How is it anything less than harassing your neighbour?
And isn’t that a crime almost anywhere?
I’m both, ‘not a lawyer’, and confused!
If the gun-free neighbor knows of some active gun-control political circles in his community, or especially if he is politically active himself in gun-control circles, he could go there and stir up some recreational outrage. Then perhaps he could arrange for there to be a pro-gun-control protest or pickets in front of that house with the sign. They could have a battle of who can make the bigger nuisance for whom. Extra points if it becomes a media event.
I’m sure it’s a nuisance tort. I don’t know if it’s possible, but it might fall into the ‘reckless disregard’ category of some crime.
The problem is that the word ‘harass’ is both a general description, and the name for a crime. But when used in the criminal sense, it has elements that must be shown, elements that aren’t present here.
I might ‘harass’ a referee at the game about a missed call, but that’s not a crime.
Hmm. A brief look at Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 821D and 821F don’t lead me to agree with you. Can you explain a bit further?
I was going off the wiki linked in post #5. Perhaps this doesn’t qualify, but IMHO such a sign would interfere with the right to quiet enjoyment of my home. But I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if that’s how it would be interpreted in a court.
How can you tell from a photo with resolution/lossy compression that poor? I don’t see any obvious clues and I’ve done my share of Photoshopping.
Counter-sign:
He's mad ---->
because I
beat him at
Scrabble
O.K., I’ve now spent more time on this than it deserves.
I think it’s pretty clear that there’s no basis for a nuisance claim. In the absence of some sort of home invasion, the non-gun-owner may be able to bring a private claim for invasion of privacy. The theory is that one who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652D. It would be a novel claim on these facts, and the plaintiff would have to show that there was a measure of privacy attached to the fact that he did not own a gun. This doesn’t mean that the information has to be confidential, but it could be a problem for the plaintiff if, say, he announced in speeches or even signed online posts that he did not own a gun.
If there is some sort of home invasion and resulting harm (damage to property, theft, injury or death of a resident), then there might be a private claim for negligence. Although in general you are not liable for the bad acts of another, this does not apply if, at the time of your negligent conduct, you realized or should have realized the likelihood that such a situation might be created, and that a third person might avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a tort or crime. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 448. The defendant would argue that there is no duty violated, but this is probably not going to succeed as a defense in light of the defendant’s purposeful act in putting up the sign (particularly if it is an invasion of privacy). The plaintiff would, however, face a considerable barrier, because he would have to show that the sign proximately caused the home invasion and his resulting loss.
As I posted above, there could also be a (remote) risk of criminal prosecution, although this will depend on applicable state law, which varies.
Damn. You get full credit on this law school essay. Could the proximate cause issue be established by testimony from the burglar regarding his motivations in picking that particular house? I would have a hard time thinking that any judge, especially a lower trial court, would let this go past a summary motion unless the plaintiff had a really persuasive attorney.
jbaker said it best. IIRC, you have a duty to everyone whom your affirmative acts may harm, when a reasonably prudent person could foresee the harm.
I agree with others that this would be a hard negligence case to win, but I would certainly try if I was a Plaintiff’s attorney.
So what would be the legal implications of having a “Gun Free Household” sign, and then putting a hole through some scumbag that decided to rob you. Not by lying in wait for them to break in, but by being awoken from sleeping by hearing someone in your house, calling out for them to leave, and then if they didn’t, shooting them?
Would the sign matter at all?
I’m looking at how the edges of the sign are parallel with the edges of the picture, and I’m looking at how the feet of the sign seem to float above the grass.
Hmmm.
I find this question to be fascinating!
Some states allow just shooting an intruder (Castle Doctrine) and some require retreat or, at very least, to show force was threatened against you.
Depending on what state one was in may matter or not. Not only because of the self defense laws, but also because of civil laws. What one may not get convicted of in criminal court may be the same thing one gets hammered from in civil court. Or vice-versa.
What if I put up a sign saying “Entry into this property is granting permission for me to shoot you in the head”. Or: “Entering this property is admission that you intend to murder all occupants of it”
I can’t see how the sign would matter at all. Burglars and robbers are not entitled to rely on your representation that you don’t have a gun.
Whether the homeowner in such a situation would face civil or criminal liability is a different matter. At common law, there is no right to shoot someone just because he is wrongfully in your house. However, as pkbites points out, some states have passed laws to make it easier to shoot people.
If the guy posted a sign saying [arrow]He Sleeps With His Wife, (a) is not there, but (b) is, I presume. I’m trying to think of a hard case. Lawyers?
Are those signs actually intended to say that the household has no guns at all, or just to inform people with CCW permits that the home’s owner doesn’t want them to carry weapons while visiting?
Yeah, the sign should parallel the line of the sidewalk, but instead it is square with the photo edges.
My gut feeling is that it’s protected by the First Amendment.
I don’t believe that any U.S. state requires a person to retreat inside his own home. The debate on “Stand Your Ground” laws are over whether one should be required to retreat outside his home. AFAIK, no state still follows the old English common law that requires you to “retreat to the back wall” of the house.
As to your second point, I doubt any judge would rule that the burglar accepted your proposed contract terms when he entered your house. 