READ FIRST: Where you CAN and CANNOT Carry weapons in the State of Pennsylvania

[Mtbkski]

The money inside is protected and backed by the federal goverment. That is why everyone assumes they are FEDERAL buildings.

But as PaPatriot said. NOPE, they are privately owned businesses. Well for now anyway.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Mtbkski

The money inside is protected and backed by the federal goverment. ...

Otherwise known as "insured".

[Mtbkski]

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

Otherwise known as "insured".

I just couldn't think of that word for anything when I was writting that up. Thanks.

[knight0334]

Federal Parks and Reserves updated. Added warning for buildings on said lands.

State Parks are no-long prohibited, but does require a LTCF or reciprocal license/permit.

[dogngun]

I used to work at a PA State Hospital, and they WILL FIRE IMMEDIATELY any employee found with a firearm of any type on the property, even locked in a car. They also state that they have the right to inspect your car and refusal to allow inspection is also grounds for termination.

They REQUIRE all LEOs to leave any firearms with the securoty office before they enter any hospital building, even Spate Troopers picking up a patient for trial or trrasnport to a prison.

They are very much out of control, and I'm glad to not be working there any more.

mark

[indianjack]

Originally Posted by dogngun

I used to work at a PA State Hospital, and they WILL FIRE IMMEDIATELY any employee found with a firearm of any type on the property, even locked in a car. They also state that they have the right to inspect your car and refusal to allow inspection is also grounds for termination.

They REQUIRE all LEOs to leave any firearms with the securoty office before they enter any hospital building, even Spate Troopers picking up a patient for trial or trrasnport to a prison.

They are very much out of control, and I'm glad to not be working there any more.

mark

You should inform the NRA of this, they fought a ban on firearms in vehicles in Oklahoma.

[JCWohlschlag]

Originally Posted by indianjack

You should inform the NRA of this, they fought a ban on firearms in vehicles in Oklahoma.

Be mindful of what kind of regulation you are writing about and who you expect to react to such regulation. The regulations hospitals have against the possession of firearms is policy, not law, much akin to the policies set forth by most all, if not all, colleges in Pennsylvania. This thread is about where it is legal and illegal, as in by law, to possess a firearm, not all the places where it is against policy. This thread would grow to several hundred pages long if not constrained as such. Generally, when only violating a property’s policy, the only recourse the property has is to ask you to leave and threaten trespass charges if you do not comply.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by indianjack

You should inform the NRA of this, they fought a ban on firearms in vehicles in Oklahoma.

It might work for a publicly owned property, but in PA its been long established that property owner/tenant rights prevail. The NRA will not win a court case in PA against private property.

[knight0334]

No trespassing sign info added.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by knight0334

No trespassing sign info added.

is this what you added...

However they do set a conditional permission to be on the property. Violation of that condition is trespassing instantly. Such signs serve as first notice to a summary trespassing violation and you can be cited without a verbal warning.

if so, what prompted you to add that at this point?

did you find an actual case that backs up the notion that a no-guns sign is actually considered to give "notice against trespassing" and, thus, ignoring it is sufficient to constitute trespassing under PA statutes?

i'm not saying that could not happen...but your wording is very positive and definitive and does not leave anything in question.

up to this point, i don't think the issue had been settled definitively. gunlawyer has, to my understanding, opined that it *might be*, but i haven't seen him say it definitely is.

so, i'm curious if anything has changed?

(note: i think we should all respect no guns signs...as i believe strongly in private property rights. but, i'm still not sure just ignoring the sign is enough to actually be breaking the no trespassing law if the sign does not actually give "notice against trespassing"--whatever exactly that is.)