"No Firearms Allowed"

[MikePapa1]

Well, I'm no REAL attorney, despite having practiced for 27 years in criminal law in two different states, but I have to agree with what SJ's judge says. They probably wouldn't prosecute, but that's different than a LEO probably wouldn't arrest based upon a complaint. I doubt ultimately that it would be tried, but whether it would or would not is really not the issue. Even being asked to leave based on the refusal to obey a sign to the contrary, undermines the truly law abiding carry public in the eyes of those who either are anti-gun to begin with or don't see or understand the need to carry.

We should be ambassadors to those who are hostile to the exercise of Constitutional rights and examples to those who are merely indifferent. If you show you are wholly indifferent to others and are willing to ignore their wishes on their property, you simply make yourself look like a jerk.

When you talk to your REAL lawyer, jbombelli, tell him or her to ask Pat Baldwin, your prosecutor about me as a lawyer. I've tried cases against Pat many times, though most of her assistants then have gone on to be Judges. Tell him to give Pat the regards of Randy Lucas.

 

[ATM]

What's the point of knowing the difference between laws and rules if one should treat them the same?

Ignorance of a sign is a great excuse.

 

[LawDog76]

No response from from either office today. Maybe I'll hear something on Monday.

 

[jbombelli]

Well, I'm no REAL attorney, despite having practiced for 27 years in criminal law in two different states, but I have to agree with what SJ's judge says. They probably wouldn't prosecute, but that's different than a LEO probably wouldn't arrest based upon a complaint. I doubt ultimately that it would be tried, but whether it would or would not is really not the issue. Even being asked to leave based on the refusal to obey a sign to the contrary, undermines the truly law abiding carry public in the eyes of those who either are anti-gun to begin with or don't see or understand the need to carry.

We should be ambassadors to those who are hostile to the exercise of Constitutional rights and examples to those who are merely indifferent. If you show you are wholly indifferent to others and are willing to ignore their wishes on their property, you simply make yourself look like a jerk.

When you talk to your REAL lawyer, jbombelli, tell him or her to ask Pat Baldwin, your prosecutor about me as a lawyer. I've tried cases against Pat many times, though most of her assistants then have gone on to be Judges. Tell him to give Pat the regards of Randy Lucas.

What do I look like, your message boy? You want to say hi, call her. Say "hi." I'm sure you two will have plenty to talk about.

As for what the judge said, ". . . a person would have to ask you to leave before you are trespassing." As far as being arrested, why wouldn't the police know this, too?

Do you know of any successful prosecutions based on the interpretation you're giving, where if I recall correctly the no-guns sign is sufficient to be considered notice of denial of entry? I'll mention them when I ask.

I don't say that to be a smarty; I don't mind being wrong.

That's not true.

I hate being wrong.

But I can live with it. I did have an attorney who tried lots of cases (albeit in a different county) tell me something different. But that was a long time ago. I know for sure he was an attorney. I'm not doubting you any more than I would doubt anybody else on the internet, so don't take it personally. I've seen a lot of people claim to be things they weren't. And it's hard to take something at face value when popular concensus and my own prior conversations say otherwise.

I am seriously planning to ask this weekend, and I will post what he says.


Sorry if I come across a little harsh, but I never went to sweet-talk-other-men school.

 

[MikePapa1]

Jb, feel free to talk to me in any manner you wish. You, in essence, called me a liar, which is never a way to start a civil conversation.

Back to the topic, I know of no prosecutions. In fact, I'm not even aware of any arrests. If I were advising a client of mine, however, I try to err on the side of caution. I do that because even if they are not prosecuted, if the police are called and that call involves a man with a gun, all sorts of bad, dangerous and expensive things can happen. Why subject yourself to that unnecessarily?

I hope you have a good conversation with your REAL lawyer and you are certainly free to do whatever you like with regard to ignoring the signs. I've got a son in engineering school and a daughter about to go to law school and people who ignore my advice continue to pay those expenses. Suits me, I see it as an annuity.

 

[EdC]

red:
A corporation is, by legal definition, a FICTITIOUS ENTITY. A solid argument can be made under this statute that this does not pertain to Costco (for example).

Green:
A sign is not a person or an agent. This is the hard and fast one that has no 'wiggle room' under Indiana law.

Could an ignorant cop charge you under this? Sure. As the saying goes you can beat the rap but not the ride. Cops do illegal things all the time, arresting under this statute for Billy Bob carrying into Costco would be illegal. A civil rights suit would end with a settlement out of court.

An anti-gun prosecutor may try and run with it, but any two bit lackey out of law school could have the charges tossed with little effort.

In the Indiana statutes (and most other fed and state statutes) "person" is a defined term of art, and includes natural persons, corporations, LLC's, etc. "Individual" is the term of art used for natural persons (human beings).

The sign posted by the corporation would be the written notice given by the "person"

Your conclusion might be correct, but I don't think it would be on the basis of "person" being used in the statute.

 

[LPMan59]

here's another good discussion on this topic....started by a REAL lawyer lolz

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...self_defense/58317-are_you_going_to_jail.html

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Where is GUNLAWYER when we need him? AWOL again! He wrote a scenario a while back that involved no gun signage. If I recall the answer to the question was in the way the sign was WORDED. In his scenario the sign said “…are DENIED ENTRY”. He felt THAT sign would hold up, while most others held no weight of law. That was HIS take on it as a practicing Indiana Attorney and NRA Instructor. WHERE FORE ART THOU GUNLAWYER?!?!?

 

[LPMan59]

Where is GUNLAWYER when we need him? AWOL again! He wrote a scenario a while back that involved no gun signage. If I recall the answer to the question was in the way the sign was WORDED. In his scenario the sign said “…are DENIED ENTRY”. He felt THAT sign would hold up, while most others held no weight of law. That was HIS take on it as a practicing Indiana Attorney and NRA Instructor. WHERE FORE ART THOU GUNLAWYER?!?!?

see the post above you

 

[Expat]

Here was another of his posts.

That's very true - the issue is whether a sign posted at the entrance to a building or property has "denied entry" to a person carrying a fiream. If so, and you enter the building or property anyway, you are at risk for prosecution for criminal trespass under IC 35-43-2-2:

"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;

* * *
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor.

* * *
(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"

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...62-carrying_in_places_that_dont_allow_it.html

 

[fwacfred]

While I'm waiting for the Prosecutors to get back to me, does any of the known LEO's on here want to tell me how they interpret this? Personal since the law says "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" is means of denying entry, you can be cited on the spot.

No carry signs do not hold the weight of law in IN with the exceptions listed in the Criminal Code. Some cities have local ordinances against carrying in certain places but those are infractions not criminal. IANAL but id did sleep at the Holiday Inn Express last night. Places that are posted can ask you to leave if you are discovered carrying. Failure to leave is a crime called trespassing. That is what you could be arrested for in that situation.

 

[jbombelli]

Now that I finally got back and got some rest after this horribly long weekend, my attorney says that, in general, you'll have to be asked to leave before it's "trespassing."

He also said there are rules about conduct, and there is denial of entry. Those two things are not the same. A sign stating "no guns allowed" is a conduct rule. If it specifically denies entry, that MAY be a different matter (I asked him about the GunLawyer thread about that wording). Meaning if it said something like "Anyone carrying a firearm is specifically denied entry into this establishment" that MIGHT be enough for a trespassing charge if you're caught carrying a gun. But he's never seen denial of entry take this particular form. He said that denial of entry in written form is usually more individual in nature, and would typically be something like "the following individuals are banned from the premises:" with a list of names following. He's never seen it take the form mentioned above, and called it "an interesting idea."

All of that said, he's never seen anybody arrested for trespassing who wasn't asked to leave first, regardless of signage.


He finished with advising me to leave an establishment if asked to do so.

 

[LawDog76]

Still nothing from either office (Allen or Marion). I went back and read GunLawyer's thread/post. His view was pretty much the same as mine and most of the other officers I spoke with. Still hoping for an answer from the Prosecutors though.

 

[Fargo]

Prometheus, I don't want to get into an argument the first day I'm here, but I suggest you reread what you posted. If I, as the owner or an agent of the owner, post a sign prohibiting weapons and you carrying in a gun, you are trespassing. The statue you quoted shows that clearly. Now I've only been practicing criminal law in Indiana and Tennessee totaling 27 years, so you might know better than I do, but I'd suggest you hire your "two bit lackey out of law school" and see how you fare in court.

The owner has made his position clear by posting the sign and if you enter in opposition to it, you are committing a crime. The best thing to do, in my view, is to notify any such store why you as a law abiding CCP holder will NOT shop in his store. If enough of us do that, things will change to bring down those silly signs. My criminal clients simply ignore them as they do the other laws they violate and that's what we need owners to understand.

I have to take a bit of exception to the bold unequivocal statements above. I have gone through the annotated statute and have been unable to find a single case espousing the interpretation you have above. I have also discussed it with a number of attorneys, including DPA's, and am yet to find one that believes that a crime is being committed for breaking a rule of an establishment.

By your logic:

-The guy who leaves his cell phone on in the lobby of the doctor's office is a criminal.

-The guy who sneaks a snickers bar into the theatre is a criminal.

-The guy who smokes within 30 feet of a such posted door is a criminal.

-Hell, the jerk who keeps talking in the movie theatre is a criminal.

Unless a sign makes reference to "denial of entry" or trespass, I highly doubt this statute applies. That is not to say that I advise pushing the issue, being that test case is expensive and can have some bad consequences. I just don't think it is nearly as cut and dried as you assert. Of course, until one of us is sitting on a appellate court, our opinion is worth exactly what everyone here is paying for it.

Still nothing from either office (Allen or Marion). I went back and read GunLawyer's thread/post. His view was pretty much the same as mine and most of the other officers I spoke with. Still hoping for an answer from the Prosecutors though.

I would be SHOCKED/FLABBERGASTED/AMAZED etc if you get an answer. The prosecutor's office will virtually NEVER give a legal opinion. That isn't their job, plus they seldom agree with each other. Remember, you are talking about pure litigators here who are always up for a good argument. One DPA's position will often be diametrically opposed to that of some of his colleagues.

Plus, you have emailed two of the counties which are the least sympathetic to law abiding gun owners. I'd be surprised if they give you the time of day, much less an answer. I'd consider myself lucky if they even bother to write back telling you they aren't answering the question.

Best,


Joe

 

[LawDog76]

I would be SHOCKED/FLABBERGASTED/AMAZED etc if you get an answer. The prosecutor's office will virtually NEVER give a legal opinion. That isn't their job, plus they seldom agree with each other. Remember, you are talking about pure litigators here who are always up for a good argument. One DPA's position will often be diametrically opposed to that of some of his colleagues.

Plus, you have emailed two of the counties which are the least sympathetic to law abiding gun owners. I'd be surprised if they give you the time of day, much less an answer. I'd consider myself lucky if they even bother to write back telling you they aren't answering the question.

Best,

Joe

Well I e-mailed Allen county because I used to live there and I have a few connections with in the county offices. I just didn't want call and bother people with a not so pressing matter. I e-mailed Marion county because thats where I'm currently working and I'm more likely to deal with situation.

Only thing I will say about my job is that I work in a semi-secure area of the airport where weapons are prohibited by FAA regulations and corporate policy (yes they are exempt from the new state bill). My main reason for this question is if I am called to a building out of the secured area where it is clearly posted "No Firearms Allowed". Like I said in a previous post, I have spoken with other officers and have gotten mixed answers. I'd like to get a clear answer and share it with everyone here. Especially when I see people giving out the advise "Just cover it and ignore the sign, you won't goto jail."

 

[Fargo]

Well I e-mailed Allen county because I used to live there and I have a few connections with in the county offices. I just didn't want call and bother people with a not so pressing matter. I e-mailed Marion county because thats where I'm currently working and I'm more likely to deal with situation.

Only thing I will say about my job is that I work in a semi-secure area of the airport where weapons are prohibited by FAA regulations and corporate policy (yes they are exempt from the new state bill). My main reason for this question is if I am called to a building out of the secured area where it is clearly posted "No Firearms Allowed". Like I said in a previous post, I have spoken with other officers and have gotten mixed answers. I'd like to get a clear answer and share it with everyone here. Especially when I see people giving out the advise "Just cover it and ignore the sign, you won't goto jail."

Airport is a whole nuther story. IIRC, the airport is a part of a municipal corporation and falls under the authority of the city of Indianapolis. There is an ordinance prohibiting weapons in the airport, it is not simply a policy of a private corporation or organization. Because it is the property of a municipal corporation, the ordinance is unaffected by Indiana's pre-emption law.

I believe you may have significant legal problems by carrying there, but it isn't simply because of the signage. I would be very hesitant to be the test case on that one, even if only because the issues with carry at the airport go way beyond the criminal trespass statute.

Additionally, I can see a ton of ways this could adversely affect your employment.

Joe

 

[LawDog76]

Airport is a whole nuther story. IIRC, the airport is a part of a municipal corporation and falls under the authority of the city of Indianapolis. There is an ordinance prohibiting weapons in the airport, it is not simply a policy of a private corporation or organization. Because it is the property of a municipal corporation, the ordinance is unaffected by Indiana's pre-emption law.

I believe you may have significant legal problems by carrying there, but it isn't simply because of the signage. I would be very hesitant to be the test case on that one, even if only because the issues with carry at the airport go way beyond the criminal trespass statute.

Additionally, I can see a ton of ways this could adversely affect your employment.

Joe

Upon being hired on, it was explained to me that these buildings are on property owned by the airport, but outside of the secure area, not actually within the airport itself, and rented by private corporations but are public access and that ordnance didn't apply. The training officer may of been wrong but when the manager of one of these businesses wants some type of charges filed and the person I believe honestly didn't see the sign or has become custom to carrying and really forgot he/she had it on their person, I'd rather not see them slapped with something that would cause them to lose their LCTH.

As far as people carrying in the secured area, thats pretty much a clear cut case there. Theres no question on how thats going to be handled.

 

[MPD179]

IN MOST CASES ..... the LTCH holder will not be arrested for carrying his/her weapon in the establishment based on a posted sign.

The manager/owner must make notification (usually verbal) denying entry into the business in the presence of an LEO, the LEO then tells the LTCH holder to leave.

My agency provides a written notice that resembles a traffic citation to the person being asked to leave. The persons name is then flagged in our computer system in the event we are called back at a later time.

If they return, he/she is then arrested for criminal trespass as the previous warning was already issued and documented. This is how we handle these complaints but im sure not all depts follow the same policy.

 

[Rookie]

IN MOST CASES ..... the LTCH holder will not be arrested for carrying his/her weapon in the establishment based on a posted sign.

The manager/owner must make notification (usually verbal) denying entry into the business in the presence of an LEO, the LEO then tells the LTCH holder to leave.

My agency provides a written notice that resembles a traffic citation to the person being asked to leave. The persons name is then flagged in our computer system in the event we are called back at a later time.

If they return, he/she is then arrested for criminal trespass as the previous warning was already issued and documented. This is how we handle these complaints but im sure not all depts follow the same policy.

Is there a time limit? A month? A year? Ten years?

 

[downzero]

Is there a time limit? A month? A year? Ten years?

I don't believe that a trespass warning has a time limit. If the owner has said he doesn't want you there, you can't return.