STOPPED by MALL security guard @ Circle Centre Mall for OC

[littletommy]

Now that we've heard from Lloyd Benson.............

+1 on the reversal of no and know.

A Lloyd Bentsen reference was certainly not what I was expecting when I logged onto INGO today, but it was nicely done!

 

[BillyT]

The Security Guard was openly carrying.

He'll protect you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well then every gun law info website, and Atty. Bryan Ciyou's book are all wrong on the subject.

There is no specific IC in Indiana that give "No Guns" signs force of law. States where they do hold force of law, say so in the State's Code..

Does a "No Trespassing" sign hold force of law?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I THINK he's saying signs do carry weight of law and he has case law to prove it.

No, what I'm saying, is that "certain" signs if properly worded carry weight of law. The IC states that explicitly.
A properly worded "no guns" sign can surely hold legal weight. However there is no case law one way or the other.

 

[jeremy]

Does a "No Trespassing" sign hold force of law?

In my experience, little to none...

 

[Hotdoger]

No, what I'm saying, is that "certain" signs if properly worded carry weight of law. The IC states that explicitly.
A properly worded "no guns" sign can surely hold legal weight. However there is no case law one way or the other.

In your experience has it?

 

[Ted]

No, what I'm saying, is that "certain" signs if properly worded carry weight of law. The IC states that explicitly.
A properly worded "no guns" sign can surely hold legal weight. However there is no case law one way or the other.

The problem being, that there is no real standard in the design or placement.

Here is what information I rely upon from a previous thread (DATED 10-26-2009 / 1-6-2011):

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

 

[Kutnupe14]

In your experience has it?

To be fair, there aren't many that would post such "unsightly" blights such as "No Trespassing" signs. However, there appears to be at least one prosecutor, in Indiana, that believes that such signs do hold weight...

No Trespassing signs free from prosecutor » News » Rushville Republican

 

[Kutnupe14]

The problem being, that there is no real standard in the design or placement.

Here is what information I rely upon from a previous thread (DATED 10-26-2009 / 1-6-2011):

I can agree with that, BUT the code does allow for for signage (without anything accompanying it) to deny entry does it not?

 

[jeremy]

I can agree with that, BUT the code does allow for for signage (without anything accompanying it) to deny entry does it not?

Maybe it does, but based on my experience with trying to utilize the No Trespassing Langauage in the IC across the State, you might be better off peeing into the wind...

 

[jbombelli]

I can agree with that, BUT the code does allow for for signage (without anything accompanying it) to deny entry does it not?

Yes. But per my understanding, you have to actually be denying entry not telling people they can come in but can't bring in some particular item. They aren't the same thing.

NO TRESPASSING = Denial of Entry
NO ADMITTANCE = Denial of Entry

NO GUNS = You can come in, but don't bring any guns (i.e. conditional admittance, for lack of a better term).

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes. But per my understanding, you have to actually be denying entry not telling people they can come in but can't bring in some particular item. They aren't the same thing.

NO TRESPASSING = Denial of Entry
NO ADMITTANCE = Denial of Entry

NO GUNS = You can come in, but don't bring any guns (i.e. conditional admittance, for lack of a better term).

A sign simply saying "No Guns," I will agree doesn't fit the bill. But a sign that is explicit such as TFT's rendition:

"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."​

certainly does... hence signs having weight of law if properly worded.

 

[CathyInBlue]

The problem being, that there is no real standard in the design or placement.

Except the "reasonable person" standard.

If you show a reasonable person a gun-buster displayed prominently on the only public door into a business and then ask that person whether or not the proprietor of that business desires to exclude a person legally carrying a personal protection sidearm from entering that store, they will say yes, such a person is excluded from such a business by such a sign.

 

[Ted]

Except the "reasonable person" standard.

If you show a reasonable person a gun-buster displayed prominently on the only public door into a business and then ask that person whether or not the proprietor of that business desires to exclude a person legally carrying a personal protection sidearm from entering that store, they will say yes, such a person is excluded from such a business by such a sign.

I agree 100%. Though if you look around, many businesses instead are rather subdued in their display and placement. How does a subjective standard warrant the police to interpret the fairness of notification for arrest or citation? This is really why such signs don't really have the full force of law here in Indiana.

In Texas, 1" block letters in both the English and Spanish languages, at all entrances to the business are required, and placed between certain heights above the ground.

 

[jbombelli]

My favorite signs are the ones that say No Beretta 92s. They have a pic of a Beretta 92 circled with a line through it.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I agree 100%. Though if you look around, many businesses instead are rather subdued in their display and placement. How does a subjective standard warrant the police to interpret the fairness of notification for arrest or citation? This is really why such signs don't really have the full force of law here in Indiana.

In Texas, 1" block letters in both the English and Spanish languages, at all entrances to the business are required, and placed between certain heights above the ground.

It's not subjective, if it's not well-posted or likely to come to the attention of the public, that's noted. And if some moron happens to stop a person based on such, the "reasonableness" standard will be applied by a jury who I assume would throw out. It's no different than a poorly placed traffic sign that no one notices. It has to be fairly obvious for someone to take action.

 

[Ted]

It's not subjective, if it's not well-posted or likely to come to the attention of the public, that's noted. And if some moron happens to stop a person based on such, the "reasonableness" standard will be applied by a jury who I assume would throw out. It's no different than a poorly placed traffic sign that no one notices. It has to be fairly obvious for someone to take action.

Need something always go to a jury to determine reasonableness?

Is it not preferable to have some manner of standard to allow LE to make a determination, before turning someone's life upside down with court appearances and attorney fees? As it stands now, ask 10 LEOs a question, there usually is 8 differing answers.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Everyone in the chain of events has a brain. Just not everyone in that chain uses them. The cop can determine the reasonableness, and that can cut one of two ways, A) "He's not committing trespass yet, but if you want him to leave now and he does, this situation ends." or B) "The sign was reasonable, he's already committing criminal trespass, turn around and put your hands behind your back." If B, then it falls to the prosecutor to apply the reasonable person standard, where again, it can cut one of two ways, A) "The officer was wrong, this signage is not reasonable, charges dropped." or B) "The officer was correct, you can plead or go to court." If B, then it falls to the court to decide the reasonableness of the signage, where again, it can cut one of two ways, A) "We the jury find the defendant not guilty of the crime of criminal trespass, because the signage did not fit the language of the law." or B) "We the jury find the defendant guilty as charged."

It can all fall out of the system at any point if an A decision is taken, but if it needs be, the jury has the ultimate B decision at its disposal. (Or judge in the case of a bench trial.)

 

[Roadie]

When gun info websites such as handgunlaw.us discuss signs and the "weight of law", aren't they usually referring to GUN law, and whether or not violating a No Guns sign is a gun related crime?

Such as NC, for example:

§ 14-415.11. Permit to Carry Concealed Handgun; Scope of Permit.
(c) Except as provided in G.S. 14-415.27, a permit does not authorize a person to carry a concealed handgun in any of the following:
(8) On any private premises where notice that carrying a concealed handgun is prohibited by the posting of a conspicuous notice or statement by the person in legal possession or control of the premises.

 

[Coach]

Two thoughts for you.

1. There is no excuse for open carry in a mall. None.

2. Circle Center recently installed a credit card reader in one exit lane of all garages. In the one attached to the Convention Center, it's the one on the far right to exit onto Georgia St.

There is no reason not to open carry. If you have to hide something like a gun that implies that is taboo.