Moving to PA...any weird gun laws?

DeadeyeJack said:

I looked at the PAUFA, and did not see any guidance on use.
If one owns an acre, can one shoot a .22 in one's own land? There would be other lots and homes near on similar sized lots.

Click to expand...

HT4 said:

No open carry in Philly.

Click to expand...

18 Pa.C.S. § 6108: Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia

No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: (1) such person is licensed to carry a firearm;

Click to expand...

Curmudgeon said:

Your comment is so brief I'm not sure what you meant. Open carry is legal in Philly with a license/permit...

Click to expand...

swinokur said:

I'm not so sure. Mark Fiorino may have changed some minds on Philly PD. It cost them 30k and some really bad publicity.

Click to expand...

gprimr1 said:

I believe that No Guns signs don't have any force of law.

Click to expand...

gprimr1 said:

Just get an LTCF and relax. No need to worry about car transporting, loading/unloading, etc.

You need a permit to carry in Philly (City of the 1st Class).

I don't recommend open carry in Philly unless you don't mind a headache.

I believe that No Guns signs don't have any force of law.

Click to expand...

deesly1 said:

Not to be a pain. I grew up in PA and lived there for 30 years of my life. Before 1991 Philadelphia was call a 1st class city(related to firearms). When I turned 21 in 1993 I received my CCW in Algheny county (Pittsburgh) the state law was that Pennsylvania is a common wealth and as long as you had a valid CCW from any county in PA your CAN CARRY CONCEALED IN PHILADELPHIA. Philadelphia has been trying that Sh*t since the 90's and it has not worked.....make sure you get a Valid CCW in PA, or some state that has reciprocity in PA. From what I know of PA, Phildelphia is no longer a 1st class city when it is referred to firearm's.

Click to expand...

ivwarrior said:

While there's no extra special law about them, (and hence, no extra special punishment) signs do carry force of law. If a place has a sign saying no firearms, and you enter while carrying anyway, you can be charged with trespassing.

Click to expand...

BlackBart said:

NO semi auto's for deer hunting.

Click to expand...

ivwarrior said:

While there's no extra special law about them, (and hence, no extra special punishment) signs do carry force of law. If a place has a sign saying no firearms, and you enter while carrying anyway, you can be charged with trespassing. Basically, not having a firearm was a condition of being allowed entry to the property. I don't remember the exact thread(s) but this has been hashed out on the PA Firearms Owners forum.

Click to expand...

deesly1 said:

The Law in Pa states:


Contrary to many rumors that have been floating around for years, a Pennsylvania License To Carry Firearms issued anywhere in the state is good anywhere in the state. Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act provides a pre-emption statute which prevents anyone other than the state legislature from regulating the carry of firearms among other things. At one point in time Philadelphia had attempted to ignore this, but it has long been resolved.



“No Firearm” signs in Pennsylvania have no force of law unless they are posted on property that is specifically mentioned in State Law as being off limits to those with a Permit/License to Carry. If you are in a place not specifically mentioned in the law that is posted and they ask you to leave, you must leave. If you refuse to leave then you are breaking the law and can be charged. Even if the property is not posted and you are asked to leave you must leave. Always be aware of the possibility that responding Police Officers who may have been called without your knowledge and may not know the laws on trespass etc. could arrest you even if you are within the law.

Click to expand...

ivwarrior said:

Wrong. Preemption only applies to government. It places no restrictions on private individuals. Don't think that you can't be charged for ignoring a sign just because the place isn't listed as prohibited by the government. If you want to try your own luck, feel free, I don't have to pay your fines or sit in a cage for you. Just don't try and mislead others into thinking they can ignore the signs.

Click to expand...

ivwarrior said:

Wrong. Preemption only applies to government. It places no restrictions on private individuals. Don't think that you can't be charged for ignoring a sign just because the place isn't listed as prohibited by the government. If you want to try your own luck, feel free, I don't have to pay your fines or sit in a cage for you. Just don't try and mislead others into thinking they can ignore the signs.

Click to expand...

alucard0822 said:

Some states have a criminal charge for carrying where a property owner posts signs prohibiting it, or consisder someone trespassing immediately, Texas statute 30.06 for example. PA has no such law, and signs carry no legal weight, legally you can indeed ignore the signs. Legally there are several reasons a buisness or any other property owner can order someone to leave their property violations of policy are among them(no skateboards, no shirt no shoes, no outside food etc..), in the case of buisnesses open to the public, a person then would have to leave as soon as reasonably possible, they can be charged with trespassing only if they refuse to leave. Many buisnesses have this policy, and many people myself included carry there anyway, and would leave if asked to, and in doing so would not break any laws in PA.

Click to expand...

deesly1 said:

You do not have to listen to me or this guy go to the PA firearms page and you will see where I directly quoted the law. so you dont have to pay any fines when it is written in black and white. IT IS PA LAW! PERIOD!

Click to expand...

§ 6120. Limitation on the regulation of firearms and
ammunition.
(a) General rule.--No county, municipality or township may
in any manner regulate the lawful ownership, possession,
transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or ammunition
components when carried or transported for purposes not
prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth.
(a.1) No right of action.--
(1) No political subdivision may bring or maintain an
action at law or in equity against any firearms or ammunition
manufacturer, trade association or dealer for damages,
abatement, injunctive relief or any other relief or remedy
resulting from or relating to either the lawful design or
manufacture of firearms or ammunition or the lawful marketing
or sale of firearms or ammunition to the public.
(2) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to
prohibit a political subdivision from bringing or maintaining
an action against a firearms or ammunition manufacturer or
dealer for breach of contract or warranty as to firearms or
ammunition purchased by the political subdivision.
(b) Definitions.--As used in this section, the following
words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this
subsection:
"Dealer." The term shall include any person engaged in the
business of selling at wholesale or retail a firearm or
ammunition.
"Firearms." This term shall have the meaning given to it in
section 5515 (relating to prohibiting of paramilitary training)
but shall not include air rifles as that term is defined in
section 6304 (relating to sale and use of air rifles).
"Political subdivision." The term shall include any home
rule charter municipality, county, city, borough, incorporated
town, township or school district.
(Oct. 18, 1974, P.L.768, No.260, eff. imd.; Dec. 19, 1988,
P.L.1275, No.158, eff. 180 days; Oct. 4, 1994, P.L.571, No.84,
eff. 60 days; Dec. 15, 1999, P.L.915, No.59, eff. imd.)

1999 Amendment. Section 9 of Act 59 provided that the
amendment of section 6120 shall apply to all actions pending on
or brought after the effective date of the amendment of section
6120.

Click to expand...

alucard0822 said:

Some states have a criminal charge for carrying where a property owner posts signs prohibiting it, or consisder someone trespassing immediately, Texas statute 30.06 for example. PA has no such law, and signs carry no legal weight, legally you can indeed ignore the signs. Legally there are several reasons a buisness or any other property owner can order someone to leave their property violations of policy are among them(no skateboards, no shirt no shoes, no outside food etc..), in the case of buisnesses open to the public, a person then would have to leave as soon as reasonably possible, they can be charged with trespassing only if they refuse to leave. Many buisnesses have this policy, and many people myself included carry there anyway, and would leave if asked to, and in doing so would not break any laws in PA.

Click to expand...

deesly1 said:

Thank you Sir for affirmation of my point.

Click to expand...

GunLawyer001 said:

I don't know of any case where a person was prosecuted for possessing a gun on private property, based on a sign. But when I first pointed out the possibility of such a prosecution here on PAFOA a few years ago, what I focused on was this:

(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

The theory being that if you carry concealed, and thereby enter the property without the property owner or agent protesting, that you gained entry by subterfuge. It barely passes the straight-face test, most judges would pause briefly before yelling at the ADA unfortunate enough to be tasked with such a case. This wouldn't apply to open carry; if a mall or park or other private venue is open to all shoppers or picnickers, and you are shopping or picnicking, then you are not a trespasser, nor did you conceal the gun to gain entry.

It's a marginal type of prosecution anyway, and any DA who took on such a case in the absence of a refusal to leave when asked, or other aggravating circumstances, would be a DA who needs his budget cut.

My only point in raising this theory was to counter those who kept saying "NO GUN signs have zero legal weight in Pennsylvania." It's hardly zero, they provide actual notice of the terms and conditions of use, and consequences may flow from that notice. But it would be a waste of judicial resources to prosecute that charge alone, and the fact of the prosecution could and should be raised at budget time, when the DA says that there's not enough money in the budget to prosecute all the deserving cases..

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001
Please stop saying this, it's not necessarily true, no matter how many times it's repeated.

If you carry a gun into a place that is posted against guns, you could arguably be prosecuted under the trespassing statute, for doing something on the property that you have been placed on notice you are without license to do.

Signs have legal weight. The signs in the parking garage that say "not responsible for lost items" have legal weight. Signs are not a legal nullity, and in the absence of case law interpreting the trespassing statute to clearly negate the "no guns" signs, we do a disservice to people by giving them the false sense of confidence that they are free to ignore these signs.

It's true that other states have specific statutes giving weight to these specific signs, and PA does not have such a law. However, that's not the same as saying that there's no operative difference between having a sign and not having a sign. You can't be prosecuted in PA under the "disobeying a no weapons sign" statute because there is none, but we do have a "trespassing" statute. A sign puts you on notice as to the terms of the permission granted to you to use the private property of another. If you go outside those terms of use, you are trespassing.

This is a legal matter, it's a legal conclusion, and you need to have a firm legal basis before telling anyone that it's safe to say "screw you" to a property owner and make him tell you face-to-face what his sign already advised you.

Click to expand...

tl_3237 said:

In support of your statement I bolded above -- signage satisfies the notification requirement with as much authority as actual communication to the actor:

The lower court's opinion states that in Commonwealth v. Conyers, 238 Pa.Super. 386, 357 A.2d 569 (1976), this court held that a violation of section 3503(b)(1) occurs only if one remains on the property after a warning to leave has been given. The court was apparently referring to this statement in the Conyers opinion: "The crime of defiant trespass occurs when a person remains in a place where he is not privileged to remain after notice of trespass is given." Id., 238 Pa.Super. at 389, 357 A.2d at 579 (footnote omitted). Conyers did not say, however, that these are the only circumstances under which defiant trespass can be committed. The statute itself which is quoted in the footnote accompanying the foregoing quote from Conyers, uses the language "enters or remains." (Emphasis supplied). Moreover it is clear from that footnote that the court in Conyers was relying solely on section 3503(b)(1)(i) as the method of giving notice against trespass which fit the facts of that case. Cf. Commonwealth v. Tate, 495 Pa. 158, 432 A.2d 1382, 1385 (1981). Neither Conyers nor Tate implies that subsections (b)(1)(ii) or (iii) cannot be applied to satisfy the notice requirement, since the statute makes them alternatives by using the word "or" to separate them.

Click to expand...

290 Pa. Superior Ct. 441 (1981) 434 A.2d 834 COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v.Jeff GUINTHER. 290 Pa. Superior Ct. 441 (1981) 434 A.2d 834

Click to expand...

csmith said:

It is common knowledge that many people believe concealed means concealed, and many people place their personal safety and the safety of their family above private property policy. PAFOA, and subsequently its members, cannot condone nor encourage people to knowingly break the law. Take notice how carefully worded the responses are to what you and others have said. Nobody is really disagreeing with you, they are saying don't encourage others to break the law. One of the strongest arguments we (firearm owners) present against gun control and for legal carry is that we are law abiding citizens. We say signs like that just disarm the law abiding. Well we can't go around breaking laws all willly nilly and still call ourselves law abiding can we?

You are correct, illegal signs are posted all the time as are illegal laws enacted. The encouraged behavior on this forum is to mitigate your own risk by obeying the signs (no matter how blatantly illegal they may be) and taking action afterward in the form of letters, phone calls, and in some cases legal action to have the situation resolved. Here is the bottom line, you may be right, you may be wrong; do you have expendable funds to defend your stance in court? Are you prepared to be THAT GUY all over the media, the poster child for the antis, the guy that was arrested and hauled in for ignoring private property policy and CLEARLY demonstrates that gun owners do not take the law seriously? That is how the media will paint you. Whether your are right or wrong, that is what the sheeple will see, whatever the media wants.

Click to expand...