Hospital carry?

[SteveM4A1]

You see bud, it is NOT the same. Stating "No Firearms" is not the same as stating,"Those carrying firearms on this property are hereby warned it is against policy and you are not allowed here." Or some gibberish.

 

[StandingReady]

Lectric and Steve, that reference is mistaken (and has no legal citation to support the claim), as it is clearly stated in law that it (a sign itself) does have legal standing (the ability to deny access) as being able to "deny entry". If the sign says clearly that no firearms are allowed, that is clear language. While the proprietor may OPT to ask you to leave, the sign has already done that. The part that is accurate is that even if it isn't posted and you are asked to leave that you must do so. The difference is whether or not the signage is in place. If it is, then you have knowingly and intentionally violated it and are guilty of trespassing. Remember, the issue here is the right's of a private property owner, not the ability to carry a firearm.

 

[StandingReady]

You can try to split hairs all you want, "No firearms" is quite enough to establish that they aren't welcome. Anyone not bright enough to figure that out probably shouldn't be carrying to begin with. I am pretty sure they aren't expecting the guns to walk in themselves...

The law states that the signage has denied entry, which is the same as already having been asked to leave.

 

[SteveM4A1]

You see StandingReady, I'm not splitting hairs. There is a reason Texas enacted the language they did in the 30.06 law. Put plainly, you are telling a firearm it cannot enter with a simple No Firearms sign.

 

[actaeon277]

I'm still waiting for someone to show a court precedent. Surely by now, someone has been arrested and a court has made a decision one way or another.

 

[StandingReady]

I can't attest to what their law was before/after, but you had better have case law to support a claim that the law doesn't mean what it says. Around my area, everyone knows what "no firearms" means, even if it is a picture with a line through it.

As far as I know, our "No smoking" signs still say just that, they haven't been modified to "No burning tobacco through any means, especially if inhaling and exhaling the smoky byproduct of the burning tobacco."

 

[actaeon277]

I can't attest to what their law was before/after, but you had better have case law to support a claim that the law doesn't mean what it says. Around my area, everyone knows what "no firearms" means, even if it is a picture with a line through it.

Actually, that cuts both ways.
Both sides have made a claim.

I see no supporting court case to either side.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Actually, that cuts both ways.
Both sides have made a claim.

I see no supporting court case to either side.

There isn't a law that tells you that you CAN do something. (Edit:actually I bet there is one out there, but that makes no sense.)

In StandingReady's defense, this is a bit murky in the IC. Having said that, however, if No Firearms signs did have the weight of law, people would be charged. Anybody got any cases?

 

[StandingReady]

I will put it this way, if someone can present actual case law (which I am looking for), then I will believe that the signs do not hold legal weight. The way the law is worded though, it strongly states that a clearly posted sign can deny entry, which is clearly in favor of my point. The owner has already posted the sign, which is in effect preemptively telling any potential customers/patrons what the conditions are for being on the property. According to the wording of the law, that said sign is considered to already have denied entry to said conditions.

 

[SteveM4A1]

I will put it this way, if someone can present actual case law (which I am looking for), then I will believe that the signs do not hold legal weight. The way the law is worded though, it strongly states that a clearly posted sign can deny entry, which is clearly in favor of my point. The owner has already posted the sign, which is in effect preemptively telling any potential customers/patrons what the conditions are for being on the property. According to the wording of the law, that said sign is considered to already have denied entry to said conditions.

I am going to quote this person's statement on another forum and let you figure it out.

In order for your interpretation to be true, you would have to show that a firearm is a "person" under 35-43-2-2. "No firearms" does not prohibit a person from entering. It merely suggests that the owner does not wish a firearm to be present.

You can't post a notice to an inanimate object, only to a person. A "No Trespassing" sign would qualify as denial of entry. A "No guns" sign would not, because it does not notify a person that he is trespassing if he enters.

Source: Gun-buster signs in Indiana... truly no force of law?

Maybe some lawyers will chime in on the subject...once again.

 

[StandingReady]

I strongly disagree, absent case law, because in order for the firearms to be there, the person carrying it intentionally enters with an item/meeting a condition that is already prohibited. The gun doesn't get charged with criminal recklessness or murder either, the person does. The person is creating a condition, in the case the presence of a firearm, that is already clearly posted to not be allowed. The signs are clear enough to a reasonable and prudent person to convey the message.

 

[Bill B]

I strongly disagree, absent case law, because in order for the firearms to be there, the person carrying it intentionally enters with an item/meeting a condition that is already prohibited. The gun doesn't get charged with criminal recklessness or murder either, the person does. The person is creating a condition, in the case the presence of a firearm, that is already clearly posted to not be allowed. The signs are clear enough to a reasonable and prudent person to convey the message.

You asking people to prove a negative with case law. I did a search on lexis-nexus (I have access through my student account) and there are no cases in the Indiana appellate court or the Indiana Supreme Court on record. Now, in the many years that the trespass law has been on record wouldn't it seem logical that someone was charged with trespassing, convicted, and appealed it?
If my memory serves correctly, in the Indiana Comprehensive Firearms Law class the instructor also stated that there was no case law on the matter and the likelihood of there ever being any based on the common handgun with a slash was extremely small. However, if the sign said: "persons carrying firearms are denied entry" or words similar that might carry the weight of law.
Of course, the county prosecutors and the attorneys of the state could all be wrong.

 

[StandingReady]

More often than not the way any type of trespassing call goes down is that the police issue a warning, which is then documented, in addition to whatever measures are already in place (signs or not). Any more violations would result in an arrest. I am not asking to prove a negative, only to find case law that would be contrary to what the law seems to read as the law indicates that the sign sufficiently sets the standard. I would think that there would be case precedent on it somewhere, but if LN doesn't have a record of it, it must not be there. As far as prosecutors go, yeah, I could argue that the law is not followed as it should be with numerous first hand accounts of how many cases in general go, whether it be botched cases, or the common sweet plea deal just to clear a case out.

 

[actaeon277]

More often than not the way any type of trespassing call goes down is that the police issue a warning, which is then documented, in addition to whatever measures are already in place (signs or not). Any more violations would result in an arrest. I am not asking to prove a negative, only to find case law that would be contrary to what the law seems to read as the law indicates that the sign sufficiently sets the standard. I would think that there would be case precedent on it somewhere, but if LN doesn't have a record of it, it must not be there. As far as prosecutors go, yeah, I could argue that the law is not followed as it should be with numerous first hand accounts of how many cases in general go, whether it be botched cases, or the common sweet plea deal just to clear a case out.

Which then means that the person carrying has been contacted by an agent. In this case, the police stand in as the agent.

 

[StandingReady]

But does that mean that it must be that way, or just that they choose to do it that way? For instance, if the person isn't being a problem then give them the additional warning? OR is there enough language in the law that would allow an arrest based solely on the sign if the officer chose to do so? there is a difference.

 

[ATM]

StandingReady, you're attempting a line of argument which has already played out unsuccessfully on this forum many times.

The code hasn't changed, so unless you plan to bring some new case law which substantially changes the debate, your opinion lacks support and isn't likely to sway anyone.

Good luck.

 

[Bill B]

But does that mean that it must be that way, or just that they choose to do it that way? For instance, if the person isn't being a problem then give them the additional warning? OR is there enough language in the law that would allow an arrest based solely on the sign if the officer chose to do so? there is a difference.

In today's politically charged law-enforcement climate, especially in urban areas such as Lake and Marion counties, don't you think that if an leo could make an arrest based solely on the sign they would?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hang on. You said upthread that the sign alone is enough to tell the person that bringing a firearm there will make him subject to trespass. However, now you're saying that the call is made, the police arrive, and then THEY warn the person.

If the sign was enough, would the officer not simply arrest the person for trespassing?

Absent proof one way or the other, the only explanation that the fact (that no one has been arrested and convicted solely on the basis of a gunbuster sign being present) supports is that the sign is not enough in and of itself.

I'm open to facts that prove otherwise.

Blessings,
Bill

More often than not the way any type of trespassing call goes down is that the police issue a warning, which is then documented, in addition to whatever measures are already in place (signs or not). Any more violations would result in an arrest. I am not asking to prove a negative, only to find case law that would be contrary to what the law seems to read as the law indicates that the sign sufficiently sets the standard. I would think that there would be case precedent on it somewhere, but if LN doesn't have a record of it, it must not be there. As far as prosecutors go, yeah, I could argue that the law is not followed as it should be with numerous first hand accounts of how many cases in general go, whether it be botched cases, or the common sweet plea deal just to clear a case out.

 

[StandingReady]

I haven't caught those previous discussions about this subject. And I can't say that there haven't been arrests based on that alone. It would be hard to say that there hasn't been, especially in those counties where plea deals are offered like candy, even without a defense attorney.

 

[StandingReady]

Bill, officers have a lot of discretion, and if the owner/proprietor is ok with a trespass warning being given by an LEO and documented, then why wouldn't the officer chose that route more often? It's less paperwork and the person is still removed from the business. My perspective is that the law states that the signage has some bearing/standing, or else it would not be there (the legal language about the sign). So if the sign is a moot point, or doesn't have legal standing, why does the law say that a sign can serve to deny access?

There are a lot of instances in which an officer can and will cut people breaks, even when they CAN arrest, and the person's behavior can make or break the outcome of the situation. Based on the writing of the law. CAN an arrest be made just going off of the signage, and if not, where is the legal precedent to negate the wording of the law? Often times, at the end of a chapter of law it will include the obligatory, "It is a defense in court that..." but there isn't any here in that regard. Based on what is that part about the sign (placed by the owner/proprietor) already having "denied entry" not valid? Is it the wording of the sign? Or just in general. I guess my question is if that line establishes some legal standing for the sign, where is the legal standard that it doesn't have any weight?