trespassing an open business

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I have read many posts explaining that when asked by a shopkeeper to leave, refusing to do so is trespass. It got me thinking and I would like a to run something up the flagpole.

A business is open to the public. Isn't this an open invitation for me to enter? I do enter, and buy a sandwich to be eaten "for here". My food was freely presented by the business and money exchanged on the premise that it was "FOR HERE". Wouldn't a "for here" order constitute an implied contract? I have my food, on a tray. What would a reasonable man think? Would he stand outside holding his tray in one hand and trying to eat with the other?

Now when I first entered the store I may have ignored the prohibition against weapons. At this point there is no contract agreed upon by both parties and the sign holds no weight of law. Wouldn't interaction with me as a customer and negotiating a commercial venture (buying/selling a sandwich) establish consent to my being there? After all the business willingly engaged me with an offer to provide services. Once the product is delivered, isn't it delivered with an implied consent that I can sit down and eat it?

When a complaint is made (OH MY GOD! a man with a gun!..... And a whopper!), My right is already established. The contract is completed and it would take agreed consent to revoke it. Not so? Even if my money is returned I am not bound to accept this. If it's a sit-down joint and I haven't paid yet, still the contract has already been established with the requirement to pay after receiving the negotiated service. It still needs agreement to be revoked.

Now let the lawyers start ripping on my reasoning, please explain why this is trespass on the patron's part instead of breech of contract on the shopkeepers part.

 

[Dead Duck]

Their rules!

Same as No Shirt - No Service. It doesn't have to be posted and they can make up a new rule daily.
Some coffee joint in Washington (I think) wouldn't serve a cop and kicked him out of the shop. It was his right to do so for whatever he didn't like about him.

If your saying you have a right to be there because money has already been exchanged - still, no.
They can change the rules to fit their needs and maybe they didn't notice the gun till after you sat down, then acted on it.
Like if you sat to eat and decided to take off your shirt, out you go.

They can pick on anything they want and you don't have to agree with it.

I would love for a shop to only allow gun carriers in. That would be awesome.

 

[gregkl]

It may be open to the public, but it is not public property. It is private property. They have the right to ask you to leave and if you refuse, trespassing laws are in effect.

 

[Burnsy]

Lets flip it around. Let say you were teaching a gun class at hall you rented and I was a paying student. One of the rules of class is that I keep all guns pointed in a safe direction which you have designated to be spot X which is on the ceiling or perhaps a sand barrel.

I have paid, just sat down and start waving my gun all over the place like a moron but you don't notice it for a few minutes because your busy with another student. Just because I had already done for a while but you just noticed it doesn't mean I was not already breaking your rule and you lost your means to enforce it.

Since you rented the hall and you set the rules. Do you not have the right to ask me to leave?

The example could be made from anything, pink T-shirts, using cell phones, takeing the lord's name in vein, standing on my head. If I am on your private property you have the right to ask me to leave and contact the police if I do not for any reason.

Obviously I don't agree, and like many others do not give money to establishments that will not allow my firearm inside if I can help it but, it's still their right to boot me.

 

[Double T]

Doesn't matter. They can tell you to get out, and take your food with you. Or leave it.

It's their property whether renting a retail space, or on private property.

The point is moot, they want you to leave for whatever reason, and you have to leave. Aren't property owner rights awesome

 

[jtdet01]

The place is private property.

 

[Spike_351]

Their rules!

Same as No Shirt - No Service. It doesn't have to be posted and they can make up a new rule daily.
Some coffee joint in Washington (I think) wouldn't serve a cop and kicked him out of the shop. It was his right to do so for whatever he didn't like about him.

If your saying you have a right to be there because money has already been exchanged - still, no.
They can change the rules to fit their needs and maybe they didn't notice the gun till after you sat down, then acted on it.
Like if you sat to eat and decided to take off your shirt, out you go.

They can pick on anything they want and you don't have to agree with it.

I would love for a shop to only allow gun carriers in. That would be awesome.

We shall create this gun carry only shop!! Maybe call it INGO cafe?? Required to carry to enter.

 

[stephen87]

I have considered the same thing, Spike. A business who's sign says "No shoes, no shirt, no gun, no service." Or possibly offer a discount to someone who carries.

 

[You'll shoot your eye out]

I have often considered the viability of a bacon restaurant. It would sell any food item that has bacon.
B L T's
grilled bacon & cheese
bacon wrapped fillets
bacon gravy
baked potatoes with bacon crumbles
bacon with bacon garnish
etc, etc, etc.

 

[mrjarrell]

It may be open to the public, but it is not public property. It is private property. They have the right to ask you to leave and if you refuse, trespassing laws are in effect.

Recently passed anti-smoking laws say that the government thinks otherwise.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I think Seinfeld summed it up with the "No Soup For You!" episode. Her money was already out. I realize the transaction hadn't completed yet, just wanted to bring up the soup Nazi

 

[maxmayhem]

This is another reason why I conceal carry

 

[Dead Duck]

This is another reason why I conceal carry

Wrong Thread.

 

[Fargo]

Actually, this is a grey area of the law at the moment. The Indiana Court of Appeals has held for some time that an exchange of money for services in an establishment created a contractual interest and criminal trespass would not lie. See:

Pogue v. State
http://www.ai.org/judiciary/opinions/pdf/12091001cjb.pdf

and

Woods v. State
Woods v. State of Indiana :: December, 1998 :: Indiana Court of Appeals Decisions :: Indiana Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia

HOWEVER, the Indiana Supreme Court just threw these cases into question, albeit without overturning them in it opinion in Lyles v. State:

Indiana Lawyer

Personally, the Lyles opinion makes no sense to me, as is pointed out in Rucker's dissent. It does not overrule Woods or Pogue, but simply ignores the issue. It does seem to tighten the contractual interest definition, but without clear lines.

At the moment, there is no clear answer but the INSupCt doesn't seem favorable so refuse to leave at your own risk.

Best,


Joe

 

[scottka]

Wrong Thread.

Nah, he's tagged at least one other thread with anti-OC sentiments already tonight. He's on a mission...

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Recently passed anti-smoking laws say that the government thinks otherwise.

Those laws are only the latest reinforcement of your point.

 

[Fixer]

Maybe we can get TF to test this after he wins his other case?

 

[Indy317]

Depending on the sign (wording, location, if you admit to having seen it), it could very well serve as the denial of entry. Now even if there isn't a sign (or you didn't see it ), you bring up a good point. You have engaged in a transaction. What is the extent of the contractual interest in the property? Is it only that you are provided food items, or does it extend to consuming the food items on the property?

The main question: How much are you willing to pay an attorney to figure out what a judge will rule? How much more are you willing to pay to figure out what a panel made up of three judges will rule?

HOWEVER, the Indiana Supreme Court just threw these cases into question, albeit without overturning them in it opinion in Lyles v. State:

Indiana Lawyer

Personally, the Lyles opinion makes no sense to me, as is pointed out in Rucker's dissent. It does not overrule Woods or Pogue, but simply ignores the issue. It does seem to tighten the contractual interest definition, but without clear lines.

At the moment, there is no clear answer but the INSupCt doesn't seem favorable so refuse to leave at your own risk.

Good info. I wondered if any of the prior cases would ever make it to the IN Supreme Court. I would say that if you don't own the property, and are asked to leave, leave ASAP. Don't argue the point, gather your property and leave. I think one issue the court may have had issues with is where does this stop? If I buy a coke at Burger King at 8AM, do I now have the right to be on the property until closing? That would mean every homeless person would have a right to just spend $1 (or less) for an item, then have the right to stay in the business for the entire day. With the bank cases though, I don't think it would be asking much for a manager or teller to go ahead and cut a check for the remaining balance and close the customer's account. Of course if federal or state laws prohibit this, then does the person always have a right to just stay in the bank arguing their issue until closing? Does that mean they get to speak with an employee, continually arguing, for hours upon end?

 

[evsnova74]

A lot of times when there's a negative OC'ing issue some members bring up the Rosa Parks bus incident making the point that just being black back then was the same as OC'ing is now (as far as public acceptance goes). So if you apply that same thinking to the thread that I'm guessing this is mostly in reference to, would anyone be saying "their property, their rules" if the manager was asking the patron to leave just because he was black? It's not always their property their rules....

 

[Kutnupe14]

As far as "contractual interest" goes, we're not talking about a bank where there's an enduring service. If person presents himself to vendor for a transaction involving a service/item, once that service/item has been rendered and paid for, the "contract" terminates. Simply place one's self in a place of business isnt creating a contract.

Further, we often view our "rights" from the very myopic point of view of that of gun owners. I am of the belief that there would need to be quite of bit of "contractual interest" for a court to rule in favor of an independent person over a private business. For instance, no one denies that a person has a contractual interest with the bank holding their money. However, I would image that a court would side with the institution placing restrictions on a patrons right to speech and assembly if it ever came to that point.