This is a discussion on Buffalo Wild Wing. within the Businesses Against Firearms & 2nd Amendment forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by walt629 Nothing like a good game of craps! UM... I prefer to do that in the head!!!!!...
I used to be a government-educated stooge. By the grace of God, I repent. -Robert Burris
Certainly glad my local bww does not have these signs posted.... matter of fact last time I was there I was carrying eating with my family ... along with bout 20 officers at some meeting two tables away....
Indiana Code 35-43-2
Criminal trespass; denial of entry; permission to enter; exceptions
Sec. 2. (a) A person who:
(1) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally enters the real property of another person after having been denied entry by the other person or that person's agent;
(2) not having a contractual interest in the property, knowingly or intentionally refuses to leave the real property of another person after having been asked to leave by the other person or that person's agent;It would appear that if a gun-buster sign is conspicuously posted at the main entrance in such a way that it is likely, not guaranteed, just likely, to come to the attention of the general public, then entry to the establishment by a person CCW would constitute entering the real property after having been denied entry. Looks like I've been wrong about gun-busters in Indiana. Merely being in the establishment while CCW with a gun-buster on the front door is black letter law trespassing. It also says nothing about auxiliary entrances, just the main entrance. So, seeing a gun-buster on the main entrance and then going around to the side entrance where there is no gun-buster would still be trespassing by someone CCW, while seeing a gun-buster on an auxiliary entrance and going around to the main entrance would NOT constitute trespassing.(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
Of course, at the local mall, the no-firearms policy is written in letters about 1/8" tall near the bottom of a plaque off to the side, next to a soda machine which shadows it from the mercury vapour lighting, of a 10-door double-bulkhead atrium. I would not think that was likely to come to the attention of the public, so CCW at the mall is still not trespassing until ordered to leave by mall cops.
This Indiana trespass law is written such that even if the General Assembly adopted something like the Texas 30.06 statute, it would still be trespassing if a business used a generic gun-buster since the language used is either/or.
When they "Nudge. Shove. Shoot.",
Don't retreat. Just reload.
In Kentucky, they do not carry the weight of law. If they ask me to leave and I refuse, it's a trespass. If I'm ever asked, I will leave.
Further, I disagree with the property rights assertion. If I own a building open to the public, can I ban people of a different race or religion? Can I ban someone who carries in cigarettes but does not smoke them? Of course not. Seeing the sign, walking back to your car to stow your gun is riskier than taking it in. I would like to ask the owners of those restaurants if they would rather I carry or the guy who just broke into my car carry it. What is safer?
These companies put up these signs under pressure from their insurance companies. Insurance companies are becoming a defacto government. The insurance company is only interested in reducing liability NOT in improving safety. Believe me, there is a difference. If someone walks into a restaurant and guns down 10 people, there is no liability, Mr Insurance Man is happy. If someone returns fire and kills the intruder before he kills the other 8 people, there is a risk of lawsuit.
These signs become back door gun bans.
Definitely, if you own private property that is not open to the public, then property rights come into play.
The two things that were wrong with the OP's actions that day, IMHO, are:
That he gave $ to a bass-ackwards business, and that he posted the incident here at all. Period.
1)"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." -Thomas Jefferson.
2)"Imagine how gun control might be stomped if GOA or SAF had the (compromising) NRA's 4 million members!" -Me. http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/nraletter.htm
So I suppose the "No shirt - no shoes - no service" signs don't carry the weight of law, either? And those signs have no place on a business that's open to the public, right? Same with the signs on some banks these days taht tell you to remove hats, hoods, and sunglasses?
Disclaimer: In no way should any post be deemed legal advice and no such legal advice is being given. All posts are for entertainment purposes only and should not be construed as rendering legal advice as no such attorney client relationship is created herein.
Sure, they can ban smoking. But read my post again, can they ban me carrying cigarettes? Of Course not.
As I also stated, in Kentucky, they have to ask you to leave first. Regardless of the sign. However, I would suggest that every Kentuckian verify that. Anyone who uses advice on an internet forum to determine the legality of an issue, is a fool.
This is a sad state of affairs. Eventually, everyone will have these stupid signs up. Their insurance companies are forcing them to have them up. More and more firearms will be left in the cars, or worse, in the home.
Imagine being a bad guy, seeing a guy walking to the restaurant, reading the sign, turning around and heading back to his car, dropping something off and then returning to the restaurant. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what was just dropped off. A door wedge and 30 seconds later, the door is open and your firearm is heading down the street.