It would be interesting to see if the bill would get passed. I can't think of a downside to a bill reacquiring that they don't have signs posted contrary to state law. I would however think that IF any law like that was to get passed you would have to prove that the city was putting the signs up intentionally to try to keep people from doing what the law says they can.
Thanks. However, why would intent matter? If the law says no signs contrary to law, the only issue would be whether it's contrary to law. If it is, first time might be a warning, and they have to take the sign down. If they repeat the infraction, the state general attorney would press charges.
Not saying it is right just saying I think most laws that are written so that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show intent.
The state would be the plaintiff. Whoever put up the sign would be the defendants.
Otherwise the judge may just order them to remove the signs and you wouldn't get compensated.
Why would I be expecting compensation? All I'm concerned with is striking down illegal signs which infringe upon my Constitutional rights.
If you objective is to just get them to take down the signs then it would be a win but it seems like an expensive way of going about doing it.
I think it would be as simple as sending the state attorney's office a picture, lat/lon coordinates of its location, and the date/time the photo was taken. The AG dispatches a state trooper to verify. Upon verification, the AG sends a letter to the local governing body. If the body complies, with evidence, the matter is dropped. If they fight it, they're charged with violating the state law, and it goes to court.
Will the sequence of events described above cost some money? Yes. However, after one or two of the most uppity locales is fed their shirt, the word gets around and it ceases being a widespread problem. I think this approach would be fairly inexpensive, overall, and just a few pennies would come out of my pocket for reporting the infraction.
Just don't report it to the local authorities...
Why not also have a law that says it is illegal for LEO's to give out false legal info. Example if a LEO where to come up to you and say "It is illegal to open carry in the state of Colorado"
Excellent idea! Better yet, how about a law making it illegal for an LEO to act as legal counsel for another without having passed the state bar exam?
Oh, wait! That one's already on the books... I suppose the first question in response to an LEO giving out bad legal advice is to ask, "Are you an attorney?"