Carry allowed in a bar?

[Alegre]

We should put together some sort of collection of common inquiries.

That's a great idea......for newbie like myself all the information available on this site can be overwhelming and sometimes gets buried in the 64,714 threads and 727,740 posts

 

[esrice]

That's a great idea......for newbie like myself all the information available on this site can be overwhelming and sometimes gets buried in the 64,714 threads and 727,740 posts

Now I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. . . . . .

But just in case--

 

[Eddie]

Trespass Statute

IC 35-43-2-2 Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Chapter 2. Burglary and Trespass
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;
(3) accompanies another person in a vehicle, with knowledge that the other person knowingly or intentionally is exerting unauthorized control over the vehicle;
(4) knowingly or intentionally interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without the person's consent;
(5) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the dwelling of another person without the person's consent;
(6) knowingly or intentionally:
(A) travels by train without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent; and
(B) rides on the outside of a train or inside a passenger car, locomotive, or freight car, including a boxcar, flatbed, or container without lawful authority or the railroad carrier's consent;
(7) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters or refuses to leave the property of another person after having been prohibited from entering or asked to leave the property by a law enforcement officer when the property is:
(A) vacant or designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be abandoned property; and
(B) subject to abatement under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36; or
(8) knowingly or intentionally enters the property of another person after being denied entry by a court order that has been issued to the person or issued to the general public by conspicuous posting on or around the premises in areas where a person can observe the order when the property:
(A) has been designated by a municipality or county enforcement authority to be a vacant property or an abandoned property; and
(B) is subject to an abatement order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36;
commits criminal trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. However, the offense is a Class D felony if it is committed on a scientific research facility, on a key facility, on a facility belonging to a public utility (as defined in IC 32-24-1-5.9(a)), on school property, or on a school bus or the person has a prior unrelated conviction for an offense under this section concerning the same property.
(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; or
(3) a hearing authority or court order under IC 32-30-6, IC 32-30-7, IC 32-30-8, IC 36-7-9, or IC 36-7-36.
(c) A law enforcement officer may not deny entry to property or ask a person to leave a property under subsection (a)(7) unless there is reasonable suspicion that criminal activity has occurred or is occurring.
(d) A person described in subsection (a)(7) violates subsection (a)(7) unless the person has the written permission of the owner, owner's agent, enforcement authority, or court to come onto the property for purposes of performing maintenance, repair, or demolition.
(e) A person described in subsection (a)(8) violates subsection (a)(8) unless the court that issued the order denying the person entry grants permission for the person to come onto the property.
(f) Subsections (a), (b), and (e) do not apply to the following: (1) A passenger on a train.
(2) An employee of a railroad carrier while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(3) A law enforcement officer, firefighter, or emergency response personnel while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(4) A person going on railroad property in an emergency to rescue a person or animal from harm's way or to remove an object that the person reasonably believes poses an imminent threat to life or limb.
(5) A person on the station grounds or in the depot of a railroad carrier:
(A) as a passenger; or
(B) for the purpose of transacting lawful business.
(6) A:
(A) person; or
(B) person's:
(i) family member;
(ii) invitee;
(iii) employee;
(iv) agent; or
(v) independent contractor;
going on a railroad's right-of-way for the purpose of crossing at a private crossing site approved by the railroad carrier to obtain access to land that the person owns, leases, or operates.
(7) A person having written permission from the railroad carrier to go on specified railroad property.
(8) A representative of the Indiana department of transportation while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(9) A representative of the federal Railroad Administration while engaged in the performance of official duties.
(10) A representative of the National Transportation Safety Board while engaged in the performance of official duties.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

 

[esrice]

We should call it a "TopGunBobby".

 

[Scutter01]

Pretty sure, give me a sec and I will post it here.

Here's a thread similar to what you're talking about. The statute does have a provision that suggests a sign qualifies as notification, but I do not believe case law agrees.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2nd_amendment/61419-trespassing_question.html

The statute is specifically about trespassing and has nothing to do with guns. The problem is that the signs do not seek to deny you entry, they just seek to deny you entry with a gun. That means it's not necessarily trespassing.

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't think a "No Guns Allowed" sign is sufficient to deny entry. A sign saying "John Doe is not allowed" would likely be sufficient and "No Unauthorized Person" may be sufficient.

 

[esrice]

IC 35-43-2-2 Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions

(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; or

IIRC, this has more to do with explicit signage like "No Tresspassing", where they are prohibiting ANY and ALL entry.

 

[mk2ja]

We should call it a "TopGunBobby".

...@hotmail.com

 

[esrice]

Wow you guys are faster than me. . . .

 

[infidel]

Wow you guys are faster than me. . . .

This thread is on fire!

(and has been lol)

 

[mk2ja]

IC 35-43-2-2 Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Chapter 2. Burglary and Trespass
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;
(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; or
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.3. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.43; P.L.151-1989, SEC.12; P.L.242-1993, SEC.2; P.L.164-1993, SEC.11; P.L.1-1994, SEC.168; P.L.259-1999, SEC.3; P.L.158-2009, SEC.7; P.L.88-2009, SEC.4.

Yep - that's the "trespassing" infidel was talking about.

Also, you can carry where a property owner has a sign that says you can't. It isn't illegal - it is just against their rules. The most they can do is ask you to leave and have you arrested for trespassing if you don't. Most people conceal their firearm in places like this.

----

That's a great idea......for newbie like myself all the information available on this site can be overwhelming and sometimes gets buried in the 64,714 threads and 727,740 posts

Now I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. . . . . .

But just in case--

@Alegre - Sarcasm should be put in purple! It's a new convention around these parts. It's already been added to the...

collection of common inquiries.

 

[jmiller676]

Now I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. . . . . .

But just in case--

Now when did we get one of those?

 

[Alegre]

@Alegre - Sarcasm should be put in purple! It's a new convention around these parts. It's already been added to the...

My bad!! Learn something new every day

 

[Eddie]

Here's a thread similar to what you're talking about. The statute does have a provision that suggests a sign qualifies as notification, but I do not believe case law agrees.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...2nd_amendment/61419-trespassing_question.html

The statute is specifically about trespassing and has nothing to do with guns. The problem is that the signs do not seek to deny you entry, they just seek to deny you entry with a gun. That means it's not necessarily trespassing.

I did a quick search of case law and couldn't find anything that interpreted that specific use of the trespass statute. I am analyzing it this way. Can a police officer make an arrest where there is a sign on the main entrance the says "No Guns"? Probably. Can you beat that charge in court? Possibly, provided you spend sufficient money. I will agree it is a gray area. I merely want to caution folks before they oc into an area that has been posted no guns thinking that the worst that can happen is that they get asked to leave. It is possible that they could be arrested.

By way of example, I.U. has used this interpretation of the trespass statute to enforce their "dry campus" rule.

 

[Alegre]

Now I'm not sure if you're kidding or not. . . . . .

But just in case--

My bad....Let me rephrase:

That's a great idea......for newbie like myself all the information available on this site can be overwhelming and sometimes gets buried in the 64,714 threads and 727,740 posts

My Monitor's colors are a bit off so I hope that was purple enough

 

[jmiller676]

My bad....Let me rephrase:

That's a great idea......for newbie like myself all the information available on this site can be overwhelming and sometimes gets buried in the 64,714 threads and 727,740 posts

My Monitor's colors are a bit off so I hope that was purple enough

 

[88E30M50]

I think the IC snippet above would hinge on the definition of 'contractual interest'. If a person goes in to the business with the full intent of doing business, then they may have a contractual interest in being there. If they go in to the business or onto the property simply to vent regarding the no firearms sign and are in fact, carrying, then they would have no business being there and would not be protected by contractual interest. If they go in to do business and are denied business because they are carrying, then they would need to leave when asked as their contractual interest has been terminated and subdivision (a)(2) could kick in.

These are just thoughts I had and would love to hear the opinion of someone who is knowledgeable regarding legal matters. In other words, any lawyers out there that could comment?

BTW, my usual practice is to volunteer at the DD if going to a bar. That way, I get to carry, I know I'll go home safely and I feel better than the others the next day. My wife might point out that I don't need a drink to be an idiot, I can do that perfectly well sober.

 

[rmabrey]

IC 35-43-2-2 Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Chapter 2. Burglary and Trespass
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;

Say you go to a movie theater and buy a ticket don't you in fact have a contractual interest? So I would assume that it is not initial trespass until you refuse to leave if asked. One could always play dumb and say they didn't see the sign.