No Firearms signs Do Hold Weight of Law??

[PistolBob]

Walmart does not have a no gun policy and their corporate HQ has been very explicit in their stance. Their stores operate under local law and, if it's legal to carry outside the store it is legal inside the store. I've seen people OC'ing in my local Walmart, with no hassles at all. They sell ammo, too. So does my local Meijer, where I've carried many times. And seen a few folks OC'ing there, too.

Well good, maybe they changed their tunes. The Franklin Walmart used to have the handgun with a line through it sign posted in the front of the store. Is that gone now? They quit selling guns there (rifles and shotguns....they never sold pistols) a few years ago.

 

[Bill of Rights]

i asked them what they had against Berettas and they told me "nothing, that sign is a actually a Taurus."

Sounds like a bunch of bull to me.

 

[GuyRelford]

"No Firearms" Signs

I offered my thoughts on this issue some time ago. If interested, please check out: https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...58317-are_you_going_to_jail-9.html#post641253

For everyone's convenience, here is my "summary" post after offering a hypothetical about a sign posted that "denied entry" to anyone carrying a firearm:

-----------------------

Several of you have nailed this one - Scutter01 was the first, I believe.

The purpose of my post was to point out the difference between "notices" on the entrances of buildings that merely attempt to regulate conduct (e.g., "shirt and shoes required," or "no pets allowed," or even "no firearms") and notices that may actuallly constitute a "denial of entry" under Indiana's Crimincal Trespass statute.

As Scutter and others have correctly pointed out, IC 35-43-2-2
states the following:

"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;

* * *

(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 . . . ."

I wrote my hypothetical "notice" with 35-43-2-2(a)(1) in mind:

"ABSOLUTELY NO FIREARMS!!
ANYONE CARRYING A FIREARM IS EXPRESSLY DENIED ENTRY TO THESE PREMISES.
IF YOU CARRY A GUN INTO THIS BUILDING YOU ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE ARREST AND PROSECUTION."​

To me, this may likely distinguish this situation from the general rule, as discussed by Bryan Ciyou on p. 94 of "Indiana Handgun Law, 2d Edition," which states:

"[A] retailer has the right to limit and qualify the right to enter the property subject to not carrying a hadgun. It would be improper to enter, and the Licensee would be subject to ejection for possession of a handgun thereat. Failure to leave once requested, would subject the Licensee to arrest for criminal trespass."

Clearly, Bryan has IC 35-43-2-2(a)(2) in mind as he states this, not section (a)(1). And that is what is different about my scenario. The gun owner has arguably been "denied entry" to the premises, yet entered anyway - and that is what creates the possibility of arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass.

Finity is also correct to point out that Alves v. State stands for the proposition that a general "no trespassing" sign on an entrance to property is sufficient to allow a jury to convict a defendant for criminal trespass if he ignores the sign.

There is no Indiana case that addresses my specific scenario, but I do believe that the notice involved - which was much more specific than a general "no firearms" notice on the issue of "denial of entry" - creates a serious risk of arrest.

As always - this isn't meant to be legal advice - just my view and a general "heads up."

I address this issue (and many, many others) in my Comprehensive Indiana Gun Law class. The next class in Indy is November 7. I also have a class in Hammond scheduled for November 21. Check out Home Page for details.

Guy

 

[Hoosierdood]

It's INGO Thread Resurrection Week, and I thought this would be a good one, since we have been talking about Buffalo Wild Wings posting signs at several locations.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Someone says something, you just say what sign. I was thinking about the wings and talking to my buddies and someone held the door open for me.

 

[youngda9]

You can't be "denied entry" if you didn't read the sign IMO.

Note: I am not a lawyer, and I did not sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night, it's been 2 weeks.

 

[bassplayrguy]

"No Firearm" signs in Indiana have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. - straight from handgunlaw.us

 

[IndyGunner]

I figured id add this to the conversation, for what its worth. (cbx bookstore in muncie, I havent shopped there since they put it up)

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._defense/129810-no_weapons_sign_question.html

 

[jedi]

"No Firearm" signs in Indiana have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. - straight from handgunlaw.us

Re-Read Post #43 and re-re-read what specific text a sign should have in order to deny entry. Your typically purchased sign does NOT have the specific text and thus it carries no weight. If a sign as posted in #43 is on say W3 then it would carry the weight of law (ie. in court you are probably gonna get dinged for it) vs the "general" sign.

 

[iChokePeople]

Re-Read Post #43 and re-re-read what specific text a sign should have in order to deny entry. Your typically purchased sign does NOT have the specific text and thus it carries no weight. If a sign as posted in #43 is on say W3 then it would carry the weight of law (ie. in court you are probably gonna get dinged for it) vs the "general" sign.

AND... I'd tend to follow the advice of one of our resident IN attorneys over something I read on handgunlaw.us, if they were at odds.

 

[ryknoll3]

Re-Read Post #43 and re-re-read what specific text a sign should have in order to deny entry. Your typically purchased sign does NOT have the specific text and thus it carries no weight. If a sign as posted in #43 is on say W3 then it would carry the weight of law (ie. in court you are probably gonna get dinged for it) vs the "general" sign.

The Portillo's in Merrillville has such a sign. I try not to go there if I have anything to say about it.

 

[jedi]

AND... I'd tend to follow the advice of one of our resident IN attorneys over something I read on handgunlaw.us, if they were at odds.

I'm a bit confused with your post as I am reading it that you disagree with post #43 but I'm not sure. Just want to add that post #43 is by an INGO resident ATTY and one that I trust very much. Not sure if you are agreeing with his post #43 or saying that the text on handgunlaw.us is correct.

I think it's the first you agree but it's late, my head hurts, and I'm off to bed soon.

 

[iChokePeople]

^^ agreeing with you, and Guy, and pointing out that to me, guy's opinion > anything on handgunlaw.us.

 

[jbombelli]

No Guns is not denial of entry. No trespassing is denial of entry. No admittance is denial of entry. No guns is, for lack of a better term, conditional admittance. They are not the same thing.

If someone sneaks candy into a theater, they are not trespassing. They are violating the property owner's rules, but nothing more.

 

[finity]

If someone sneaks candy into a theater, they are not trespassing.

...or a banana.

...I like bananas...

 

[Sylvain]

No Guns is not denial of entry. No trespassing is denial of entry. No admittance is denial of entry. No guns is, for lack of a better term, conditional admittance. They are not the same thing.

If someone sneaks candy into a theater, they are not trespassing. They are violating the property owner's rules, but nothing more.

This man speaks the thruth!