relying on "no firearms sign"

[darkhunter]

Ok easy question, let's say you visit a mall a store or any other kind of private property, now there's no signs at all that state no weapons permitted, is that good enough to assume you're allowed with carrying concealed

What I mean is let's say they have a website and buried in their website is a disclaimer or something stating "no weapons allowed", is it your responsibility to search their policy or do you rely on the owner taking responsibility and posting signs

The reason I ask is it'll be hell to search every single place you plan on going and let's say you're out and want to check out a private property of some kind, now there's no signs at all but you get caught ccing, can you get charged with trespass if the place has a policy against carrying even though they had no signs up

I ask because you don't always know where you're going when out and about

[Manxdriver]

Concealed means concealed! Concealed also means nobody can see it. If they can't see it, do you really have it?

[QuackXP]

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Quoted from Criminal trespass - 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 3503

(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

http://law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/c...5.003.000.html

I don't consider a page on a website to be "reasonably likely to come to the attention".

If I don't see a sign I will carry.

But if discovered and asked to leave then you have been informed and you can be arrested if you do not leave.

[knight0334]

Ok easy question, let's say you visit a mall a store or any other kind of private property, now there's no signs at all that state no weapons permitted, is that good enough to assume you're allowed with carrying concealed

What I mean is let's say they have a website and buried in their website is a disclaimer or something stating "no weapons allowed", is it your responsibility to search their policy or do you rely on the owner taking responsibility and posting signs

The reason I ask is it'll be hell to search every single place you plan on going and let's say you're out and want to check out a private property of some kind, now there's no signs at all but you get caught ccing, can you get charged with trespass if the place has a policy against carrying even though they had no signs up

I ask because you don't always know where you're going when out and about

If a property owner wants an enforceable means to prohibit an activity or item they have the sign method. A notice by other means(internet, newspaper posting, etc) would require a verbal warning.

It could be argued in court that if they can prove you knew otherwise from other sources that you knew you didn't have privilege and entered by subterfuge. Which is why it may be bad to look it up on the net - one can claim some ignorance of property conditions if you don't know their policies and avoid the subterfuge issue.

It is only your responsibility to look for the signs to avoid Defiant Trespass.

Here are the methods in which a property owner can place notice or deter entry(iv and v are for schools):

(b) Defiant trespasser.--

(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by:

(i) actual communication to the actor;

(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders;

(iii) fencing or other enclosure manifestly designed to exclude intruders;

(iv) notices posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention at each entrance of school grounds that visitors are prohibited without authorization from a designated school, center or program official; or

(v) an actual communication to the actor to leave school grounds as communicated by a school, center or program official, employee or agent or a law enforcement officer.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under this subsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if the offender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by the owner of the premises or other authorized person. An offense under paragraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise it is a summary offense.

[darkhunter]

If a property owner wants an enforceable means to prohibit an activity or item they have the sign method. A notice by other means(internet, newspaper posting, etc) would require a verbal warning.

It could be argued in court that if they can prove you knew otherwise from other sources that you knew you didn't have privilege and entered by subterfuge. Which is why it may be bad to look it up on the net - one can claim some ignorance of property conditions if you don't know their policies and avoid the subterfuge issue.

It is only your responsibility to look for the signs to avoid Defiant Trespass.

Here are the methods in which a property owner can place notice or deter entry(iv and v are for schools):

Ok so let's say there is fencing or locked doors at the structure but you're given permission to enter, is the fencing or other means used to keep people out enough to assume no weapons are permitted or does there still need to be signs or verbal confirmation to come to that conclusion

Reason I ask is some places have buzzers that release locked doors to allow people in, is that enough to assume no weapons allowed

[Mosinshooter762]

I'm just going to quote my recent response from the another thread.

This is subject to debate. If a no-items sign, by itself, would render one as knowing that they are not licensed or privileged (knowing that they do not have permission or right - this is the key component to all the trespass statutes) to enter a building and they proceed to enter anyway then in addition to being guilty of Defiant Trespass, one would also be guilty of Criminal Trespass - Buildings and occupied structures, which is a felony.

Remember, the notice requirement of the Defiant Trespass charge is in addition to the key component of all the trespass statutes. Notice is not required in addition to the key component for the Criminal Trespass - Buildings and occupied structures charge (which is a felony). When and how that key component is satisfied is the big question. This is why this is so hotly debated.

[darkhunter]

I'm just going to quote my recent response from the another thread.



Remember, the notice requirement of the Defiant Trespass charge is in addition to the key component of all the trespass statutes. Notice is not required in addition to the key component for the Criminal Trespass - Buildings and occupied structures charge (which is a felony).

Isn't criminal trespass defined as using force of entry aka breaking into a place

[Mosinshooter762]

If someone walks through the open doorway of your home, knowing that they do not have permission or right to enter, that would not be Criminal Trespass - Buildings and Occupied Structures?

Isn't criminal trespass defined as using force of entry aka breaking into a place

The relevant part of is in bold.

§ 3503. Criminal trespass.
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or
surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied
structure or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof; or

[TaePo]

Isn't criminal trespass defined as using force of entry aka breaking into a place

I did not want to post the whole statute. Read it all, however, to get an understanding of how it works (or defenses to it).

We have a reference library link at top right of page. Read all of those statutes and come back with questions for the boards or do searches. A lot has been discussed before (but we all know the failings of the search engine).

Trespass Statute

[TaePo]

If someone walks through the open doorway of your home, knowing that they do not have permission or right to enter, that would not be Criminal Trespass - Buildings and Occupied Structures?




The relevant part of is in bold.

§ 3503. Criminal trespass.
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is
not licensed or privileged to do so, he:
(i) enters, gains entry by subterfuge or
surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied
structure or separately secured or occupied portion
thereof; or

I also think it is important to mention the defenses against trespass:


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


(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;

(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; or

(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.

Added the red for emphasis.