Force of Law and "No Weapons Allowed" signs

[mosseater]

How does it work then in the instance of, for example, the Farmer's Fair in Dillsburg, where they posted signage banning certain activities and items on the public streets that are used for the purposes of a three-day "fair"? I know for a fact the signage was challenged and changed to exclude the "no firearms" prohibition. If it were pursued by the town, could they in fact win the right to ban firearms on a public street, for a public use, which any other day of the year would be legal to possess them?

[R L Suehr]

How does it work then in the instance of, for example, the Farmer's Fair in Dillsburg, where they posted signage banning certain activities and items on the public streets that are used for the purposes of a three-day "fair"? I know for a fact the signage was challenged and changed to exclude the "no firearms" prohibition. If it were pursued by the town, could they in fact win the right to ban firearms on a public street, for a public use, which any other day of the year would be legal to possess them?

That's because preemption prohibits them from making rules on public streets.

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and ammunition.
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition components when carried or transported for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.

Preemption doesn't apply to private property only public property. If they held the fair on private property they could enact any rules they wanted.

[Statkowski]

If they held the fair on private property they could enact any rules they wanted.

The fair, being a private entity and not a governmental instrumentality, could enact any rules they wanted. The local government, being preempted by state law, would be restricted.

[Bang]

What changes were made to Pennsylvania's state constitution in the 1960s that affect trespassing statutes and owning/possessing/carrying firearms? Does a change to a constitution nullify or modify already-existing case law?

[QuackXP]

My interpretation of this has always been that outside of places like air-side terminals, courthouses, federal buildings,etc that the banning of firearms on private property falls under trespassing laws.

If you defy and order to leave school grounds that is an M1 and is federally prohibiting for firearms ownership for life.

If you defy and order to leave private property that is an M3 and I do not believe is prohibiting but im not %100 sure, do your own research on this.

If you defy a sign but leave when asked you still can be charged with a summary offense and max grading on summary offenses are up to 90 days in jail and up to a $300 fine. So according to the law you could go to jail for up-to 90 days, but is not prohibiting.

I've been carrying since 2005 and keeping up on this and some other firearms forums. I have not come across a report of someone being arrested, tried, and convicted simply because they ignored a sign and left when asked.

I generally will not go into a place that has a no firearms sign. But an exception for me would a hospital to visit a sick family member of friend. I CC and I do it well so I'm not worried about being asked to leave.

[tl_3237]

What changes were made to Pennsylvania's state constitution in the 1960s that affect trespassing statutes and owning/possessing/carrying firearms? Does a change to a constitution nullify or modify already-existing case law?

When 'case law' is established and the legislature then modifies the underlying law, any conflicts generated between that old 'case law' and new law would be decided in favor of the new law.

[R L Suehr]

The fair, being a private entity and not a governmental instrumentality, could enact any rules they wanted. The local government, being preempted by state law, would be restricted.

I don't think he's talking about a "fair" like say Bloomsburg where this issue came up before. To me it sounded like the township was setting this up as a street fair on public streets. That would be preempted inho. If it were being done buy a private entity at a fair grounds that's entirely different. I'm just speculating though without all the details.

[GunLawyer001]

I don't think he's talking about a "fair" like say Bloomsburg where this issue came up before. To me it sounded like the township was setting this up as a street fair on public streets. That would be preempted inho. If it were being done buy a private entity at a fair grounds that's entirely different. I'm just speculating though without all the details.

Prior to the Erie fiasco, it was just my opinion that a municipality could have a "policy" excluding guns from a particular area owned by them. Erie gave an anti-rights court the opportunity to tell them how to exclude guns from their municipally-owned lands.

So, they can't enact a summary ordinance against gun possession in your home, in businesses, on the sidewalk, or even in Town Hall. But they can have a "policy", and post signs, just like you can on your front door, or Walmart can do on its property.

The question would be, who owns the particular street that's closed to traffic for the fair? Clearly, a municipality can't ban licensed gun transportation in cars through town, not by ordinance or even by local policy. But if they have the right to close off a street, might they have the right to control who walks in and what they bring into that area?

I bet the court would say that they have that right, while the road is not used as a road. The court told us (we who were paying attention, anyway) that they would have that right in the municipal park.

On another note, in every instance I've heard of, a gun carrier who was told to leave was never prosecuted for trespassing. However, if they tell you to leave on Monday because of the gun, and you come back Tuesday with a gun, I think your odds of being prosecuted will go up exponentially, because now they can testify that you were given direct warning of the policy, and that's an easier case than arguing that everybody reads the legal boilerplate in small type on the wall near one of the doors.

[wew3]

I have not come across a report of someone being arrested, tried, and convicted simply because they ignored a sign and left when asked.

I generally will not go into a place that has a no firearms sign. But an exception for me would a hospital to visit a sick family member of friend. I CC and I do it well so I'm not worried about being asked to leave.

This guy was.

Here is the post on the update:

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...24#post2460624

He was charged with Defiant Trespass because he ignored the "No Guns" sign. Apparently he did not contest the charge and did ARD.

Bill

[WCMG]

Didn't this guy CC onto school ground? Not the same as CC into a business that forbids guns.

This guy was.


Here is the post on the update:

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...24#post2460624

He was charged with Defiant Trespass because he ignored the "No Guns" sign. Apparently he did not contest the charge and did ARD.

Bill