Ignoring No Gun Sign=Trespassing

[spankys56]

Pretty soon every business will have the signs up. conceal it deep!

 

[goinggreyfast]

Pretty soon every business will have the signs up. conceal it deep!

on multiple levels.

(BTW, I'm also part of the group who is calling this a false claim even if it does supposedly come from the PRB.)

 

[actaeon277]

Pretty soon every business will have the signs up. conceal it deep!

Gun-friendly businesses, bars, restaurants growing in popularity - Washington Times
I beg to differ.

 

[shibumiseeker]

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?

This is not about carrying, but the facilities in which I work occasionally call the police on someone who refuses to leave when asked, and some of those people are told they may not come back and if they do they are trespassing. In the few cases when we have had one of those people come back and refuse to leave, the police have escorted them out of the facility, but I know of no one being arrested. FWIW.

 

[Denny347]

use the red one.

I use the pic I could easily find.

 

[Hammerhead]

The pic of the "gun buster trespass" sign is one found at Chuck E. Cheese's restaurants (I use that term loosely) and has been discussed here ad nauseum. That particular sign and it's wording is one of the only signs that might hold water in Indiana when it comes to denial of entry.

However, being treated as a trespasser as the sign implies doesn't mean much more than any other "No Trespassing" sign. One, there are exceptions even to those and that relies on the circumstances at the time. Two, it doesn't say HOW they treat trespassers. Do they call the SWAT team and have the place locked down like a school, or do they give them a cookie and a glass of warm milk and a pat on the head?

 

[bwframe]

Why would you come back to such business anyway?

I could see where this could be applicable in places that would be difficult to avoid return such as hospitals with family and the like.

 

[mainjet]

Whenever I read "I heard it on Facebook", " I saw it on Facebook" or anything to do with facts and facebook in the same conversation, I know that it must be true. So I just believe it....

 

[TheSpark]

First off, just because something isn't against the law does not mean you will not be arrested. People are arrested all the time and later released because the police or whoever realized no law was broken.

No gun sign, no matter the wording, placement, etc have weight of law in Indiana. Only if the location is already defined as a kill zone (also known as a gun free zone) by Indiana law do the signs mean anything. Examples of kill zones in Indiana are police departments, court houses, and schools.

Now, if you are ever asked to leave over your gun do so right away. I wouldn't even bother saying anything. Just get out. If they property owner, or whoever, is very anti-gun and calls a cop who turns out to be anti-gun then you are probably going to be on a short leash before you are possibly booked for trespassing.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't recall any state law forbidding carry in a police department, unless there is also a courtroom or a place of incarceration there as well. Even if there is a courtroom, the presence of that facility in the location in question only allows carry to be forbidden there, the law does not mandate prohibition of carry there.

That said, no offense, but I'll trust the opinion of the IAALBIANYL members here before I will yours. They make their living at this, and if they tell me that a specifically worded "guns = trespassing charge" sign is valid or even possibly valid under IN law, I'll follow their wise counsel.

And like everyone else, I'm throwing the BS flag on the original story. Roadie's conversation partner is so FOS, his/her eyes are brown.

Blessings,
Bill

First off, just because something isn't against the law does not mean you will not be arrested. People are arrested all the time and later released because the police or whoever realized no law was broken.

No gun sign, no matter the wording, placement, etc have weight of law in Indiana. Only if the location is already defined as a kill zone (also known as a gun free zone) by Indiana law do the signs mean anything. Examples of kill zones in Indiana are police departments, court houses, and schools.

Now, if you are ever asked to leave over your gun do so right away. I wouldn't even bother saying anything. Just get out. If they property owner, or whoever, is very anti-gun and calls a cop who turns out to be anti-gun then you are probably going to be on a short leash before you are possibly booked for trespassing.

 

[TheSpark]

I don't recall any state law forbidding carry in a police department, unless there is also a courtroom or a place of incarceration there as well. Even if there is a courtroom, the presence of that facility in the location in question only allows carry to be forbidden there, the law does not mandate prohibition of carry there.

That said, no offense, but I'll trust the opinion of the IAALBIANYL members here before I will yours. They make their living at this, and if they tell me that a specifically worded "guns = trespassing charge" sign is valid or even possibly valid under IN law, I'll follow their wise counsel.

And like everyone else, I'm throwing the BS flag on the original story. Roadie's conversation partner is so FOS, his/her eyes are brown.

Blessings,
Bill

The fact that there is no case law in Indiana on people ignoring strongly worded no gun signs is a strong indicator to me that I'm right. I'm sure many strong anti-gun cops have responded to people ignoring strongly worded signs who could have passed off the case to strongly anti-gun prosecutor. However, at least the prosecutors realize there is no case because fact is, no gun signs, no matter the wording, placement, etc, have no weight of law in Indiana. I know there are people who strongly disagree and I know the law they reference. I have also seen their claims stripped apart word for word by others.

Of course if someone is worried about it then more power to them to "honor" the signs. I respect that. I'll, however, continue to ignore them all. I personally though have only seen one sign that actually said guns = trespassing. That was at the hell hole of chuck e' cheese. It was the only amusement I experienced that day while there.

There is a reason by the way that states like Ohio actually codify the fact that gun signs hold weight of law, and define the legal repercussion. Otherwise they wouldn't because no state, afaik, allows property owners to define legal penalties for ignoring/violating their personal rules (yes rules, not law). If the people who argue that these signs do hold weight in Indiana were right then I could post a sign on my property that nose rings = trespassing, or nail polish on toes = trespassing, or wearing a bra = trespassing and then have everyone arrested who ignores. Personally to me it seems signs like that, even for guns, borders on discrimination which could bring all kinds of hot water to the property owner. And here is the kicker: If you say in regard to a gun that it is not discrimination because it addresses an object, not a person, then the law they reference is null and void in this regard because it specifically says "a person". So you can't have it both ways.

I thought all police stations had a "place of incarceration" even if it is just a few holding cells.

 

[mtinner]

So in Indiana, you can trespass on someone's property and then simply leave if asked and everything is okay?

 

[SteveM4A1]

So in Indiana, you can trespass on someone's property and then simply leave if asked and everything is okay?

You aren't trespassing until you have been given notice to leave.

 

[IndyGunSafety]

Oh come on!

Just get your BS flag already!

LOL! You do have to give him credit for trying to get the FACTS of the case/situation.

 

[TheSpark]

So in Indiana, you can trespass on someone's property and then simply leave if asked and everything is okay?

Generally until someone refuses to leave when verbally asked a trespassing charge will not result. However, a general no trespassing sign can bring the charge right away. It gets very sticky (see my previous post) when you say trespassing for this or that (with the exception of hunting, there is actually a law in Indiana concerning no hunting signs). When you say "no entry if you have or do this" or it will be trespassing the property owner is then attempting to append their owns rules to the list of what constitutes trespassing in Indiana. I'm confident any judge would immediately throw out such a charge if a prosecutor ever dared to bring it.

Otherwise every business could, if they desire, post a long list of rules at every entrance and say violating any of them is criminal trespass. They could then at will call the police and have anyone hauled off to jail for violating any of their rules. Fortunately, I'm confident this is not the case. If a property owner welcomes the public onto their property, such as a business, and they don't like something someone is doing they have to ask that person to leave. If that person refuses only then do we have trespassing on our hands as defined by Indiana law.

 

[Fargo]

Generally until someone refuses to leave when verbally asked a trespassing charge will not result. However, a general no trespassing sign can bring the charge right away. It gets very sticky (see my previous post) when you say trespassing for this or that (with the exception of hunting, there is actually a law in Indiana concerning no hunting signs). When you say "no entry if you have or do this" or it will be trespassing the property owner is then attempting to append their owns rules to the list of what constitutes trespassing in Indiana. I'm confident any judge would immediately throw out such a charge if a prosecutor ever dared to bring it.

Otherwise every business could, if they desire, post a long list of rules at every entrance and say violating any of them is criminal trespass. They could then at will call the police and have anyone hauled off to jail for violating any of their rules. Fortunately, I'm confident this is not the case. If a property owner welcomes the public onto their property, such as a business, and they don't like something someone is doing they have to ask that person to leave. If that person refuses only then do we have trespassing on our hands as defined by Indiana law.

You are far more confident than I about how the courts would view this. Keep in mind that the INSCourt basically read the contractual interest portion of the statute out of the law last year by allowing banks to trespass account holders at will.

You are getting awfully close to giving legal advice.

 

[TheSpark]

You are far more confident than I about how the courts would view this. Keep in mind that the INSCourt basically read the contractual interest portion of the statute out of the law last year by allowing banks to trespass account holders at will.

You are getting awfully close to giving legal advice.

Link to case? Just interested in reading about it. I am not giving any legal advice. Analyzing/discussing the law is perfectly okay.

 

[Fargo]

http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06291201bd.pdf

 

[Rookie]

Another one they got wrong.