Quick Question - posted signs on business

[jizmo3]

New to forum, posted with pistol question earlier today in "pistols".
Regarding legality, a posted sign on a business (lowes, home depot, walmart) that firearms are prohibited is not binding - meaning that even if the sign is posted we are legally allowed to carry inside since we were not asked by the property manager to leave. Am I correct in that thinking?

[IV_Warrior]

Depends on who you ask. Some will say yes, others will say that you're trespassing by being there with a firearm, since part of your "permission to be there" is "no firearms".

[JayBell]

the signs are not binding in the sense that PA has no code that says such signs are legally binding in certain ways,

Texas has a specific CW signage law that may NOT be ignored under penalty of law.

the signs have to be in english and spanish, at least a certain size, and the code has penaties for ignoring such signs.

in PA however, pretty much those signs hold no legal weight under specific SIGN code, however, ignore those signs and technically, its "trespass"(possibly defiant trespass), as said above, you are not using the property in a manner in which you have permission to do so.

private property rights trump ALL your other claimed rights, which is as it should be.

folks need to remember that "publicly accessible" property is not the same as public property

if you decide to ignore the sign, if asked to do so by the owner, or thier authorized agent, do so immediately to avoid a "defiant trespass" charge.

[fingers80002]

As posted by gunlawyer001:
"Please stop saying this, it's not necessarily true, no matter how many times it's repeated.

If you carry a gun into a place that is posted against guns, you could arguably be prosecuted under the trespassing statute, for doing something on the property that you have been placed on notice you are without license to do.

Signs have legal weight. The signs in the parking garage that say "not responsible for lost items" have legal weight. Signs are not a legal nullity, and in the absence of case law interpreting the trespassing statute to clearly negate the "no guns" signs, we do a disservice to people by giving them the false sense of confidence that they are free to ignore these signs.

It's true that other states have specific statutes giving weight to these specific signs, and PA does not have such a law. However, that's not the same as saying that there's no operative difference between having a sign and not having a sign. You can't be prosecuted in PA under the "disobeying a no weapons sign" statute because there is none, but we do have a "trespassing" statute. A sign puts you on notice as to the terms of the permission granted to you to use the private property of another. If you go outside those terms of use, you are trespassing.

This is a legal matter, it's a legal conclusion, and you need to have a firm legal basis before telling anyone that it's safe to say "screw you" to a property owner and make him tell you face-to-face what his sign already advised you."

Pretty well spells it out.

Found here:http://www.pafoa.org/forum/question-...tml#post393217

[Rosco the Iroc]

In VA if a business has any kind of "no weapons" sign posted you cannot carry so there are lots of malls and places to avoid here CCW or open. State rules.

[Steve in PA]

And as I have said, there is no such thing as "conditional trespass" meaning signs that say "no guns" mean nothing. You are either allowed there, or you are not.

I have never, ever, ever seen or heard of anyone being cited and or arrested based on the signs. Unless the place is a prohibited location as defined by law, the sign means nothing.

If for example, a sign says "no gang clothing" or "no goth clothing" you will not be arrested/cited because you entered the premises dressed as such. Being asked to leave, then refusing would be trespass.

[Mosinshooter762]

And as I have said, there is no such thing as "conditional trespass" meaning signs that say "no guns" mean nothing. You are either allowed there, or you are not.

I have never, ever, ever seen or heard of anyone being cited and or arrested based on the signs. Unless the place is a prohibited location as defined by law, the sign means nothing.

If for example, a sign says "no gang clothing" or "no goth clothing" you will not be arrested/cited because you entered the premises dressed as such. Being asked to leave, then refusing would be trespass.

I think Steve has the interpretation right. A lot of big places, like malls, have signs placed about what you may not do. A lot of times in with a lot of rules in small writing, and the rules can be quite inclusive of a wide range of conduct. Usually, they will include a 'right' to ask you to leave on those signs. A trespassing conviction for not following those signs to the letter seems unlikely. Of course, this assumes that the courts will not find a 'gun exception' to common sense.

[LittleRedToyota]

however, ignore those signs and technically, its "trespass"(possibly defiant trespass), as said above, you are not using the property in a manner in which you have permission to do so.

i disagree.

the trespassing statute requires that the sign give "notice against trespassing". i don't see how a typical no-guns sign does that. at a minimum, i think the sign would have to say "no trespassing. only people without guns are admitted."

but, i don't think it has ever been tested in court (which tells you about how likely you are to be charged with trespassing for ignoring the sign, imho). so, who knows...

of course, IANAL.

also, i do think "no guns" signs should be respected out of respect the property owner's right to regulate what is or is not brought onto his property. and why would you want to give your money to a store with a no-guns sign anyway?

[emsjeep]

JMHO Private property owners who offer a vital service to the public and have a monopoly on that service or product should be forced to abide by state, local and federal law. Think Colleges...they offer a service that no one else is authorized to, Malls, sporting venues...etc. Just like I can't declare that machine guns are legal on my property and tell the BATF to buzz off so should they not be allowed to say "no Blue shirts on Tuesday under penalty of trespass" How is this any different than puttig a sign in the window that says "No Blacks"? If someone wants to set rules for thier private land on which they do not have a business which it is nearly required that many people visit to function properly, then fine...besides, as long as it is CC who is going to know...

[ThomasJ]

JMHO Private property owners who offer a vital service to the public and have a monopoly on that service or product should be forced to abide by state, local and federal law. Think Colleges...they offer a service that no one else is authorized to, Malls, sporting venues...etc.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. There are plenty of private colleges. There are plenty of private education facilities at all levels. Plus, there's homeschooling. And it sounds to me as if to me you aren't in favor of property rights.