I am having a really hard time finding where I can get these signs. I can't even locate any type of standard so that I can have the signs made. What do they have to say? What type of Font? What size? What material? I have called just about ever local government office about where and what I need to have one of these and every response has been "Federal no trespassing? What's that?".
Please help Thank you.
Federal No trespassing signs
09/05/2007 - 20:22
Comments
09/06/2007 - 20:09
You mean like
09/07/2007 - 12:33
Thanks but
jruz wrote:
You mean like these...?
http://www.safetysign.com/browser.asp?Subcategory=I3No+Trespassing+Signs&Start=0&gclid=CLOjgPXVr44CFQqgYgodXmukaA
Unfortunately those won't work. They do not have US code on them, so they would not be effective as federal no trespassing signs.
09/07/2007 - 12:35
Yes...
loghomefun wrote:
http://www.loghomebuilders.org/constitutional-no-trespassing-signs-appear-be-effective
I have seen these signs. But which one is correct? We are talking about a federal requirement that must be met. I need more information such as what size the sign has to be, what type of font, how big the font has to be, and exactly what has to be on the sign for it to meed the guidelines. It won't do any good to use a sign that does not meet the requirements because it will be null and void. Even speed limit signs have to meet certain requirements or they are not considered valid.
09/07/2007 - 13:56
Federal No Tresspasing
Are looking for signs specific to a government installation?
The only areas that I know of that would require 'regulation size font, style and sign schemes' would apply to very specific uses and not a simple posting for a private citizen's land. Now your state may require posted lands to have some sort of "standard format," but that is a different matter all together.
If you can explain the use and application you intend for theses signs it might help to illustrate for others on this forum.
If you are speaking about US code and governmental fiduciary duties, the LHBA's signs do appear to quote them and even give the article numbers.
-Andrew
09/08/2007 - 00:29
TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 241
I did some research on title 18, section 241 of the U.S.C.
First, many (government, and private) websites don't even show sect 241 under the title. (which seems odd). See http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title18/partii_.html or http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_II.html. I finally searched for it, and it still exists, with some (minor) changes to what is published on the LHBA website.
--------------------------------------------(http://www.loghomebuilders.org/constitutional-no-trespassing-signs-appear-be-effective)
"If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of a right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with the intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured –
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.”
--------------------------------------------(http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00000241----000-.html)
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
which version is (currently) correct? Does LHBA have a lawyer on staff?
09/08/2007 - 01:49
No trespassing signs
Peter, in essence they are the same, we just ended the quote before the stuff you underlined.
As far as I know, there is no such thing as an "official Federal no trespassing sign."
Our signs were carefully researched by people who regularly engage in Guerilla-Lawfare with the Man -- folks who also happen to be our good friends :)
Our signs are based on circuit court rulings, SCOTUS rulings, the Constitution, et cetera. We have personally had good results with these signs, and we've received reports from members that they too have found them to be very effective.
We always use, and recommend, both signs. I'm not sure if only one or the other would be as effective as both.
Our crack legal team, comprised of people who actually know the law (unlike most of those with Esq. after their name), are also not sure if only one or the other sign would work.
I suppose you could squish it all on to one sign, but I understand that the signs are less effective if they are not legible ;)
09/08/2007 - 16:47
Target
AdrienneW,
My experience is that in today's legal/social/political climate, jurys and many judges tend to rule in favor of any citizen that can demonstrate a government official transgressed against their fiduciary duties.
What this means is that unless the public servant gets a court ordered warrant for their actions, they cross the line. Most will not seek one. If it ends up being a case of a personal vendeta by the public servant, that is more fodder for your lawyers.
I would venture to guess that postings like these simply keep them honest and remind them of both their fiduciary duties and the LIMITS of the powers of their office.
If they antagonize, it is simply a "personal problem." In that case, it probably would not be difficult to prove that any adverse actions by government officials in response to them is beyond the scope of their offical capacities.
-Andrew
11/07/2007 - 15:50
Census Bureau also exempt
I worked for the Census Bureau for Census 2000. We were told (with laws quoted, blah blah) that No Trespassing signs etc. were to be disregarded, as long as we felt safe doing so. (I.e. they didn't want us eaten by dogs or shot, law or not.) One neat thing about the Census though, is that NO ONE can get individual info from them. The IRS tried to get info on someone from the Census Bureau once, and the Supreme Court told em to get bent.
11/07/2007 - 16:40
grrrrrr
...and observe how our Constitutional Rights get trampled. Little by little they wittle away at these rights. If they took them away all at once the sheeple would object. But if they slowly dissect things a little a time they accomplish their goal while the sheeple watch american idol.
Guard dogs are great deterrants and I have a few signs that say "Trespassers Shot". AND I almost always open carry my pistol. The presence of a weapon is in itself quite powerful. Showing your weapon (in a non-threatening fashion) and sternly telling someone to get off your property works quite well. In my eyes, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and I try to stand up and exercise those rights.
Another good sign is "Beware, large animal traps set on property".
and "Beware, Guard Dogs on Property"
and "Caution, Shooting Range Area"
and "Beware, Demolition Site"
can anyone think of any others? :)
KOla
11/07/2007 - 17:00
The "right" to not be represented?
Just to plug the benign nature of the Census and its importance to the Constitutional process...
Constitution of the United States, Article 1, Section 2: "The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct."
Census numbers are used to determine how many Representatives the States have in the House of Representatives, and the number of Electoral votes in the Electoral College. Not being counted undermines one's own Constitutional power to affect change in government. So, at the very least, it is in every citizen's interest to be counted.
As for the demographic data collected, it is provided to local governments for planning purposes, so they can provide services like schools, hospitals, road and infrastructure, police and fire protection, etc. Now, how effectively one's local municipality uses that information might be suspect. But citizens have even greater power on a local level to hold those in power responsible for their performance in office.
So... Should we consider it a Constitutional "right" NOT to be counted? Perhaps. Of course, one can also exercise their right to have no affect on their government by simply not voting. So while I certainly appreciate everyone's right to privacy, I encourage everyone to be cooperative with the Census Bureau. They really are doing a good thing, AND a good thing mandated by the US Constitution.
/soapbox off
11/07/2007 - 17:11
I am a number
Klapton, I have no trouble with being counted. Big Gov knows who I am and where I am. They took care of that with SSN and other bureaucratic nonsense. But I do have probs with them coming on my property to ask about it...and I have serious issues when they want me to give them oodles and gobs of my personal information.
cocked and locked,
Kola :)
11/07/2007 - 18:09
don't feed the monkeys
I just started reading a book called "40 acres and a Fool", about a guy who moved from city life to country life and his experiences. He said he put signs up that said "DO NOT FEED THE MONKEYS!" and for some reason this worked better than simple "No Tresspassing" signs. He really wrote this in his book!
I guess anything outlandish may make people step back and think twice.
2 cents
(I wonder if "Beware of Sasquatch" would work......)
11/07/2007 - 23:24
No Tresspasing
I would not recommend signs that provoke officials to get warrant or some inspection to search for hazardous or explosive materials on your property, and make you liable for their expenses.
I will use sign that warns about extreme danger on property but not explains at all what it is about, like this:
or this one -
(I have high voltage microwave !)
or this one:
(sometimes my chainsaw may be extremely dangerous ! )
11/08/2007 - 17:10
I like all the signs in the
I like all the signs in the movie 'Second Hand Lions' for those who have seen it. ; )
The big gay Al and C02 signs really cracked me up.
Klapton, since you are planning on building in a potential flood plain, you need signs that say, "Danger!!! Do Not Enter!!! Area Subject to Extremely High Levels of DiHydrogen Monoxide!!!
11/12/2007 - 11:33
warning signs
Kola wrote:
...and observe how our Constitutional Rights get trampled. Little by little they wittle away at these rights. If they took them away all at once the sheeple would object. But if they slowly dissect things a little a time they accomplish their goal while the sheeple watch american idol.Guard dogs are great deterrants and I have a few signs that say "Trespassers Shot". AND I almost always open carry my pistol. The presence of a weapon is in itself quite powerful. Showing your weapon (in a non-threatening fashion) and sternly telling someone to get off your property works quite well. In my eyes, The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and I try to stand up and exercise those rights.
Another good sign is "Beware, large animal traps set on property".
and "Beware, Guard Dogs on Property"
and "Caution, Shooting Range Area"
and "Beware, Demolition Site"
can anyone think of any others? :)
KOla
How about " lunatic with chainsaw on property" That was my brothers idea, I guess the deranged look I get when I fire that sucker up makes him nervous.
11/12/2007 - 17:32
We had a situation this
We had a situation this weekend where we had to call the Sherrif Deputy in just to file a report. We have an easement that quads think they can use to access DNR land, but we've made it very clear they are not to use our easment. They came up the drive Saturday and I went out to confront them. It was a family (Dad, Mom, teenage-son) from just about 3 blocks down the paved road. The father made an idle threat about making our lives hell if we didn't allow them to use our easement. As soon as I called the Sherrif he ran off on his quad into the woods, leaving his wife and son behind (yeah, classy guy), so I'm guessing they know him. Needless to say, we'll never be out there again without our Remington loaded and within reach at all times.
Our other neighbors said he's stupid enough to try something (theft, vandalism, etc.). Just awesome.
My brother in-law suggested the following:
ATTN: Private Property. Idle threats will be met with force by an A.D.D. induced paranoid rage brought on by too many years of playing video games, anti-social behavior and sever lack of interpersonal contact. Basically, I view you as a moving target (unless of course you are not moving, and then I just look at you as easy pickings).
Not that any of that is true in my case, but there's so many that it is, so you never know who that might be.
Joined: 2007-09-05