Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is Pennsylvania about to fall to Sodom?

Here are the PA laws regarding general trespassing


18 Pa.C.S. � 3503: Criminal trespass
(a) Buildings and occupied structures.--
(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 or surreptitiously remains in any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof; or
(ii) breaks into any building or occupied structure or separately secured or occupied portion thereof.
(2) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) is a felony of the third degree, and an offense under subparagraph (1)(ii) is a felony of the second degree.
(3) As used in this subsection:
"Breaks into." To gain entry by force, breaking, intimidation, unauthorized opening of locks, or through an opening not designed for human access.
(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.
(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.
(b.2) Agricultural trespasser.--
(1) A person commits an offense if knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so he:
(i) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands when such lands are posted in a manner prescribed by law or reasonably likely to come to the person's attention or are fenced or enclosed in a manner manifestly designed to exclude trespassers or to confine domestic animals; or
(ii) enters or remains on any agricultural or other open lands and defies an order not to enter or to leave that has been personally communicated to him by the owner of the lands or other authorized person.
(2) An offense under this subsection shall be graded as follows:
(i) An offense under paragraph (1)(i) constitutes a misdemeanor of the third degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year and a fine of not less than $250.
(ii) An offense under paragraph (1)(ii) constitutes a misdemeanor of the second degree and is punishable by imprisonment for a term of not more than two years and a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the phrase "agricultural or other open lands" shall mean any land on which agricultural activity or farming as defined in section 3309 (relating to agricultural vandalism) is conducted or any land populated by forest trees of any size and capable of producing timber or other wood products or any other land in an agricultural security area as defined in the act of June 30, 1981 (P.L. 128, No. 43), [FN1] known as the Agricultural Area Security Law, or any area zoned for agricultural use.
(c) Defenses.--It is a defense to prosecution under this section that:
(1) a building or occupied structure involved in an offense under subsection (a) of this section was abandoned;
(2) the premises were at the time open to members of the public and the actor complied with all lawful conditions imposed on access to or remaining in the premises; or
(3) the actor reasonably believed that the owner of the premises, or other person empowered to license access thereto, would have licensed him to enter or remain.
(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "school grounds" means any building of or grounds of any elementary or secondary publicly funded educational institution, any elementary or secondary private school licensed by the Department of Education, any elementary or secondary parochial school, any certified day-care center or any licensed preschool program.


Here are the PA laws reguarding trespassing while hunting

� 2314. Trespass on private property while hunting.
(a) General rule.--Any person who while violating any
provision of this title or any regulations promulgated under
this title and who in addition is found to be trespassing as
defined in 18 Pa.C.S. � 3503 (relating to criminal trespass)
shall be in violation of this section.
(b) Penalty.--A violation of this section:
(1) For a first offense is a summary offense.
(2) For a second or subsequent offense within one year
of the prior offense is a summary offense and upon conviction
will result in an immediate revocation of the person's
hunting and furtaking license and disqualification of the
person from issuance of a future license for a period of one
year from the date of revocation.
(Dec. 22, 2005, P.L.467, No.90, eff. 60 days)

2005 Amendment. Act 90 added section 2314.


Take notice of the sections regarding properly posted and. Personal communication

You don't see the folly in your argument, do you?

The landowners who don't want Sunday Hunting can simply close their lands those days.

taken from a previous convo on the subject...

"In the state of Pennsylvania, it would be difficult to prosecute a trespasser if your land was not posted in accordance with the requirements of the law.
NOT!!!!!!! In fact it is a myth that land must be posted every 50 ft, that signs must be signed by the owner etc.

It is difficult to get LEO's to enforce the law. Not difficult to prosecute it where it fits the statutes.

It is a myth, that signs are required in PA to exclude hunters, etc. Signs are not required in every instance. For instance to enter a fenced pasture. If you enter property without permission, the landowner can sue you for civil trespass if nothing else.

There is no law that says hunters have legal access to non-posted property. The state of the PA law, is that a person entering non-posted property may, depending on the circumstances, be safe from criminal prosecution but not from being sued for civil trespass.

In PA the crimes code sets forth what acts are criminal and mmay be punished by fines and imprisonment. But the statutess still don't cover eveeryything. The Common Law still exists in PA and the most recent court case I am aware of is Jones vs Wagner (1993) in which branches of tress were permitted to grow across the property line. The land onwer climbed up annd cut the tress branches back to the property line and the owner of the tres sued. The Appeals court indicated that landowners possess from the centerof the earth to the heavens above (except for air craft passing over) And that under the common law, even waiving your arm over the property line is trespassing. A landowner can sue for the intrusion into his exclusive right to use his property. After all that is the purpose of owning property. That no physical damage is required, but merely the taking of the use of his property without permission is the damage. Even Sir William Blackstone wrote about this very concept in 1767 in Blackstone's Commentaries on the Common Law and Statutes of England. That common law was expressly adopted as the law of PA in 1777 by the Colonial legislature and again in 1972. 1 Pa. C.S.A. section 1503. So there is a vast area of law that is not contained in the statute books that applies in PA."

Our trespass law sucks. Period.

How does wanting to be able to hunt two days a week without using up vacation time make one greedy? It would seem that someone like you who profess to love the freedom of outdoors would want parents to be able to instill that love of thenoutdoors into their children. No sir. Your own admissikns make you the greedy one when you stated that people having the time to hunt is not your problem yet you wish to be able to dictate how they are allowed to soend their available time

Moat farmers i know of have no cares whether people hunt on sundays or not. Most of them woukd like to be able to hunt then too.

But that doesnt release them from the affects of hunting on neighboring property, trespass being on of them. And again, they didnt want to create a have vs have nots so they regulated sundays to appease both sides. It had nothing to do with religion. But, thats what they are basing the suit on, religion.

First I would like to address your understanding of sodomy. You do realize sodomy is far more prevalent amongst heterosexual couples than homosexual couples simply due to their being far more heterosexuals. Women and men perform oral and anal sex with each other frequently. It's amazing to me that anyone could be unaware of this.

Second point is the utter ridiculousness of the argument that homosexuals are able to marry, as long as its not to someone they find sexually attractive. How assanine is it to claim we can't let people marry who they want because it will ruin the sanctity of a system where marrying someone you don't find attractive is perfectly legit.

If marriage was simply about a conjugal heterosexual relationship then I'm married to my girlfriend. But I'm not because we haven't signed a contract recognized by the state. [/quote]


RESPONSE:

You have not addressed my understanding of sodomy because you have not a clue what it is. The prohibition against sodomy enunciated, for example, by Blackstone, by Plato in his Laws and by Thomas Jefferson and by the Apostle Paul was directed against same sex sexual activity---what is today called homosexuality. Sodomy as an act to be prohibited as contrary to nature (contra naturam) has ever (properly) been understood as homosexual sodomy. I think in the past there may have been some thinkers who thought oral sex was unnatural too. I believe that view to be mistaken. In any event, its a non-issue: I don't see a political movement out there making a quest for power based on the right to fellatio. So, sodomy is historically (and properly) understood as a euphemism for what is now called homosexuality. The reason that homosexuality is the primary concern is the same reason you don't see heterosexual couples basing a claim to political power on the right to engage in rectal intercourse. It is homosexual sodomite activism which seeks to turn morality on its head. It is amazing to be that anyone could be unaware of this.

Permit me to address the utter ridiculousness of your argument that because I want something (am attracted to it) it is denial of equal protection for society to prohibit me from having it. First of all, no one is preventing homosexuals from sodomizing; they can do so to their hears content---as the death and disease of the sodomite lifestyle is ample evidence. Heterosexuals don't have the right to marry whoever they are attracted to either. Just because someone wants to do something does not mean it is invidious discrimination when society declines to permit them to act on that urge. Homosexuals have the same right to marry as heterosexuals. What sodomites desire, however, is not marriage. Marriage is a conjugal relationship which can only occur between one man and one woman wherein the state acts to protect opposite sex eros for the benefit of children (which can only come from heterosexuality). Homosexuals seeks to transform conjugal marriage into a mere contractual relationship. They want to alter the definition of marriage entirely.

Should you and your girlfriend decide to marry (God help her---can she be sure of your sexuality?) the state would properly grant you a marriage license, placing its imprimatur on your relationship (as one capable of and recognized as the beginning of that "seminary [the family] upon which the nation is ultimately dependent for is numbers as well as its manners).

The re-definition of marriage envisioned by sodomites will destroy the institution. The leading thinkers of their movement have acknowledged the same. In fact, that is there goal. The well being of children be damned. That is how radical their agenda is.

Jordan

So once again. You want to be able to dictate what I do on my land because it might annoy you? Yep you are all about freedom

Heres a copy of the suit if one wants to read it...

http://www.scribd.com/doc/155772104/PA-Sunda-hunting-lawsuit-document

It sure was based on religion. They can say it wasn't all they want, but the choice of Sunday was religion related, as it was everywhere else that adopted it.

For years I worked several jobs and had only some Sundays off. I guess had I lived in your "free" State I'd have never hunted.

We regulate your land now in many different ways. Regulation is a fact of life, get used to it.

So is gay marriage. Get used to it.

No it wasnt. We had sunday hunting, for deer, before the law changed in 1873. At a time when the majority of folks attended services. We also had a complete ban, before 1873. It has nothing to do with religion. If it did, you wouldnt be able to hunt at all, but you CAN hunt on sundays in PA. Just not for all game species.

And yes, if you lived here, and chose to work everday but sundays, you would miss out. Because of YOU, your decision, its called priorities. Many people work 7 days a week, 2-3 jobs. They still hunt. Always have, always will. Since 1873 people have been getting it done. But you cant? Whose problem is that? Certainly no one but yours.

You might as well get used to the Chit Packers , because they are here to stay with the Society we have today

Not yet! But if it goes through, it does. Same with sunday hunting. Ill fight both, gay marriage, and sunday hunting. When they both are enacted, and they will, life goes on. Until then, ill bitch, complain, write my legislators.

Sir;

In all honesty, will you or will you not, publicly renounce the Declaration of Independence, "the laws of nature and nature's God..." Jefferson, John Locke and the founders?

Man up and tell the world straight. Is the Declaration just a bunch of "thump thump thump..."

Don't be a poltroon like this other fellow who refuses to answer the question.

It sure as hll shouldn't be your decision which days I hunt. Times have changed; get used to it.

. Explain how my land is regulated beyond what I allow it to be?

I will publicly denounce religious nuts.

You are a religious NUT!

And once again. There are three species you can hunt on Sundays. Coyotes crows and fox, and fox only changed last year. Please tell me the plethora of other species i am able to hunt in Pa on Sundays. My thoughts are that you are trying to make it a religious battle by proxy but in truth you dont want sunday hunting because it is gods day of worship. Well i dont feel any closer to god than being in a duck blind or treestand. So why should I not be able to worship on his day the way i see fit?


What am ai saying, you are a freedom loving individual. After all