Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[gjclark]

Nah, I saw the guys coming down an escalator as I was crossing the food court and they were on their radio. They accosted me at the entrance of JC Penney as I stopped shortly in the store because when I saw them on the escalator I assumed they were coming to talk with me and I didn't want to make their job too difficult.

 

[jsharmon7]

Several threads about Glenbrook Mall lately and then this:

Partial roof collapse at Glenbrook Mall - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Maybe the collective power of all this INGO energy caused this. What else can INGO accomplish with mind power!?

 

[JetGirl]

Several threads about Glenbrook Mall lately and then this:

Partial roof collapse at Glenbrook Mall - 13 WTHR Indianapolis

Maybe the collective power of all this INGO energy caused this. What else can INGO accomplish with mind power!?

Didn't they flood recently, too?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Didn't they flood recently, too?

I swear that toilet was not overflowing when I left the bathroom

 

[stephen87]

A law with no consequence for noncompliance is still a law, it is just unenforceable.

A sign at the mall

A law with no consequences? There is a consequence for trespassing. Look it up.

I think they are saying that the signage should indicate something along the lines of "no guns allowed, entrance with a gun will constitute trespassing"...
I vaguely remember the post they are talking about.

That's what I'm asking. Not necessarily a consequence, but that a person, meeting certain criteria, is not allowed entry and if they do they are trespassing. My thinking is that it MUST specifically state that you are considered trespassing if you meet these criteria, otherwise it's just a policy.

There is a reason people that no one has ever been charged or convicted in Indiana for not adhereing to a no gun sign, no matter the language. The reason is simple, and I'm going to use caps:

NO GUN SIGNS, NO MATTER THE LANGUAGE, PLACEMENT, ETC, HOLD NO WEIGHT OF LAW IN INDIANA UNLESS THAT LOCATION IS SPECIFICALLY DEFINED AS BEING A GUN FREE ZONE BY INDIANA CODE.

A person can't be legally (resulting in trespassing) denied entry to a private property that is open to the general public (such as a store, etc) for something they have or don't have by a sign alone. For example, a business can place a "no shirt, no shoes, no entry" sign but they can't have you arrested if you proceed. Only by specifically denying YOU (YOUR PERSON) entry can they get you for trespass if you refuse to leave. There is only one sign in Indiana that covers this and that is a blanket: "No Trespassing" sign. You either allow everyone of the general public or you don't. End of story. If you want a specific person to have no such entry you must address them, again their person, specifically. You can't address them with a sign that says if you have this or that or don't have this or that or whatever.

The law people use to incorrectly argue that no gun signs do hold weight of law is destroyed by the first two words in the law "a person".

Are you a lawyer? If so, I might believe you. If not, bring something to the table showing it was thrown out in court. I disagree with the bolded sections. I have nothing to back it, but my belief, and until someone can show something that proves otherwise, a sign hold weight of law if it states the person is trespassing. What's the difference between "No trespassing" and "All persons with a firearm are prohibited. Any violators will be considered trespassing"? I see zero difference here.

Nah, I saw the guys coming down an escalator as I was crossing the food court and they were on their radio. They accosted me at the entrance of JC Penney as I stopped shortly in the store because when I saw them on the escalator I assumed they were coming to talk with me and I didn't want to make their job too difficult.

You should have kept looking over your shoulder at them every few seconds then taken off at a dead sprint just for fun. No particular reason other than to make their job difficult.

 

[stephen87]

But what is your LEGAL standing as a carrying citizen if that sign says the equivalent of;


And I'm serious.
All I've heard so far is "well, it would be assumed what would be meant"...but if you are really hauled in, is that truly good enough? REALLY?

There's no policy broken, but you'll be asked to leave due to their understanding of the wording.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Are you a lawyer? If so, I might believe you. If not, bring something to the table showing it was thrown out in court. I disagree with the bolded sections. I have nothing to back it, but my belief, and until someone can show something that proves otherwise, a sign hold weight of law if it states the person is trespassing. What's the difference between "No trespassing" and "All persons with a firearm are prohibited. Any violators will be considered trespassing"? I see zero difference here.

I'm not a lawyer, but my lawyer is. Guy Relford has a thread on here talking about this very thing. Go search for it.

Do you see a difference between a sign with words, "All persons with a firearm are prohibited. Any violators will be considered trespassing" and a non-verbal gun-buster emblem?

 

[SteveM4A1]

I'm not a lawyer, but my lawyer is. Guy Relford has a thread on here talking about this very thing. Go search for it.

Do you see a difference between a sign with words, "All persons with a firearm are prohibited. Any violators will be considered trespassing" and a non-verbal gun-buster emblem?

For anyone looking for this thread, here is the link:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/58317-you-going-jail.html

I would listen to Guy.

 

[Slawburger]

A law with no consequences? There is a consequence for trespassing. Look it up.

Sorry Stephen87, I should have made my post clearer.

A law/ordinance written without defining a penalty or consequence for non-compliance is considered a valid but unenforceable law. If you violate it, you are guilty of breaking the law but there is no penalty. It is an oversight in the wording of the law (yes, it does happen).

I am not saying that there is no consequence defined for criminal trespass (there certainly is).

However, if a law with no consequence for non-compliance is unenforceable (and it is) then it would seem reasonable that a sign with no consequence for non-compliance would also be considered unenforceable.

If the sign says the consequence of carrying a firearm into the building will be a criminal trespass charge then there is a consequence and it might be considered enforceable (not saying it is, but it might be).

If the sign just says "No Firearms" then it has no weight of law in Indiana. If you are asked to leave by a representative of the owner/management and refuse then you are trespassing. You cannot be penalized legally for not complying with a "No Firearms" sign, but you can be legally penalized for trespassing if you refuse to leave after being asked to leave the premises.

Of course, areas which are specifically off-limits for firearms in Indiana Code are a different matter.

I hope that better explains my post.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm not a lawyer, but my lawyer is. Guy Relford has a thread on here talking about this very thing. Go search for it.

Do you see a difference between a sign with words, "All persons with a firearm are prohibited. Any violators will be considered trespassing" and a non-verbal gun-buster emblem?

Finally, this is becoming productive. Relford's thread, I think makes clear, that the vast majority of "no gun" signs, have ZERO chance of landing someone in jail BUT, a properly worded sign, making clear that an individual (carrying a firearm), rather than the firearm itself, isn't welcome on tge premises, certainly holds the potential for arrest of ignored.

 

[Kutnupe14]

A law with no consequences? There is a consequence for trespassing. Look it up.

Sorry Stephen87, I should have made my post clearer.

A law/ordinance written without defining a penalty or consequence for non-compliance is considered a valid but unenforceable law. If you violate it, you are guilty of breaking the law but there is no penalty. It is an oversight in the wording of the law (yes, it does happen).

I am not saying that there is no consequence defined for criminal trespass (there certainly is).

However, if a law with no consequence for non-compliance is unenforceable (and it is) then it would seem reasonable that a sign with no consequence for non-compliance would also be considered unenforceable.

If the sign says the consequence of carrying a firearm into the building will be a criminal trespass charge then there is a consequence and it might be considered enforceable (not saying it is, but it might be).

If the sign just says "No Firearms" then it has no weight of law in Indiana. If you are asked to leave by a representative of the owner/management and refuse then you are trespassing. You cannot be penalized legally for not complying with a "No Firearms" sign, but you can be legally penalized for trespassing if you refuse to leave after being asked to leave the premises.

Of course, areas which are specifically off-limits for firearms in Indiana Code are a different matter.

I hope that better explains my post.

People are getting stuck on this "no firearms" sign. To put this to rest, it can be ignored, with no penalty.

 

[Expat]

Finally, this is becoming productive. Relford's thread, I think makes clear, that the vast majority of "no gun" signs, have ZERO chance of landing someone in jail BUT, a properly worded sign, making clear that an individual (carrying a firearm), rather than the firearm itself, isn't welcome on tge premises, certainly holds the potential for arrest of ignored.

Properly worded and, as I recall from that Relford thread (which I did not go back and review), it must be prominently displayed at the entrance the person used so that there can be no claim they didn't see it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Properly worded and, as I recall from that Relford thread (which I did not go back and review), it must be prominently displayed at the entrance the person used so that there can be no claim they didn't see it.

Exactly, if doesnt meet it other aspects if code, I don't care if the language is the BEST example that could be had, it won't apply.

 

[Expat]

I don't believe I have ever seen a sign that would meet all of the requirements. I think malls would be impossible to ever do that with all of the various entrances.

 

[Slawburger]

Properly worded and, as I recall from that Relford thread (which I did not go back and review), it must be prominently displayed at the entrance the person used so that there can be no claim they didn't see it.

"`...You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call attention to them had you? I mean like actually telling anyone or anything.'

'But the plans were on display...'

`On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.'

`That's the display department.'

`With a torch.'

`Ah, well the lights had probably gone.'

`So had the stairs.'

`But look you found the notice didn't you?'

`Yes,' said Arthur, `yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of The Leopard".'"

- Douglas Adams

 

[dmarsh8]

I don't believe I have ever seen a sign that would meet all of the requirements. I think malls would be impossible to ever do that with all of the various entrances.

Agreed. I've been in Richmond mall near me for the last 16-17 years on my own(with parents before getting my drivers license) and never noticed any sign whatsoever in my life. Same goes for the malls in Indy. I only purposely went looking for the one Sunday to see if they even had a policy or fill in the ______, whatever they decide to call it. Next time I'm close by Richmond I will take a pic of the one I had to go find. I don't recall the wording, but I don't see this particular sign meeting either requirement. "(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;
I walked out the two sets of doors looking, went outside, looked around & came back in, stopped and looked side to side before noticing it.
Quite frankly, I think most put them out of sight on purpose because they care more about you spending money there than
causing licensed carriers to shun their business or feel they could go to jail. It's just to shut up the crybabies,(who probably never notice
the thing even being there after it is posted anyway), and make them "feel better", while retaining all potential customers.
Lastly, maybe it makes the property owner feel better too as far as Cover MY A** mentality.

 

[gjclark]

The officer said "They don't put stickers on the doors because there are a lot of women and children that shop here and they don't want to scare them. They just keep it out of sight out of mind."

 

[Expat]

Quite frankly, I think most put them out of sight on purpose because they care more about you spending money there than
causing licensed carriers to shun their business or feel they could go to jail.

My guess is they want to be able to kick someone out if that person is making others nervous. Otherwise they don't care.

 

[jbombelli]

No, I'm saying I'll answer it. I'll bump the thread, just give me a link. You're misrepresented my words before, and your buddy has outright changed one of my posts he quoted. So I don't particularly hold your character in the highest regards. So provide me a link, and I'll answer it in the appropriate thread.

Why? You'll just evade answering like last time, post a "question for me" while not answering what I asked, and then when I press for an answer that you know you can't provide you'll just run away like before. We both know there's nothing in the Constitution that says the right to keep and bear arms may be infringed however the government wants. You know it, I know it. You just refused to acknowledge it and ran away.

And YOU don't hold MY character in high regard? LOL. Rest assured that pales in comparison to how I feel toward you.

 

[Roadie]

For anyone looking for this thread, here is the link:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/58317-you-going-jail.html

I would listen to Guy.

Yes, thank you!