Hospital carry?

[ATM]

...Based on what is that part about the sign (placed by the owner/proprietor) already having "denied entry" not valid? Is it the wording of the sign? Or just in general. I guess my question is if that line establishes some legal standing for the sign, where is the legal standard that it doesn't have any weight?

A "NO GUNS" sign does not deny entry like a "NO TRESPASSING" sign would.

If that were the case, not wearing a shirt or shoes would also become a crime some places rather than simply a reason to refuse you service and make you leave.

 

[Bill of Rights]

"No guns" denies entry to my gun. My gun cannot read. Heck, it doesn't even print.

Seriously, though... If you have some kind of proof that the claim you're making is factual, please post it. You're the one making the claim, so support it if you can.

The rest of us, including members of the bar, seem to have said repeatedly that a sign specifying that it is a notice of trespass would constitute same. A simple "No guns", to include a gunbuster, does not meet that standard.

Find a case under Indiana law in which the defendant was properly held in court to have committed trespass based solely upon ignoring a gunbuster or equivalent, and I'll admit I learned something and you were right.... but not before that.

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, officers have a lot of discretion, and if the owner/proprietor is ok with a trespass warning being given by an LEO and documented, then why wouldn't the officer chose that route more often? It's less paperwork and the person is still removed from the business. My perspective is that the law states that the signage has some bearing/standing, or else it would not be there (the legal language about the sign). So if the sign is a moot point, or doesn't have legal standing, why does the law say that a sign can serve to deny access?

There are a lot of instances in which an officer can and will cut people breaks, even when they CAN arrest, and the person's behavior can make or break the outcome of the situation. Based on the writing of the law. CAN an arrest be made just going off of the signage, and if not, where is the legal precedent to negate the wording of the law? Often times, at the end of a chapter of law it will include the obligatory, "It is a defense in court that..." but there isn't any here in that regard. Based on what is that part about the sign (placed by the owner/proprietor) already having "denied entry" not valid? Is it the wording of the sign? Or just in general. I guess my question is if that line establishes some legal standing for the sign, where is the legal standard that it doesn't have any weight?

 

[stephen87]

StandingReady, here's a post from another INGO user, posted on a different site.

as it was explained to me by my legal beagle, a buisness open to the public invites you in and therefore can not have you charged with trespassing for refusing to leave when asked to do so for having a firearm. In indiana it would be considered discrimination. He also added that he would take my case if that happened pro bono and if we won he would only ask for ten percent of the winnings

His LEGAL BEAGLE says that they do not hold weight of law. Until your animal that practices lawyery states otherwise, and wins in court, I'll keep believing the other lawyers that have already weighed in.

 

[SteveM4A1]

His LEGAL BEAGLE says that they do not hold weight of law. Until your animal that practices lawyery states otherwise, and wins in court, I'll keep believing the other lawyers that have already weighed in.

^^Ding Ding Winner Winner.