Remember when rules mattered? Dogs in a mall.

[SleepyLion]

But you're wrong. Trespass still exists. If someone posts a sign saying "firearms prohibited" and you go onto their property with a gun, you are still committing the crime of trespass, regardless of whether or not the "sign" is "directly enforceable."

As to identifying who is "CC" ... I could tell you with at least 80% accuracy which sad sacks are CC. And whose wives are cheating on them (a lot of crossover there), or already just bolted. And they often come up with horribly misguided false dilemmas and think they're applying logic to a situation.

So, which part of criminal code applies to the "no firearms allowed" sign? I'll await your answer, because my PSP friend would disagree.

Also, your self-graded 80% or more of the time means you're wrong 20% or less. So, at least one of us admits they are wrong.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

But you're wrong. Trespass still exists. If someone posts a sign saying "firearms prohibited" and you go onto their property with a gun, you are still committing the crime of trespass, regardless of whether or not the "sign" is "directly enforceable."

As to identifying who is "CC" ... I could tell you with at least 80% accuracy which sad sacks are CC. And whose wives are cheating on them (a lot of crossover there), or already just bolted. And they often come up with horribly misguided false dilemmas and think they're applying logic to a situation.

Alright enough. Moogs, if you come in my house, moms will shoot you dead. If she comes in your pottery tea house, you can call the police, fair?

 

[LionJim]

Alright enough. Moogs, if you come in my house, moms will shoot you dead.

You better hope this post doesn’t come up at the trial.

 

[Nitt1300]

Alright enough. Moogs, if you come in my house, moms will shoot you dead. If she comes in your pottery tea house, you can call the police, fair?

your wife defends you? wow, that's pretty weak

 

[Moogy]

Alright enough. Moogs, if you come in my house, moms will shoot you dead. If she comes in your pottery tea house, you can call the police, fair?

If I come in your house, it'll be because I'm invited (and because I developed a horrible drug addiction and need the cash) ... just like that "Amazon delivery driver" your mother invited to "come around back." You'll shoot your eye out, kid.

 

[Moogy]

your wife defends you? wow, that's pretty weak

Well, his wife IS his mom, so, obviously, Oedipus-st lion needs protecting.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

We spoke of this her real name is … and moms is her nickname

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

your wife defends you? wow, that's pretty weak

What’s wrong with strong self sufficuent successful girls? And cougar too, downside to all this?

 

[Moogy]

So, which part of criminal code applies to the "no firearms allowed" sign? I'll await your answer, because my PSP friend would disagree.

Also, your self-graded 80% or more of the time means you're wrong 20% or less. So, at least one of us admits they are wrong.

Sparky ... trespass. Holy hell.

 

[SleepyLion]

Sparky ... trespass. Holy hell.

Sparky... there is nothing in the criminal code that says the police will enforce a policy of a private organization (which is what a no firearms allowed sign on private property is) ... holy hell just read the code. It is even in English for you, Section 3503.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.035.003.000..HTM

Your beloved signs do not quifiy under 3503(b). Firearms are not mentioned.

While you are at it find someone that has been charged with the crime that you say is so offensive. Put a link to the police blotter.

If you were to SEE a firearm in a place where your sign was posted and called the police, they would just ask the person to leave or remove their firearm from the premises. They are not pressing charges for a crime unless the person then refused to leave. That is only after you specifally had asked them to leave after seeing the firearm (not just 80% of the time I can tell people that carry from ones that do not). Again, you would not know they were carrying until you saw something. And back to my very first point, for me the bullets would have already been fired. And even then, while cleaning up the mess, you would need to then ask me to leave the premises for not following your policy (BTW, I would still stay for the police report).

If you had a policy that red underware was prohibited in your establishment and a sign at the door that stated such, do you really think that would be enforced as trespassing by the police if someone wore red underware into you establisment? There is no law being broken by wearing red underware (just like there is no law being broken by CCP). And how would you even know if someone had red underware on unless they allowed you to see it?

Simply not following a written/posted policy for a private establishment is not trespassing.

It looks like you have a novel legal theory.

 

[GrimReaper]

We spoke of this her real name is … and moms is her nickname

Moms

 

[MacNit]

Spot on!

Dogs (and other pets) are great. But they don't belong everywhere. They are not people, they are not family and they don't deserve the same considerations that humans do (nor should they be treated poorly).

They are pets. Leave them in your air conditioned house.

The four highest income states are MD, MA, NJ and NH.

Cost of living also astronomical

 

[Moogy]

Sparky... there is nothing in the criminal code that says the police will enforce a policy of a private organization (which is what a no firearms allowed sign on private property is) ... holy hell just read the code. It is even in English for you, Section 3503.
https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.035.003.000..HTM

Your beloved signs do not quifiy under 3503(b). Firearms are not mentioned.

While you are at it find someone that has been charged with the crime that you say is so offensive. Put a link to the police blotter.

If you were to SEE a firearm in a place where your sign was posted and called the police, they would just ask the person to leave or remove their firearm from the premises. They are not pressing charges for a crime unless the person then refused to leave. That is only after you specifally had asked them to leave after seeing the firearm (not just 80% of the time I can tell people that carry from ones that do not). Again, you would not know they were carrying until you saw something. And back to my very first point, for me the bullets would have already been fired. And even then, while cleaning up the mess, you would need to then ask me to leave the premises for not following your policy (BTW, I would still stay for the police report).

If you had a policy that red underware was prohibited in your establishment and a sign at the door that stated such, do you really think that would be enforced as trespassing by the police if someone wore red underware into you establisment? There is no law being broken by wearing red underware (just like there is no law being broken by CCP). And how would you even know if someone had red underware on unless they allowed you to see it?

Simply not following a written/posted policy for a private establishment is not trespassing.

It looks like you have a novel legal theory.

You said you laid out your final words on the topic, then decided to bless us with nonsensical verbal diarrhea. You're on their property. They don't want you there. It's trespass, sparky. Been around for centuries. It's not novel. Figure. It. Out. And tell your PSP buddy to get his poop together. You seem VERY invested in trying to excuse away your HYPOTHETICAL criminal actions, amirite?

 

[Lanz]

Some malls have signs you can't carry a weapon because it's "private property". Pure BS. If you have a CCP they can't stop you from carrying.

But dogs are ok to mess in the mall.

Well if you're shopping at a mall that you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, you should probably just find a different mall to shop at.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Well if you're shopping at a mall that you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, you should probably just find a different mall to shop at.

CC is a lifestyle. You CC everywhere you go, all the time, otherwise why bother?

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Spot on!



Cost of living also astronomical

That’s why we’re in the 302

 

[ODShowtime]

CC is a lifestyle. You CC everywhere you go, all the time, otherwise why bother?

That's how I am about pot.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

That's how I am about pot.

Moms TOO. Retirement is a constant “no ricky, you have to drive” lol she’s so lucky I get rando drug tests

 

[SleepyLion]

You said you laid out your final words on the topic, then decided to bless us with nonsensical verbal diarrhea. You're on their property. They don't want you there. It's trespass, sparky. Been around for centuries. It's not novel. Figure. It. Out. And tell your PSP buddy to get his poop together. You seem VERY invested in trying to excuse away your HYPOTHETICAL criminal actions, amirite?

It's not trespassing until they are told/asked to leave. Putting a sign that says "No Firearms" is not enough. It is not the same as a "No Trespassing" sign or purple paint for your property. "No Firearms" and a verbal ask is enough, but only if they do not leave after the verbal request. Show me one person in the centuries that this has been around that has been charged with this crime (which is currently a 3rd degree felony, max $2,500 & 1 yr in jail).

Yes, I like the law and am fascinated by it. That's why I have friends that are lawyers and cops. I also bounce ideas like yours to them and get their opinions. None of them say the "No Firearms" sign is enough. I am almost ready to call a judge friend of mine to get their opinion. But even if I told you you are probably too entrenched to change your thought.

I have changed my mind in hopes that maybe you will learn a little. I even provided references to support my position. At least I am capable of changing my mind and finding out something new.

Also, I know for certain that I have never viloilated a CC law.

This is an article that discusses exactly what we are... it also addresses your trespass argument enjoy the read.
https://www.pennlago.com/pennsylvania-no-gun-signs-do-they-have-the-force-of-law/

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

You know a judge? What town, may be useful.

 

[Moogy]

It's not trespassing until they are told/asked to leave. Putting a sign that says "No Firearms" is not enough. It is not the same as a "No Trespassing" sign or purple paint for your property. "No Firearms" and a verbal ask is enough, but only if they do not leave after the verbal request. Show me one person in the centuries that this has been around that has been charged with this crime (which is currently a 3rd degree felony, max $2,500 & 1 yr in jail).

Yes, I like the law and am fascinated by it. That's why I have friends that are lawyers and cops. I also bounce ideas like yours to them and get their opinions. None of them say the "No Firearms" sign is enough. I am almost ready to call a judge friend of mine to get their opinion. But even if I told you you are probably too entrenched to change your thought.

I have changed my mind in hopes that maybe you will learn a little. I even provided references to support my position. At least I am capable of changing my mind and finding out something new.

Also, I know for certain that I have never viloilated a CC law.

No one cares what your friends do. No affirmative "verbal ask" is required.

Title 18

www.legis.state.pa.us

Figure. It. Out.

 

[SleepyLion]

You know a judge? What town, may be useful.

I live near State College. The judge is local. I've never needed a favor from him. When he was an attorney I may have used him as a reference for my CCP.

 

[SleepyLion]

No one cares what your friends do. No affirmative "verbal ask" is required.

Title 18

www.legis.state.pa.us

Figure. It. Out.

I edited my post to add this link.
https://www.pennlago.com/pennsylvania-no-gun-signs-do-they-have-the-force-of-law/

Your trespass argument is addressed. Maybe you have a reference (other than the one I gave you) for your argument. The closest thing you have in Title 18 is Section 3503(b)(1)(ii). This has never, to my knowlege, been used to convict based on a "No Firearms" type sign. Just provide the case for one person that was convicted of the crime you say exists and I will tell you your right.

Or maybe you will find this one easier to read.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/lo...cle_229d6b24-35ce-11ec-b1d8-77151a543656.html

You may not care what my friends do, but at least they know the law.

 

[Moogy]

I edited my post to add this link.
https://www.pennlago.com/pennsylvania-no-gun-signs-do-they-have-the-force-of-law/

Your trespass argument is addressed. Maybe you have a reference (other than the one I gave you) for your argument. The closest thing you have in Title 18 is Section 3503(b)(1)(ii). This has never, to my knowlege, been used to convict based on a "No Firearms" type sign. Just provide the case for one person that was convicted of the crime you say exists and I will tell you your right.

Or maybe you will find this one easier to read.
https://lancasteronline.com/news/lo...cle_229d6b24-35ce-11ec-b1d8-77151a543656.html

You may not care what my friends do, but at least they know the law.

My trespass argument is NOT directly addressed, scooby. But it is implicitly addressed ... and in a way that is AGAINST your interpretation. Oy.

Here: "So let’s suppose Larry the LAGO walks into a new grocery store. There are no signs posted on the door noting a “No Gun” policy. If there are, they must be very small and inconspicuous, because Larry ―who makes it a point to be aware of his surroundings― doesn’t notice them."

They hypothesize that the person walking onto the premises with his gun is UNAWARE the property owner does not want guns on his premises because the sign is so small and inconspicuous, the potential trespasser doesn't see it.

Now read the information in the link I provided earlier. Since you're having real trouble with this basic stuff, I'll even highlight the relevant text ...

(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;

Please learn to read and understand what you're reading. Maybe get some better friends who have actual knowledge of the law, or can read and analyze basic statutory language.

Do you see the text there that states, if the person knows he's not supposed to be there, and he enters anyway, that he's a trespasser? And the text that indicates that signage likely to come to his attention is sufficient to meet this burden of not wanting him there (and that signage wouldn't even be necessary if the trespasser was otherwise ACTUALLY aware of the prohibition and still tried to enter the premises with your "it's only a crime if they catch me" attitude).

The article you linked has a hypo where the guy has no clue he's not supposed to have a gun there, nor is he reasonably expected to know this (that's an important legal concept - ask your friends) ... in that case, notice must be given to him, and then he needs to leave. But ... again ... verbal notice is NOT necessary, and the notice requirement can otherwise be satisfied by things like actual knowledge and/or signage.

Got it, now? I'm not debating with you. I'm teaching you.

If your "friends" don't understand this, I'd like their names so I can get them censured/disbarred and/or thrown off the bench.

Enough, now. Move along. You are trespassing on logic and reason.

 

[GrimReaper]

CC is a lifestyle. You CC everywhere you go, all the time, otherwise why bother?

 

[JohnJumba]

Well if you're shopping at a mall that you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, you should probably just find a different mall to shop at.

The way ponks are today, CC just about everywhere is not only justified, but necessary.

The exceptions have been noted.

 

[JohnJumba]

A screwball tried to shoot a minister in church near Pittsburgh. Should people go to another church?

 

[Lanz]

The way ponks are today, CC just about everywhere is not only justified, but necessary.

The exceptions have been noted.

There are four known justifications for CC:
1. Off-duty law enforcement officer
2. Frequents high violent crime areas
3. Paranoia
4. Small penis complex

 

[SleepyLion]

My trespass argument is NOT directly addressed, scooby. But it is implicitly addressed ... and in a way that is AGAINST your interpretation. Oy.

Here: "So let’s suppose Larry the LAGO walks into a new grocery store. There are no signs posted on the door noting a “No Gun” policy. If there are, they must be very small and inconspicuous, because Larry ―who makes it a point to be aware of his surroundings― doesn’t notice them."

They hypothesize that the person walking onto the premises with his gun is UNAWARE the property owner does not want guns on his premises because the sign is so small and inconspicuous, the potential trespasser doesn't see it.

Now read the information in the link I provided earlier. Since you're having real trouble with this basic stuff, I'll even highlight the relevant text ...

(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;

Please learn to read and understand what you're reading. Maybe get some better friends who have actual knowledge of the law, or can read and analyze basic statutory language.

Do you see the text there that states, if the person knows he's not supposed to be there, and he enters anyway, that he's a trespasser? And the text that indicates that signage likely to come to his attention is sufficient to meet this burden of not wanting him there (and that signage wouldn't even be necessary if the trespasser was otherwise ACTUALLY aware of the prohibition and still tried to enter the premises with your "it's only a crime if they catch me" attitude).

The article you linked has a hypo where the guy has no clue he's not supposed to have a gun there, nor is he reasonably expected to know this (that's an important legal concept - ask your friends) ... in that case, notice must be given to him, and then he needs to leave. But ... again ... verbal notice is NOT necessary, and the notice requirement can otherwise be satisfied by things like actual knowledge and/or signage.

Got it, now? I'm not debating with you. I'm teaching you.

If your "friends" don't understand this, I'd like their names so I can get them censured/disbarred and/or thrown off the bench.

Enough, now. Move along. You are trespassing on logic and reason.

You stopped reading too soon...

This is exactly what we have been discussing:

"Similarly, an argument can be made that a gun owner who overtly ignores a “No Gun” knows that he is not licensed or privileged to enter the premises. This particular law mentions signage. However, this seems to be aimed at signs giving “notice against trespass . . . reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.” “Notice against trespass” appears to be tailored toward signs that say things such as, well… “no trespassing.” “No trespassing” signs send the clear message that persons are not permitted in an area without permission. “No Gun” signs certainly send a clear message that the owner has a policy against firearms on the premises. Again, the question is whether the customer’s license or privilege to enter, and therefore ability to spend money, is contingent upon abiding by the policy. If so, is an armed customer an “intruder?” The law doesn’t define the term “intruder,” but if the gun owner enters despite direct notification of the policy, quite possibly.

The law also lists specific defenses...." Then keep reading until the end.

It goes on to say there is not any case law in Pennsylvania and and there seems to be at least an articulable argument on either side.

"The official comment to this law makes an effort to clarify:

The offense is limited to situations where the objective circumstances show an unwanted intrusion by the actor; not every entry on lands of another is a trespass. Neither the inadvertent trespasser nor the trespasser who reasonably believes that the owner would have licensed him to enter the premises will be penalized."

And it continues article continues...

You are not teaching me (or anyone else) about this law. You only stated your opinions with very few, if any, facts or refernces to base them on.

 

[JohnJumba]

There are four known justifications for CC:
1. Off-duty law enforcement officer
2. Frequents high violent crime areas
3. Paranoia
4. Small penis complex

Which do you suffer from? 4 for sure.

 

[Moogy]

You stopped reading too soon...

This is exactly what we have been discussing:

"Similarly, an argument can be made that a gun owner who overtly ignores a “No Gun” knows that he is not licensed or privileged to enter the premises. This particular law mentions signage. However, this seems to be aimed at signs giving “notice against trespass . . . reasonably likely to come to the attention of intruders.” “Notice against trespass” appears to be tailored toward signs that say things such as, well… “no trespassing.” “No trespassing” signs send the clear message that persons are not permitted in an area without permission. “No Gun” signs certainly send a clear message that the owner has a policy against firearms on the premises. Again, the question is whether the customer’s license or privilege to enter, and therefore ability to spend money, is contingent upon abiding by the policy. If so, is an armed customer an “intruder?” The law doesn’t define the term “intruder,” but if the gun owner enters despite direct notification of the policy, quite possibly.

The law also lists specific defenses...." Then keep reading until the end.

It goes on to say there is not any case law in Pennsylvania and and there seems to be at least an articulable argument on either side.

"The official comment to this law makes an effort to clarify:

The offense is limited to situations where the objective circumstances show an unwanted intrusion by the actor; not every entry on lands of another is a trespass. Neither the inadvertent trespasser nor the trespasser who reasonably believes that the owner would have licensed him to enter the premises will be penalized."

And it continues article continues...

You are not teaching me (or anyone else) about this law. You only stated your opinions with very few, if any, facts or refernces to base them on.

I said good day, sir. You've been put on notice. Nothing in your post does anything to refute anything I've presented to you up to this point. What you chose to do with the correct information I presented to you is up to you.

 

[MtNittany]

Shittany did it so he could pontificate about himself example post 101.

Actually, I picked a fight w/ Rick to distract him, and stop him from posting more bad music on the horrible jukebox thread. I do really like Jup Island though.

 

[SleepyLion]

I said good day, sir. You've been put on notice. Nothing in your post does anything to refute anything I've presented to you up to this point. What you chose to do with the correct information I presented to you is up to you.

It's good that you have given up.

What I posted from the PennLAGO website was exactly what we have been discussing.

LAGO walks into a store and there is a sign that is knowingly ignored (this is difficult to prove), that does not necessarily make the person an intruder (especially if it is not admitted to by LAGO).
But if LAGO was made aware of the policy directly (spoken to and asked to leave b/c of the gun), it possibly would make him an intruder.

This may be the most damning statement to your opinion:
There is not any case law in Pennsylvania to support a conviction.

You stated this is hundreds of years of law, but it has never resulted in a conviction. Hundreds of years there have been idiots with CCPs and people like you or me walking around and never has anyone been convicted with trespass for ignoring a "No Firearms" sign.

The clarification to the law is not helpful to you either:
Neither the inadvertent trespasser nor the trespasser who reasonably believes that the owner would have licensed him to enter the premises will be penalized.

So, what you choose to do with these facts is up to you.

IDC if you ignore me if that is what you mean by "put on notice." I would hate for people to read what you posted here and think that it is 100% correct.

 

[PSU87]

It's good that you have given up.

What I posted from the PennLAGO website was exactly what we have been discussing.

LAGO walks into a store and there is a sign that is knowingly ignored (this is difficult to prove), that does not necessarily make the person an intruder (especially if it is not admitted to by LAGO).
But if LAGO was made aware of the policy directly (spoken to and asked to leave b/c of the gun), it possibly would make him an intruder.

This may be the most damning statement to your opinion:
There is not any case law in Pennsylvania to support a conviction.

You stated this is hundreds of years of law, but it has never resulted in a conviction. Hundreds of years there have been idiots with CCPs and people like you or me walking around and never has anyone been convicted with trespass for ignoring a "No Firearms" sign.

The clarification to the law is not helpful to you either:
Neither the inadvertent trespasser nor the trespasser who reasonably believes that the owner would have licensed him to enter the premises will be penalized.

So, what you choose to do with these facts is up to you.

IDC if you ignore me if that is what you mean by "put on notice." I would hate for people to read what you posted here and think that it is 100% correct.

Interestingly, I've had this same discussion regarding Florida law with a family member who is a lawyer.
Same thing: theoretically you could be charged with trespass, but he could not find one single case where someone was actually charged....unless they put up a stink about leaving.
Even at Disney, the most anti gun place on Earth, when a visitor with a gun is discovered, they are escorted out, never arrested or charged.

 

[SleepyLion]

Interestingly, I've had this same discussion regarding Florida law with a family member who is a lawyer.
Same thing: theoretically you could be charged with trespass, but he could not find one single case where someone was actually charged....unless they put up a stink about leaving.
Even at Disney, the most anti gun place on Earth, when a visitor with a gun is discovered, they are escorted out, never arrested or charged.

Keep it up and you will be put on notice.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Actually, I picked a fight w/ Rick to distract him, and stop him from posting more bad music on the horrible jukebox thread. I do really like Jup Island though.

I have an idea, moms and I are seeing cracker Sunday, show up (malvern) and I’ll buy you a food truck platter

 

[Moogy]

It's good that you have given up.

What I posted from the PennLAGO website was exactly what we have been discussing.

LAGO walks into a store and there is a sign that is knowingly ignored (this is difficult to prove), that does not necessarily make the person an intruder (especially if it is not admitted to by LAGO).
But if LAGO was made aware of the policy directly (spoken to and asked to leave b/c of the gun), it possibly would make him an intruder.

This may be the most damning statement to your opinion:
There is not any case law in Pennsylvania to support a conviction.

You stated this is hundreds of years of law, but it has never resulted in a conviction. Hundreds of years there have been idiots with CCPs and people like you or me walking around and never has anyone been convicted with trespass for ignoring a "No Firearms" sign.

The clarification to the law is not helpful to you either:
Neither the inadvertent trespasser nor the trespasser who reasonably believes that the owner would have licensed him to enter the premises will be penalized.

So, what you choose to do with these facts is up to you.

IDC if you ignore me if that is what you mean by "put on notice." I would hate for people to read what you posted here and think that it is 100% correct.

What I've stated is 100% correct.

 

[JohnJumba]

Well if you're shopping at a mall that you feel the need to carry a concealed weapon, you should probably just find a different mall to shop at.

You ducked the church question. A shooting was attempted at a church. Should people change to a different church?

 

[MtNittany]

I have an idea, moms and I are seeing cracker Sunday, show up (malvern) and I’ll buy you a food truck platter

Malvern? Any time I spend up there is (wisely) spent north of I-80.

 

[laKavosiey-st lion]

Malvern? Any time I spend up there is (wisely) spent north of I-80.

Malvern is the wealthiest boro in Delco yo