Dickson City Police Chief Stadnitski works to encourage businesses to ban gun carry!

[apjonas]

imported post

How about this: You want to buy my shotgun. I call you and tell you that the key to my place is under the mat. to let yourself in and wait in the living room until I arrive. You enter my house as directed. After a few minutes, you get bored and walk to the back of the house where my 19-year old daughter is undressing. I come home, find you at her door and ask you to leave - which you do. Did you commit a trespass? I suggest you read Commonwealth v. Crosby before answering.

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."

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.

 

[Statkowski]

imported post

I'm not an attorney, so I fail to see what Commonwealth v. Crosby has to do with anything.

In your hypothetical situation you gave me permission to enter your house and remain in the living room. If I did otherwise I would have been committing trespass.

Of course, I'm not an attorney, so I don't know if I did or not.

"No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" and "No Guns" have no standing in law. "Get out!" does.

 

[Mike]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

How about this: You want to buy my shotgun. I call you and tell you that the key to my place is under the mat. to let yourself in and wait in the living room until I arrive. You enter my house as directed. After a few minutes, you get bored and walk to the back of the house where my 19-year old daughter is undressing. I come home, find you at her door and ask you to leave - which you do. Did you commit a trespass? I suggest you read Commonwealth v. Crosby before answering.

Commonwealth v. Crosby pertained to an unlawful entry to a building where the tresspasser had previous actual notice, and the appeals court overturned the conviction for defiant tresspass of a man who entered a dwelling and sexually abused a girl, remanding to the trial court for possible action to perhaps convict on a summary tresspass charge. Com. v. Crosby, 791 A.2d 366, 371 (Pa.Super. 2002).

In the hypo you pose above,whether or not Crosby applies is questionable - once inside the dwelling, the person violated a rule of conduct - far stretch from crossing the threshold of the dwelling after being forbidden to do so.

But as for bootstrapping Crosby to apply for somebody walking into a public place open to the public at large and blowing off a "no gun sign," that's just fantasy. Tresspass is all about entering where entering has been lawfully prohibited. Show us acase where violation of a rule of conduct in a public place has resulted in a tresspass conviction and we will read it.

And in Pennsylvania, simple summary offense tresspass under 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3503requires a pretty significant mens rae:

"(b.1) Simple 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 for the purpose of:

(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;

(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or

(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.

(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense."

Note that in Crosby the facts point to a (b.1)(1)(i) intent of Mr. Crosby.

 

[Aran]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

How about this: You want to buy my shotgun. I call you and tell you that the key to my place is under the mat. to let yourself in and wait in the living room until I arrive. You enter my house as directed. After a few minutes, you get bored and walk to the back of the house where my 19-year old daughter is undressing. I come home, find you at her door and ask you to leave - which you do. Did you commit a trespass? I suggest you read Commonwealth v. Crosby before answering.

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."

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.

That depends. Your 19 year old daughter is an adult, and presumably has legal standing to tell someone in the house "Yes, you can go to the other room." Has she said a word to him?

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Aran wrote:

apjonas wrote:

How about this: You want to buy my shotgun. I call you and tell you that the key to my place is under the mat. to let yourself in and wait in the living room until I arrive. You enter my house as directed. After a few minutes, you get bored and walk to the back of the house where my 19-year old daughter is undressing. I come home, find you at her door and ask you to leave - which you do. Did you commit a trespass? I suggest you read Commonwealth v. Crosby before answering.

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."

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.

That depends. Your 19 year old daughter is an adult, and presumably has legal standing to tell someone in the house "Yes, you can go to the other room." Has she said a word to him?

No. She was unaware that he was there. Again, has a trespass occurred? As a patron of a business you are an invitee. However if that business has decreed that a certain class of persons are not welcome - they are not invitees, they are trespassers ab initio - these might be competitor price comparators, people who simply want to eat free samples, people without shoes, people with firearms, people with obscene t-shirts. If you are given notice prior to entry, you have trespassed. Whether or notthere isprior notice but you are asked to leave and do not - you are a defiant trespasser. With regard to Crosby - it was used to show the difference between these two classes. The defendant was not a defiant trespasser as he left when asked. He was held to be a trespasser because he exceeded the scope of his license.

The two levels of trespass (misdemeanor and summary offense) exist in PA law. If refusal to leave a business after being told to do so is a misdemeanor then what woud constitute a summary offense?

If oral notice is required then there should be no problem with returning to Old Country Buffet. Yet I am sure that nobody is going to OC there anymore for fear of being arrested for trespass. Why would the chief encourage signs if they are of no legal significance?

 

[Mike]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

As a patron of a business you are an invitee. However if that business has decreed that a certain class of persons are not welcome - they are not invitees, they are trespassers ab initio - these might be competitor price comparators, people who simply want to eat free samples, people without shoes, people with firearms, people with obscene t-shirts.

Again, such persons have not offended the PA tresspass statute because they have not enterered "for the purpose of:

(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;

(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or

(iii) defacing or damaging the premises."

But thanks for trying.

 

[Statkowski]

imported post

It appears that apjonas has this thing about beating a dead horse. All of the personages he mentioned would have to be told, in person, that their presence is not appreciated. Once told, a return visit may well be a trespass.

A "No Trespassing" sign has the force of law behind it - it's specifically mentioned in the statutes. Comparative pricers? That might come under an industrial espionage law, maybe. Obscene shirt wearers? Who defines what obscene is? The Supreme Court had problems with that one.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, "No Guns" signs are strictly advisory in nature.

The uninformed citizenry may think otherwise, but most of us forum members are not uninformed.

 

[ne1]

imported post

Statkowski wrote:

"No Guns" signs are strictly advisory in nature.

For the most part, I simply consider them advice to spend my money elsewhere. We do not see many of them in Pennsylvania. I think the last one I saw was in Frackville Mall (I did not spend any money that day, and I haven't returned since, but that was MY decision).

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Mike wrote:

apjonas wrote:

As a patron of a business you are an invitee. However if that business has decreed that a certain class of persons are not welcome - they are not invitees, they are trespassers ab initio - these might be competitor price comparators, people who simply want to eat free samples, people without shoes, people with firearms, people with obscene t-shirts.

Again, such persons have not offended the PA tresspass statute because they have not enterered "for the purpose of:

(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;

(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or

(iii) defacing or damaging the premises."

But thanks for trying.

You are dealing with the wrong section of the trespass law. Simple trespass does not require any notice - advance, personal or otherwise. You just have to have entered for one of the listed purposes. Defiant trespass involves entering after having been advised that you are not permitted. It DOES NOT require personal communication. Defying a personal order to depart increases the level of the infraction* (summary offense to misdemeanor) but does not change the fact that a trespass has already occurred by the disregarding a sign as mentioned in § 3503(b)(1)(ii). Please notice the “or” - the posting DOES NOT have to be in accordance with a statute (I don’t think PA has one - do they?). Paragraph 18 from the Crosby case (below) confirms this. I know it is urban legend in PA buta personal order to you is not required for a defiant trespass to be charged. It is required only to charge you at the misdemeanor level. I think this difference is where the erroneous information started.

*The increased level would not be applicable if you disregarded a personal order not to enter given BEFORE you entered the premises since it only comes into play after the initial trespass and unless it was followed by a 2nd personal order to depart. This distinction gives greater significance to a “personal order" to depart rather than vitiating the forms of notice not to enter. There is an easy way to see who is correct. Call the chief and let him know that you are going to OC at OCB at a certain time. If your position is correct, the worst that should happen is that you will be asked to leave. If you are not asked to leave, enjoy your dinner. As a matter of fact, I’ll pick up the tab.

Here is the relevant section:

§ 3503. Criminal trespass.

(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.

And from Crosby -
¶18 It is clear from a plain reading of the statute that the grading of the offense is dependent upon the actions of the perpetrator once he is found to be in violation of the statute. If, at that time, the offender defies an order to leave, he will face enhanced charges and punishment. However, if the offender complies with the order to leave, the initial violation can be graded only as a summary offense.[/b]

Italicized emphasis is the court's; colored emphasis is mine. I won't continue this debate unless there is new information provided. I am not trying to win an academic argument but rather point out a pitfall to those who OC. You may think I am all wet and that is fine - I can't hurt you and wouldn't want to if I could but I'm sure that the chief is thinking along these lines and he has the ability to make your life miserable. Imagine being in front of a PA court and citing OCDO as a legal source for your defense. "But your honor, signs don't matter. Statkowski, Mike and Big Gay Al said so!"

 

[Mike]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

You are dealing with the wrong section of the trespass law. Simple trespass does not require any notice - advance, personal or otherwise. You just have to have entered for one of the listed purposes.

Nope - you have to have entered "knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so." That is what you are alleging a person does by blowing off a no-gun sign - para (b.1) is very specific and would be rendered nugatory by reading para b to turn a (b.1) simple tresspass into a defiant tresspass, so para (b.1) controls. Further, the idea that a rule of conduct sign constitutes a "notice against trespass" under para (b) does not follow - that's why there are no tresspass cases against people running at the swimming pool, chewing gum in the library, or carrying a gun in a store where a "no guns" sign has been posted somewhere on the premises.

"(b.1) Simple 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 for the purpose of:

(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;

(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or

(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.

(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense."

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Come on Mike, I know you are smarter than this. The various sections (a) (b) (b.1) and (b.2) deal with different types of trespassers. "b.1" is a section in its own right - not a subsection of (b). (b)(1) and (b.1) are completely different animals. What probably happened was that (a) (b) and (c) were already extant when the provisions of (b.1) and (b.2) came into being - rather than renumber (reletter?) the sections to have (a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) it was done this way. The provisions of (b.1) simply have nothing to do with this hypothetical.

Nonetheless, you are misreading (b.1) the "license or privilege" referred to applies not just to entering the premises but PERFORMING one of the listed acts. There aren't any circumstances (that I can think of) where a person would be licensed to terrorize or threaten but there can certainly be instances in which a person is licensed to start a fire (someone you hire to burn leaves) or defacing/damaging (a demolition worker). Whether there is a sign or not is irrelvant to a licensee (more properly called an invitee in this case) because he has received permission already. If there is no notice and an unauthorized person enters to terrorize, start a fire, demolish, etc. - then it is a violation of (b.1) only. The value of this section is the ability to charge someone with trespass before any damage is done and without the burden having notice as a element of the crime. A person who disregards a sign (or other notice) AND performs one of the listed acts could be charged with violation of (b) and/or (b.1). I assumed it was understood that these last two cases would involve people who knew they didn't have a license to enter (absent the rare case of mistake).

Inasmuch as an OC'er does not enter for the purpose of any of the acts listed in (b.1), (b) is the only applicable section. The "defiant" part comes about because the trespasser ignored the notice (vs. accidentally entering). The personal order is relevant in elevating the level of the offense. Getting back to our concern - a OC'er who disregards a "No Guns" sign has committed trespass (summary offense level). If said person refuses a personal order to depart the level is bumped to misdemeanor. The law is designed to prevent altercations. Leave and the penalty will be less severe. Refuse and it goes up. I would guess most of the time an obeyed order to depart would cause the property owner to forget about the whole thing and so, as a practical matter, an OC'er may not be charged but he certainly could be. In many cases, the "first" notice given is going to be the order to depart, which probably adds to the mistaken notion that signs can be ignored. Also, your "rules of conduct" theory doesn't fly. Someone who is admitted to a swimming pool is an invitee. Chewing gum happens subsequent to and independently of admission. It doesn't mean that the gum chewer cannot be ejected, just that no trespass occured by entering. "No Guns" means any person with a gun is prohibiting from entering - in the first place. If you want an example using your scenario - if the swimming pool had a sign at the entrance - "Persons with Open Sores or Communicable Diseases are Barred Entry." Then a person with typhoid who entered the pool would be a trespasser from the moment of entry, not from when he received an order to leave. If you sneak Good n Plentys into a theater than posts "No Outside Food Permitted" - you are a trespasser from the get-go. You have not met the conditions the owner has placed upon your entry. The fact that you might not get caught or prosecuted doesn't mean that the trespass did not occur. Look at paragraph 18 from the Crosby case. What is the "initial violation" to which the court is referring?

Mike wrote:

apjonas wrote:

You are dealing with the wrong section of the trespass law. Simple trespass does not require any notice - advance, personal or otherwise. You just have to have entered for one of the listed purposes.

Nope - you have to have entered "knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so." That is what you are alleging a person does by blowing off a no-gun sign - para (b.1) is very specific and would be rendered nugatory by reading para b to turn a (b.1) simple tresspass into a defiant tresspass, so para (b.1) controls. Further, the idea that a rule of conduct sign constitutes a "notice against trespass" under para (b) does not follow - that's why there are no tresspass cases against people running at the swimming pool, chewing gum in the library, or carrying a gun in a store where a "no guns" sign has been posted somewhere on the premises.

"(b.1) Simple 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 for the purpose of:

(i) threatening or terrorizing the owner or occupant of the premises;

(ii) starting or causing to be started any fire upon the premises; or

(iii) defacing or damaging the premises.

(2) An offense under this subsection constitutes a summary offense."

 

[Mike]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Nonetheless, you are misreading (b.1) the "license or privilege" referred to applies not just to entering the premises but PERFORMING one of the listed acts.

Nope - knowing he is not licenses he enters for the purpose of performing the listed acts.

(b.1.) thus swallows the summary offense in (b).

 

[Mike]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Getting back to our concern - a OC'er who disregards a "No Guns" sign has committed trespass (summary offense level).

Find such a case from any state.

 

[Pa. Patriot]

imported post

Good greif! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Twice now in one thread that apjonas just doesn't get it

 

[Mike]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Look at paragraph 18 from the Crosby case. What is the "initial violation" to which the court is referring?

Entering after being served notice not to enter at all for the purpose of threatening or terrorizing an occupant - and not entering carrying an item prohibited by the owner.

In any event, Crosby is not applicableto your no-gun sign hypo because the gun owner is not entering the premises for the purpose of threatening anybody, see (b.1.) and further, Crosby does not establish that a person entering a dwelling and blowing off a sign about what can be carried while entering violates (b).

 

[Statkowski]

imported post

 

[Tomahawk]

imported post

So, apjonas, if the mods were to post a sign at the homepage of this forum that posting with a large, hard-to-read font was prohibited, would that make you a trespasser here? I can't read your posts; the lettering gives me a headache.

 

[apjonas]

imported post

Ok, guys. You are either just trying to wind me up (won't work) or you are so deficient in the English language that you cannot understand the plain meaning of words or (most likely) have psychologically become attached to a notion that no amount of evidence will cause you to let it go. There is little point in trying to restate the obvious. Nor is there any purpose to responding to your challenges, which I could do easily, because you will pretzel any answer into fitting your dogma. Having the mantra of "Signs don't matter, signs don't matter" may have a calming effect on you but will be of no consequence in a real life situation.

I notice that nobody is going to take up the Old Country Buffet Challenge. Perhaps deep down, you know I am right but just can't bring yourself to admit it because then you wouldn't be one of the OCDO good ole boys, heck somebody might even call you a troll. This is just another sad example of groupthink striking fear into the hearts of otherwise reasonable people. Just remember that sticking your head into the sand may make you a respected sage on OCDO but will cause you grief when the chief puts you in bracelets. He's probably read your answers, is laughing his ass off and salivating for the opportunity to prove you wrong. If anybody plans to OC in a posted business, please let us know when, where and the result.

 

[Steve in PA]

imported post

Mike wrote:

apjonas wrote:

Getting back to our concern - a OC'er who disregards a "No Guns" sign has committed trespass (summary offense level).

Find such a case from any state.

I don't know where apjonas is getting his ideas or information from, but they are all wrong.

 

[Pa. Patriot]

imported post

apjonas wrote:

Ok, guys. You are either just trying to wind me up (won't work) or you are so deficient in the English language that you cannot understand the plain meaning of words or (most likely) have psychologically become attached to a notion that no amount of evidence will cause you to let it go. There is little point in trying to restate the obvious. Nor is there any purpose to responding to your challenges, which I could do easily, because you will pretzel any answer into fitting your dogma. Having the mantra of "Signs don't matter, signs don't matter" may have a calming effect on you but will be of no consequence in a real life situation.

I notice that nobody is going to take up the Old Country Buffet Challenge. Perhaps deep down, you know I am right but just can't bring yourself to admit it because then you wouldn't be one of the OCDO good ole boys, heck somebody might even call you a troll. This is just another sad example of groupthink striking fear into the hearts of otherwise reasonable people. Just remember that sticking your head into the sand may make you a respected sage on OCDO but will cause you grief when the chief puts you in bracelets. He's probably read your answers, is laughing his ass off and salivating for the opportunity to prove you wrong. If anybody plans to OC in a posted business, please let us know when, where and the result.

1) You were shown the error of your thinking, in black and white text of the law.
2) you refuse to admit your wrong
3) Someone did OC last weekend in the OCB in DC last weekend. That's a tale for another time. (I was saving it)
4) Cheif putting mein bracelets? LOL. I would WELCOME the DCPD arresting me AGAIN for lawful OC.

Are you through yet?