I believe the question is structured on a common (mis)understanding of house privileges - that when one are the owners of property a single can do anything one wants with it ór, in the case of true house (i.e. land), one can perform anything one wants while ón it.
lf one begins with that principle, then allows the following idea that public ownership means every person as the proprietor of the land offers the best to perform anything he or she separately desires to perform with or on that property or home, then one might question whether it will be feasible to be charged with trespassing on general public home as one's personal land.
Both property are faulty. Possession gives you a “pack of privileges” - andnot really every feasible right is certainly in the bunch you getunless yóu're an total monarch whose serves cannot be unlawful by definition.
If you personal land, you possess certain rights connected with that ownership, but these rights are not boundless. I own land in my city and my ownership provides me privileges that are usually quite considerable, but the deal I have does not consist of the perfect to release firearms outside, the right to dig a hidden tiger pit, or the right to raise hens.
Thus, many states require property owners to warn discovered trespassers of dangerous conditions. For example, if a property owner shoots guns on the property and discovers that people use the property as a shortcut to a state park, the property owner may need to post signs indicating that trespassing on the land could be dangerous.
In the situation of public land, you similarly do not really have the best to perform anything you would like right now there, but as a member of the general public buying the land you do have rights to take part in identifying the make use of of the Iand and in producing the rules concerning that make use of.
Arrest trespass will be an unlawful invasion. If your make use of of the public house violates the rules founded for the lawful make use of of that property, after that yes, getting charged with trespassing is certainly entirely appropriate.