Anybody that goes into a bar with a loaded weapon "and" drinks alcohol, even just one beer, should have their licensed pulled. Weapons and alcohol dont mix, period. As far as the original question, I dont know. What's the answer?
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 scheduledf or November 21. Check out Home Page for details.
Guy
That's my view - trespass: maybe. Firearm-related offense: nope.So then, from what I take it, a person would NOT be arrested for a firearms related offense as your question posed. BUT, a person would face arrest if they entered an establishment that clearly displayed a no firearms sign with a firearm for trespass only, NOT a firearms related offense.
Yes, no, maybeso?
Thanks,
INGunGuy
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.
...
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.
In the end it would be up to the owner. IMO if you "need" to carry into said bar. Get a small ankle setup.
CARRYING A FIREARM, BLACK, WEARING A BLUE SHIRT, NOT CARRYING GI JOE WITH KUNG-FU GRIP
That's my view - trespass: maybe. Firearm-related offense: nope.
That was my point.(emphasis added)
What firearm-related offence? Where did this come from? No gun law is at issue.
If you act within the law during the conversation with the LEO, I see no reason you should go to jail - legally or morally. A sign does not make law, it merely informs of the owner's opinions on what he wants on his land.
Does the owner have the right to ask you to leave? Yes.
Does the owner have the right to create a felony or misdemeanor that otherwise does not exist in law? No.
Property rights do not create law.