“ Other research shows that this strong bond between guns and God is very much an American thing. Those who share the same faith in other countries and cultures do not have this linkage. This is clearly a Christian-American trait, fueled, maybe more by our Wild West history than our religious history.”
That wild west mentality must be at the bottom of this America obsession with guns. Certainly has little to do with God…if he/she even exists!
This country was founded thru guns - the revolution. Taking up arms is America's "origin story " Few know the full verbiage of "the right to bear arms for the purposes of maintaining a well organized militia." That last part gets chopped off every dang time. As for your neighbor, he or she is a hypocrite for sure, and I LOVE how you've called this out. Touched a deep nerve here. Thx as always for your words!
I heard from the Village of Westmont Planning Board and indirectly from the village attorney who claim that the sign is "protected speech" and not a violation.
OK, I can see that, technically. And that aligns with some of what some of you have said about this sign. However, I checked with the ACLU and it appears they believe Westmont's determination that the sign does not violate any ordinance is far more complicated.
The ACLU says...on their website...
"...true threats” are NOT protected by the First Amendment. The government can prosecute someone who intentionally threatens another person with death or serious bodily harm, and whose language is reasonably perceived as threatening. (HOW IS THIS SIGN NOT "PERCEIVED" AS THREATENING?) But can a speaker be convicted of making a true threat solely because some people could reasonably perceive it as threatening, regardless of the speaker’s intent? That’s the question before the Supreme Court in Counterman v. Colorado."
I think the "speaker's intent" is pretty damn clear.
The sign, in my estimation, is clearly a "true threat" -- basically saying he would send you to your maker if you trespass. And BTW - trespassing is a misdemeanor.
The debate and the future of the sign may not be quite over.
So long as you haven't agreed to limitations on the appearance of your home (i.e. Homeowners Association or deed restriction), you're free to put up any sign you want, regardless of how offensive/violent they may be to others. That's the First Amendment at work--it limits the government's ability to regulate speech, even the speach you blatantly (and perhaps justifiably) disagree with.
So, your neighbor's sign is legal. Morally offensive yes, but legal. (you could apply the disorderly conduct aspect of the law, and a lawyer would be happy to take your money to press that issue, but the police in a western suburb, probably not so much).
Most people who put up "Trespassers will be Shot" signs are using them as a scare tactic, to make sure that would-be criminals get the message that they're armed and not afraid to shoot and thereby choose another house to break into.
But trespassing at your home, though a misdemeanor most places, is NOT a crime that would fall under the use of deadly force. I can go out and shout “get off my lawn” (which becomes more tempting the older I get :-) or call the police but that is IT. I live near an Irish Bar, every few years a drunk ends up on someone’s lawn shouting nonsense at 2 a.m. and though I know several neighbors with firearms, no one has shot them. We make sure our doors are locked, and call the police to get them home (or to jail) to sleep it off.
But, if someone kicks in your back door, knife in hand, and you don’t know if they are doing so to (1) steal your new tea cozy or (2) rape and possibly kill you, yes, the use of deadly force under the law is supported. That is why I own a firearm, not fear of roving bands of evangalicals but the kind of crime I have seen since leaving a rural area for living and working in Cook County. But that fear MUST be a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm and in some states the use of deadly force in self-defense is only permitted if the individual can’t avoid the risk of harm or death by running away (the duty to retreat).
But I certainly don’t advertise it, with a sign, T shirt or otherwise. Taking a human life is the last thing I ever want to do and I’m not going to advertise I’d do so proudly. That’s just rude. Legal, but rude.
I hear ya. And understand the First Amendment very well. Obviously a big part of my working life. I remember the Nazis in Skokie. I get it and applaud the right to have differing opinions — even ones that disgust me. As I said. Not necessarily a gun hater. Protection is fully understood. But this is aggression. Illegal? You’re right. Probably not. But still appalling. The kind of thing that takes away from your sensible argument and explanation. It does not help the atmosphere that surrounds this culture of guns. Thanks for your thoughtful response.
This paragraph you cited says it all:
“ Other research shows that this strong bond between guns and God is very much an American thing. Those who share the same faith in other countries and cultures do not have this linkage. This is clearly a Christian-American trait, fueled, maybe more by our Wild West history than our religious history.”
That wild west mentality must be at the bottom of this America obsession with guns. Certainly has little to do with God…if he/she even exists!
Bingo
Threatening for sure! I’d be interested in what the delivery drivers think of it.
Excellent essay Dave!
Thanks, Tom. I find unsettling.
This country was founded thru guns - the revolution. Taking up arms is America's "origin story " Few know the full verbiage of "the right to bear arms for the purposes of maintaining a well organized militia." That last part gets chopped off every dang time. As for your neighbor, he or she is a hypocrite for sure, and I LOVE how you've called this out. Touched a deep nerve here. Thx as always for your words!
Yes. A very deep nerve.
An update on this issue as of 7/10.
I heard from the Village of Westmont Planning Board and indirectly from the village attorney who claim that the sign is "protected speech" and not a violation.
OK, I can see that, technically. And that aligns with some of what some of you have said about this sign. However, I checked with the ACLU and it appears they believe Westmont's determination that the sign does not violate any ordinance is far more complicated.
The ACLU says...on their website...
"...true threats” are NOT protected by the First Amendment. The government can prosecute someone who intentionally threatens another person with death or serious bodily harm, and whose language is reasonably perceived as threatening. (HOW IS THIS SIGN NOT "PERCEIVED" AS THREATENING?) But can a speaker be convicted of making a true threat solely because some people could reasonably perceive it as threatening, regardless of the speaker’s intent? That’s the question before the Supreme Court in Counterman v. Colorado."
I think the "speaker's intent" is pretty damn clear.
The sign, in my estimation, is clearly a "true threat" -- basically saying he would send you to your maker if you trespass. And BTW - trespassing is a misdemeanor.
The debate and the future of the sign may not be quite over.
So long as you haven't agreed to limitations on the appearance of your home (i.e. Homeowners Association or deed restriction), you're free to put up any sign you want, regardless of how offensive/violent they may be to others. That's the First Amendment at work--it limits the government's ability to regulate speech, even the speach you blatantly (and perhaps justifiably) disagree with.
So, your neighbor's sign is legal. Morally offensive yes, but legal. (you could apply the disorderly conduct aspect of the law, and a lawyer would be happy to take your money to press that issue, but the police in a western suburb, probably not so much).
Most people who put up "Trespassers will be Shot" signs are using them as a scare tactic, to make sure that would-be criminals get the message that they're armed and not afraid to shoot and thereby choose another house to break into.
But trespassing at your home, though a misdemeanor most places, is NOT a crime that would fall under the use of deadly force. I can go out and shout “get off my lawn” (which becomes more tempting the older I get :-) or call the police but that is IT. I live near an Irish Bar, every few years a drunk ends up on someone’s lawn shouting nonsense at 2 a.m. and though I know several neighbors with firearms, no one has shot them. We make sure our doors are locked, and call the police to get them home (or to jail) to sleep it off.
But, if someone kicks in your back door, knife in hand, and you don’t know if they are doing so to (1) steal your new tea cozy or (2) rape and possibly kill you, yes, the use of deadly force under the law is supported. That is why I own a firearm, not fear of roving bands of evangalicals but the kind of crime I have seen since leaving a rural area for living and working in Cook County. But that fear MUST be a reasonable fear of serious, imminent bodily harm and in some states the use of deadly force in self-defense is only permitted if the individual can’t avoid the risk of harm or death by running away (the duty to retreat).
But I certainly don’t advertise it, with a sign, T shirt or otherwise. Taking a human life is the last thing I ever want to do and I’m not going to advertise I’d do so proudly. That’s just rude. Legal, but rude.
I hear ya. And understand the First Amendment very well. Obviously a big part of my working life. I remember the Nazis in Skokie. I get it and applaud the right to have differing opinions — even ones that disgust me. As I said. Not necessarily a gun hater. Protection is fully understood. But this is aggression. Illegal? You’re right. Probably not. But still appalling. The kind of thing that takes away from your sensible argument and explanation. It does not help the atmosphere that surrounds this culture of guns. Thanks for your thoughtful response.