-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Dickson City Police Chief Stadnitski works to encourage businesses to ban gun carry!
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
"vermonter" from points unknown stated:
1. Big deal, there's a sign. It means nothing, nada, nil, zip.
2. You don't have a lawful LICENSED firearm in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Individuals are licensed, not things.
3. You are not required to leave your firearm in your car; you can carry it with you as always. Yes, if noticed, you might be asked to leave, in which case you would, then again, you might not be asked to leave, especially the case if you're carrying it concealed.
4. Should the police suddenly appear without you having been asked to leave, hopefully you'll have enough backbone and remember enough law (as already posted on this site) to stand up for your rights. If you're not willing to stand up for your rights, then you don't deserve them.
"vermonter" from points unknown stated:
1. Big deal, there's a sign. It means nothing, nada, nil, zip.
2. You don't have a lawful LICENSED firearm in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Individuals are licensed, not things.
3. You are not required to leave your firearm in your car; you can carry it with you as always. Yes, if noticed, you might be asked to leave, in which case you would, then again, you might not be asked to leave, especially the case if you're carrying it concealed.
4. Should the police suddenly appear without you having been asked to leave, hopefully you'll have enough backbone and remember enough law (as already posted on this site) to stand up for your rights. If you're not willing to stand up for your rights, then you don't deserve them.
Pa. Patriot
State Researcher
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
Statkowski speaks the truth. You'll be much wiser for having taken his comments seriously, Vermonter.
As a side note, I'll add that the chances of being asked to leave are small, in my personal expeeriences. Actually, so far they are 0% for me. I have OC'd regularly all over PA for a couple years now and I have yet to be asked to leave even one single place. Inlcuding places people said I was crazy for attempting, that I would "definately" be asked to leave, such as Chuck-E-Cheese, some places in Philadelphia, among others.
Even during my single only negative encounter -- the infamous Dickson City incident -- for which this thread is spawned, at which I was ILLEGALLY arrested, the establishment said we were welcome to come back in after the police were through violating our rights!
Just thought it interesting in relation to Statkowski's comments
Statkowski wrote:
Statkowski speaks the truth. You'll be much wiser for having taken his comments seriously, Vermonter.
As a side note, I'll add that the chances of being asked to leave are small, in my personal expeeriences. Actually, so far they are 0% for me. I have OC'd regularly all over PA for a couple years now and I have yet to be asked to leave even one single place. Inlcuding places people said I was crazy for attempting, that I would "definately" be asked to leave, such as Chuck-E-Cheese, some places in Philadelphia, among others.
Even during my single only negative encounter -- the infamous Dickson City incident -- for which this thread is spawned, at which I was ILLEGALLY arrested, the establishment said we were welcome to come back in after the police were through violating our rights!
Just thought it interesting in relation to Statkowski's comments
tracylaud83
Regular Member
imported post
But, did Rich ever get his B.U.G. back ?????
But, did Rich ever get his B.U.G. back ?????
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
tracylaud83 wrote:
tracylaud83 wrote:
His Taurus 9mm is still held hostage by Dickson City PD.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Mike wrote:
Mike wrote:
I thought the police chief said he could pick it up at any time. Was that not true or has he chosen not to retrieve it?
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
A firearm has been stolen by the Dickson City Police Department from a Federal Firearms Licensee, a felony.
We will be advised of how that plays out when the doo-doo hits the fan.
Yes, but what the police chief failed to say was that Rich would have to provide proof of ownership. Rich refuses to do so.
A firearm has been stolen by the Dickson City Police Department from a Federal Firearms Licensee, a felony.
We will be advised of how that plays out when the doo-doo hits the fan.
deepdiver
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
Statkowski wrote:
Ah, thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it.
imported post
What is the basis for saying oral notice is required for a trespass charge in Pennsylvania and that signs mean nothing? I read 18 P.C.S. 3503as indicating a increased severity for "defiant trespass" (that is, refusing to leave after being told to do so) but that implies that the individual has already trespassed (having been given notice, e.g. by signage). Although classified as a summary offense, "non-defiant" trespass can still land you in jail for 90 days.
What is the basis for saying oral notice is required for a trespass charge in Pennsylvania and that signs mean nothing? I read 18 P.C.S. 3503as indicating a increased severity for "defiant trespass" (that is, refusing to leave after being told to do so) but that implies that the individual has already trespassed (having been given notice, e.g. by signage). Although classified as a summary offense, "non-defiant" trespass can still land you in jail for 90 days.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
Trespass occurs when you're somewhere that you have no right to be (i.e., someone else's property). In the case of businesses open to the public, you are there as an invitee for those areas so designated, thus, you are not trespassing. Back rooms, behind the counters, etc., would not be so designated and your presence there would constitutetrespassing.
Entering onto land posted "No Trespassing" is covered by the law.
If you are asked to leave the public invitee areas of a business, and refuse to do so, then, and only then, are you committing defiant trespass. Note, the law does state that you have to be asked, or told, to leave. The law is silent on "No Guns" signs, thus, they have no standing in a court of law.
You can go into a business and start screaming up a storm. You may be cited for disorderly conduct, but unless asked to leave, you can't be cited for trespass. You might be but it wouldn't stand.
Trespass occurs when you're somewhere that you have no right to be (i.e., someone else's property). In the case of businesses open to the public, you are there as an invitee for those areas so designated, thus, you are not trespassing. Back rooms, behind the counters, etc., would not be so designated and your presence there would constitutetrespassing.
Entering onto land posted "No Trespassing" is covered by the law.
If you are asked to leave the public invitee areas of a business, and refuse to do so, then, and only then, are you committing defiant trespass. Note, the law does state that you have to be asked, or told, to leave. The law is silent on "No Guns" signs, thus, they have no standing in a court of law.
You can go into a business and start screaming up a storm. You may be cited for disorderly conduct, but unless asked to leave, you can't be cited for trespass. You might be but it wouldn't stand.
imported post
Even if you are asked to leave, there is a question whether a business open to the public can deny an individual's rights as a citizen:
See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marshvala.html
and http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/logan.html
for Supreme Court opinions on the subject regarding first amendment rights.The second amendment, as usual, has not yet benefited by being part of the family.
Even if you are asked to leave, there is a question whether a business open to the public can deny an individual's rights as a citizen:
See http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marshvala.html
and http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/logan.html
for Supreme Court opinions on the subject regarding first amendment rights.The second amendment, as usual, has not yet benefited by being part of the family.
Mike
Site Co-Founder
imported post
ne1 wrote:
ne1 wrote:
See also Shelley v. Kraemer (blocking courts fromenforcing racial property covenants). Applying Shelley to the Second Amendment, courts should not enforce private rules abridging gun carry rights.
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
I appreciate the primer on trespass but where in Pennsylvania law does it state that you must be asked to leave before any form of trespass has occurred? I understand that failure to depart when asked elevates the trespass (summary offense) to defiant trespass (misdemeanor) and the statute indicates that posting would suffice (that is the invitation to the general public does not extend to those who are armed). I am looking for something authoritative like a statute or court decision. This is the only thing I could find:
18 P.C.S. § 3503. Criminal trespass
...(b) DEFIANT TRESPASSER.-- (1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed orprivileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to whichnotice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely tocome to the attention of intruders;[a "No Guns" sign?]
(iii) fencing or other ....
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under thissubsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if theoffender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by theowner of the premises or other authorized person.
An offense underparagraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Otherwise it is a summary offense.
Statkowski wrote:
I appreciate the primer on trespass but where in Pennsylvania law does it state that you must be asked to leave before any form of trespass has occurred? I understand that failure to depart when asked elevates the trespass (summary offense) to defiant trespass (misdemeanor) and the statute indicates that posting would suffice (that is the invitation to the general public does not extend to those who are armed). I am looking for something authoritative like a statute or court decision. This is the only thing I could find:
18 P.C.S. § 3503. Criminal trespass
...(b) DEFIANT TRESPASSER.-- (1) A person commits an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed orprivileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to whichnotice against trespass is given by:
(i) actual communication to the actor;
(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely tocome to the attention of intruders;[a "No Guns" sign?]
(iii) fencing or other ....
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (1)(v), an offense under thissubsection constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree if theoffender defies an order to leave personally communicated to him by theowner of the premises or other authorized person.
An offense underparagraph (1)(v) constitutes a misdemeanor of the first degree.
Otherwise it is a summary offense.
imported post
More on discrimination in private facilities:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/365/715/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/267/case.html
More on discrimination in private facilities:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/365/715/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/us/373/267/case.html
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
I believe you're looking for a negative. Section 3503 talks about an intruder. It also mentions "posting in a manner prescribed by law." As a "invitee" to a public business, you are not an intruder. Also, "no guns" signs are not prescribed by law, whereas "Posted - No Trespassing" signs are.
Actual communication (i.e., Person A talking to Person B) is required per Section 3503(1)(b)(i).
I believe you're looking for a negative. Section 3503 talks about an intruder. It also mentions "posting in a manner prescribed by law." As a "invitee" to a public business, you are not an intruder. Also, "no guns" signs are not prescribed by law, whereas "Posted - No Trespassing" signs are.
Actual communication (i.e., Person A talking to Person B) is required per Section 3503(1)(b)(i).
imported post
Statkowski wrote:
I don't think so. An "intruder" is a "non-licensee," that is somebody without a legal basis for being in the place in question. If there is a sign that says "No Guns" (or "No Barefeet" or "No Shorts"), a person who would otherwise be a licensee but is wearing a gun/has barefeet/or shorts on is an "intruder." The statute says
"(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders"
Actual communication is one of the ways to notify - (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; these items are connected by "or" not "and" - one one will suffice. Having entered, the person is a trespasser (summary offense level). If at that point he is asked to leave and refuses to do so- he becomes a defiant trespasser (misdemeanor level). See Commonwealth v. Crosby, 2002 PA Super 10, 791 A.2d 366 (2002) for an application of the distinction.
Statkowski wrote:
I don't think so. An "intruder" is a "non-licensee," that is somebody without a legal basis for being in the place in question. If there is a sign that says "No Guns" (or "No Barefeet" or "No Shorts"), a person who would otherwise be a licensee but is wearing a gun/has barefeet/or shorts on is an "intruder." The statute says
"(ii) posting in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders"
Actual communication is one of the ways to notify - (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; these items are connected by "or" not "and" - one one will suffice. Having entered, the person is a trespasser (summary offense level). If at that point he is asked to leave and refuses to do so- he becomes a defiant trespasser (misdemeanor level). See Commonwealth v. Crosby, 2002 PA Super 10, 791 A.2d 366 (2002) for an application of the distinction.
imported post
apjonas wrote:
Discrimination in private facilites based upon race is illegal. I know of no law that says discrimination on thebasis of being armed is unlawful. Do you see the difference?
No, I do not see the difference. The right to bear arms uninfringed is just as much a part of our entitlement to equal protection- infact the right to keep and bear arms predates the 14th amendment.There would be no need for the second amendment if the people were expected to disarm upon leaving their homes to go to work, go shopping, go to church, mail a letter, etc.- presumably wewould not need constitutional protections to keep and bear arms on our own property.
**BTW, the cases cited above were decided before enactment of the 1964 civil rights act, thus it is even more interesting to read the logic behind the judges' opinions.
apjonas wrote:
Discrimination in private facilites based upon race is illegal. I know of no law that says discrimination on thebasis of being armed is unlawful. Do you see the difference?
No, I do not see the difference. The right to bear arms uninfringed is just as much a part of our entitlement to equal protection- infact the right to keep and bear arms predates the 14th amendment.There would be no need for the second amendment if the people were expected to disarm upon leaving their homes to go to work, go shopping, go to church, mail a letter, etc.- presumably wewould not need constitutional protections to keep and bear arms on our own property.
**BTW, the cases cited above were decided before enactment of the 1964 civil rights act, thus it is even more interesting to read the logic behind the judges' opinions.
Big Gay Al
Michigan Moderator
imported post
CowboyKen wrote:
CowboyKen wrote:
I don't see it. He asked a question, posing a certain possible scenario, and some of us responded.
Statkowski
Regular Member
imported post
You are there legally. You are inappropriately attired, at which point the proprietor, or representative thereof, tells you to leave.Or doesn't. Even with the sign they have a choice - they can take your money, or they can turn you away. You haven't done anything illegally (unless they've created a state law concerning pizza, or shirts, or shoes), thus you are not an intruder.
There may be something in the Health Code concerning shirts and shoes, but there's nothing in the UFA concerning handguns and business establishments. "No Guns" signs have no lawful standing, period.
It's a pizza shop. You're there to purchase a pizza (or rent one, if possible). There's a sign that says "Shirts and Shoes Required." You have neither.
You are there legally. You are inappropriately attired, at which point the proprietor, or representative thereof, tells you to leave.Or doesn't. Even with the sign they have a choice - they can take your money, or they can turn you away. You haven't done anything illegally (unless they've created a state law concerning pizza, or shirts, or shoes), thus you are not an intruder.
There may be something in the Health Code concerning shirts and shoes, but there's nothing in the UFA concerning handguns and business establishments. "No Guns" signs have no lawful standing, period.