Open carry in PA

[IronSight]

Originally Posted by mbc314

You're making the "apples to oranges" comparative argument. You are granted the right to drive, by privelege; NOT by RIGHT. You are granted the RIGHT to be armed, by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, and also the Commonwealt of PA's Constitution. BIG difference.

Why don't you go voluntarily surrender and have your LTCF revoked, then carry a firearm concealed or in a vehicle (or open, given our state of emergency), point an officer to the location of your firearm and tell him you're carrying in violation of 18 Pa.C.S. § 6106. Better yet, go do that in Philly; then come back here and tell us all how the constitution granted your rights while you defend charges of carrying without a license.

In the context of the trespassing statute both an LTCF and a drivers' license are comparable as NEITHER is a license to remain on private property.

QUOTE: The second amendment is the same way, a license to carry is not the same as a license to remain on someone else's private property. The fact that you could confuse the two is astounding and reveals quite a lot of the lack of logic your position requires. END QUOTE

Not even CLOSE to "the same way." A LTCF is a defacto certificate, issued by authority of the Commonwealth under both the U.S. and the Commonweatlh Constitutions in this, "Shall Issue" jurisdiction. That is, barring a LAWFUL reason to deny issue (criminal history, mental illness), the so-called license MUST be PROVIDED. A drivers license is merely a certificate, issued to illustrate that you are experienced enough to enjoy the PRIVELEGE to operate a motor vehicle on PUBLIC roads of the Commonwealth, with NO relevance to you RIGHTS under Federal or State laws. The fact that YOU could COMPARE the two (driver's license, and LTCF) is astounding and reveals a lot of the lack of your understanding of CONSTITUTIONAL law on both a state and federal level.

Actually this tells me that you don't understand the fact that there is plenty of case law surrounding the RIGHT to travel. Again, in the context of the trespassing statute both are equally comparable.

QUOTE: This is a pro-2a forum, but it's also a forum where most members respect the private property rights of businesses even when we disagree with the decision of a business. Businesses open to the public CAN and WILL restrict your rights and so long as they don't discriminate against protected classes (which gun owners are not) there's not a thing you can do about it.

Basically, there are three types of private property. A person's residence, i.e. residential property - the Castle Doctrine applies conclusively there. A private busienss (i.e., a industrial site where ONLY employees, vendors, and other invited persons are permitted) is another; and then there is retail - open and accessible to the public. A person, NOT committing ANY crime, cannot be told to leave because of how he parts his hair, or how he dresses, or if he [lawfully] possesses a firearm; AND SO LONG AS HE IS NOT CREATING A DISTURBANCE. (Please, don't tell me that I created a disturbance - that is not, was not and should not be the issue of this discussion.)

You don't have to be creating a disturbance, simply being there in violation of the business's policy is a disturbance enough. However, please show me the imaginary statute and/or case law backing up your argument that a disturbance must be made. I'll wait for you to do so.

Let me restate what I said in my first post. I was NOT openly carrying. The exposed firearm was completely by accident - and since it wasn't my normal carry (1911), I simply did not notice the comparatively very light Walther had my T-shirt above it. Okay, "My bad" about that. Hang me!
The clerk stated something like, "We don't allow people in here with guns," whereupon, surprised, I felt and found the gun was not concealed. I actually apologized, and explained that I have a CONCEALED carry permit as I covered the offending item. Now, the clerk and I were in the very BACK of the store - not a single other person was in sight - so no one else as far as I know, was even aware of the event. The clerk then moved close ... "got in my face" as they say, and said I'd have to leave. I stated something like, "That's not going to happen," or similar wording, but was CALM, and QUIET (no disturbance) and actually not even being smartassed with him, but added, "... and get out of my face."
Point in FACT: Do that to a policeman - get "in his face" and he can arrest you for "violating his space," literally - that's a seperate discussion, mentioned only to illustrate that the clerk literally OVERSTEPPED his boundaries. I will emphasize that I was still calm, quiet and not sarcastic in the least - certainly not by tone or even posture.[/color]

The clerk may have been rude, but that doesn't affect your trespassing at all.

QUOTE: You encountered a cop that doesn't understand the law, and it's blatantly obvious you don't get it either, but ignorance is not an excuse and being ignorant doesn't grant you immunity from criticism for posting your account of getting away with criminal trespass.

Please! What qualifies you, to critique any police officer's understanding of the law; but especially a State Trooper - they are not merely part time, barely certified Act 120 people. They ARE cognizant of the law; and AS I HAVE SAID... but will say it AGAIN since you seem to have ignored or missed it, Troopers get SPECIFIC training now on Open Carry and the 2nd Amendement, IF FOR NO OTHER REASON than people who make a big issue of it.

I've read this training, have you? Please, I'll wait for you to provide the training documents for troopers that tell them a LTCF is also a license to remain on property after being informed by staff of the business that they don't allow firearms.

I'll wait.

In fact, the Trooper and I even had a casual discussion about that very issue. He stated something to the effect of, "We have to be careful about the '2nd Amendment people,' and the open carry issue." He was not bemoaning the ISSUE, but just stating what he thought may not have been obvious to me.
I'm curious about your determining that I even want your immunity from anything; but challenge your standing to suggest that ANYONE is "ignorant."
What qualifies YOU, to even suggest that a policeman's understanding of the law, or even my knowledge. You seem to just want to piss in the wind. Finally, even IF I was wrong, it is NOT "Criminal Trespass" (Misdemeanor CRIME) in any sense; and at WORSE it would have been Defiant Trespass (Summary Offense - NOT a CRIME per se).

Actually, I'm not interested in pissing in the wind; I'm interested in correcting a gross misunderstanding of the plain wording of a simple statute.

Again, I'll wait for you to show where in PSP's training your argument is supported AT ALL.

Don't bother responding - your Ad Hominem retorts are baseless, misinformed and tiresome because dealing with trolls is tantamount to dealing with a child.[/color]

HA! You've made 23 posts and yet I'm the troll.

Sorry, I got a good laugh out of that absurd assertion.

Originally Posted by Gun

Are you saying that if you have an LTCF, you commit no offense of trespassing?

That's essentially exactly what he's saying.

[TaePo]

Maybe I should let this thread die naturally but I think some explanations are in order.

We have two conflicting rights, the owner's right to control his property and the people on it versus a person's right to keep and bear arms (not just guns btw).

The question becomes, at what point does the individual right to keep and bear arms go from exercising an individual right (just as the property owner exercises his right to control said property) to an armed occupation?

It is quite possible the property owner (whether statistically justified or not) 'feels' better limiting the amount of firearms. Perhaps he is the only one and perhaps one or two criminals occasionally. Some who might commit crimes, some who may be passing through.

If I open my land to public hunting, I should not have to allow the child predator in the neighborhood access to hide in back of my house and watch my children. I can personally ask them to leave or forcibly remove them (which includes having the police do it). I don't have to tell them why, just that they are not welcome and to stay away.

Perhaps I should post my property and only allow access on a case by case basis to those I know or who know me or are brave enough to ask. I am willing to bet that any legal advice would want to err on the side of caution but IANAL.

I am clean and green. But I am forested clean and green, which means the public is not allowed access to my property, unlike other definitions of clean and green. I made sure before I signed up as open lands clean and green means anybody can walk up near your house and have a picnic like a public park (or so I am to understand).

So, private property rights are quite important.