I think this has been a great discussion. Do you guys see how this is all comes together?
Subject to civil rights protections, a private business owner can exclude anyone that he or she wants to from their property. That includes people with firearms.
And IC 35-43-2-2 says that a person commits criminal trespass when that person enters property after having been "denied entry." In addition, a person can be "denied entry" through a notice to that effect at the main entrance of the property.
Again, the reason that I posted this scenario is because I hear and read repeatedly that a sign prohibiting firearms on private property has "no legal effect." That may not be true, to the extent a sign could be intrepretted by a LEO, a prosecutor and/or a jury as having "denied entry" to a person with a firearm through its location and content.
Because the sign that I used in my scenario was so specific about "denying entry" to anyone carrying a firearm, I believe that this scenario presents a significant risk of arrest and prosecution for criminal trespass.
And, as WabashMX5 very correctly pointed out, additional factors, such as the mixture of alcohol and a firearm in this scenario, may motivate a LEO to take you to jail for the trespass violation - even though Indiana law doesn't prohibit the consumption of alcohol while carrying a firearm.
So then, in my example about being specifically excluded if you wear a blue shirt or are not carrying a GI Joe with Kung Fu grip would put you in jeopardy of arrest if you enters said establishment for trespass, correct?
INGunGuy