Firearms Prohibited Sign

**Glock_23** · September 10th, 2012, 01:26 PM

I think this question has been addressed and answered time and time again, but without too much flack can someone give me the skinny on carrying a firearm when there is a no firearms permitted/ firearms prohibited sign present at a door of a store, etc?

Story is me and my old lady went to the movies since the first time since the shootings in Colorado. We went to the newer fancy Cinemark theater in Robinson Twp. I was going to OC my Glock 23 but when I saw the firearms prohibited sign I decided to over it up with my sweatshirt. I told my fiancee I saw the sign but the criminals wouldn't care about the sign and I was going to still carry concealed.

Other than being asked to leave if I was found with a firearm was I doing anything wrong legally? Do you still proceed to carry even if there is a sign stating that you cant?

**Falcon118** · September 10th, 2012, 01:35 PM

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and your mileage may vary. Now that that's out of the way... There is no clear cut answer. The current debate is whether or not you can be charged with defiant tresspass for carrying if you are found out when you know the property owner does not wish firearms on the property (as evidenced by the no firearms sign). I do not believe that there is a case yet that someone was charged under these conditions, but the possibility is there. While technically the sign has no force of law, it MAY serve as your first notice that not having your firearm is a condition of entry.

Besides this, if we expect people to respect our rights, we should respect theirs. If they do not want to have firearms on their property, then I will respect it, but I also will not spend a single dime of my hard earned money at such a place.

Take the advice at your discretion.

Mike

**thefirstndsecond** · September 10th, 2012, 01:39 PM

You should sign up for one of gun lawyers classes. He goes over things like this.

**knight0334** · September 10th, 2012, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Glock_23

I think this question has been addressed and answered time and time again, but without too much flack can someone give me the skinny on carrying a firearm when there is a no firearms permitted/ firearms prohibited sign present at a door of a store, etc?

Story is me and my old lady went to the movies since the first time since the shootings in Colorado. We went to the newer fancy Cinemark theater in Robinson Twp. I was going to OC my Glock 23 but when I saw the firearms prohibited sign I decided to over it up with my sweatshirt. I told my fiancee I saw the sign but the criminals wouldn't care about the sign and I was going to still carry concealed.

Other than being asked to leave if I was found with a firearm was I doing anything wrong legally? Do you still proceed to carry even if there is a sign stating that you cant?

Its been discussed a number of times. You can use the search tool to see the results.

However, the general consensus is: They are enforceable under Defiant Trespass laws. Signs can legally place a condition to ingress/egress. A sign posted in a manner that is likely to be noticed is warning enough to allow a on-the-spot summary citation without any further verbal communications(although unlikely, but it can). Violation of the conditions of the wording of the sign can result in a citation.

Remember, it's not your land or building. You are a guest even if it is open to public access. If you don't like the rules, go elsewhere.

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...nsylvania.html

No Guns types signs on private property: delinquentes caveo
These type of signs lack a direct violation to places being off-limits. However they do set a conditional permission to be on the property. Violation of that condition is trespassing instantly. Such signs serve as first notice to a summary trespassing violation and you can be cited without a verbal warning. Now we all like to carry where ever we can, but we also want our property rights to be held in sanctity, to have our own land and building sanctity we must honor other's property rights as well. This is NOT legal advice or a tip to circumvent the law, but if you have a compelling need to carry on private property so marked - keep it CONCEALED and dont draw attention to yourself. If found to be carrying you can be cited on the spot for a summary offense. Which to follow that you will most likely be asked to leave, if you fail to do so you will be arrested on a misdemeanor offense.

**knight0334** · September 10th, 2012, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by Falcon118

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and your mileage may vary. Now that that's out of the way... There is no clear cut answer. The current debate is whether or not you can be charged with defiant tresspass for carrying if you are found out when you know the property owner does not wish firearms on the property (as evidenced by the no firearms sign). I do not believe that there is a case yet that someone was charged under these conditions, but the possibility is there. While technically the sign has no force of law, it MAY serve as your first notice that not having your firearm is a condition of entry.

Besides this, if we expect people to respect our rights, we should respect theirs. If they do not want to have firearms on their property, then I will respect it, but I also will not spend a single dime of my hard earned money at such a place.

Take the advice at your discretion.

Mike

A sign has full weight in law. The statutes provides for in at Title 18, Chapter 35, Subsection 3503(b)(ii) and the PA Supreme Court has ruled signs do serve as first notice. What PA's courts haven't ruled upon is line item type conditions on signs.

However, other states have and common law practice all the way back to Roman times fully supports line item conditions on signs and notices. Just guess how PA's Supreme Court will rule with a common law court system.

**Mosinshooter762** · September 10th, 2012, 01:54 PM

This is subject to debate. If a no-items sign, by itself, would render one as knowing that they are not licensed or privileged (knowing that they do not have permission or right - this is the key component to all the trespass statutes) to enter a building and they proceed to enter anyway then in addition to being guilty of Defiant Trespass, one would also be guilty of Criminal Trespass - Buildings and occupied structures, which is a felony.

**FTNWO** · September 10th, 2012, 04:23 PM

Have you seen these signs at the cinemas? They are hardly in "general view". The ones I have been to have clear stickers with a pistol encircled and a line running diagonally through it. They are maybe 8"x8" at best and stuck to the bottom left corners of the doors. Literally, shin height. Most likely, put out of general view as to not raise fear in the "walkers". So, what happens to those who honestly do not see them?

**PD25** · September 10th, 2012, 05:03 PM

Like its been said in many past debates over this situation: If the store.movie etc want to prevent you from protecting yourself from bad people and the store/movie house do absolutely nothing to protect their customers theN you can do one of two things- 1- Avoid the store/Movie house or 2- ignorE their sign and be prepared to protect yourself AND ACCEPT BEING P[ROSECUTED UNDER WHATEVER LAW covers the act. fwiw

**tl_3237** · September 10th, 2012, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Mosinshooter762

This is subject to debate. If a no-items sign, by itself, would render one as knowing that they are not licensed or privileged (knowing that they do not have permission or right - this is the key component to all the trespass statutes) to enter a building and they proceed to enter anyway then in addition to being guilty of Defiant Trespass, one would also be guilty of Criminal Trespass - Buildings and occupied structures, which is a felony.

As I indicated in the other thread where you hypothesized this, the more stringent 'Building' trespass would be inapplicable because the crime properly fits the lesser 'defiant trespass' charge.

ETA pursuant to http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...ml#post2143569

There are two distinct crimes of criminal trespass. The more serious is trespass of a building or occupied structure. ... The less serious is defiant trespass. ... Further evidence that the legislature did not intend to include breaking into a fenced-in yard within the proscription of criminal trespass of buildings is the fact that such conduct is specifically proscribed by the provisions regarding defiant trespass. Had the Commonwealth so charged, appellant clearly could have been found to be a "defiant trespasser," for, "knowing that he [was] not licensed or privileged to do so," he entered a place "as to which notice against trespass [was] given by . . . fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders." 18 Pa.C.S. § 3503(b)(1)(iii). When one statute specifically proscribes certain conduct, then another general statute carrying a more severe punishment will be held inapplicable, for we assume that the legislature intended the specific statute to control. See generally, La Fave and Scott, Criminal Law, § 10 (1972).

Com. v. Cannon, 443 A. 2d 322 - Pa: Superior Court 1982

**Mosinshooter762** · September 10th, 2012, 09:58 PM

Originally Posted by tl_3237

As I indicated in the other thread where you hypothesized this, the more stringent 'Building' trespass would be inapplicable because the crime properly fits the lesser 'defiant trespass' charge.

As I stated on the other thread:

Wow. I'm really curious as to what Gunlawyer would have to say about No Trespassing posted entrances to buildings. I doubt he would be of the opinion that Defiant Trespass is the only charge possible for illegal entry simply because the entrance is posted. Since a negative can't be very easily proven, it seems no one is going to to be satisfied without some intervention, and Gunlawyer is someone whose opinions we all give great weight to.

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...ml#post2142978