No Firearms signs and off duty LEO's?

[snakeman21]

You're right, my bad. Based on your personal experiences, I can deduce that police in Swiftwater will go to far greater lengths to respect your rights than any cop in Vermont. Not.

It was a joke. You have had your ass completely jacked up in Swiftwater over legally going about your business more than once. When you lived in Vermont, you posted over and over about how free it was and about how well the cops respected your rights. Now you say you are going to threaten cops with trespassing charges for carrying a gun. I remind you that you are not in Vermont anymore. It's supposed to go, "Haha, yeah that's funny."

Just a joke!

I guess that's why my stand-up comedian career went nowhere

Yeah, my response was supposed to be in humor, too, but I for got the "" at the end. I didn't mean for you to think I was entirely serious about the assuming. I do see your point.

And in my defense, I did not say I am going to threaten a cop with trespassing charges for carrying a gun. I was simply stating a hypothetical conversation between an off-duty cop and a store owner who happens to be a hoplophobe. If I owned a business, I certainly wouldn't throw anyone out for OC. To do so would make me a hypocrite.

[Greywolf]

Sounds like a good research task for you

I could research it -- or you could research it, or anyone else reading this thread could research it. But, considering that this is a PA-oriented forum and we seem to be discussing the status of PA LEOs under PA law, I thought perhaps someone here might already know the answer without needing to research it.

[ungawa]

I could research it -- or you could research it, or anyone else reading this thread could research it. But, considering that this is a PA-oriented forum and we seem to be discussing the status of PA LEOs under PA law, I thought perhaps someone here might already know the answer without needing to research it.

Short of paid legal advice, it sounds like you got just that. And then continued asking, "Why?" Based on your personal expectations and not the law.

[indianjack]

And one must ask, why? If they are not there investigating a crime, the property owner (or representative thereof) can ask them to depart posthaste simply because they're wearing firearms, and the owner doesn't permit firearms on the property.

Some hippy/green restaurant did that in Portland, Ore. The police weren't too happy, but there wasn't much they could do about it.

He could just leave his pistol in the car, like everyone thinks we should do, I mean who would break into a police car?

On another note it reminds me of the bumper sticker I saw ages ago "If you don't like the police next time you're in trouble call a hippy"

[twency]

The Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act (LEOSA) is a United States federal law, enacted in 2004, that allows two classes of persons—the "qualified law enforcement officer" and the "qualified retired law enforcement officer" -- to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States, regardless of any state or local law to the contrary, with certain exceptions. They are free to disregard all other state and local laws that govern the carrying of concealed firearms.

Although the general effect of LEOSA is to override state and local law, this is subject to limitations. LEOSA does not override:[3][4][5]
state laws permitting private property owners from limiting or prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons on their property (such as public bars, private clubs, and places such as amusement parks)
state laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons on state or local government property (such as courthouses, schools or parks)

...So should they allow them is the real question....

Quoting wikipedia is not the same as a citation of law.

[Statkowski]

a. LEOSA only covers concealed carry. If a jurisdiction prohibits open carry (not Pennsylvania, thank goodness), then LEOSA would not cover open carry.

b. LEOSA only permits those authorized to ignore state/local concealed carry prohibitions. It does not permit them to ignore a private property owner's prohibitions. In Pennsylvania, the most this would result in would be a defiant trespass charge, but in Ohio, where signs have consequences, it could mean a conviction, despite LEOSA.

[tl_3237]

LEOSA:

18 USC §926B. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified law enforcement officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

§926C. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified retired law enforcement officers
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified retired law enforcement officer and who is carrying the identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (b).

(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or
(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

...........

[Deleted]

The big question is what case law is there to support weather or not a "No guns allowed" sign is sufficient to meet the elements "defiant trespasser" ALONE WITHOUT REFUSAL TO LEAVE.

I would question weather that is what the intent of the law is. To me a "no guns allowed" sign is no different than a "no dogs allowed" sign or a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.

Look at the statute.... it specifically relates to trespassing and to me arguing that possessing a legal item against the wishes of the property owner is in any way trespassing.



(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.

[tl_3237]

The big question is what case law is there to support weather or not a "No guns allowed" sign is sufficient to meet the elements "defiant trespasser" ALONE WITHOUT REFUSAL TO LEAVE.

I would question weather that is what the intent of the law is. To me a "no guns allowed" sign is no different than a "no dogs allowed" sign or a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign.

Look at the statute.... it specifically relates to trespassing and to me arguing that possessing a legal item against the wishes of the property owner is in any way trespassing.



(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.

This has been discussed in many threads - most recently:

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-car...-gun-sign.html

[PD25]

Do you know whats really comical- The Off Duty Cop enters the "NO GUN" building to conform to the RULES and suddenly someone not following the RULES pulls out a gun and starts to shoot people like in the reason moviie house incident and anyone in the Building who knows the COP will turn to him to take immediate action like DUH!!!!!!