Home Protection Sign With Gun Causes People To Get The Vapors

A Cary woman has declared her anti-anti-gun free zone

(WRAL) The homeowners association in a Cary neighborhood has threatened to fine a woman who posted a graphic sign outside her home to scare off would-be burglars.

The sign reads “Nothing Inside is Worth Dying For” and shows the outline of a man used for target shooting that had been shot twice in the head and five times in the chest.

Obviously, this caused much handwringing, some folks got the vapors, and someone complained

An association spokeswoman said Wednesday that the content of the sign isn’t an issue, but Cherico didn’t apply for permission to post it.

“We have security signs in the neighborhood, and I thought this is my security sign,” said Cherico, a gun owner who has a conceal carry permit.

Then the story kinda changes

She said security signs typically don’t need prior approval, but the association spokeswoman said other residents have complained about the sign.

I heard an interview with Ms. Cherico this morning, and she claims that there is nothing in the bylaws against the sign. But, then, it isn’t about the sign, it’s about the gun.

Though, in all fairness, the sign might be a bit over the top with the holes.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Home Protection Sign With Gun Causes People To Get The Vapors”

  1. Butt_Melting_Gumballs says:

    Well, living in a HOA you have to give up your sole and your rights. She knew that. Putting up a home made sign does not qualify as a “security” sign from an established security\alarm firm.

    And, seems to me that an argument could be made as to why security firm signs get a pass while other companies have to get approval?

    But, yeah, it’s the content of the sign not the sign itself that does seem to be the issue.

  2. mike says:

    I don’t think “it’s a bit over the top with the holes” because that’s what makes the warning real. What is over the top is death of Liberty by a thousand cuts. This is a free country and that’s a security sign. Man, let’s pull together and reinstill some freakin common sense into these things. There are real threats out here that have to be dealt with or one could end up robbed/beaten/raped and murdered. You want to let these non-Americans come here to vote dem then I reserve the right to defend my family and property. That’s what the founding fathers created and institutionalized for us. If we give that up, we will never get it back, now will we deserve it.

  3. mike says:

    “now will we deserve it” should be “nor will we deserve it”.

  4. juvat says:

    Well of course the HOA got upset. Her probability of getting robbed went from 1/(# of Houses in HOA) to 0 while their probability went up by 1(# of Houses in HOA -1)

  5. Kevin says:

    My neighbor has a picture of a pistol on his front door and under it it says, “We don’t call 911.”

  6. gitarcarver says:

    I don’t think “it’s a bit over the top with the holes” because that’s what makes the warning real.

    I have a tendency to agree with you mainly because I don’t see any actual holes in the sign. It is a graphic of what appears to be a firing range target.

    Here is the sign from the seller: http://www.readytodefend.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=35

    But ya gotta love the HOA’s assertion that it is not the content of the sign, but people have complained about the sign.

    This will turn on the definition of “security sign” in the HOA agreement or some legal opinion.

  7. Pointy Head says:

    Hey, liberals preach that if you don’t like abortion, don’t have one, so if you don’t like the sign don’t look at it. Ah heck, there I go using logic again.

  8. Butt_Melting_Gumballs says:

    LOL.. I love you guys!!

  9. jay says:

    “An association spokeswoman said Wednesday that the content of the sign isn’t an issue … but the association spokeswoman said other residents have complained about the sign.” So, it’s not the content of the sign that’s the issue, it’s the fact that some people don’t like the content of the sign. Oh, well that’s different. Oh, wait, no it isn’t. It comes down to, “We wouldn’t try to prevent you from saying that were it not for the fact that we don’t like what you’re saying.” Well, duh.

  10. Hank says:

    Decades ago I had a sign on my door that read “Trespassers will be shot” and a cop who drove by and saw it stopped and knocked on my door. He told me to take it down because it was a “terroristic threat.”

    He said if someone does break in you do what you gotta do, but it’s unwise to advertise it in advance.

    Looking back on it I guess he was right. If I did shoot a burglar that sign would make it look like I had killed them just for spite.

    So really, that cop was doing me a favor.

  11. Butt_Melting_Gumballs says:

    Hank,
    the cop was way wrong and out of his authority, and while you had the right to choose either choice, you would not have faced any jeopardy should a shooting have been necessary inside your home.

  12. hockeydad says:

    How about she make them a deal. She’ll take down her sign if they put up one that states their houses are gun free zones.

  13. Butt_Melting_Gumballs says:

    Think they already have those. Those are the official security signs. That means you rely on someone else, to help protect and secure their home. Remotely. That’s if the burglars thieves and murders dont cut their phone lines.

  14. gitarcarver says:

    the cop was way wrong and out of his authority, and while you had the right to choose either choice, you would not have faced any jeopardy should a shooting have been necessary inside your home.

    Maybe, maybe not Gumballs.

    There are a few states that don’t recognize the “castle doctrine” and want to enforce the “must flee” doctrine. There is also the case where some states require that even in a home, there has to be a threat of “deadly force” for the homeowner to shoot at the person.

    Additionally, the sign said “trespassers” which would include the land surrounding the home. Some states that have castle doctrine laws don’t include property or outlying buildings. For example, in some states you can shoot within a house but not within a garage.

    The cop was wrong to say it was a “terrorist threat” because the owner had no intention of causing terror. Furthermore, even as a “threat” it wouldn’t be considered as such as there is no specific person that is identified by the sign and therefore no real threat to an individual.

    However, the problem is that the sign shows prior thought to the idea that any person will be shot. Even in my state of Florida, the “Stand Your Ground” law requires first requires that lawful self defense be established and then reciprocal force – even deadly force – can be used without a duty to retreat.

    Some states don’t allow that. So the sign would show a predisposition to using deadly force. Even if legal, signs like that open up lawsuits for the perceived disposition.

    The cop was wrong, but if offered as advice, he may have been right.

  15. Butt_Melting_Gumballs says:

    Hmmmmmmm….
    Let’s look at it another way. If I have a guard dog I am required to have a sign warning people about the dog and a picture of an angry vicious rabid dog profile. This protects the owner. If a person trespasses on to that property and is bitten, or killed by that dog, then logically* that is the trespassers fault.

    If I have a sign warning trespassers that something bad will happen to them should they choose to commit the crime of trespassing, then that responsibility, logically*, should then fall upon the criminal.

    * yeah, I say logically because how often have we heard of the owner being sued by the invader and winning?

    And, this castle doctrine only came about because the executive and judicial branch were over-reaching – reading things between our laws that were not there – instead of relying upon the constitution that says, (paraphrased) “anything not outlined here is reserved to the people”. If there is no law that makes fleeing mandatory from within your own home, then by RIGHT of reservation, I have the right to stand my ground.

    It seems like common practice nowadays that if there is no law stopping a gov’t entity or agency from doing something, then it will go ahead and do it. If there is no specific law that allows a homeowner to protect himself within his property, then he must be arrested for violating that non-existent law.

    This is the difference between our nation and others. Our nation reserves to us the right\choice\ability to do anything UNTIL it is written in to law to be illegal. (or as of late, regulated to be illegal). Other nations were built upon the opposite standard. They are not allowed to do anything unless and until given specific permissions. Those were the foundations of tyrannical gov’ts. You can see where ours is going…..

    To me, it sounded as if the cop was “ordering” Hank to do something: “He told me to take it down because it was a “terroristic threat.””. Cop was wrong. And, you can’t be held liable for a perceived future event.

    Now, can a case be made that should a shooting have occurred that Hank overreacted? Sure. If a kid was cutting through his yard on the way to school and hank shot him for trespassing, yeah, that act and the sign can be used to show premeditation. But, I’d like to think Hank’s a smarter guy than that. I’d think that Hank would not shoot unless he was equally threatened by a trespasser. And in that event, logically* he would be in his right to inflict any form of schemes to protect him and his property.

  16. gitarcarver says:

    If a person trespasses on to that property and is bitten, or killed by that dog, then logically* that is the trespassers fault.

    No it’s not. If a person trespasses, there is no need for force yet. Walking onto a property does not allow for a person to be killed.

    relying upon the constitution that says, (paraphrased) “anything not outlined here is reserved to the people”.

    That is a bad paraphrase because the 10th Amendment actually says “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” So when states pass laws on the castle doctrine or “must flee,” they are within the rights and powers reserved for the states.

    And, this castle doctrine only came about because the executive and judicial branch were over-reaching

    No. The castle doctrine has been around for centuries – long before the US was a baby country. The statement “a man’s home is his castle” is the basic statement of that doctrine.

    If there is no specific law that allows a homeowner to protect himself within his property, then he must be arrested for violating that non-existent law.

    Once again, the castle doctrine was only for the home because that is where the homeowner lives. There is an assumed self defense claim within the home. Some states do not extend that claim to property and outlier buildings. Why? Because unless the person is being threatened, the person can retreat to his home. (I think that is a bad assumption and support the idea of the castle doctrine extending to “real property,” but I don’t write the laws.)

    You say that there are no laws so that means a person can do something, but laws against killing people do exist. The right of self defense still exists. The castle doctrine and stand your ground laws extend that doctrine to other areas. But once again, while stand your ground laws don’t require you to retreat, you still must have a valid claim of self defense. All SYG laws do is remove the “must flee or retreat” obligation that was codified and recognized by states.

    And, you can’t be held liable for a perceived future event.

    Actually you can. But even so, the sign may be taken as an indicator of premeditation. So if a person hung a sign and there was a doubt as to whether there was a threat which required the person to shoot, the sign will tip the scales somewhat. A prosecutor will stand in a courtroom and say “he claims self defense but he had already planned this killing in his mind!”

    Cop was wrong.

    As I said, if the cop ordered the removal of the sign he was wrong. If he said the homeowner should take down the sign as advice, depending on the laws of the state at that time, the cop’s advice may have be good advice.

  17. JGlanton says:

    That sign wouldn’t do much good warning criminals around my county unless it was bilingual.

Bad Behavior has blocked 6882 access attempts in the last 7 days.