I know there are multiple old threads talking about "No Firearms" signs in Indiana, but I am wondering specifically if there is anything official stating this fact for Indiana? Or is the silence of the law on "No Firearms" signs the basis for this conclusion?
My question is asking if the law speaks to this or if it is silent. What I am gathering thus far is that it is silent on the issue. I'm originally from Michigan, but I moved to Tennessee, then Kentucky, now across the Ohio to Indiana. Basically I'm just trying to keep up with the law. There are quite a lot of No Firearms sign in Louisville, KY it seems. So I am coming from that context.
Under Indiana law, if you break that private property rule, they can trespass you by calling the police and telling them you are no longer welcome. You are not charged until you come back a second time. (or refuse to leave when asked/trespassed)
I dont see how you could be trespassed automatically so that as soon as the police arrive you are cuffed and stuffed just because you broke a rule that isnt against the law, just against what that person wants happening on their property.
CC, keep your mouth shut and dont worry about it. And if you are really worried about it, Just dont go to that business and give them your money. Vote with your feet. Of course I recommend telling them that you arent going to do business with them and why, otherwise they wont know that they arent getting your money. If enough of us complain, they may change their policy.
NO.
You can be trespassed off the property if you refuse to leave
NO.
You can be trespassed off the property if you refuse to leave
It is my nonlegal understanding that IF the sign is worded in a very specific way, as an example: "No firearms are allowed. Any person carrying a firearm is not welcome and considered trespassing." Something like that allows the property owner to have you "cuffed and stuffed" without asking you to leave first.
However, most signs are not worded in the fashion required to "cuff and stuff" and therefore the belligerent must first be asked to leave.
Note that I am NOT completely defending this position, only allowing that a minor exception to the general rule does not fall through the cracks of understanding.
Regards,
Doug
I dont know of any LEO in Indiana that would haul you away on the spot because of a sign, even if it were possible to do so. They would likely ask you to leave the premises with them and if you obey, will send you on your way. Now if you were noncompliant, or they had ulterior motives, maybe. (need a convenient excuse to search you, etc)
After all, without standards for signage, how do they prove you actually SAW the sign? I believe that is why states like OH have such specific signage requirements. That allows us to know where to look for the sign, and make sure it is of an appropriate size so it catches our eye. If they forgot a sign on one of the doors, the sign is inside on a wall you may not have looked at, the sign is too small to catch your eye, etc. it doesnt count. Imagine inconsistent speed limit signs for example. How could we be expected to know how fast to go if everybody's signs were different, or some jackwagon of a podunk town decided to put a TEENY TINY reduced speed limit sign just to catch speeders coming through his town.
But welcome to Indiana where we are a bit laid back compared to our neighbors.
I dont see how you could be trespassed automatically so that as soon as the police arrive you are cuffed and stuffed just because you broke a rule that isnt against the law, just against what that person wants happening on their property.
Others may correct me if I'm wrong. The difference between Indiana and those other states is that Indiana has nothing on the books about it where the other states do. You don't need a law stating something is legal, only if it's illegal. If there is no law against it then it's legal. Once those other states put something on the books they had defined it. Since there is nothing in the IC about it then there is no restrictions on it.
In other words, it's legal since there is nothing saying it isn't.
It is my nonlegal understanding that IF the sign is worded in a very specific way, as an example: "No firearms are allowed. Any person carrying a firearm is not welcome and considered trespassing." Something like that allows the property owner to have you "cuffed and stuffed" without asking you to leave first.
However, most signs are not worded in the fashion required to "cuff and stuff" and therefore the belligerent must first be asked to leave.
Note that I am NOT completely defending this position, only allowing that a minor exception to the general rule does not fall through the cracks of understanding.
Regards,
Doug
I dont know of any LEO in Indiana that would haul you away on the spot because of a sign, even if it were possible to do so. They would likely ask you to leave the premises with them and if you obey, will send you on your way. Now if you were noncompliant, or they had ulterior motives, maybe. (need a convenient excuse to search you, etc)
After all, without standards for signage, how do they prove you actually SAW the sign? I believe that is why states like OH have such specific signage requirements.
Flat out No Trespassing is quite different than being there lawfully EXCEPT for something on your person. Apples and oranges.
The former there is absolutely ZERO excuse for the Trespasser to be there. ZERO. The latter it is not automatically obvious and there can be a legitimate reason to be there.
Walking into my private home without my permission and without an invite, is MUCH different than ticking off the owner of the QwikEMart where you are allowed to be otherwise except for an arbitrary rule.
And once again, it hinges on the officer. Kut sees you in my house and he knows you arent supposed to be there under any circumstance, there is no reason not to arrest you. However if he is notified I disqualified myself from being there because I am carrying, he is less likely to arrest me.
Yes, it can happen. Not saying it cant. Just like you can be suffocated on the sidewalk for selling individual cigarettes. But its not likely to a reasonable person.
There have been at least 3 (I think more but not positive) attorneys on this site weigh in on it, all have agreed that a properly worded sign would be enough by itself for arrest.
Why is a no trespassing sign any different than any other denial of entry sign? How about "employee's only beyond this point, all others are denied entry"? Whether you have a legitimate reason to be there doesn't matter if you are not the owner or have a contractual interest in the property. My kids drone crashed on someone's property, they have a no trespass sign up. Do I have the right to go on their property to retrieve my son's toy? Look at hunting, I shoot a deer, it runs and drops dead 3 ft over the property line. I have a legitimate reason to go, I can still be arrested unless I have permission from the property owner.
There have been at least 3 (I think more but not positive) attorneys on this site weigh in on it, all have agreed that a properly worded sign would be enough by itself for arrest.