No Firearms signs Do Hold Weight of Law??

[rmabrey]

Ive read repeatedly that No firearms signs do not hold weight of law in Indiana. While browsing Handgunlaw.us There PDF says they do.

I took a look at the IC to verify and sure enough it is just as stated on their site.

IC 35-43-2-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions

(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; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.

So what does INGO say?

 

[ATM]

Gary Slider, who updates that page at handgunlaw.us, came here looking for facts (starting with post #111) and engaged in some minor debate in this thread:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/122250-no_weapons_signs_and_stores.html


He has posted his opinion of what that IC means rather than the general consensus of that thread.

I still disagree, but I don't write for that site.

NO FIREARMS signs DO NOT have force of law in Indiana.

There. I said it.

 

[teknickle]

Yes, I think we all pretty much weighed in over on the other thread.
If you outright ignore the sign..you are ADMITTING that you received the notice and yet disregarded it.
I can imagine someone saying "you're sign don't tramp on my constitutional rights" --which is one of the most idiotic statements someone can make.
It is private property. If they don't want you there for ANY reason (no tie, no shirt, you stink, you have a gun..) you need to leave. You have no "right" to loiter on someone else's property.
**Side note: has nothing to do with right to bear arms. Besides, constitution does NOT GRANT YOU ANY RIGHTS..ANYWHERE.

ok. I feel better now.

 

[rmabrey]

Interesting, I never read that thread, and from what I gather there is yet to be a consensus on it. Damn the ambiguity in Indiana laws

Thanks ATM

 

[rmabrey]

Oh and I should have used the search function

Its ok im new here

ETA: Just for good measure

I heard they are doing away with the LTCH next thursday?
What should I buy, a glock or an XD?
Why do people feel the need to draw attention by OC?


ok my noobness is gone now.

 

[grimor]

It becomes a trespass issue as opposed to a "you can't carry a gun here (court house, school, etc)" You are being informed on your way in that you can't be there with a gun, much like a posted no trespass sign. In general if you are "caught" you will be asked to leave and if you do, then usually that's the end of it.

If you come back again after being asked to leave in violation of the sign or policy then things can escalate to actual charges (not that they can't the first time, they just tend not to unless you're an azz)

 

[singlestacksig]

no one has yet to find any trespassing case that was based on a condition listed on a sign and where the accused was not first given the option of leaving..

 

[LPMan59]

this is all very interesting. for some reason, i've never seen any of these signs. i guess i haven't ever been given my first notice.

 

[Hoosierdood]

this is all very interesting. for some reason, i've never seen any of these signs. i guess i haven't ever been given my first notice.

^^^ That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

 

[Grump01]

If your open carrying you could be asked to leave. If you refuse to leave you can be charged with trespass. If it's concealed, no one but you knows you're carrying. Hint Hint

 

[INGunGuy]

Hmmm sign seen in a storefront window:

"Notice anyone entering this establishment NOT wearing a purple tux will be arrested for trespassing"

How about this one? Can someone be arrested for trespassing for not wearing said tux?

I doubt it...

INGunGuy

 

[OWGEM]

Hmmm sign seen in a storefront window:

"Notice anyone entering this establishment NOT wearing a purple tux will be arrested for trespassing"

How about this one? Can someone be arrested for trespassing for not wearing said tux?

I doubt it...

INGunGuy

They would not be arrested for not wearing the tux, they will be arrested for tresspass if they refuse to leave once asked.

 

[grimor]

They would not be arrested for not wearing the tux, they will be arrested for tresspass if they refuse to leave once asked.

yup, their property, their rules.

 

[PeaShooter]

If you read through the referenced post, https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry_...nd_stores.html you will find that the Handgunlaw.us author preparing to cite Bryan Ciyou's work on the application of no firearm signs to Indiana Code. I would expect that as soon as releases are aquired from Bryan, that the Handgunlaw.us site will be updated to state that signs do not have the force of law in Indiana.

PeaShooter

 

[INGunGuy]

They would not be arrested for not wearing the tux, they will be arrested for tresspass if they refuse to leave once asked.

That is correct, and just like a no guns sign, one would not be arrested for carrying a gun, but for trespass if they did not leave after being asked.

INGunGuy

 

[DarkRose]

I just noticed that at the entrance I normally come in to at the Fairoaks Mall in Columbus, there's no longer a sign stating the "mall rules", there used to be one years ago (I used to work there), and one of them was no weapons, and I'd watched (and assisted with) security escorting people out or asking them to put their gun in their vehicle please.

Since there's no sign now, is it safe to assume rules have changed since it is no longer visibly posted?

 

[jbombelli]

"No Trespassing" is denial of entry. "No guns" is conditional admission. That's not the same thing.

 

[finity]

"No Trespassing" is denial of entry. "No guns" is conditional admission. That's not the same thing.

This.

 

[DFM914]

I have yet to see any signs like this...

 

[tskin]

Yep, concealed means concealed!