A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Theater

[EdC]

(Actually, it happened in the theater, but I wanted to write a clever little title for the post.)

I went to see a play a while back with my two sons. After we settled in our seats and the lights began to dim, just before the play was to begin, my 16 year old leaned over and whispered to me "Dad, do you have one of your guns on you?" A little surprised, and hoping that my boy didn't spot something seriously going wrong, I replied, "Why do you ask?"

"Well," he says, "there's a sign out front that said, 'No Firearms Allowed'" I told him that I didn't see such a sign, but not to worry, but that we'd talk about it later.

At lunch, I explained how, that in some states, "no weapons" signs may have the force of law, if they meet certain requirements, but there is no such law in Indiana. I told him that owners of private property have the right to limit firearms on their premises, and if the folks at the theater found out I had a firearm, asked me leave and I refused, then I would be guilty of trespassing. (Criminal trespass is a Class A Misdemeanor).

Upon later reflection, I asked myself, how do I know this? Why, because a bunch of guys on the Internets said so! However, being an attorney myself, I thought I should find a more widely accepted legal authority for my position, so I did a little research and thought I would share it with you.

The Criminal Trespass statute, § 35-43-2-2 can be found at this link:Indiana Code 35-43-2. I encourage you to give it a read so you can see the entire statute. An excerpt of the most relevant portions is as follows: a person who: "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 . . . commits criminal trespass" Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(a)(1).

So what is being "denied entry?"
(b) A person has been denied entry under subdivision (a)(1) of this section when the person has been denied entry by means of . . . 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

Ind. Code § 35-43-2-2(b)

So my conclusion is this: "No firearms" signs may have the force of law in Indiana, if the sign is posted "at the main entrance in a manner that . . . is likely to come to the attention of the public." In my specific situation, there were two (2) members of the public together, one noticed the sign (my son), one did not (me). I had "contractual interest" in the real estate to be there and see the play, but other than that, none whatsover.

So, jury of my peers, (presume that I did have a gun on me at the time, of course), how do you find me? Guilty or innocent of criminal trespass?

 

[AFA1CY]

I would say not guilty.

1. You "contracted" with the establishment to see the play. You tendered "Mutual Consideration", the admission fee, and received something in return. The contract could have been terminated and you asked to leave by refunding the ticked fee.

2. The sign did not deny you entry but mearly stated a preference that you not bring a gun into the establishment. If the sign had been on a vacant building and said "No Tresspassing" that would have denied you enterence.

All this in my non-legal humble opinion.

 

[shooter521]

Not guilty. The "No Firearms" sign wasn't denying you entry. If the sign had said "DO NOT ENTER" or "EMPLOYEES ONLY," that would be different.

My but unlike you, I am not a lawyer.

 

[ATF Consumer]

YouTube - Signs, signs everywhere a sign!!

 

[Woo]

I actually was wondering the same thing about the sign issue.

 

[Bill of Rights]

You're an attorney. Therefore, you must be guilty.

I'm teasing, of course. Given the facts presented, I'd agree with AFA1CY's interpretation. Your purchased tickets give you temporary contractual interest in the show being performed at the theater and, as that is where the tickets were purchased, in the property as well. Had you attempted to go there just to stand in the lobby and read the marquees for upcoming plays, perhaps a different situation, but as presented, I would vote Not Guilty.

Oh... and to !

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bigus_D]

You're an attorney. Therefore, you must be guilty.

Seriously though... the sign wasn't denying YOU entry... it was denying YOUR GUN entry. Therefore, I find you innocent but find your gun guilty.

 

[CarmelHP]

Seriously though... the sign wasn't denying YOU entry... it was denying YOUR GUN entry. Therefore, I find you innocent but find your gun guilty.

Did his gun knowingly enter?

 

[Bubba]

Why, because a bunch of guys on the Internets said so! However, being an attorney myself, I thought I should find a more widely accepted legal authority for my position,

Teh Interwebz is not an accepted legal authority?!

Edit: After reading the statues, I am revising my judgment to Guilty, contingent upon knowing the exact wording of the sign. The standard "no weapons" types of signs, in my experience, are written in a manner suggesting a condition of occupancy. Something along the lines of "If you have a weapon, you are not welcome." I would suggest this outcome for violations of signs with strong and specific wording such as mall entrance signs stating a code of conduct, signs similar to the warnings at the post office, and for signs such as I saw at the county fair last night : "No Weapons or Pets Allowed". In the event of pictographic signs such as a handgun with the crossed-circle "no" symbol I would find the OP Not Guilty, unless the symbols composing the sign were defined in law.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Upon later reflection, I asked myself, how do I know this? Why, because a bunch of guys on the Internets said so!

Not everyone on the Internets says so. Not everyone beleives in Kirk's First Law of the Internet.

"No firearms" signs may have the force of law in Indiana, if the sign is posted "at the main entrance in a manner that . . . is likely to come to the attention of the public."

Correct. Signs here can be notice of trespass (no matter what the law in Tejas is).

However, in 15 years I have yet to see it prosecuted. If the pistol(s) are carried concealed, would not be an issue unless there is a threshold issue (Disorderly Conduct, Public Intox, etc.).

 

[Srtsi4wd]

Not Guilty.
Here is my opinion. IANAL.
The sign means exactly what is says. No Firearms allowed. I'm sure there were plenty of other signs denoting other items or places that are not allowed in the theater. If an agent of the property informed you that you must leave for a violation of their rules and you refuse, then its trespass. You can ask for your money back, but whether or not you will get it is determined by the contractual language. Since by having a ticket you have a contractual interest in the proerty the statute should not apply until you are caught. Then your contract is void, and then you are subject to Sec. 2(a)(2).

The same rules would apply to laser pointers in theaters. The sign says they are prohibited, you get caught with one and your out. Ususally w/o refund if its in the rules. Your'e not going to jail for it.

AFAIK, there is no law stating that the carry of a firearm into a private establishment that has posted that its is a gun-free zone is a crime. It's only grounds for you to be asked to leave said establishment. The refusal to do so would be the crime. IANAL.

 

[bigus_D]

Did his gun knowingly enter?

You've got me there... since the gun was concealed, it could not have known where it was being taken.

 

[singlestacksig]

what theater was this?

 

[Bill of Rights]

You've got me there... since the gun was concealed, it could not have known where it was being taken.

I don't know... them guns is sneaky critters. It could have been peeking out through his shirt. For all we know, his gun might have threatened him, in which case his entry to the theater was under duress. I think this would still place him solidly not guilty.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Boilers]

From MY law classes, the sign would be called an Implied Contract.
Of course, I mentioned this while dining with a lawyer for the State of Indiana one lunch time. And she vehemently argued that it is NOT an implied contract because no express agreement was given by the 'customer'.

I still believe it is an implied contract.

implied contract

Definition

Legally enforceable agreement that arises from the conduct, assumed intentions, some relationship among the immediate parties, or due to the application of the legal principle of equity. For example, a contract is implied when a party knowingly accepts a benefit from another party in circumstances where the benefit cannot be considered a gift. Therefore, the party accepting the benefit is under a legal obligation to give fair value for the benefit received. Opposite of express contract. See also implied in fact contract and implied in law contract.

I do not think there is much criminal risk though.

 

[bdj357]

Basically, I was told (by several criminal attorneys) that even if the sign so no weapons, you are not legally trespassing until the point you are asked to leave if you were once given permission to enter. And unless it is a place that you could otherwise carry a gun legally...

Unless there is a sign that states "Anyone carrying a weapon will be refused access and/or considered trespassing"

Basiscally, they would have to ask you to leave first and you refuse, or had been asked not to return in the past.

Very similar to shopliftling. A person goes to the store to shoplift but is not considered to be trespassing. They had no contractual agreement to be there.

I would say NOT Guilty.

 

[Scout]

Unless there is a sign that states "Anyone carrying a weapon will be refused access and/or considered trespassing"

Yes, the sign says "No weapons" not "Nobody carrying weapons." Considering that weapons don't have legs and can't read, the sign is pointless.
If I walked my dog into a store past a "No dogs" sign, am I trespassing? what can they honestly do other than kick me out?

Now, what does the law say about "no gun" signs?

 

[SC_Shooter]

IANAL -

I'm going with not guilty as the situation was described. I agree with an earlier post that the the code seems to be referring to a "no trespassing" type of sign, not a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign, "no pets" sign, "no food or drink" sign or "no weapons" sign. With all of the latter, I see these are more of a statement of policy and not a denial of entry.

I think it would become a denial of entry if you were seen with the gun, pet, beverage, etc. and told to leave but refused. Otherwise, wouldn't someone who carried a Coke into the theater also be guilty of criminal trespass? How about someone who takes their dog into a hotel with a no pets policy? In either of these cases, the staff or management certainly have the right to toss you (they DID give fair notice), but the police could care less unless you do not leave when instructed or come back if told not to.

 

[Rookie]

I went to the Greentown fair tonight and they had a sign stating "No unauthorized weapons". Now, I figure since the State of Indiana has given me a pretty piece of pink paper that I'm authorized to carry there...

 

[Feign]

I say Not Guilty, even if the sign said "firearm holders are considered trespassers" or whatever. I wouldn't give them my dollars though, nor any place of business that tries to requests criminals to be honest.

There's a sign at a bar in Seymour that says "No firearms, knives, or nuclear weapons" with a big hand-drawn mushroom cloud on it. But it's the one place in Seymour that I definitely would carry and would gladly leave if asked to.