Clarification on private property carry

[ashenfang]

I was at the local Howard County fair yesterday and I saw a sign at the entrance that said "No Dogs, No Firearms". However, after reading over Indiana law about where one can carry, This sign has no legal bearing and one could still carry concealed? This scenario would be the same as with any other place like a store, mall, bank, sporting event, ect?

 

[in625shooter]

Like a local store/business if the property manager observes (folks running the place) it they can ask you to either secure it in your vehicle or leave. If you refuse and LE is called they will ask you to leave and if you refuse it becomes a Criminal Trespass arrest more times than not!

So no you can't be charged for the firearm but if your a horses butt you can still be charged for trespass if you refuse to leave. I spent a little time as a municipal LEO and in this scenario it is not the LEO's being a JBT it's the LEO's following the wishes of the property owners/managers. No different than if you call an LEO to your house on something!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Like a local store/business if the property manager observes (folks running the place) it they can ask you to either secure it in your vehicle or leave. If you refuse and LE is called they will ask you to leave and if you refuse it becomes a Criminal Trespass arrest more times than not!

Clarification, once you refuse to leave upon the property owner's request, you are THEN breaking the law, and can be arrested. However most LEOs won't arrest you if you leave when they ask you to leave and you comply.

 

[eldirector]

All depends on who really owns the property and who is running the fair.

A few scenarios:

1) The property is owned by the county and the fair is run by the county - it would be ILLEGAL for that sign to be displayed (State Preemption).

2) The property is owned by the county, but leased to another entity for the fair - the sign and policy is LEGAL.

3) The property is owned by a private party and/or the fair is run by a private party - the sign and policy is LEGAL.

For instance, the Hendricks County Fairgrounds is owned by the county. The Fair is financed and run by a county board. They MAY NOT have a policy of ANY KIND about firearms, thanks to current IC. I'll be attending the fair again this year (next week), and likely be open carrying.

So, find out how YOUR county does things, and you will have your answer.

Edit: I hit Beacon for you (http://beacon.schneidercorp.com). It appears that the Greentown Lions Club both OWNS and OPERATES the County Fairgrounds and Fair. It is PRIVATE property, so their policy (and sign) is perfectly legal (number 3 above). So, write them a note. Tell them how disappointed you are that you and your family cannot attend the fair again this year due to their policies. Contact info is here: Greentown Lions Club - Lions e-Clubhouse

 

[Kutnupe14]

All depends on who really owns the property and who is running the fair.

A few scenarios:

1) The property is owned by the county and the fair is run by the county - it would be ILLEGAL for that sign to be displayed (State Preemption).

2) The property is owned by the county, but leased to another entity for the fair - the sign and policy is LEGAL.

3) The property is owned by a private party and/or the fair is run by a private party - the sign and policy is LEGAL.

For instance, the Hendricks County Fairgrounds is owned by the county. The Fair is financed and run by a county board. They MAY NOT have a policy of ANY KIND about firearms, thanks to current IC. I'll be attending the fair again this year (next week), and likely be open carrying.

So, find out how YOUR county does things, and you will have your answer.

Is the sign illegal, or attempting to enforce the language of it?

 

[eldirector]

Is the sign illegal, or attempting to enforce the language of it?

They may not have a policy AT ALL, let alone a sign. The rule/policy is illegal. The sign (which is an attempt to enforce the rule/policy) is also illegal.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar47/ch11.1.pdf

IC 35-47-11.1-2Political subdivision regulation of firearms, ammunition, and
firearm accessories prohibited
Sec. 2. Except as provided in section 4 of this chapter, a political
subdivision may not regulate:
(1) firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories;
(2) the ownership, possession, carrying, transportation,
registration, transfer, and storage of firearms, ammunition, and
firearm accessories; and
(3) commerce in and taxation of firearms, firearm ammunition,
and firearm accessories.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

IC 35-47-11.1-5Civil actions concerning political subdivision violations
Sec. 5. A person adversely affected by an ordinance, a measure,
an enactment, a rule, or a policy adopted or enforced by a political
subdivision that violates this chapter may file an action in a court
with competent jurisdiction against the political subdivision for:
(1) declarative and injunctive relief; and
(2) actual and consequential damages attributable to the
violation.
As added by P.L.152-2011, SEC.4.

 

[IndyBeerman]

ElDirector beat me to it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

They may not have a policy AT ALL, let alone a sign. The rule/policy is illegal. The sign (which is an attempt to enforce the rule/policy) is also illegal.

http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/2010/title35/ar47/ch11.1.pdf

If itis , as I have commonly seen argued, that signs have no weight of law, then I don't see how an actual sign that one can ignore would actually be illegal. Only the enforcement of it. Unless we are admitting that signage prior to this law indicated a legal denial of entry.

 

[eldirector]

Never said it had to be a good, valid, legal attempt at enforcing the illegal policy/rule.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Never said it had to be a good, valid, legal attempt at enforcing the illegal policy/rule.

lol, acceptable

 

[CountryBoy19]

If itis , as I have commonly seen argued, that signs have no weight of law, then I don't see how an actual sign that one can ignore would actually be illegal. Only the enforcement of it. Unless we are admitting that signage prior to this law indicated a legal denial of entry.

I think the difference is that you're confusing signs posted by public government with signs posted by private property owners. Signage posted by private property owners do not carry the weight of law unless there is an actual law to back that signage up.

OTOH, signage posted by a local government, even without a law to back the signage up, could very easily be argued as an attempt to enforce a rule/law. Any reasonable person expects that when they drive through town the 30 MPH speed-limit sign has a law behind it and if violated they will be ticketed. Likewise, any attempt by a local government to post a sign that implies or construes that an act may be illegal would be an attempt to enforce.

 

[in625shooter]

Clarification, once you refuse to leave upon the property owner's request, you are THEN breaking the law, and can be arrested. However most LEOs won't arrest you if you leave when they ask you to leave and you comply.

I stated that! Specifically That's were the criminal trespass come into play however, a LEO will not arrest you just when they show up they will give you that verbal warning usually after talking to the property representative and confirming they do not want the person there. Then it is relayed that this is what will happen if you do not. Then if you leave no problem, if you don't you are hit. I actually had a couple cases where that happened when I was an LEO.

All depends on who really owns the property and who is running the fair.

A few scenarios:

1) The property is owned by the county and the fair is run by the county - it would be ILLEGAL for that sign to be displayed (State Preemption).

2) The property is owned by the county, but leased to another entity for the fair - the sign and policy is LEGAL.

3) The property is owned by a private party and/or the fair is run by a private party - the sign and policy is LEGAL.

For instance, the Hendricks County Fairgrounds is owned by the county. The Fair is financed and run by a county board. They MAY NOT have a policy of ANY KIND about firearms, thanks to current IC. I'll be attending the fair again this year (next week), and likely be open carrying.

So, find out how YOUR county does things, and you will have your answer.

Edit: I hit Beacon for you (http://beacon.schneidercorp.com). It appears that the Greentown Lions Club both OWNS and OPERATES the County Fairgrounds and Fair. It is PRIVATE property, so their policy (and sign) is perfectly legal (number 3 above). So, write them a note. Tell them how disappointed you are that you and your family cannot attend the fair again this year due to their policies. Contact info is here: Greentown Lions Club - Lions e-Clubhouse

It might be county/city property however the organization "renting" it or holding their activities there are legal to post their requirements aka No Firearms. alcohol etc. Then it is no different than if they owned it themselves. Like a landlord can tell you what you can't do in your rented house/apartment but can put restrictions on say amount of animals etc.

 

[eldirector]

I stated that! Specifically That's were the criminal trespass come into play however, a LEO will not arrest you just when they show up they will give you that verbal warning usually after talking to the property representative and confirming they do not want the person there. Then it is relayed that this is what will happen if you do not. Then if you leave no problem, if you don't you are hit. I actually had a couple cases where that happened when I was an LEO.




It might be county/city property however the organization "renting" it or holding their activities there are legal to post their requirements aka No Firearms. alcohol etc. Then it is no different than if they owned it themselves. Like a landlord can tell you what you can't do in your rented house/apartment but can put restrictions on say amount of animals etc.

Correct. See #2 above.

 

[Bill B]

I think the difference is that you're confusing signs posted by public government with signs posted by private property owners. Signage posted by private property owners do not carry the weight of law unless there is an actual law to back that signage up.

OTOH, signage posted by a local government, even without a law to back the signage up, could very easily be argued as an attempt to enforce a rule/law. Any reasonable person expects that when they drive through town the 30 MPH speed-limit sign has a law behind it and if violated they will be ticketed. Likewise, any attempt by a local government to post a sign that implies or construes that an act may be illegal would be an attempt to enforce.

We are waiting to see if the ISC will take a case that argues this point. There is currently no case law.

 

[CathyInBlue]

eldirector was accurate, but not precise.

IC 35-47-11.1-6
Civil actions; adversely affected persons
Sec. 6. A person is "adversely affected" for purposes of section 5 of this chapter if either of the following applies:
(1) The person is an individual who meets all of the following requirements:
(A) The individual lawfully resides within the United States.
(B) The individual may legally possess a firearm under the laws of Indiana.
(C) The individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision that is the subject of an action filed under section 5 of this chapter. An individual is or was subject to the ordinance, measure, enactment, rule, or policy of the political subdivision if the individual is or was physically present within the boundaries of the political subdivision for any reason.

If the county fairgrounds are owned by the county and the county is managing the fair itself, to be anywhere within the political borders of the county when the fair is on with that policy in place, and if the sign is in place, then the policy is in place, then you can sue the county under IC 36-47-11.1.

 

[eldirector]

eldirector was accurate, but not precise.

What I lack in precision, I make up for in volume.

 

[in625shooter]

eldirector was accurate, but not precise.
If the county fairgrounds are owned by the county and the county is managing the fair itself, to be anywhere within the political borders of the county when the fair is on with that policy in place, and if the sign is in place, then the policy is in place, then you can sue the county under IC 36-47-11.1.

Generally speaking 4H is the ones that run the fair. It is the county fair because it's for residents of said county. Yes fairgrounds could or couldn't be county property. Lets say it is county property they (whichever club or organization use/rent the county fairgrounds and facilities thus (4H) or whoever is free to set their policy in place for the duration of attendees to their specific event

 

[ashenfang]

Thanks for the clarification -

So when the fair is privately run, the signage holds no legal weight. I can still concealed carry, but if it is seen, I could be asked to leave, but have broken no laws, gun or otherwise.

 

[in625shooter]

Thanks for the clarification -

So when the fair is privately run, the signage holds no legal weight. I can still concealed carry, but if it is seen, I could be asked to leave, but have broken no laws, gun or otherwise.

Correct!

 

[wolfeden]

4 H does have and sponsors shooting events. Our county fair here in Pulaski County has many displays for Archery and Firearms. After reading this post,it kind of seems ridiculous to put up a no firearm sign. Maybe not all Indiana 4 H clubs sponsor shooting events?

Generally speaking 4H is the ones that run the fair. It is the county fair because it's for residents of said county. Yes fairgrounds could or couldn't be county property. Lets say it is county property they (whichever club or organization use/rent the county fairgrounds and facilities thus (4H) or whoever is free to set their policy in place for the duration of attendees to their specific event