Escorted out of the Glenbrook Mall

[Kutnupe14]

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.

Are you going to bump it it, or keep running your gums?

 

[stephen87]

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.

Are you going to bump it it, or keep running your gums?

Why don't you two quit *****ing at each other and go to the thread that was in? I know, Kut, you want him to link it, but use Google, man. It was literally, the second hit on Google.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...268519-ingoers-require-background-checks.html

 

[TheSpark]

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

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.

First off I am not a lawyer to answer your question.

The difference is the law only permits you to address a person specifically. You can't address inanimate objects such as the presence or lack of a gun.

Like I said, this is the reason no one has ever been charged or convicted if they immediately left when their person was asked to leave. For example by a manager saying to you: leave now. That address your person by law. "No trespassing" addresses your person. The law starts off with the exact words of "a person". The thing you must remember with laws, and one of the main reasons we have lawyers, is that there is no wiggle room from how the law is worded. That is why letter of the law wins over intent and why we have so many laws that make things legal or illegal that was never intended.

So, since the letter of the laws starts off with "a person" it means that the rest of text of that specific law can only apply to a person. This means you can't use the rest of the law to address variables such as the presence or lack of an object that may be in, on, or around such person.

Imagine the chaos this law would make if it did indeed make no gun signs carry the weight of law. This would means all other signs would carry weight of law as well. For example I, as an owner of a commercial business such as a restaurant, could put a sign at the front door that says something like "no shouting kids" and then have the parent, and possibly kid, arrested when they start shouting. It would basically allow property owners to create their own laws while on their property, and have all of them result in a person being arrested for trespassing if they violate any of them at any point. So be thankful that I'm right when I tell you: No gun signs, no matter the wording, placement, etc, hold no weight of law in Indiana.

 

[stephen87]

I get what YOU'RE saying, but that's not what I was getting at. I was saying the EXACT same thing, maybe since I was on shift and on my phone it was hard to understand and explain.


A sign carries NO weight of law, UNLESS it specifically says "no persons <blah blah blah>, all violators are trespassing" or something to that effect.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why don't you two quit *****ing at each other and go to the thread that was in? I know, Kut, you want him to link it, but use Google, man. It was literally, the second hit on Google.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...268519-ingoers-require-background-checks.html

thanks, I honestly had no idea what thread it was in.

 

[TheSpark]

I get what YOU'RE saying, but that's not what I was getting at. I was saying the EXACT same thing, maybe since I was on shift and on my phone it was hard to understand and explain.


A sign carries NO weight of law, UNLESS it specifically says "no persons <blah blah blah>, all violators are trespassing" or something to that effect.

There is no "unless". Even if the sign said the following it would carry 0 weight of law:

"No persons in possession of a gun. All violators are trespassing"

Why? The law only allows that to cover the individual specifically. It does not allow it to cover someone meeting some random variable such as possession of a gun or someone wearing no underwear. That's why it does become trespassing if you refuse to leave if asked. If a manager comes up to you and requests you to leave they are addressing your person specifically.

The end result is very simple, and I've said it before: There is no wording a "no guns allowed" sign can use that would make it legally enforceable by itself in Indiana.

I'm going to poke another hole in the argument that putting in wording saying you are trespassing if you violate a sign with conditions. It is pretty simple, since when does a citizen, even a property owner, have the power to determine what is and is not legal trespassing? They have no such authority. If they put up a sign saying "no trespassing" that means they are exercising their right to keep their property private and trespassing on private property not open to the public is illegal. Saying "You are trespassing if you carry a gun onto my property" is creating their own, new, trespassing law which they have no authority to do.

 

[Vespid_Wasp]

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."

Sounds like he's a constitutional scholar on par with the POTUS.

 

[ashby koss]

... "if I hadn't seen it we wouldn't be making this call"...

So he is basically saying to disregard the malls policy and conceal carry against his own belief that

..."since it was posted he could charge me for criminal trespassing"...

Officers of the law need to be taught how to deal with everyday issues. This would be one of them. I think that this should be permanently recorded in his employment file. 2 issues of hassling citizens for no legal or safety reason, AND stating absolutely wrong legal information (not to mention the hypocrisy within his own statement) should be grounds for termination. (as long as he mus-represents the same thing 2 times, everyone has bad days)

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

I tried to find something, anything that the officer was correct about...

I was unsuccessful.

He said he LIKED guns

 

[BrianD]

All this talk about signs and weight of law reminds me of when I lived in SC. There signs held weight of law, but were very specific in size, wording and location. It is much nicer here in Indiana.
Got this from SLED.

SECTION 23-31-235. Sign requirements.

(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, any requirement of or allowance for the posting of signs prohibiting the carrying of a concealable weapon upon any premises shall only be satisfied by a sign expressing the prohibition in both written language interdict and universal sign language.

(B) All signs must be posted at each entrance into a building where a concealable weapon permit holder is prohibited from carrying a concealable weapon and must be:

(1) clearly visible from outside the building;

(2) eight inches wide by twelve inches tall in size;

(3) contain the words "NO CONCEALABLE WEAPONS ALLOWED" in black one-inch tall uppercase type at the bottom of the sign and centered between the lateral edges of the sign;

(4) contain a black silhouette of a handgun inside a circle seven inches in diameter with a diagonal line that runs from the lower left to the upper right at a forty-five degree angle from the horizontal;

(5) a diameter of a circle; and

(6) placed not less than forty inches and not more than sixty inches from the bottom of the building's entrance door.

 

[stephen87]

There is no "unless". Even if the sign said the following it would carry 0 weight of law:

"No persons in possession of a gun. All violators are trespassing"

Why? The law only allows that to cover the individual specifically. It does not allow it to cover someone meeting some random variable such as possession of a gun or someone wearing no underwear. That's why it does become trespassing if you refuse to leave if asked. If a manager comes up to you and requests you to leave they are addressing your person specifically.

The end result is very simple, and I've said it before: There is no wording a "no guns allowed" sign can use that would make it legally enforceable by itself in Indiana.

I'm going to poke another hole in the argument that putting in wording saying you are trespassing if you violate a sign with conditions. It is pretty simple, since when does a citizen, even a property owner, have the power to determine what is and is not legal trespassing? They have no such authority. If they put up a sign saying "no trespassing" that means they are exercising their right to keep their property private and trespassing on private property not open to the public is illegal. Saying "You are trespassing if you carry a gun onto my property" is creating their own, new, trespassing law which they have no authority to do.

Maybe you should do some reading. A thread was posted earlier in THIS thread, with Guy Relford, a well known lawyer, stating that in his .

Direct quote

Several of you have nailed this one - Scutter01 was the first, I believe.

The purpose of my post was to point out the difference between "notices" on the entrances of buildings that merely attempt to regulate conduct (e.g., "shirt and shoes required," or "no pets allowed," or even "no firearms") and notices that may actuallly constitute a "denial of entry" under Indiana's Crimincal Trespass statute.

As Scutter and others have correctly pointed out, IC 35-43-2-2
states the following:

"Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;

* * *

(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section 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 . . . ."

I wrote my hypothetical "notice" with 35-43-2-2(a)(1) in mind:

"ABSOLUTELY NO FIREARMS!!
ANYONE CARRYING A FIREARM IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU CARRY A GUN INTO THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."​

To me, this may likely distinguish this situation from the general rule, as discussed by Bryan Ciyou on p. 94 of "Indiana Handgun Law, 2d Edition," which states:

"[A] retailer has the right to limit and qualify the right to enter the property subject to not carrying a hadgun. It would be improper to enter, and the Licensee would be subject to ejection for possession of a handgun thereat. Failure to leave once requested, would subject the Licensee to arrest for criminal trespass."

Clearly, Bryan has IC 35-43-2-2(a)(2) in mind as he states this, not section (a)(1). And that is what is different about my scenario. The gun owner has arguably been "denied entry" to the premises, yet entered anyway - and that is what creates the possibility of arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass.

Finity is also correct to point out that Alves v. State stands for the proposition that a general "no trespassing" sign on an entrance to property is sufficient to allow a jury to convict a defendant for criminal trespass if he ignores the sign.

There is no Indiana case that addresses my specific scenario, but I do believe that the notice involved - which was much more specific than a general "no firearms" notice on the issue of "denial of entry" - creates a serious risk of arrest.

As always - this isn't meant to be legal advice - just my view and a general "heads up."

I address this issue (and many, many others) in my Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law class. The next class in Indy is November 7. I also have a class in Hammond scheduledf or November 21. Check out Home Page for details.

Guy

As you see, Guy Relford agrees that it must be more specific than just "no firearms" and if it is specific, such as his sign, there is a risk of being arrested based on the sign alone.

As for your second stance that creating a set of stipulations would be creating a new law is just... Well, no. Trespass is defined as "entering a person's land without their permission, or to commit an offense against a person or set of rules." Care to try again?

 

[jbombelli]

Why don't you two quit *****ing at each other and go to the thread that was in? I know, Kut, you want him to link it, but use Google, man. It was literally, the second hit on Google.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...268519-ingoers-require-background-checks.html

All he had to do was click the little arrow next to his name in any of the posts I quoted. They would have taken him right to it. Second, it was linked 9 hours ago, he acknowledged it 7 hours ago, and still hasn't posted his answer.

I'm not surprised.

 

[Bunnykid68]

All he had to do was click the little arrow next to his name in any of the posts I quoted. They would have taken him right to it. Second, it was linked 9 hours ago, he acknowledged it 7 hours ago, and still hasn't posted his answer.

I'm not surprised.

What page in Stephens link should I be looking at? I am so confused

 

[stephen87]

They start flirting at about page 4, if you're a kool kid with 40 posts per page.

 

[stephen87]

All he had to do was click the little arrow next to his name in any of the posts I quoted. They would have taken him right to it. Second, it was linked 9 hours ago, he acknowledged it 7 hours ago, and still hasn't posted his answer.

I'm not surprised.

I've never noticed the arrows.

 

[Amishman44]

Hmmmm....I carry there whenever I go (which is very infrequently...maybe twice per year, tops) but I carry concealed so as to avoid this type of discussion.

I wonder why the mall feels they need to have officers present at the mall...I understand their 'no guns allowed' policy keeps negative incidents from occuring!

Incidently, does anyone here believe that the criminals will actually follow the 'no guns allowed' policy? Just curious!

 

[SteveM4A1]

Criminals follow laws and store policies. I don't know what world y'all live in...

 

[Bunnykid68]

I've never noticed the arrows.

I knew about them, but forgot about them

 

[stephen87]

Hmmmm....I carry there whenever I go (which is very infrequently...maybe twice per year, tops) but I carry concealed so as to avoid this type of discussion.

I wonder why the mall feels they need to have officers present at the mall...I understand their 'no guns allowed' policy keeps negative incidents from occuring!

Incidently, does anyone here believe that the criminals will actually follow the 'no guns allowed' policy? Just curious!

First of all, you want the OC Argument thread. Not this one.

Second of all, having never been to Glenbrook Mall, I'm not sure how they work up there. Does security carry firearms? Greenwood Park Mall has different levels of security, from what I've seen, most of security does not carry but there are usually 1-2 in all black, gotta stay tactical, that carry. They could be off-duty or on-duty LEO, but I've never talked to them. Every time I see them, they're busy.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Something in this thread has been bothering me a bit and some kind soul with greater wisdom than I may provide some information to solve my conundrum.

When I went to acquire a "No Trespassing" sign for property out in the country (in Indiana) I did some research. According to my research at the time, for a "No Trespassing" sign to be legally enforceable it had to have two (2) pieces of information on the sign; #1 - The name of the person who owned the property, and; #2 - The legal address of the property that said owner did not want people trespassing on.

As I now search for this I cannot find my initial research nor any information clarifying this. Has the law changed or is it hidden deep in the bowls of legalese?

IF I am correct (yes, that is a big if) then none of the signs I have seen would have any force of law in Indiana, strictly speaking.

Regards,

Doug