re: The view smears the good guy with a gun who killed the mass shooting suspect

quote:

---

Well, specific signs, posted in specific places.

---

Again, that is a conclusory statement found in a summary of a handbook that we have not even seen. That is THREE degrees of separation from the statute.

Show me the statute or a case interpreting the statute as you argue. Walk me thru the analysis.

quote:

---

When you violate the agreement you have with a property owner you are breaking the law.

---

Which Law? Got a statute? Link?

quote:

---

I'm not sure how you effectively use a gun with that many rounds in the clip.

---

It’s called a Charge SMG. Shoot one almost daily.

Rules & policies aren’t law, unless they are. Hope you kept that receipt for that Cracker Jack box you got your law degree from?

quote:

---

Which Law? Got a statute? Link?

---

Assuming he isn't talking out of his arse, he's likely referencing 35-43-2-2. Criminal Trespass.

quote:

---

(c) A person has been denied entry under subsection (b)(1) 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;

---

Now, as we've discussed, that doesn't apply here because the mall only has their stated policy with no posted sign. Even if they posted the sign, I'm of the opinion that they wouldn't be successful in trying to bring criminal sanctions on someone who ignored it.

All the propagandists are pissed off that the mass shooter was stopped. That was a situation that had the potential to reach 20+ deaths. Those deaths would've been exploited for weeks, to bludgeon everyone with gun control. The good guy with a gun destroyed the good time the propagandists and government was about to have.

quote:

---

as we've discussed, that doesn't apply here because the mall only has their stated policy with no posted sign. Even if they posted the sign, I'm of the opinion that they wouldn't be successful in trying to bring criminal sanctions on someone who ignored it.

---

Good summary, and I am of the opinion that such prosecution COULD be successful.

To really understand the issue, one must be old enough to have been an adult and to have followed the various legislatures back in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s when carry rights were first being expanded. EVERY state struggled with the balancing of rights between property owners and the new class of people who would be permitted to carry weapons under a (then) concealed carry permit.

MOST people agreed that owners should be able to say “you cannot bring your concealed gun onto my property,” but MOST people also recognized that (if property owners wrote their own signs) there would be endless litigation as to whether the sign provided “adequate notice.”. No one wanted to bury the courts in that sort of ministerial litigation or to expose citizens (on both sides) to that uncertainty.

MOST legislatures resolved this problem by prescribing EXACTLY what sign would be adequate. They chose the wording. The chose the size. They chose the location. Sometimes they chose the damned FONT. These signs and specifications generally applied only to permitted, concealed carry.

As carry rights expanded beyond only PERMITTED, CONCEALED carry, those signs generally did not apply to other forms of carry, because they were generally not WRITTEN for other forms of carry. Someone said earlier in the thread that Illinois still has that sort or regimen … PROBABLY because Illinois has not expanded carry rights, but I have not researched the matter.

quote:

---

Good summary, and I am of the opinion that such prosecution COULD be successful.

---

I'm sure that in some district, with the right circumstances, it's possible someone could face a misdemeanor criminal trespass conviction.

But...that's a whole lot of hurdles in a pretty red state.

Agreed. Most cops and most prosecutors would say to themselves “No harm, no foul,” and use their discretion to decline to cite or prosecute.

Just like most cops don’t give a ticket for 72mph in a 70mph zone. 72mph is still illegal, but you need not worry much about a ticket.

quote:

---

We should have guns but he’s probably a conservative and shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun is what I got out of it

---

That's weird. They're usually so fair and balanced. Wait. Is that the one with those fat shrieking harpies on in the middle of the day? Yeah, they're idiots.