GuyRelford
Master
I agree - and I think that all of those factors go directly to the point I was trying to raise - that you can (under some circumstances) potentially be "denied entry" through management "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." That's just the wording of the statute. And that's why I was giving a "heads up" to Indiana gun owners. But that certainly doesn't mean that any "no firearms" sign is effective for that purpose. That's why I made my hypothetical "notice" so specific as to "denying entry" to anyone with a firearm.Perhaps a pertinent follow up question is this:
It appears from the original post and relevant statutes that if the sign in posted at the main entrance, and you see it, you are likely to risk arrest. But what if you don't come in via the main entrance, or don't see the sign?
As an example, say the Mall posts a sign at the main entrance mirroring the sign in the hypo here. However, you don't enter via the main entrance, and instead go in through Sears. Transitioning from Sears to the mall, there is no sign. My guess is that the "knowingly or intentionally" culpability standard would be defeated, relieving you of liability. My thinking is that you can't knowingly enter some place "after having been denied entry" if you don't know that you've been denied entry.
Likewise if a sign was posted that wasn't as conspicuous as the one in the post. Using the mall example again, most malls have these signs (I think), but usually they are buried somewhere where I never see them unless you are hunting for them. This of course would go directly to the "likely to be observed by the public" definition.
And to your point - if there are multiple entrances, I think it's completely logical to argue that you were never "denied entry" if you went through an entrance with no notice.