Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Somers Man Fights Back After Pro-Gun Sign Removed From Lawn by Town PD

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163

    Somers Man Fights Back After Pro-Gun Sign Removed From Lawn by Town PD

    "A Somers man claims the town’s police department violated his right to free speech when they removed a pro-gun sign from his property. [ ... ] Town officials and police said the sign violated a zoning ordinance prohibiting signs within the town’s right of way and has nothing to do with free speech or gun rights."

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/...ved-from-lawn/

    If PD has nothing better to do then downsize them. "We wuz jus' followin' orders. Duuh."
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    In no residence or business district shall any sign or billboard be erected, constructed, displayed, maintained, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered except in conformity with and expressly authorized by the provisions of this Article. Signs permitted by this Article shall not be placed, affixed or attached to any tree, except for signs commonly known as "no trespassing" signs.

    http://ecode360.com/11115809


    Code only covers signs affixed to trees that I can see .... saw ordinances regarding "for rent" etc...nothing that covers this guy's sign except the above ordinance ~ which applies to trees.

  3. #3
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    so much for that "property rights" thing, huh

    wonder if that ord. covers flags that you hang on your house? or like a MIA flag, or heck, even an American flag
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  4. #4
    Regular Member JustaShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by davidmcbeth View Post
    In no residence or business district shall any sign or billboard be erected, constructed, displayed, maintained, moved, reconstructed, extended, enlarged or altered except in conformity with and expressly authorized by the provisions of this Article. Signs permitted by this Article shall not be placed, affixed or attached to any tree, except for signs commonly known as "no trespassing" signs.

    http://ecode360.com/11115809


    Code only covers signs affixed to trees that I can see .... saw ordinances regarding "for rent" etc...nothing that covers this guy's sign except the above ordinance ~ which applies to trees.
    No, you are misreading the ordinance - the ordinance applies to all signs, and signs that are permitted cannot be attached to trees.
    Christian, Husband, Father
    NRA Life Member
    NRA Certified Range Safety Officer
    NRA Certified Pistol & Rifle Instructor

    Anything I post in these forums is my personal opinion formed by my own interpretation of the topic.
    IANAL and anything I say is not intended to be nor should it be taken as legal advice.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Algonquin
    Posts
    13
    Is there a way to find out how many other signs this officer and the department have removed?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    so much for that "property rights" thing, huh

    wonder if that ord. covers flags that you hang on your house? or like a MIA flag, or heck, even an American flag
    Businesses and natural people have different rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Martinsburg, WV
    Posts
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    "A Somers man claims the town’s police department violated his right to free speech when they removed a pro-gun sign from his property. [ ... ] Town officials and police said the sign violated a zoning ordinance prohibiting signs within the town’s right of way and has nothing to do with free speech or gun rights."

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/09/...ved-from-lawn/

    If PD has nothing better to do then downsize them. "We wuz jus' followin' orders. Duuh."
    So, I assume you will not find any commercial billboards within the town's right of way?
    In Shepherdstown WV they have strict laws concerning same. They don't even want a fast food chain restaurant or anything else in their town that would detract from the town's heritage.

    I do not know what their law is concerning "temporary signs" for such things as yard sales.

    You could do as my neighbor did: Plant a 25' high flag pole, hang the U.S. flag upside down [a distress signal in the military] and have

    another flag underneath that says: "Who is stealing our freedoms" or whatever you want. That is not a sign.

  8. #8
    Regular Member usamarshal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    252
    Anyone know if anything came out of this? Lawsuit? Charges? I can understand some ordinances/codes in cities and towns across the county dealing with signs, but curious if anything was done when the residents property was essentially stolen by the LE officer?

  9. #9
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    you brought back a necro thread after starting your own thread on the same subject...tsk tsk

    tho i am getting my slushy...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  10. #10
    Regular Member papa bear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    mayberry, nc
    Posts
    2,258
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    you brought back a necro thread after starting your own thread on the same subject...tsk tsk

    tho i am getting my slushy...

    ipse
    I am curious too
    Luke 22:36 ; 36Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

    "guns are like a Parachute, if you don't have one when you need it, you will not need one again"
    - unknown

    i you call a CHP a CCW then you are really stupid. period.

  11. #11
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,886
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    I am curious too
    see his other thread which was answered completely...

    but down and dirty, idiot was told the sign was on county/township/city property and to take it down, ignored the warning, nice LE took it down...man raised cain on social media misleading the blogs until fox etc., got reporting and contacted gov officials ~ truth came out...

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    --snipped-- ...the sign was on county/township/city property and to take it down, ignored the warning, nice LE took it down...man raised cain on social media misleading the blogs until fox etc., got reporting and contacted gov officials ~ truth came out...

    ipse
    Many cities and counties have ordinances about signs in the right of ways, medians, and utility poles, to name a few. All municiplalites in the Greater Richmond Demographic Area have virtually the same "no sign" ordinance.

    Not only are they illegal, but most* can be removed (as trash & debris) by any interested party.

    *most = yard sales, businesses advertising (mattress & furniture companies are notorious) - exception are Real Estate business's For Sale/Rent signs. The ordinance include banner signs and those tall vertical flags.

    I made it a hobby for a time - could load the bed of my pickup truck to overflowing in a couple of hours.....and yes I was OCing.

    I've heard that some people use the wire frame signs as range target backers, but I wouldn't know about that.
    Last edited by Grapeshot; 12-14-2016 at 07:53 PM.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by papa bear View Post
    so much for that "property rights" thing, huh

    wonder if that ord. covers flags that you hang on your house? or like a MIA flag, or heck, even an American flag
    Sometimes people ask me why I am so interested in history. I usually say something along the lines of "it tells us how we got to the present situation".

    Now, everybody knows I'm one of the history buffs on the forum. As I mentioned in an earlier thread, my primary interest is the history of rights. But, along the way, a fella picks up a lot of other history as "context".

    Well, it turns out that we can identify the exact scoundrel who made a major change in property rights in the history of the English-speaking world. It was one exact fellow. We know who he was. We can identify him with complete certainty.

    William the Conqueror.

    After he killed King Harold at the Battle of Hastings, he declared that he owned every stitch of dirt in England. He simply up and declared every square inch of England his personal property.

    Take a moment to imagine. Imagine you are a peasant farmer who's been farming his family ground for generations. It's yours. You know it. You dad knew it. Your grandfather knew it. In your mind, its a given. Its just understood that the ground is yours. You go out in the morning to cultivate the crop on your ground. Then one day, out of the sky-blue some French jerk comes along and says, "No, its not yours; its mine." Huuuuhhh?!?!! (That is not exactly how feudal England worked, but you get the point.)

    You see, at the Battle of Hastings, King Harold had a large number of English nobility with him. They too died that day along with Harold, meaning there were a lot of titles suddenly "unoccupied". So, William brought over a bunch of his French pals to help him rule England. And, of course, he knew they'd suck up to him if he was handing out titles and control of the land that went along with a title.

    So, William had this little hook. Little, but massively important. When he conferred a title, he told the new guy in so many words that the new guy could exercise all the rights of ownership of the land as though the new guy owned the land. That is to say, William maintained ownership of the land--ownership that he himself had simply made up out of thin air--allowing the new lord all the rights of ownership--almost. They new lord could do pretty much anything an owner could do. Except, he didn't own the land; William still did. That was William's story. And, that is how William exacted taxes/fees from the new lords. "Hey, you can do what you want with the land. But, I still own it. So, you have to pay me."

    King Harold never made such a claim--to own all of England as his personal property. Harold's predecessor, Edward the Confessor, never made such a claim. This last is a very important point. William claimed--and history supports this claim--that Edward the Confessor designated William as Edward's successor. That was a big reason William invaded, "Hey, I'm supposed to be king, not you Harold." Well, if Edward never claimed to own as his personal property every square inch of England, there is no possible way he could transfer that title to William.

    William just made it up.

    Today, if you pay off your mortgage, you own the ground upon which your home stands in a condition of ownership called "in fee simple". Well, guess what. You don't actually own the dirt upon which your home is built. You see, there is another higher condition of ownership, almost totally forgotten today, called allodial title. The word allodial comes from Latin. The root means set apart.

    If you have allodial title to something, it is totally yours--utterly, completely, no other interest short of God need apply. That is to say, not even the king has a legal claim to even the tiniest piece of that property. And, if nobody, even the king, has even the tiniest ownership interest in that property, how can he demand you pay a tax or fee on that property? Its yours. He can't.

    I have a single report that in Texas there is a very little ground that is owned under allodial title. Apparently it fell through the cracks during the Texas revolution and break from Mexico and subsequent joining the Union. And, another single report of some land in Britain owned under allodial title. No taxes being paid today. Heh, heh, heh. Government wouldn't dare demand taxes from an allodial owner. Such a demaind would totally upset the entire foundation of the legal theory upon which their right to demand taxes rested.

    So, the next time you write that check for property tax, remember William. He is the jerk that started it all. Yep, that's right. We've had this yoke around our necks for over 900 years. Oh, government isn't going to let that opportunity pass. They will never let you have allodial title to the ground upon which your home is built. Nope, in fee simple is the best they're going let you have. They want to keep a hook of ownership in that ground so they can tax you.

    So, there you go. William the Conqueror is a great example of how something that happened over 900 years ago is still affecting us today.

    That's where your property rights went. The "real owners" are just exercising their ownership interest.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-14-2016 at 08:12 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,163
    Quote Originally Posted by Grapeshot View Post
    Many cities and counties have ordinances about signs ...
    Doesn't that restrict what a property owner can do with his property? Horrors!

    Here's mine, County, and Town at 8.08. http://map.co.door.wi.us/planning/OR...CHAPTER_08.pdf

    And it's wonderful.. And there are only locally owned establishments north of Sturgeon Bay, no franchises, no fast non-food, no Big Box stores.

    I spent four successful years on our Zoning and Planning Committee, resigning only when my brilliant chairwoman resigned.
    Last edited by Nightmare; 12-14-2016 at 08:34 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  15. #15
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    ^ ^ ^ All of that may have been true back in Wiiliam's time. Notice that no subsequent ruler countermanded this change - so they were as guilty as William.

    Since then, new purchaser/owners of said property have agreed to numerous restrictions, covenents, and other conditions including who shall pay the Tax - lender of the capital when a mortgage was part of the package or simply a prorata portion by the seller. Note you can only sell/transfer the level of ownership you possess.

    Some part of the property may have easements and right of ways - you may own it, but the use will be restricted/modified.

    As practical matter, the highest form of ownership of real property is fee simple, absolute ownership:
    "The greatest possible estate in land, wherein the owner has the right to use it, exclusively possess it, commit waste upon it, dispose of it by deed or will, and take its fruits. A fee simple represents absolute ownership of land, and therefore the owner may do whatever he or she chooses with the land. If an owner of a fee simple dies intestate, the land will descend to the heirs."
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...imple+absolute
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  16. #16
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    --snipped--
    So, the next time you write that check for property tax, remember William. He is the jerk that started it all. Yep, that's right. We've had this yoke around our necks for over 900 years. Oh, government isn't going to let that opportunity pass. They will never let you have allodial title to the ground upon which your home is built. Nope, in fee simple is the best they're going let you have. They want to keep a hook of ownership in that ground so they can tax you.

    So, there you go. William the Conqueror is a great example of how something that happened over 900 years ago is still affecting us today.

    That's where your property rights went. The "real owners" are just exercising their ownership interest.
    All of that may have been true back in Wiiliam's time. Notice that no subsequent ruler countermanded this change - so they were as guilty as William.

    Since then, new purchaser/owners of said property have agreed to numerous restrictions, covenents, and other conditions including who shall pay the Tax - lender of the capital when a mortgage was part of the package or simply a prorata portion by the seller. Note you can only sell/transfer the level of ownership you possess.

    Some part of the property may have easements and right of ways - you may own it, but the use will be restricted/modified.

    As practical matter, the highest form of ownership of real property is fee simple, absolute ownership:
    "The greatest possible estate in land, wherein the owner has the right to use it, exclusively possess it, commit waste upon it, dispose of it by deed or will, and take its fruits. A fee simple represents absolute ownership of land, and therefore the owner may do whatever he or she chooses with the land. If an owner of a fee simple dies intestate, the land will descend to the heirs."
    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...imple+absolute
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •