I see your point. However, Indiana trespassing law makes it fairly clear that you have to be denied entry, or not leave when asked to. A sign that says "No Firearms" I don't believe constitutes denial of entry. The simple act of having to ask the person to leave a business before criminal charges are brought ought to be a no-brainer. Outside of that, the potential for abuse of the law would be just outrageous. For example, I post a sign that says "No t-shirts" outside my business. I don't enforce this because it's silly. A guy comes in with a t-shirt and pisses me off. He is now arrested and has a Class A misdemeanor on his record, even though he probably didn't notice the sign and was never asked to leave. If this is the sort of scenario that you think is perfectly right and acceptable...there's just no hope for you.
-
Be sure to read this post! Beware of scammers. https://www.indianagunowners.com/threads/classifieds-new-online-payment-guidelines-rules-paypal-venmo-zelle-etc.511734/
St Mary's is NOT gun friendly
- Thread starter Titanium_Frost
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I see your point. However, Indiana trespassing law makes it fairly clear that you have to be denied entry, or not leave when asked to. A sign that says "No Firearms" I don't believe constitutes denial of entry. The simple act of having to ask the person to leave a business before criminal charges are brought ought to be a no-brainer. Outside of that, the potential for abuse of the law would be just outrageous. For example, I post a sign that says "No t-shirts" outside my business. I don't enforce this because it's silly. A guy comes in with a t-shirt and pisses me off. He is now arrested and has a Class A misdemeanor on his record, even though he probably didn't notice the sign and was never asked to leave. If this is the sort of scenario that you think is perfectly right and acceptable...there's just no hope for you.
Also, even if you did want business owners to have the ability to file charges against people violating their rules, at the very most it should be an infraction, not a criminal charge. Also keep in mind that they already have the ability to have a police officer confront the person and ask them to leave. Anything beyond that is just excessive.
BumpShadow
Master
I'll post it AGAIN.
Indiana Code 35-43-2-2 Sec. 4 said:
By carrying a prohibited item onto a property, that person has created a situation that interferes with the use of that property. Whether or not the owners or their agents notice or not has no being on the fact that item is still on the property.
Why do people keep putting words in my mouth? I never said I wanted it to be a criminal offense. I said I wanted a more rubust punishment. An infraction, if it got the point across, would be fine in my book. Just enough to make someone think long and hard before disreguarding the wishes and rights of the property owner is all I want.
Sorry, no. "carrying a 'prohibited' (but lawful) item onto a property" does not interfere with anything, certainly not if the property owner doesn't even know it's there, and no, to answer your example upthread, a theater owner cannot have someone arrested for trespassing simply for bringing the candy or drinks in. They can make it a condition of entry that all packages are subject to search (and risk alienating customers) or they can approach people who they find eating/drinking outside food/drink and tell them "trash it or leave" or even simply, "leave." Only when the person refuses to do so is the offense committed, because only then have they "interfered" with the property (by being told they are no longer welcome and still remaining.)
Consider the diabetic. This is a person who, many times, must carry a small supply of SOMEthing with them to provide sugar, should they happen to become hypoglycemic. A theater owner might not even be allowed to refuse entry OR refuse (sugar-free)snacks carried by such a person under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (I say "might" because I've not reviewed that law.)
Further, upthread you stated that I don't write the law. This is correct. Neither do you, but the difference is that I recognize what is and is not law. A business owner does not make law. He makes policies and rules, but not laws. For many years, there was a concept in the law that one must have intent (mens rea) for a crime to be committed.
I can state categorically and specifically that I don't intend to trespass anywhere. Can a business owner state that he has no intention to make his customers (as in, the people that provide his income) helpless before any violence others may commit against them?
Blessings,
Bill
I may have missed a post, but I saw quite a few where you said that minor rule violations constitute trespassing, and I didn't note one that said you didn't think it should be a criminal offense. Maybe I missed it. Still seems to me that an unobtrusive possession of an item doesn't constitute full blown interference with a property. Depending on circumstance it might, but in most cases I wouldn't think it does. Even so, most people don't pay attention to random signs posted on doors or windows as they're walking in. I really don't see how simply asking them to leave is too much of a prerequisite before charging people with a crime or costly infraction.
BumpShadow
Master
Sorry, still can't agree with you. By putting the owner in a the situation in the first place you are interfering with the use of property.
A diabetic falls under similar rules as a seeing eye dog, and I not argueing with that. But is no health concern by not carry. Yes, if a crimnial blah, blah, blah, but it doesn't fall under the same rules as a diabectic or seeing eye dog.
I believe you when you say you have intention of trespassing, but thats doesn't you don't still do it by carrying. I simply don't agree with your interpritation of the law. And as you have not given case law, its still up for debate.
Regardless of how anyone feels, laws like this are spreading... look at the Texas law I cited earlier. Such actions don't help gun owners. Keep in mind a person is knowingly challenging the wishes of a property owner on their property. That's lunacy, and creates more enemies than friends.
The point is, if places post signage of "no firearms/guns/weapons" make them feel it in their wallets. Don't frequent the places. Put a dent in their bottom lines, and people will take notice. Take your money elsewhere, to the guy that has the sign that says "Gun Nuts Welcome."
I don't think you guys get the big picture here... what person do you know that throws their hand up in the air and says "Awww gosh, I guess I should let them win"? There aren't many, but there are plenty that become even more stubborn, more steadfast in their decisions.
Political speech, in action, has always.... and will always.... take a backseat to the dollar. By continuing to spend your money in anti-gun establishments, you are a silent accomplice to their views.
The point is, if places post signage of "no firearms/guns/weapons" make them feel it in their wallets. Don't frequent the places. Put a dent in their bottom lines, and people will take notice. Take your money elsewhere, to the guy that has the sign that says "Gun Nuts Welcome."
I don't think you guys get the big picture here... what person do you know that throws their hand up in the air and says "Awww gosh, I guess I should let them win"? There aren't many, but there are plenty that become even more stubborn, more steadfast in their decisions.
Political speech, in action, has always.... and will always.... take a backseat to the dollar. By continuing to spend your money in anti-gun establishments, you are a silent accomplice to their views.
indytechnerd
Master
Let's assume that Kutnupe14's prediction comes true and suddenly "No Firearms" signage suddenly carries the weight of law. That opens a whole new can of worms for those of us who carry regularly. 1st, there's the conspicuous display problem. Who gets to decide what constitutes "conspicuous"? If the norm holds true, I can't claim that I didn't see the sign and get away with it. 2nd, you have to take into consideration the added manipulation of the carry weapon. Taking it off, putting it back on, sometimes having to unholster it..all done within the confines of the vehicle (since we don't want a MWG call because someone saw us). Seems to me this is less than safe, even considering how safe today's holsters are. Finally, you've made daily life a veritable minefield of VDZs, and potentially wiped SB292's progress away. One step forward, 2 steps back. This kind of thing, while clarifying the argument, would be a big ol' bucket of FAIL for gunowners in Indiana.
So it's "lunacy" to:
- Want to protect oneself, and/or others in a place where one's safety is not guaranteed by the Management?
- Exercise that RIGHT over the posted POLICY of a Business?
Yes.
Notice the part of the IC above (a1 & a2) that states that for there to be "criminal trespassing" there has to be some action on the part of the property owner FIRST. In subsection (b) the law defines what that action has to be - denied entry by means of a sign in a specifically designated manner or being personally told.
If there's no sign or the property owner (or agent) doesn't tell you that you can't be there first then it's not "criminal" trespassing.
The law takes a harder stance on a person's home (must have prior consent to enter) but I didn't post that part of the IC above (subsection a5) since we are only talking about coming onto someone's land, not into their house. But looking at the differences between the language of those two subsections it looks to me like the intent of the law is fairly clear. It's the difference between "prior consent" (home) & "after being informed" (land).
Don't get me wrong. I agree with you on the OC issue. But a case can be made that it does nterfere with the use of the property. I still don't think it's criminal trespassing & you have to be told to leave first, though.
Exactly.
Nope. Not being lazy at all. I've read all of your posts in this thread.
The above doesn't explain HOW carrying something that no one besides you even exists is interefering with the owners use of the property.
It only states your opinion about what constitutes trespass not what the effect of the trespass is on the owner.
If I'm not physically interefering with the use of the property then
the explanation has to go to the effect on the mental state of the owner (or anyone else). There can be no effect AT ALL on someone's mental state if they don't even know the object is there.
It's kind of like telling (or not) a cop that you have a gun on you during a stop. If I don't tell him then he has no reason to be concerned about it because he doesn't know it's there. As soon as I inform him THEN AT THAT POINT he is more concerned because he knows it exists.
And just for fun I'll post it again, too.
Telling us that carrying an object concealed intereferes with the use of the property because it's trespassing by using the argument that trespassing is interfereing with the use of the property is like saying nothing except "because I say so".
Until the owner knows about the existence of the "offending" object then, from the point of view of the owner (i.e. his mental state), there is no "situation" at all.
The person hasn't interefered with ANYTHING until it affects someone physically or emotionally. That can't happen unless the person knows that there is even something to be upset about in the first place.
Really?
Can you provide any links to laws in other locales that have been changed to laws similar to either Texas or Ohio (in regard to guns) that define trespassing more broadly in the last several years?
I'd guess that your statement above is like people trying to say that "our gun rights are being infringed more & more everywhere" when, in fact, the opposite is true.
I'm not practiced at looking up case law. That will have to come from someone else. You
d the point and claimed it was not a health concern, but I am firmly convinced that someone intent on doing me physical harm with a club, knife, or even gun is as if not more serious a health concern than, say, someone walking in who happens to have a cough and refuses to wear a mask. In addition, the onus is not on me to prove that something IS a right. If you want to regulate it and minimize it, the onus is on you to show where it is forbidden in law. You have claimed that merely possessing an item that the owner knows nothing about interferes with his property. I have not seen where you have shown how it interferes. You say you've shown it, but it simply being there is not interference. It must become known to someone other than the person carrying.I can agree with your point about making them feel it in their wallets, Kutnupe. To which hospital should I go (since this thread IS about a hospital...) where my rights will not be considered less important than their policies? To which electric company should I go to set up service or to pay my bill that recognizes and truly supports individual rights and more specifically, does not make me a helpless victim walking into, around, and back out of their building. Considering that the "parking lot law" specifically addresses the employer/employee relationship and is silent on the business/customer relationship, for that matter, I'd also like to know which hospitals, utilities, etc. won't have a similar policy that forces me to leave my gun at home rather than have it in my car in their parking lot?
I can make a choice on grocery stores. I can make a choice of pharmacy or restaurant or theater. I can't choose hospitals when preemption excludes the city and county owned ones and (someone's idea of) proper etiquette demands that I respect the decision of a private hospital board that doesn't respect me, and that's in communities that are large enough and lucky enough to have more than one hospital. Similarly, I can't choose my electric company or gas company; only one to an area.
How do you suggest I should put a dent in those bottom lines?
It's been asked here many times, but I'll ask it again: If we behave as if we don't have a right to defend ourselves, what is the difference between that and us not having that right at all?
Blessings,
Bill
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:
(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..
Charges being filed would be left up to:
#1: The initial LEOs on the scene
#2: The country prosecutor
#3: The initial trial court judge
If all the above believe that filing criminal charges is appropriate, and that the person should go through the motions, the next group of people to rule on if the sign held weight would be:
#1: A judge in a bench trial
#2: A jury in a jury trial
Even after this, there could still be appeals on the issue, which would mean the following people could make a determination:
#1: The judges on the state court of appeals
#2: The Indiana Supreme Court
#3: Federal district court
#4: US Supreme Court
What I would be more worried about is a sign that specifically states: "Any person with a firearm upon their person may not enter this property."
Here are some court rulings on the criminal trespass statue and the signs aspect of the denial of entry:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11170802mpb.pdf
"Steed seems to argue on appeal that the property owner was required to post a “no trespassing” at every potential entry—including the chained back door—and to continuously replace signs that may have been vandalized or removed. This diligence is not required by the statute. Shimp testified that he did not give Steed or any other person permission to be inside his South Illinois street property. Shimp had multiple “no trespassing” signs posted on the property. Although Officer Scroggins did not recall seeing a sign on the rear of the home, Office Shaffer testified that there was a sign in the back window. In any event, all parties, including Steed, testified that a “no trespassing” sign was clearly visible from the front of the home. This sign gave sufficient notice to the public and coupled with the plywood affixed to the windows and doors, it would be clear to passerbys that the property owner was putting them on notice not to enter. As put succinctly by the State during its closing statement, the prevention of “trespassing doesn’t require that [the property owner] stand there in his doorway and wag his finger at the defendant and say no, you are never to return to my property.”
Carol J. Blakney v. State of Indiana
"Carol J. Blakney appeals her conviction for criminal trespass. Because the evidence shows that Blakney did not enter the real property of another beyond a posted "No Trespassing" sign and that she did not knowingly or intentionally aid, induce, or cause another person to do so, we find that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. Accordingly, we reverse.
"On October 12, 2002, Robert Adams was driving home when he saw a green Honda parked off the road alongside property located on East County Road 650 South in Delaware County. Specifically, the Honda was "parked parallel to the road a foot to the north off of the road." Adams immediately pulled his vehicle off the road facing the Honda and observed two people. He saw Blakney seated behind the wheel of the Honda and Abel Alves standing on the gate, which had a black and orange "No Trespassing" sign affixed to it. When Adams exited his vehicle, Blakney told him that Kaye knew her. Adams wrote down Blakney's and Alves' names and the license plate number of the Honda. Neither Blakney nor Alves had permission from the Whiteheads to enter their property.
The State subsequently charged Blakney and Alves with Criminal Trespass, a Class A misdemeanor. A jury found Blakney and Alves guilty as charged.
As noted above, a person has been "denied entry" under subsection (a)(1) 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." I.C. § 35-43-2-2(b)(2). Here, the evidence shows that Blakney was seated behind the wheel of the Honda, which was parked in the grass between County Road 650 South and the "No Trespassing" sign on the gate. Although the "No Trespassing" sign was visible from the road, we nevertheless find that a person is not denied entry to another's real property within the meaning of Indiana Code § 35-43-2-2(b)(2) until he or she actually enters the property beyond the notice. Although a person may be able to see the notice from afar, that person is still left without information to discern where the property protected by the notice actually begins. To eliminate such confusion, we hold that the denial of entry becomes effective at the point where the notice is actually posted and not at some indeterminate point in front of the notice
Here, the evidence simply shows that when Adams arrived on the scene, Blakney was seated behind the wheel of the Honda and Alves was standing on the gate. This Court affirmed Alves' conviction for criminal trespass on appeal because "[w]hile there was no evidence Alves had opened or climbed over the gate and walked past the No Trespassing' sign, the jury could have reasonably inferred that at least part of his body entered the airspace above the Whiteheads' property." Alves, 816 N.E.2d at 66. Because the evidence shows that Alves did not open or climb over the gate, the evidence is insufficient to prove that Blakney knew Alves would enter the airspace above the Whiteheads' property with part of his body. Accordingly, the evidence is insufficient to prove that Blakney knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused Alves to commit the offense of criminal trespass. Because the evidence is insufficient to support Blakney's conviction for criminal trespass under either a principal or accomplice liability theory, we must reverse her conviction.
You could pay your bills on-line, or mail in a payment? To get stamps, you can avoid the "No guns allowed!" US Post Office and just keep your gun on your hip as you purchase stamp from select bank ATMs. I've lived at my house for five years and never stepped foot into an office of my electric co-op or gas company.
It appears to me that there's a stalemate on both sides of the issue. The property owners right to not have his business interfered with and a persons second amendment right to carry for protection. I tend to try to break it down to a more simple solution. If person with a licencense to carry for protection absolutely feels the need to enter a bussiness that has a "no firearm" sign posted then carry concealed, that way you are excercizing your right to protection and you are not preventing the business owner from use of their property by exibiting an open carried firearm that could potentially cause a loss of income from costumers who do not feel comfortable. I think from my experience most poeple that do carry would agree not to enter such an establishment while OC'ing that has been posted as a compromise to the owners wishes and at the same time being able to protect themselves or others should the need arise. There is no need for more legislation or further civil and or criminal penalties to punish basically lawbiding citizens.
As it happens, I DO pay my bills online and like you, I have never gone into the offices of my utility providers. The point, though, was that Kutnupe suggested not being a customer (that is, a paying customer) to a business that is anti-gun. I agree with him in principle, however there are certain businesses that hold enough of a monopoly (perhaps not in the strict definition, but few enough of them) that having a choice doesn't matter... It's like choosing between supporting Josh Sugarmann or Sarah Brady. You don't have a choice that isn't anti-gun.
It's precisely this reason why I think that NO government office should ever be a prohibited place; If I need to go to say, the water department or the county auditor's office(in person), it's not like I can choose not to have water service or refuse to pay my property tax, nor like I can go to their competition: They're the only game in town.
Blessings,
Bill
I agree that that sign would be VERY close in terms of denial of entry to a "no trespassing" sign.
Unfortunately, none of those cases address the specific circumstances that we are debating right now.
I've already read the IC code. A sign forbidding an object does not equate to forbidding a person. The two cases you posted are nice and all, but those are specifically dealing with "No trespassing" signs posted on residences, which aren't open to the public. They have pretty much absolutely nothing to do with trespass law dealing with a public business. Even so, I noted this reference in the Blakney case link:
A simple "No firearms" sign wouldn't constitute denial of entry. The sign is forbidding objects, not people.
Now this probably would, conspicuously posted.
Site Supporter
Members online
- ComeJesuscome
- Elcardo
- DoggyDaddy
- Mackeryd
- Creedmoor
- oDbCo
- edwea
- Born2vette
- JimH
- Jarvitron
- Cavman
- mgdiaz1993
- opus1776
- stevezx2
- 55fairlane
- Magyars
- Magneto
- red_zr24x4
- Nazgul
- Kinkopet33
- Mgderf
- Lee11b
- wtfd661
- thunderchicken
- chuckp
- NHT3
- hammerd13
- Gandalf
- mike4sigs
- Slow Hand
- Steel and wood
- Glocktard
- Atkinson
- redryder
- rkweber
- abraham743
- indydrummer
- w_ADAM_d88
- BR8818
- SEIndSAM
- BigBoxaJunk
- Dholcomb
- cmamath13
- Businessend
- Dport
- BillD
- 92FSTech
- JamesV
- Jkwrangler70
- Joniki