I can only speak of New Hampshire.
Such signs must meet specific criteria (lettering size, content, minimum posting areas, etc.) to be considered “conspicuous”, and therefore “actionable”.
A circled graphic of a handgun with a slash through it
is NOT a legitimate “posting”, NOR is it what folks genuinely intending “posting” of their private property traditionally resort to.
All this is PROVIDED the Revised Statutes haven’t “quietly” been re-interpreted, and re-revised, in the last 5 years or so.
Imagine the news coverage, outrage, and police hunt if instead this person was going around putting “No blacks” or “No women” or even “No illegal aliens” signs on random businesses.
November 29th, 2013 at 3:08 pm
We already know that they have to lie to get anywhere. Nice to see that they are helping to expose themselves by vandalizing property.
November 29th, 2013 at 3:29 pm
Thanks for the link.
I’d settle for video and the vandal’s name. Then I would encourage people to put a “This home is proudly gun free” sign on her lawn.
November 30th, 2013 at 9:19 am
I can only speak of New Hampshire.
Such signs must meet specific criteria (lettering size, content, minimum posting areas, etc.) to be considered “conspicuous”, and therefore “actionable”.
A circled graphic of a handgun with a slash through it
is NOT a legitimate “posting”, NOR is it what folks genuinely intending “posting” of their private property traditionally resort to.
All this is PROVIDED the Revised Statutes haven’t “quietly” been re-interpreted, and re-revised, in the last 5 years or so.
December 1st, 2013 at 9:30 pm
That is so-so-so bogus, but thankfully (Thanksgiving!) there was a good outcome. “Don’t come back.” 🙂
December 2nd, 2013 at 8:00 pm
Imagine the news coverage, outrage, and police hunt if instead this person was going around putting “No blacks” or “No women” or even “No illegal aliens” signs on random businesses.