New Procedures at huntington bank

[finity]

A traffic stop is not always a violation of the law. That being said, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a law abiding citizen with no intent to cause harm would not violate a posted sign. Thus, it is reasonable IMO for the security force to assume a threat, if it were my house, depending on who you were, I might.

It's not your house. It's a business open to the public. It is, as you say, a striking difference.

You make a lot of assumptions that you haven't been able to back up with ONE case to support your theory.

I'm a lawful gun owner & violate stupid no guns signs at businesses all the time. It does not make me a threat, imminent or otherwise. I know with a very high level of confidence that there are many others here who do the same. They have stated as much. Are we now suddenly all threats?

 

[Roadie]

A traffic stop is not always a violation of the law. That being said, I believe it is reasonable to assume that a law abiding citizen with no intent to cause harm would not violate a posted sign. Thus, it is reasonable IMO for the security force to assume a threat, if it were my house, depending on who you were, I might.

Ah, you are kinda misdirecting a bit there, so let me rephrase my statement...

Does a traffic stop, resulting in an arrest for, say, reckless driving, change into "threatening a police officer" because of the presence of a gun? No, not if the gun is not involved and stayed holstered..

We could talk about your house, but then we get into the Private Property vs Business Property debate.
(ooops, too late, lol)

 

[finity]

(ooops, too late, lol)

Ha! Finally scooped somebody else for a change.

 

[ATM]

...I believe it is reasonable to assume that a law abiding citizen with no intent to cause harm would not violate a posted sign.

It is only reasonable to assume that a sign abiding citizen would not violate a posted sign. Unlike laws, I sometimes ignore signs.

Also, having the intent to cause harm simply must mean something other than having the means to cause harm.
Just because an object may appear threat-worthy to someone does not make it a threat.

 

[clgustaveson]

It's not your house. It's a business open to the public. It is, as you say, a striking difference.

You make a lot of assumptions that you haven't been able to back up with ONE case to support your theory.

I'm a lawful gun owner & violate stupid no guns signs at businesses all the time. It does not make me a threat, imminent or otherwise. I know with a very high level of confidence that there are many others here who do the same. They have stated as much. Are we now suddenly all threats?

Round and round we go, I am done going in this circle. You can play this game remove variables all you want, but a lawful gun owner violating a no gun sign IS NOT what we are talking about. If you can't accept that then we have no grounds for a discussion of any sorts.

A no gun sign is a simple sign expressing the property owners ill will towards guns, a sign advising you a business will not allow you to enter with one is much different.

If the above statement is not agreed upon then there is nothing more to discuss, I have provided two cases (not one case one situation, but two cases) that have proven you may not violate a no trespassing sign.

In Indiana you typically have implied consent to use privat property such as a business as long ad your intent is to do business. You lose that implied consent when you break any rule or law otherwise setforth by that business. Example, kids park in walmarts parking lot to smoke marijuana, one kid does not do this. Without being asked to leave the kids violating the law will all be charged with possession maybe even a DWI if they drive and the individual not smoking will most like be charged with criminal trespassing.

This is my story, in college this happened to me. Under section 4 of the trespassing code I was arrested. The state dropped charges when my friends all testified I was not able to remove myself from the situation. My attorney advised me that implied consent is revoked when you are in violation of any property rules. The property owner can ask you to leave, but they are not required.

A posted sign conditioning your use of the facility is plenty enough and a violation of the trespass code.

Then I would suggest again, it us reasonable to believe somebody violating the law with a gun can be considered a threat. A reasonable person that lawfully carries a gun would not knowingly trespass with a gun.

The OP of this thread whomever it was again certainly acted reasonably.

Again we are NOT talking about a "No Guns" sign.

 

[Hammerhead]

A sign stating "No Firearms" and a sign stating "No Entry with Firearms" is legally the same. They are both stating that the business does not wish you to possess a firearm on your person in their building/on their property.

It is still a request, not a crime. They can make you leave for carrying, deny you service for carrying, yell at you for carrying, but they can not make you stop carrying any object they wish was not possessed on their property.

There are specific ICs regarding where it is legal and not legal to carry a firearm. Riverboat casinos, schools, and other buildings are specific and defined in the IC. Aside from these specified buildings/properties, you are legally allowed to carry anywhere else.

The bank may put up a request that you not carry. It is still legal to do so. They may deny you service for carrying. It is still legal to carry. It does not meet the definition of trespass for you to carry on their property, even if they post a sign requesting you not carry, no matter what the verbiage. The trespass law does not cover requests, it covers "no trespassing" specifically. A public business would not post no trespassing signs.

You can't put one legal definition onto another. Carry of a legal firearm does not constitute trespass. The two laws are not intertwined in the IC.

You must be breaking a law for the carry of a gun to become a factor. If you go into a public business, are asked to leave, and do not, you are then breaking the law, and if you are arrested while carrying a gun while breaking the law, you will be charged with the appropriate unlawful carry charge.

You are attempting to intertwine two separate laws in the IC to make it acceptable for businesses to deny you your carry rights. There are already too many people attempting to deny you your carry rights. There's no reason to hand them over.

 

[Hammerhead]

It is not a crime to carry a gun where they request you do not. You are not breaking the law when you carry into a business where they don't like it. A no firearms/no entry with firearms sign is a REQUEST no matter how it is stated. IT IS NOT A NO TRESPASSING SIGN.

Full stop. End of story.

I suggested that the Church's Chicken thread be referenced, as this exact argument was discussed there. Here's a good reason I referenced it: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...s_sign_at_church_s_chicken-3.html#post1357627

 

[ATM]

A no gun sign is a simple sign expressing the property owners ill will towards guns,

Everyone agrees to this.

a sign advising you a business will not allow you to enter with one is much different.

This is what you haven't proven and the primary source of disagreement.

If the above statement is not agreed upon then there is nothing more to discuss,

Actually, your last statement is the only one which needs to be supported.

I have provided two cases (not one case one situation, but two cases) that have proven you may not violate a no trespassing sign.

Weren't both of those just blanket "no trespassing" signs applicable to everyone such that none may enter?
I haven't seen anything cited where an item-conditional sign has been treated with the same trespassing weight.

So what supports your conclusion?

 

[finity]

Thanks for sharing your story. Really.

My take on it is the state had a weak case in the first place.

People get charged with bogus crimes fairly often (throw the book & hope something sticks?). That's why we have the appeals process. The only thing that matters is affirmed case law. If there has never been an upheld conviction for those specific types of circumstances I'd be surprised that it would happen. Not that it couldn't but if it hasn't happened by now with the law on the books for this long, well...

You're right though. You obviously have your reasons for believing the way you do. What I or anyone else here says probably won't change that.

You can't fault us for needing a little more proof, though.

 

[clgustaveson]

Thanks for sharing your story. Really.

My take on it is the state had a weak case in the first place.

People get charged with bogus crimes fairly often (throw the book & hope something sticks?). That's why we have the appeals process. The only thing that matters is affirmed case law. If there has never been an upheld conviction for those specific types of circumstances I'd be surprised that it would happen. Not that it couldn't but if it hasn't happened by now with the law on the books for this long, well...

You're right though. You obviously have your reasons for believing the way you do. What I or anyone else here says probably won't change that.

You can't fault us for needing a little more proof, though.

My attorney said it was a good case, an officer was witness of my violation of section 4 under the trespass code.

He said that you are interfering with their proper use if you do not obey posted property signs. He was also the attorney for the guys I was with and they had no problem testifying I did not use illicit drugs and I was not involved in the decision to park there.

Mantrap doors are legal in the presence of properly worded sign.

I have showed you guys a situation in which trespassing was the indictment and conviction without being asked to leave.

The point here is now, show me a situation where someone has been able to win a mantrap case in Indiana when there was duly posted signage at the entrance... not going to happen, in fact the burden of prof is on you in this situation in the court of law. If you want to continue removing variables I am not going to play this game.

These doors use some form of milimeter wave emission technology, and have been used since the 80s. In the 25+ years they have been around there has never been one viable lawsuit for false imprisonment.

My guess is that if you guys are right, and I am completely just wrong (which is definately possible) then you have agreed to this with the banks policies and disclosures.

There is no reason to continue this crap.

 

[clgustaveson]

Also... I don't hate all business that post no guns signs... just most.

The reason a few (that I know of) post these signs is because they get a discount on their liability insurance.

We know in Indiana they hold no weight, so I just don't care.

 

[singlestacksig]

Double bank doors have been around, and are in use in many places but the outer door is not supposed to be locked unless a real crime . felony, has taken place.. even the patent write up on the door trap system states that locking someone in can bring a claim of false imprisonment..

it seems banks put them in , but stop using them after a while when customers complain enough..

 

[pig957]

I don't think the person being a customer would be a "contractual interest". I take that to mean a sort of lease, written or verbal agreement or, obviously, co-ownership.

ETA: Darn. singlestacksig beat me to it.

I still don't agree that a "no guns", "no bananas" or a "no persons in possession of guns or bananas" sign constitutes communication to THAT SPECIFIC PERSON of denial of entry. A general "no trespassing" sign that keeps everyone out without prior permission would be. Or a "joe blow keep out" sign would also be enough that joe can't enter.

If anyone that thinks otherwise would be so kind as to post the case law that supposedly exists that purports to support their position then this could be quickly & easily resolved. I'd really like to see it. I have no problem being PROVEN wrong & I like to learn new things especially where the law is concerned.

In the context of criminal trespass, "contractual interest," refers to the right to be present on another's property, arising out of an agreement between at least two parties that create an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.
Contractual Interest Law & Legal Definition

An account held by the customer and (account) offered by the bank would (I beleive) be an agreement between at least two parties.

 

[clgustaveson]

In the context of criminal trespass, "contractual interest," refers to the right to be present on another's property, arising out of an agreement between at least two parties that create an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing.
Contractual Interest Law & Legal Definition

An account held by the customer and (account) offered by the bank would (I beleive) be an agreement between at least two parties.

It is, but it does not grant you any privelages to the branch.

To sig and finity-

I will concede this whole argument for the sake of sanity, I will say that it is likely there is a clause in the an agreement you signed giving them the authority to do this (what if you're not a member??? ).

But the Mantrap doors are more common than you would think. BofA had them when they were in Indy and so does a credit union in Muncie I cashed a check at.

Sometimes they disable the first door, sometimes not. They absolutely legal in Ohio and a few other states (with proper signage) and they are a lot more common than you would think.

 

[silkpoet]

New bank time. Did it say you would imprisoned if you went past the first door with a weapon? I would have to say that I feel that might be illegal on its own.