Public accommodations prohibiting licensed concealed carry

[alb]

Can a public accommodation in Pennsylvania, such as a mall, licensed to do business as a public accommodation, ban people with CCLs from carrying concealed on their premises during normal working hours?

The NRA-ILA seems to think it can, since the mall is private property, and private property owners can make up their own rules. They compared it to me having a yard sale and putting up a sign saying, "No Firearms Allowed."

I compared it to a mall putting up a sign that reads, "No Wheelchairs Allowed." A private club can certainly to this, but not a mall. I don't believe my yard sale makes my yard a public accommodation under the legal defintion of the term, so it seems like the NRA's example would be off-point.

Public accommodations have lots of rules and restrictions placed on them that simply don't apply to other property owners, at least during the hours that they choose to be open to the public.

The NRA said that there is no law in PA specifically prohibiting such places from banning firearms, unlike wheelchairs, so they can legally do it.

However, there are laws permitting licensed private citizens to carry concealed firearms in public throughout the state, with specific exceptions defined by statute. A mall or restaurant is certainly operating as a public place during normal business hours, even if it is privately owned, and it is not excluded by statute. So why doesn't a PA CCL apply to such public places as well?

Has this issue ever been litigated in Pennsylvania or anywhere else?

Regards,

Al B.

[Pa. Patriot]

Can a public accommodation in Pennsylvania, such as a mall, licensed to do business as a public accommodation, ban people with CCLs from carrying concealed on their premises during normal working hours?

Yes, they can. their private property rights (and yours) supersede any third party 2A rights, which are a guarantee against .GOV usurpation.

~The End

Personally, I'm glad it is this way. We already have infringements on this in the form of "protected classes" that essentially takes away our freedom of association.

I compared it to a mall putting up a sign that reads, "No Wheelchairs Allowed." A private club can certainly to this, but not a mall. I don't believe my yard sale makes my yard a public accommodation under the legal defintion of the term, so it seems like the NRA's example would be off-point..

Nope, you're looking at it wrong. Handicapped people are a protected class, by law. CC'ers are not. Not violating your 2A only applies to .GOV, not other citizens.

[Steve in PA]

Its not about banning you for carrying, its about the private property owner (or its agents) telling you to leave. Refuse and you are trespassing. You are not cited or arrested for carrying your firearm, you are (possibly) cited or arrested not leaving the property.

[gunga]

No one is guaranteed access to a mall, it's not public property, and even if it was, there would still be rules (e.g. a "no camp fires" sign at a public park).
A mall is private property, and they open to the public with certain rules... some of those rules (not that I agree with them), may be to prohibit firearms. Don't like it? Find a new mall, or save up your money, buy the mall in question, and take down the sign

[Statkowski]

A mall is private property, and the owner's rights generally prevail. If discovered carrying, you may well be asked to leave the premises. You are, after all, there with the owner's permission as an invitee. Your right to carry statewide grants you no special permission to violate someone's property rights. If you refuse to leave when asked, you will be cited and/or arrested for Defiant Trespass, not carrying.

You mentioned wheelchairs. Any private club that puts up a "no wheelchairs" sign would end up on the losing end of an Americans with Disabilities Act lawsuit.

Regarding your yard sale, you have as much rights over your property as the mall owner has over his. The public is present by invitation, and can be asked to leave.

A Pennsylvania LTCF does not apply to a shopping mall, or any other business establishment since it's private property.

[knight0334]

Can a public accommodation in Pennsylvania, such as a mall, licensed to do business as a public accommodation, ban people with CCLs from carrying concealed on their premises during normal working hours?

The NRA-ILA seems to think it can, since the mall is private property, and private property owners can make up their own rules. They compared it to me having a yard sale and putting up a sign saying, "No Firearms Allowed."

I compared it to a mall putting up a sign that reads, "No Wheelchairs Allowed." A private club can certainly to this, but not a mall. I don't believe my yard sale makes my yard a public accommodation under the legal defintion of the term, so it seems like the NRA's example would be off-point.

Public accommodations have lots of rules and restrictions placed on them that simply don't apply to other property owners, at least during the hours that they choose to be open to the public.

The NRA said that there is no law in PA specifically prohibiting such places from banning firearms, unlike wheelchairs, so they can legally do it.

However, there are laws permitting licensed private citizens to carry concealed firearms in public throughout the state, with specific exceptions defined by statute. A mall or restaurant is certainly operating as a public place during normal business hours, even if it is privately owned, and it is not excluded by statute. So why doesn't a PA CCL apply to such public places as well?

Has this issue ever been litigated in Pennsylvania or anywhere else?

Regards,

Al B.

Absolutely yes.

You must understand the difference between public property and private property, and there is really only two classifications.

Public property is owned by the people as a whole, like parks, road and sidewalk Right-of-Ways, government buildings and lands.

Private property is owned by individuals, co-ops, corporations, LLC's, trusts, etc regardless of if you can go there openly like a store, bar, mall, etc. Private property owners can indeed forbid what can happen and be on their property. Property rights trump nearly all other rights short of life. Failure to honor property rights opens a can of worms as to your Castle Doctrine rights.

Just because someone can come and go on the property like as a business it doesn't make it public property, and the owners or tenant can forbid your carrying there and nor should there be a law to keep property owners from restricting carrying. It is their land and buildings and no one, not even government, should forbid them the right to regulate their own property. You choose to go onto their properties of your own free will, so you must abide by their rules. If you dont like their rules, then you have free will to go elsewhere.

Property rights is the base right of all rights, if governments start restricting property owners from regulating what goes on within their lands and buildings then the basic principles of this country is lost to socialism and communism where you really own nothing.

[shermdo]

No one is guaranteed access to a mall, it's not public property, and even if it was, there would still be rules (e.g. a "no camp fires" sign at a public park).
A mall is private property, and they open to the public with certain rules... some of those rules (not that I agree with them), may be to prohibit firearms. Don't like it? Find a new mall, or save up your money, buy the mall in question, and take down the sign

I agree with most of what you said but I believe that your "public park" example is faulty in that I believe that a public park would usually mean that the park is owned by a township, city, county or state. It is my understanding that these parks can NOT banned concealed carry due to the PA preemption statue.

IMO you are absolutely correct regarding the private property issue. But in PA" stated earlier signs or posting of private property in PA does NOT carry any force of law. We can carry concealed if we wish but if you are spotted and reported to mall security and they ask you to leave the property you MUST do so or else you are then in violation of the law -- you are trespassing.

[jpavoncello]

And so the old adage goes, "Concealed means Concealed" if you're doing it right, who in the hell will know you're carrying in the first place?
A sign on the door means nothing (except fed buildings, courthouses etc, etc) except that if someone sees your gun, you'll be asked to leave.

[Ten*K]

And so the old adage goes, "Concealed means Concealed" if you're doing it right, who in the hell will know you're carrying in the first place?
A sign on the door means nothing (except fed buildings, courthouses etc, etc) except that if someone sees your gun, you'll be asked to leave.

well that should certainly stop the criminals from carrying as well, right? so us regular folk have nothing to fear at the mall.

[alb]

Just because someone can come and go on the property like as a business it doesn't make it public property, and the owners or tenant can forbid your carrying there and nor should there be a law to keep property owners from restricting carrying. It is their land and buildings and no one, not even government, should forbid them the right to regulate their own property.

You make a good point, and what you are saying is absolutely correct, right up to the point where they open their doors to the public, at which point the government imposes all kinds of regulations on them, incuding safety regulations, employment regulations and non-discrimination regulations, just to name a few.

You choose to go onto their properties of your own free will, so you must abide by their rules. If you dont like their rules, then you have free will to go elsewhere.

I go on to their property of my own free will; they open their property to the public of their own free will.

I don't see why a public accommodation isn't a 'public place' by definition, during the hours that it is operating as such, even though it is privately owned. After all, no one is forcing them to open their doors to the public. In that context, I don't see why a law that says, "We can" would carry less weight than a law that says, "They can't." They certainly have the right to ban all sorts of disorderly conduct while they are operating as a public place, but do they also have the right to ban conduct that is specifically permitted by statute in public places?

In any event, it would be interesting to read any case law that is available on this topic, assuming that it's ever been litigated.

Does anyone know of such a case?

Regards,

Al B.