Signs carry force of law?

[bglaze]

On Handgunlaw.us I noticed a section that says in Indiana, "'No Guns' signs carry the force of law" where criminal trespass is concerned.

They cite this code:

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
(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.


I've always been under the impression that signs really don't mean much where the law is concerned (that they are merely a company policy), but that if a manager or proprietor asks me to leave, I would have to refuse in order to be guilty of trespassing.

Can someone describe to me what this law is saying?

 

[Bill of Rights]

"No guns permitted on premises" does not deny a persen entry. It denies an object entry. I have yet to see such a sign identifying that a person will be charged with trespass for bypassing it.

I am not a lawyer and this post should not be taken as legal advice.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[ElsiePeaRN]

Can someone describe to me what this law is saying?

IANALAIDNSAAHILN but I think the code is referring to explicit "No Trespassing" signs.

 

[ATM]

On Handgunlaw.us I noticed a section that says in Indiana, "'No Guns' signs carry the force of law" where criminal trespass is concerned...

Gary Slider, the individual who posted that [STRIKE]info[/STRIKE] opinion, even came to INGO to research the subject.

He didn't seem to care for the majority concensus here and chose to go with his own opinion of how the law should be interpreted.

Much discussion in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/122250-no_weapons_signs_and_stores.html

Gary entered the thread in post #111.

It does give me pause to the accuracy of that site, but overall I appreciate the effort he has put into gathering information there.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Gary Slider, the individual who posted that [strike]info[/strike] opinion, even came to INGO to research the subject.

He didn't seem to care for the majority concensus here and chose to go with his own opinion of how the law should be interpreted.

Much discussion in this thread:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/122250-no_weapons_signs_and_stores.html

Gary entered the thread in post #111.

It does give me pause to the accuracy of that site, but overall I appreciate the effort he has put into gathering information there.

I had some emails with Mr. Slider some years ago. I had asked if I could use some information from his site with appropriate attribution. I was denied permission to do so without explanation or civility and was unimpressed with him or his partner.

I typically refer people to usacarry.com instead.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[bglaze]

Good to know. Thanks for the responses, guys.

 

[maxmayhem]

This topic is one of my biggest concerns. What are some businesses that posts these kind of restrictions. I will be sure and CC here and avoid being stripped searched.

 

[lovemachine]

This topic is one of my biggest concerns. What are some businesses that posts these kind of restrictions. I will be sure and CC here and avoid being stripped searched.

You won't be stripped search. The only place you'd be stripped search is at the airport. But you'll also be fondled.

 

[maxmayhem]

what?!?

Now I'm miffed....Then what was the lady doing at steak and shake?

You won't be stripped search. The only place you'd be stripped search is at the airport. But you'll also be fondled.

 

[Rookie]

Happy ending?

 

[schafe]

Just the facts that there are both prosecutors and lawyers on both sides of this discussion, and that there is no case law to reference (yet)tells me that this is a giant "gray hole" we could be dragged into.
I go by the philosophy that genuine notification needs to take place for tresspass to occur. To me, that implies that any signage used to charge criminal trespass without personal notification, must be such that it can't be overlooked. For me, missing many of those signs is easy.(Who checks all the little door signs when entering a place of business?) There don't seem to be any standard signage rules in place for this, so untill that happens, it seems to be a legal crapshoot, with the odds stacked slightly in our favor. IANAL, just my

 

[Icarry2]

Warning sign in neon..

At the Hardrock Cafe in Downtown Indy the neon warning sign in the front widow states - "no drugs or nuclear weapons" so I carried right on in..

If we push the grey hole too far it will be come a black hole and it will suck in someone.

I say if your concerned about carrying openly don't, if you want to OC in a place that has a sign, expect to get hasseled. It seems pretty much common sense.

I'm just glad we live in a state where our right to keep and bare arms isn't pee'd on like in the Communist State of Illinois..

 

[PeaShooter]

In my understanding, No Tresspassing signs are absolute. You cannot be on that property. No Weapons signs do not bar everyone from the property, they only inform of an owners rule. You are granted a conditional license to be on the property until it is revoked by the owner. Carrying a weapon, is one of the unlimited number rules the owner may site when revoking your license (asking you to leave). But until they ask you to leave, the implied license that is granted by their being open for business and customers is in force. IANAL, YMMV. I don't see much chance of getting arrested without refusing to leave after being asked.