market may be the better way to go.
    My only stance on this point is that, if I'm asked to leave somewhere, I'm going to leave. Unless/until that happens, I intend to carry on with my lawful activities in whatever manner I see fit. And if I'm asked to leave, I will leave - and likely never return.

    ETA:

    Property rights of others do not extend to my person. They are within their rights to deny the physical presence of my person on their property, but that is where their property rights end. Their property rights do not extend to give them control over what I do, say, carry, etc.
     

    JAL

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    May 14, 2017
    2,174
    113
    Indiana
    My take on it is they're on very shaky ground trying to have someone immediately arrested the first time around based solely on the sign. Having the local constabulary help escort you off the property - the first time - would be the outcome I'd bet on as they most likely wouldn't want to get embroiled in it unless there's a repeat. Given what they're doing, my path would be not to give them my business, boycotting with my leather personnel carriers. If they want to paint a giant bullseye on their back, let them. I won't participate in being on the bullseye.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,023
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    You're on your own.

    I'll just say this- highly unlikely to be enforced, prosecuted, whatever, is not the same as cannot be enforced.

    "contractual interest in the property" does not mean that I am a customer of the business there.
    Look, don't tell me how to roll. Before I go into Taco Bell, I always buy a few shares of Pepsi.

    "Sir, it's 3:17AM, we're closed, and you're not wearing pants."

    "Pffft, I'm the own the place, 3 soft tacos to go."

    Typical Kirk Friday night:



    Typical Kirk 11:04 AM Saturday morning after she catches me with Ukrainian ballerinas and spending money on hotels:

     

    femurphy77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Mar 5, 2009
    20,279
    113
    S.E. of disorder
    The sign is legal. The picture of the gun draws the public's attention to the sign (per #2). If you are careless in concealing, and they see it, they can have you arrested. I am not defending their decision to forbid firearms. They are making their facility less safe. Make your own decision on how much you want to enter and whether you will allow their decision to endanger you and your loved ones.

    "(c) A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) when the person has been denied entry by means of:

    (1) personal communication, oral or written;

    (2) posting or exhibiting a notice at the main entrance in a manner that is either prescribed by law or likely to come to the attention of the public;"
    What sign?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,975
    113
    Avon
    That makes no sense. They most certainly can control what you do say or possess on their property. If you don't like it, you are free to go somewhere else.
    No, they don't. Such control would render me a slave, and would violate my own rights.

    They can demand I leave. That is all their property rights authorize them to do.
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    9   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    48,023
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    No, they don't. Such control would render me a slave, and would violate my own rights.

    They can demand I leave. That is all their property rights authorize them to do.
    I have a "No rhino" sign on my office door with his face and a red slash. He had the audacity to walk in like he owned the place and give me a case of beer.

    The temerity knows no bounds, no bounds.
     
    Top Bottom