Man charged for leaving firearm in casino's restroom

[Crazee]

This has been a bit of a fear of mine... More then once when I have dropped drawers my gun ended up on the floor..So I have started taking it out and setting it down till I am done.. Not being perfect like other people who can quickly call others idiots etc I am concerned that I could momentarily forget it..

[normanvin]

Saw this story in todays papper. Its the same casino.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Man-...no-lobby-.html

[PhillyVet]

I recently sent this e-mail to the PGCB. I am still awaiting a reply...
------------------
Sir/Ma’am:

I recently came across Title 58 PA Code, section 465a.13 (Prohibiting possession of weapons within a licensed facility). I have reviewed the stated references/authorities (Title 4, Pa.C.S., sections 1202(b)(30), 1207, 1322 & 1520) as well as the rest of the Pa Statutes and I can find no law prohibiting a Casino patron from carrying a legal weapon into a casino.

Please advise as to the following:
1. What, if any, state law (other than administrative code) prohibits possession of a weapon in a Licensed facility (Casino)?
2. Does the PGCB claim the prohibition on weapons in Licensed facilities applies to patrons or just to the licensee and their employees?
3. If yes to 2 above, what, if any, state law empowers the PGCB to create such a rule against patrons?
4. If yes to 2 above, what crime (violation of Statute), if any, will a patron with a Pa LTCF (IAW Title 18 Pa.C.S., section 6109) be charged with if he is in possession of firearm on casino property?
4. if yes to 2 above, does PGCB claim such prohibition applies to all property owned by the licensee (driveways, parking lots, restaurants, hotels, etc.) or just to the gaming floor?

Thank you
---------------------
Any thoughts from anyone?

[tl_3237]

PhillyVet: Let us know the response.

Just a fine point - 465a.13 is a requirement placed by the PGCB on the licensee (casino) not on the patron. Under their enabling legislation they are empowered to promulgate regulations wrt the licensing and operation of casinos.

In accordance with that regulation and his licensure conditions, the casino operator (a private property owner/lessee) complies by posting a notice to partrons that weapon possession is prohibited.

As such an armed patron enters on the property contrary to the conditions of entry and is trespassing (18 Pa CSA 3503(b)(1)(ii)).

Neither the state nor the PGCB have created a law directly forbidding a patron to carry at a casino.

[normanvin]

PhillyVet: Let us know the response.

Just a fine point - 465a.13 is a requirement placed by the PGCB on the licensee (casino) not on the patron. Under their enabling legislation they are empowered to promulgate regulations wrt the licensing and operation of casinos.

In accordance with that regulation and his licensure conditions, the casino operator (a private property owner/lessee) complies by posting a notice to partrons that weapon possession is prohibited.

As such an armed patron enters on the property contrary to the conditions of entry and is trespassing (18 Pa CSA 3503(b)(1)(ii)).

Neither the state nor the PGCB have created a law directly forbidding a patron to carry at a casino.

We have known this for a while now. It will be interesting to find out if they know it.

[PhillyVet]

The defiant trespass argument has been propogated by the anti-gun crowd for a couple of years now.. However, every state that has enacted exclusionary signage laws has stated such specifically.. Pennsylvania's signage law (RE: defiant tresspass) is, and has always been, a binary law (I.E. a sign prohibited all entry, not entry with a qualifier).. the Anti agenda propogates the idea that a sign can impose conditions on entry upon a public-accomodation that prohibit conduct that are passive in nature. Pennsylvania doesn't have a "no guns" signage law.. therefor, I doubt a prosecution based on defiant tresspass because a patron was carying a firearm in a public accomodation would be upheld..

[tl_3237]

The defiant trespass argument has been propogated by the anti-gun crowd for a couple of years now.. However, every state that has enacted exclusionary signage laws has stated such specifically.. Pennsylvania's signage law (RE: defiant tresspass) is, and has always been, a binary law (I.E. a sign prohibited all entry, not entry with a qualifier).. the Anti agenda propogates the idea that a sign can impose conditions on entry upon a public-accomodation that prohibit conduct that are passive in nature. Pennsylvania doesn't have a "no guns" signage law.. therefor, I doubt a prosecution based on defiant tresspass because a patron was carying a firearm in a public accomodation would be upheld..

Could you expound, with references, why you assert the bolded?

It has been argued many times in other threads and the prevailing census seems to be that ingress onto property contrary to lawful conditions of entry is indeed defiant trespass under 18 Pa CSA 3503(b)(1)(ii).

Also consider a simple, illustrative example by a practicing Pa attorney posting on this forum:

<snip>

Here's the way the law works: if Costco bans guns on their premises (which they do), but they don't post signs at the door, then all they can do is ask you to leave once they see that you have a gun. If you refuse to leave, then it's defiant trespass, a criminal offense. If they post a clearly-visible "no guns" sign at the door and you come in with a gun, then you are trespassing even before they confront you.

<snip>

Also, if it's all or nothing with respect to Pa signage, then how do you interpret the following defenses provided in 3503? -

18 Pa CSA 3503
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:

(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises;

Might want to read some of the previous arguments:
http://forum.pafoa.org/york-53/86460...u-cant-cc.html