Rule #13

[350CI]

interesting and valid points made "philadelphia", hell i'll say extremely interesting but being a former resident of philadelphia and knowing how fast shyt can hit the fan.

[GunLawyer001]

I didn't see this thread before.

To the best of my knowledge, I was the first (on PAFOA, anyway) to suggest that private "no guns" signs could be enforced as trespassing violations, where the person actively conceals his gun to gain entry "surreptitiously". I have not heard of such a prosecution, much less a conviction. I put the idea forward to rebut the notion that such signs "have zero weight in Pennsylvania".

It's not clear that it would be found to be illegal. My point was that it's also not guaranteed to go well for the poor sap who's the test case.

In most cases, a discovered gun in a mall or store or theater would result in a demand for the patron to leave. If he left, the matter would probably end there. If he refused, then that refusal would be the basis for a "defiant trespass" charge, and the gun would merely be the unneeded reason that the property owner had for the demand to leave.

Few businessmen have the time or resources to prosecute someone who left upon demand, and even fewer DA's have an interest in pushing the limits of trespass law. But "little chance of it happening" is not the same as "zero chance of it happening". If your daughter's blind date was said to pose "almost no chance of killing her", would that leave you with some misgivings?

[knight0334]

I didn't see this thread before.

To the best of my knowledge, I was the first (on PAFOA, anyway) to suggest that private "no guns" signs could be enforced as trespassing violations, where the person actively conceals his gun to gain entry "surreptitiously". I have not heard of such a prosecution, much less a conviction. I put the idea forward to rebut the notion that such signs "have zero weight in Pennsylvania".

It's not clear that it would be found to be illegal. My point was that it's also not guaranteed to go well for the poor sap who's the test case.

In most cases, a discovered gun in a mall or store or theater would result in a demand for the patron to leave. If he left, the matter would probably end there. If he refused, then that refusal would be the basis for a "defiant trespass" charge, and the gun would merely be the unneeded reason that the property owner had for the demand to leave.

Few businessmen have the time or resources to prosecute someone who left upon demand, and even fewer DA's have an interest in pushing the limits of trespass law. But "little chance of it happening" is not the same as "zero chance of it happening". If your daughter's blind date was said to pose "almost no chance of killing her", would that leave you with some misgivings?

After you brought up that theory I checked in with our local PD about if they cited truck drivers at the Golden Eagle(restaurant/inn) here in town for parking in their lot that is clearly marked "No Trucks". They said they certainly do, and they hold up in the magistrate's office. Then I asked the neighboring PAGC WCO(owns the farm adjacent to our family farm) if he cites for trespassing on lands marked "Fishing Access Only", which there is a parcel on Humpback Rd in Warsaw Twp right beside the North Fork Creek that he checks on. He affirmed so, and they as well have held up. Neither the Brookville PD or the WCO required a complaint because the signs are clearly posted where they likely to be seen and clearly state a condition.

So, without a doubt - activities and items can be limited by postings. I also posted awhile back(going on 2 years) in a dispute with MDJschool about the same subject some further proof of upholding posted limitations.

[GunLawyer001]

After you brought up that theory I checked in with our local PD about if they cited truck drivers at the Golden Eagle(restaurant/inn) here in town for parking in their lot that is clearly marked "No Trucks". They said they certainly do, and they hold up in the magistrate's office. Then I asked the neighboring PAGC WCO(owns the farm adjacent to our family farm) if he cites for trespassing on lands marked "Fishing Access Only", which there is a parcel on Humpback Rd in Warsaw Twp right beside the North Fork Creek that he checks on. He affirmed so, and they as well have held up. Neither the Brookville PD or the WCO required a complaint because the signs are clearly posted where they likely to be seen and clearly state a condition.

So, without a doubt - activities and items can be limited by postings. I also posted awhile back(going on 2 years) in a dispute with MDJschool about the same subject some further proof of upholding posted limitations.

That's some good, clear thinking on your part. The parallels seem promising (not that I'm especially enthused about this particular aspect of a property owner's rights.)

It may also be true that specific empowering statutes apply to these types of signs, regarding parking lots and access for fishing, just like posting your land "NO HUNTING" ties into statutes that give such signs weight. I don't know, I've never had cause to research those issues, and I'm not really motivated to do the work so that an aggressive DA has another tool in his anti-gun toolbox. But as long as the possibility exists, I'd advise my clients to tread carefully when disregarding signs setting out exclusions and rules regarding use of property that's held open to the public for limited purposes.

Oh, and any DA who chose to use taxpayer resources to prosecute some peaceable customer with an LTCF under these circumstances, would face some serious questions at the next election. As long as actual predators receive plea bargains and deals, and busy ADA's receive files just hours or a couple of days before trial, the DA has no argument that he has "extra" hours and personnel to go after de minimus infractions like this.

[ImminentDanger]

After you brought up that theory I checked in with our local PD about if they cited truck drivers at the Golden Eagle(restaurant/inn) here in town for parking in their lot that is clearly marked "No Trucks". They said they certainly do, and they hold up in the magistrate's office. Then I asked the neighboring PAGC WCO(owns the farm adjacent to our family farm) if he cites for trespassing on lands marked "Fishing Access Only", which there is a parcel on Humpback Rd in Warsaw Twp right beside the North Fork Creek that he checks on. He affirmed so, and they as well have held up. Neither the Brookville PD or the WCO required a complaint because the signs are clearly posted where they likely to be seen and clearly state a condition.

So, without a doubt - activities and items can be limited by postings. I also posted awhile back(going on 2 years) in a dispute with MDJschool about the same subject some further proof of upholding posted limitations.

Have any of these convictions been appealed past the Money-on-Demand-Justices of the local MDJ courts??

...

[Gun]

Oh, and any DA who chose to use taxpayer resources to prosecute some peaceable customer with an LTCF under these circumstances, would face some serious questions at the next election.

This all goes to timing, and whether some tragic event just unfolded, similar to the Arizona shooting last year, the DA might prosecute that peaceable gun toter to the full extent of the law.

**************

People ignore signs all the time, and then cry about it when caught, like a ticket received for rolling a STOP sign, or the speeding ticket. There is no right to break these laws. So how does this differ when someone decides you can’t exercise a 2nd amend. right on their property? This seems like a contradiction of rights, but look at it this way, this is no different if a property owner states NO FOUL LANGUAGE. So, did you lost your 1st amend. rights? Hardly, just like you didn’t lose your 2nd amend. right. This argument on where rights can and can not overlap is not a gray area. Respecting someone else’s rights, while exercising your own rights, are cut from the same cloth.