Consequences of Using a Firearm In Gun Free Zone?

[jsaranczak]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but I have a question...
If you were to carry your firearm onto a property with a "No Gun" policy, and were attacked and were legally justified in using deadly force, would there be any consequences since you used the firearm in a "Gun Free" zone?

As far as I know, a property posting a "No Guns" sign only makes it a policy, its not legally prohibited like it would be in courthouses etc right?

Anyway, any input or clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

[ViperGTS19801]

In my non-expert and not-a-lawyer opinion, I would imagine that the potential for a charge of trespassing would be severely undermined by the overriding factor that had you not been able to protect yourself, you'd be dead rather than in violation of a policy.

Legally, I don't believe there's anything to be done. The problem to worry about is what the consequences would be of you being discovered during normal situations, rather than after having justifiably defended yourself.

If you hadn't been asked to leave prior to being attacked, I can't imagine a legally sound way of charging you with trespassing. Now, if you were in a place where firearms are prohibited by law (court house, detention center, federal area, etc), you'd probably still be held to the same standard as someone who was just discovered having broken the law, regardless of the self-defense situation...unless the DA decides to forego charging you. That'd be at their discretion, though.

[jsaranczak]

In my non-expert and not-a-lawyer opinion, I would imagine that the potential for a charge of trespassing would be severely undermined by the overriding factor that had you not been able to protect yourself, you'd be dead rather than in violation of a policy.

Legally, I don't believe there's anything to be done. The problem to worry about is what the consequences would be of you being discovered during normal situations, rather than after having justifiably defended yourself.

If you hadn't been asked to leave prior to being attacked, I can't imagine a legally sound way of charging you with trespassing. Now, if you were in a place where firearms are prohibited by law (court house, detention center, federal area, etc), you'd probably still be held to the same standard as someone who was just discovered having broken the law, regardless of the self-defense situation...unless the DA decides to forego charging you. That'd be at their discretion, though.

Thanks Viper, I was leaning toward the idea of there being no real legal consequences assuming I wasn't asked to leave prior. Just wanted to clear this up/get a better idea if the situation ever presented itself i.e. I'm going to the Pa ren faire next month, not carry friendly. However as others have said, concealed means concealed

[Kurt_D]

If you'll recall, there was an incident at Mercy Fitzgerald hospital a few months ago where a doctor (who was also wounded) shot a perp who killed a case worker. IIRC, the hospital has a no guns policy but the doctor was not charged with any crime (at least not as of yet).

There was just a post, here, about that incident:

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...o-stopped.html

[jsaranczak]

If you'll recall, there was an incident at Mercy Fitzgerald hospital a few months ago where a doctor (who was also wounded) shot a perp who killed a case worker. IIRC, the hospital has a no guns policy but the doctor was not charged with any crime (at least not as of yet).

There was just a post, here, about that incident:

http://forum.pafoa.org/concealed-ope...o-stopped.html

Actually yeah I read that thread yesterday, didn't realize it was also a gun free zone. I didn't read the entire article so I !at have missed that part.
Do you think maybe it would make you more liable in a civil suit? The person you defended against or his/her family sues and his lawyer makes the point you had the gun in a fun free zone?

[elweasel]

From what I understand(IANAL again) if it is just a private property with a 'no guns' sign, if discovered all they can do is ask you to leave. If you leave no laws are broken. So if you have to defend yourself and shoot someone I don't believe they can charge you for breaking their 'no guns' policy.
The bigger problem would be if you were in a prohibited place, Federal building, primary and secondary schools, court rooms and the same situation arises, then you are actively breaking the law even to defend yourself. While I understand not carrying into a school, if you are dropping off your kids and you never get out of the car, carrying a gun should not be a crime. But it is. The recently posted posted video on bctv.com(search 'gun laws') with the Sheriff explaining the rules should help explain carrying in a non-legal manner. JMHO

[Kurt_D]

Actually yeah I read that thread yesterday, didn't realize it was also a gun free zone. I didn't read the entire article so I !at have missed that part.
Do you think maybe it would make you more liable in a civil suit? The person you defended against or his/her family sues and his lawyer makes the point you had the gun in a fun free zone?

It's not in the link I posted but, I believe, was in the original posting/story from when it happened.

So far as being sued, civilly, You could probably be sued for farting in a "clean air" zone. Anything's possible... The bottom line is that if you were defending yourself, I'd suspect that would trump any aggravating trespass circumstance related to the shooting - not an attorney, just thinking out loud.

[internet troll]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but I have a question...
If you were to carry your firearm onto a property with a "No Gun" policy, and were attacked and were legally justified in using deadly force, would there be any consequences since you used the firearm in a "Gun Free" zone?

As far as I know, a property posting a "No Guns" sign only makes it a policy, its not legally prohibited like it would be in courthouses etc right?

Anyway, any input or clarification would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

I suspect it would have to do with how things turned out. Did you make things worse, shoot an innocent bystander or something like that. Then they might try to throw anything they can at you even if they are are iffy legal ground.


Did you make the situation better, basically come out a hero, then I suspect they would not want to be known as the ones to pursue charges against a hero.

[jsaranczak]

Thanks for everyones input, it does seem like an obvious question I was just unsure.

[tl_3237]

If you possess a firearm in a "Gun Free Zone", assuming notification has been effected as prescribed in the statutes (to include by signage alone) then, absent intervening permission, you are trespassing contrary to law. As such, although your use of the firearm for self-defense could still be justified, but you are still trespassing and arguably you do lose some of the presumptions under the "Stand Your Ground". Specifically you cannot invoke the 'no retreat' clause:

18 Pa CS 505(b)(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 ...

Properly posted "No Guns" signs are notification of the withholding of an entry invitation which, if ignored, can result in trespass charges even without an direct order to leave. In the case of a defiant trespass violation, ignoring an order to leave is not a criminal element of the trespass offense itself but merely a grading enhancer. 18 Pa CS 3503(b)(2)