Bill in VA
Regular Member
imported post
.
.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Unlawful Signage in Wytheville is Back
- Thread starter Bill in VA
- Start date
Skeptic
Founder's Club Member
imported post
Unbelievable. These haters of liberty are just feeling stronger every day. It must give them smug satisfaction to crush our American freedom.
Unbelievable. These haters of liberty are just feeling stronger every day. It must give them smug satisfaction to crush our American freedom.
imported post
Grassroots activism starts with one person doing something about the issue. Did you write a letter to the Powers That Be about the illegal postings? If so, you ought to share it with us, and the response if and when you get one. (Was this: "I've notified the town officers that the sign needs to come down.... For some reason they seem to think they are above the law" done by letter or by some other means?)
Then, if the Powers that Be seem to be unwilling to comply with existing law, would be the time to ask for help in getting them to pay attention.
I'm not trying to mess up your plans, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is best worked out between local citizens and their elected/appointed officials, as opposed to starting with a bunch of folks from outside the area dogpiling on them.
stay safe.
skidmark
Grassroots activism starts with one person doing something about the issue. Did you write a letter to the Powers That Be about the illegal postings? If so, you ought to share it with us, and the response if and when you get one. (Was this: "I've notified the town officers that the sign needs to come down.... For some reason they seem to think they are above the law" done by letter or by some other means?)
Then, if the Powers that Be seem to be unwilling to comply with existing law, would be the time to ask for help in getting them to pay attention.
I'm not trying to mess up your plans, but it seems to me that this sort of thing is best worked out between local citizens and their elected/appointed officials, as opposed to starting with a bunch of folks from outside the area dogpiling on them.
stay safe.
skidmark
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Go to a meeting OCing and let them arrest you. It'll be "Danbus, Southwest Side". Tell them to go ahead and make your day, you could use the money :^).
Go to a meeting OCing and let them arrest you. It'll be "Danbus, Southwest Side". Tell them to go ahead and make your day, you could use the money :^).
ed
Founder's Club Member - Moderator
imported post
skidmark wrote:
skidmark wrote:
+1
imported post
ed wrote:
I'm not sure in this case Ed. I got involved with the Director of Public safety last year...I think.
I kept an arms length from the issue but let them know I was watching. They took notice and I hope the Police department toned down their activities. Nice but very hard headed people and they don't seem to listen to the locals as well as they should.
Bill, can you get a picture the next time you go there?
ed wrote:
I'm not sure in this case Ed. I got involved with the Director of Public safety last year...I think.
I kept an arms length from the issue but let them know I was watching. They took notice and I hope the Police department toned down their activities. Nice but very hard headed people and they don't seem to listen to the locals as well as they should.
Bill, can you get a picture the next time you go there?
user
Accomplished Advocate
imported post
It also violates Virginia's constitutional prohibition against general orders of search and seizure (i.e, an order or warrant authorizing a search has to be specific both as to who is to be searched, and for what).
It also violates Virginia's constitutional prohibition against general orders of search and seizure (i.e, an order or warrant authorizing a search has to be specific both as to who is to be searched, and for what).
imported post
Bill in VA wrote:
Where exactly in the code does it say a "sign" is unlawful and against the law?
I can post all the signs I want. If they have no standing, I certainly cannot act upon them. But a sign by itself seems to not be covered.
The preemptive law only stops the localities from actually charging you with gun crime not in the state code.
Just saying.... :?
Bill in VA wrote:
OK, I am at a loss here....
Where exactly in the code does it say a "sign" is unlawful and against the law?
I can post all the signs I want. If they have no standing, I certainly cannot act upon them. But a sign by itself seems to not be covered.
The preemptive law only stops the localities from actually charging you with gun crime not in the state code.
Just saying.... :?
Skeptic
Founder's Club Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
How about a sign that tells women they must wear a burka under penalty of death? Just words, just a sign.
How about a sign "Juden Verbotten"? No harm there either?
The sign is an an attempt in and of itself to get people to comply with something that is clearly illegal.
LEO 229 wrote:
Oh, so a sign restricting a drinking fountain in the county office to whites only is OK then? After all, it's just a sign.
How about a sign that tells women they must wear a burka under penalty of death? Just words, just a sign.
How about a sign "Juden Verbotten"? No harm there either?
The sign is an an attempt in and of itself to get people to comply with something that is clearly illegal.
Neplusultra
Regular Member
imported post
Skeptic wrote:
Skeptic wrote:
Ya beat me to it Skep. I might add, which you pointed out too, that a sign is a command to do or not do something. When in a government building it carries the authority of the state, that the state is commanding you. Problem is that the state doesn't have that authority to command such. If it's an illegal command then the sign is illegal and should be removed.
imported post
The sign is a prelude to a trespassing charge. If you choose to ignore it, you may be charged. You could win in court but at some expense to both your wallet and nerves.
I know...You'll sue and buy a new 1911 in Tahiti where the women don't wear no tops. Easier said than done and better avoided.
You need to have legitimate direction in a public building. It;s like putting a fire exit sign on a second story exit with no outside steps.
The sign is a prelude to a trespassing charge. If you choose to ignore it, you may be charged. You could win in court but at some expense to both your wallet and nerves.
I know...You'll sue and buy a new 1911 in Tahiti where the women don't wear no tops. Easier said than done and better avoided.
You need to have legitimate direction in a public building. It;s like putting a fire exit sign on a second story exit with no outside steps.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
So while no one may be charged, tried and convicted of the "crime" of displaying such an "unlawful" sign, that's not what anyone is advocating, anyway. We understand that these extra-legal signs are essentially lies, and we get angered when our governments lie to us. We want them to stop the lies, and remove the signs.
And for the record, no, I don't believe that posting a sign next to a water fountain stating "For Whites Only" is illegal. Incredibly offensive, yes. Colossally stupid, yes. You'd better not enforce what the sign says, yes. But illegal? I'm not sure what law it violates. And if there is such a law, then we need to expand it to include all signs that prohibit lawful behavior, such as carrying a gun.
LEO 229 wrote:
I see and understand your point, LEO, but I don't think it's germane to the discussion. A sign prohibiting the possession of firearms by a government entity (with certain exceptions, of course) communicates something that is untrue, and claims authority the entity doesn't have.
So while no one may be charged, tried and convicted of the "crime" of displaying such an "unlawful" sign, that's not what anyone is advocating, anyway. We understand that these extra-legal signs are essentially lies, and we get angered when our governments lie to us. We want them to stop the lies, and remove the signs.
And for the record, no, I don't believe that posting a sign next to a water fountain stating "For Whites Only" is illegal. Incredibly offensive, yes. Colossally stupid, yes. You'd better not enforce what the sign says, yes. But illegal? I'm not sure what law it violates. And if there is such a law, then we need to expand it to include all signs that prohibit lawful behavior, such as carrying a gun.
imported post
Skeptic wrote:
If we are not bringing up some comparison to Nazis.... we bring up black and white race issues.
They have no other logical or valid argument so this is the last step at creating a defense for their case. :uhoh:
After all... who would want to jump into that discussion... :?
Skeptic wrote:
OMG... here we go again....
If we are not bringing up some comparison to Nazis.... we bring up black and white race issues.
They have no other logical or valid argument so this is the last step at creating a defense for their case. :uhoh:
After all... who would want to jump into that discussion... :?
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
I completely understand what you are saying.
But the member did not say that. He said the signs were "illegal" and I asked for the code showing how.
these signs is a violation of Virginia's preemption law,
the signage is still unlawful,
the signage is unlawful and a violation of VA §15.2-915
It is not a violation of the preemptive law from what I have read.
The signs are not unlawful from what I know.
The signs are not a violation of 15.2-915.
But the author wants the reader to believe his own lies. So we have lies working on both sides now. :uhoh:
Do the signs misrepresent what is allowed? From the preemptive law.. I guess they do.
But the sign itself does not appear to be a chargeable offense and is not a violation of state law. If it is.. please show me. I would love to see it. :lol:
TexasNative wrote:
TN...
I completely understand what you are saying.
But the member did not say that. He said the signs were "illegal" and I asked for the code showing how.
these signs is a violation of Virginia's preemption law,
the signage is still unlawful,
the signage is unlawful and a violation of VA §15.2-915
It is not a violation of the preemptive law from what I have read.
The signs are not unlawful from what I know.
The signs are not a violation of 15.2-915.
But the author wants the reader to believe his own lies. So we have lies working on both sides now. :uhoh:
Do the signs misrepresent what is allowed? From the preemptive law.. I guess they do.
But the sign itself does not appear to be a chargeable offense and is not a violation of state law. If it is.. please show me. I would love to see it. :lol:
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
Bill didn't say he wants someone to be arrested or go to jail for posting the sign; he said he wants the signs to come down.
So yes, the "tree" you're focusing on claimed the signs were illegal, but you're ignoring the "forest" that calls for removal of the signs, and nothing else.
And my last point: let's not descend into that sewer of claiming someone else's intent, or jumping to the worst possible conclusion about another poster. As I discussed above, I think Bill chose his words poorly, but to call his statements "lies" goes overboard. You don't know that, and I think you should apologize to Bill for calling him a liar.
Unless, of course, Bill wants to come on here and clarify that he does indeed think that posting the signs is a crime under current law, and people should be tried and convicted for it. In that case, I withdraw everything I've said here.
~ Boyd
P.S. And Bill, I don't intend to badmouth you, and I don't claim that I don't make the same mistake that I think you made here. I knew what (I believe) you meant, but as we've learned time and time again here in the OCDO forums, imprecision in what we write can cause useless digression and discussion. Folks will often choose to interpret our words in the most damaging light possible.
And LEO, I think you're committing the same unfounded accusation that you're often the target of.
I'm starting to get unfocused myself, so it's time for me to shut up. At least for a while.
LEO 229 wrote:
Two points here:1) With all due respect to Bill, I think he was a bit careless in his wording, as you pointed out, and 2) you're focusing in on the details of specific sentences and ignoring his overall point, and the action he wants to happen.
Bill didn't say he wants someone to be arrested or go to jail for posting the sign; he said he wants the signs to come down.
So yes, the "tree" you're focusing on claimed the signs were illegal, but you're ignoring the "forest" that calls for removal of the signs, and nothing else.
And my last point: let's not descend into that sewer of claiming someone else's intent, or jumping to the worst possible conclusion about another poster. As I discussed above, I think Bill chose his words poorly, but to call his statements "lies" goes overboard. You don't know that, and I think you should apologize to Bill for calling him a liar.
Unless, of course, Bill wants to come on here and clarify that he does indeed think that posting the signs is a crime under current law, and people should be tried and convicted for it. In that case, I withdraw everything I've said here.
~ Boyd
P.S. And Bill, I don't intend to badmouth you, and I don't claim that I don't make the same mistake that I think you made here. I knew what (I believe) you meant, but as we've learned time and time again here in the OCDO forums, imprecision in what we write can cause useless digression and discussion. Folks will often choose to interpret our words in the most damaging light possible.
And LEO, I think you're committing the same unfounded accusation that you're often the target of.
I'm starting to get unfocused myself, so it's time for me to shut up. At least for a while.
imported post
Well. Since you have a civil right to keep and bear arms under both the US and Virginia constitution. And since there are numerous laws requiring the government NOT to violate those rights. I would further say the sign is a blatant attempt at rights violations. Willfully violating ones rights in Virginia is illegal. Since this is common knowledge and not a gun law I see no reason to cite. I think it's very fair to say the sign is illegal.
Well. Since you have a civil right to keep and bear arms under both the US and Virginia constitution. And since there are numerous laws requiring the government NOT to violate those rights. I would further say the sign is a blatant attempt at rights violations. Willfully violating ones rights in Virginia is illegal. Since this is common knowledge and not a gun law I see no reason to cite. I think it's very fair to say the sign is illegal.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
You may well have a point, ravonaf, but even so, Bill didn't seem to make that claim. If that's what he was thinking, he said absolutely nothing to advance that point beyond merely saying the signs were illegal.
As to your specific point, I think your claim is debatable and not a slam dunk. Beyond it being a rights issue, there are huge differences between abuse of power based on someone's race vs. what someone chooses to carry to defend themselves. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but just that I don't think it's a sure thing.
You may well have a point, ravonaf, but even so, Bill didn't seem to make that claim. If that's what he was thinking, he said absolutely nothing to advance that point beyond merely saying the signs were illegal.
As to your specific point, I think your claim is debatable and not a slam dunk. Beyond it being a rights issue, there are huge differences between abuse of power based on someone's race vs. what someone chooses to carry to defend themselves. I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with you, but just that I don't think it's a sure thing.
imported post
TexasNative wrote:
I could see his intent... but when you make the same, IMO, error.... three times I have to question what is being presented. Once in error, twice makes you take a second look. But three times in the same post identifies to me that the author clearly believes signs are illegal.
I have my doubts and would like the author to take a second look and perhaps think about what they are saying. If they have something to back it up.. Sweet!!
It was not a one time thing you can gloss over.. Remember... it was presented three times in the same post. I saw no mentioning of it being an opinion either.
I only asked for someone to show me a law that says the signs are "illegal". As of yet.. I have not seen anyone do it. They did talk about Nazis... as always happens here. But no state or federal code.
I am genuinely interested in knowing.
TexasNative wrote:
TN, no accusations here...LEO 229 wrote:Two points here:1) With all due respect to Bill, I think he was a bit careless in his wording, as you pointed out, and 2) you're focusing in on the details of specific sentences and ignoring his overall point, and the action he wants to happen.
Bill didn't say he wants someone to be arrested or go to jail for posting the sign; he said he wants the signs to come down.
So yes, the "tree" you're focusing on claimed the signs were illegal, but you're ignoring the "forest" that calls for removal of the signs, and nothing else.
And my last point: let's not descend into that sewer of claiming someone else's intent, or jumping to the worst possible conclusion about another poster. As I discussed above, I think Bill chose his words poorly, but to call his statements "lies" goes overboard. You don't know that, and I think you should apologize to Bill for calling him a liar.
Unless, of course, Bill wants to come on here and clarify that he does indeed think that posting the signs is a crime under current law, and people should be tried and convicted for it. In that case, I withdraw everything I've said here.
~ Boyd
P.S. And Bill, I don't intend to badmouth you, and I don't claim that I don't make the same mistake that I think you made here. I knew what (I believe) you meant, but as we've learned time and time again here in the OCDO forums, imprecision in what we write can cause useless digression and discussion. Folks will often choose to interpret our words in the most damaging light possible.
And LEO, I think you're committing the same unfounded accusation that you're often the target of.
I'm starting to get unfocused myself, so it's time for me to shut up. At least for a while.
I could see his intent... but when you make the same, IMO, error.... three times I have to question what is being presented. Once in error, twice makes you take a second look. But three times in the same post identifies to me that the author clearly believes signs are illegal.
I have my doubts and would like the author to take a second look and perhaps think about what they are saying. If they have something to back it up.. Sweet!!
It was not a one time thing you can gloss over.. Remember... it was presented three times in the same post. I saw no mentioning of it being an opinion either.
I only asked for someone to show me a law that says the signs are "illegal". As of yet.. I have not seen anyone do it. They did talk about Nazis... as always happens here. But no state or federal code.
I am genuinely interested in knowing.
TexasNative
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
You think him saying the same thing three times means he wants someone arrested for the crime of posting extra-legal signs. I disagree.
At this point, we'll have to wait and see what Bill says. You're ready to draw a conclusion based on what we currently have. I think you're jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence.
By the way, doesn't that sound kinda familiar to ya? Have you ever seen that happen on this board? Huh? Do ya, punk? (sorry, I started channeling Dirty Harry there for some reason )
LEO 229 wrote:
And this is where we disagree, and only Bill can clarify. I think Bill worded his point incorrectly, three times (I'll take your word for it on the count).
You think him saying the same thing three times means he wants someone arrested for the crime of posting extra-legal signs. I disagree.
At this point, we'll have to wait and see what Bill says. You're ready to draw a conclusion based on what we currently have. I think you're jumping to a conclusion without sufficient evidence.
By the way, doesn't that sound kinda familiar to ya? Have you ever seen that happen on this board? Huh? Do ya, punk? (sorry, I started channeling Dirty Harry there for some reason
)