Castle Doctrine question.

[The Unknown 1087]

So I asked in the actual castle doctrine topic awhile ago but never got a true answer.

When this goes into effect you can defend yourself where you are legally allowed to be.

To me this says you cannot defend yourself at malls, or any other stores that say no guns.

Is this correct?

[Statkowski]

Nope, you're wrong.

The law says nothing about malls (or churches, or parks, or bars) being prohibited areas. Ergo, ipso facto, et cetera, it's not illegal for you to be in such places while armed.

You might be violating someone's rules, but that's about all.

[ByblosHex]

So I asked in the actual castle doctrine topic awhile ago but never got a true answer.

When this goes into effect you can defend yourself where you are legally allowed to be.

To me this says you cannot defend yourself at malls, or any other stores that say no guns.

Is this correct?

It is not illegal to be in a mall with a firearm.

[The Unknown 1087]

It is not illegal to be in a mall with a firearm.

But technically you are not welcomed there because of having a firearm. Isnt that tresspassing? Therefor you are legally not allowed to be there?

Or must you be asked first to leave?

I still carry at malls though just CC. So this just has me curious

[ByblosHex]

But technically you are not welcomed there because of having a firearm. Isnt that tresspassing? Therefor you are legally not allowed to be there?

Or must you be asked first to leave?

I still carry at malls though just CC. So this just has me curious

I do not believe that anyone has been convicted of tresspassing for ignoring a "No Firearms" sign in Pa, much like "No Smoking". I believe you must first be asked to leave in most cases. A good way to check this would be to try and find out if anyone was charged/convited of tresspassing for ignoring a "No Skateboarding" sign without first being warned. Since that's likely more common than people being caught CCing Firearms.

In the case of self defense, I'd assume "Tresspassing" would be a part of the case and also would have to be decided during trial. Though I do not believe passing a "No Firearms" sign is enough evidence to constitute criminal tresspassing. If that were the case, Police Officers etc would be tresspassing for entering stores,malls,etc that have "No Firearms" signs, since most do not have LEO or LTCF exceptions or specific enough wording to actually know if you are/are not exempt. If it's fair for LEOs to assume they're exempt, it seems also fair for LTCF holders to assume they're exempt.

Regardless of signage on Private Property, LEO or not you must leave when asked. Try not to get into a self defense situation while in the act of defiant tresspass.

I'm not a lawyer.

[PAS&W]

But technically you are not welcomed there because of having a firearm. Isnt that tresspassing? Therefor you are legally not allowed to be there?
Or must you be asked first to leave?
I still carry at malls though just CC. So this just has me curious

SIGNS have no force of law in PA.

If you are ASKED to leave private property because you have a gun you
must leave or you can be charged with trespassing.

If you comply with the new castle law -
( legally possesed gun , not in a prohibited place , etc )

you can defend yourself legally anywhere.

FYI - I never advertise that I carry , just do my business , and have never been asked to leave anywhere.

[The Unknown 1087]

Thanks guys for the answers!

I understand it now!

[zackattack784]

SIGNS have no force of law in PA.

If you are ASKED to leave private property because you have a gun you
must leave or you can be charged with trespassing.

If you comply with the new castle law -
( legally possesed gun , not in a prohibited place , etc )

you can defend yourself legally anywhere.

FYI - I never advertise that I carry , just do my business , and have never been asked to leave anywhere.

This is wrong, yet again. And people have been charged with trespassing for ignoring signs (not necessarily no firearms signs) without first being asked to leave. Don't tell people signs mean nothing, because they do mean something. Here's an article where people were cited for trespassing without first being asked to leave.
http://www.wfmz.com/lehighvalleynews...81/detail.html

ETA: Here's a REAL lawyers opinion on the subject.

Please stop saying this, it's not necessarily true, no matter how many times it's repeated.

If you carry a gun into a place that is posted against guns, you could arguably be prosecuted under the trespassing statute, for doing something on the property that you have been placed on notice you are without license to do.

Signs have legal weight. The signs in the parking garage that say "not responsible for lost items" have legal weight. Signs are not a legal nullity, and in the absence of case law interpreting the trespassing statute to clearly negate the "no guns" signs, we do a disservice to people by giving them the false sense of confidence that they are free to ignore these signs.

It's true that other states have specific statutes giving weight to these specific signs, and PA does not have such a law. However, that's not the same as saying that there's no operative difference between having a sign and not having a sign. You can't be prosecuted in PA under the "disobeying a no weapons sign" statute because there is none, but we do have a "trespassing" statute. A sign puts you on notice as to the terms of the permission granted to you to use the private property of another. If you go outside those terms of use, you are trespassing.

This is a legal matter, it's a legal conclusion, and you need to have a firm legal basis before telling anyone that it's safe to say "screw you" to a property owner and make him tell you face-to-face what his sign already advised you.

[ByblosHex]

This is wrong, yet again. And people have been charged with trespassing for ignoring signs (not necessarily no firearms signs) without first being asked to leave. Don't tell people signs mean nothing, because they do mean something. Here's an article where people were cited for trespassing without first being asked to leave.
http://www.wfmz.com/lehighvalleynews...81/detail.html

ETA: Here's a REAL lawyers opinion on the subject.

"you could arguably be prosecuted under the trespassing statute" isn't the same as not being allowed to act in self defense under HB40. He was discussing a Tresspassing Statute, not HB40.

I would definitely take his advice over anyone elses' on the forum, but his post is on another topic, on another subject. This is about Use of Force in Self Defense. It would be best for him to make an appearance on this particular topic instead of taking a post from another topic at the risk of being out of context,

[zackattack784]

"you could arguably be prosecuted under the trespassing statute" isn't the same as not being allowed to act in self defense under HB40. He was discussing a Tresspassing Statute, not HB40.

I would definitely take his advice over anyone elses' on the forum, but his post is on another topic, on another subject. This is about Use of Force in Self Defense. It would be best for him to make an appearance on this particular topic instead of taking a post from another topic at the risk of being out of context,

If you can "arguably" be charged with trespassing by ignoring a no firearms sign then you could arguably have no right to be in that place, thereby forgoing any HB40 protection.

The OP asked a question and everyone tried to convince him with 100% certainty that if he had to defend himself while in a place that was posted against carrying firearms he would be legal. I'm not going to say with 100% certainty that it's illegal, but you're doing a disservice to the OP by telling him he would be legal when it's a gray area at best.

(2.3) An actor who is not engaged in a criminal
activity, WHO IS NOT IN ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF A FIREARM and
who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a
duty to retreat under paragraph (2)(ii), has no duty to
retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force,
including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where
he was attacked
...