cop steals repeal safe act sign

[RobertNashville]

So, apparently/maybe we have a firearm owner trying to "help" the pro-2A community on city property???

 

If, as the blogger claims, it isn't public property a court case will be interesting...I do have to wonder, though...doesn't this guy and the city know what property is his/theirs and what property isn't?  I mean...that shouldn't be too difficult to figure out should it?  :shrug:

[JayC]

The 'logic' the town is using to claim that this is 'town' property is a stretch under the best situations.  They're trying to claim since th sign was on property owned by this individual but in the 'easement' for the town, that the sign was on public property.

 

That is to say the least a novel approach to claiming the property belongs to the 'town'.  I don't know NY law but that wouldn't fly 5 inches here in TN...  while we all have public easements and right of ways on our property for things such as telephone poles, sidewalks, roads, etc.  The property is still owned by you not the city or county...  You're just restricted with what you can do to your property on the easement...  any improvements which would prevent the maintenance or installation of new public works on the easement can be restricted and you can be forced to remove them....

 

Clearly a sign of this size poses no issue to the easement unless they had scheduled maintenance requiring it to be moved.

 

And here is how you know the town is full of it...  there are houses on that street that have fences much closer to the road than where the sign sat...  so is the city now saying those fences are on it's property?

 

http://somers.dailyvoice.com/news/supervisor-somers-police-justified-pro-gun-sign-removal

According to this story it was on city property not the man's front yard.

 

[RobertNashville]

The 'logic' the town is using to claim that this is 'town' property is a stretch under the best situations.  They're trying to claim since th sign was on property owned by this individual but in the 'easement' for the town, that the sign was on public property.

 

That is to say the least a novel approach to claiming the property belongs to the 'town'.  I don't know NY law but that wouldn't fly 5 inches here in TN...  while we all have public easements and right of ways on our property for things such as telephone poles, sidewalks, roads, etc.  The property is still owned by you not the city or county...  You're just restricted with what you can do to your property on the easement...  any improvements which would prevent the maintenance or installation of new public works on the easement can be restricted and you can be forced to remove them....

 

Clearly a sign of this size poses no issue to the easement unless they had scheduled maintenance requiring it to be moved.

 

And here is how you know the town is full of it...  there are houses on that street that have fences much closer to the road than where the sign sat...  so is the city now saying those fences are on it's property?

If the city has a legal easement for a certain amount of the property (which they almost certainly have and is very likely written into the dead for the property) then the city absolutely has the right to restrict signs on it or put any other restrictions they wanted...restrictions that would have been agreed to when the dead was executed (likely when the property was subdivided and agreed to by the developer); your assertion that it's a "stretch" or "novel" or "wouldn't fly in Tennessee" notwithstanding...I suspect most cities in Tennessee have very similar easements. It's also not for you do decide what rights an easement confers...if the city doesn't allow signs on the easement then it doesn't allow signs.  It also doesn't matter whether, in your opinion, the sign of that size doesn't pose an issue; that's for the people who live there and the city they live in to decide.

 

Just because this guy is allegedly a pro-2A guy doesn't mean he's in the right and just because the city took down his sign doesn't mean anyone's "rights" are being violated.  :drama:

Edited September 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

I'm wondering if they enforce the same "laws" when political season rolls around and all the libs have their signs up. Just a wild guess but I'm gonna figure not.

[Chucktshoes]

If the city has a legal easement for a certain amount of the property (which they almost certainly have and is very likely written into the dead for the property) then the city absolutely has the right to restrict signs on it or put any other restrictions they wanted...restrictions that would have been agreed to when the dead was executed (likely when the property was subdivided and agreed to by the developer); your assertion that it's a "stretch" or "novel" or "wouldn't fly in Tennessee" notwithstanding...I suspect most cities in Tennessee have very similar easements. It's also not for you do decide what rights an easement confers...if the city doesn't allow signs on the easement then it doesn't allow signs.  It also doesn't matter whether, in your opinion, the sign of that size doesn't pose an issue; that's for the people who live there and the city they live in to decide.
 
Just because this guy is allegedly a pro-2A guy doesn't mean he's in the right and just because the city took down his sign doesn't mean anyone's "rights" are being violated.  :drama:

Because as long as somebody, somewhere took a vote on it, it is perfectly kosher, right?

[RobertNashville]

Because as long as somebody, somewhere took a vote on it, it is perfectly kosher, right?

Kosher...legal...reasonable and the people's right to do.

 

Such rules are absolutely necessary for the operation of a city/municipality/county where people live in close proximity to one another.  There is a way to handle restrictions/easements/ordinances that one doesn't like, negotiate them away before they buy property there or don't live there.

 

If someone or a group of someone's want to live in a city/suburb where city zoning doesn't allow a next door neighbor to turn his half/acre lot into a commercial junk yard or can't place a bunch of signs or a flag pool or whatever and make that a matter of law; then those people have every right to do so.

Edited September 29, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

I don't know NY law but that wouldn't fly 5 inches here in TN...

Here is a link to a 77 page document on the placements of signs in Murfreesboro. It appears to cover most anything having to do with a sign.
http://www.murfreesborotn.gov/DocumentCenter/View/81
 

SECTION 25¼-4 VIOLATIONS; PENALTIES.
(A) Violation and penalty defined. Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or failure to comply with any of its requirements is hereby deemed and declared a violation and subject to the penalties hereinafter provided, and each day that such violation continues shall constitute a separate and additional violation for each such day. Any person who violates this chapter or fails to comply with any of its requirements shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as provided in Code §1-8.
 
(B__) Signs placed in right-of-way. Signs that exist in a nonconforming status placed in the public right-of-way shall be immediately confiscated by the City and the owner or responsible party for the sign shall be fined for each sign in violation for the sign’s return, in addition to paragraph (A):
(1) Signs five and one-half (5½) square feet and under - $5.00 return fine.
(2) Signs over five and one-half (5½) square feet - $25.00 return fine.
If the sign is not claimed within thirty days, the City may consider it abandoned and destroy same.
(C) Persons subject to penalty. The owner, tenant and/or occupant of any building, structure, premises or a part thereof, and any architect, builder, contractor, agent or other person, who commits, maintains, aids or participates in such violation may be found guilty of a separate offense and suffer the penalties as herein provided.

[RichardR]

Same folks defending liberty & the same folks defending tyranny ... *sigh*

[RobertNashville]

Same folks defending liberty & the same folks defending tyranny ... *sigh*

 

:drama:   Tyranny...yeah...it's really tyrannical when people voluntary associate in cities and municipalities and suburbs and set standards for how they want their community to operate.  I mean...how dare they decide for themselves how they want to live!  :shake:

 

 

What some want to call tyranny others call freedom of association and freedom of choice. But apparently; there are some who think that the freedom of people to chose what laws they will live under is only appropriate if those people make the "right" choices; otherwise it's "tyranny"!  :panic:

 

Such a view would be really funny if it wasn't so narcissistic and dangerous. Narcissistic because the unspoken insinuation in calling things like this "tyranny" is that unless people see things the way "I" see them then they are accepting tyranny; dangerous because such nonsense assertions blinds people to real tyranny.

[RichardR]

Yes Robert tyranny, as in "agents of the state" repeatedly tresspassing on private property & repeatedly stealing something that wasn't theirs, stealing as in had no authority to take without permission because the lawful owner was denied due-process (or even notification).

But of course you seem to have absolutely no problem with this because your concept(s) of tyranny & liberty are vastly different than mine (or our nation's founding fathers).

[Hozzie]

Yes Robert tyranny, as in "agents of the state" repeatedly tresspassing on private property & repeatedly stealing something that wasn't theirs, stealing as in had no authority to take without permission because the lawful owner was denied due-process (or even notification).

But of course you seem to have absolutely no problem with this because your concept(s) of tyranny & liberty are vastly different than mine (or our nation's founding fathers).

 

Sorry, the officer did not trespass as they have the right to enforce the laws on said property if it is in violation of city codes and they also have the right to take said property if they so choose. So let's not get too crazy with it was illegal, blah, blah, blah.  How is he being denied due process.  He can go to court and fight it if he wants.  They aren't saying he can't.

 

I won't disagree that there was a better way to handle this.  Take the sign to the front door, talk with the owner if possible, and if not leave a note explaining the issue.  But, that didn't happen and it didn't make it illegal.  

 

I am with Robert on this one.  When you decide to live in a city, with city ordinances, you agree to abide by those ordinances whether you like them or not.  I live in an area where you aren't allowed to have pink houses and you have to mow your yard or they can mow it for you and charge you.  Don't like the rules, don't live here.  There is a reason people choose to live in areas with rules, they want their property values to remain high.  Don't like the rules, work to get them changed, but that doesn't mean you can just do whatever you want.  Well, you can, but then you lose your sign.

 

I don't care if someone wants to have 10 rusted out cars in their yard, good for them.  I choose to live where the law says you can't do that.  This guy chose to live where you can't have a sign in the easement.  In fact, I know of many locations where even Political signs can only be up for 30 days before the election and must be taken down the day after the election.  You can call it free speech all you want, but free speech is not absolute no matter how much you think it is.  Should it be, maybe, but that also means you have to accept any and all other "free speech", even that you don't agree with.  I suspect some here would not like the free speech argument so much if their new neighbor was a gay rights activist who put a 5' rainbow sign in their front yard that said "I love me some man on man action".  I don't know, maybe you would since that is "liberty".

 

Point is, we live by varying laws based on where we live.  This guy decided to live where he can't have a sign on the easement.  If he doesn' like it, he can move it to somewhere on his property that is legal, move, or don't put up the sign.  The cop enforcing the law (granted I agree I don't like the fact they didn't leave a note or attempt to resolve it in person) is not tyranny.

Edited September 30, 2013 by Hozzie

[TMF]

I'm on the fence with this one, since I believe the confiscation of the signs was politically motivated. On the other hand, the law is the law, and if that law happens to be unconstitutional it needs to be challenged in court.

On the other hand, law enforcement confiscate stuff all the time when it is in violation of the law, such as impounding vehicles when used in violation of the law. If this sign was violating the law then I guess they were within their legal limits to walk onto the persons property and take it. Most places would send you a letter or something and fine you for noncompliance, which is what suggests to me this is politically motivated. That's the part that doesn't set well with me. That's third world type stuff.

[RichardR]

Tyranny is almost always "legal" because it is almost always the tyrannts who are the ones making the laws &/or ignoring them.

It is amazing to me how few people, even ones who purport to be "for freedom" actually understand extremely simple concepts like tyranny, liberty & individual freedom (or lack thereof).

But but but ... there was a local easement ordinance! Really? A local easement ordinance that trumps the 5th Amendment's right to due-process? One that also void's the guarantees of the 4th & allows for warrantless tresspass & seizures of private property? All in an effort to suppress the homeowner's 1st Amendment right to publically express his political opinion?

Sorry but this ain't the Soviet Union, apparently it's getting there quickly though, eh comrads?

My world view is narcisstic & dangerous? What I want to know is why did we even bother fighting the Cold War for?

[TMF]

Tyranny is almost always "legal" because it is almost always the tyrannts who are the ones making the laws &/or ignoring them.

It is amazing to me how few people, even ones who purport to be "for freedom" actually understand extremely simple concepts like tyranny, liberty & individual freedom (or lack thereof).

But but but ... there was a local easement ordinance! Really? A local easement ordinance that trumps the 5th Amendment's right to due-process? One that also void's the guarantees of the 4th & allows for warrantless tresspass & seizures of private property? All in an effort to suppress the homeowner's 1st Amendment right to publically express his political opinion?

Sorry but this ain't the Soviet Union, apparently it's getting there quickly though, eh comrads?

My world view is narcisstic & dangerous? What I want to know is why did we even bother fighting the Cold War for?

I'm not convinced that this violates the 4th or 5th amendment. If the sign was in violation the law the officer had probable cause to enter the person's property, as he observed the violation. How is this different from any other time an officer of the court observes a crime and takes control of the property used to commit the crime? Cars get towed everyday for violating various ordinances or drivers violating laws.

Have they said he couldn't have his signs back? If they just took them because they were violating a law it doesn't mean it's stolen. I mean, if you park in front of a fire hydrant and the cops have you towed, are they not violating the 5th amendment every time based on your argument?

[RichardR]

I think a better comparison would be a noise complaint (alledged violation of a local ordinance) & the responding officer sneaks onto the homeowners patio & takes the homeowners patio stereo, without the homeowner being aware of who took it or why.

I'm not convinced that this violates the 4th or 5th amendment. If the sign was in violation the law the officer had probable cause to enter the person's property, as he observed the violation. How is this different from any other time an officer of the court observes a crime and takes control of the property used to commit the crime? Cars get towed everyday for violating various ordinances or drivers violating laws.

Have they said he couldn't have his signs back? If they just took them because they were violating a law it doesn't mean it's stolen. I mean, if you park in front of a fire hydrant and the cops have you towed, are they not violating the 5th amendment every time based on your argument?

[JayC]

And in TN if a city wanted to enforce those easements, they'd have to go to court and get an order to do so.  Because the property still belongs to you, not the city that has the easement.  And we all have things sitting in our easements...  driveways, mail boxes, for sale signs, etc...  The easement is not a complete one...  So if there is a question you can have a day in court before anything is done to your property to make an argument that either the easement doesn't apply, or the improves don't violate the easement.

 

And that is the 'novel' part of their argument, they're claiming ownership of the land that is in the easement to say they didn't need permission from the court to remove property with no notice to the land owner.

 

Please tell me you see how crazy this argument the city is making is?  They're claiming complete ownership of all property in the city that sit on the easement, and can do whatever they want to that property without affording you due process of law.

 

If the city has a legal easement for a certain amount of the property (which they almost certainly have and is very likely written into the dead for the property) then the city absolutely has the right to restrict signs on it or put any other restrictions they wanted...restrictions that would have been agreed to when the dead was executed (likely when the property was subdivided and agreed to by the developer); your assertion that it's a "stretch" or "novel" or "wouldn't fly in Tennessee" notwithstanding...I suspect most cities in Tennessee have very similar easements. It's also not for you do decide what rights an easement confers...if the city doesn't allow signs on the easement then it doesn't allow signs.  It also doesn't matter whether, in your opinion, the sign of that size doesn't pose an issue; that's for the people who live there and the city they live in to decide.

 

Just because this guy is allegedly a pro-2A guy doesn't mean he's in the right and just because the city took down his sign doesn't mean anyone's "rights" are being violated.  :drama:

 

[JayC]

Except in this case, by the law the building inspector and his office was the only ones allowed to enforce these codes, not the police department.  Also the home owner and his attorney claim the building inspector had approved this sign as exempt from the ordinance in question before any of the signs were taken.

 

The way the town is trying to defend this, is by saying the sign was abandoned property left on town owned land and as such they had no duty to seek a order, or notify the property owner they took the sign.  Which is a joke under the best of circumstances.

 

I'm on the fence with this one, since I believe the confiscation of the signs was politically motivated. On the other hand, the law is the law, and if that law happens to be unconstitutional it needs to be challenged in court.

On the other hand, law enforcement confiscate stuff all the time when it is in violation of the law, such as impounding vehicles when used in violation of the law. If this sign was violating the law then I guess they were within their legal limits to walk onto the persons property and take it. Most places would send you a letter or something and fine you for noncompliance, which is what suggests to me this is politically motivated. That's the part that doesn't set well with me. That's third world type stuff.

 

[TMF]

Except in this case, by the law the building inspector and his office was the only ones allowed to enforce these codes, not the police department.  Also the home owner and his attorney claim the building inspector had approved this sign as exempt from the ordinance in question before any of the signs were taken.

 

The way the town is trying to defend this, is by saying the sign was abandoned property left on town owned land and as such they had no duty to seek a order, or notify the property owner they took the sign.  Which is a joke under the best of circumstances.

 

I'm not saying it isn't fishy.  Their actions are certainly suspect, and it looks (to me) like using law enforcement for political activism, but I'm still not seeing how this is a clear violation of the Constitution or even local law.  It seems to me like they were within their scope to do what they did, and if that is the case the law itself needs to be challenged in court.

[RobertNashville]

And in TN if a city wanted to enforce those easements, they'd have to go to court and get an order to do so....

No they don't and if you had bothered to read the earlier posts you would see a specific example of a city ordnance in Tennessee where police are directed to immediately confiscate a sign that's in violation.  But hey; why let facts get in the way of a good rant when a rant is so much more fun!  :rofl:

[RobertNashville]

If discussions like this weren’t so dangerous to identifying and resisting REAL infringements on freedom and liberty I’d find them pretty comical; or at least entertaining.

 

I mean really, some guy gets a sign confiscated that he placed in his yard, apparently illegally (because of city ordinance/easement) and this not only get’s posted as a second amendment issue (on boards around the country, not just TGO) but as an example of Tyranny! LOL!  Even the venerated “founding fathers” get invoked as if those invoking them have real insight into what the “founders” would or would not have done.

 

I love history; especially American history and I've spent much of my life reading not just books about our founders but their actual writings and one thing I believe that I know about our founders is that these men believed in the rule of law and if  such men purchased land that had deed restrictions or that existed in a city that had ordinances that prohibited certain activities, they would follow the law or they would chose to buy land elsewhere or they would seek to change the laws through the proscribed methods to do so (petitioning the legislature/city council, referendum, etc.). I am very certain that such men would not cry foul about a city official enforcing a law that they had agreed (expressed or implied) to live under! I also doubt, during our founder’s time, that a city official enforcing a law give motive to uninvolved people taking to the communication methods of the day to complain/cry about the law and call it “tyranny”.

 

Our founders knew what real tyranny was and it wasn’t living under laws they had AGREED to live under through a representative government - real tyranny doesn’t hide in the form or a city ordinance that was properly put into law nor in the act of a peace officer doing his job.

 

Calling incidents like this "tyranny" is akin to the 24hour news networks taking every story, regardless of how small,  how insignificant (and unverified) they are and reporting it as if our very existence hinged on their reporting of the story.

 

If this man's signs were illegally confiscated...if they really were on his private property (not property on which the city had right of way/easement, etc.) then his remedy is to go to court and make his case. That's how adults handle problems. Whether the man wins or loses his case then he wins or loses but neither outcome has any real bearing on anything except him and it most certainly isn't an example of a tyrannical government.

[analog_kidd]

I used to be in Civil Engineering, and most two lane roads, like in most subdivisions, have a 50 foot right of way that is owned by the city / county / state. With 12' lanes of pavement, that means that there is 13' feet from the edge of the pavement to where your property line actually starts. Most of that 13 feet looks like your property, and the city expects you to take care of it like it is yours, but the reality of it is, it's not your property. It's there for the city to run water, sewer and drainage through.

 

I'm not saying that this guy or the city is justified. This was douchebaggery at its finest. Just throwing a few additional facts into the discussion.

[RichardR]

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what an easement is.

Granted the purpose & language of easement(s) can vary quite a bit, but essentially they all boil down to a private property owner "granting permission" for someone else to have access to or use the portion of the property specified under an easement.

It isn't a forfieture of that property or even a forfieture of the property rights of the actual property owner to also use his own property, so long as the easementee's use of that property is not hindered.

Same is also true in reverse, the easementee's permitted access to & use of the private property must be as agreed to in the easement, it is not a carte-blanche usurpation of that portion of the property from it's right-full owner.

I've owned a couple pieces of properties w/easements, a situation came up years ago when Comcast decided that they didn't need my permission to access one of my properties, because of an easement that I had with the rail-road (tracks & service road) and the power company for power-lines.

They were extremely rude, pushy & they had no intention of delaying their work in building what ever it was that they had surveyed out back there regardless of what I as the owner of the property had to say about the matter.

So I jumped back into my truck & parked it right in the middle of their job site & told them if anyone touches it I'd show up at their houses & start @#$%ing with their stuff.

Anyway long story short, they delayed, we went to court, the judge upheld my property rights vs expanding my existing easement's to say something that they didn't say, so I offered to either sell, lease or negotiate an additional easement on that location with Comcast in exchange for free-cable television service at my residence for as long as they were planning on using that piece of my property.

They didn't take the deal though, I'm certain that they just bullied another property owner in the area into believing that they had no option but to allow them to do what-ever they wanted, where ever they wanted because not many folks understand easements.

[JayC]

You keep confusing 2 different terms, there is a ordinance that on public right of ways you can't post signs in Murfreesboro...  And most people have a right of way easement that includes some of their property...  But just because you have an easement running 10-15 feet into your front yard that someday could be turned into a road doesn't mean the property today is owned by the city or is today part of the right of way.

 

I don't have an issue with a law prohibiting putting signs on the public right of way (ie a road, railroad, foot trail etc) that is owned and maintained by the city.  But that isn't what's going on here...  while the city may very well have an easement to turn some of your front yard into a road it doesn't mean they own the land today, nor can they rip up your fence, mailbox, or for sale sign without a court order because until they convert the easement into a road the property belongs to you.

 

Lets pretend for a second that the city owns the land on which this sign sat, or had some ordinance that allowed them to remove a sign from an unused easement...  and the city only targeted signs which were Pro-2nd Amendment in nature but did not equally enforce the law on other signs, or fences, mailboxes, or anything else that then that would be a clear violation of the constitution's equal protection clause.

 

And you keep skipping over the fact the building inspector who the NY town law says is the government entity that enforces these code violations told the homeowner  he could keep the sign as it was protected speech...  

 

So explain to me again how you have a police officer enforcing building code violations that aren't under the purview of his department?

 

No they don't and if you had bothered to read the earlier posts you would see a specific example of a city ordnance in Tennessee where police are directed to immediately confiscate a sign that's in violation.  But hey; why let facts get in the way of a good rant when a rant is so much more fun!  :rofl:

 

[RobertNashville]

Just take a  :chill:

 

I'm confusing nothing nor am I skipping over anything and it wouldn't matter if I did...if you want to keep making a mountain out of a mole hill be my guest but I've said all I have to say or need to say about this ridiculous topic in Post 45.

Edited October 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[East_TN_Patriot]

Tyranny is almost always "legal" because it is almost always the tyrannts who are the ones making the laws &/or ignoring them.

It is amazing to me how few people, even ones who purport to be "for freedom" actually understand extremely simple concepts like tyranny, liberty & individual freedom (or lack thereof).

But but but ... there was a local easement ordinance! Really? A local easement ordinance that trumps the 5th Amendment's right to due-process? One that also void's the guarantees of the 4th & allows for warrantless tresspass & seizures of private property? All in an effort to suppress the homeowner's 1st Amendment right to publically express his political opinion?

Sorry but this ain't the Soviet Union, apparently it's getting there quickly though, eh comrads?

My world view is narcisstic & dangerous? What I want to know is why did we even bother fighting the Cold War for?

 

Where to start... Based on the way I am reading your argument, liberty and individual freedom only exist in an absence of government (aka anarchy).  If that is the case, then say so and argue the point from that position.  If that is not your point, you are saying that any government regulation that you, as an individual, disagrees with is tyranny.  Further, what do most people consider tyranny?  I am rather certain that the police yanking a political sign from someone's front yard in the section that is deemed city right-of-way would be tyrannical.  I believe you are sharp enough to know this, so you are using the "tyranny" trope for dramatic effect.  Next, in regards to your point about an ordinance trumping the 4th and 5th Amendments, I think you have it a little wrong.  The 4th Amendment has been ruled to not apply to crimes that are in plain view or open fields.  The police observed an ordinance violation, the evidence of the violation was in plain view, and it was on a city right-of-way, not private property (if you want to argue the point about city easements on what you think should be private property, then that's a different argument to have).  Next, once the sign was seized, the property owner should have an opportunity to appeal the police action and receive his/her property back if it is found that no law was broken.  That is due process.  
 

I think a better comparison would be a noise complaint (alledged violation of a local ordinance) & the responding officer sneaks onto the homeowners patio & takes the homeowners patio stereo, without the homeowner being aware of who took it or why.

 

No, that is no comparison.  A whole different realm of constitutional law has been entered into here.  The area immediately around the house is considered curtilage and is specifically protected under the 4th Amendment just as the interior of your home would be.