READ FIRST: Where you CAN and CANNOT Carry weapons in the State of Pennsylvania

[OldSchoolPC]

BEGIN DISCUSSION



Post 1 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Post 2 BLAH BLAH
Post 3 BLAH BLAH
etc. etc.


Gunlawyer: "Here are irrefutable arguments. This is reality."



END DISCUSSION

[Mosinshooter762]

BEGIN DISCUSSION



Post 1 BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
Post 2 BLAH BLAH
Post 3 BLAH BLAH
etc. etc.


Gunlawyer: "Here are irrefutable arguments. This is reality."



END DISCUSSION

You're right! It is irrefutable that it maybe perfectly legal, or that it maybe a summary offense, or that it maybe a felony.

Glad we cleared that up!

[IGPJAP]

There are multiple statutes that can be stretched and twisted to support an arrest. What matters at the end of the day is what conduct has been deemed to be criminal, and how the courts have ruled on said conduct.

Some may prefer supposition, opining and speculation, I'll go with case law and rulings.

[GunLawyer001]

There are multiple statutes that can be stretched and twisted to support an arrest. What matters at the end of the day is what conduct has been deemed to be criminal, and how the courts have ruled on said conduct.

Some may prefer supposition, opining and speculation, I'll go with case law and rulings.

Cool, and where will you "go" with them?

If a client asks you, "is there any risk of prosecution if I ignore a 'no firearms' sign in a private business?", is your answer going to be "I never said don't worry about it, or to worry about it"?

Look at the context. What's the purpose of this thread?

[IGPJAP]

Cool, and where will you "go" with them?

If a client asks you, "is there any risk of prosecution if I ignore a 'no firearms' sign in a private business?", is your answer going to be "I never said don't worry about it, or to worry about it"?

Look at the context. What's the purpose of this thread?

The purpose is to discuss where you can and cannot carry in PA. There are varying opinions on the legality around carrying on private property that has a no guns/firearms sign posted.

That is what is being discussed in the most recent posts. You are entitled to your opinion, I prefer to support my position with case law and court rulings. While some may not like the fact that case law doesn't exist on this, it doesn't make their position more valid than any other.

Look no further than your case with the weapons on school property. Many on PAFOA have always felt the "other lawful purpose" COULD be interpreted to include legal carry. We had no case law and still don't, but at least we have a ruling by one judge.

All I'm pointing out is the absence of not only case law, but no ruling or even an arrest by an agency who chose to stretch ignoring a no gun/firearms sign into a trespassing charge.

[GunLawyer001]

The purpose is to discuss where you can and cannot carry in PA. There are varying opinions on the legality around carrying on private property that has a no guns/firearms sign posted.

That is what is being discussed in the most recent posts. You are entitled to your opinion, I prefer to support my position with case law and court rulings. While some may not like the fact that case law doesn't exist on this, it doesn't make their position more valid than any other.

Look no further than your case with the weapons on school property. Many on PAFOA have always felt the "other lawful purpose" [I]COULD[/I be interpreted to include legal carry. We had no case law and still don't, but at least we have a ruling by one judge.

All I'm pointing out is the absence of not only case law, but no ruling or even an arrest by an agency who chose to stretch ignoring a no gun/firearms sign into a trespassing charge.

Right. What is your position? I've stated that there have been no arrests and that a judge might well yell at any DA who prosecuted such a case, and you've posted that there have been no cases on the issue. I assumed that your posts had a point, that you were adding something to my "hasn't happened but I suppose it could" argument.

I would tell my clients, as I tell participants in my Firearms Law Workshops, that trespass law could be applied with a straight face, so they should balance their perceived risk of legal troubles against their perceived risk of needing a gun inside the dressmaker's shop, factoring in the risk of leaving it unattended inside their car. The legal risk is a non-zero hazard, somewhere between misprision of a felony and witchcraft.

[Mosinshooter762]

Right. What is your position? I've stated that there have been no arrests and that a judge might well yell at any DA who prosecuted such a case, and you've posted that there have been no cases on the issue. I assumed that your posts had a point, that you were adding something to my "hasn't happened but I suppose it could" argument.

I would tell my clients, as I tell participants in my Firearms Law Workshops, that trespass law could be applied with a straight face, so they should balance their perceived risk of legal troubles against their perceived risk of needing a gun inside the dressmaker's shop, factoring in the risk of leaving it unattended inside their car. The legal risk is a non-zero hazard, somewhere between misprision of a felony and witchcraft.
__________________

You seem a lot more sure that carrying a gun at a school under the "lawful purpose" exception is legal than you do regarding no-items signs and trespassing. Is this correct?

[GunLawyer001]

You seem a lot more sure that carrying a gun at a school under the "lawful purpose" exception is legal than you do regarding no-items signs and trespassing. Is this correct?

Not really, although the language allows for some wiggle room.

To my mind, the English words "other lawful purpose" means that any purpose that is not unlawful, must be a lawful purpose. It's easy to me, (1) did the defendant have a purpose? (2) did it happen to be a lawful purpose?
End of the analysis, he goes home a free man. I was sort of surprised to see the MontCo DA's office pursue the charge under the circumstances of that case, and they properly lost (or we properly won, depending on how much credit you want to throw my way.)

Even so, there were no cases on point, only 2 cases with dicta on the topic, and they went 2 different ways. The case I cited had a judge hypothesizing that if the dimwit student hadn't shot up the school with his paintball gun, his possession for use later would have been lawful. A different judge in a different case opined that he thought the language "meant" that you needed a weapon for your job, and so it would permit cops and security guards to carry into a school.

The trespassing statute allows for a prosecution without adding text to the statute (as the 2nd judge above needed). Concealing a gun might be to avoid detection by store personnel, thereby allowing you to gain access.

If you look at some cases, especially in New York courts (or Lancaster PA), where judges bent over backwards to allow civil or criminal cases to proceed against gun owners, you will want to err on the side of caution.

[Mosinshooter762]

Not really, although the language allows for some wiggle room.

To my mind, the English words "other lawful purpose" means that any purpose that is not unlawful, must be a lawful purpose. It's easy to me, (1) did the defendant have a purpose? (2) did it happen to be a lawful purpose?
End of the analysis, he goes home a free man. I was sort of surprised to see the MontCo DA's office pursue the charge under the circumstances of that case, and they properly lost (or we properly won, depending on how much credit you want to throw my way.)

Even so, there were no cases on point, only 2 cases with dicta on the topic, and they went 2 different ways. The case I cited had a judge hypothesizing that if the dimwit student hadn't shot up the school with his paintball gun, his possession for use later would have been lawful. A different judge in a different case opined that he thought the language "meant" that you needed a weapon for your job, and so it would permit cops and security guards to carry into a school.

The trespassing statute allows for a prosecution without adding text to the statute (as the 2nd judge above needed). Concealing a gun might be to avoid detection by store personnel, thereby allowing you to gain access.

If you look at some cases, especially in New York courts (or Lancaster PA), where judges bent over backwards to allow civil or criminal cases to proceed against gun owners, you will want to err on the side of caution.

Thank you Gunlawyer! I thought that is what you were saying. I think this helps clarify what your point is.

Some seem to interrupt you as taking an absolute position here. I see you as in the liberty business, and keeping people out of jail with conservative (very sure) legal advice.

There are many things that are probably legal that you would advise a client not to do unnecessarily if the client wants a very low risk of going to jail. I interrupt your position as applying this viewpoint here, and not as a yes or no definitive law professor style answer to these questions. You're not trying to resolve the issue by pretending to be a judge. You're just trying to keep people free, out of jail, and without arrests or convictions with your advice.

I respect this part of your work. It is important. I just find the 'theoretical' part really interesting, and important also.

[Carnes]

That poor bastard in Lancaster who's been convicted for not having a license despite his having a license, because one judge decided that what the Legislature SHOULD have done was nullify reciprocity if your PA license has been revoked......that one would have been hard to warn about.

Did you mean the guy from State College? Or, was there another one in Lancaster with a similar situation?

For the sake of staying on topic: Legal matters that are wide open to debate on forums like this have the potential to be extraordinarily expensive regardless of what might be technically/philosophically right or wrong.

My thanks to all the individuals who have made contributions to this thread helping to show where the line between legal and illegal is, no matter how fuzzy it may be.