Ignoring No Gun Sign=Trespassing

[Roadie]

I know we have discussed this before, but the subject was brought up again during discussion I was involved with on FB. This person claims his friend was immediately arrested just for ignoring a No Gun sign. I call BS.. thoughts?

Let me tell you real life fact and experience right here in the state of Indiana and then tell me its not true.

In Bloomington, Indiana, it was a retail business that has a no guns allowed sign posted right on the front door. My friend is supportive of guns just like you guys are, so he said forget that I have my "Second Amendment" to back me up.

He went in, the worker noticed the weapon, called the cops, and he was arrested. I was almost arrested cause they thought I might have one since I was with him. There was no word exchanged, no arguments, he just went and called the cops.

He had a low bail, got out and went to court. They charged him with trespassing. The judge himself said that he understands the controversy about the Second Amendment, but also acknowledges the right of the store owner as well to "facilitate a business as he pleases since he pays the taxes on the location". The business owners rights outweigh the carriers rights in this instance because "it didnt cross any racial, cultural or sexual orientation guidelines that is regulated by the federal government".

He also said that since it was known, by signage in this case, that guns were not allowed, it s automatic tresspassing.

He was cool though and gave him a $1 fine and court costs and it was erased from his record since he stayed out of trouble for a year.

So yes, you can be arrested and charged if the police and prosecutor decides to do it.

 

[locki433]

I would also call BS

 

[Echelon]

Have you found anything on MyCase (mycase.in.gov) to substantiate his claim? Not sure how the "erased from his record" part would change the MyCase listings though...

 

[Sylvain]

Maybe he refused to leave and made a scene when the cops showed up and that's why he was arrested.

 

[Joniki]

I have to call BS as well...

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Give me the cause number please.

The judge himself said that he understands the controversy about the Second Amendment, but also acknowledges the right of the store owner as well to "facilitate a business as he pleases since he pays the taxes on the location". The business owners rights outweigh the carriers rights in this instance because "it didnt cross any racial, cultural or sexual orientation guidelines that is regulated by the federal government".

Who was the judge?

Why is the judge saying all of this at the initial hearing? What judge does a running commentary of his cases? Does the judicial commission know that a judge is doing this?

 

[jbombelli]

I call BS. I'd like to read the documentation/arrest report.

 

[mrjarrell]

Yep, I'm going with the BS flag, too. It's only trespassing if you refuse to leave once told to. Ignoring a sign that has no force of law is not trespassing.

 

[Sylvain]

Give me the cause number please.

Oh come on!

Just get your BS flag already!

 

[MAJB Retired]

I'm with everybody else, it's not trespassing if you leave when asked to.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

He was cool though and gave him a $1 fine and court costs and it was erased from his record since he stayed out of trouble for a year.

A fine means he was convicted, if he was convicted it was not "erased" off his record. Even if "expunged" it can still be found.

I want the cause number.

 

[1775usmarine]

I would say a lot of info is missing like posted above maybe he refused and got into with the cops.

 

[Thor]

BS...as Kirk says, case number please.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I would say a lot of info is missing like posted above maybe he refused and got into with the cops.

All our questions can be answered with a cause number (it will give us the court, the filing date, the offense, the docket history, the disposition, etc.). I'd like the cause number please.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Sylvain]

I think we will need more BS flags.

 

[ModernGunner]

'Curious' how many details are lacking, and would be readily stated IF the case were legit: 'Friends' name, name of store, name of Judge, and so forth.

While the commenter may not know the cause number, etc. IF this were true the commenter would certainly know the name of the store, etc., since he was allegedly present.

Appears to be another one of those 'I knew a guy whose friends-brothers-uncles-sister-in-laws-nephews-neighbor...' stories. JMO.

 

[BiscuitNaBasket]

If the story is true, he was charged for trespassing NOT for ignoring a "no guns" sign.

 

[VUPDblue]

ignoring a "no guns" sign does not fit the legal definition of trespassing

 

[Cameramonkey]

Maybe he refused to leave and made a scene when the cops showed up and that's why he was arrested.

Winner winner, chicken dinner!

He didnt get arrested for entering with a firearm. He was arrested for refusing to leave when asked. (assuming it actually happened since we have no case#)

ETA: I think his buddy is confusing "private business" with "county courthouse". THAT will also make the FB post more believable.