"No Guns" signs, help needed..

[Roadie]

OK, I am in a "discussion" on Facebook with a person who is trying to claim that carrying onto private property automatically violates your "permit" in States that specifically address private property carry in their laws.

I, of course, made the comment "No Guns signs have no weight of law in Indiana" to which he replied..

(d) This section may be not construed:
(1) to prohibit a person who owns, leases, rents, or otherwise legally controls private property from regulating or prohibiting the possession of firearms on the private property;
Indiana Code 35-47-2

Indiana Code 35-47-2
www.in.gov

Now, I know that this has been discussed ad naseum here, but I don't recall this specific IC being discussed, so I am backed into a corner...

How would you respond to this person if you were in this discussion?

Thanks in advance!

 

[KW730]

Basically all that IC is saying is that the owner of private property has the right to disallow firearms on their property. It says nothing about it being a criminal offense to bring firearms onto private property where the owner does not want them. You will be asked to leave, and if you refuse you will be arrested for trespassing.

 

[Cpl. Klinger]

Basically to me, the IC you quote states that if you are in control of private property, you can say "No guns here" and have the police issue trespass on folks if they do not comply with your wishes. Signs carrying the weight of law is a totally different ball game, in effect making a sign on a business being put there as if the state had done so. In Indiana, that is not the case. The rebuttal I would give in this "discussion" would be the following:

You are right if the following were to occur: I go into Random Store while open carrying, and store owner says "Hey, you need to leave, no guns here." I refuse, and tell him to pound sand. He calls the police and I get trespassed. Technically I have violated my "permit" as you say.

However, say store owner says "Hey you need to leave, no guns here." and I say sure, no problem. I leave. No violations have occurred, as I have complied with the property owners wishes. Even if there are signs saying such, in Indiana they only express the rights of the property holder, and have NO bearing of law. That is to say, they do not have the same bearing as any part of the IC on my rights.

This guy you are discussing with is a tool, and fool. Arguing with a fool does no good.

 

[88GT]

Simple. There is no crime associated with carrying a firearm on private property wherein such possession/carrying has been prohibited. You have violated the license you have been given to enter property, but committed no crime.

 

[ATM]

The law does not stop a person from regulating or prohibiting possession of any items - they may have any number of rules.

That doesn't cause their rules to rise to the level of laws. They can't actually make it illegal to carry just by having a rule.

 

[Somemedic]

"Violates your permit"?

Tell your poor, confused friend its.... not a permit but a license.

...and

This section of code affords us to have a weapon in our residence, whether we rent or own, even id we do not have a gun permit. What it ia saying os no license or "permit" is necessary to own a gun if its used solely as home protection. It also includes conditions for you to carry the weapon in your car back and forth to a range or gun show or class.

Poor confused friends... tellem its there in black and white.

 

[Roadie]

"Violates your permit"?

Tell your poor, confused friend its.... not a permit but a license.

...and

This section of code affords us to have a weapon in our residence, whether we rent or own, even id we do not have a gun permit. What it ia saying os no license or "permit" is necessary to own a gun if its used solely as home protection. It also includes conditions for you to carry the weapon in your car back and forth to a range or gun show or class.

Poor confused friends... tellem its there in black and white.

This isnt a friend, and he is discussing multiple states, so I let the "permit" thing slide..

Thanks all for the insight, much appreciated..

 

[88GT]

"Violates your permit"?

Tell your poor, confused friend its.... not a permit but a license.

...and

And precisely what is the difference?

This section of code affords us to have a weapon in our residence, whether we rent or own, even id we do not have a gun permit. What it ia saying os no license or "permit" is necessary to own a gun if its used solely as home protection. It also includes conditions for you to carry the weapon in your car back and forth to a range or gun show or class.

Poor confused friends... tellem its there in black and white.

That's just one part of that section of IC. The issue is the regulation of firearms BY private property owners, not OF private property owners.

 

[duff72]

Basically all that IC is saying is that the owner of private property has the right to disallow firearms on their property. It says nothing about it being a criminal offense to bring firearms onto private property where the owner does not want them. You will be asked to leave, and if you refuse you will be arrested for trespassing.

Is there a difference between trespassing and armed trespassing

 

[Roadie]

Anyone want to join the fun? If you have a Facebook account check out https://www.facebook.com/pages/Democratic-Gun-Owners-of-America/345333925522844?ref=stream

 

[daddymikey1975]

which argument are we joining ?

 

[daddymikey1975]

think i found it.

 

[CTS]

Wow..it took me all of 30 seconds to realize the guy running that page has some issues.

 

[Hammerhead]

Wow, that guy has quite a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and a huge hard on for people who know their rights and won't compromise them.

 

[CTS]

Wow, that guy has quite a bit of a chip on his shoulder, and a huge hard on for people who know their rights and won't compromise them.

I really don't want to insult anyone, but it's fairly evident that he's either trolling real second amendment advocates, or is simply someone going off on bits and pieces of information he really doesn't understand or have any insight into. In other words he's only interested in facts that fit with his preexisting ideas and will ignore anything that doesn't conform to his world view.

 

[n9vmo]

I really don't want to insult anyone, but it's fairly evident that he's either trolling real second amendment advocates, or is simply someone going off on bits and pieces of information he really doesn't understand or have any insight into. In other words he's only interested in facts that fit with his preexisting ideas and will ignore anything that doesn't conform to his world view.

In other words, a typical Liberal...

 

[Hotdoger]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Democratic-Gun-Owners-of-America/345333925522844?ref=stream#
Chris Saylor used it as teachable moment.

 

[Double T]

I am posting. It is very fun. I have one of dem der law degrees from dat der college. I am edumacated.


Some people twist things to fit there agenda...ah yes. Liberals.

 

[KW730]

According to him, the act of simply carrying a firearm is using deadly force. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Roadie]

According to him, the act of simply carrying a firearm is using deadly force. Makes perfect sense.

Crazy eh? He actually says that walking onto his property carrying a gun is reason enough for him to shoot someone.. I thought Conservative gun owners were supposed to be the "loose cannons"..