Ignoring No Gun Sign=Trespassing

[Fargo]

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/334126-escorted-out-glenbrook-mall.html
https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/carry-issues-self-defense/58317-you-going-jail.html

Oh, they can boot you for not following facility rules, but that is far cry from it automatically being criminal.

Once again, it all comes down to the wording of the signage.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Oh, they can boot you for not following facility rules, but that is far cry from it automatically being criminal.

Once again, it all comes down to the wording of the signage.

Read both threads. There is no agreement, although I would be cautious.

 

[Fargo]

Read both threads. There is no agreement, although I would be cautious.

The wording of the signs in the two threads is very different, which is my point.

 

[Gluemanz28]

All I hear in my head is Signs Signs everywhere signs.

Signs Signs, Everywhere a Sign - YouTube

 

[CathyInBlue]

I'm pretty sure for Sylvain it's "la gendarmerie", "the army of transgenders".

 

[TTravis]

Indiana's Crim Trespass statute has an inherent contradiction in it which I don't know has been resolved in the caselaw. The mens rea for the statute is "knowingly or intentionally" yet the definition of "denied entry" seems to imply it can be negligent or even strict liability completely without knowledge.

A general principle of criminal law is that any non- malum in se law requires a mens read of at least recklessness. I seem to recall that this has been held to be a federal constitutional requirement. I am dubious that Indiana's definition of "denied entry" is actually constitutional as it does not even require that all public entrances be posted. Additionally, there is ample Indiana caselaw that mens rea applies to all elements of a crime.

As such, I am skeptical that a conviction for criminal trespass can be sustained without proof of actual knowledge of denial of entry. That is not to say, that knowledge won't be inferrable if you walk past a big sign, but that is a horse of a different color from what the statute now says. I will have to see if there is any caselaw on it next time I get the chance.

So, If you take a picture of someone's "No Guns Allowed" sign and post it on INGO, does that mean you saw it?

 

[CathyInBlue]

Quite true. The sign is in a small vestibule with heavy doors...if someone held the door for you, it could happen.

That said, I don't know that proof of an individual having seen the sign is relevant here. The IC in question states, regarding criminal trespass:

"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"

I think the questions are 1) Would the sign qualify as a trespassing sign? and, if so, 2) is the sign "likely to come to the attention of the public"

A gun buster sign does not deny entry to any person. At its most absolutist, it denies entry of inanimate objects, not persons. Plus, it's a little non-verbal. Even "No Weapons" doesn't deny entry to persons, but to inanimate objects which fall into the class of "weapons". Hence, unless there's a sign which states explicitly "Lex Concord is denied entry to these premises", it doesn't matter if there's a gun buster and you're armed and walk in anyway. They have to use (1) to deny you entry with specificity.

 

[Roadie]

Follow Up:

Tried to get the friend's name, or case number out of him, he said it was none of my business lol

 

[bwframe]

Follow Up:

Tried to get the friend's name, or case number out of him, he said it was none of my business lol

Well that's a shock from an anonymous Btown FBer.

 

[Bluejeeper]

Follow Up:

Tried to get the friend's name, or case number out of him, he said it was none of my business lol

It kind of seems to me that if they wanted to get their story out to warn people, they wouldn't mind giving evidence


so which one of you lawyers should I call if I get arrested for trespassing just for walking in with a gun?

 

[bradmedic04]

Follow Up:

Tried to get the friend's name, or case number out of him, he said it was none of my business lol

That must mean it's true!

 

[Lex Concord]

A gun buster sign does not deny entry to any person. At its most absolutist, it denies entry of inanimate objects, not persons. Plus, it's a little non-verbal. Even "No Weapons" doesn't deny entry to persons, but to inanimate objects which fall into the class of "weapons". Hence, unless there's a sign which states explicitly "Lex Concord is denied entry to these premises", it doesn't matter if there's a gun buster and you're armed and walk in anyway. They have to use (1) to deny you entry with specificity.

First, I agree that the standard "no guns allowed sign" is merely an expression of wishes, and won't (shouldn't) result in any legal concerns for the person who ignores the sign unless a) the location is one specifically called out in the IC as off limits or b) the person, upon being noticed with the firearm, is specifically asked to leave under the (1) you cited.

The specific sign in question, however, addresses the persons entering the premises, and the action of possession of said inanimate object, stating that persons possessing such objects on the premises would be "treated as trespassers".

Lex Concord does not have to be specifically denied entry by a No Trespassing sign for the No Trespassing sign to have denied him entry under Indiana law. The constitutionality of the signage section of the Indiana criminal trespass law has been called into question, but the intent seems pretty clear. If the sign says no trespassing, is properly posted at the main entrance, and you don't have a contractual interest, or fit one of the other exemptions, your entry onto the premises constitutes criminal trespass.

The question at hand is whether the particular wording of the sign might be interpreted as a trespass sign under (2) due to its proscription of entry to persons behaving in a certain manner and its explicit statement that violators of said behavior would be considered to be trespassing.

While I think it unlikely that an arrest would hold in court (though, with what I have heard of the LE attitude toward carry, a trespass arrest wouldn't surprise me), I don't think any outcome would be certain unless and until it went to court.

Of course, my simple solution is to avoid the establishment in the future.

 

[Lex Concord]

Okay. After doing a bit more web-sleuthing, I am feeling older due to my failed memory. It is very likely the sign to which I referred upthread looks like the one below which, in my opinion, would be a mere "gun buster" sign as CathyInBlue suggested.

That said, the hypothetical question is still intriguing: could a sign denying entry to persons behaving in a certain manner ever be construed to have the impact of a trespass sign.

 

[Dead Duck]

What If -

You have already been told to leave because of carrying an hour, day or month before and the same guy just spotted you there again. Can he now call the cops for trespassing?

 

[Sylvain]

What If -

You have already been told to leave because of carrying an hour, day or month before and the same guy just spotted you there again. Can he now call the cops for trespassing?

Why would you come back to such business anyway?

 

[Dead Duck]

Why would you come back to such business anyway?

I wouldn't but this could be what happened in the OP. (If it happened at all)

And was curious on the legalities of my "What If".

 

[wtburnette]

Okay. After doing a bit more web-sleuthing, I am feeling older due to my failed memory. It is very likely the sign to which I referred upthread looks like the one below which, in my opinion, would be a mere "gun buster" sign as CathyInBlue suggested.

That said, the hypothetical question is still intriguing: could a sign denying entry to persons behaving in a certain manner ever be construed to have the impact of a trespass sign.

I wouldn't think this would work. What is put on a sign doesn't change what the law is. At least that's my thinking. That might be different depending on where the sign is posted, like a private business or a site already designated as an area that you can't legally carry, like a courthouse or post office. I'd be curious to know the truth. Maybe one of the legal experts on here would know?

Oh and I call BS on the original story. If they won't give you info, that's because they don't want you finding out what they omitted to make their argument valid...

 

[jbombelli]

Follow Up:

Tried to get the friend's name, or case number out of him, he said it was none of my business lol

And the BS flag gets raised higher. Is he aware that this sort of thing is public information?

 

[ghuns]

The sign would be hard to miss by a sighted person.

Do they have to post the sign in braille as well per the Americans with Disabilities Act?

 

[actaeon277]

What If -

You have already been told to leave because of carrying an hour, day or month before and the same guy just spotted you there again. Can he now call the cops for trespassing?

If they say, "Don't come back with the gun", and you come back with the gun, then it's tresspass.