Force of Law and "No Weapons Allowed" signs

[Big Dog Dad]

Does anyone know if PA has FOL with the "No Weapons Allowed" signs. I just avoid these businesses and usually e-mail corporate headquarters, if possible, and explain that they won't be seeing me or my money with that attitude. I understand that an owner, building or business, has every right to dictate to do this, but to me, this is just creating a "gun-free" zone and we all know how well that idea works. I think that PA does not have a FOL and the worst thing that can happen is the owner can ask me to leave if I am in his store carrying concealed and he sees the firearm. If I don't leave, then it is a trespass infraction. But now, someone said PA has FOL and it is a felony if caught in "No Weapons Allowed" establishment. Could someone please clarify? Also, list any stores you have encountered that are "No Weapons Allowed" stores.

-=BDD=-

[tl_3237]

Does anyone know if PA has FOL with the "No Weapons Allowed" signs. I just avoid these businesses and usually e-mail corporate headquarters, if possible, and explain that they won't be seeing me or my money with that attitude. I understand that an owner, building or business, has every right to dictate to do this, but to me, this is just creating a "gun-free" zone and we all know how well that idea works. I think that PA does not have a FOL and the worst thing that can happen is the owner can ask me to leave if I am in his store carrying concealed and he sees the firearm. If I don't leave, then it is a trespass infraction. But now, someone said PA has FOL and it is a felony if caught in "No Weapons Allowed" establishment. Could someone please clarify? Also, list any stores you have encountered that are "No Weapons Allowed" stores.

-=BDD=-

Properly provided notification by signage and your entry contrary to posted conditions IS defiant trespass on its face and a summary offense (18 Pa CS 3503) - there is no requirement that you be directly asked to leave. One should also bear in mind that the "Stand Your Ground" nullification of your duty to retreat may not be available while in the act of trespassing.

That being said, I appreciate the conundrum as to whether to carry or not in posted areas. That is an individual decision but one should be aware of potential legal ramifications.

The typical FOL is through the trespass statute in Pa ( 18 Pa CS 3503 ). Staying after being asked to leave once you enter contrary to signage is a grading enhancement elevating the violation from a summary charge to an M3.

I suppose it can be argued that in an occupied business the trespass could raise to an F2 under 3503(a)(1)(i) but I've never heard of it happening.

[R L Suehr]

Does anyone know if PA has FOL with the "No Weapons Allowed" signs. I just avoid these businesses and usually e-mail corporate headquarters, if possible, and explain that they won't be seeing me or my money with that attitude. I understand that an owner, building or business, has every right to dictate to do this, but to me, this is just creating a "gun-free" zone and we all know how well that idea works. I think that PA does not have a FOL and the worst thing that can happen is the owner can ask me to leave if I am in his store carrying concealed and he sees the firearm. If I don't leave, then it is a trespass infraction. But now, someone said PA has FOL and it is a felony if caught in "No Weapons Allowed" establishment. Could someone please clarify? Also, list any stores you have encountered that are "No Weapons Allowed" stores.

-=BDD=-

The signs don't really carry any force of law. You are somewhat correct. If a business has properly posted the sign, then that could be considered your notice not to carry a weapon there. They wouldn't have to ask you to leave, they could call the cops and have you trespassed off the property. Whether a place is posted or not if you are asked to leave and don't that would be defiant trespass. There's differing degrees of trespassing in PA.

[R L Suehr]

The FOL is through the trespass statute in Pa ( 18 Pa CS 3503 ). Staying after being asked to leave once you enter contrary to signage is a grading enhancement from elevating the violation from a summary charge to an M3 - .

^^^^

This, sounds better anyhow.

[internet troll]

Check out this thread on the issue. In post 14 Twency quotes gunlawyer and his opinion which is alway worth the time imo.


http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.php?t=182569

[tl_3237]

I always like Gunlawyer001's very first post on PAFOA in 2006 - I call it the Costco axiom (bolding mine):

Gentlemen: This is my first posting on this site. I'm an attorney, I'm pro-gun, but I have to tell you that property owners have more rights on their property than members of the general public have on that property, even where the property owner is the government.

A private property owner can set almost any conditions for use of the property, as long as he doesn't trample on a protected class, and even then a truly private property owner can decline to invite blacks, women, the handicapped, whoever into his home.

Once you start renting it out or inviting the general public in, then you can't discriminate against one of the recognized protected classes. Gun owners are not in a protected class, at least not the way minorites, women, and the handicapped are protected.

For private property that's open to the public, there's case law that defines what can and can't be restricted. There's case law on quasi-public property like shopping malls; some courts have held that they are the modern "town squares", and must accomodate some free speech; there's also case law that holds that it's still private property, and the Bill of Rights doesn't apply. I'm unaware of any case law that holds that "quasi public" property can't prohibit gun possession as a condition of use, at least not in any State without a specific "right to carry on private property" statute.

Government entities that are acting in a private capacity have their own set of rules. If your local town collects your trash for a fee, or sells you electricity, they are acting as just another vendor. As property owners, even PUBLIC property owners, they are entitled to establish rules for the use of that property by the public. They can ban open fires, even where open fires are generally lawful. They can ban dogs, even where dogs are generally lawful. They can limit groups to 100 or 500 or whatever, they can require permits for large public assemblies.

Opening land for public use doesn't mean they must just open the gates and let you do whatever you wish. 200+ years of case law and statutes are clear on this.

PA pre-emption prevents your town from banning assault rifles everywhere within town limits, but it doesn't prevent them from imposing restrictions on how the public uses property that's open to the public, any more than pre-emption prevents you from sticking a sign on your home or business door that says "no guns allowed". Property owners have rights, and in fact are required to exercise control over what happens on their land.

Here's the way the law works: if Costco bans guns on their premises (which they do), but they don't post signs at the door, then all they can do is ask you to leave once they see that you have a gun. If you refuse to leave, then it's defiant trespass, a criminal offense. If they post a clearly-visible "no guns" sign at the door and you come in with a gun, then you are trespassing even before they confront you.

That's the law, it's the way it really works. Property owners have rights, and they sometimes trump your rights as a guest on their property.

The ONLY possibility for this Limerick issue is this: Governments can't step on your civil rights, even when acting in a private capacity. This isn't a pre-emption issue, it's a civil rights question. The PA Constitution protects your right to keep & bear arms, but there's not much case law on it, partly because they re-did the State Constitution back in the 1960's. If the courts hold that you have a recognized, individual civil right to carry a firearm everywhere, then the Limerick statute might be vulnerable. However, both State and Federal laws already limit where you can carry, by excluding courthouses & schools.

Limerick could just post "no guns" signs at the park entrance, but criminalizing it through a formally enacted statute is more clearly government action that might infringe State law; but since it only applies on park property, my bet would be that it would be upheld anyway.

[Deleted]

The signs don't really carry any force of law. You are somewhat correct. If a business has properly posted the sign, then that could be considered your notice not to carry a weapon there. They wouldn't have to ask you to leave, they could call the cops and have you trespassed off the property. Whether a place is posted or not if you are asked to leave and don't that would be defiant trespass. There's differing degrees of trespassing in PA.

The signs do have force of law.... be careful with the advice you are giving. You couldn't just be trespassed off the property, you could be arrested without verbal warning based on the posted signage.

(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;

[STBear]

(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law

What is the manner prescribed by law???

[Grey Bearded One]

I can't read English and most of the supposed "no guns" signs with the circle/slash are just saying "No Beretta 92s" so I'm good to go since I don't carry a Beretta.

[R L Suehr]

The signs do have force of law.... be careful with the advice you are giving. You couldn't just be trespassed off the property, you could be arrested without verbal warning based on the posted signage.

(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;

This is a semantics argument that we've had on here before. There is no law like Ohio has in pa expressly giving "no guns" signs force of law. They are treated the same as any other"no trespassing" sign and the force of law comes from the trespassing statutes. My fault not being as clear as TL, but I did explain there are consequences for ignoring a sign. Again it's kinda a semantics argument. It's still illegal either way.