Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[CathyInBlue]

The law doesn't prescribe signage, but states that the sign must adhere to rules prescribed by law.

No, it doesn't. It says a "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". Technicly, the GA could pass a law requiring any GFZ be posted with a particular notice that's 1/8" x 1/8" and can only be read with a microscope, and that placed no closer than 100 yds from the main entrance of the GFZ, with absolutely no notices within the GFZ, and that would satisfy IC 35-43-2-2(b)(2), because the notice would be as "prescribed by law". The fact that this type of notice would be virtually impossible to "come to the attention of the public" is completely immaterial, as the language used in -2-2(b)(2) is an EITHER/OR construction, not a BOTH/AND construction.

Perhaps it would be better, if this clause of law read: "posting or exhibiting a notice at every entrance in a manner that is likely to come to the attention of the public and, if the manner is prescribed by law, so conforming." This construction would be clearly indicating that all notices must conform to the attention of the public clause, even if the signage is prescribed by law, and clearly indicate to everyone that the prescription of law part is OPTIONAL.

 

[CathyInBlue]

If you refuse to leave, after being asked, the officer doesn't need to be there for that person to have reached the PC for arrest when he arrives. The officer can arrive, put you in cuffs, and take you away (of course, if it's proven, you declined to leave when asked). Now in practice, officers don't want to make such an arrest outright. If the person is willing to leave upon there arrival, the vast majority of people won't be taken to the pokey.

I'm perfectly willing to leave when LEGALLY asked to do so, but under IC 35-41-3-2, I have a right to resist unlawful conduct of public servants, and under IC 35-43-2-2(c), the police do not have the authority to unilaterally eject me, only after they have become the agent of the owners through some form of communication. It is therefore reasonable for me to resist ejection until I have evidence that the owner/agent has made the request. Once I have received that evidence, my right to resist evaporates, and I am all too willing to move along.

 

[printcraft]

..... If the officer in question has no such request and is acting solely on the premise that the sign is enough, he is enforcing his opinion not the law.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ x1000

If in the OP the officer was there not by request of management, not acting as security and just was at the mall and observed a person carrying a gun the ONLY thing he can do is request a LTCH since carrying a handgun is against the law ANYWHERE in public without a LTCH.
Trespassing someone from the property of his own volition is without cause.

Until such time that a mall or a restaurant, etc. is added to IC as a prohibited place to carry a gun IT IS NOT ILLEGAL and you have no standing to enforce an opinion.
Please officers, stick to the laws, I do. You should too.

 

[cobber]

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ x1000

If in the OP the officer was there not by request of management, not acting as security and just was at the mall and observed a person carrying a gun the ONLY thing he can do is request a LTCH since carrying a handgun is against the law ANYWHERE in public without a LTCH.
Trespassing someone from the property of his own volition is without cause.

Until such time that a mall or a restaurant, etc. is added to IC as a prohibited place to carry a gun IT IS NOT ILLEGAL and you have no standing to enforce an opinion.
Please officers, stick to the laws, I do. You should too.

Yes. Agency can be created, but the State is not presumed to be an agent just because it says it is. Boy, imagine how convenient that would be.

 

[JetGirl]

If the officer in question has no such request and is acting solely on the premise that the sign is enough, he is enforcing his opinion not the law.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ x1000

And again (I'll ask because no one has yet addressed it)...what if the sign says NO guns is not permitted?
Anyone hassled about carrying should have that in their corner...no??

 

[CathyInBlue]

carrying a handgun is against the law ANYWHERE in public without a LTCH.

OMG! Brain-gasm!
The above quote is not true.

IC 35-47-2-1(b)(2) the person carries the handgun on or about the person's body while lawfully present in or on property that is owned, leased, rented, or otherwise legally controlled by another person, if the person:
(A) has the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls the property to have the handgun on the premises;

A LEO, unbidden by management, comes up to you OCing in the mall and demands you GTFO because of a 1" x 1" monochrome sticker in the bottom left of the left-most of 18 doors on the side of the mall and threatens to trespass your ass if you don't begin marching right now. You reply by saying, "I have the consent of the owner, renter, lessor, or person who legally controls this property to have this handgun on the premises."


Fight legal BS with legal BS. Either way, the only way for the LEO to be legal now would be to actually get with the owner. One way or another, I get the owner/agent to confirm with the LEO whether or not the owner/agent is desirous of my ejection. Everyone's happy.

 

[stephen87]

Logically, yes. However, we all know it will be assumed in court that they mean the opposite.

 

[dmarsh8]

So, would the best option be for us to see if we can get
the wording changed, or is that opening a can of worms?
If it would help, then maybe Mr. Relford would be able to spearhead it.

JetGirl, I agree by the way, not that my opinion matters, but if the wording is wrong
then technically, it's wrong. If a law is written poorly it can work in the favor of one party
over another, so I would think this could work the same way. again just

 

[minuteman32]

Indiana Constitution

ARTICLE 1
Bill of Rights

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

"Bear" means "to carry". Furbearers do not leave their fur coat in their den when they go out, I won't leave my gun at home when I go out, either. I don't care if there is a sign or not, I'll be carrying & no one will know unless I need to use it.
All I can say about OC vs CC is that the sheep get nervous when they see armed people, sometimes. These sheep contact their legislators voicing their fears. Legislators draft legislation to make their constituents feel better. Next thing you know, further restrictions are made law. That is what happened in CA (maybe other states, too). In the '60's it was because the Black Panthers OCed, most recently OC of unloaded guns were prohibited in response to the OC of unloaded guns by several folks there.
Also, I've never been asked to leave anywhere due to being armed. But, I always CC.

 

[CathyInBlue]

That is what happened in CA (maybe other states, too). In the '60's it was because the Black Panthers OCed, most recently OC of unloaded guns were prohibited in response to the OC of unloaded guns by several folks there.

And now, thanks to a federal suit in the 9th Circuit, coupled with an unusually cogent and sane decision therein, that law has been brought into serious legal question and the issue of having the guaranteed RIGHT to bear arms in public is now going to be fast tracked to the SCOTUS. OCing gets s*** done!

 

[ATM]

...OCing gets s*** done!

Indeed.

 

[TheSpark]

"He then told me that firearms were against the mall policy and he said when I signed up for my license to carry that it had a spot in there about private property and that since it was posted he could charge me for criminal trespassing."

I would have challenged him on that statement at least. Even if it is posted on every corner in the mall as long as you leave when asked you are not trespassing. Preaching to the choir here but no gun signs has 0 weight of law in Indiana.

Also, I sent an email to Glenbrook mall last year asking them to tell me their gun policy. Here is their response:

Thank you for your question! Because Glenbrook Square is private property, our owners have reserved the right to prohibit fire arms on the premises. If a customer is on property with a fire arm, security will direct the individual to vacate the property all together.

If you should have any further questions, please feel free to contact us.

Regards,

Carla Jordan | Mgmt. Administrative Asst. | Glenbrook Square Mall | 4201 Coldwater Rd., Suite 102 | Fort Wayne, IN 46805 | 260-918-0024 | Fax: 260-494-1348

 

[JetGirl]

JetGirl, I agree by the way, not that my opinion matters, but if the wording is wrong
then technically, it's wrong. If a law is written poorly it can work in the favor of one party
over another, so I would think this could work the same way. again just

It just seems like a sign saying "no skateboarding" and a kid gets hassled for riding a bike...well, you know...

 

[ryknoll3]

Indiana Constitution

ARTICLE 1
Bill of Rights

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

"Bear" means "to carry". Furbearers do not leave their fur coat in their den when they go out, I won't leave my gun at home when I go out, either. I don't care if there is a sign or not, I'll be carrying & no one will know unless I need to use it.
All I can say about OC vs CC is that the sheep get nervous when they see armed people, sometimes. These sheep contact their legislators voicing their fears. Legislators draft legislation to make their constituents feel better. Next thing you know, further restrictions are made law. That is what happened in CA (maybe other states, too). In the '60's it was because the Black Panthers OCed, most recently OC of unloaded guns were prohibited in response to the OC of unloaded guns by several folks there.
Also, I've never been asked to leave anywhere due to being armed. But, I always CC.

So your argument is, "Don't this, even though it's legal. If people see you doing it, they might complain and then it will be illegal to do. So, don't do it." Does that sum it up?

What difference does it make if gun owners band together and decide not to engage in a lawful activity so as not to scare people, and not doing it because it's illegal. Seems like you end up with the same situation either way.

 

[printcraft]

OMG! Brain-gasm!
The above quote is not true.

Hey, I already have a woman in my life to nitpick............

......Fight legal BS with legal BS. Either way, the only way for the LEO to be legal now would be to actually get with the owner. One way or another, I get the owner/agent to confirm with the LEO whether or not the owner/agent is desirous of my ejection. Everyone's happy.

Now, that is OK..... with the exception........... you run into an officer that wants to push it like in the OP...........

"I appreciate you being relaxed about this. I like guns and always carry but you get guys that want to argue there constitutional rights and all it does is lead to an arrest. Also I will tell you that the constitutional right for guns only applies to the home. Away from home is a privilege and the state issues you a permit allowing you to do that." Again I disagreed so I just said, "No matter what your constitutional views the time to argue it is not at the point of contact with an officer" he replied in the affirmative and escorted me out completely. Told me he wasn't trying to be a jerk and I said he was fine and we shook hands and I left.

"I want to talk with management!"

"Put your hands behind your back."

 

[SERparacord]

He then told me "I appreciate you being relaxed about this. I like guns and always carry but you get guys that want to argue there constitutional rights and all it does is lead to an arrest. Also I will tell you that the constitutional right for guns only applies to the home. Away from home is a privilege and the state issues you a permit allowing you to do that."

I'll have to go read it again, I guess. It must be in the fine print. Very fine print.

Applies to the home, correct. You need to carry one to make sure you can safely reenter your home.

 

[Sarge470]

Well, it's been two days and about seventeen pages of posts since I pointed out that no police officers were working for Glenbrook Square Mall last Thursday and asked the OP for clarification regarding exactly who approached the OP. To date, I've heard absolutely nothing from the OP, and read posts ad nauseum about what the cops can and can't do, along with a pretty obvious thread-jack bashing of Kutnupe14. After all, we sure wouldn't want something as trivial as the relevant facts of the encounter to get in the way of a good bash-fest now, would we? The security company that Glenbrook Mall uses only employs about four police officers on a part-time basis, and yes, they are authorized to act as agents of the property. All the rest of the uniformed personnel working there are PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS who have no more statutory authority than any of you do. They do have a guy there who used to work for Excise, but his understanding of statutory and case law may be outdated. Given the fact that no actual cops were on the schedule on the day in question and they are far outnumbered by private security personnel, it seems highly likely that the arguments and the bashing are all for naught, since it is quite a bit more probable that the OP encountered a security guard instead of a police officer. I'll repeat my previous offer to investigate the incident and get to the bottom of it, but based on what I've seen over the last couple of days, I doubt I'll get any takers.

 

[TheSpark]

Well, it's been two days and about seventeen pages of posts since I pointed out that no police officers were working for Glenbrook Square Mall last Thursday and asked the OP for clarification regarding exactly who approached the OP. To date, I've heard absolutely nothing from the OP, and read posts ad nauseum about what the cops can and can't do, along with a pretty obvious thread-jack bashing of Kutnupe14. After all, we sure wouldn't want something as trivial as the relevant facts of the encounter to get in the way of a good bash-fest now, would we? The security company that Glenbrook Mall uses only employs about four police officers on a part-time basis, and yes, they are authorized to act as agents of the property. All the rest of the uniformed personnel working there are PRIVATE SECURITY GUARDS who have no more statutory authority than any of you do. They do have a guy there who used to work for Excise, but his understanding of statutory and case law may be outdated. Given the fact that no actual cops were on the schedule on the day in question and they are far outnumbered by private security personnel, it seems highly likely that the arguments and the bashing are all for naught, since it is quite a bit more probable that the OP encountered a security guard instead of a police officer. I'll repeat my previous offer to investigate the incident and get to the bottom of it, but based on what I've seen over the last couple of days, I doubt I'll get any takers.

It was probably a guard. They dress in uniforms that look much like police officers. They also act like them. A police officer, if called, would almost surely have a representative of the mall with him when he approaches the subject for this. Reason being is there would be nothing a police officer could do without one. Despite what people seem to think in this thread it is well established that no guns signs, no matter the language, where they are posted, etc carry no weight of law in Indiana. So the officer, by himself, would have had no authority to request the guy to leave unless he was working there (which has been established to not be the case). A security officer would have such authority to request the individual to leave as he would be in an official position to act on their behalf.

 

[Sarge470]

Agreed, sir...years ago, the mall security even referred to themselves as "Glenbrook Police," complete with patches and badges identifying themselves as such. I'm pretty sure they did away with that wording in the early 90s.

 

[printcraft]

W........ To date, I've heard absolutely nothing from the OP, and read posts ad nauseum about what the cops can and can't do, along with a pretty obvious thread-jack bashing of Kutnupe14. After all, we sure wouldn't want something as trivial as the relevant facts of the encounter to get in the way of a good bash-fest now, would we? .......

Kutnupe14 can stand on his own two feet and on his own merits.
It's not a bash fest, it's a correction of thinking....... since he is wrong......

Now as far as the relevant facts of the encounter, yes speculation has occurred, BUT, caveats were posted throughout this thread on what circumstances COULD have
lead to police intervention as well as what circumstances would prohibit police involvement, I think they are pretty evenly covered.

Again, if it was a guard as mentioned above, the OP had no recourse except to leave the premises.
If it were the police on behest of the management, the OP had no recourse except to leave the premises.