The absurdity of gun free zones makes me giggle!

If the weapon is concealed, they won't even know you have it.

No better way to tell criminals where plenty of defenseless victims can be found than establishing a "gun free zone".

While it is ok to bar certain things from private property, I am not sure it is legal to confiscate a citizens legal property. Is Promenade security comprised of rent-a-cops, or are they an actual police force?

So they have a rule. No one enforces it, so it's like all the other rules we have in this country. Worthless. I wouldn't carry a gun around there in a holster, but like Steve said, who would know if you had one in your pocket. I would ignore rule # 13, like I ignore all stupid rules.

Ok, it's the Promenade Shops' right to tell gun-owners that they can't carry, but the MOST they can do, initially, is ask us to leave. After that, if we don't then we are trespassing and can be arrested. But in NO way, shape, or form, can they take, hold, or even TOUCH our weapons. THAT is illegal. These guys are going to be hearing about this one, I assure you. Their policy goes too far.

Since I am one of the people being quoted in that story - be sure to read the entire thread. A property owner can demand that you hand over your gun, but he simply cannot take it from you. If you want to remain on that property, it is up to you to comply with the demands, or to leave.

Public property regulations/rules face Commonwealth preemption. No municipality can enact rules, regulations, or ordinances that further manage public domain that is inconsistent with Commonwealth law.

If you don't like a private property owner's rules, you can always write and petition the owner to change them. But they aren't required to change them any more than I am required to change my rules at my home.

The Promenade Shoppes may be private property, but the owners clearly want the public there. I don't see how the Promenade Shoppes owners can really make the usual claims of the typical private property owner when their intent is to have the public on that property as much as possible during business hours. So they're happy to take your money as long as you obey their rules, even the ones bordering on being unconstitutional.

I'm a bit confused. The mall rules appear to prohibit knives, yet they have an L.L. Bean store on the premises which sells knives. Are you not allowed to purchase the knives they have for sale?

I love these shops and frequently visted several of the stores. I've never seen a sign posted on any of the doors of those shops regarding it being a "Gun Free Zone." But I guess that's a policy regardless. We all know how well these gun free zones pan out. Therefore, if their policy is no firearms, I won't be returning unless they change their policy or place armed security in each and every store to help protect the shoppers.

FYI - The person responding here as "Phil Kline" is an imposter.

My spirts are refreshed! The above "Comments" and "Replies" constitutes the most civil and informative discourse I have ever read in Patch. Congratulations to all of the writers, imposters included.

There is no provision in Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act giving the force of law to private gun bans, other than trespass law, which requires several procedural hoops to be satisfied.

If the proprietor of any shop in this center, or the security of the center, attempts to confiscate a sidearm from a person with a valid gun permit, it is illegal. The most they can do is to ask the patron to leave the premises, and failing that, summon the police and issue a trespass warning in their presence. Only after that procedure can a trespass violation be enforced.

A word to those comparing property. While the gun may be property, this is not a property v. property argument, it is property v. self-defense rights. The right to life trumps property rights, EVERY TIME.

Hmmm, do I understand this correctly?
As I understand it, it is considered "reasonable" that the property owner's "Property Right", allows the Owner of the Property to say "No Guns Allowed!", and those who wish to shop there must give up their Civil/Human Right of self-defense in order to shop?
Wouldn't this mean, under tort law, that the Retail Center would then legal assume liability for the customer's safety (because the Retail Center replaced the customer's ability to protect themselves) should a customer be criminally assaulted coming into, while inside and upon exiting the Retail Center until they enter their vehicle?

"It is their *PROPERTY RIGHT*! If you don't like shopping where guns are forbidden that's just too bad!"

It is their property rights, and I understand that.
But the big question I have: Why can't the Retail Center also say: "No Blacks Allowed!"? It is still "their *PROPERTY RIGHT*!" isn't it?
Couldn't The Retail Center become the KKKmart if they wished?
"It is their *PROPERTY RIGHT*!" . . . isn't it?

Wildfire, The customer doesn't give up his right to self defense. Self defense isn't narrowly limited to the use/possession of guns, knives, or other weapons. The only time you do not have your right to self defense is when you have been sentenced to execution, at the time of execution.

About the liability issue - they aren't responsible to begin with for your safety from criminal acts, so that doesn't change. Their liabilities are held within the safety of their products and general stuff like slips, falls, etc. They aren't responsible for the criminal acts of another person.

About the "No Blacks Allowed" - federal anti-discrimination laws prevent that. The only things a business cannot discriminate on are the protected classes of people like: gender, race, national origin, creed, religion, disability, veteran status, and a couple other things.