Unlawful Signage in Wytheville is Back

TexasNative · May 3, 2009

imported post

ravonaf wrote:

I would further say the signs are illegal.

You make an excellent point. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. There is no punishment listed in the law for a municipality (or an agent/employee thereof) violating these provisions, so no one is going to be arrested. That doesn't mean the prohibited actions aren't illegal.

I made the fairly common error of equating "illegal" with "crime." So yup, I'll agree that the signs are illegal. Nope, putting them up is not a crime (an assumption I made all by myself).

~ Boyd

ravonaf · May 3, 2009

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

ravonaf wrote:

I would further say the signs are illegal.

Click to expand...

You make an excellent point. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. There is no punishment listed in the law for a municipality (or an agent/employee thereof) violating these provisions, so no one is going to be arrested. That doesn't mean the prohibited actions aren't illegal.

I made the fairly common error of equating "illegal" with "crime." So yup, I'll agree that the signs are illegal. Nope, putting them up is not a crime (an assumption I made all by myself).

~ Boyd

I don't remember Bill saying it was a crime punishable by arrest. Although I may need to go back and re-read. Like all things if push came to shove it would have to go before a Judge to decide. If the Judge agreed they are illegal and they where still not taken down then someone is going to jail. But I highly doubt it would go that far.

TexasNative · May 3, 2009

imported post

#1. I agree, Bill never said that. That's why I stated I made an incorrect assumption.

#2. If a judge tells a municipality to do something, and they don't do it, the original issue is superseded by the failure to follow the judge's order. I believe it becomes Contempt at that point.

LEO 229 · May 3, 2009

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

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.

Click to expand...

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 )

Well, when someone says the same thing over and over... it is going to cause a conclusion by the reader. Mine is that he believes "signs" are illegal. He said so three times. :lol:

What he meant.. it is not really open for debate. Only the author can clarify his meaning. My interpretation is not so bad in that he is being attacked and I never resorted to name calling.

He posted something presumed to be fact... I questioned if there is such a law.

See the difference in me and the other Citizens out there? :?

Please note I did call upon the "forum", the "fellas" or even call him a weasel. I did not even QFT his post!! :lol:

Only asking for the law so I can be better educated. Clearly, this is a law I do not know ahead of time so I am not "setting him up" either.

Grapeshot · May 3, 2009

imported post

Perhaps under "Color of Law" best defines the inappropriate existence of such signs.

Yata hey

LEO 229 · May 3, 2009

imported post

Grapeshot wrote:

Perhaps under "Color of Law" best defines the inappropriate existence of such signs.

Yata hey

Finally... An intelligent response..

Thanks GS... We can work with this.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law
The appearance of a legal right.
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protesters or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Action

state action n. in Federal Civil Rights Acts, dating back to 1875, any activity by the government of a state, any of its components or employees (like a sheriff), who uses the "color of law" (claim of legal right) to violate an individual's civil rights. Such "state action" gives the person whose rights have been violated by a governmental body or official the right to sue that agency or person for damages

[line]
So at what point would your civil rights be violated because of a sign prohibiting you from doing something that is otherwise lawful?

What if you never attempt to go inside and only walk by. Are your rights being violated even if you never intended to go inside armed?

What if you do go inside and you are not stopped. Are your rights still being violated?

Legit questions. I do not practice civil law nor am I an attorney... but I do find this interesting.

Grapeshot · May 3, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Perhaps under "Color of Law" best defines the inappropriate existence of such signs.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Finally... An intelligent response..

Thanks GS... We can work with this.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law
The appearance of a legal right.
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protesters or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Action

state action n. in Federal Civil Rights Acts, dating back to 1875, any activity by the government of a state, any of its components or employees (like a sheriff), who uses the "color of law" (claim of legal right) to violate an individual's civil rights. Such "state action" gives the person whose rights have been violated by a governmental body or official the right to sue that agency or person for damages
[line]So at what point would your civil rights be violated because of a sign prohibiting you from doing something that is otherwise lawful?

What if you never attempt to go inside and only walk by. Are your rights being violated even if you never intended to go inside armed?

What if you do go inside and you are not stopped. Are your rights still being violated?

Legit questions. I do not practice civil law nor am I an attorney... but I do find this interesting.

Check is in the mail.

To complicate the thinking - If I disarm (store in vehicle) based upon the sign, enter and am attacked and injured before rearming, does that add to their potential liability?

Yata hey

Yata hey

ravonaf · May 3, 2009

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Perhaps under "Color of Law" best defines the inappropriate existence of such signs.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Finally... An intelligent response..

Thanks GS... We can work with this.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law
The appearance of a legal right.
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protesters or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Action

state action n. in Federal Civil Rights Acts, dating back to 1875, any activity by the government of a state, any of its components or employees (like a sheriff), who uses the "color of law" (claim of legal right) to violate an individual's civil rights. Such "state action" gives the person whose rights have been violated by a governmental body or official the right to sue that agency or person for damages

[line]
So at what point would your civil rights be violated because of a sign prohibiting you from doing something that is otherwise lawful?

What if you never attempt to go inside and only walk by. Are your rights being violated even if you never intended to go inside armed?

What if you do go inside and you are not stopped. Are your rights still being violated?

Legit questions. I do not practice civil law nor am I an attorney... but I do find this interesting.

LEO

I've already cited the law you requested on what law was broken when the sign was posted. It does not matter if you enter the room or not. The law specifically says the local government can not take any administrative action overriding state law on guns. The posting of the sign was an administrative action and thus making it an illegal sign.

Ignoring my post and calling it a non-intelligent response does not make it any less legal to post a sign forbidding firearms in a place they are legal.

peter nap · May 3, 2009

imported post

ravonaf wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

Grapeshot wrote:

Perhaps under "Color of Law" best defines the inappropriate existence of such signs.

Yata hey

Click to expand...

Finally... An intelligent response..

Thanks GS... We can work with this.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Color+of+Law
The appearance of a legal right.
The act of a state officer, regardless of whether or not the act is within the limits of his or her authority, is considered an act under color of law if the officer purports to be conducting himself or herself in the course of official duties.

color of law n. the appearance of an act being performed based upon legal right or enforcement of statute, when in reality no such right exists. An outstanding example is found in the civil rights acts which penalize law enforcement officers for violating civil rights by making arrests "under color of law" of peaceful protesters or to disrupt voter registration. It could apply to phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue from fines or extort payoffs to forget the ticket.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+Action

state action n. in Federal Civil Rights Acts, dating back to 1875, any activity by the government of a state, any of its components or employees (like a sheriff), who uses the "color of law" (claim of legal right) to violate an individual's civil rights. Such "state action" gives the person whose rights have been violated by a governmental body or official the right to sue that agency or person for damages

[line]
So at what point would your civil rights be violated because of a sign prohibiting you from doing something that is otherwise lawful?

What if you never attempt to go inside and only walk by. Are your rights being violated even if you never intended to go inside armed?

What if you do go inside and you are not stopped. Are your rights still being violated?

Legit questions. I do not practice civil law nor am I an attorney... but I do find this interesting.+1

Click to expand...

LEO

I've already cited the law you requested on what law was broken when the sign was posted. It does not matter if you enter the room or not. The law specifically says the local government can not take any administrative action overriding state law on guns. The posting of the sign was an administrative action and thus making it an illegal sign.

Ignoring my post and calling it a non-intelligent response does not make it any less legal to post a sign forbidding firearms in a place they are legal.

+1
Come on 229. The bets on the table. Root Hog or die!

marshaul · May 3, 2009

imported post

LEO 229, since you no longer contribute anything to this forum, why are you still here?

TexasNative · May 3, 2009

imported post

He's here to absorb insults from people who don't have anything substantive to say, so they just slam him instead of posting thoughtful comments.

marshaul · May 3, 2009

imported post

I assume you're referring to myself, so I'll ask you A: where I insulted the man, and B: what he is doing in this thread other than quibbling over whether Virginia law prohibits unenforceable signage.

TexasNative · May 3, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

I assume you're referring to myself, so I'll ask you A: where I insulted the man, and B: what he is doing in this thread other than quibbling over whether Virginia law prohibits unenforceable signage.

Okeydoke.

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229, since you no longer contribute anything to this forum, why are you still here?

So, claiming he doesn't contribute anything to the forum isn't an insult? And please, don't further insult anyone's intelligence and try to mischaracterize your opinion as a fact.

If you think LEO's posts aren't useful or accurate, then refute them and state your case for your opinion. You know, like I did above.

Insulting people and diminishing their contributions without contributing anything yourself is not productive. Dispute posts if you feel compelled to, or move on without comment. Casting insults just helps OCDO forums to sink into pointless tit-for-tat that does no one any good.

Of course, you're free to do as you wish. I'm merely expressing my opinion.

Grapeshot · May 3, 2009

imported post

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229, since you no longer contribute anything to this forum, why are you still here?

Unnecessary commentary without redeeming qualities - reflects more on the poster than on the recipient.

Yata hey

Bill in VA · May 3, 2009

imported post

.

TexasNative · May 3, 2009

imported post

Bill in VA wrote:

Maybe you better go back read the definition of "illegal." It shares the same definition of "crime"..."unlawful, against the law, and a violation of the law.'

At the very least, the Merriam-Webster dictionary disagrees with you.

crime: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law (emphasis added)

illegal: not according to or authorized by law

In other words, there may be no punishment for an illegal act, but for something to qualify as a crime, there must be punishment associated with the act. With that difference in mind, that's why I say that putting up those signs as prohibited by Commonwealth law appears to be illegal, but not a crime.

And even if you still disagree with the dictionary, my point still stands: while putting up the signs is unlawful, there is no punishment enshrined in law for that unlawful act.

~ Boyd

ETA: All of that digression notwithstanding, I agree with you that the town has no authority to put up the signs, is in fact prohibited from putting up those signs, and should take them down immediately.

Grapeshot · May 3, 2009

imported post

My google-fu must be bad.

I can find addresses and phone numbers but no e-mail address for Town Mgr. or similar.

Anybody?

Yata hey

marshaul · May 3, 2009

imported post

TexasNative wrote:

So, claiming he doesn't contribute anything to the forum isn't an insult?

Quite right. I'm glad you realized that.

Grapeshot wrote:

marshaul wrote:

LEO 229, since you no longer contribute anything to this forum, why are you still here?

Click to expand...

Unnecessary commentary without redeeming qualities - reflects more on the poster than on the recipient.

Yata hey

I'm not sure why you guys are so intent to defend LEO 299 in this thread. His posts are ridiculous. Quibbling over words, intentionally ignoring the point. You can have it, though. I'm through with this thread, which is going in circles anyway thanks to LEO 229.

Pagan · May 3, 2009

imported post

LEO229 is making a good point. Say what you mean, mean what you say and make what you say mean something.

If we are going to be challenging the enemies of freedom in the court room, we better get the wording right, or those scum bags with too many years of expirence are going to eat us alive in the court room.

But in my opinion, which has no legal background, the signs may be interpretted as a conspiricy to violate our rights, since it is put up to intimidate and cause lawful citizens from excercising their rights. And conspiricy to violate civil rights is a federal offense I believe.

LEO 229 · May 3, 2009

imported post

I am going to turn on the filter and this should limit the crap I have to read from those who come here simply to insult me and claim they are somehow adding to the discussion by asking something off topic. :lol:

I may skip a post here of there with so many people posting. There is always a chance I miss something so do not get bent out of shape if I do. It is not intentional.. unless you are on the bad list and your post was filtered out... :lol:

Unlawful Signage in Wytheville is Back

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Accomplished Advocate

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member