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

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

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.

I agree. I think the exact verbage used by GunLawyer would be best. It alludes to the potential problem, without outright claiming it's a definite, which IMO, is an accurate assessment given the lack of clear statutory wording and case law on the subject.

I also take issue with the "Sheriffs aren't required to do a transfer". I believe it's absolutely a legal *requirement* (and we can discuss why), but because no one has pushed back on a refusal (via the courts), it remains a pipe dream.

[knight0334]

A case specific to "no gun" type signs - no, I haven't. However you can ask any trucker that has been cited for pulling their rigs into places marked "no trucks". Its already established that landowners can regulate who, what, how, etc things are done on their lands - a specific case against carrying isn't needed.

The signs do create a conditional permission, whether you ignore them or didn't see them it doesn't matter so long as its been posted in a way to draw attention.

If an officer decides to cite you is up to him or her. It is a simple fact that you can get cited for trespassing for pulling rigs into places marked "No Trucks", or cited for hunting on lands posted "Fishing Access Only", turning on lands marked against such activities - without the landowner needed to raise complaint. Its only logical to conclude that the No Gun types sign provides the same restrictions to ingress and egress on properties. ...Which is what GunLawyer001 pretty much eluded to. You can pick out any citation on lands that posted a restriction as proof. The mere facts that you have a US and State protected right to carry and statutes providing for lawful carrying doesn't outweigh the authority of landowners to regulate ingress and egress on properties by means of signs or verbal command.

18.35.3503.b.1.ii provides for the violation without any verbal warning. Whether the LEO does so is his discretion, but he can do so. But dont fool yourself for a moment to think the signs aren't binding, find the first lot marked "No Turning" and let yourself get caught.

I can mark my lands as "Horse Riding Only", and you can sure bet that you can be cited for riding an ATV on it.

The only possible defense is that the landowner didn't post the restriction to an extent that would draw attention. Which even in that case, if you see a poorly placed sign - you've been fairly warned as to the conditions.

[vetter3006]

Does any one have a copy of the Bill or the Bill number which explains about carring in State Parks. I would like to look it up and read it for myself to know more about it. Thanks.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by knight0334

The only possible defense is that the landowner didn't post the restriction to an extent that would draw attention.

another possible defense is that the sign did not actually give "notice against trespassing" as is required by the trespassing statute.

in the case of trucks, atv's, etc...were they prosecuted for violating the trespassing statute or some other statute that, for example, specifically makes it illegal to ride an ATV on someone's land without permission?

if they were successfully prosecuted under the trespassing statute, what did the signs actually say? did the defense raise the issue of the sign not actually giving notice against trespassing?

[gnbrotz]

Originally Posted by vetter3006

Does any one have a copy of the Bill or the Bill number which explains about carring in State Parks. I would like to look it up and read it for myself to know more about it. Thanks.

HB1845. State Park info starts on page 14, line 5.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

another possible defense is that the sign did not actually give "notice against trespassing" as is required by the trespassing statute.

in the case of trucks, atv's, etc...were they prosecuted for violating the trespassing statute or some other statute that, for example, specifically makes it illegal to ride an ATV on someone's land without permission?

if they were successfully prosecuted under the trespassing statute, what did the signs actually say? did the defense raise the issue of the sign not actually giving notice against trespassing?

Its trespassing by default to go onto someone's land without permission, whether it is posted or not. This isn't Scotland*, which is like one of a handful of countries where there are no trespass laws. It becomes defiant or criminal trespassing when you do so after being warned(oral/signs/etc), verbal command, going over a fence/bushes, etc.

Just because the land isn't tagged, it doesn't mean it isn't trespassing. You do have to figure in implied consent though. Its fair to assume you're allowed to park in a mall parking lot to do business in the mall. But you'd be trespassing if you parked there, then walked across the road to shop at Walmart. If the mall posted signs saying "Mall Customers Only", you're defiantly trespassing when you go to shop over at Walmart instead.

Its a rare thing to see enforced, but it is true.. You are trespassing when you do not comply with the terms that the landowner has allowed. You are defiantly or criminally trespassing when you done so after having fair warning to not do such or to leave.

As for those signs I mentioned and what they said:
1. "No Trucks" (exit 78 I-80, look at several of the businesses - its a weekly event)
2. "No Turning" - (cant remember that location)
3. "Fishing Access Only"
4. "No Hunting"
...and others.


We post on our land "Hunting By Permission Only" and "No ATVs or Snowmobiles". And dont think for a second that PAGC Warden R. Hartless that owns the adjacent lands wont cite you for trespassing when you drive your 4-wheeler down the pipeline that crosses the NE corner of our property.

My uncle's lands about 2 miles away is marked "No Fishing", and "No Doe Hunting, All Others Are Welcome". You will get popped for defiant trespassing if you try to sneak in with a fishing pole to his swamp.

Yes, folks are prosecuted under 3503 and were either found guilty or paid the fine outright. You can ask Magistrate Beck and President Judge Foradora in JeffCo if you need further proof. Mag. Pat Ford in DuBois, Judges Ammerman and Cherry in Clearfield too.

I think both Clearfield and JeffCo lack coded ordinances setting trespass posting requirements, thus falling on common/case law. Former Sheriff Demko, local judges and magistrates have all said the practice is signs(not an exact quote) "no more than 100ft apart and eye level in the places where access is common and/or a problem, and as the land owner sees fit in other areas so long as its in a manner to likely to draw attention. If you dont want someone doing some certain thing, post it and the restriction will adhere to all that enter." ...which is how they will base their judgment here.


Your municipality or county may have certain posting requirements on how many signs per feet, what they must say, etc. ...or they may not.
*(and its conditional in Scotland too, gates must be left as they were found, no littering, etc)

[40 cal]

There has been a bunch of questions about carrying in schools, college, ect. But, My girlfriend goes to hacc. Since I been there with her a few times I havent saw no firearm signs around the place. Could I CC there, Since no signs an how would I be aware of there policy if they had one since im not a student? Since I wouldnt be breaking no laws because its privite property( isnt it? ). What would happen if they found out. Just ask me to leave?

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Its trespassing by default to go onto someone's land without permission, whether it is posted or not.

...

Just because the land isn't tagged, it doesn't mean it isn't trespassing.

not according to PA statutory law. all of the various forms of trespassing in the statutes require that the person know he is not allowed to be there in order to be trespassing. if land is not posted, you may not be able to prove the person knew he was not allowed to be there.

§ 3503. Criminal trespass.
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or
surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied
structure or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure
or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the
third degree, and an offense under paragraph (1)(ii) is a
felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking,
intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through
an opening not designed for human access.
(b) Defiant trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or
reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;
(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed
to exclude intruders;
(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or
reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at
each entrance of school grounds that visitors are
prohibited without authorization from a designated
school, center or program official; or
(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave
school grounds as communicated by a school, center or
program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement
officer.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense
under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third
degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally
communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other
authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v)
constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it
is a summary offense.
(b.1) Simple trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in
any place for the purpose of:
(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant
of the premises;
(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon
the premises; or
(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.
(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a
summary offense.
(b.2) Agricultural trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so he:
(i) enters or remains on any agricultural or other
open lands when such lands are posted in a manner
prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the
person's attention or are fenced or enclosed in a manner
manifestly designed to exclude trespassers or to confine
domestic animals; or
(ii) enters or remains on any agricultural or other
open lands and defies an order not to enter or to leave
that has been personally communicated to him by the owner
of the lands or other authorized person.
(2) An offense under this subsection shall be graded as
follows:
(i) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) constitutes a
misdemeanor of the third degree and is punishable by
imprisonment for a term of not more than one year and a
fine of not less than $250.
(ii) An offense under paragraph (1)(ii) constitutes
a misdemeanor of the second degree and is punishable by
imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and a
fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase
"agricultural or other open lands" shall mean any land on
which agricultural activity or farming as defined in section
3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism) is conducted or any
land populated by forest trees of any size and capable of
producing timber or other wood products or any other land in
an agricultural security area as defined in the act of June
30, 1981 (P.L.128, No.43), known as the Agricultural Area
Security Law, or any area zoned for agricultural use.
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this
section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an
offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the
public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions
imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the
premises, or other person empowered to license access
thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "school
grounds" means any building of or grounds of any elementary or
secondary publicly funded educational institution, any
elementary or secondary private school licensed by the
Department of Education, any elementary or secondary parochial
school, any certified day-care center or any licensed preschool
program.
(June 23, 1978, P.L.497, No.76, eff. 60 days; Oct. 27, 1995,
P.L.334, No.53, eff. 60 days; Dec. 3, 1998, P.L.933, No.121,
eff. imd.; Oct. 2, 2002, P.L.806, No.116, eff. imd.)

2002 Amendment. Act 116 amended subsec. (b) and added
subsec. (d).
1998 Amendment. Act 121 added subsec. (b.2).
1995 Amendment. Act 53 added subsec. (b.1).
1978 Amendment. Act 76 amended subsec. (a).
Cross References. Section 3503 is referred to in sections
2710, 3311, 6105 of this title; section 2314 of Title 34 (Game);
section 3573 of Title 42 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure).

You are trespassing when you do not comply with the terms that the landowner has allowed.

please cite the section of law that makes this so...especially in the case of a business that is generally open to the public (as that is what is really at issue here).

You are defiantly or criminally trespassing when you done so after having fair warning to not do such or to leave.

agreed...assuming that "fair warning" fulfills the requirements outlined in section 3503(b). the question is...does a no guns sign, when posted on property that is generally open to the public, fulfill those requirements?

I think both Clearfield and JeffCo lack coded ordinances setting trespass posting requirements, thus falling on common/case law.

it shouldn't fall on common/case law. rather, the statutory state law posted above should be applied. how can you be convicted of something that is not defined as a crime in statutory law?

Former Sheriff Demko, local judges and magistrates have all said the practice is signs[i](not an exact quote) "no more than 100ft apart and eye level in the places where access is common and/or a problem, and as the land owner sees fit in other areas so long as its in a manner to likely to draw attention. If you dont want someone doing some certain thing, post it and the restriction will adhere to all that enter." ...which is how they will base their judgment here.

anyone ever appeal any of this to a state court?

also, all of your examples seem to be related to non-commercial property that is not generally open to the public. the "no-guns" sign issue, on the other hand, applies to commercial property that is generally open to the public. so, even if you want to fall back local-level case law, this is apples and oranges.

i'm not saying you are not right...you may be. i don't think anyone knows. but i still have not seen a compelling argument saying you definitely can be convicted of trespass simply for ignoring a no-guns sign. i have also not seen a compelling argument saying you definitely cannot be.

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by 40 cal

There has been a bunch of questions about carrying in schools, college, ect. But, My girlfriend goes to hacc. Since I been there with her a few times I havent saw no firearm signs around the place. Could I CC there, Since no signs an how would I be aware of there policy if they had one since im not a student? Since I wouldnt be breaking no laws because its privite property( isnt it? ). What would happen if they found out. Just ask me to leave?

What is HACC? I'm guessing H***** Area Community College by the letters.. Since that is not a K-12 school PA912 or US922(g) wouldn't apply.

If they dont post the restriction, how are you to know there is one? ...so they cant get you for defiant trespassing if they do indeed have a rule against it? If they do have a rule against it, you're violating the consent or conditions of being there - trespassing, which would require someone to verbally tell you to leave. If you fail to do so it becomes defiant trespassing.

Keep it concealed and no-one will be the wiser.

[ChrisF4i]

Originally Posted by 40 cal

There has been a bunch of questions about carrying in schools, college, ect. But, My girlfriend goes to hacc. Since I been there with her a few times I havent saw no firearm signs around the place. Could I CC there, Since no signs an how would I be aware of there policy if they had one since im not a student? Since I wouldnt be breaking no laws because its privite property( isnt it? ). What would happen if they found out. Just ask me to leave?

It would be stated in the student handbook under rules and regulations or something like that. Since you are not a student there, you obviously haven't read the handbook. If they somehow found that you were carrying they possibly could call the police but as long as you haven't done anything illegal you "shouldn't" have to worry. If security comes up to you and tells you to leave because of the firearm, you should leave immediately.