Carrying in PNC Park

[LightningMcQueen784]

Hey fellow PAFOA members!

I have a question for you all. Does PNC park tolerate carrying of firearm(s) into the stadium? Concealed or not, I'd like to know for sure if you're allowed to bring firearms into the stadium. It states in the "fan guide" vaguely that no weapons of any kind are allowed, without mentioning anything about guns or firearms. But my firearm, like a pen, umbrella, or simple pocket knife, is only a tool until it's used to harm anyone, at which point it becomes a "weapon".

Can anyone elaborate on this? Does anyone know if they have metal detectors at the entrance? Or if anyone has been asked to leave because of carrying of a firearm? Any experience with open carrying, and being just fine?

Thanks a lot!
LMcQ

[Adam-12]

I CC there. If they ever throw me out, that'll be my last visit there ever. I won't go to Heinz field, where metal detectors are built in.

Since the stadiums are technically owned by the city, it's technically a violation of the UFA to ban firearms there.

[LightningMcQueen784]

Thanks, Adam-12, for the quick response!! Are you sure that PNC Park is own by the city, and not technically private property? If so, is it true, that general rules about carrying firearms on the streets will apply at the park, regarding violation of the UFA if they regulate carrying of firearms more than that of the commonwealth? That was a good point, and thanks for bringing it out!! If it is indeed true, that would make me feel a LOT better about carrying there, a not having to worry about getting kicked out.

Can anyone else chime in on this?

I just feel like it's silly to not carry in a place like a stadium where "random" violence is much much much more likely to happen than just on the streets.

LMcQ

[mjf]

Thanks, Adam-12, for the quick response!! Are you sure that PNC Park is own by the city, and not technically private property? If so, is it true, that general rules about carrying firearms on the streets will apply at the park, regarding violation of the UFA if they regulate carrying of firearms more than that of the commonwealth? That was a good point, and thanks for bringing it out!! If it is indeed true, that would make me feel a LOT better about carrying there, a not having to worry about getting kicked out.

Can anyone else chime in on this?

I just feel like it's silly to not carry in a place like a stadium where "random" violence is much much much more likely to happen than just on the streets.

LMcQ

Both PNC park and Heinz field are owned by the city. However, the city leases it out to the sports teams... Since the Pirates/Steelers are acting as private tenants, they can allow or deny access to the park, during a game, to whomever they please. Effectively, the city of Pittsburgh is not regulating anything with regard to firearms, rather the Steelers and Pirates are--the city has no regulation regarding firearms at a stadium.

[Bruce]

But my firearm, like a pen, umbrella, or simple pocket knife, is only a tool until it's used to harm anyone, at which point it becomes a "weapon".

Here Bruce goes picking nits again...

Firearms most certainly are, by every and any definition, "weapons". If you use your pepper spray to season your food, I suppose that it might be excluded from the permanent label of "weapon". And while one 'could' debate if a knife or a club should *always* be defined as a weapon, a (functional) fireARM is, unmistakably, *always* defined as a "weapon" - even if you use it as a hammer or paperweight. Just because a weapon is not actively being used as a weapon does not mean it stops being a "weapon". A sword on a wall is still a "weapon". A nuclear missile in a sealed silo is still a "weapon".

Look up "firearm" in the dictionary - any dictionary... No, please, go ahead... I'll wait. While you're at it, cross-reference: "gun", "pistol" and "arm" (as in: what we have a Right to Keep and Bear).

If a firearm was not absolutely defined as a "weapon" (and a deadly one at that) then how could you rightly defend yourself should someone aim one at you? The fact is: if someone points a firearm at me (without them being identifiable as a cop or a soldier *and* having a darned good excuse for doing so) I am shooting that someone! Why? Because I would have a perfectly reasonable, and legal, belief that a "weapon" was being used on me and I have the Right to defend my life.

A tape measure is a "tool". If someone points a tape measure at you I think you can safely ignore it.

I apologize if I seem petty here, but this nonsense that I see every so often about firearms not being "weapons" is a serious peeve of mine. The courts define firearms as weapons. The dictionaries define firearms as weapons. Everyone I've ever known personally defines a firearm as a "weapon".
.

[BigDaddyJay]

Here Bruce goes picking nits again...

Firearms most certainly are, by every and any definition, "weapons". If you use your pepper spray to season your food, I suppose that it might be excluded from the permanent label of "weapon". And while one 'could' debate if a knife or a club should *always* be defined as a weapon, a (functional) fireARM is, unmistakably, *always* defined as a "weapon" - even if you use it as a hammer or paperweight. Just because a weapon is not actively being used as a weapon does not mean it stops being a "weapon". A sword on a wall is still a "weapon". A nuclear missile in a sealed silo is still a "weapon".

Look up "firearm" in the dictionary - any dictionary... No, please, go ahead... I'll wait. While you're at it, cross-reference: "gun", "pistol" and "arm" (as in: what we have a Right to Keep and Bear).

If a firearm was not absolutely defined as a "weapon" (and a deadly one at that) then how could you rightly defend yourself should someone aim one at you? The fact is: if someone points a firearm at me (without them being identifiable as a cop or a soldier *and* having a darned good excuse for doing so) I am shooting that someone! Why? Because I would have a perfectly reasonable, and legal, belief that a "weapon" was being used on me and I have the Right to defend my life.

A tape measure is a "tool". If someone points a tape measure at you I think you can safely ignore it.

I apologize if I seem petty here, but this nonsense that I see every so often about firearms not being "weapons" is a serious peeve of mine. The courts define firearms as weapons. The dictionaries define firearms as weapons. Everyone I've ever known personally defines a firearm as a "weapon".
.

Rep sent - well said! Nothing against the thread starter, but he had a pretty creative definition of "weapon"

Jay

[LightningMcQueen784]

Hey Bruce,

Good point! And I defintely appreciate you bringing that out! I did a quick check online by searching the UFA - and as the UFA defines it:

Possession of weapon.-A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a firearm or other weapon concealed upon his person with intent to employ it criminally.

And also:

"Weapon." Anything readily capable of lethal use and possessed under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses which it may have. The term includes a firearm which is not loaded or lacks a clip or other component to render it immediately operable, and com*ponents which can readily be assembled into a weapon.

Now, just for the sake of discussing it (rather than arguing), would that change your view on how "Weapon" is defined? Because to me, the term itself is totally intention based - anything and everything can be used AS a weapon, but no particular thing starts out solely as a weapon until it is used as such.

Thoughts?

[Bruce]

Evidently, we see different things. Here is how I view your citation:

[...]

"Weapon." Anything readily capable of lethal use and possessed under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses which it may have. The term [which, in this case, would be "Weapon", of course] includes a firearm which is not loaded or lacks a clip or other component to render it immediately operable, and com*ponents which can readily be assembled into a weapon.

[...]

.

[alowe56]

Hey Bruce,

Good point! And I defintely appreciate you bringing that out! I did a quick check online by searching the UFA - and as the UFA defines it:

Possession of weapon.-A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if he possesses a firearm or other weapon concealed upon his person with intent to employ it criminally.

And also:

"Weapon." Anything readily capable of lethal use and possessed under circumstances not manifestly appropriate for lawful uses which it may have. The term includes a firearm which is not loaded or lacks a clip or other component to render it immediately operable, and com*ponents which can readily be assembled into a weapon.

Now, just for the sake of discussing it (rather than arguing), would that change your view on how "Weapon" is defined? Because to me, the term itself is totally intention based - anything and everything can be used AS a weapon, but no particular thing starts out solely as a weapon until it is used as such.

Thoughts?

The crime is not in the definition of "Weapon." The crime is in how the weapon is carried/used.

Basically, a firearm is a weapon, a knife is a weapon. However, no CRIME is committed unless you are either attacking someone with said weapon, or carrying in contravention of laws governing such.

Essentially, if you are carrying a weapon for self-defense, and you have a permit to carry, or are OCing, and not violating private property rules, or have not been told to vacate the premises by the owner or their agents, and then refused, then you're not breaking any laws.

However, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

[Pa. Patriot]

Both PNC park and Heinz field are owned by the city. However, the city leases it out to the sports teams... Since the Pirates/Steelers are acting as private tenants, they can allow or deny access to the park, during a game, to whomever they please. Effectively, the city of Pittsburgh is not regulating anything with regard to firearms, rather the Steelers and Pirates are--the city has no regulation regarding firearms at a stadium.

I do not think this has been legally proven. Additionally, FWIW (since it is not Pa., but good food for thought) a similar issue in Va., where a person sued the PD over OC harassment/arrest, where the city tried to use the whole private corp renting the city property defense, ended up settling with the plaintiff. I'm confident they would not have done so had they expected that defense to hold up in court

What I am trying to say is that this issue may be worth challenging.