Phone call with Temple University's Police Dept today

[FNG19]

Yes, but you'll still have to have your day in court to find out how silly it was. Now you've lost a day(s) pay and more, all for an invalid reason.

Oh, I'm not disagree that it's wrong. I'm just saying that the charges under that scenario are BS and everyone knows (or should know) that they are... which is the distinction between the trespass scenario and this one.

[Mosinshooter762]

One wonders if these Trespass by Item advocates are ready to have on their hands someone who is defenseless in a very dangerous location murdered for relying on information posted here which says, as if it is gospel, that you will be convicted of a crime for merely possessing something outside on land, for which there isn't any sign or direct notice against trespassing.

Even Gunlawyer isn't sure about whether no-items signs carry the force of law. So how did we get to the point where signs are now just a luxury for Trespass by Item convictions?

[IGPJAP]

DC isn't even valid if the putative reason for the charge is Open Carry.

Just as trespassing isn't valid if the putative reason is carrying a firearm on private property.

You'll note that both Mountain Jack and Viper both were acquitted, so the courts recognize how silly those charges were.

Jury and bench trial acquittal is not court recognition, appellate level case law is.

Let's stick to valid causes for charge, shall we?

Let's stick to the fact that despite the claims of the internet forum attorneys among us, there still is no case law supporting a trespassing conviction for ignoring a no guns/firearms sign on private property in Pennsylvania.

Furthermore, there hasn't been a single CHARGE anyone has been able to bring to the table, just speculation and supposition.