St Mary's is NOT gun friendly

[Titanium_Frost]

Good debate people! This is exactly the thing that I wanted from this thread. I know I have learned A LOT from the stated laws and case laws and even from the opinion of both sides of the argument.

Acouple things I wish to point out:

1) I really try very hard to not support businesses that are antigun or antirights. This is very hard to do without threads like this because they are often times not posted... Anyway, I think Kutnope had a very good point with this and it is a very good ideal yet as Bill pointed out almost impossible in reality to NEVER spend your dollar with someone who does not respect your rights.

2) There are consequences to everything. What I mean by that is if I was never found out to be carrying a handgun, I could still just as easily do it today without being dishonest and a liar. Also the more far reaching one, if I didn't stand up for my rights at St. Marys there probably would not be a "No Firearms" sign there now. So what does that change for anyone? Well the last 10 pages or so of this thread we have been arguing about Posted No Firearms signs when the crux of this problem was about a NONposted policy. So we have their (St Marys) answer, they now have a posted policy.

3) The way things are going we are going to have a LOT of signage to read and look at to make sure we aren't breaking any laws/rules/policies/trespassing before we do just about anything. Reminds me of an old Simpsons episode where Homer was going to commit suicide and instead became the cities "safety officer". I hope America will wake up as quick as their town did, wait, that was already like 20 years ago. Man the Simpsons knew what they were talking about.

P.S. So did Tesla (I know its a cover but I like theirs better)

*CAUTION some strong language in signage* (had to make my own sign)


[ame]http://youtu.be/3vgf0dmzEf0[/ame]

 

[BumpShadow]

I think that is what the REASONABLE people here are agreeing with.

However, some people seem to think even THAT isn't an equitable compromise.



Thanks for your vote on the side of reason.

I guess that's a duck and grab at me...

I've already read the IC code. A sign forbidding an object does not equate to forbidding a person. The two cases you posted are nice and all, but those are specifically dealing with "No trespassing" signs posted on residences, which aren't open to the public. They have pretty much absolutely nothing to do with trespass law dealing with a public business. Even so, I noted this reference in the Blakney case link:

A simple "No firearms" sign wouldn't constitute denial of entry. The sign is forbidding objects, not people.



Now this probably would, conspicuously posted.

Are you saying that a gun is a trespasser or a premise? If the gun is the trespasser, than that would make the carrier an accomplice. If it's a premise, than that still makes the carrier just as gulity.

I'm still not seeing the case. But, this thread has strenghtened my own belief's. So, thanks for that at least. Good debate.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I guess that's a duck and grab at me...




Are you saying that a gun is a trespasser or a premise? If the gun is the trespasser, than that would make the carrier an accomplice. If it's a premise, than that still makes the carrier just as gulity.

I'm still not seeing the case. But, this thread has strenghtened my own belief's. So, thanks for that at least. Good debate.

A gun is neither a trespasser nor a premises... The former is a person and the latter is a place. The gun is nothing but a tool to do a job.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[BumpShadow]

A gun is neither a trespasser nor a premises... The former is a person and the latter is a place. The gun is nothing but a tool to do a job.

Blessings,
Bill

Ahh, got ya. I was thinking of the other definition of premise, as in the bases for something, in this case the premise for trespassing. Thanks.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Ahh, got ya. I was thinking of the other definition of premise, as in the bases for something, in this case the premise for trespassing. Thanks.

Got it. Using that definition, the "premise" is ignorance, along with prejudice and fear.

I do agree that that sign would come much closer to a denial of entry to a person. It would, however, include police as well, else it's nothing more nor less than discriminatory.

 

[Hammerhead]

I've been too busy to be a part of the continuing debate today (no, I wasn't at the race) but I do like that it's been going on still. I first of all wanted to come and apologize for the very similar posts I last made here. The site hiccuped right around the time I was making those posts and I said frack it and went to bed. They weren't dupes, but very close in wording.

Secondly, I do want to ask BumpShadow and Kutnupe a simple question. Do you even see any truth in the posts Bill, Finity, Roadie and I, and others, have been making? I do understand that your posts and perspectives are based on your consideration of the law as it's written. However, I believe your interpretation is mistaken. I don't want you to think I'm (personally) wanting you to change your entire beliefs based on my posts. But I would be concerned if you didn't at least have the ability to at least see the merits of the other side of the discussion and possibly see that something positive can be gained from what we've said.

Thirdly, I'm not continuing this debate because I'm being arrogant, thuggish, or trying to present lawful gun carriers in a bad light. Unfortunately the antis have enough twisted material to think that before we ever arrive on scene. I'm also not trying to beat you over the head with my beliefs in an attempt to get you to "see the light" or any other reason.

I also wonder if you consider just how many of us have brought you the same information repeatedly in this thread. It's not just one of us shouting from the mountaintop that the sky is falling. There are several reasonable, and reasonably intelligent (insert joke here) people that are saying the same thing. Perhaps there will come a time when we're proven wrong and we'll have to consider changing our point of view. But there hasn't been any proof, case law or otherwise, to show that what we say isn't true. I'm going to have to stick with what we've said as being the way things are. It's like the same idea with how laws are written. Laws aren't written to tell us what we can do, they're written to tell us what we can't.

In this case, as simply as I can put it, trespassing = "you can't come in". This is denial of entry, and "no trespassing", "keep out", "stay the frack off my land" meets this standard. "No (object)s" does not equal "you can't come in". It is simply stating a desire to not have that object in the building. It's not worded in such a way that means "you can't come in if you have that object", it's simply requesting you not have it. It's not denial of entry, it's denial of object and that can't be enforced with a trespass law.

Chuck E. Cheese has a strange sign on their property. Someone posted it recently (it's in a thread somewhere) and I personally had an unfortunate opportunity to see it at another location (I'm not a fan of Chuck E. Cheese, but I had to go). The sign reads "No firearms. Violators will be treated as trespassers." Now the wording of this sign is strange. It's still not saying that you can't enter if you're armed. It's saying that you'll be asked to leave as if you were trespassing if you bring a firearm in. Now I believe it's possible they meant it to be read as "you're trespassing if you're armed", but that's not how it's worded. I can't say as I know how this specific wording would be considered under the trespass law. It doesn't specifically deny entry (they still want you to come in and spend money), it tells you you'll be treated as if you were not allowed to be there. How are trespassers treated? Shunned? Spit upon? Forced to eat Chuck E. Cheese pizza?

What I'm saying is that the sign is confusing and poorly written. It may or may not convey the message they're attempting to get across. And I can neither confirm nor deny my carry status while I was there. But it is the closest thing to a denial of entry firearms sign I've seen in this state, and it may or may not even be that.

As far as hitting businesses in their wallets by not spending money there when they're attempting to be anti 2A, it's a good concept. It's just not always practical. Besides, why should I try to give myself more hassle trying to find a neutral or pro 2A business for what I want? I just don't give a flying fornication. I'm not being an unwitting accomplice to their anti 2A policies by patronizing them, I'm being a subversive by thumbing my proverbial nose at their "rules" and "policies" and ignoring their signs. I'm sticking it to the "man" even if they don't know it, and I still get what I want. (Yes, I know you probably don't see it that way. Oh well. I'm too old to rebel against my parents, so stupid policies and ignorant hoplophobia and tapinophobia it is.) I'm changing the world, one small unseen act of defiance at a time.

 

[BumpShadow]

I've been too busy to be a part of the continuing debate today (no, I wasn't at the race) but I do like that it's been going on still. I first of all wanted to come and apologize for the very similar posts I last made here. The site hiccuped right around the time I was making those posts and I said frack it and went to bed. They weren't dupes, but very close in wording.

Secondly, I do want to ask BumpShadow and Kutnupe a simple question. Do you even see any truth in the posts Bill, Finity, Roadie and I, and others, have been making? I do understand that your posts and perspectives are based on your consideration of the law as it's written. However, I believe your interpretation is mistaken. I don't want you to think I'm (personally) wanting you to change your entire beliefs based on my posts. But I would be concerned if you didn't at least have the ability to at least see the merits of the other side of the discussion and possibly see that something positive can be gained from what we've said.

Thirdly, I'm not continuing this debate because I'm being arrogant, thuggish, or trying to present lawful gun carriers in a bad light. Unfortunately the antis have enough twisted material to think that before we ever arrive on scene. I'm also not trying to beat you over the head with my beliefs in an attempt to get you to "see the light" or any other reason.

I also wonder if you consider just how many of us have brought you the same information repeatedly in this thread. It's not just one of us shouting from the mountaintop that the sky is falling. There are several reasonable, and reasonably intelligent (insert joke here) people that are saying the same thing. Perhaps there will come a time when we're proven wrong and we'll have to consider changing our point of view. But there hasn't been any proof, case law or otherwise, to show that what we say isn't true. I'm going to have to stick with what we've said as being the way things are. It's like the same idea with how laws are written. Laws aren't written to tell us what we can do, they're written to tell us what we can't.

In this case, as simply as I can put it, trespassing = "you can't come in". This is denial of entry, and "no trespassing", "keep out", "stay the frack off my land" meets this standard. "No (object)s" does not equal "you can't come in". It is simply stating a desire to not have that object in the building. It's not worded in such a way that means "you can't come in if you have that object", it's simply requesting you not have it. It's not denial of entry, it's denial of object and that can't be enforced with a trespass law.

Chuck E. Cheese has a strange sign on their property. Someone posted it recently (it's in a thread somewhere) and I personally had an unfortunate opportunity to see it at another location (I'm not a fan of Chuck E. Cheese, but I had to go). The sign reads "No firearms. Violators will be treated as trespassers." Now the wording of this sign is strange. It's still not saying that you can't enter if you're armed. It's saying that you'll be asked to leave as if you were trespassing if you bring a firearm in. Now I believe it's possible they meant it to be read as "you're trespassing if you're armed", but that's not how it's worded. I can't say as I know how this specific wording would be considered under the trespass law. It doesn't specifically deny entry (they still want you to come in and spend money), it tells you you'll be treated as if you were not allowed to be there. How are trespassers treated? Shunned? Spit upon? Forced to eat Chuck E. Cheese pizza?

What I'm saying is that the sign is confusing and poorly written. It may or may not convey the message they're attempting to get across. And I can neither confirm nor deny my carry status while I was there. But it is the closest thing to a denial of entry firearms sign I've seen in this state, and it may or may not even be that.

As far as hitting businesses in their wallets by not spending money there when they're attempting to be anti 2A, it's a good concept. It's just not always practical. Besides, why should I try to give myself more hassle trying to find a neutral or pro 2A business for what I want? I just don't give a flying fornication. I'm not being an unwitting accomplice to their anti 2A policies by patronizing them, I'm being a subversive by thumbing my proverbial nose at their "rules" and "policies" and ignoring their signs. I'm sticking it to the "man" even if they don't know it, and I still get what I want. (Yes, I know you probably don't see it that way. Oh well. I'm too old to rebel against my parents, so stupid policies and ignorant hoplophobia and tapinophobia it is.) I'm changing the world, one small unseen act of defiance at a time.

Yes, I see your arguements. I just don't agree with it. To me, its an attempt to try and thread the logic of the law to suit what you want to do. To me, a sign that reads "No Firearms" is pretty clear. It's only confusing if your trying to get away with something common sense is telling you is not allowed.

I'm not trying to push anything on anyone. If you feel carrying is that important, then go ahead and God bless. Maybe one day Indiana will straghten out the law a little better, but till then it looks like its going to be debated ad nasuem.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Hammerhead,
I would read the Chuck E Cheese sign as a "No Trespassing" and not enter (no loss there.) "Treated as trespassers" to me means that they will call LEOs and you may be cited as they gave prior notice.

I have a choice, as I said upthread, about restaurants. Of note, though, at a business that told me to leave (i.e. without such a sign at the entrance) I would make a point of leaving a card with the manager similar to this:

Just because they are anti-gun does not mean they will have to remain that way.
(I have one for IN, but I don't have an image of it online, nor a way to post it where I am.)

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Hammerhead]

It's possible that they meant their sign to be interpreted that way. I still say it's confusing and poorly worded. However, you're probably right.

Unfortunately, it's not always possible to avoid places like that. Try telling your kid, "Sorry, I know we promised you a reward of Chuck E. Cheese's, but they don't let Daddy carry to protect us, so we're going to have to go somewhere else."

I can neither confirm nor deny my carry status while I was there. Some people might say "concealed is concealed" in this circumstance. To each his own.

 

[finity]

I guess that's a duck and grab at me...

Very perceptive of you, grasshopper...

"Grab", maybe but no "duck".



I just don't think your belief is reasonable or based on facts. Luckily, my actions (or repercussions) aren't influenced at all by what you believe.

But, no, it wasn't aimed specifically at YOU. There are a couple of others in this thread that it would apply to as well.

See? Still no personal attack.

 

[aikidoka]

All I'm saying is that if you take the short drive across state lines into IL you have no right to defensively carry a firearm, it is a privelesge to be allowed to carry. I wasn't saying that these actions alone got some politician riled up, but that voters who may have leaned towards gun rights may be more apt to vote against gun owners when they encounter situations like these.

The security guard and bully LEO officer were the situation. If one gets a similar response when simply speaking is it proper to complain that they not the offending state agent or wannabe agent are endangering our privilege to practice free speech?

I'm certainly not going to walk down the street carrying a huge box of sudafed wearing an "I heart Meth" t-shirt and expect that no LEO's will go out of their way to talk to me, it just comes with the territory of drawing needless attention to yourself. ( just to clear up for the ones that take everything so litterally here I'm not likening legal gun owner to meth cooks, just making a point here: kind of ridiculous I even have to explain but I've already had some of the fine folks here doing this type of thing). Read the whole thing people don't just pick and choose a couple words here and there and add your own context!

So you are an advocate for a limit on the qty of firearms one can own or purchase at one time or one should not wear pro whatever freedom or rights shirts? Or you think it's an indication of illegal behavior or should be, if someone also wears a pro 2nd ammendment shirt while carrying?

 

[jsheets1]

Man that is ridiculous. I would never have approached the situation like that.

 

[benkrebs]

Just another reason why I'm glad I joined this forum, I can learn about the laws for carrying!

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Just another reason why I'm glad I joined this forum, I can learn about the laws for carrying!

Absolutely the best forum out there for this type of discussion. Any questions you have you can either find them here or just ask. I want everyone to learn from my experiences just like I learn from everyone else's.

 

[PatriotPride]

The stupid, it burns. Sounds to me like the OP did a damn fine job of dealing with a few idiots. The idea that carrying a firearm for personal protection and taking responsibility for yourself in all situations and settings is "thuggish" behavior? The stupid...

 

[Titanium_Frost]

Ok, here is the end of the story: Colt is home!!! He is doing very well and the dogs love him. He is doing great and the only thing we could ask for is a little more sleep at night LOL!

 

[Benny]

Holy hair!

Absolutely adorable, BTW. Big time congrats.

 

[KG1]

Very cool, glad everything is working out and you finally got him home. That little guy is all that matters in the end.

 

[thebishopp]

Yes, and the law states that if its private property, they can prohibit anything they want, same as anyone else. So if it's private property and the sign was there when OP walked in, then the hospital has every right to ban him from the property.

I would agree with this as long as the hospital in question does not get ANY public funding. If Saint Mary's receives so much as a dime of tax payer money (and that could be anything from grants to funding for specific programs) then I would argue that they don't have the right to ban firearms from the property (unless otherwise specified by state law).

 

[WebHobbit]

Ya gotta love a happy ending.