Illegal Sign in Roanoke

I'm sure there is some crossover between this board and the VCDL group on Facebook, and I'm equally sure there are some here who are not members there.

This needs attention, so I hope the original poster over there does not object.

TFred

Posted by Jack Edison

Signs have been placed in a Roanoke, VA neighborhood claiming that the neighborhood is a gun free zone. They are at the corners of 13th St & 460, and 18th St & 460. Apparently this Constitutional violation was perpetuated by some neighborhood organization that thinks their will trumps the supreme law of the land.



Apparently some contact has been made with the local neighborhood organizers who are responsible for the sign, and the response has been, shall we say, less than accommodating.

Being unwilling to "do" social media, I am stuck with a question:

Does not the City need to give approval for the posting of such signs (the sign itself, not neccessarily the content)?

While it is commonly done, I seem to recall some sort of regulation at least in Richmond that prohibits the posting of anything on utility poles without some official permission. Think it was a flap over some cop with nothing better to do who was ripping yard sale signs down until someone complained, at which time he ripped them down as evidence and issued summonses to the folks who put them up.

stay safe.

skidmark said:

Being unwilling to "do" social media, I am stuck with a question:

Does not the City need to give approval for the posting of such signs (the sign itself, not neccessarily the content)?

While it is commonly done, I seem to recall some sort of regulation at least in Richmond that prohibits the posting of anything on utility poles without some official permission. Think it was a flap over some cop with nothing better to do who was ripping yard sale signs down until someone complained, at which time he ripped them down as evidence and issued summonses to the folks who put them up.

stay safe.

Click to expand...

That's what I would think as well. ETA: My impression from the many comments is that this is a totally rogue operation.

TFred

Two things

It is on the public easement so the city is responsible for deciding what goes there. Second and more important, it is designed to look like a state regulatory sign (white background black border and text). I don't think this sign is legal (content notwithstanding) without the cities OK.

Is the sign on a Dominion Power pole?

Call the power company and complain.

My understanding is that the utility poles are private property of the utility company.

Without permission

Nothing may be posted on utilitry poles, be they power, cable, electric or joint use poles.

Feel free advise the phone or power company that their poles are being used to advertise without permission. I used to tear down all signs on our poles when I worked for AT & T and turn them into the foreman when I got back to the garage.

response from "user"

"user's" response:

Title 33.1 Highways, Bridges and Ferries
Chap. 7 Outdoor Advertising in Sight of Public Highways, §§ 33.1-351 -
33.1-381
Art. 1 General Regulations, §§ 33.1-351 - 33.1-378

§ 33.1-373. Signs or advertising on rocks, poles, etc., within limits of
highway; civil penalty. - Any person who in any manner (i) paints, prints,
places, puts or affixes any sign or advertisement upon or to any rock,
stone, tree, fence, stump, pole, mile-board, milestone, danger-sign,
guide-sign, guidepost, highway sign, historical marker, building, or other
object lawfully within the limits of any highway or (ii) erects, paints,
prints, places, puts, or affixes any sign or advertisement within the limits
of any highway shall be assessed a civil penalty of $100. Each occurrence
shall be subject to a separate penalty. All civil penalties collected under
this section shall be paid into the Highway Maintenance and Operating Fund.
Signs or advertisements placed within the limits of the highway are hereby
declared a public and private nuisance and may be forthwith removed,
obliterated, or abated by the Commissioner of Highways or his
representatives without notice. The Commissioner of Highways may collect the
cost of such removal, obliteration, or abatement from the person erecting,
painting, printing, placing, putting, affixing or using such sign or
advertisement. When no one is observed erecting, painting, printing,
placing, putting, or affixing such sign or advertisement, the person, firm
or corporation being advertised shall be presumed to have placed the sign or
advertisement and shall be punished accordingly. Such presumption, however,
shall be rebuttable by competent evidence. In addition, the Commissioner or
his representative may seek to enjoin any recurring violator of this
section. The Commissioner of Highways may enter into agreements with any
local governing body authorizing local law-enforcement agencies or other
local governmental entities to act as agents of the Commissioner for the
purpose of (i) enforcing the provisions of this section and (ii) collecting
the penalties and costs provided for in this section. Any such agreement may
provide that penalties and costs collected pursuant to such agreement shall
be paid as agreed.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to signs or other outdoor
advertising regulated under Chapter 7 (§ 33.1-351 et seq.) of this title.
=====

Title 18.2 Crimes and Offenses Generally

Chap. 5 Crimes Against Property, §§ 18.2-77 - 18.2-167.1

Art. 8 Offenses Relating to Railroads and Other Utilities, §§ 18.2-153 -
18.2-167.1


§ 18.2-164. Unlawful use of, or injury to, telephone and telegraph lines;
copying or obstructing messages; penalty. -


A. If any person commits any of the following acts, he is guilty of a Class
2 misdemeanor:


1. Maliciously injure, molest, cut down, or destroy any telephone or
telegraph line, wire, cable, pole, tower, or the material or property
belonging thereto;


2. Maliciously cut, break, tap, or make any connection with any telephone or
telegraph line, wire, cable, or instrument of any telegraph or telephone
company which has legally acquired the right-of-way by purchase,
condemnation, or otherwise;


3. Maliciously copy in any unauthorized manner any message, either social,
business, or otherwise, passing over any telephone or telegraph line, wire,
cable, or wireless telephone transmission in the Commonwealth;


4. Willfully or maliciously prevent, obstruct, or delay by any means or
contrivance whatsoever the sending, conveyance, or delivery in the
Commonwealth of any authorized communication by or through any telephone or
telegraph line, wire, cable, or wireless transmission device under the
control of any telephone or telegraph company doing business in the
Commonwealth;


5. Maliciously aid, agree with, employ, or conspire with any unauthorized
person or persons unlawfully to do or cause to be done any of the acts
hereinbefore mentioned.


B. If any person, with the intent to prevent another person from summoning
law-enforcement, fire, or rescue services:


1. Commits any act set forth in subsection A; or


2. Maliciously prevents or interferes with telephone or telegraph
communication by disabling or destroying any device that enables such
communication, whether wired or wireless, he is guilty of a Class 1
misdemeanor.

Well, darn.

Since they don't look like the city put them up, I was gonna suggest painting over the anti-self-defense part of the sign. Or, even hanging another sign just below it, saying that any violation of gun rights would be dealt with severely.

But, it looks like the statute criminalizes painting signs, and for sure criminalizes hanging a second sign.

Rats.

I wouldn't expect User to provide a section of code if he didn't believe it were appropriate to do so, but to my untrained eye, the only possible part of the second section that might apply would seem to be this:

1. Maliciously injure, molest, cut down, or destroy any telephone or
telegraph line, wire, cable, pole, tower, or the material or property
belonging thereto;

And that depends on whether you can stretch affixing a sign to a pole to rise to "maliciously injure or molest", which seems a far stretch indeed. This may be one of those cases where "maliciously" doesn't mean what we think it means. As deluded as these folks might be, it would be hard to show malicious intent, since they THINK they are "helping."

The first section seems to hit it right on the head though. How do you enforce it?

TFred

TFred said:

SNIP How do you enforce it?

TFred

Click to expand...

I really hate calling the police. Especially, as the first resort. Maybe remonstrate with sign-ers, providing them the statute.

And, if they dig in their heels, go ahead and call the utility next.

Think about 'outcomes'

Call utility, they remove it, sign goes up elsewhere.

Call cops, they taze -you- (potentially)

Call the organization and suggest you will be calling and fining - perhaps they will voluntarily remove?

FWIW

There are those that have been involved in the removal of illegal signs in the public right-of-way. Chesterfield, Henrico, and the City of Richmond have similar ordinances which allow any person to remove and dispose such signs - they are considered trash and debris. The more expensive "flag type of signs are no different. Sign ordinances are frequently ignored by some retailers too - those can be reported to zoning offices.

Some of the most egregious offenders are the mattress stores, cell phone shops, and rip off independent furniture sellers. Real estate companies and some municipal signs enjoy an exception.

See such signs as a blight on our communities. Removing them is a matter of civic activism.

The sign appears to be illegal in my uniformed eyes in that if this is nothing more than your typical neighborhood, it has no weight or power of law. And since it states that, "Violators will face severe federal, state and local criminal penalties" it is clearly an illegal sign (again, in my uniformed eyes).

How would this be enforceable? Are they going to go into people's homes and charge them if they find firearms? What about someone who is seen putting firearms into their vehicle, or removing them? Or what about someone who is out for a walk with a sidearm openly carried on their person?

Best thing.... just tear the damned thing down. That's what I would do if I found such a sign posted somewhere withing my neighborhood. Again, before some of the posters on this thread get their skivvies in an uproar, I have no basis in law or anything of the sort with this. Just stating an opinion.

SouthernBoy said:

The sign appears to be illegal in my uniformed eyes in that if this is nothing more than your typical neighborhood, it has no weight or power of law. And since it states that, "Violators will face severe federal, state and local criminal penalties" it is clearly an illegal sign (again, in my uniformed eyes).

How would this be enforceable? Are they going to go into people's homes and charge them if they find firearms? What about someone who is seen putting firearms into their vehicle, or removing them? Or what about someone who is out for a walk with a sidearm openly carried on their person?

Best thing.... just tear the damned thing down. That's what I would do if I found such a sign posted somewhere withing my neighborhood. Again, before some of the posters on this thread get their skivvies in an uproar, I have no basis in law or anything of the sort with this. Just stating an opinion.

Click to expand...

Is it not also a threat of false or malicious prosecution?

I wonder if there isn't a civil rights violation in there somewhere. Doesn't the federal civil rights statutes criminalize threatening people for exercising protected rights? The anti-gun part of this sign has a distinct similarity to a white-sheeted man standing outside a restaurant intimidating blacks to prevent them from entering. There's a threat for exercising a protected right.

Citizen said:

Is it not also a threat of false or malicious prosecution?

I wonder if there isn't a civil rights violation in there somewhere. Doesn't the federal civil rights statutes criminalize threatening people for exercising protected rights? The anti-gun part of this sign has a distinct similarity to a white-sheeted man standing outside a restaurant intimidating blacks to prevent them from entering. There's a threat for exercising a protected right.

Click to expand...

I would think more along the lines of a gaggle of blacks standing around a voting poll with clubs in their hands.

Citizen said:

Is it not also a threat of false or malicious prosecution?

I wonder if there isn't a civil rights violation in there somewhere. Doesn't the federal civil rights statutes criminalize threatening people for exercising protected rights? The anti-gun part of this sign has a distinct similarity to a white-sheeted man standing outside a restaurant intimidating blacks to prevent them from entering. There's a threat for exercising a protected right.

Click to expand...

SouthernBoy said:

I would think more along the lines of a gaggle of blacks standing around a voting poll with clubs in their hands.

Click to expand...

First, you need to establish that you wanted to "gun" or "drug" in the area comprizing that zone.

Second, the sign advises that violators "will face severe federal, state and local criminal penalties." In order for anybody to face a criminal penalty they need to be arrested, charged, and put on trial. Then, of course, there is that pesky need to be convicted before any criminal penalty can actually be imposed.

Which brings up the question of what, if any, federal, state, and local criminal laws one would violate by "gun" or "drug" in that zone.

I realize that most folks do not bother to analyse things in the manner just presented. Most folks may in fact believe that they cannot legally "gun" or "drug" in that zone and therefore will not. But then, most folks seem not to want to "gun" or "drug" in that zone or anywhere else so the sign at best makes them feel good that Bad People who do "gun" or "drug" will go somewhere else to "gun" or "drug".

Does that mean that the sign can stay up? I say "No!" but for a reason most of you are not considering.

Section 14. Government should be uniform.
That the people have a right to uniform government; and, therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.

Click to expand...

http://constitution.legis.virginia.gov/

If that sign was not put up by "the government" its attempts to control the behavior of the population via the application of law is evidence of an attempt to create a "government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia." Which is in itself a crime both within and outside that zone:

http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?000+cod+18.2-481
§ 18.2-481. Treason defined; how proved and punished.

Treason shall consist only in:

(1) Levying war against the Commonwealth;

(2) Adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort;

(3) Establishing, without authority of the legislature, any government within its limits separate from the existing government;

(4) Holding or executing, in such usurped government, any office, or professing allegiance or fidelity to it; or

(5) Resisting the execution of the laws under color of its authority.

Such treason, if proved by the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or by confession in court, shall be punishable as a Class 2 felony.

(Code 1950, § 18.1-418; 1960, c. 358; 1975, cc. 14, 15.)

Click to expand...

Having walked y'all through all this, you probably are wondering why. Because some good citizen and true (to coin a phrase) ought to go to the Commonwealth Attorney of the jurisdiction in which the offense is alleged to have been committed, or the jurisdiction in which evidence of the commission of the offense was discovered, and request that the alleged crime be investigated and if sufficient evidence be presented that charges be issued. (Of course, that's a rough paraphraase of how the official language.)

stay safe.

FWIW, having been down this particular road a simple phone call to Dominion along with the pole identification information (on the metal tag that is on all of them) will take care of it. My experience is that Dominion will remove it quickly because like with graffiti if it remains it then gives the impression that defacing their property (with even more signs) is acceptable. My experience is that it will be removed within 24 hours of reporting it.

Apparently some contact has been made with the local neighborhood organizers who are responsible for the sign, and the response has been, shall we say, less than accommodating.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps they would prefer a 90 minute open carry march through their neighborhood. Maybe it's time for a local breakfast meet up and a march to follow. Sometime after the first of the year would be good. Count me in if you guys want to do it.

Depending on the size of the neighborhood we could also flyer it with a written notification that the sign is illegal and incorrect. Our opponents are getting desperate and are now willing to take illegal actions.

drdan01 said:

FWIW, having been down this particular road a simple phone call to Dominion along with the pole identification information (on the metal tag that is on all of them) will take care of it. My experience is that Dominion will remove it quickly because like with graffiti if it remains it then gives the impression that defacing their property (with even more signs) is acceptable. My experience is that it will be removed within 24 hours of reporting it.

Click to expand...

It may just be me, but I don't think so.

The point is not the presence of the sign so much as it is the notion that some neighborhood organization has that they can enact/enforce rules of behavior on everybody. (The preceeding was based on the presumption tht this might be a HOA that can enact/enforce rules on members of the HOA.)

stay safe.