It looks like the worst case would be a summary offense unless mall security had told the armed bystander to leave. I doubt that there will be any prosecution if the mall declines to press charges.
Here is the Pennsylvania statute:
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;
(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; or
(vi) subject to paragraph (3), the placement of identifying purple paint marks on trees or posts on the property which are:
(A) vertical lines of not less than eight inches in length and not less than one inch in width;
(B) placed so that the bottom of the mark is not less than three feet from the ground nor more than five feet from the ground; and
(C) placed at locations that are readily visible to a person approaching the property and no more than 100 feet apart.
(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.
My niece was actually in that mall when this happened. So I am grateful that guy had his gun. Even if it was technically illegal for him to have it, this is Lancaster not Philly. There is no way they would find a jury to convict him if they tried.
(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
If the mall declines to file charges it is highly unlikely that the bystander would be convicted even if the DA pursues the case. The bystander could claim that he was reasonably believed that the owner allowed him to enter, and the owner is not disputing that belief.
(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.
